text:
Talk:Janet Frame

'lived in' list
I suggest an edit for the list of places she lived: "Frame lived in several different parts of New Zealand's North Island, including Auckland, Taranaki, Wanganui, the Horowhenua, Palmerston North, Waiheke, Stratford, Browns Bay and Levin." In this list, 'Browns Bay' is in Auckland thus superfluous, and Stratford in Taranaki, thus also superfluous. I would place an edit myself in the form: ..."Auckland (Browns Bay, Waiheke), Taranaki (Stratford)... but I don't know enough about if she lived in other places in these regions which should also be included. The easy answer would be to make the list:

... Auckland, Taranaki, Wanganui, the Horowhenua, Palmerston North and Levin... or ... Auckland, Wanganui, the Horowhenua, Palmerston North, Stratford and Levin... (as Auckland is both city and region, Taranaki is not. Benjamin Dickson (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

older entries
The link "Citizens Commission on Human Rights - Janet Frame : "An Angel at My Table"" is no longer valid. I did a little bit of searching on that site but could no longer turn up any references to Janet Frame. Perhaps this should be removed.

Dougher 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed from New Zealand literary history to Modern Literary History
Her writing and the enormous success of the film about her life make her e modern literary figure not just a New Zealand literary figure.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead or Alive?
Is she living or dead? The article doesn't mention her death, but it also refers to her in the past tense. Snowboardpunk

She is dead - hence the date of her death! I have added details about her death to the bottom of the biography Anarchia 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

She is dead. She died at the age of 79 in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.123.194 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seacliff lunatic hospital
Writing the article about Seacliff Lunatic Asylum, I have found some info and material about Frame that isn't covered here. If people are interested, head over and have a look, maybe it will help extend this one. MadMaxDog 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

off-Wiki canvassing
It has just come to my attention that the Janet Frame Estate website invites readers to Wiki:

QUOTE

Wikipedia Warning

Please note that the WIKIPEDIA article on Janet Frame is currently unreliable. At least one hostile editor is currently set upon sabotaging the neutrality of the Janet Frame article and imposing a negative and minority point of view. Anyone who has the time and inclination is invited to peruse the editing history and see for themselves what is meant by the Wikipedia term "editing war".

ENDQUOTE

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Funny, this seems to be exactly what the above discussion point ("Marshaled by Frame's family/executor") is eluding to. It's so often problematic when family members are put in charge of their famous relative's estate: unwilling to let go and unfamiliar with the job. History has shown us how these things eventually work out in the long run. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the current Wikipedia article on Frame that isn't covered in King's biography (barring the brief mentions of posthumous publications and the like), so I'm not sure what the fuss is about, but I hope all of this doesn't detract from her work, which is pretty special. --SydSid (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed! --RobbieBurns (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Gordon has since changed the Wiki notice on the "Janet Frame Literary Trust" website she manages to read:

QUOTE

We do not recommend the Wikipedia article on Janet Frame. (Please note that Wikipedia does contain an important and oft overlooked disclaimer to the effect that no information on the do-it-yourself amateur encyclopedia can be guaranteed to be reliable.) It has come to our attention that there is a misleading claim made on Wikipedia alleging that the Janet Frame Estate is constantly interfering with and attempting to control the tone of the Janet Frame article, and that we have canvassed editing support for a non-neutral slant. This is not true. Our position from the 12th of January 2008 has been to avoid reading the Wikipedia article let alone trying to contribute. We had concluded it was a waste of our valuable time to try to engage with the confrontational "consensus" process when it does appear to favour those determined to circumvent the principles in order to promote their own undeclared vested interests. If anonymous contributers to Wikipedia can so easily identitfy, vilify and attempt to drive away reputable authorities on any subject, then they win only a "pyrrhic" victory, as the crediblility of the whole project is unfortunately thrown into question if known experts on a topic become disillusioned with the quality of the collaborative process. Last time we looked the article had been subjected to vandalism and hijacked by at least one individual obviously intent on dominating the article by adding extensive new edits and by suppressing alternative viewpoints. Important and reputable scholarly references have been deleted under the pretext of "grammar" corrections. The article is riddled with factual and bibliographic errors and overemphasises fringe and minority theories about Frame, using untrustworthy and unrepresentative blog and newspaper commentary as key sources.

ENDQUOTE --122.57.244.97 (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Gordon's latest comments are wrought with contradiction, faulty logic and (perhaps worst of all for a literary executor) grammatical errors. In addition, glancing through the page history, it appears that she has not refrained from editing this entry, despite the fact that it is primarily derived from King's comprehensive biography, which was done in consultation with Frame herself. --RobbieBurns (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I concur, Robbie. Curiously, Gordon elsewhere defers to King as the definitive expert on Frame. Furthermore, if readers are interested in Gordon's own biographical sketch, it is readily available both on the website she manages (http://janetframe.org.nz/default.htm) as well as in the recent New Zealand reissues of the novels. --SydSid (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * A review of the editing history reveals that, in contrast to the claims she makes above, Gordon repeatedly deletes extensively referenced materials on this entry and has likewise responded to contributors in a confrontational and, particularly for someone in her position, unprofessional manner. --Cantkant (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another rant from Gordon recently posted on the Janet Frame Literary Trust website she manages. Here, she attacks the Frame article as well as the entire Wikipedia project in general.

