text:
Burhou

Burhou (pronounced ber-ROO) is a small island about 1.4 mi northwest of Alderney that is part of the Channel Islands. It has no permanent residents, and is a bird sanctuary, so landing there is banned from March 15 to August 1. The island's wildlife includes a colony of puffins (declining in numbers) and many rabbits.

It has no landing stage as such, but visitors use a small inlet. In rough weather it may be impossible to land.

The Guernsey botanist E. D. Marquand called it, "the most desolate and lonely of all the islands in our archipelago." He once had to spend the night there, as his return journey was delayed by fog.

The 1906 book, The Channel Pilot states –

Between Ortac, Verte Tête and Burhou Island, are scattered many dangerous rocks, and ledges among which the streams run with great velocity.

Prehistory
Despite being isolated, and inhabited briefly and infrequently, Burhou has a long history. Formerly, like the rest of the English Channel, it would have been linked to both modern-day England and France by dry land many thousands of years ago.

Burhou, like many other Channel Islands (e.g. Lihou, Jethou), has the Norman suffix -hou, meaning a small island, from the Old Norse holmr. According to Dr. S.K. Kellet-Smith, "bur" refers to a storehouse – "Burhou is just the place where a fisherman would place a depository for his gear".

However, signs of human occupation/visitation are much older. Flint flakes have been found on the island, and one is currently in the Alderney Museum. In 1847, F. C. Lukis found two standing stones, but these have since been lost, according to the archaeologist David Johnston.

The hut
According to the Assize Roll of the 14th century, Burhou was a rabbit warren, and a refuge for fishermen. As Victor Coysh deduces, this would have meant that there would have been some kind of shelter there, as it would be difficult for the fishermen to take refuge without it.

A hut was built on the island in 1820 as a shelter for fishermen and sailors at the instigation of John Le Mesurier (hereditary governor of Alderney), but was destroyed during the German occupation of the Channel Islands (the Wehrmacht used it for target practice during WWII). The hut was replaced in 1953, with basic accommodation which is rented out to visitors by Alderney Harbour Office.

Attempts have been periodically made to raise sheep there. In 1900, a French couple lived there for a year. The soil is thin, and spray frequently goes right over the island, ensuring high soil salinity. The island has no fresh water supply for much of the year, and has to rely on shipments, or formerly tanks.

Flora and fauna
The island's animals are mainly birds, although rabbits are long established here. The island has many puffins and some storm petrels. Although the latter have declined, they used to nest in the cottage's storm loft. Roderick Dobson in Birds of the Channel Islands said that puffins had been plentiful for over a century. The Birds of Guernsey (1878) by Cecil Smith states likewise. The puffins have had to compete with gulls, and in 1949, hundreds died from red mite infestation. The rabbit holes on the island make good nesting for them.

Amongst the plants noted here are sea spurry, forget-me-nots, scarlet pimpernel, field bugloss, bracken and nettles. E. D. Marquand noted a mere 18 species of plant here in 1909, but by the late twentieth century, Frances Le Sueur and David McClintock found 45, which they wrote up in the Transactions of La Société Guernesiaise.

title: Burhou


text:
Fravia

Francesco Vianello (30 August 1952 – 3 May 2009), better known by his nickname Fravia (sometimes +Fravia or Fravia+), was a software reverse engineer,  who maintained a web archive of reverse engineering techniques and papers. He also worked on steganography. He taught on subjects such as data mining, anonymity and stalking.

Vianello spoke six languages (including Latin) and had a degree in the history of the early Middle Ages. He was an expert in linguistics-related informatics. For five years he made available a large quantity of material related to reverse engineering through his website, which also hosted the advice of reverse engineering experts, known as reversers, who provided tutorials and essays on how to hack software code as well as advice related to the assembly and disassembly of applications, and software protection reversing.

Vianello's web presence dates from 1995 when he first got involved in research related to reverse code engineering (RCE). In 2000 he changed his focus and concentrated on advanced internet search methods and the reverse engineering of search engine code.

His websites "www.fravia.com" and "www.searchlores.org" contained a large amount of specialised information related to data mining. His website "www.searchlores.org" has been called a "very useful instrument for searching the web", and his "www.fravia.com" site has been described as "required reading for any spy wanting to go beyond simple Google searches."

There are still several mirrors of Fravia's old websites, even though the original domain names are no longer functional. The last mirror of Search Lores linked originally by Fravia directly from his website ("search.lores.eu") went offline in February 2020, but a new mirror came to existence later in 2020 at fravia.net.

As Francesco Vianello
In the 1980s, he was a member of the Esteban Canal chess club in Venice, before moving to CES in Brussels.

Graduated in history at the University of Venice in 1994, Vianello had a master's degree in history and philosophy in 1999. He was interested in studying the arts and humanities and was aiming to build a collective knowledge on the particular subject of learning and Web-searching as an art.

He spoke six languages (including Latin). Fravia participated as a speaker in the 22nd Chaos Communication Congress. His lecture was on the subject of Hacking.

As Fravia
Vianello was focusing on privacy and created the myth of Fjalar Ravia (aka fravia+, msre, Spini, Red Avenger, ~S~ Sustrugiel, Pellet, Ravia F. ) as protection from hostile seekers.

At least two distinct phases of his internet public work can be identified.

 * The first, from 1995 (starting date of his internet presence) to 1999 was related to software reversing, software protection, decompiling, disassembling, and deep software code deconstruction. At those times the WDasm disassembler by Eric Grass, which also included a debugger, was a popular download.
 * The second, starting in 2000, where the first stage left off, was focused on an (apparently) entirely different field: Internet Knowledge search. In February 2001, Vianello made a conference at the École Polytechnique in Paris about "The art of information searching on today's Internet". He also presented his work "Wizard searching: reversing the commercial Web for fun and knowledge" at REcon 2005.

First Period: Reverse Engineering ("Reality Cracking")
In the first period Vianello focused on reverse-engineering software protection, content copyright, and software patents. The steps for cracking software protection were in many cases published on his website, in the form of essays and Old Red Cracker's lessons.

Vianello asked the community to remove from the web every copy of his old site (www.fravia.org – now a spam advertisement website), corresponding to this period, because "The idea was to convert young crackers [...] The experiment worked only in part, hence the decision a couple of years ago to freeze that site". Nevertheless, some mirrors still exist. The site has been described as containing "useful tools and products".

According to the 2001 ACM Multimedia Workshops of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vianello's website contained information which could assist hackers of a certain classification who were not skilled enough "to mount a new or novel attack". His website also analysed brute force attacks on steganography.

This period included papers related to reality-cracking, i.e. the capacity of the seeker to decode the hidden facts behind appearance.

Reverse engineering a legitimately bought program and studying or modifying its code for knowledge was claimed as legal by Vianello at least in the European Union under some restricted conditions.

Second Period: Web Searching ("Search Lores")
The transition between the two phases occurred after realizing the growing importance of Internet search engines as tools to access information. According to his vision, access to information should not be restricted, and he was advocating for a true openness of web information contents. He strongly criticized the large amount of advertising on the Internet, which he considered as promoting unnecessary products to a population of naive consumers.

Richard Stallman, in his web article "Ubuntu Spyware: What to do?", mentions that it was Vianello who alerted him to the fact that performing a file search on a computer running Microsoft Windows would cause it to send a network packet to an Internet server, which was then detected by the firewall in Vianello's computer.

In the second stage of his work, Vianello explained how the content is currently structured on the World Wide Web and the difficulties of finding relevant information through search engines because of the growing number of ads, that search engines promote today.

In 2005, Vianello was the keynote speaker at the T2 infosec conference. The subject of his speech was: "The Web – Bottomless Cornucopia and Immense Garbage Dump".

+HCU
Vianello was a member of the so-called High Cracking University (+HCU), founded by Old Red Cracker to advance research into Reverse Code Engineering (RCE). The addition of the "+" sign in front of the nickname of a reverser signified membership in the +HCU.

