text:
Talk:Japanese cuisine

Can someone explain?
"Due to the lack of meat products Japanese people minimized spice utilization." I don't understand the logic behind this statement. Indian food is largely vegetarian and as spicy as it gets. Why would eating little meat have an effect on spice utilization? That doesn't make any sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.152.95 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Structure of article
I've moved some main headings into subheadings so there are now 13 main headings instead of 26 but the structure still feels all over the place. It may need attention from an expert. Crookesmoor (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Japanese cuisine


text:
Church of Ireland

The Church of Ireland (Eaglais na hÉireann, ; Kirk o Airlann, ) is a Christian church in Ireland, and an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion. It is organised on an all-Ireland basis and is the second-largest Christian church on the island after the Roman Catholic Church. Like other Anglican churches, it has retained elements of pre-Reformation practice, notably its episcopal polity, while rejecting the primacy of the pope.

In theological and liturgical matters, it incorporates many principles of the Reformation, particularly those of the English Reformation, but self-identifies as being both Reformed and Catholic, in that it sees itself as the inheritor of a continuous tradition going back to the founding of Christianity in Ireland. As with other members of the global Anglican communion, individual parishes accommodate differing approaches to the level of ritual and formality, variously referred to as High and Low Church.

Overview
The Church of Ireland sees itself as that 'part of the Irish Church which was influenced by the Reformation, and has its origins in the early Celtic Church of St Patrick'. This makes it both "catholic", as the inheritor of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, and protestant, since it rejects the authority of Rome and accepts changes in doctrine and liturgy caused by the Reformation.

Following the Synod of Ráth Breasail (also known as Rathbreasail) in 1111, Irish Catholicism transitioned from a monastic to a diocesan and parish-based mode of organisation and governance. Many Irish present-day dioceses trace their boundaries to decisions made at the synod. The work of organizing the Church was completed by the Synod of Kells which took place in 1152, under the presidency of Giovanni Cardinal Paparoni. Diocesan reform continued and the number of archbishoprics was increased from two to four. The synod granted the Primacy of Ireland to the Archdiocese of Armagh.

Some modern scholarship argues that early Irish Christianity was functionally separate from Rome but shared much of its liturgy and practice, and that this allowed both the Church of Ireland and Irish Catholicism to claim descent from Saint Patrick. It is also said that the Catholic Church in Ireland was jurisdictionally independent until 1155, when Pope Adrian IV purported to declare it a papal fief and granted Henry II of England the Lordship of Ireland in return for paying tithes; his right to do so has been disputed ever since.

In 1534, Henry VIII broke with the Papacy and became head of the Church of England; two years later, the Irish Parliament followed suit by appointing him head of the Irish church. Although many bishops and most of the clergy refused to conform, the new Church of Ireland retained possession of diocesan buildings and lands, since under the feudal system bishops held that property as vassals of the Crown. Despite the political and economic advantages of membership in the new church, a large majority of the Irish remained loyal to the Church of Rome, while in Ulster the church was outnumbered by Presbyterians. However, it remained the established church of the whole of Ireland until the First Gladstone ministry's Irish Church Act 1869 disestablished it, with effect from 1 January 1871.

The modern Church of Ireland is the second largest religious organisation in the Republic of Ireland, and the third largest in Northern Ireland, after the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian churches.

Formation

Christianity in Ireland is generally dated to the mid to late fifth century AD, when the Romano-British cleric Saint Patrick began his conversion mission, although the exact dates are disputed. Prior to the 12th century, the Irish church was independent of Papal control, and governed by powerful monasteries, rather than bishops. While the Kingdom of Dublin looked to the English Diocese of Canterbury for guidance, in 1005 AD Brian Ború made a large donation to the Monastery of Armagh and recognised its Archbishop as Primate of all Ireland in an attempt to secure his position as High King of Ireland.

Inspired by Máel Máedóc Ua Morgair, reformist head of Bangor Abbey, the 1111 Synod of Ráth Breasail sought to reduce the power of the monasteries by creating Dioceses headed by bishops, as was common outside Ireland. Under the 1152 Synod of Kells, the Irish church received its own archbishops, rather than being subject to Canterbury. Under the Laudabiliter in 1155, English-born Pope Adrian IV granted Henry II of England the Lordship of Ireland in return for paying tithes to Rome. His claim was based on the 4th century Donation of Constantine, which allegedly gave the Papacy religious control over all Christian territories in the western Roman Empire. Its legality was disputed at the time, since Ireland had never been part of the empire, while the Donation itself was later exposed as a forgery.

Since Ireland was now considered a Papal fief, its bishops were appointed by Rome but generally adopted English liturgy and saints, such as Edward the Confessor, and Thomas Becket. In 1536, the Irish Parliament followed their English colleagues by accepting Henry VIII of England as head of the church, rather than the Pope. This marks the founding of the reformed Church of Ireland, confirmed when Henry became King of Ireland in 1541. Largely restricted to Dublin, led by Archbishop George Browne, it expanded under Edward VI, until Catholicism was restored by his sister Mary I in 1553.

When Elizabeth I of England became queen in 1558, only five bishops accepted her Religious Settlement, and most of the Irish clergy had to be replaced. This was hampered by the church's relative poverty, while adapting to the changes of regime damaged the reputation of those who remained. Hugh Curwen was Dean of Hereford until 1555, when Mary made him Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, before returning to the reformed church in 1558. Despite accusations of 'moral delinquency', he remained Archbishop and Lord Chancellor until 1567, when he was appointed Bishop of Oxford.

The absence of Gaelic-speaking ministers led to the adoption of a gradualist policy, similar to that used in Catholic areas of Northern England. 'Occasional conformity' allowed the use of pre-Reformation rites, combined with acceptance of the established Church; this practice persisted in both England and Ireland well into the mid-18th century.

Lack of Irish Gaelic literature was another restriction; shortly before his death in 1585, Nicholas Walsh began translation of the New Testament. Continued by John Kearny and Nehemiah Donnellan, it was finally printed in 1602 by William Daniel, who also translated the Book of Common Prayer, or BCP, in 1606. An Irish version of the Old Testament was published in 1685 by Narcissus Marsh, but the revised BCP was not available until 1712.

17th century

At the beginning of the 17th century, most native Irish were Catholic, with Protestant settlers in Ulster establishing an independent Presbyterian church. Largely confined to an English-speaking minority in The Pale, the most important figure of the Church's development was Dublin-born theologian and historian, James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh from 1625 to 1656. In 1615, the Church of Ireland drew up its own confession of faith, similar to the English version, but more detailed, less ambiguous and often explicitly Calvinist. When the Thirty-Nine Articles were formally adopted by the Irish church in 1634, Ussher ensured they were in addition to the Irish Articles; however, they were soon superseded by the Thirty Nine Articles, which remain in use to the present day.

Under Charles I, the Church of Ireland claimed to be the original and universal church, while the Papacy was an innovation, thus vesting it with the supremacy of Apostolic succession. This argument was supported by Ussher, and Charles' former personal chaplain, John Leslie, a key supporter of Caroline reforms in Scotland, appointed bishop of Derry & Raphoe in 1633. During the 1641–1653 Irish Confederate Wars, nearly two-thirds of Ireland was controlled by the largely Catholic Confederacy, and in 1644, Giovanni Battista Rinuccini became Papal Nuncio to Ireland. Irish Catholicism had developed greater tolerance for Protestants, while sharing their hostility to elaborate ritual. Rinuccini's insistence on following Roman liturgy, and attempts to re-introduce ceremonies such as foot washing divided the Confederacy, and contributed to its rapid collapse in the 1649–1652 Cromwell's re-conquest of Ireland.

The church was re-established after the 1660 Restoration of Charles II and in January 1661, meetings by 'Papists, Presbyterians, Independents or separatists' were made illegal. In practice, the penal laws were loosely enforced and after 1666, Protestant Dissenters and Catholics were allowed to resume their seats in the Parliament of Ireland. In 1685, the Catholic James II became king with considerable backing in all three kingdoms; this changed when his policies seemed to go beyond tolerance for Catholicism and into an attack on the established church. His prosecution of the Seven Bishops in England for seditious libel in June 1688 destroyed his support base, while many felt James lost his right to govern by ignoring his coronation Oath to maintain the primacy of the Protestant religion.

This made oaths a high-profile issue, since ministers of the national churches of England, Scotland and Ireland were required to swear allegiance to the ruling monarch. When the 1688 Glorious Revolution replaced James with his Protestant daughter and son-in-law, Mary II and William III, a minority felt bound by their previous oath and refused to swear another. This led to the Non-Juring schism, although for the vast majority, this was a matter of personal conscience, rather than political support for James.