QUOTE

Wikipedia Stalker Strikes Again It has been brought to our attention that the self-appointed "expert" on what he calls Janet Frame's "unsavory" life history, has struck again recently on the Janet Frame article on Wikipedia. The person apparently uses several different identities clearly identifiable as originating from the same source. (Such fraudulent multiple identities are referred to as "sock puppets"). A check on the editing history of several identities editing the Janet Frame article shows that most of them have been solely created for the purposes of pushing their fringe theories about the author's life (they largely ignore her actual work which is of course the reason Frame merits a biography). They don't edit any other article, and they respond particularly virulently to any attempts to restore a neutral stance to the Frame article. The sock puppets have also made several ludicrous accusations (on the "discussion" page) that members of the Frame Estate are manipulating the Wikipedia article. This is untrue. We wouldn't touch the thing with a barge pole. It's not a reputable source of information and it's not worth the effort to try to restore any balanced view of Frame there, because we have observed that any of our well-meaning efforts to correct the flaws in the article have merely been summarily deleted with no explanation. Because of similar bullying behaviour apparently rife across any "controversial" Wikipedia articles, the "democracy" of the Wiki project as a whole is losing its credibility daily because it harbours dictators like this one who has taken up residence on the Frame site and lashes out at anyone else who ventures there (even the actual experts on her life). Analysis of the IP numbers also shows that this person pretends to be a representative of the Frame Estate, makes some trivial change, then claims it was us that did it! So one can watch a sock puppet hitting a straw woman. It's dishonest, and cowardly. The claims made on the "discussion" page that "Frame's niece and posthumously-appointed executor" is editing the article are false and defamatory. The clearly personally hostile stalker successfully drove away representatives of the Frame estate months ago. It's obvious on close analysis that this vandal has largely had the sandpit to himself since then, allowing him to obsessively tinker with the site and create a misleading slant overemphasising Frame's supposed abnormalities. He does appear to be pushing original and untested research theories, an activity that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. He has repeatedly removed any references to, for instance, academic opposition to the autism "diagnosis". He has slandered Frame's family. He uses blogs and unreliable newspaper reports as "evidence". He also shows, despite claiming a familiarity with the King biography, an ignorance of the minutiae of Frame's life, including repeatedly asserting that Philip Roth was a close friend of hers. As King shows, Frame and Roth had a brief friendly bantering acquaintance but they were far from ever being intimate friends in the long term. There are also serious bibliographic errors, for instance a naive conflation of a boxed set of two volumes as being only one title. These are mostly, of course, quite minor flaws, but when a representative of the Frame Estate tried to correct these and others in mid-January the response from this stalker was one of hysterical outrage and personal abuse. The over-reaction and paranoid accusations have apparently continued unabated since then, although we only look in every now and then when someone calls our attention to it. Janet Frame of course suffered and survived far worse than this in her lifetime, and her reputation will endure such petty attacks. She was occasionally plagued with the odd "celebrity stalker" during her lifetime and it is with some perplexity that the Frame Estate has found itself to have inherited at least one of them. 9th April 2008

ENDQUOTE

I'm not sure what I object to most: being referred to as a "sock puppet" or a male! (jk) Still, as noted elsewhere, Gordon's controlling manner and defensive attitude is unfortunately not uncommon among people in her position. --SydSid (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Angel at my table movie poster.jpg
The image File:Angel at my table movie poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --11:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ref doesn't exist
In some of the footnotes (e.g. 20, 24) reference is made to Frame 1991. This ref doesn't exist, and I can't see which ref is meant. Who can help? Dick Bos (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Frame 1991 is the Braziller (U.S.) edition of the collected autobios and has been added to the footnotes. Sorry for any confusion!--Doclit (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Janet Frame
Please desist from removing the full reference to Abrahamson & the New Zealand Medical Journal in this article. RobbieBurns (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The above material was placed on my talk page. I have placed it on this page, which is where it properly belongs. My substantive reply:

Please stop your obsessive edit warring WP:EW in this article. If you persist in claiming that a living relative of Janet Frame disputes "vehemently" then find a reliable source to support it. Otherwise it goes. Please note this extract from WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The reference to the NZ Medical Journal is given in full when the link is followed. Standard scholarly practice is that further elaboration of a rather subsidiary article is not needed.

A recent editor asks, "Has no Frame expert noticed how emotive and biased this article is?" Although I am no Frame expert I have noticed just that and that is what my edits were intending to mitigate. But there is no need to swing to the other direction. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

Looks like glove puppet or meat puppet campaign here. The Robbieburns edits are hostile to Frame and appear obsessed with attacking the Frame biographer Michael King - this material should be debated on his article not Frame's. Any attempt to restore a neutral point of view is reverted by robbieburns. References to viewpoints favourable to Frame have been systematically deleted and only negative ones. Needs a balance. If this author is so over rated why do these hostile editors spend so much time obsessing over her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.41.122 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I welcome and encourage collaboration on these and other local NZ topics I have posted. Cheers! --RobbieBurns (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy and balance
I alert Wikipedians that there may be problems of accuracy and balance in this article. I have found two clear errors of fact relating to references. The first is that reference 43 claimed to be an "editorial", when it is not. The second is the claim that "one critic likening King's role to that of a ventriloquist's dummy, [55]". This complex and nuanced reference says no such thing. There are also many references to the NZ press that cannot be verified over the web. I think it is desirable that every reference in the article be checked for accuracy and that a rewrite be started to ensure balance. I leave that to NZ scholars. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

 * I understand the need to verify sources online, but clearly this system is equally problematic. In the case of the comparison of "King's role to that of a ventriloquist's dummy, [55]", although Xxanthippe argues that this "complex and nuanced reference says no such thing", there is nothing ambiguous about Evans's comments: "[T]he question which is most inevitably going to be asked [...] is whether King has, in effect, been reduced at times to sitting on Frame's knee [...]". King took personal offense to Evans's accusation and responded directly in the journal New Zealand Books (Vol.II, No.5, Issue 51: page 2), although, unfortunately, this reference is also unavailable online. Finally, just for the record, I am a NZ scholar and try to do my best to ensure all my edits references are accurate, but always welcome and encourage collaboration with other Wikipedians. --RobbieBurns --RobbieBurns (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)(talk) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have only just come across the entry above which was substantially modified in the last few days by RobbieBurns without being signed or dated. Once again RobbieBurns distorts his sources. Readers can examine the text here [] and judge for themselves. Despite this, the article is much improved since I was last involved in it mostly due to the contributions of Doclit. At any rate the anons have stopped complaining. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Just completed a first attempt at a rewrite, but as far as I can tell the vast majority of this article is accurate. Good luck! --Doclit (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Glad to see the few minor edits I made improved the overall quality of this entry. Regarding the debate over Evans' criticism of King, sorry to say Xxanthippe, but RobbieBurns is correct in his reading. As RobbieBurns further substantiates in his reply here, King confirms Evans' "puppet" accusations in a reply to the critic published in the above cited issue of New Zealand Books. Having said that, I will leave it to others to decide if this reference should be reincorporated into the article. Good luck! --Doclit (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sections on Work & Modern scholarship and interpretations
A good addition to this entry might be sections that focus on Frame's work & some of the scholarship and interpretations. If agreed, I can take a stab at a first go when I have some free time.--Doclit (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