+HCU published a new reverse engineering problem annually and a small number of respondents with the best replies qualified for an undergraduate position at the "university". Vianello's website was known as "+Fravia's Pages of Reverse Engineering" and he used it to challenge programmers as well as the wider society to "reverse engineer" the "brainwashing of a corrupt and rampant materialism". In its heyday, his website received millions of visitors per year and its influence was described as "widespread".

Nowadays most of the graduates of +HCU have migrated to Linux and few have remained as Windows reversers. The information at the university has been rediscovered by a new generation of researchers and practitioners of RCE who have started new research projects in the field.

Legacy
Vianello has been described as an inspiration for many hackers and reversers, a friend of the founder of the CCC Wau Holland, and a motivation for Jon Lech Johansen to understand the inner workings of computer programs. Johansen commented in a blog post that Fravia's site was a goldmine during his education as a reverse engineer. In his later years, he moved from software reversing to free software and searching the web further. His website has been described as the meeting point of the people who wanted to search the web deeper still.

In September 2008, Vianello stopped updating his site and holding conferences, after being diagnosed with and receiving treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil, which metastasized. His site was frozen for several months but was updated again on 9 March 2009 while he was slowly recovering and focusing on Linux. He died suddenly on Sunday, 3 May 2009 at the age of 56.

Published works

 * Francesco Vianello, Gli Unruochingi e la famiglia di Beggo conte di Parigi. (ricerche sull'alta aristocrazia carolingia) // Bollettino dell'Istituto storico italiano per il Medioevo 91 (1984).
 * Francesco Vianello, Università di Padova, I mercanti di Chiavenna in età moderna visti dalla Terraferma veneta.
 * Francesco Vianello, (4.27 MB)
 * Fravia (ed.) Annotation and exegesis of Origo Gentis Langobardorum.

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

title: Fravia


text:
User:JWSchmidt

"Openness and inclusiveness are ..... our radical means to our radical ends." ''' (source)'''

Welcome to User:JWSchmidt! Feel free to edit this page, but since it is my user page, I get the last word. If you just want to leave me a message use my user talk page.

What Wikipedia means to me
I often wonder what it is like for most people who try to learn MediaWiki markup. One day I watched a new editor spend several minutes and many edits trying to create a new external link. I finally stepped in and did it. I'm not sure that most web surfers find it easy to become Wikipedians. Wikipedia naturally selects for certain types of people and that means as a group Wikipedia editors have biases.

When I think about the youngest Wikipedia users, I feel like they and I are from different universes. Some Wikipedians seem to have little interest in making an encyclopedia; they seem to view Wikipedia as a MMORPG (for example, see: Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-02/Experanza). I hate to imagine what might have happened had I been exposed to Wikipedia at a young age.

Wikipedia user JWSchmidt has been around the sun more than 45 times. That means that I am old enough to have lived through the whole personal computer age. I became interested in computers by reading science fiction such as that of Isaac Asimov. The first electronic computer I ever used was a Wang that had no CRT. Still, I was able to imagine a day when computers would change the world, including the way people learn about the world we find ourselves in. In less than 30 years I've gone from wishing to be able to get my hands on a computer with a CRT monitor to currently hoping that I never have to buy another CRT for a computer. Some computer technology like CRT monitors come, have their day in the sun and then fade away. The 3½-inch microfloppy diskette is another example.  What kind of technology is wiki?  I learned chemistry in the age of the slide rule. The first computer program I ever wrote got stored on a cassette tape. And just to not keep you in suspense, I only had to walk 1 mile through the snow to get to school. I learned to do serious programming on an IBM 360 time sharing system and fell in love with the mathematically oriented APL programming language. The first computer I used for word processing was a NorthStar; absolutely not WYSIWYG! While I cursed the arcane markup code that I had to use on the NorthStar, little did I know that I was getting training for future technologies like MediaWiki.

The first computer I ever bought was a Macintosh Plus which provided my entry into the age of the Graphical User Interface. The first computer I ever connected to the internet was a Macintosh IIcx. As a scientist, access to the internet was as much of a relief as had been graduating from the command line to GUI. Today, we take for granted online resources such as those provided by the United States National Library of Medicine (see Entrez PubMed), but when I started using Entrez it was a gene sequence database that came by snail mail on CD-ROMs. When the internet boom started I quickly learned to use the World Wide Web and HTML, but I also soon discovered the limitations of conventional websites, particularly the constraints imposed on collaboration by the convention that few people are permitted to edit most webpages. Lucky for us all, these sorts of frustrations led to new software technology that allows for a distributed group of online editors to collaborate on the creation of webpages. Wiki technology is not something that will pass from use in one or two decades. I do expect dramatic evolution of wiki technology, but the basic power of distributed online group editing is no flash in the pan. ''' It will be interesting to watch the transformations of human society that are produced by wiki technology. ''' It was by way of Wikipedia that I first learned about wiki as a technology that allows open access to webpages for multiple editors. I've been trying to grow my concepts so as to understand how to build communities in wiki user spaces. Wikipedia grew out of Nupedia, a frustrated effort to make an encyclopedia using conventional ("first generation") online tools for document construction and peer-review. The main problem with Nupdia was low throughput. Wikipedia used wiki technology to create a community where it was fun for volunteers to supply input and now there is a flood of content. Now we are in the process of harnessing that input and trying to move towards systems that will allow careful citation of sources and the production of higher quality articles. Towards that end, Wikipedia continues to evolve and to spin-off sister projects. I am very much concerned with how to promote higher quality in Wikipedia articles, and I am interested in the idea that a Wikiversity project could help.

I worry about the fact that WikiMedia projects are trying to provide to the world for free what many companies are trying to sell (see: "The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource" by Richard Stallman) and, in some cases, what some powerful individuals and organizations would like to hide. How many people come to edit WikiMedia projects like Wikipedia just for the purpose of trying to disrupt them and prevent them from competing with commercial websites? How many editors are here in order to push a particular agenda? How many technical articles are edited by well-meaning students (and other amateurs) and how can Wikipedia involve experts in the editing process when existing errors are so off-putting?

I support the philosophy of "gently nudging participants in the direction of more appropriate behavior". Sometimes I feel that while I have been busy "gently nudging", I have been trampled by a stampede. I worry that some Wikipedians I respect have left Wikipedia because of this continuing problem. If we view Wikipedia as an experiment, we have to accept the possibility that it contains the seeds of its own ultimate failure. It is possible that Wikipedia will be remembered as an example of how not to run a wiki.....is it possible that the best we can hope for is that other wikis will learn from the failings of Wikipedia and do better? Jimmy Wales said, "I think we should run small experiments, tests, see what works, what doesn't, and be prepared to be flexible and change, and not be too locked into stone about how things should work." I wonder if this can be applied to Wikipedia? Has Wikipedia become an institution that is not able to examine its own problems and fix them? Does this force those Wikipedians who want to fix things to abandon the project?

Of course, our problems could be even worse than just being unable to improve; the project could attract so many POV pushers that they will take control. In my view Attribution as a replacement for Verifiability is an example of a downward trend. This policy change was supported by POV pushers who love to cite unverifiable sources such as propaganda web sites and include unverifiable content in Wikipedia because they can attribute it to a source. These people display a concept of "reliable source" that amounts to "it supports my point of view". These folks seem to live on Wikipedia and behave like paid propagandists citing their own websites in order to spread their propaganda on Wikipedia. At one time, there were good examples of reliable and unreliable sources at Reliable sources. That has been eliminated now so that mostly bland generalities remain that deter nobody from citing sources that are unreliable because they cannot be verified. It will be interesting to see the response to Jimbo's objection. The policy "wonks" who have nothing better to do have taken policy merging to the logical extreme (see: Overlapping policies and guidelines). "Proposals" to merge policies can now be routinely made without there actually being a proposal explaining the benefits. "I have nothing useful to do today so I'll merge some policy pages".