The Irish church was less affected by this controversy, although the Bishop of Kilmore and Ardagh became a Non-Juror, as did a handful of the clergy, including Jacobite propagandist Charles Leslie. The Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland is traditionally viewed as beginning in 1691 when the Treaty of Limerick ended the 1689–1691 Williamite War. The Church re-established control and the 1697 Banishment Act expelled Catholic bishops and regular clergy from Ireland, leaving only the so-called secular clergy.

18th century
In 1704, the Test Act was extended to Ireland; this effectively restricted public office to members of the Church of Ireland and officially remained in place until the 1829 Catholic Relief Act. However, the practice of occasional conformity continued, while many Catholic gentry by-passed these restrictions by educating their sons as Protestants, their daughters as Catholics; Edmund Burke, who was raised Church of Ireland but whose parents simultaneously raised his sister Juliana Catholic, is one example.

It is estimated fewer than 15 – 20% of the Irish population were nominally members of the church, which remained a minority under pressure from both Catholics and Protestant Nonconformists. The 1719 Toleration Act allowed Nonconformists freedom of worship, while the Irish Parliament paid their ministers a small subsidy known as the 'regium donum.'

Although willing to permit a degree of flexibility, like their English counterparts, Irish bishops viewed their status as the national church to be non-negotiable and used their seats in the Irish House of Lords to enforce this. However, in 1725 Parliament passed the first in a series of 'temporary' Indemnity Acts, which allowed office holders to 'postpone' taking the oaths; the bishops were willing to approve these, since they could be repealed at any point.

In the 17th century, religious and political beliefs were often assumed to be the same; thus Catholics were considered political subversives, simply because of their religion. During the 18th century, sectarian divisions were replaced by a growing sense of Irish autonomy; in 1749, Bishop Berkeley issued an address to the Catholic clergy, urging them to work together with the church in the (Irish) national interest. After 1750, the government increasingly viewed Catholic emancipation as a way to reduce the power of Protestant nationalists like the United Irishmen; this had potential implications for the church since the requirement non-church members pay tithes was deeply resented. The movement ended after the 1798 Rebellion and Ireland's incorporation with Britain.

19th to 20th centuries

Following the legal union of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain by the Act of Union 1800, the Church of Ireland was also united with the Church of England to form the United Church of England and Ireland. At the same time, one archbishop and three bishops from Ireland (selected by rotation) were given seats in the House of Lords at Westminster, joining the two archbishops and twenty-four bishops from the Church of England.

The Irish Church was over-staffed, with 22 bishops, including 4 archbishops, for an official membership of 852,000, less than that of the Church of England's Diocese of Durham. The Church Temporalities (Ireland) Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 37) reduced these to 12, as well as making financial changes. Part of a series of reforms by the 1830–1834 Whig government that included the Reform Act 1832, it caused deep political splits. The implications of government legislating church governance was a contributory factor in the Oxford Movement and had wide repercussions for the Anglican Communion.

Another source of resentment was the funding of the Church by tithes imposed on all Irish subjects, even though the majority were not members. This led to anomalies like the incumbent of a living near Bessborough, who in 1833 was receiving £1,000 per year, despite the fact the parish had no Protestants or even a church. The "Tithe War" of 1831–36 led to their replacement by the tithe rent charge but they did not entirely disappear until the Irish Church Act 1869.

The Act ended the Church's status as a state organisation; its bishops were removed from the House of Lords and its property transferred to the government. Compensation was paid but in the immediate aftermath, parishes faced great difficulty in local financing after the loss of rent-generating lands and buildings.

Governance
The head of the Church of Ireland is, ex officio, the Archbishop of Armagh. In 1870, immediately prior to its disestablishment, the Church provided for its internal government, led by a General Synod, and with financial and administrative support by a Representative Church Body. Like other Irish churches, the Church of Ireland did not divide when Ireland was partitioned in the 1920s and it continues to be governed on an all-Ireland basis.

Structure
[[File:Dioceses of the Church of Ireland.png|thumb|left|upright=1.0|alt=Dioceses of the Church of Ireland|Map of the dioceses of the Church of Ireland ▉ ▉ ▉ Province of Armagh

▉ ▉ ▉ Province of Dublin]]

The polity of the Church of Ireland is episcopal church governance, as in other Anglican churches. The church maintains the traditional structure dating to pre-Reformation times, a system of geographical parishes organised into dioceses. There were more than 30 of these historically, grouped into four provinces; today, after consolidation over the centuries, there are eleven Church of Ireland dioceses or united dioceses, each headed by a bishop and belonging to one of two surviving provinces. In 2022 the diocese of Tuam, Killala and Achonry was merged with Limerick and Killaloe when both of the bishops of the separate dioceses retired and a new bishop was appointed for the combined diocese of Tuam, Limerick and Killaloe.

The leader of the southern province is the Archbishop of Dublin, at present Michael Jackson; that of the northern province is the Archbishop of Armagh, at present Francis John McDowell. These two archbishops are styled Primate of Ireland and Primate of All Ireland respectively, suggesting the ultimate seniority of the latter. Although he has relatively little absolute authority, the Archbishop of Armagh is respected as the church's general leader and spokesman, and is elected in a process different from those for all other bishops.

General synod and policy-making
Doctrine, canon law, church governance, church policy, and liturgical matters are decided by the church's general synod. The general synod comprises two houses, the House of Bishops and the House of Representatives. The House of Bishops includes the 10 diocesan bishops and two archbishops, forming one order. The House of Representatives is made up of two orders, clergy and laity. The order of clergy holds one third of the seats while the laity holds two-thirds of the seats. As of 2017, there are 216 clergy members and 432 lay members in the House of Representatives. The membership of the House of Representatives is made up of delegates from the dioceses, with seats allocated to each diocese's clergy and laity in specific numbers; these delegates are elected every three years. The general synod meets annually, and special meetings can be called by the leading bishop or one third of any of its orders.

Changes in policy must be passed by a simple majority of both the House of Bishops and the House of Representatives. Changes to doctrine, for example the decision to ordain women as priests, must be passed by a two-thirds majority of both Houses. The two sit together for general deliberations but separate for some discussions and voting. While the House of Representatives always votes publicly, often by orders, the House of Bishops has tended to vote in private, coming to a decision before matters reach the floor of the synod. This practice has been broken only once when, in 1999, the House of Bishops voted unanimously in public to endorse the efforts of the Archbishop of Armagh, the Diocese of Armagh and the Standing Committee of the General Synod in their attempts to resolve the crisis at the Church of the Ascension at Drumcree near Portadown.

Statutes and constitution
The church's internal laws are formulated as bills proposed to the Houses of the general synod, which when passed become Statutes. The church's governing document, its constitution, is modified, consolidated and published by way of statute also, the most recent edition, the 13th, being published in 2003.

Representative body
The representative body of the Church of Ireland, often called the "Representative Church Body" (RCB), is the corporate trustee of the church, as established by law, and much of the church's property is vested in it. The members of the RCB are the bishops plus diocesan delegates and twelve co-opted members, and it meets at least four times a year. The staff of the representative body are analogous to clerical civil servants, and among other duties they oversee property, including church buildings, cemeteries and investments, administer some salaries and pensions, and manage the church library. While parishes, dioceses, and other parts of the church structure care for their particular properties, this is often subject to RCB rules.

Orders of ministry and positions
The Church of Ireland embraces three orders of ministry: deacons, priests (or presbyters) and bishops. These orders are distinct from positions such as rector, vicar or canon.

Diocesan governance
Each diocese or united diocese is led by its Ordinary, one of the nine bishops and two archbishops, and the Ordinary may have one or more Archdeacons to support them, along with a Rural Dean for each group of parishes. There is a diocesan synod for each diocese; there may be separate synods for historic dioceses now in unions. These synods comprise the bishop along with clergy and lay representatives from the parishes, and subject to the laws of the church, and the work of the general synod and its committees and the representative body and its committees, oversee the operation of the diocese. Each diocesan synod in turn appoints a diocesan council to which it can delegate powers.

Parochial governance
Each parish has a presiding member of the clergy, assisted by two churchwardens and often also two glebewardens, one of each type of warden being appointed by the clerical incumbent, and one by popular vote. All qualified adult members of the parish comprise the general vestry, which meets annually, within 20 days each side of Easter, as the Easter Vestry. There is also a select vestry for the parish, or sometimes for each active church in a parish, comprising the presiding cleric and any curate assistants, along with relevant churchwardens and glebewardens and a number of members elected at the Easter Vestry meeting. The select vestry assists in the care and operation of the parish and one or more church buildings.