citecheck
Recently a 'citecheck" banner is placed on this article. I don't agree with that. Apart from some small mistakes (please feel free to change them), most of the references are quite clear. Could the editor who used this banner please inform us about the arguments? Or better: first have some talks on this talk-page before using a cannon to hit a mosquito; or even better: remove this banner! By the way: might it be a good idea to get rid of the "coi" banner on this talk-page as well? I believe we finished that story long long time ago.... Please, let's try to have a positive view on this article. It is really worthwile reading. It has a lot of good and in-depth information. I think it's the best encyclopedic source on Frame on the internet. And there will always be someone who will read a certain sentence as an offence. And there will always be someone who finds something that's not completely neutralized. and there will always be someone with a different view. But that doesn't change a thing on the fact that this is a good article. Dick Bos (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that both the 'citecheck' banner and 'coi' should be deleted and that it would be preferable if contributors to this article used the discussion page to air-out issues or pinpoint perceived biases (which, as you rightly noted, Dick Bos, we can safely assume there will always be). Some years ago, I submitted an MA thesis that was partly on Janet Frame and from my years of research I can vouch that the information in this article is accurate and hope that these types of trivial complaints don't derail this entry. --Doclit (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As you will have deduced from the history it was I who inserted the 'citecheck' banner and I gave well-founded reasons for doing so. I was not the only person to raise concerns. The accuracy and balance of the article have been improved since then. The involvement of a trained scholar like yourself in this article is welcome. If you can vouch for the accuracy of the remaining cites then of course you are entitled to remove the banner. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Just completed another edit (grammar, spelling, pov) and removed the 'citecheck' and 'coi' banners as discussed here.--Doclit (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to verify/clarify your statement, Dick Bos, "I believe we finished that story long long time ago" and ensure I didn't edit out of turn. --Doclit (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Medical Journal
Please note that the full reference to The New Zealand Medical Journal has been added to this article. This information is important both to distinguish the essay from literary/theoretical publications as well as to maintain the neutral pov in the entry. --Doclit (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Section Headings
Recently added section headings to this article to improve readability but am open to changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doclit (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Page number missing in References
Reference number 58 has no page number - anyone know which part of King's book the info came from? --122.59.21.230 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Full Name vs. Pen Name.
Janet Frame is a pen name and her full name is listed in the Honours Lists published in the London Gazette (for her CBE) and the New Zealand Gazette (for the ONZ appointment). The London Gazette lists ''Miss Nene Janet Paterson CLUTHA (Janet Frame). For services to literature'' and the New Zealand Gazette for 1990 is not available on-line. The library at any major New Zealand city will have archives and you need the article entitled "Honours and Awards" published 15 February 1990 in issue 23 and go to page 446. oh! found an on-line source at The Honours Unit of The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of New Zealand list members of the Order of New Zealand. Please check Ms Frames name here.

I have reverted the good faith revision 569139813 by Xxanthippe (talk)

Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 08:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Source provided. That's fine. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Literary estate section
Added a new header at the end of this article and a recent scholarly reference. Still need to update the posthumous publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doclit (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

June
Are we really mentioning John Money a few times with zero mention of June? If June hadn't submitted Janet's stories for the award the lobotomy would have happened. Does someone else want to make an entry about June? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickmind (talk • contribs) 15:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Janet Frame


text:
Talk:Bee Gees

Origins
Manchester or Redcliffe? G. Picanço (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's arguable, like so many aspects of Bee Gees history. Barry, Robin and Maurice certainly performed as a trio in Manchester, but did not adopt the name Bee Gees until Redcliffe. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Which is exactly why we have edit notes asking people not to add anything into that field. Tvoz / talk 01:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Years active
Should the infobox report "years active" as 1958-2012, or with a hiatus as 1958–2003, 2009-2012? Better to avoid an edit war over this. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi WWGB, I think it should have the split, especially because Barry and Robin talked as if they did not plan to perform again (but eventually did). I’ve recently learned that Barry and Robin did do two shows in 2006 together so those should probably be included as well. I know they were among a number of artists who collaborated on a song for charity in 2005 (if I believe), but I have not heard it so I don’t know if they sing together or separately (or if we should count it). I think the brief 1969/1970 split is too confusing to explain in the years active section, because it seems like sources differ if Barry and Maurice split in December 1969 or early 1970 (and of course they were reunited by late August, so less than a year regardless, if that helps). EPBeatles (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Band name
Shouldn't the band name be "The BeeGees"? We write, for example, "Apes, Pigs & Spacemen (a.k.a. AP&S) are a British rock band", and "Art Bears were an English avant-rock group", all without a preceding "The", and this is just fine. But would one write "BeeGees were a music group formed in 1958" without article? --Lambiam 09:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say not. There are several bands (e.g. Carpenters, Eagles) which commonly appear with the definite article prefix, but who have specifically expressed that that isn't their band name. Bee Gees are one such case, even if the internet is riddled with references to 'The Bee Gees'. Michaelfromtheuk (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

British
Why doesn't the page say 'The Bee Gees were a British musical group'...like on every other wiki page for a band originating in the United Kingdom? - Romano23 (10:27 GMT 11/02) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.230.249 (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Bee Gees above. WWGB (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Doesn't really answer the question. The trio were from the UK - why aren't they described as such? All their individual wiki pages say 'British'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.230.249 (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * This issue is complex. It has caused massive, sometimes unpleasant debate in the past. There are good arguments for them being Australian, and good arguments for them being British. Best we encourage people to read all the details about the origins of the Bee Gees so they get the full picture, rather than a simple, potentially misleading, one word description. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no debate here, they were not only British, they were Manx British to be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.247.72 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The band name Bee Gees was coined in Australia in the early 1960s. Two early members of the band were Vince Melouney and Colin Peterson, both Australian. So, not as simple as you might think. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 * And this thread illustrates the point. We've been over this so many times, and this has been the best solution.  By the way, at least two of them, maybe all three, were American citizens and lived in the US longer than anywhere else, so an argument could be made that they are an American group.  I'm not making that argument, but the history of this article makes it clear that the only way we are able to reach some stability is to spell it out the way we have. Tvoz / talk 21:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Gibbs may have lived for a time in Australia and started the group there, but they're all ethnically English, they were all UK citizens and the vast majority of their music career was based in either the UK or USA. There shouldn't be any problem with describing their origin as British or British-Australian right up front. At least one would think. 2600:8801:710E:7E00:17:8D63:94B2:7CE1 (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to add British-Australian? FireDragonValo (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bee Gees 1992.JPG

Recent revert
Hi Tvoz, you recently reverted my addition of qualifying the brothers as British and the band as being formed in Australian, stating that it goes against consensus. I believe my edit actually resolves that dispute (or at least doesn't violate any consensus that came from it), because it doesn't qualify the band's nationality—it's just two uncontested facts, which are that the brothers are British and the band was formed in Australia. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the good faith attempt - but if you look back at the extensive history on this subject, you'll see that in fact it is contested - for example, by the Manx faction - and we finally achieved stability on this matter so consensus to have it in this somewhat unorthodox manner is the best way to avoid needless edit warring. Tvoz / talk 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging The Rattlesnakes (1950s band) to Bee Gees as it seems like most of the sources documenting the Rattlesnakes are almost exclusively due to the Gibb brothers or their later band, the Bee Gees.