Dear JWSchmidt,
"We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level."Kind Regards,The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters ''' We are in for a wild wiki ride and I am glad to be here for it. -John Schmidt '''

Wikipedia projects I support
See the guide to WikiProjects. "let's leave our political fights at the door to the greatest extent that we can" --Jimbo in the WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 30, Issue 96, January 10, 2006.
 * Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject - improvement of molecular and cell biology articles at Wikipedia.
 * Cell Signaling WikiProject - example: Cell signaling
 * Neuroscience WikiProject - example: Action potential
 * Science pearls WikiProject - see: Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids
 * History of Biology WikiProject - Monera, Carl Sagan, Francis Crick, Eric R. Kandel
 * Wikipedia podcasting project - see also: Introduction to GarageBand
 * Should work closely with Wikiversity:
 * Community WikiProject
 * Fact and Reference Check WikiProject
 * Wikicite WikiProject - see Footnotes and Harvard referencing
 * LiquidThreads - will be useful for Wikiversity - Wikicite.
 * Science collaboration of the week - example: RuBisCO
 * Scientology WikiProject - I have a general interest in pseudoscience and New Age religions (see). Further, I think that the scientology-related articles provide a good example of one of the serious problems facing Wikipedia. It is instructive to look at the earliest versions of the scientology article, the earliest edits of the original version of the article (such as this), and how the scientology-related articles have evolved during the past five years. I would love to obtain some information about how the original version of the Wikipedia scientology article was produced.....I'm guessing it may have originated in nupedia. In any case, it was a fairly scholarly and NPOV article and it is sad to see how the article went down hill when it came under the influence of Wikipedians. It is clear that from its earliest moments scientology came under attack by an army of determined opponents. Some open questions to ponder: which is the more interesting phenomenon, scientology or anti-scientology? Will it ever be possible for Wikipedia to produce scholarly and NPOV articles about topics such as scientology or is Wikipedia perpetually doomed to suffer from its editors' biases?
 * End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage June 2009

Examples of places I work
"Wikipedia is not a place to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientation, neither is it the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view." -(source, origin)
 * My Image:Three cell growth types.png illustration got listed as a Featured picture candidate by Finlay McWalter.
 * Carl Sagan - the featured article where I first learned to add Footnotes to Wikipedia articles.
 * Helicobacter pylori - It is nice to have articles like this ready for the day when the Nobel Prize is announced.
 * I watch for vandalism to biology-related articles, particularly subtle vandalism. my request for adminship

Other Wiki projects

 * My Meta-wiki user page - About.
 * My Wikiversity user page - History and visions
 * My Wikibooks user page
 * My Wikinews user page - Interview with Jimbo Wales
 * My Wiktionary user page.
 * My Wikiquote user page.
 * My Wikispecies user page - Placentalia.
 * My Wikimania 2006 user page.
 * My Wikicities user page.

Pending changes
Reviewing | Pending changes/Queue | Special:OldReviewedPages | Special:StablePages | (IRC #wikipedia-en-pending) |
 * What is pending changes? What does it do?

"Pending changes protection" can ensure the most recent changes to a troubled page are not displayed to the wider (non-editing) readership until checked by a more experienced user for obvious vandalism and similar clear issues (although they can see it if they choose). It only affects pending changes and only by holding them back from wider non-editor viewing until checked (can someone check this for full "pending changes protection"?). It doesn't affect logged in users. All autoconfirmed users are automatically reviewed except in some rare cases. Reviewer rights, the ability to review other users' edits, are expected to be widely handed out and require roughly the same trust as rollback.

It is useful for persistent vandalism, BLP tabloid news, and other inappropriate edits that cannot easily be prevented from some exposure using existing tools, and on high sensitivity articles and issues. It can be applied to prevent IP/non-autoconfirmed editing or editing by all users (except admins) the same as semi- and full- page protection.

 * What is the purpose of the trial?

One aim of the trial is to test in practice that the delay can be kept short and see what impact it has and how it works in practice.

 * When would it be appropriate to use it?

See the page protection policy section. Its primary targets are pages with "hard to address" vandalism and inappropriate editing, such as very variable IP vandalism, breaking news with high visibility/high vandalism risk issues, BLPs with persistent rumors or internet gossip, or other activity that has usually needed permanent protection. Pending changes should be used during the trial for pages that have a clear requirement that edits need checking before being readable by the wider world, and when normal existing tools cannot resolve the problem, or where the disruption to good faith editing would be severe. In terms of policy, use of pending changes protection level 1 is subject to the same conditions as semi protection, and use of pending changes protection level 2 to the same conditions as full protection.

Examples include
 * Persistent ongoing vandalism that cannot be prevented by usual means without much disruption
 * Repeated insertions of BLP violation/internet gossip/tabloid news/urban myth insertions, etc
 * Edit warring by large groups that cannot be controlled by usual sanctions
 * High profile articles with a high risk of inappropriate editing (requiring both editing and an absence of vandalism), especially those on permanent, long term, or very repeated protection.

The trial only allows 2000 pages - use judiciously.

 * How does the tool impact editors and readers?

See the help page. Editors (logged in) are not affected at all. Non-editor readers are not affected except on "pending changes protected" pages, where they see the latest version that is marked as vandalism/abuse free. In effect "anyone can still edit", but "pending changes protected" pages have a delay before non-editors see the latest versions.

No material is hidden and non-editors can still see the latest revisions (if any) at the click of a tab. The trial is starting slowly in order to test whether we can in fact do this without significant delay.

 * How are reviewer rights obtained and removed?

See the help page. Database reports will be used to automatically generate lists of users likely experienced enough and they will be granted the rights. Administrators can grant the rights, in the same way as rollback (which has a very similar trust level). There's also a page to individually request the right linked from there.

 * What is the policy?

The policy on usage has been largely incorporated into page protection policy and processes.

That's because of a pragmatic point about time (trial rolls out in a few days). More specifically, the reviewing aspect is different but the scope, usage and requests (ie WP:RFPP aspects) are likely to be nearly identical to semi-protection and can usefully go on the same page. It keeps it simple to have all forms of page protection and their requests in one place, and describe it as "pending changes protection" (which is intuitive and fits existing wordings), even if they are in fact 2 tools. Also treating it as "another form of protection" means we don't need to copypaste 2/3 of all PP and RFPP pages, guides and processes, we can just update those pages to include mention and coverage of this new method, and it's a lot less change and disruption, and much more likely to fit into "what people already know".

In other words, current protection policy and requests are close enough to be adopted for a lot of it, and doing so brings this immediately into the "realms of the familiar" for anyone who uses protection already, rather than making entire new processes and pages.

Other aspects of the policy such as granting of rights etc and guidance are still at Help:Pending changes and Help:Pending changes review process. The main page Pending changes ("WP:PEND") is outdated and until rewritten, best ignored for a day or two.

 * How are requests for "pending changes protection/unprotection" made for a page?

See Requests for page protection. Ie, in the same way as other forms of protection, or by any administrator. A time limit can be defined, as for all other forms of protection.

Key information:
 * Help:Pending changes (and related Help:Pending changes review process · Request rights)
 * Protection policy has a section on "Pending changes protection" now (section link) covering usage policy.
 * Requests for page protection is being updated to reference requests for pending changes protection and its removal.
 * Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages
 * June 18 - 92 pages

To do:
 * Mark pages referencing other proposals, possible implementations etc as "historical"
 * Create necessary templates similar to semi-protection
 * Check if "reviewer" and "autoreviewer" need distinguishing anywhere
 * Inform users if needed (non-editor readers will probably rely on templates as for existing protection)(source)

 * Be the perfect model of a modern Wikipedian

title: User:JWSchmidt


text:
User:Adrian Bendall-Charles

Adrian Bendall-Charles can be contacted at adriancharles@NOSPAMhotbrands.NOSPAM

title: User:Adrian Bendall-Charles


text:
Talk:Tifinagh

Pronunciation of "tifinagh"
Can one of you gents please stop criticizing the other just long enough to post the pronunciation for the word "tifinagh"?

Thanks!