Cathedral governance
Special provisions apply to the management and operation of five key cathedrals, in Dublin (which contains two Church of Ireland cathedrals), Armagh, Down, and Belfast.

Tribunals
The church has disciplinary and appeals tribunals, and diocesan courts, and a court of the general synod.

Membership
The Church of Ireland experienced a major decline in membership during the 20th century, both in Northern Ireland, where around 65% of its members live, and in the Republic of Ireland. The church is still the second-largest in the Republic of Ireland, with 126,414 members in 2016 (minus 2% compared to the 2011 census results) and the third-largest in Northern Ireland, with around 260,000 members. The most recently available figures published by the Church of Ireland, dating to 2013, found that average Sunday attendance across the church was 58,257, with 74 per cent of this attendance in the Province of Armagh. Attendance varied strongly across dioceses; the most-attended diocese was Down and Dromore, with 12,731 in average Sunday attendance, while the least-attended was Meath and Kildare with 1,463. Similarly, in 2016, a peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Anglican Studies by Cambridge University Press found that the Church of Ireland has approximately 384,176 total members and 58,000 active baptised members.

Cathedrals
The Church of Ireland has two cathedrals in Dublin: within the line of the walls of the old city is Christ Church Cathedral, the seat of the Archbishop of Dublin, and just outside the old walls is St. Patrick's Cathedral, which the church designated as the National Cathedral for Ireland in 1870. Cathedrals also exist in the other dioceses.

There is also the metropolitan cathedral church of Ireland, situated in Armagh, St Patrick's Cathedral. This cathedral is the seat of the archbishop and metropolitan, the Most Reverend John McDowell.

Offices, training of priests and teachers
The church's central offices are in Rathmines, adjacent to the former Church of Ireland College of Education, and the church's library is in Churchtown. Teacher training now occurs within the Dublin City University Institute of Education, overseen by the Church of Ireland Centre, based at the former All Hallows College. The church operates a seminary, the Church of Ireland Theological Institute, in Rathgar, in the south inner suburbs of Dublin.

Anglican Communion
The churches of the Anglican Communion are linked by affection and common loyalty. They are in full communion with the See of Canterbury and thus the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his person, is a unique focus of Anglican unity. He calls the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference, chairs the meeting of Primates, and is President of the Anglican Consultative Council. The contemporary Church of Ireland, despite having a number of High Church (often described as Anglo-Catholic) parishes, is generally on the Low Church end of the spectrum of world Anglicanism. Historically, it had little of the difference in churchmanship between parishes characteristic of other Anglican provinces, although a number of markedly liberal, High Church or Evangelical parishes have developed in recent decades. It was the second province of the Anglican Communion after the Anglican Church of New Zealand (1857) to adopt, on its 1871 disestablishment, synodical government. It was also one of the first provinces to begin ordaining women to the priesthood (1991).

Relation with the GAFCON movement
GAFCON Ireland was launched on 21 April 2018, in Belfast, with 320 attendees from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. International speakers included Archbishops Peter Jensen (retired Archbishop of Sydney) and Gregory Venables (Primate of the Anglican Church of South America). The Church of Ireland was represented at GAFCON III, held on 17–22 June 2018 in Jerusalem, by a six-member delegation which included two bishops; Ferran Glenfield of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh and Harold Miller of Down and Dromore. Their participation was criticised by some members of the Church of Ireland. The Church of Ireland is not a member of GAFCON and the church communicated that attendance by clergy was unofficial in "a personal capacity" and the General Synod has voted against GAFCON's statement on the Lambeth Conference. GAFCON supporters refuted their critics claims, saying that they endorse Lambeth 1.10 resolution on human sexuality, which is still the official stance of the Church of Ireland, but has been rejected by the liberal provinces of the Anglican Communion. The Rev. Charles Raven stated: "the charge that GAFCON is a breakaway or separatist group is not supported by the evidence. It is a movement of reform and revitalisation which has enabled faithful Anglicans to remain within the Communion, especially in North America and Brazil. While being clear that participation in its common life is based upon fidelity to the biblical gospel, not merely upon historic ties, the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration of 2008 says quite unequivocally that 'Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion'."

Ecumenical relations
Like many other Anglican churches, the Church of Ireland is a member of many ecumenical bodies, including the World Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland and the Irish Council of Churches. It is also a member of the Porvoo Communion.

Flags

In 1999, the church voted to prohibit the flying of flags other than St Patrick's flag and the Flag of the Anglican Communion. However, the Union Flag continues to fly on many churches in Northern Ireland.

Publications
The church has an official website. Its journal is The Church of Ireland Gazette, which is editorially independent, but the governing body of which is appointed by the church. Many parishes and other internal organizations also produce newsletters or other publications, as well as maintaining websites.

Doctrine and practice
The centre of the Church of Ireland's teaching is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The basic teachings of the church include:
 * Chalcedonian Christology; Jesus Christ is fully human and fully God in one person. He died and was resurrected from the dead.
 * Jesus provides the way of eternal life for those who believe.
 * The Old and New Testaments of the Bible ("God's Word written") were written by people "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit". The Apocrypha are additional books that are to be read, but not to determine doctrine. The Apocrypha of the King James version of the Bible constitutes the books of the Vulgate version that are present neither in the Hebrew Old Testament nor the Greek New Testament.
 * The "two great and necessary" sacraments are Baptism and the Eucharist (also called Holy Communion and the Lord's Supper).
 * Those "commonly called Sacraments that are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel" are confirmation, ordination, marriage, reconciliation of a penitent and unction.
 * Belief in heaven, hell and Jesus's return in glory.

The 16th-century apologist, Richard Hooker, posits that there are three sources of authority in Anglicanism: scripture, tradition and reason. It is not known how widely accepted this idea is within Anglicanism. It is further posited that the three sources uphold and critique each other in a dynamic way. In Hooker's model, scripture is the primary means of arriving at doctrine; things stated plainly in scripture are accepted as true. Issues that are ambiguous are determined by tradition, which is checked by reason.

Ordination of women
In recent decades, the church has ordained women to all offices. In 1984, the General Synod approved the ordination of women to the diaconate and, in 1987, the first woman, Katherine Poulton, was ordained as a deacon. In 1990 the church began ordaining women to the priesthood. The first two women ordained were Kathleen Margaret Brown and Irene Templeton. In 2013, the church appointed its first female bishop, Pat Storey.

Same-sex unions and LGBT clergy
The church has been divided over aspects of human sexuality. In 2002, the issue became pertinent as a rector provided a blessing for a lesbian couple. The denomination announced a period of discernment to allocate time to the perspectives within the discussion. In 2010, a congregation was recognised by the church for receiving an LGBTI award for offering services for LGBTI people. The Church of Ireland canon defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and does not perform same-sex marriages, but the church also supported the legal right of same-sex couples to register a civil marriage.

Civil partnerships have been allowed since 2005. The church has no official position on civil unions. In 2008, "the Church of Ireland Pensions Board ha[d] confirmed that it will treat civil partners the same as spouses." The General Synod adopted the Pensions Board's policy in 2008. In 2011, a cleric in the Church of Ireland entered into a same-sex civil partnership with his bishop's permission. Assurances of sexual abstinence were not required from the cleric. In 2012, the church's Clergy Pension Fund continued to recognise that "the pension entitlement of a member's registered civil partner will be the same as that of a surviving spouse." Regarding cohabitation, the church said that "any view of cohabitation has to be the intention of the couple to lifelong loyalty and faithfulness within their relationship." In 2004, then Archbishop John Neill said that the "Church would support the extension of legal rights on issues such as tax, welfare benefits, inheritance and hospital visits to cohabiting couples, both same gender and others." The church recognises four general viewpoints within the denomination ranging from opposition to acceptance toward same-gender relationships.

Prior to the referendum on same-sex marriage, the church remained neutral on the issue. In 2015, the Bishop of Cork, the Rt. Rev. Paul Colton, Bishop Michael Burrows of Cashel, and two retired archbishops of Dublin endorsed same-sex marriage. While voting "no" on gay marriage, Bishop Pat Storey endorsed civil unions. Also, 55 clergy signed a letter supporting the blessing of same-sex couples. In its pastoral letter, the church reiterated that, presently, church marriages are only for heterosexual couples, but that clergy may offer prayers for same-sex couples. When asked about clergy entering into civil same-sex marriages, the letter stated that "all are free to exercise their democratic entitlements once they are enshrined in legislation. However, members of the clergy, are further bound by the Ordinal and by the authority of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland." Services of Thanksgiving for same-sex marriage have taken place in congregations; for example, St. Audoen's Church hosted "a service of thanksgiving" for same-sex marriage. LGBTI services are also allowed by the Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross.