Note: This was originally a merger proposed by @Josedm a few days ago but it seems like he abandoned it. OhHaiMark (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Hello. Sorry, my native language is Spanish and I don't know how to speak English well, so I didn't know how to do the whole procedure. I appreciate that you took the proposal since I didn't know how to proceed. Thank you @OhHaiMark. Josedm (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be far too much detailed material to absorb into this Bee Gees article. It is a classic spin-off article, not unlike Quarrymen vis a vis The Beatles, where a summary is in the main article and details in the daughter. Of course the references are to the Gibbs and Bee Gees but in my opinion the detailed content about this early group is best handled in its separate article as it is. Tvoz / talk 03:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tvoz so the article should have been proposed for deletion, since it mentions The Quarrymen, although they are essentially about the same thing, stories that are more like a chapter in a biography book than encyclopedic, the difference is that the Quarrymen made two professional recordings, Later the group reunited with the surviving original members, recorded and published albums and continues to operate today. I'll give another similar example: Smile, the band before Queen, also made several recordings, which have been published in bootlegs. The group reunited twice with its original members, on both occasions they made new recordings, the most recent in 2018. Against that, The Rattlesnakes loses.It didn't come to anything, in the same article it says that the first "real" performance was in 1957, the following year the band was already dissolved. To tell the truth, the article is not that long, it has a few very short sections that can easily be summarized or accommodated in the Bee Gees article. The Rattlesnakes was more of a hobby than something serious. Josedm (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Bee Gees


text:
Talk:Greek four elements

needs a merge & redirect to Classical element - Tarquin 10:50 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greek four elements


text:
Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 3

An interesting article. I wonder if it might be appropriate to mention the fact that the Potato Famine wasn't restricted to Ireland but also affected the Scottish Highlands causing famine on a comparable scale and leading (among other causes) to the Highland Clearances of people to Nova Scotia. For some reason Scots don't remember the Potato famine with the same intensity as Irishmen. -- Derek Ross 22:26 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yeah, great idea. It would add a lot of additional perspective to the page. You might know more about it than I do. If not, I can add in some mention. JTD
 * Please do. I only know what I've read on the Web.  -- Derek Ross

Because there were neaps as well as tatties, perhaps? Or more seriously, because there were already population movements underway from other causes, which both outweighed these problems and had already opened up avenues for moving into other lifestyles - the overheads of disruption were sunk cost from the clearances.
 * That makes sense. The Clearances themselves raise strong feelings among Scots but they were already underway when the Great Famine started. -- Derek Ross

On the Irish issue, all I can contribute from oral tradition is that my mother's lot tended to look down on those that emigrated to the USA as predominantly economic refugees (as we would now say), which is in distinction to how I have heard reports that ethnic-Americans look down on those left behind as not having what it took to emigrate (as opposed to those leaving not being able to cope). Also, modern Greenies who try to make you eat unpeeled potatoes claiming the peel is good for you claim "the poor Irish wouldn't have wasted it". Well, my mother told me how they instead used to peel it very thick, to get enough to start a new potato with (you had to have an eye). PML.

Didn't the Highland expulsions happen in an earlier century?
 * They started on a large scale about 1790 and went on until the 1850s. There were several causes.  One of them was the Great Famine. -- Derek Ross

When I read this I can"t help but get a lump in my throat as I taste an apology for genocide:

Critics have observed how during this time, Irish and Anglo-Irish landowners exported corn (and other crops) which could have saved the lives of many Irish people. However such arguments mis-understand the nature of the famine economy, where many estates were only kept afloat and so were able to avoid mass evictions, provide local famine relief or were able to reduce rents, through the grain exports income. Economic historians have concluded that not to continue the export could have plunged the entire Irish economy into economic meltdown; without the income, estates would have gone bust, leading to mass evictions, the laying off of estate staff, the resultant closure of local shops, businesses and industry all of which were reliant on income from the estates, and the spreading of the economic hardship and devastation throughout all of Ireland, including those parts to that point not heavily hit by the early stages of the famine, notably in east and north of the island. It was the classic 'no win' situation faced by many economies hit by famine.

Is it so important to keep plantations going as exporting concerns when a beaten population is held in check by a standing army? It happened over 150 years ago; but, they were still people. Not units in sim city. 700,000 people. I think this paragraph mis-understands basic humanity. It was a classic no-win situation like the Ukranian export famine under Stalin. Down to the use of "greater good" jusification. That aside it is a pretty good article. Two16 23:28 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'll give a practical example. A local landlord where I am from provided soup kitchens, work relief and reducing the local rents to almost nil. He could only do this through the money he earned from exports (which he reduced to the bare minimum required to keep the estate afloat. The rest he milled locally. If exports had been stopped, his estate would have gone bankrupt. So would all the local shops, millers, etc relying on it. Thousands of jobs in the local area would have been lost, including those of local estate workers. And new owners would have come in who, having spent a large sum buying the estate would want an instant return. Where that happened, they used hiked up rents massively, or evicted ALL the previous tenants, to replace them with people who could pay more rents. 30% of the locals were hit by the famine severely (I'm from Leinster, where the effects were less severe, though nearby we do have a 'famine village' - ie, a field where the outlines of the houses in an entire village that died can be seen.) If exports were halted, 70%+ would have been hit severely, making the situation even worse. If estates countrywide collapsed, the effects would have spread the disaster beyond the poorer rural areas right to the heart of urban Ireland and the less heavily famine-hit east coast area. Somewhere in the region of 700,000 to 800,000 died. Had a domino-effect series of bankrupcies of estates taken place, that figure might have doubled, as those who could just about get by would find themselves also evicted and destitute, as would hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their jobs in towns and cities. One historian at a conference described the continued exportation 'not as the best, but the least worst option.'