 * In IPA it would be rendered . — mark ✎ 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, don't you mean or maybe ? Or am I forgetting some Tuareg phonological rule? - Mustafaa 22:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you may be right — I might be taking into account some Dutch phonological rule :P. I was merely IPA'ing Maarten Kossmann's usual pronunciation of the word. — mark ✎ 19:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * is correct. Berber scholars and transliterators commonly use gamma "γ" for the voiced uvular fricative. --Thnidu (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't the transcription broad (phonemic) and shouldn't it therefore be between slashes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because a phonemic transcription is meaningful only within the phonology of a particular language or dialect; "broad" ≠ "phonemic". See Phonetic transcription, especially Narrow versus broad transcription.
 * "Phonology is viewed as the subfield of linguistics that deals with the sound systems of languages. It should be carefully distinguished from phonetics. Whereas phonetics concerns the physical production, acoustic transmission and perception of the sounds of speech,[1][3] phonology describes the way sounds function within a given language or across languages to encode meaning." -- Phonology
 * We have a relevant example just above in the interchange between Mustafaa and mark: mark inappropriately applied a final-devoicing rule from Dutch phonology to a Berber pronunciation, where that rule does not apply.
 * One purpose of phonetic transcription is to convey a pronunciation in one language to speakers of other languages, who are not familiar with the phonology of the source language. That, I take it, is the purpose of providing these pronunciations. --Thnidu (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

translation please....

 * , |, then 3 dots one below the other, Ο, then 2 dots one below the other, again, 2 dots one below the other, OR is it 4 dots in a square?, a circle like Ο with a dot in the center.

I've been told it means: Nothing but the truth or something akin.

Thank you 66.177.206.71 18:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Unicode font???
how do i activate tifinag unicode font for windows??? --82.101.190.162 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)--82.101.190.162 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, you have to install a font that supports the Tifinagh range. This list is from a report I'm currently writing:
 * DejaVu (recommended)
 * Code2000
 * Hapax Berbère
 * MPH 2B Damase
 * (Fixedsys Excelsior: not recommended because ornamental and difficult to read)
 * --Thnidu (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

majority
Do you have poll data indicating that a majority of Amazigh activists support Latin? And why is the use of Latin relevant here, in an article on Tifinagh (not on Berber writing systems in general), anyway?

For good examples of the use of Arabic script by Amazigh activists, check out the excellent http://www.tawalt.com. There are quite a few Moroccan Tamazight books published in Arabic, including a translation of the Qur'an (almost entirely devoid of Arabic words), poetry, and short stories. Dismissing it as "supported by Arab nationalists" is simply not accurate. - Mustafaa 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Hello Mustafaa,
 * Tawalt is a Lybian website and association, not a Moroccan one.
 * The usage of the Arabic script is for the Arabic articles, the headings of the sections are in Tamazight side by side with the Tifinagh script in many pages, feel free to contact them to know the reasons of their choice.
 * The translations you are referring to are old Manuscripts done by religious sides, and I disagree that "dismissing it as "supported by Arab nationalists" is simply not accurate". As a matter of fact it is one last resort for Arab nationalists who still refuse to acknowledge Amazigh cultural rights.
 * Regards
 * E3 (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Selected opinions and avoiding other ones
About the origin of the Tifinagh, the scholars would suggest many opinions. however, the article referred to a one opionion considering it a descendant of a Phoenician script, and given an interpretation of the name (tifinagh) as an undesputed or widely accepted interpretation, while the other opinions were reffered to a french speaking articles followed by a embedded HTML comment asking for not repeating the discussion on the page. and. >No need to repeat that discussion here< Ehhmmm some are authorized by a supernatural power to select the right opionion behind their PC's. I ask god to give me such blessings! Please God.Read3r 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Berber Scouting
Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Tifinagh? Thanks! Chris 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 * See reply. --Thnidu (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken link
Does somebody know of a working copy for reference 5 (prohibited to use in Libya)? smurfix (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

MPH 2B Damase
This font works for nothing. It affects the GulimChe font I installed for Korean and will turn the Korean font into squares. If I de-install it, the Korean script comes back and reads just fine. Any other font?Kanzler31 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Direction of script in Neo-Tifnagh
Should it not be essential in an entry on a script to state which direction it is written in? We read about old Tifnagh, but you have to cross reference the symbols on the picture of the town name to work this out for Neo-Tifnagh! - 13:46, 2 February 2011 68.226.139.158
 * Left to right. Answer added in Tifinagh. --Thnidu (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Font
Does anyone know a font for the script? I tried several ones founded through the internet, but none works.--Antemister (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Deja Vu Sans shown above works fine. You have to download the Deja Vu font set. I use Chrome so if you do go to Chrome Advanced Settings Web Content Customise fonts and modify the Sans-Serif font setting, which defaults to Arial, to Deja Vu Condensed (which I prefer as closest to Arial). Berber then works perfectly. Sorry I dont know the requirements for other browsers.

Samrong01 (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Primitive"
In the Origins section the following sentence can be found: "The western variant was more primitive." This should either elaborate on why it's primitive, or be removed, because right now it tells you nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last edited by: (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tifinagh. 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/20070929163406/http://www.quiresiste.com/download/AmanarTTWindows.zip to http://www.quiresiste.com/download/AmanarTTWindows.zip

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 14:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving infoboxes to the top
I was wondering if it was appropriate to move the infoboxes for the writing systems to the top of the article, rather than further down and having an image as the header. This way, it would be more in tune with a typical article on writing systems.

I was also wondering which one to have as the lead. I was thinking of having Neo-Tifinagh at the top, since it's the one in current use, and the rest would be Tifinagh and finally Libyco-Berber. Would this be alright? TangoFett (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Unknown date
Did the second era of Tifinagh really start in the 3rd century ce or the date is just unknown? I said for Tuareg Tifinagh that it existed since the 3rd century ce. --47.150.72.56 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tifinagh. 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/20080503140413/http://www.tawiza.nl/content/awid.php?id=465&sid=2&andra=artikel to http://www.tawiza.nl/content/awid.php?id=465&sid=2&andra=artikel
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ircam.ma/fr/index.php?soc=publi
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ircam.ma/amz/index.php?soc=publi
 * Added tag to http://blip.tv/play/AYK4hyEC
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ircam.ma/fr/index.php?soc=telec&rd=3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.quiresiste.com/download/AmanarTTWindows.zip

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) 09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Libyco-Berber inscription from a mausoleum at Dougga or TBGG in Tunisia, the first Libyco-Berber inscription to come to the attention of Western scholars in 1631.jpg
 * Libyco-Berber inscriptions in Dougga TBGG, northern Tunisia, discovered in 1902.png
 * Text of Libyco-Berber inscriptions in Dougga TBGG, northern Tunisia, discovered in 1909.png