REFORM Ireland, a conservative lobby, has criticised the official letter as "a dangerous departure from confessing Anglicanism" and continues to oppose same-sex marriage recognition. Reflecting division, the church deferred its report on same-sex marriage to listen to all voices. The Church of Ireland Gazette, although "editorially independent", endorsed a blessing rite for same-sex couples. Many congregations, including cathedrals, have become publicly affirming of LGBTI rights. A church report has determined that "the moral logic underpinning the negative portrayal of same-sex eroticism in Scripture does not directly address committed, loving, consecrated same-sex relationships today". In 2017, the General Synod considered a proposal to request for public services of thanksgiving for same-sex couples, but the proposal was not passed; the church's select committee on human sexuality recommended that the bishops continue to study the issues. There were 176 votes against the motion to request public services, 146 in favour, and 24 abstentions. The Bishop of Cork, Paul Colton, declared his support for same-sex marriage ceremonies in the Church of Ireland. Three dioceses, the United Diocese of Tuam, Limerick, and Killaloe, the Diocese of Dublin and Glendalough, and the Diocese of Cashel, Ferns, and Ossory have voted to support the blessing of civil same-sex marriages, requesting that a motion be considered by the General Synod.

Irish language
The first translation of the Book of Common Prayer into Irish was published in 1606. An Irish translation of the revised prayer book of 1662 was published in 1712.

The Church of Ireland has its own Irish language body, Cumann Gaelach na hEaglaise ("Irish Guild of the Church"). This was founded in 1914 to bring together members of the Church of Ireland interested in the Irish language and Gaelic culture and to promote the Irish language within the Church of Ireland. The guild aims to link its programmes with the Irish language initiatives which have been centred round Christ Church Cathedral. It holds services twice a month in Irish.

From 1926 to 1995, the church had its own Irish-language teacher training college, Coláiste Moibhí. Today, there are a number of interdenominational Gaelscoileanna (schools where Irish-medium education is applied).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Church of Ireland


text:
User:Vegy~enwiki

Vegy (b. May 17, 1977) is originally from Kosice, Slovakia, and is currently living in Prague, Czech Republic.

title: User:Vegy~enwiki


text:
User talk:Arthur3030

Sorry, I meant no disrespect; I couldn't find the email. Is it resolved now, then? Best, Koyaanis Qatsi ... It does sound dismissive, I see now. I apologize. I'm a bit absent-minded, but I hope not patronizing.
 * Hi, I visited talk:evolution to check it out; it's not protected and it allows anonymous edits. I've also email user:Brion VIBBER about this and a related subject to ask if it's possible to block a certain user from a certain page.  I've never heard of it, and I think it might be a bug.  At any rate, I hope it gets resolved soon and I'll post back when I hear from Brion (if he doesn't post here directly).  Koyaanis Qatsi

 * You sure it isn't the fact that the page is so big? I know my talk page often gets too big for some people to edit since I stubbornly don't delete anything and only make monthly archives. Try to edit my talk page (which is bigger than talk:Evolution). --mav

--

 * You might be right, Mav. I can't edit your page. Perhaps the talk:evoluton page just happened to exceed this limit right at the time of my second attempted edit. Can someone fix this? Whose problem is it? Mine? My web browser? Wikipedias? This should be dealt with!
 * Some browsers can't handle editing longer pages, though I never heard of one failing but giving an error message about it. Usually they just truncate the page.  What browser are you using?  IE 5.5 and Mozilla 1.2 can both handle long pages.  Koyaanis Qatsi

 * I'm using Netscape 4.75. I assume, then, that my browser can't be the problem. Nevertheless, I can't edit the evolution page--nor Mav's page. Can anyone figure this out? I still want to fix that studid page. :-)
 * The response I got back from Brion reads in part: " if the IP of a proxy was banned for being used by a vandal, then other people using the same proxy would see the ban message. ... If the ISP has a number of proxy servers and rotates among their use, it may well be that _sometimes_ you'll get the ban message and _sometimes_ you won't. Bad proxy-side or client-side cachine might also make those ban messages stick on particular pages if you try to reload them."  In short, it's a problem with AOL and the way it handles things.  Let me know if it happens again.  :-)  Koyaanis Qatsi
 * Eh, Brion said it might affect other ISPs as well. Frankly, I'm confused about it.  Have you written him directly, or posted on his talk page?  Maybe you could explain that what we thought was the cause is probably not the cause.  Brion's a friendly person, doesn't bite.  :-)  Koyaanis Qatsi

'Curiously, I am allowed to delete anything i want on talk:evolution. But not allowed to type or paste. (Nor have I seen any messages about being banned.)'

 * If you're not getting a message that says "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by $1. The reason given is this: $2 You may contact $1 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block." when you try to save, then you have not been banned. From the above description, it sounds like the page is simply too long for your browser to properly handle editing, and it refuses to let you enter more characters. Talk:Evolution is presently 42,500 bytes; some browsers crap out around 32k. It should probably be broken up into archives or separate sub-topic discussion pages. --Brion 23:04 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * I've broken up that page; if you have any more trouble with it, let me know. --Brion 23:37 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, Arthur. I merely took the information about the album out of Christmas card and moved it back to Christmas Card, where it was originally. Wikipedia recognizes case differences. -- Zoe

I don't understand why you think I've done anything wrong. We have two entries, Christmas Card, which is a proper name and the name of an album, and Christmas card, which is an article about a generic thing. There is no reason why they shouldn't be separate, since Wikipedia allows us to disambiguate by case. "Christmas Card" is the proper name of the album. Let's leave them separate. You'll notice, in fact, that Christmas Card actually has a link to Christmas card. -- Zoe

Arthur, thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate it. -- Zoe

Hi, and good wiki to you. Yes, the talk pages on Manual of Style are overfull and I guess I should do something about it. You make a very good point about Buddha and Jesus. I will try an alteration. Ortolan88 Fixed both, I think.

Hi Arthur. See my talk page for a response to your dispute of my change on the Jesus Christ page. BTW, I never said the Trinity was the same thing as the Godhead. ;) Regards, -Frecklefoot

Arthur, concerning Talk:Jesus Christ -- some browsers have a problem with very large Talk pages, and tend to truncate them or delete them altogether. It could have been yours, or it could have been the browser of the person who made the change just before yours. -- Zoe

Arthur, I really like the merge/changes you did on Te[mn]pura page. Way to go. synthetik

Hi there - can you please make sure that you search for a subject before you start an article on it. Sometimes you'll find that it already exists under a slightly different name. I'm thinking of gloves, which you just started, when there's already an article at glove. Those two pages now need to be merged. But otherwise, keep up the good work, and have fun! --Camembert

Hi Arthur - I've responded at Talk:Glove. The more I think about it, the more I think you should be brutal with the 1911 text and delete. It might be an idea to leave it there for a day or two, though, so that others can speak up on the talk page first. --Camembert

Arthur, I just don't understand why people complain about Americocentrism but then don't do anything about it. You did something, you rewrote the Japanese cuisine. But people like KF would just rather complain than do something about it. -- Zoe

Hi Arthur, I saw your piece on Zoe's page about Americocentrism (did I get it right?). I haven't seen the article in question, but I do agree that some people on Wikipedia do tend to see everything from a Yankee Doodle perspective. If it ain't in the US, it ain't real. Be careful about cutting a lot of American stuff out, though. The best idea is to move it to a paragraph with a headline, saying 'the US view on. . . ' or whatever. That usually encourages non Americans eventually to add in the British view on, French view on. . . etc. Eventually over time a balance will emerge. I've recently been in a bit of a fight over a page on 'football' which was written from a British perspective, in that it refused to accept the use of the word 'soccer' even though that it how that sport is referred to in the US, Australia, sometimes in Ireland, etc. Eventually after a mini-WWIII we renamed the page [Football (soccer)] and after some sulking by some of the original authors over the change, everyone now is happy and love-bombing each other with compliments, having warmed to the solution (which I am more than happy to take credit for, even if I find it bizarre that I (as an avid sports-hater) of all people got dragged into the row!) So whether it is seeing everything largely from an American perspective, a British perspective (in my case an Irish perspective) or whereever, it will happen, but eventually a logical balance that suits everyone else on the planet too tends to emerge. But don't be afraid to tackle such a bias if you see it, with a bit of re-writing. (Another row I had involved the Irish Famine, which I wanted to write from an Irish historical perspective, while some Irish-Americans wanted to burn it into a Brit-bashing neo-marxist rant of the sort that makes Irish people cringe. But eventually peace was restored and most of what I wanted survived. So things do work out in the end.)

Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading some of your stuff. JTD 02:17 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

About Talk:Glove... Fwappler is, erm, (how do I put it without offending anyone...) unconventional. Toby and I have both tried communicating with him last month, and as you can see form his talk page, every question we put to him came back quoted with extra –  and other whatsits and links to pages whose relevance escaped us. He seems to have settled down a little, but if you find his responses incomprehensible, I think you can safely ignore them :-) -- Tarquin 23:48 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Wilco, Arthur. Tannin

Hi Arthur, just a quick note re the controversy over the naming of the Japanese emperor. I cannot for the life of me see where you get the idea that the J E is being 'singled out'. There is a clear naming convention for monarchs. It applies only to monarchs. Taku wants the japanese emperor to be exempt. I am saying that would be a mistake. The automatic formula for monarchs is {name} {ordinal} of {state}. taku says no one will confuse the Japanese emperor with anyone else, therefore why bother with the name. You cannot be sure of that. Leaving it out risks causing someone confusion if they don't know the politics of the asian region. Keeping it in rules out any chance of confusion. But what is being proposed is not a change, simply the application of the current rules for all monarchs to one monarch, the Japanese emperor. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:15 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hi,

I just made a major revision to the article Attachment. Since you perhaps know more about psychology than I, would you mind reviewing my change? Look at the last version edited by Stevertigo, and then the last version edited by me, and you will see (if you have a few minutes). Thanks, Slrubenstein

-- reply for you on Wikipedia talk:Use short sentences and lists -- Tarquin 20:26 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * I dont know... Im thinking its "No" that sounds inbetween "no" and "nu" but im not very familiar with nihongo... - &#35918&#30505sv

Arthur asked "I need input from someone with a little Japanese knowledge. I'm trying to describe a donburi simmering sauce. NImono refers to simmered dishes, and I've seen "donburi NI shiru" refer to donburi simmering sauce. But now someone tells me that it should be "donburi NU shiru". do you have any advice?"

 * First, let me give rough translations of the four words you are questioning, in the context you are using them.

 * * donburi - "bowl of rice with food"
 * * nimono - "food cooked by boiling"
 * * ni - "in" or "for"
 * * no - "of"
 * * shiru - "soup" or "broth"

So "donburi ni shiru" means "soup for bowl of rice with food" or "sauce for donburi". --º¡º

P.S. I am glad I could help. Please know I am only a gaijin, and I defer to the nihonjin who understand better than I. I attempted to translate the words as best I understood them. You asked me about "donburi nu shiru", which meant nothing to me, but I agree with Taku that "donburi no shiru" makes sense too, along the lines of "sauce of donburi".

First of all, do not presume I know nothing about Japanese emperors. Number 2, Wiki is not about Japanese emperors or for Japanese readers. It has to have a structure that is understood the world over by everyone. Monarchical titles are a minefield and were such a mess that there used to be 9 different versions of recording royalty on Wiki, many of them so messed up that you couldn't work out who they were about until you entered the site to find out. (And even then they were so badly written (with wrong names, wrong countries, wrong dates, etc) as to be absolutely useless to readers.) A few of us got together and devoted weeks and weeks and weeks - and many entire nights! - to doing nothing else but trying to sort out the mess. We circulated suggested to solutions and questions on talk pages, on the wiki list. We checked with academics, embassies, royal and imperial palaces, etc etc to get all the information we could on naming standards. We all put a proposal to wiki, circulated it, held it as a draft while we asked everyone for opinions. The unanimous opinion we got was that in modern monarchies, because there in most cases monarchs don't have surnames, names on their own should not be used, especially as even those with surnames often have obscure surnames that 99.9% would not recognise, eg, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is Prince Charles' name (not as numerous wiki pages said, Windsor) Queen Victoria's surname was Wettin (not Saxe Cobery-Gotha, which was the Royal House name, the Romanovs weren't actually Romanov, French royals can't agree among themselves as to their surnames, others like Japanese people don't have a western style surname. The recommendation of everyone consulted on and off wiki was that the most straightforward version to use, and which should be used as a standard template, was {name} {ordinal if they have it} of {state}.

Monarchies are different to republics because a page on a republican head of state you (a) can rely on the use of surnames; (b) the person will have led a varied career before and after their couple of years as a head of state. But monarchs are lifetime office-holders largely defined by their state and lack the alternative surname to be used. So you can't simply say 'Anne', and 90% wouldn't know her surname if she had one, so there is no alternative to 'Anne of Great Britain', 'Juan Carlos of Spain', 'Haile Selassie of Ethopia', 'Humbert II of Italy'. But flexibility is a must for monarchs from long dead monarches who existed before the modern concept of the nation state. I can see the problem with Japanese emperors, but the point is Japan is a modern nation state and the term Emperor of Japan is used in english even by the current emperor when he issues statements. The battle of the 'emperor of Japan' with cancer was covered by media outlets worldwide. The embassies of Japan use the 'of Japan' designation. So does the Japanese government. When Akihito visited Ireland some years ago, the invitation issued in his name by the Japanese government invited me to a reception to the 'Crown Prince of Japan', so internationally, of Japan is widely used by Japan and its emperor. It isn't a case of me imposing a western designation. It was again the consensus agreement that that should be applied to all modern 20th century monarches still existing now even if that was not the form used in native cultures, because while you and I know the varying versions used worldwide, not every reader will and will initially be able to understand it, plus there is no guarantee that every contributor will accurately know the correct local details and so you would then have the appearance of pages that were half right or even 100% wrong (like calling Victor Emmanuel of Italy 'Victor Savoy'. Local variants could then be explained with the correct local form of title contained in the article text and perhaps in disambigulation pages. (The same is true of courtesy titles; one British prime minister was called Lord John Russell. He was down as John Russell, which not a single historian would recognise. And Lord Frederick Cavendish is never Frederick Cavendish anywhere, let alone Fred Cavendish! So we have been working on standardising the use of courtesy titles so as to avoid confusion.)

I am not trying to be alkward. I simply don't want the whole thing to unravel back to the mess it once was. As China is no longer an empire, and so has not existed as a modern state with an emperor, it was thought safe to allow it to be the exception. One or two exceptions are ok once there is no danger of any confusion and they are very much in the past, not modern functioning states. But having both Chinese and Japanese emperors, both located so close together, both with massive lists of emperors, with no formal state-designation risks leaving hundreds of pages with no clear definitionary identity, meaning that people who don't already possess sufficient local knowledge to recognise who the person was, won't have a clue who or where they refer to. And if you don't have definitions in two sets of emperors, that risks creating a situation where people would think that emperors by definition don't have to have a definitionary identity added, further adding to confusion. To avoid confusion is the whole reason why the naming conventions were adopted and the reason why so many of us put so much of our time and effort into creating a workable structure in the first place.

I am sorry if I was rude earlier. When this was all being worked on, two individuals went out of their way to be alkward. They refused to take part in discussions even when emailed, then when people agreed the naming conventions and began changing hundreds of titles to follow one agreed house style, they kept reverting, screw up changes, sending messages saying 'I never agreed to this' or 'why are we doing this again?' (even though it had been on the wiki-list a number of times, on eight talk pages, and they had even got personal emails asking their views every step of the way. One of those two ended up banned and is now back again under a false name doing the exact same thing again.) I suppose that made me unduly touchy. I was also pretty exhausted. The point is simply that with 100,000+ articles and contributions of varying standard, a source like wiki needs to have basic standard approaches on some issues that can be recognised worldwide and applied worldwide. I think it is important that people in Capetown and Canberra, Dublin and Dubai, Moscow and Tokyo can see a consistent style that tells them in a title such elementary facts as, when it comes to monarchs, what their name is/was and where they reigned. If you know that there was only one Hirohito, etc there is no problem but in putting together an encyclopædia, you cannot presume that every reader will know.