The solution initially proposed was that special Indian Maize was imported by the government and paid for out of the exchequer, allowing the exports to continue (so avoiding economic collapse). This initial policy was judged adequate by subsequent historians, as it provided food for the starving while avoiding massive economic chaos that risked making things worse. Unfortunately an ideologically driven government under Lord John Russell was elected which abandoned Peel's maize importation policy, replacing it with a completely inadequate set of policies that, to use a modern comparison, could be described as 'workfare'. [User:Jtdirl|JTD]] 23:48 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

I don't need an example to understand. That paragraph explains away the death of 700,000 people as an economic necessity. And you don't see anything wrong. In the absence of responsible government and under foreign rule the food of the land was sent away to feed other people in other places.Do I need to reiterate that this was the same circumstance as the Ukraine under Joeseph Stalin. I don't have an axe to grind about somebody needing to be held accountable. But please don't misunderstand what I am saying and please don't try to tell us that the maintainace of the colonial economy was a suitable defence for the food export. If the population had not been driven off their land and into tenancy, if they were not occupied militarily, if there were not lavish lifestyles for the aristocracy, if there was not a historical policy of cultural genocide, those people need not have died.Those people were not mere fodder units. They were starving to death. Emmaciated. Sahal thin. Perhaps all those people could have lived if the rural poor were not so terribly poor and so terribly disenfranchised.

It was an ideological famine. Just like the Ukraine.Lets not defend the death of thousands with a stupid ideology

And as for the bit about peeled  or not peeled... depends on the season, the recipe,the type of potato and the scarcity of potato. Yes peelings will grow and in some places like P.E.I. Canada it is illegl to throw out potato skins because it interfers with agricultural purity. 64.229.15.189 00:32 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

64.229.... despite the validity of your point, i would encourage you to create a login, and an identity. this helps to facilitate more thoughtful discussions on NPOV issues. see Accountability -Sv

Sorry i get a time out if i stay on the same page too longTwo16 00:43 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I uberunderstand. -Sv

I think the version I just read (1/10) is vastly improved, really quite good. Good job, Slrubenstein

excellent, man. really good work. vast improvement on that marxist claptrap i saw here once. 159.134.168.33

hehe, I love anonymous rattlings. :] --Sv

-

I don't think the topic of genocide need nessessarily be broached in the   article. Just the facts. I think that a npov article might be able to be written without mentioning it at all. But I could be absolutely wrong about that.

My objection was to this paragraph:

Critics have observed how during this time, Irish and Anglo-Irish landowners exported corn (and other crops) which could have saved the lives of many Irish people. However such arguments mis-understand the nature of the famine economy, where many estates were only kept afloat and so were able to avoid mass evictions, provide local famine relief or were able to reduce rents, through the grain exports income. Economic historians have concluded that not to continue the export could have plunged the entire Irish economy into economic meltdown; without the income, estates would have gone bust, leading to mass evictions, the laying off of estate staff, the resultant closure of local shops, businesses and industry all of which were reliant on income from the estates, and the spreading of the economic hardship and devastation throughout all of Ireland, including those parts to that point not heavily hit by the early stages of the famine, notably in east and north of the island. It was the classic 'no win' situation faced by many economies hit by famine.

Am I misunderstanding the famine economy if I don't particularly think that an island with a food surplus should be exporting food in atime of famine? I don't think that if the estates went bust and exclusive fishing rights returned to the locals that people would have starved. The worst part of that paragraph is "It was the classic 'no win' situation faced by many economies hit by famine." Economies don't face famine: people face famine. I wonder what it looks like. 700,000 people recieved a terminal case of Malthus and Calvanism and it gets reduced to the costs of Empire and estate. Is it simply a matter of understanding a balance sheet better?

I don't think I am responsible for any content in this article. I have raised objections to this paragraph on the talk page. The response on this page has been dismissive and the detrimental in the article.
 * We should probably tread lightly where geocide is concerned and remove the ironic(?) quotation in the subheading
 * those italicise someread as dirision
 * I think that every exclaimation mark in an enclclopedia article should have to work hard to defend itself

I think this might might help us figure out if the shoe fits. And again let me state my belief that it may be possible to write this article with out mentioning the word genocide.

From the wikipedia article Genocide

Definition of Genocide
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It contains an internationally-recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
 * (a) Killing members of the group;
 * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
 * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
 * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

1 paragraph removed Common usage also sometimes equates genocide with state-sponsored mass murder, but genocide as defined above does not imply mass murder (or any murder) nor is every instance of mass-murder necessarily genocide. Neither is the involvement of a government required.

The word genocide is also sometimes used in a much broader sense, as in "slavery was genocide", but this usage is clearly incorrect from a legal standpoint.

International law
2 paragraphs removed Acts of genocide are generally difficult to establish, since intent of destruction has to be proved.

Related concepts
Genocide is nowadays considered a crime against humanity, but the initial definition of that concept established during the Nuremberg trials was restricted to acts committed during wartime or directed against the peace and would therefore not have included all acts of genocide.

As mentioned above, state-sponsored mass murder is sometimes equated with genocide. The more precise term for this is democide.

Cultural genocide refers to the deliberate destruction of a culture, without necessarily fulfilling the criteria of genocide. This term has been criticized as trying to benefit from the emotionally charged nature of "genocide".

I cut what I thought would not affect understanding as it relates here because of length. Feel free to read the whole article. Let me make it perfectly clear that we do not need to use the word geocide only with a strictly International Law definition. We are not a court of International Law. I am not some crazed Boston Dentist: I am a Canadain just passing through. Canada for those of you who don't know, is a country which pursued for many years a policy of genocide as defined under International Law against its First Nations ... at the top of my talk user page I have a request that writers not promote genocide because that form of speech is not free;but, criminal in my land. I have seen none anywhere I have been in the wikipedia and none specifically in these pages about the famine.