Writing "Tifinagh" in Tuareg Tifinagh and Neo-Tifinagh (recent changes)
@M.Bitton I personally prefer the recent version by @Petertshomela, since it seems cleaner to me. I like that it has the Tuareg Tifinagh and Neo-Tifinagh version exactly once in the lead, and all in one place. What do you think? Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Not sure what cleaner means in this context given that Tifinagh predates neo-Tifinagh (they are obviously different and the opening sentence explains this to the reader). Also, Petertshomela kept removing content without explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's my view of the edit (correct me if I'm missing something):
 * - In the current version, the Tuareg Tifinagh spelling (ⵜⴼⵏⵗ) is in the lead sentence, but the Neo-Tifinagh spelling (ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ) is in a later sentence. In Petertshomela's edit, the Neo-Tifinagh spelling is moved to be in the lead sentence, adjacent to the Tuareg Tifinagh spelling. This keeps the different ways to write "Tifinagh" in one place (in the lead sentence).
 * - The deleted sentence ("The name Tifinagh is stylized as Tifinaɣ in the Berber Latin alphabet, and in the Neo-Tifinagh alphabet it is written as ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ, while in the Tuareg people's traditional Tifinagh it is written as ⵜⴼⵏⵗ.") essentially only contains the Berber Latin / Neo-Tifinagh / Tuareg Tifinagh spellings of Tifinaɣ, ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ, and ⵜⴼⵏⵗ, all of which were present in the lead sentence with the edit ("Tifinagh (Neo-Tifinagh: ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ; Tuareg Berber language: ⵜⴼⵏⵗ, )"). So the sentence didn't have any content not already present in the page, and deleting it avoids repetition in the lead section.
 * Apologies if I worded this confusingly, I can try to re-word it if it's hard to parse. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In their edit, they put neo-Tifinagh before Tifinagh. I don't see why neo-Tifinagh shouldn't be mentioned later on; after all, the article is about Tifinagh, an alphabet that has been used by the Tuaregs for centuries. M.Bitton (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's about the order, how about:
 * "Tifinagh (Tuareg Berber language: ⵜⴼⵏⵗ, Neo-Tifinagh: ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ; Berber pronunciation: [tifinaɣ])"
 * for the lead sentence?
 * Otherwise, how about:
 * "Tifinagh ( Berber pronunciation: [tifinaɣ]) is a script used to write the Berber languages. Tifinagh is descended from the ancient Libyco-Berber alphabet.  The traditional Tifinagh, sometimes called Tuareg Tifinagh (Tuareg Berber language: ⵜⴼⵏⵗ), is still favored by the Tuareg Berbers of the Sahara desert in southern Algeria, northeastern Mali, northern Niger and northern Burkina Faso for use writing the Tuareg Berber language. Neo-Tifinagh (Neo-Tifinagh: ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ) is an alphabet developed by Berber Academy to adopt Tuareg Tifinagh for use with Kabyle; it has been since modified for use across North Africa."
 * to keep it consistent?
 * (I personally prefer the first one, but prefer either over the current version.) Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what's the issue with having Tifinagh (the subject and name of the article) mentioned first. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Both Tifinagh and Tuareg Tifinagh are mentioned before Neo-Tifinagh in these edits, or am I misunderstanding?
 * As for the format, my comparison would be to the Chinese characters page; traditional characters came first, and have been in use for thousands of years. Simplified characters are basically a modern invention (used starting in the 1950s). The lead sentence of the page is:
 * "Chinese characters (traditional Chinese: 漢字; simplified Chinese: 汉字; pinyin: hànzì; Wade–Giles: han4 tzŭ4; Jyutping: hon3 zi6; lit. 'Han characters') are logograms developed for the writing of Chinese."
 * It's just listing all the common ways to write "Chinese characters" (the subject) in Chinese characters in one place at the start. To me that's the same thing as the proposed edit for this page: it's just listing all the major ways to write "Tifinagh" (the subject) in Tifinagh in one place at the start. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, I guess either suggestion would do. M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool! Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did explain why I moved "Neo-Tifinagh" and it's characters to the lead line. That's the way it is everywhere else on similar Wikipedia pages or sections related to place-names. And the excuse of "[Tuareg] Tifinagh" is older is useless, therefore it should be isolated or placed first is useless; in cases where there are multiple scripts and/or names, the arrangement is based on NUMBER OF SPEAKERS/USERS. So @Blueshiftofdeath we also need to address the issue of arrangement. Petertshomela (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not delete it altogether while you're at it? As for the "number of speakers", that should be easy since unlike the Tuareg languages (Tamasheq, Tamahaq, etc), nobody speaks Tamazight (not even the people who invented the artificial language). M.Bitton (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's a Wikipedia standard for the order-- I actually could only find the Chinese characters page as an example to go off of.
 * For Chinese, my guess would be that there's currently far more users of simplified Chinese, since it's the official script in mainland China which has a population of 1.4 billion. But it's still listed second... I personally think that makes sense because it's a recent derivative based on the (still widely used) traditional Chinese. By the same logic I like having Neo-Tifinagh second, since it's the derivative of Tuareg Tifinagh, which is still in use after an uninterrupted history from the original Libyan script.
 * If either of you @Petertshomela @M.Bitton have examples of other similar pages that imply we should use a different order, it could be useful to list that here. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The majority of Berbers do not belong to the Tamasheq-speaking (sub-)groups, nor is there any indication that the majority of the literature in or usage of [Neo-]Tifinagh is from these groups. These are facts. Additionally, the claim that "nobody speaks Tamazight (not even the people who invented the artificial language [whatever the "artificial language" in question is meant to be])" is simply false and ridiculous. You seem to have a predisposition to bias towards the Tuaregs, which explains your rude tone. As much as it is true that the Tuaregs' Tifinagh is the oldest, they are not the originators nor are they the only ones with connection to the script as it stands, nor is Tamazight (?) an "invented artificial language".
 * Secondly, @Blueshiftofdeath there is no standard for the order. I noted M.Bitton said he was going by the Chinese Characters page (the only example I could also find); however, I was going by such pages as Souss-Massa, Agadir, Rif, and basically every other page similar to them, which base the languages and/or scripts for the names based on the dominant language concerning it (even if the pages themselves aren't related to scripts because, again, there is no standard). Though, I will note that I don't mind things as they stand even though I don't see how it can be preferable (again, Neo-Tifinagh is more widely used and prevalent); I had two problems and the main (that "Neo-Tifinagh and "Tuareg Tifinagh" and their characters were not in the lead line as is always done elsewhere, despite meaning the same thing) has been solved. Petertshomela (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tifinagh


text:
Talk:Ebonics (word)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 9 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Portiamontoy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

These belong?
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/ebonics-translators-justice_n_692565.html www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7962667/Ebonics-translators-needed-by-DEA-to-interpret-drugs-wiretaps.html news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/24/dea-wants-to-hire-ebonics-translators/ www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/08/ebonics_official_language 166.205.138.184 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the word Ebonics is used, what is being referred to here is actually African American Vernacular English; the issue of whether this should be mentioned is currently being discussed at the talk page there and you're welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ebonics Subcategories
This is a place to discuss any aspect of Ebonics, African American English or the Oakland Board of Education controversy that concerns Ebonics, but may not necessarily be directly about the specific term or may be hard to fit into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EleanorPollo (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Well actually no it isn't; instead it's the place to discuss this particular article, and improvements to it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Using the vernacular to teach the standard"
In his article "Using the Vernacular to Teach the Standard", esteemed Stanford University linguist John R. Rickford cites three approaches to integrating children's vernacular into the educational environment, particularly in the arena of reading comprehension in standard American English. They are as follows:

 *  The Linguistically Informed Approach: This first approach is based on the guidelines set by William Labov resulting from decades of research on Ebonics or African American Vernacular English (AAVE). This approach requires that teachers be able to differentiate between errors in reading comprehension, and differences in pronunciation. It also suggests employing teaching techniques that take into account the grammatical structure of Ebonics, such as focusing on pronunciation of the ends of words, since Ebonics has a stronger modifying effect on the ends of words than it does the beginning of them.
 * Contrastive Analysis: The second approach involves drawing the student's attention to the structural differences between the standard and the vernacular. Rickford cites work done by Hanni Taylor of Aurora University who was confronted with a population of students who used features of Ebonics in their standard English writing. Dividing her students into two groups, a control group, and an experimental group, she taught the former using conventional methods, and the latter using Contrastive Analysis. To quote Rickford; "What she found after eleven weeks was that the kids who were using traditional techniques showed an 8.5 percent increase in their use of Ebonics speech in their writing while the kids who had benefited from Contrastive Analysis showed a 59 percent decrease in their use of Ebonics features in their writing." This is strong evidence that acknowledgement of the vernacular is beneficial to the academic advancement of students coming from linguistically diverse backgrounds.
 *  Introducing reading in the vernacular, then switching to the standard: The third and final approach presented suggests using the vernacular to teach reading in the beginning stages, and then switching to the standard. Rickford cites research done in the Philippines in which half of a group of school-age children were taught to read for four years in English, while the other half started with their native language for the first two years, and then switched to English. Rickford says that "What the researchers found is what other researchers have found in many studies, namely that the kids who began in their own vernacular, when they switched to the second language, very rapidly caught up with the kids who started in English, and even surpassed them. The kids who started in the vernacular were outperforming in English the kids who started in English, in subjects ranging from reading to social studies, and even arithmetic." While this research was not done specifically on child speakers of Ebonics, it does show precedence for success in teaching with this method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteakline (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 * That's something that might be brought up at some page about the learning or teaching of reading, and mentioned within the article on the "Oakland Ebonics controversy". -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Heaven forbid...
I don't know who wrote or is responsible for this article now, but I am counting down the minutes until my perfectly reasonable, valid and pertinent citation of John McWhorter's book "Losing the Race" and its thorough discussion on the danger of "Ebonics" is removed. I already see it has been flagged for "full citation needed." Wasn't citing the book and creating an entry in the refs enough, when there is an entire section in the book on Ebonics? Rather than deleting it, let's talk about it. Alexandermoir (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No call for a deletion. We're just missing the page number.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of using the label
Is the term "ebonics" used primarily to facilitate language learning, by young students of "standard English" - or more to give dignity to "urban" slang? That is, was the emphasis more on mainstreaming speakers of slang so that they could become bilingual, i.e., able to speak slang and standard English equally well? Or was there more emphasis on stopping speakers of standard English from calling Black slang "substandard", i.e., bad or wrong or "low class"?