I don't mean to take up your talk page and I am sorry for my rudeness. As I say, your well meaning questions were simply almost identical to the manner in which two particular individuals tried to sabotage the work of a lot of people> Please accept my apologies in wrongly tarring your with the same brush. I hope you can see my reasoning. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:50 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

I've been discussing this all with Roadrunner and I've made a suggestion for an amendment to the wikipedia naming policy. It is on the talk page there. I agree. I just don't want to end up with a total of 100+ emperors from the far east that just 'exist' without saying from where (not in the political sense, but in the geographic sense). Especially when people still have to add in Vietnamese emperors, etc. One suggestion is to facilitate local naming alongside a standard name redirect page (so everyone can follow it) with a geographic (not political) designation added in brackets, just to give people an idea as to the ballpark information. That would simply work as [local form of address] (Japan) /(China) or whatever. have a look at it and see what you think! Cheers. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:42 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

I HATE JAPANESE EMPERORS!!! :) Only joking! The 'problem' has now been put on the wiki-list by Zoe and I have added in some info. But it shouldn't fall up to you to sort out all the links. We all help out with mistakes, but when one person creates pages of double, treble and quadruple links, he should be responsible for at least contributing to the repairs. It isn't even clear whether Taku thinks an emperor should have a capital or small e, as he has created different versions. So I think the best thing is just to sit back (reach for a bottle of vodka!) and wait until the wiki-list reaches a conclusion on the whole mess. Take care. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:01 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I see Taku removed a lot of stuff from the Japanese naming conventions page. I don't know why, but it may be that he was adding to the page his own stuff unilaterally. Normally what you do is to put suggested changes onto the talk page, have it debated, maybe put it onto the wiki-list for further debate and then where there is consensus, put the final draft onto the formal naming conventions page. Taku might have realised he had made a mistake in unilaterally putting things on without getting agreement first, and so took it off. If so, he should have moved it to the talk page. Or else there may be some other reason. STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:02 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Didn't you know? Everyone presumes Mao is his surname, and his first name is 'Chairman'!!! :) What you could do with the naming page is go an earlier version where the information is, copy the relevant package, then exit (don't save), then go into the talk page and paste it there. That way, it would be available to be seen, but you could put a note over it saying 'disputed information originally on article page'. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:05 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Arthur - if you do decide to ask for sysop status, there's no reason that I know of why you shouldn't get it - you seem to have been contributing well and regularly for a while now. Of course, that's just me - one never knows what other people will say - but I should think you'll be OK.

By the way, you think I've got broad interests - what about yourself?! Knitting and the Black Panthers - I don't know what it is, but that combination is just a little surprising :) Camembert

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Nativity scene
Nativity scene has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Wizardman 02:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arthur3030


text:
Talk:Head transplant

Erroneous 'Citation Needed'
The summary contains a citation request where there shouldn't be one. You wouldn't cite an absence of claims on human head transplant. You'd cite claims that such a thing *has* happened.

Wasn't the USSR the first?
I believe that the USSR was the first to do a head transplant, not China. http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/stranger-than-fiction/head-transplant.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.191.162 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Book
An interesting book on this subject is "If We Can Keep a Severed Head Alive: Discorporation and U.S. Patent 4,666,425" by Chet Fleming. I haven't read it. (I have only read about it in another book which is not about head transplants.) Maybe someone who knows more about it can comment on it in the article. Two Halves 12 January 2003

Removed 1812 quote
Removed:
 * The first head transplants were conducted in 1812, although there was only a marginal amount of success.

Added by the following:  in October of 2006. Travb (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Warning Quote
Warnings about the future are subjective, not objective.

Thangalin (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed wording
Changed "...subjects were typically done in by immune reactions..." to "...subjects typically died from immune reactions..." Nelliejellynoonaa (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

removed from article
In 1998 Charles Krauthammer of Time magazine warned of the potential medical future of head transplanting with cloning:

At the University of Texas and at the University of Bath. During the past four years, one group created headless mice; the other, headless tadpoles. Why then create them?...Take the mouse-frog technology, apply it to humans, combine it with cloning, and you are become a god: with a single cell taken from, say, your finger, you produce a headless replica of yourself, a mutant twin, arguably lifeless, that becomes your own personal, precisely tissue-matched organ farm...Congress should ban human cloning now. Totally. And regarding one particular form, it should be draconian: the deliberate creation of headless humans must be made a crime, indeed a capital crime.

Adamtheclown (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that this should be removed, I doubt that outlawing organ cloning is a widely held view point (at least I would hope not). After all the article on cancer research doesn't have a section on "Opposition to curing cancer"; even though I can gaurantee that there are people who believe curing cancer would be a sin.107.10.53.28 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Furball4 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although the inclusion of this quote does not technically lend credence to the viewpoint, it does give airtime to only one side of a controversy. Since this article is not currently sophisticated enough to support a high-quality "Controversy" section, it should either avoid the controversy entirely or else reference its mere existence in one line without going any further. Furthermore, the Krauthammer quote is a particularly poor exemplar of the "against" argument. It does not even attempt moral argumentation, but references only the man's conclusion and call for legislation. I'm all for headless spares, but the "against" argument deserves better than Charles Krauthammer. I propose removing the quote entirely, and will do so in a week or so if no objections are made and discussed here.
 * Who wrote this? Igottheconch (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Update?
a 30 year old man will be the first to undergo this procedure. --VirusKA (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's MGSV marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:250C:1EB9:F09B:76CC:FB95:5408 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Full Body Transplant
The title is wrong.

If a person is his mind so that his brain thus head, then, it's not the head which is being transplanted. But it's the body.

So the title should be changed.--95.10.87.61 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 * The sources all call it "head transplant," so that's what we go with. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Yep, but then the sources are not all-knowing deities, they are mostly idiotic journo's who could do with a brain transplant.137.205.101.77 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Don't you mean full body transplant? 130.234.202.135 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be headless-body transplant, since that's what you're essentially replacing, the function of a defective headless body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.47.202 (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sergio Canavero
I'm in favor of leaving this out. If it stays, I'd like to see the citekill fixed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Head transplant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060828143447/http://64.78.63.75:80/samples/05PYS0404PlotnikIntrotoPsych7ch3.pdf to http://64.78.63.75/samples/05PYS0404PlotnikIntrotoPsych7ch3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Jerry Silver
The Dr. Jerry Silver quote is from Nexus New Times magazine, which is full of stories about artifacts on Mars, crystals, Mayan codices, and how computers cause miscarriages. It does not seem like a reliable source to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Successful
Per WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the article. And the article talks about several "successful" transplants. So that's what the lead says. The mentions in the article are backed up by sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Repetition/awkwardness
Under the human head transplant section, the preparation steps and procedure seem to sort of repeat each other. I think that section needs to be cleaned up a bit but I myself am not sure how to.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎ 05:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole Canavero section is way too long. It should be cut back to what it was before the recent additions. After the transplant actually happens, we can expand it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A claim of successful transplant in South Africa
http://newsexaminer.net/health/worlds-first-head-transplant-a-success/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanBK (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is very likely a hoax. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hoax, written by this guy: Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

So much of one version article has been cut away and removed
There is so much from the original version of the article that has been deleted: Moscowamerican (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are preferentially based on reliable, independent, secondary sources, giving WEIGHT as they do. That is the difference between that old version and the current one. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Head transplant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523195900/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bennun/interviews/drwhite.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bennun/interviews/drwhite.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235236/http://www2.lakelandcc.edu/nora/events/iuser/news/newsmore.asp?ID=917 to http://www2.lakelandcc.edu/nora/events/iuser/news/newsmore.asp?ID=917

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

World's First Head Transplant (almost)
There have been international reports about a planned, first human head transplant in 2017, and it was so big that 8 of the first 9 results on Google are about this [https://www.google.com/search?q=head+transplant&oq=head+transplant+&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.2728j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 not counting Wikipedia. Look!]. So I added information about the matter but it was undone by for supposedly bad sources used (see the last 3 edits in history). Instead of reverting back, let's decide on an agreed version, so that this subject of great interest and the anticipated operation that never happened receive their fair share in the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:DAILYMAIL1 and WP:MEDRS. We've already got quite enough on this fringey topic - more would be undue. Alexbrn (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The section header shows how tabloid the interest is. We are not a propagator of hype and gossip. Please read WP:NOT. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm bringing back sources that were erased and adding a several more, per the above DAILYMAIL and MEDRS concern. And then (quite unfortunately) nothing happened. And, well, it was not only discussed on social media and but was a major news item. This should be covered, it is more than just relevant, it's a necessity. The focus should now be, in my opinion, directed at summarizing this information and adding it to the History section in the article. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - An interesting watch!