Next I'm going to remove those offensive quotes 64.229.11.123 User:Two16  Two16 08:41 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

So what you are saying, Two, is that the universal view from the vast majority of historians, statisticians, researchers, etc that it is wrong to use the word 'genocide' in the context of the famine, is incorrect. Out of interest, I looked up some famine web-pages who assert the genocide claim. One is linked to the far left Republican Sinn Féin (whose other pages on Irish history are so factually wrong it takes your breath away. I could fill these pages with the list of clangers!), which has next to no political support in Ireland. Another is linked to 'Irish Northern Aid' (known as Noraid), and organisation at best unpopular in Ireland. (Its ex-leader was probably the most unpopular person to visit Ireland, whenever he came over, with widespread calls that he be jailed.) I found another on a wesbite linked to something called the 'Brits Out of Ireland' (BOI), whose political agenda was obvious. The point made in the article here is that though a significant minority among Irish Americans adhere to the genocide theory, the overwhelming majority of academics, researchers, writers, people working with the primary documents, and the vast vast majority of the Irish people reject the genocide claim as at best ill-informed. A lot use a lot stronger language about the claim and sometimes about those who promote it. Many suggesting it may be totally genuine, but using emotional, exploitative and agenda-led language in place of objective facts is wrong, wrong for trying to understand the famine, wrong for Ireland, and wrong and damaging to Wiki's reputation. JTD 21:46 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

No not really.But we can start here. If the definition of genocide (in part) from the wikipedia is:

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It contains an internationally-recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
 * (a) Killing members of the group;
 * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

don't you think we need to look at the defintions used to achieve that "universal view from the vast majority of historians, statisticians, researchers." If the facts fit the U.N. defintion, a case may be made regardless of what the  "overwhelming majority of academics, researchers, writers, people working with the primary documents" think. If we know the definitions they used, then we will know how much weight to accord their opinion and we can compare them to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Primary document workers can give us facts; but, we must evaluate them. This is enough for now. Lets deal with it bit by bit. Two16 23:48 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Fair point. Except all the evident archives, and all the major academic research by all the major academics in Ireland (who have direct access to those archives), are agreed on one fact. That what happened in Ireland lacked THE most fundamental necessity, as indeed quoted by you above as a requirement for genocide, the INTENT to destroy. That is the central motivation that must exist, in explaining what happened, for something to be genocide.

Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler etc all deliberately had the intent to destroy. It didn't matter what the longterm numbers, or long term effects were, it was the INTENT that made it by definition genocide. That the British government policies destroyed is not in doubt. But no evidence has ever been found of an INTENT to destroy. Sir Charles Wood, who was the notorious Chancellor of the Exchequer who famously refused to spend money, didn't do so with the aim of killing x% of the starving Irish. His fanatically held beliefs in laissez faire, led him to insist that LOCAL problems should be solved through LOCAL actions, paid for by LOCAL taxpayers in the Poor Law Unions. He acted exactly the same in crises in Britain. The only difference was that local MPs in Britain had more political clout within the national political elite to highlight what was happening, not that that made much difference when it came to the pennypinching chancellor. He had to be brought kicking and screaming to the realisation that Ireland's Poor Law Unions simply couldn't deliver the relief necessary; in fact they made it worse, because rates were charged on local landlords based on their tenancy numbers. If they were getting reduced rents and escaling rate bills, they often opted to evict tenants to cut costs on the rates bills, adding to the dependencies, which upped the rates bill, which then often led to more evictions, which added to the dependencies, which. . . the circle went on.

In addition, Ireland was a different island, which meant, to use the old cliché, out of sight, out of mind. The same features in the relations between Hawaii and the US, Corsica and France, Sardinia and Italy. National govts don't fully grasp what is happening if they are far removed from it. So British elites were out of touch with Ireland, and Ireland's agricultural economy was already teetering on the brink before the famine. (So were Irish leaders. O'Connell didn't grasp the seriousness of the famine while in the House of Commons in London. William Smith O'Brien, leader of the 1848 Young Irelander rebellion, was so out of touch he expected his supporters to supply provisions and weapons, ignorant of the fact that all they had in the world was a couple of days supply of Indian maize to keep them alive.) The conspiracy theory sounds interesting but, contrary to what some 'famine geocide' studies courses in the US (one prominent one was slagged off in Ireland with the statement that it should re renamed the 'Bart Simpson School of Historical Accuracy'.) If all the top academics researching the topic, all the top statisticians, all the top economic researchers, all agree that the Irish famine simply does not match up to the criteria for genocide as set out a range of bodies, not least the UN (and as I say, it fails the test you yourself set in terms of 'intent' to destroy), then there is a pretty weak case, to put it mildly, for a supposed genocide. Historians have to judge a historic periods on that period, not apply meanings retrospectively. As Joe Lee observed, the Irish Famine was all too typical of such famines of that period, in areas isolated from government decision-taking, where the governing elite were out of touch, geographically and mentally, with the area hit by famine.

-JTD, continued on Talk:Irish potato famine

title: Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 3


text:
Bart the Genius

"Bart the Genius" is the second episode of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It originally aired on Fox in the United States on January 14, 1990. It was the first episode written by Jon Vitti. It is the show's first normal episode as well as the first to use the signature title sequence, though this version is much different from the one subsequently used, from the second season to the twentieth season. In the episode, Bart cheats on an intelligence test and is declared a genius, so he is sent to a school for gifted children. Though he initially enjoys being treated as a genius, he begins to see the downside of his new life.

It marks the first use of Bart's catchphrase "Eat my shorts". As the second episode produced, directly after James L. Brooks' personal displeasure at the animation of "Some Enchanted Evening", the future of the series depended on how the animation turned out on this episode. The animation proved to be more to his liking and production continued.

Plot
The Simpsons spend a night playing Scrabble and remind Bart that he should stimulate his brain by improving his vocabulary if he hopes to pass his intelligence test at school. After Bart cheats by inventing a nonsense word, kwyjibo – basing its definition on an insulting description of his father – Homer angrily chases after him.

At Springfield Elementary School, Bart is busted for vandalism by Principal Skinner after the class genius, Martin Prince, snitches on him. To get revenge, Bart surreptitiously switches exams with Martin. When the school psychologist, Dr. Pryor, studies the IQ test results, he labels Bart a genius. Homer and Marge enroll him in a school for academically gifted students. Neither Lisa nor Skinner are fooled by Bart's supposed genius, but Skinner is pleased that Bart no longer attends Springfield Elementary.

At the Enriched Learning Center for Gifted Children, Bart feels out of place among the other students with advanced academic skills. Ostracized by his brilliant classmates, Bart visits his former school, where his old friends reject him because of his perceived intelligence. After Bart's chemistry experiment explodes, filling the school lab with green goo, he confesses to Pryor that he switched tests with Martin. Pryor realizes that he was never a genius and has him readmitted to Springfield Elementary.