One reason I'm interested in this is that I've started tutoring math in Harlem, and all my students are black children who speak standard English but who (apparently) also know street slang. When speaking to me they generally take pains to use standard English, but when comfortable or excited they have occasionally lapsed (see code switching) into slang.

I'm fascinated by the regularity of Ebonics. I'm not so interested in whether it's high or low class, proper or improper. But I know some people disdain its use while others exalt it.

I want to know if it's more of a pidgin or a creole, or is it just (as I've been regarding it) slang? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Your questions seem genuine (and amicable, etc), but rather less about the article than its subject -- or indeed the subject of a separate article, African American Vernacular English. I've therefore answered them (or tried to do so) on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the fact that this question was posted in the Talk page, because while it doesn't directly pertain to the discussion of this article's development, it does indicate that there is an incompleteness about the article that could bear revision. It's been many years since Ed Poor's comment, but the article still does not discuss the purpose of using the word "ebonics."

 * The article has plenty of arguments against the word's use, but I am interested if there are any Pan-African implications of its use as an umbrella term that includes dialects and paralinguistic features distinct from AAVE alone. The late ebonics coiner Robert Williams defined the word with tolerance for dialects outside the U.S., and I think it's worth discussing the advantages of this broad definition with respect to the word's four different uses cited from John Baugh in the article. —Wildebeez (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Links
'''Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedagogy or language?
This shouldn't be so hard to answer. The article's lede states, "Since the 1996 controversy over its use by the Oakland School Board, the term Ebonics has come to refer to using the pedagogical tool of teaching Standard American English to native speakers of AAVE by creating a distinction between Standard American English and African American Vernacular English," with a citation that failed verification. Elsewhere, the idea of ebonics as a dialect, especially as a synonym for AAVE, is dismissed as a popular misconception ("Thereafter, the term Ebonics became popularized, though as little more than a synonym for African American Vernacular English"). But another citation seems to refute this: "The use of the pedagogic approach called phonics, particularly in the context of reading, may have helped mislead people into thinking that the phonics from which the term Ebonics is partially derived has this meaning." So which is it? Does one speak ebonics or teach using it? --BDD (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The article was indeed very confused. So much energy has to be put into protecting it and AAVE from stupidity and truthiness that not enough has been left for checking what hasn't been deleted.

 * The referent of "Ebonics" has generally been the same as that of "AAVE". -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That looks much better. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ebonics is not a language
Why did someone edit the clarifications to the article?? It should state:

"Ebonics (a blend of the words ebony and phonics) is a term that was originally intended to refer to the informal, incorrect grammar usage of the English language of people descended from enslaved Black Africans, particularly in West Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. Since the 1996 controversy over its use by the Oakland School Board, the term Ebonics has primarily been used to refer to African American Vernacular English (AAVE), an incorrect grammatical version of Standard American English that gets passed down from parent to child, not through formal education. AAVE is not a language and there is no clear standard for its grammar. It can best be categorized as English regional slang due to the distinct spoken differences you can encounter in different city blocks, towns, cities, regions, and countries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.220.59.47 (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have bolded the parts you added. In both cases, your additions are either inaccurate (Ebonics/AAVE is not a version of Standard English), opinionated (the status of AAVE as a separate language is not something we are in a position to take a side on), irrelevant (there are very few languages or dialects that aren't "passed down from parent to child"), or obscenely ignorant (no language expert would ever call any variety "incorrect").  You're entitled to your opinion, but please keep it out of the encyclopedia. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  19:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the phrases to be more sensitive.

 * Ebonics (a blend of the words ebony and phonics) is a term that was originally intended to refer to the informal, non-standard grammar usage of the English language of people descended from enslaved Black Africans, particularly in West Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. Since the 1996 controversy over its use by the Oakland School Board, the term Ebonics has primarily been used to refer to African American Vernacular English (AAVE), a non-standard grammatical version of Standard American English that gets passed down from parent to child, not through formal education. AAVE is not a language and there is no clear standard for its grammar. It can best be categorized as English regional slang or an informal dialect due to the distinct spoken differences you can encounter in different city blocks, towns, cities, regions, and countries.

 * Still wrong. Ebonics was originally coined to refer to not just AAVE, but all language used by the peoples of the African diaspora, including creole languages.  AAVE is not "an non-standard grammatical version of Standard American English" (that's an ungrammatical and self-contradictory phrase anyway).  The only thing that's accurate, that children learn AAVE from their parents, is irrelevant to the article.  You even put a citation to a piece written by John Rickford as if it backs up your claims when it actually contradicts what you've included.  That's fabrication, a serious form of scholarly misconduct.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  21:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Feedback
I'm sorry I do not have the patience, time or inclination to go to war with politically correct editors to attempt to win this battle but I would just like to note that upon reading this article fully for the first time, I find it a complete disgrace to Wikipedia. It doesn't even explain what ebonics is, give any examples of it or describe it as anything other than another way to say AAVE and speak poorly of it. This article has clearly been written or heavily watered down and slandered by people who do not like the term. I hope somebody, someday eventually addresses this problem on the AAVE, Ebonics disambiguation page and on this article - and in all probability, across a range of articles politically correct warriors would be interested in. This is an encyclopedia. Not your soapbox to cure all the racial injustices you think exist in the world. Handpolk (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For a second you had me worried that you had backtracked on your declaration that you were removing yourself from contributing to the topic; in my experience, people who do this sort of thing (that is, say they are leaving but don't actually do so) have some annoying lapses in maturity and end up dragging others along in pointless, long-winded "debates." I am glad that you are not one of those types.
 * Anyway, your comments don't really reflect the article in its current state. The very first sentence says that Ebonics may "refer to the language of all people descended from enslaved Black Africans..." That includes all Caribbean creole languages and pidgins, as well as AAVE. The article presents one cited critique by a linguist, which is hardly consistent with your characterization that it is designed around speaking poorly of the term Ebonics. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  02:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ebonics is what inner-city blacks speak in America. That it notes something about enslaved africans is irrelevant. Maybe that's where the term originated but it's not how it is used today. The article doesn't mention anything about how it's used today. It's an article-length hatchet job against the term ebonics. Handpolk (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two examples. At the top it says "This article is about the term referring to the language of Black Africans..." That's incorrect. This article is not about the language of black africans. It's noted in the article itself that is only where the term originated. Today, the term is a synonym for AAVE, as noted in the article. So this is a lie at the top of the article. Second example: in the article the only sentence which gives an example of how the term is actually used today, other than to call it a synonym of AAVE, says it is used on message boards for people to ridicule AAVE. Perhaps that is one way it is used, but that in no way encompasses all the ways it is used. It is misleading and seeks to downplay and degrade this term. As is clearly the intent of the whole article. Some editors here have a strong anti-ebonics agenda and unfortunately they are winning. Handpolk (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to your recent edit, this article is about Ebonics as a colloquial synonym for AAVE. In your comments here, you are saying it does not mention how Ebonics is used today as a colloquial synonym for AAVE. Both statements are contradictory and they are both false. You would have to discard half of the content for either to be true. On top of your recent change mischaracterizing the article, you even got the template syntax wrong.
 * You are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the content upon which you wish to comment and are now acting in a disruptive manner by editing so hastily. I suggest you either stop wasting everyone's time with shoddy contributions or slow down and take the time you need to digest what you are reading. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in discussing this with people who will never acknowledge I'm right about anything nor accept any of my edits. You have a clear agenda and 'consensus' agrees with you as everybody following this has the same agenda. So I can't win. You know that. Which is why you keep reverting EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of my edits, conceding absolutely nothing, no matter how minor. Handpolk (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will leave it up to other editors to judge that. Regards. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 06:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Stereotypes of African Americans is an example of an article on this general topic which does a great job of telling the truth with no watering down of the subject matter. This article should be written like that. Tell the truth as it is. Honestly I'm shocked the people who have watered down this article and AAVE have not done the same to that article. Handpolk (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * "Ebonics" is a word that has been used with various meanings. Some people who use it with one of these meanings in their publications (and not merely on talk radio, etc) vehemently deny that it has, or should have, one of the other meanings. This in itself is probably a good reason for Wikipedia to seek alternative phrasing. Another reason is that whatever Ebonics means, it's a matter of language or society, and few linguists or sociologists use the term. Their reasons are ably summarized in, for example, Lisa Green's book. If you disagree, please point to linguists, sociolinguists or sociologists (other than fringe figures) who do prefer "Ebonics".