Let's be careful with misusing WP:MEDRS. This article is not only about a medical procedure but about events and hype widely present in mainstream media. In my view it is absolutely justified for the article to mention Canavero's plans based on mainstream media (like Newsweek); demanding articles in a peer-reviewed journal for this feels somewhat over the top.
 * Sure, in the grand scheme of things, in the history of head transplants (whatever it is), Canavero likely is (or will be) just an insignificant episode who, in a couple of decades, will merit at most two sentences in an encyclopaedia if at all. However, today in 2018 plenty of readers seek information about this much-talked-about guy and his plans (wide coverage in popular media inciting interest), so I see no reason why Wikipedia should not offer the available facts. — kashmīrī  TALK  22:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because we are an encyclopedia, not a vessel to provide what "readers seek information about", esp. when it's gossip & hype. We already have an article dedicated to this guy. Alexbrn (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Plans are not history. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Kashmiri is correct.
 * You asked to see a reliable medical paper and a source other than the dailymail - and many were provided, with different coverage. Now, the issue is that it's only gossip and plans?
 * Completely ignoring this subject is simply not an option. A 3-4 sentences paragraph is all that's needed.  Shalom11111 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are multiple levels of the badness sure. "it is in sources" does not answer the NOT issue.  It answers only the V issue, which is a different question.  I have been saying NOTNEWS and CRYSTAL consistently in any case.  What is there to actually say that is encyclopedic?   There is Stuff Canavero Says and Stuff Other People Said.  WP is not the blogoshere.  We are not here to broadcast speculation and speculation about the speculation blah blah blah. This is what CRYSTAL/NOTNEWS are about.
 * You have said nothing about why this is encyclopedic. We don't include nonencyclopedic stuff in WP.  We exclude it all the time.  Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A little late, I'll just leave these links here in case it is decided to add this info in the future. The story is encyclopedic because it was covered by the same sources that are currently used in the article itself (for other content which was deemed encyclopedic), and it is the a relevant part of the history of the subject. Covered by the NYT, the Neuroskeptic , Surgical neurology international the ncbi (U.S. National Library of Medicine), and lastly this popular science article  which stated that the operation has yet to take place.  Shalom11111 (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

removed sentence and source
Quote:
 * However, the key objection, that a severed spinal cord cannot be repaired, has been disproven by animal studies.

 * References:
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29223327 Restoration of motor function after operative reconstruction of the acutely transected spinal cord in the canine model.Liu Z, Ren S, Fu K, Wu Q, Wu J, Hou L, Pan H, Sun L, Zhang J, Wang B, Miao Q, Sun G, Bonicalzi V, Canavero S, Ren X.Surgery. 2018 May;163(5):976-983;

 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28612398 Polyethylene glycol-induced motor recovery after total spinal transection in rats. Ren S, Liu ZH, Wu Q, Fu K, Wu J, Hou LT, Li M, Zhao X, Miao Q, Zhao YL, Wang SY, Xue Y, Xue Z, Guo YS, Canavero S, Ren XP. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2017 Aug;23(8):680-685).

I think these are reliable sources, I am reverting the delete edit and adding the NCBI links I found. Moscowdreams (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sociology research paper on head transplants
Here is some information which can be added to the article.

Moscowdreams (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Head transplant


text:
Talk:The Nation – Irish newspaper

Just in case anyone does try, don't change the spelling on John Mitchel. He DID spell his surname with one 'l' not two, which is the more usual spelling.

This text was created under a different article name The Nation (Irish newspaper). I put a redirect there and placed the text here. Perhaps someone who knows something of the subject can merge it? -- Viajero 11:17, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * The Nation was an Irish nationalist newspaper. Its editor was John Joseph Clancy, the Nationalist MP for North Dublin from 1885 to 1918.

I've moved the article to The Nation (Irish newspaper) which is the standard method of disambigulation. FearÉIREANN 18:15, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Nation – Irish newspaper


text:
Free sale, fixity of tenure, and fair rent

Free sale, fixity of tenure, and fair rent, also known as the Three Fs, were a set of demands first issued by the Tenant Right League in their campaign for land reform in Ireland from the 1850s. They were,

 * Free sale—meaning a tenant could sell the interest in his holding to an incoming tenant without landlord interference;
 * Fixity of tenure—meaning that a tenant could not be evicted if he had paid the rent;
 * Fair rent—meaning rent control: for the first time in the United Kingdom, fair rent would be decided by land courts, and not by the landlords.

Many historians argue that their absence contributed severely to the Great Irish Famine (1846–49), as it allowed the mass eviction of starving tenants. The Three Fs were campaigned for by a number of political movements, notably the Independent Irish Party (1852–1858) and later the Irish Parliamentary Party during the Land War (from 1878). They were conceded by the British Government in a series of Irish Land Acts enacted from the 1870s on, with essentially full implementation in the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881.


text:
Talk:Nikita Khrushchev

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikita Khrushchev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111231050039/http://www1.media.american.edu/speeches/Kennedy.htm to http://www1.media.american.edu/speeches/Kennedy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page archived
Into Archive 2 specifically. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Memoirs genuine?
''Khrushchev signed a statement that he had not given the materials to any publisher... Upon publication of the memoirs in the West, Izvestia denounced them as a fraud.''
 * Any updated verdict on whether these extensive memoirs were genuine? Valetude (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Вручение орденов ЦИК СССР.jpg

Khrushchev and Stalin's purges
Russian and English versions of this article directly contradict each other regarding Khrushchev's involvement in the purges. The only English article's source that I was able to find was this 2003 book. It is said to be based on historical archives and documentation. However, Russian Wikipedia clearly states that, В подписанном Ежовым Приказе НКВД от 30.7.1937 № 00447, фамилия Хрущёва среди входящих в состав тройки по Москве отсутствует. Никакие «расстрельные» документы за подписью Хрущёва в составе «троек» до сих пор в архивах не обнаружены. В своих мемуарах Владимир Семичастный высказал догадку, что по распоряжению Хрущёва органы госбезопасности (во главе с верным тому как действующему Первому секретарю председателем КГБ Иваном Серовым) проводили чистку архивов от компрометирующих Хрущёва документов, однако оговорился, что это лишь его предположение, не подкреплённое фактами[16]. Is there any kind of explanation for such contradictions? (Russian page link) FractalN (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What sources does the Russian Wikipedia give? There is a section in this article, "Involvement in purges" that says that Khrushchev was required to approve the purges.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, all citations in this article's section about purges lead to the aforementioned 2003 book, which claims historical documents from that period of USSR history as a source. But Russian Wikipedia claims there are no known papers in the archives which show any affiliation between Khrushchev and the purges, for example no convictions with his signature, no testimonies or anything, no NKVD paper that mentions him in any way. Only hypotheses and speculations, no direct evidence. He was assigned to a Troika in 1937 only to be replaced within 20 days (source), and based on the absence of any evidence he didn't take any part in its work process for that time.FractalN (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We can certainly add that and omit that from the lede. What is a good source for saying that he had no involvement?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * lede?FractalN (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where you put the citation needed tag.
 * He could be involved, but Russian Wikipedia's point is that it's only a speculation. There are many official NKVD papers about arrests, convictions etc. left in the archives, and not a single one says that Nikita Khrushchev was taking part in the process. This article, on the contrary, claims that his involvement is an established, verified historical fact, with the book mentioned previously in this discussion as the single source. I don't know what sources this book relies on, but it contradicts the Russian article.FractalN (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to get at, is, is there a source that the Russian Wikipedia relies on, that says there is no proof that Khrushchev was involved. Because we do rely on that 2003 book and I'm looking for a source to contradict it. We can't cite the Russian Wikipedia, we need the source they were relying on when they said it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's simple, it just doesn't meet the Wikipedia|Reliable Source criteria, a 2003 book someone wrote alleging someone was involved in something as serious as murder just CANNOT be quoted without citation to a fairly reliable sources, numerous ones at that actually since it's a biography and we're jurors in his criminal case here, just not in a court but for history, so give it the same weight, would you convict him, let anyone clicking his name see he was involved in mass murder with this russian 2003 book alleging to have an unexisting source? It'd be bad policy for Wikipedia to start doing that! I am sure there's a book/article somewhere convicting me of purging too! Refrain mentioning capital mass murder in anyone's biography until you have a source to cite, that'd be a good idea!Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A paragraph praising Beria
This edit tells: "Beria launched a lengthy series of reforms which rivalled those of Khrushchev during his period of power and even those of Mikhail Gorbachev a third of a century later.". This nonsense is written in WP voice. I doubt this appears in the cited source. Any link? And even if it does appear, this is only a personal view by author (needs an attribution); there are different views that can be cited. "One proposal, which was adopted, was an amnesty which eventually led to the freeing of over a million prisoners". Yes, he did release the prisoners, but only criminal convicts, this should be made clear, even if we keep the paragraph. What had actually happen is much better described in this section of page about Beria. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this should be reworded.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The text in Taubman is as follows:

"(page 245)With power and authority distributed for the time being, new domestic and foreign policies followed. All leaders formally approved the changes (and some probably even believed in them), but Beria, even more than Malenkov, was the prime mover. Beria was not a closet liberal; he played the role of reformer just because he was drenched in blood. The way to improve his reputation and taint that of others was to incriminate Stalin, whose orders all of them had carried out. As police chief, Beria knew how bad the Soviet situation really was. Unparalleled in his cyni- cism, he didn't let ideology stand in his way. Had he prevailed, he would almost certainly have exterminated his colleagues, if only to prevent them from liquidating him. In the meantime, however, his burst of reforms rivaled Khrushchev's and in some ways even Gorbachev's thirty five years later.37 . (246)On the day of Stalin's funeral, which also happened to be Molotov's birthday, Beria personally delivered Polina Zhemchuzhina from a labor camp to her husband, doubtless with an eye on a future alliance with the foreign minister.38 Between March 10 and 13 he ordered state security groups to reexamine falsified cases, including the doctors' plot, and to report their findings "to me." On March 17 he proposed transferring a large part of the MVD's industrial and construction empire to ordinary economic ministries, and three days later he suggested halting construction projects carried out with forced labor. On March 26 he informed the Presidium that 2,526,401 political and nonpolitical prisoners (including 438,788 women, 35,505 of them with children and 62,886 pregnant) were then in prisons and labor camps; lamented that imprisonment "placed the condemned, their relatives, and others close to them in an extremely difficult situation that often destroyed their families and negatively affected the rest of their lives"; and proposed a mass amnesty that eventually released 1,181,264 nonpoliticals serving terms of five years or less. On March 28 Beria urged transferring corrective labor camps from the MVD to the Ministry of Justice. On April 2 he informed Malenkov that the famous Jewish actor Solomon Mikhoels had been murdered in 1948 on Stalin's orders. Two days later Beria announced publicly that the doctors' plot case had been fabricated. The same day he ordered an end to "cruel beatings of those arrested, round-the-clock handcuffing with arms behind their backs which sometimes lasted several months, long periods of sleep deprivation, leaving prisoners naked in isolation cells, etc."3" Several days after the imprisoned doctors were released, Central Committee members were invited to examine case documents. According to Simonov, who spent three or four long sessions scrutinizing them, they established Stalin's personal involvement, including his demand that prisoners be tortured to extract confessions. The fact that the documents came from the MVD suggested that it was Beria's personal idea to display them.40 The Georgian Mikhail Chiaureli's sycophantic films about Stalin had earned him a role as the dictator's drinking companion. Since Beria had been part of the same company, the filmmaker naturally showed Beria a scenario glorifying his former master. "Forget about that son of a bitch!" Reria swore as he flung down the manuscript. "Stalin was a scoundrel, a savage, a tyrant! He held us all in fear, the bloodsucker. And the people too. That's where all his power came from. Fortunately we're now rid of him. Let the snake rot in hell!"41"

Sorry about any typos, I'm copying and pasting from a pdf of Taubman's book. There's more about what Beria did on the following pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, and this is probably an excellent book! All of that can obviously be used, but the source actually tells that "Beria was not a closet liberal; he played the role of reformer just because he was drenched in blood." This is true, and very different from saying, as a matter of fact, that he "launched a lengthy series of reforms which rivalled those of Khrushchev during his period of power and even those of Mikhail Gorbachev". In fact, he did not launched any actual reforms, but just "played the role", freed a large number of prisoners (mostly "non-politicals"), condemned Stain in a few personal conversations (of course, because Stalin was going to execute him and some others), made a few actions to dismantle cases started by Stalin to dismiss him personally, like the Doctor's Plot, etc. as the source tells. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Even before Stalin had been laid to rest, Beria launched..." This is also misleading. Not before, according to the quotation above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've toned it down somewhat.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Beria did what has been described on page 246 of your source and we could include it. However, those are obviously not "reforms rivaled Khrushchev's and in some ways even Gorbachev's thirty five years later". Why should we place such extraordinary personal opinion instead of simply saying or summarizing what he actually did? My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is supported by a footnote in the book.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which exactly "reforms" did he do? Those described above (your citation)? Yes, they can be noted, but I wonder how they could be summarized as anything rivaled Gorbachev's reforms. Not everything published somewhere should be cited. We need to understand the subject and summarize what multiple RS say on the subject accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What about if we were to leave Khrushchev and skip Gorbachev? Would that satisfy you?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with me. This is about properly describing well known facts on the page. For example, Khrushev made his famous public (for members of CPSU) speech about at least some of the crimes by Stalin, i.e. On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences. Did Beria do anything even remotely similar? No. He only said to someone privately "Stalin was a scoundrel, a savage, a tyrant! He held us all in fear, the bloodsucker." (as cited above). That can be noted, but it is something entirely different. Is it even a reform? No. Beria said: "Fortunately we're now rid of him.". Yes, this is great quotation. One can reasonably argue (as a number of sources say) that Beria played a great role in history by poisoning Stalin. But "reforms"? Yes, sure - those which were listed above. My very best wishes (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I can quickly fix it. We simply should not make any sweeping and questionable claims like that Beria was a great reformer when very next phrase contradicts such statement. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * this is better, but the whole page heavily relies on a single source, the book by Taubman. This is obviously a good scholarly source, but I think we should generally avoid citing personal opinions by the author (as was correctly acknowedged in your edit), and especially when they are disputable. For example, the release of a million of "non-political" criminals was viewed in many sources as not a reform at all, but an attempt to destabilize the situation by unleashing the wave of crime in the country, as actually happened. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably a good thing not to hold petty criminals in the gulag either. We don't quote much from Taubman, so it's not a huge problem, and during the parts of the article dealing with K's premiership, we do use more specialized sources as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK then. I realize that such citation makes this article more interesting. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad we could agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

POV trash
The Cold Warrior flavour of this "piece" is unmistakable. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:1C93:CAEE:755C:C6BC (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For or against the Russians?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Why remove "work"?
talk: Why remove "* Anatomy of terror by Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1965)"? - Aboudaqn (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't apparently a book by him, but an English translation of the Secret Speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * talk: Oh, an English translation, is it?  Thank you!  Now, why remove it, when it establishes at least one date when a translation of the secret speech became available in English...  Sounds reasonably important – important enough to leave on the page, yes?  Please restore - Aboudaqn (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually show a 1956 publication date for this, which is the date of the speech. And the year it was reprinted in The New York Times among other places. Not to mention non-English translations. I'm very dubious about this.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"Vladimir Khrushchev" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vladimir Khrushchev. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ryazan Miracle
Please, link the Ryazan miracle article. It's important milestone in Khruschev career which led him to fall from favor of his country's party and people. Thanks. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 18:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"during which millions of people were executed"
Per revision of my edit, I'm reading page 98 of Khrushchev: The Man and His Era, and I'm not seeing anything about millions executed and imprisoned. Can you cite the specific text in the book you're referring to, please? Stix1776 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The FAC version of the article, from 2009 doesn't appear to mention it, therefore someone added it along the line. I've removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible error
I guess in the fourth paragraph of the Early life section, it should be tank mines instead of ten mines. Mission Mao (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 * No, ten mines.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a wonderful article!
I thought I knew about Nikita Khrushchev but this article is a thorough overview of this man's incredible life. Thank you! Krok6kola (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

"However, he did not suffer the deadly fate of previous Soviet power struggles and was pensioned off with an apartment in Moscow and a dacha in the countryside."
This is from the lede, written in WP voice. How can this not be considered POV??? 142.198.135.33 (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What's POV about it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see the problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * NikitaNina.JPG

Effect of U-2 incident on his popularity
In the lede it says this: 'Khrushchev enjoyed strong support during the 1950s thanks to major victories like the Suez Crisis, the launching of Sputnik, the Syrian Crisis of 1957, and the 1960 U-2 incident.' However, in the article on the incident itself, we get this: 'According to American broadcast journalist Walter Cronkite, Khrushchev would go on to say that this incident was the beginning of his decline in power as party chairman, perhaps because he seemed unable to negotiate the international arena and the communist hardliners at home.'

So which is it? LastDodo (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"In 1962, a special summer school was established in Novosibirsk to prepare students for Siberian math and science Olympiad."
I found this sentence to be unclear and confusing, and believe it to have been miswritten. I do not have the relevant information to make an edit on my own, so I am hoping this is the proper place to point out such a thing. Apologies if this is not appropriate for this forum, I am new to using Wikipedia in this way and am still learning. Hyyacinthee (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I've added a "the", but apart from that I can't see anything wrong with it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

СталинИосифВиссарионович Ass;assinated!
interesting facts + march 05 ass;assination, Katyń facts

wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin_and_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=1217705053#External_links

en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Stalin&diff=2841289&oldid=2776394 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.224.22 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.44.117.9 (talk)

title: Talk:Nikita Khrushchev