Bart returns home and admits to Homer that he cheated on the intelligence test, but he is glad they are closer than before. Though Homer is touched by this sentiment, he is ultimately upset and angry at Bart for lying to him about the test and chases him through the house as Lisa declares that Bart is "stupid again".

Cast

 * Dan Castellaneta as Homer Simpson and Conductor
 * Julie Kavner as Marge Simpson
 * Nancy Cartwright as Bart Simpson and Skinner's secretary
 * Yeardley Smith as Lisa Simpson and Cecile Shapiro
 * Harry Shearer as Principal Seymour Skinner, Dr. J. Loren Pryor and Mr. Prince
 * Marcia Wallace as Edna Krabappel and Ms. Mellon (credited as Marsha Wallace)
 * Jo Ann Harris as Richard and Lewis
 * Pamela Hayden as Milhouse Van Houten, Ethan Foley and Boy
 * Russi Taylor as Martin Prince, Sidney Swift and Ian

Production

The concept for the episode developed from writer Jon Vitti coming up with a long list of bad things Bart would do for attention, imagining the potential consequences. The only idea that developed into an interesting episode concept was Bart's cheating on an IQ test. This idea was based on an incident from Vitti's childhood when a number of his classmates did not take an intelligence test seriously and suffered poor academic treatment because of it. Because Bart was already obviously unintelligent, Vitti reversed the problem for his episode. Vitti used all his memories of elementary school behavior to produce a draft script of 71 pages, substantially above the required length of about 45 pages.

It was Vitti's first script for a 30-minute television program. Bart's use of the phrase "Eat my shorts" was intended to reflect his adoption of catchphrases he had heard on TV; the creative team had told Vitti that he should not come up with original taglines for the character. The scene where the family plays Scrabble was inspired by the 1985 Canadian animated short The Big Snit.

Director David Silverman had difficulty devising a legible Scrabble board for the opening scene that would convey the idea that the Simpsons were able to devise only very simple words. The design of Bart's visualization of the math problem was partially inspired by the art of Saul Steinberg. The increasing appearance of numbers in that sequence derived from Silverman's use of a similar tactic when he had to develop a set design for the play The Adding Machine. Each successive scene in the sequence was shorter than the one before it by exactly one frame.

The scene where Bart writes his confession was done as one long take to balance the shorter scenes elsewhere in the episode. It was animated in the United States by Dan Haskett. There were a few problems with the finished animation for the episode. The banana in the opening scene was colored incorrectly, as the Korean animators were unfamiliar with the fruit, and the final bathtub scene was particularly problematic, including issues with lip sync. The version in the broadcast episode was the best of several attempts.

The episode was the first to feature the series' full title sequence. Creator Matt Groening developed the lengthy sequence in order to cut down on the animation necessary for each episode, but devised the two gags as compensation for the repeated material each week. In the first gag, the camera zooms in on Springfield Elementary School, where Bart can be seen writing a message on the chalkboard. This message, which changes from episode to episode, has become known as the "chalkboard gag". The other gag is known as a "couch gag", in which a twist of events occur when the family meets to sit on their couch and watch television. Groening, who had not paid much attention to television since his own childhood, was unaware that title sequences of such length were uncommon by that time. As the finished episodes became longer, the production team were reluctant to cut the stories in order to allow for the long title sequence, so shorter versions of it were developed. The episode also introduced the characters Martin Prince and his parents, Richard, Bart's teacher Edna Krabappel and Dr. J Loren Pryor.

Cultural references
In the opening scene, Maggie spells EMCSQU with her blocks, a reference to Albert Einstein's mass–energy equivalence equation. A picture of Einstein also appears on the wall of Dr. Pryor's office. At one point, Homer erroneously refers to Einstein as the inventor of the light bulb. Dr. Pryor compares Bart's proposed work among ordinary children to Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees. Goodall was pleased to be mentioned in the episode, sending the program a letter, and Vitti an autographed copy of her book. In retrospect, Vitti said he should have given the book to Al Jean who came up with the line. The conductor of the opera the family attends is named Boris Csupowski, a reference to animator Gabor Csupo. The opera attended by the family is Carmen, by French composer Georges Bizet; the song that Bart mocks is a famous aria called the Toreador Song. Students at the gifted school have lunchboxes featuring images of the 1945 novel Brideshead Revisited and chess grandmaster Anatoly Karpov.

Reception and legacy

In its original American broadcast, "Bart the Genius" finished 47th place in the weekly ratings for the week of January 8–14, 1990 with a Nielsen rating of 12.7. It was the second-highest-rated show on Fox that week.

Since airing, the episode has received mostly positive reviews from television critics. Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, the authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, strongly praised the episode calling it "superbly written and directed, often a literal child's-eye view of education, the first Simpsons episode proper is a classic." They went on to say, "these twenty minutes cemented Bart's position as a cultural icon and a hero to all underachievers, and managed a good few kicks at hothouse schools along the way. Especially worthy of note is the sequence where Bart visualizes his maths problem, the viewing of which should be a required part of teacher training."

In September 2001, in a DVD review of the first season, David B. Grelck rated the episode $2 1/2$ (of 5) and commented that the episode was "wacky and fun, very Bart-centered, it's easy to see with this episode why Bart became the figurehead for a few years of class clowns".

Colin Jacobson at DVD Movie Guide said in a review that "Bart the Genius" "offered another decent but unspectacular episode" and "its early vintage seems clear both through the awkward animation and [through] the lack of appropriate character development."

In February 1991, in an interview, Jon Vitti described "Bart the Genius" as his favorite amongst the episodes he had written to that point. James L. Brooks also mentioned the episode amongst his favorites, saying, "We did things with animation when that happened that just opened doors for us."

The show received mail from viewers complaining that the throwing away of a comic book was an incident of censorship. The invented word "Kwyjibo" in the episode inspired the creator of the Melissa macro virus and the name of an iron oxide copper-gold deposit in Quebec.

Home media
The episode was released first on home video in the United Kingdom, as part of a VHS release titled The Simpsons Collection; the episode was paired with season one episode "The Call of the Simpsons". In the United Kingdom, it was once re-released as part of the VHS boxed set of the complete first season, released in November 1999.