 * Although I wonder if you're really interested in reasoned persuasion: I have trouble taking seriously the writings of somebody who says that a language (group) is the same "general topic" as stereotypes of its speakers.

 * So you're welcome to cite linguistics/sociology texts in support of what you are saying. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that academics have a strong preference for the term African American Vernacular English. That doesn't change anything I said. This article is about Ebonics. Not AAVE. Handpolk (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"very one sided"
Hatnote: ''This article is about the term referring to the language of Black Africans. For African American U.S. English that is distinct from Standard American English, see African American Vernacular English.''

Handpolk removes this, with the comment ''it's not useful because it is incorrect. if you'd like to describe ebonics as something other than 'the language of black africans' go ahead''.

What is incorrect?

How I want to describe Ebonics is beside the point: the article does its best to describe how the term has been used; and points to the AAVE article for what is now its commonest use (or misuse, as its coiners would say).

Handpolk then adds ''This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the article is very one sided and contains little on the actual subject matter, beyond that which seeks to discredit the subject itself.. Please help improve this article if you can. (January 2015)''

Weird. The article tries fairly hard to be multilateral. What is "the actual subject matter"? How is this discredited?

I look forward to improvements to the article if these improvements are faithful to what's written in linguistics books from university presses and comparable publishers. -- Hoary (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The hatnote description wording needs to be changed to reflect what Ebonics is. Note how Ebonics is described on Ebonics "a term that is used for what linguists far more often term African American Vernacular English, and that was originally used with strong connotations of the African origin of this language". That's much more accurate than 'the language of Black Africans' which is downright misleading.

 * In addition, 'linguistics books from university presses and comparable publishers' are not the only sources which may be used in Wikipedia. Handpolk (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "The language of Black Africans" does seem a bit imprecise, but your proposed wording is a bit verbose for a hatnote. What about "This article is about the term for the language of Black Africans, often used colloquially as a synonym for African American Vernacular English"? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  17:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's better but I think saying 'the term for the language of Black Africans' is not accurate. That's not what the term means today. Perhaps that's how it began but it was hijacked almost 20 years ago to mean something else. Handpolk (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, but this article covers that semantic shift. If you look at the article gay, it's the same thing. The term gay had a prior meaning and part of that article covers this semantic change. Actually, maybe we can use that article's hatnote as a guide. What about "This article is about Ebonics as a term, for the variety of English spoken by African Americans, see African American Vernacular English"?
 * That works. Handpolk (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * [The term] was hijacked almost 20 years ago to mean something else: maybe. However the change was effected, its commonest meaning was changed, and radically so. This is how Lisa Green describes it. On pp. 6-7 of her African American English, Green runs through a list of 15 terms that have been used over the years for her subject matter. "Ebonics" isn't among them. On p. 7, she writes:
 * The term Ebonics, which was coined by Robert Williams in 1973 [...] has been left off the list of labels of AAE because Williams intended the term to cover the multitude of languages spoken by black people not just in the United States but also those spoken in the Caribbean, for example. [...] Commenting on the misuse of the term Ebonics, [Ernie] Smith instructs:
 * In sum, Ebonics is not a dialect of English. [...] Eurocentric scholars use the term Ebonics as a synonym for "Black English." In doing so, they reveal an ignorance of the origin and meaning of the term Ebonics that is so profound that their confusion is pathetic.
 * And Green goes on to agree with some of what Smith says. Simply, her reason for not lumping "Ebonics" together with the other terms is that for her as well as for Smith, it has a different meaning. ¶ If anyone here is interested (and nobody need be), I have little time for Smith. Yes, he's very likely the only person currently discussing either AAVE or the term "Ebonics" (or indeed Ebonics as he understands it) who was in at the coining of the term. But he seems to divide theories, opinions and people between (A) the "Afrocentric" and (B) the "Eurocentric", and to assume that the one must be the foe of the other. What does matter is that Green, an authority in the field (and whose book would very obviously be "Eurocentric" in Smith's eyes_, agrees with Smith that "Ebonics" is better reserved for its original use. (If I keep citing Green, this is partly because hers is an excellent book, partly because I happen to have a copy at hand. I believe that I could cite John Baugh or others instead.) If we're pernickety, then over a decade ago she agreed (past tense) with Smith that Ebonics was better so reserved, but I doubt that matters have changed since 2002. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2007 LSA Resolution
LSA Resolution on Oakland Ebonics Issue

Had the overall theme of the page not been so one-sided, perhaps the omission of any reference to the Linguistic Society of America's 2007 meeting on Ebonics and resulting resolution could be interpreted as a simple lack of due diligence. Perhaps the failure to include a fact one need only click the first result at the top of the page upon searching for "ebonics" on Google was just a wildly careless oversight. But then at the end of the article there actually is a reference to the LSA; so the omission is glaring before one even reads the article.

google search for "ebonics"

One needn't read past the second section before the pronouncement that ebonics was not adopted by linguists.

"Ebonics remained a little-known term until 1996. It does not appear in the 1989 second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, nor was it adopted by linguists.[13]

Perhaps the above line fails to convey the intent of its writer who means to say (again, bending over backwards for benefit of the doubt) linguists did not adopt ebonics as a separate language. Yet since the pronouncement ends a sentence beginning by declaring the 1989 dictionary did not hold any definition of the word, the reader naturally understands the message to be that linguists did not even acknowledge the word; and certainly did not validate it.

I am new at editing here and while I did read this article through, and aforementioned section several times before committing my thoughts on this to the Talk section, I'm not yet confident I could adeptly format changes to the live page.

It does seem as though the entire page's tone is one of opinion, and ill informed at that. I read another article on the topic, and while it, too, conveys a particular thesis, any subjective tone is supported by facts I checked upon reading, and omits nothing so easily found as the wikipedia page's omission I referenced above.

contrasting example of a balanced article with a stance Mashugana75 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Mashugana75
 * I'm a little confused here as to what you are saying is true, how this differs from what the article states, and what you're basing this on. Your initial interpretation of the line you've quoted from the article is correct; linguists did not adopt the term ebonics. They also didn't recognize the speech of African Americans in the United States as a separate language, but the sentence in question isn't saying that explicitly. Have you found something that contradicts any of this? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also am at a loss, and don't understand what you are trying to argue here. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Italics
Why is every instance of the word Ebonics italicized? Cojoilustrado (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's part of general conventions for mentioning words as words. See Use–mention distinction. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

When is the first N-word invented
The N-word was founded in the 1920s we’re a first African man said the N-word and all Black people were saying it not white people 173.48.210.218 (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 * I think the bigger question is why can't we just say the word n i g g e r when talking about it? Why n-word? 206.84.248.245 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

subcommittee
The article states that a subcommittee was formed for studying Ebonics. Of what was it a subcommittee? 136.36.180.215 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ebonics (word)


text:
Talk:Progress (disambiguation)

Untitled
We probably do need a disambiguation page here as opposed to a redirect to the Progress spacecraft here. Until such time as there is a separate article on the idea of Progress, perhaps we could point it to some similar notion like Modernity.

I had a link on progress in an atavism article I started that was thankfully removed when it was pointed out that it went to a page on a Soviet spacecraft that had little to do with what I was talking about. Reviewing what linked here, I found links from a 1939 Western, Auguste Comte, modernity itself, and other links that seemed unlikely to reference the Russian space programme. I've taken the liberty of removing those links for the time being. -- IHCOYC 14:48 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

Articles on progress
I'm amazed that this is no separate article. Surely, economic/social and other forms of progress need to be disambiguated here at least - are there no articles on those subjects? And the notion of progress in general deserves an article too, I'd say. Where else am I going to link from to the newly created dialectics of progress stub? :) DirkvdM 10:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Over at Talk:Progress_(history) I've proposed a merger of the four articles we currently have on the concept of progress in general into a single article (taking Progress (history) as the base article as it is the oldest), and moving that article to this name ("Progress"), with this dab page moving to Progress (disambiguation) and linked from a hatnote on the merged page. While I'm unsure about consensus on the merger, I feel that the move should not be too controversial, so if no one objects by tomorrow night I plan to go through with that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Social progress which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Progress (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Epirus

POV issues
I do not have time enough now to edit the article, but the 2 last subsections of History have POV issues. The first one mentions crimes done by Albanians against Greeks, but not crimes made by Greeks against Albanians. It mentions the struggle of Greeks for independence, but not the struggle of Albanians and Aromanians too (revolts, Rilindja). The other section talks about the struggle of Greeks in Albania for independence and their human rights issues, but does not mentions Chams' human rights issues too (treatment by the nationalist Greek governments etc; the article only cares to say that they collaborated with Nazis). In general the article is focused on Greece/Greeks, sth that was highlighted in the failed GA nomination review. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously there should be a fair representation on those issues. Also considering that the Cham population comprised in terms of both population & geography slightly less than 10% compared to the Epirus periphery (and even less compared to Epirus region) we should avoid wp:UNDUE. Alexikoua (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What is "Epirus periphery"? Botushali (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Another issue not presented in those sections is that major Nazi war crimes are not mentioned at all (apart from those joined operations with the Keshilla): Massacre of Kommeno and Lyngiades for example.Alexikoua (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, add those together with massacres and village burnings done by Greek bands and armies against Albanians, and especially against Albanian Orthodox clergy (Stathi Melani etc). Either both or none.Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading the article I see that various massacres by Albanian bands and the Albanian army are not mentioned at all: Balkan War era for example (see Tsoutsoumpis), as well as massacres of WWII era on the Albanian side of Epirus (Glyna, Konispol etc.). Should we have also assassinations of selective individuals? The murder of the perfect of Thesprotia is among them. By the way about the joined Axis-Cham operations there is only a single mention that numerous atrocities committed against the civilian population, but if we take the initiative to mention the killing of individuals (as in the case of Melani) then we should definitely mention the destruction of settlements (Sagiada), the massive executions of Paramythia and the forced expulsion to Nazi German camps (Fanari).

The burning of settlements by Albanian bands during the initial Italian offensive is also not mentioned in the current text (Igoumenitsa, Mourtos, Paramythia etc see Kretsi for details).Alexikoua (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a balanced proposal, where crimes and human rights from both sides are given due weight, you are welcome. Otherwise I will find the time and remove whatever content that make some History subsections look like a POV-pushing attempt. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "the massive executions of Paramythia" The Paramythia executions have their own article, but it indicates that there were only 201 victims. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that some parts should be re-written in both sections. Also some paragraphs are without inline citations or the existing ones should be checked. I can work on that.Alexikoua (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And what did you do? You only added content/sources on crimes committed by Albanians, and tried to remove sth about Albanian tribes. It was my mistake to wait for you to make the article in line with NPOV. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Anachronistic sentence
The specific sentence is supposed to refer to the 6th-8th century (Slavic migration), nevertheless it introduces ethno-geographic terms that were unknonn to this era (Kurvelesh, Laberia etc.) that don't have a place to this historical context:. The inline citation does not agree on this anachronistic mixing, since it provides a description on the current toponymic situation not on the historical context of early medieval era. As such those terms need to go from that historical section.Alexikoua (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"The most ancient traces of human settlements in Epirus"
The claim is complete nonsense. There were no human settlements in the Paleolithic (30,000-40,000 years ago). Paleolithic humans were hunter gatherers, they did not have settlements of any kind. The first human settlements date from the Neolithic, in places like Gobekli Tepe (~12,000 years ago). The claim is thus WP:FRINGE. The sources are furthermore inadequate. A history of Chameria and a overview of Albanian history are not the right sources for a claim like this, only a an academic publication in paleontology and human prehistory would be adequate for such a claim. Khirurg (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Human settlement as in human presence not cities. And the source is reliable. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I do not think human settlement in this context would refer to permanent settlements. I’m pretty certain they mean evidence of human settlement in the area, not necessarily towns or fortifications, but just evidence of human habitation in the region, such as artefacts from caves and the like. That’s perfectly plausible. Although admittedly, quotes would be useful here because I don’t think it’s been translated properly. Botushali (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @RoyalHeritageAlb: A "history of Chameria" informing us that the earliest traces of human habitation in all of Epirus just happen to be in...Chameria. Your other source is an overview of Albanian history, the palelothic is way out its scope. You haven't even provided quotes, so we're supposed to just accept it? Please provide quotes so we can verify it, otherwise I will remove it again. Khirurg (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * is kindly requested to provide page and quote from the source he added [] which supports the supposed claim.Alexikoua (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No need, just by making a quick check numerous sites and tools of the Middle Palaeolothic era are unearthed in Epirus. To name one:

[].
 * In Kokkinopilos a middle Paleolithic handaxe stratigraphy dates c. 150–200 kya
 * Many other tools from Kokkinopilos are older than 35,000 [].Alexikoua (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So now it isnt WP:Extraordinary?RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Stone tools from the Paleolithic is not extraordinary. But you are claiming that those specific stone tools are the oldest in Epirus. That is a strong claim that needs a strong source. Khirurg (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kokkinopilos is one of many sites since "Middle Palaeolithic sites are abundant in well - watered Greek regions, such as Epirus" [].
 * RoyalHeritageAlb: traces of human activity (tools etc) are by no means "settlements". Extraordinary is also to claim that The most ancient traces of human presence in Epirus can be found in the late period of the Middle Paleolithic era (40,000-30,000 years ago) on the villages of Xarrë, Konispol (Kreçmoi Cave) and Shën Mari. As you see Kokkinopilos produced axes that are much older, not to mention that traces of Middle Paleolithic tools are plenty in Epirus.Alexikoua (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's one thing to say "stone tools were found in X", another to say "the oldest stone tools in Epirus were found in X". Khirurg (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record (based on Geoffrey King, Geoffrey Bailey, Derek Sturdy. Active tectonics and human survival strategies. Journal of Geophysical Research : Solid Earth, 1994, 99 (B10), pp.20,063-20,078. ff10.1029/94JB00280ff. ffhal00158848f): Asprohaliko produced tools that date from 200 kyr and Kokkinopilos c. 250 kyr. [].Alexikoua (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright i will reword my edits. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Epirus