In the United States, the episode would finally see the home video release as a part of The Simpsons Season One DVD set, which was released on September 25, 2001. Groening, Brooks, Silverman, and Vitti participated in the DVD's audio commentary. A digital edition of the series' first season was published on December 20, 2010, in the United States containing the episode, through Amazon Video and iTunes.

title: Bart the Genius


text:
Gray's Anatomy

Gray's Anatomy is a reference book of human anatomy written by Henry Gray, illustrated by Henry Vandyke Carter and first published in London in 1858. It has had multiple revised editions and the current edition, the 42nd (October 2020), remains a standard reference, often considered "the doctors' bible".

Earlier editions were called Anatomy: Descriptive and Surgical, Anatomy of the Human Body and Gray's Anatomy: Descriptive and Applied, but the book's name is commonly shortened to, and later editions are titled, Gray's Anatomy. The book is widely regarded as an extremely influential work on the subject.

Origins
The English anatomist Henry Gray was born in 1827. He studied the development of the endocrine glands and spleen and in 1853 was appointed Lecturer on Anatomy at St George's Hospital Medical School in London. In 1855, he approached his colleague Henry Vandyke Carter with his idea to produce an inexpensive and accessible anatomy textbook for medical students. Dissecting unclaimed bodies from workhouse and hospital mortuaries through the Anatomy Act of 1832, the two worked for 18 months on what would form the basis of the book. Their work was first published in 1858 by John William Parker in London. It was dedicated by Gray to Sir Benjamin Collins Brodie, 1st Baronet.

An imprint of this English first edition was published in the United States in 1859, with slight alterations. Gray prepared a second, revised edition, which was published in the United Kingdom in 1860, also by J.W. Parker. However, Gray died the following year, at the age of 34, having contracted smallpox while treating his nephew (who survived). His death had come just three years after the initial publication of his Anatomy Descriptive and Surgical. Even so, the work on his much-praised book was continued by others.

Longman's publication reportedly began in 1863, after their acquisition of the J.W. Parker publishing business. This coincided with the publication date of the third British edition of Gray's Anatomy. Successive British editions of Gray's Anatomy continued to be published under the Longman, and more recently Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier imprints, reflecting further changes in ownership of the publishing companies over the years.

American editions
The full American rights were purchased by Blanchard and Lea, who published the first of twenty-five distinct American editions of Gray's Anatomy in 1862, and whose company became Lea & Febiger in 1908. Lea & Febiger continued publishing the American editions until the company was sold in 1990.

The first American publication was edited by Richard James Dunglison, whose father Robley Dunglison was physician to Thomas Jefferson. Dunglison edited the next four editions. These were: the Second American Edition (February 1862); the New Third American from the Fifth English Edition (May 1870); the New American from the Eighth English Edition (July 1878); and the New American from the Tenth English Edition (August 1883). W. W. Keen edited the next two editions, namely: the New American from the Eleventh English Edition (September 1887); and the New American from the Thirteenth English Edition (September 1893).

In September 1896, reference to the English edition was dropped and it was published as the Fourteenth Edition, edited by Bern B. Gallaudet, F. J. Brockway, and J. P. McMurrich, who also edited the Fifteenth Edition (October 1901). There is also an edition dated 1896 which does still reference the English edition stating it is "A New Edition, Thoroughly Revised by American Authorities, from the thirteenth English Edition" and edited by T. Pickering Pick, F.R.C.S. and published by Lea Brothers & Co., Philadelphia and New York.

The Sixteenth Edition (October 1905) was edited by J. C. DaCosta, and the Seventeenth (September 1908) by DaCosta and E. A. Spitzka. Spitzka edited the Eighteenth (Oct. 1910) and Nineteenth (July 1913) editions, and in October 1913, R. Howden edited the New American from the Eighteenth English Edition. The "American" editions then continued with consecutive numbering from the Twentieth onwards, with W. H. Lewis editing the 20th (September. 1918), 21st (August 1924), 22nd (August 1930), 23rd (July 1936), and 24th (May 1942). Charles Mayo Goss edited the 25th (August 1948), 26th (July 1954), 27th (August 1959), 28th (August 1966), and 29th (January 1973). Carmine D. Clemente edited and extensively revised the 30th edition (October 1984). With the sale of Lea & Febiger in 1990, the 30th edition was the last American Edition.

Discrepancies in numbering of American and British editions
Sometimes separate editing efforts with mismatches between British and American edition numbering led to the existence, for many years, of two main "flavours" or "branches" of Gray's Anatomy: the U.S. and the British one. This can easily cause misunderstandings and confusion, especially when quoting from or trying to purchase a certain edition. For example, a comparison of publishing histories shows that the American numbering kept roughly apace with the British up until the 16th editions in 1905, with the American editions either acknowledging the English edition, or simply matching the numbering in the 14th, 15th and 16th editions. Then the American numbering crept ahead, with the 17th American edition published in 1908, while the 17th British edition was published in 1909. This increased to a three-year gap for the 18th and 19th editions, leading to the 1913 publication of the New American from the Eighteenth English, which brought the numbering back into line. Both 20th editions were then published in the same year (1918). Thereafter, it was the British numbering that pushed ahead, with the 21st British edition in 1920, and the 21st American edition in 1924. This discrepancy continued to increase, so that the 30th British edition was published in 1949, while the 30th and last American edition was published in 1984.

Currently available editions

The current editions also contain histology, embryology, and pathology subjects that complements anatomical knowledge. The newest edition is the 42nd edition. The more popular 41st edition of Gray's Anatomy was published on 25 September 2015 by Elsevier in both print and online versions, and is the first edition to have enhanced online content including anatomical videos and a bonus Gray's imaging library. The 41st edition also has 24 specially invited online commentaries on contemporary anatomical topics such as advances in electron and fluorescent microscopy; the neurovascular bundles of the prostate; stem cells in regenerative medicine; the anatomy of facial aging; and technical aspects and applications of diagnostic radiology.

The senior editor of this book and accompanying website on ExpertConsult is Professor Susan Standring, who is Emeritus Professor of Anatomy at King's College London. The three most recent editions differ from all previous editions in an important aspect: they present anatomical structures by their regional anatomy (i.e., ordered according to what part of the body the structures are located in – e.g. the anatomy of the bones, blood vessels and nerves, etc. of the upper extremity is described in one place). All editions of Gray's Anatomy previous to the 39th were organized by systemic anatomy (i.e., there were separate sections for the body's entire skeletal system, entire circulatory system and entire nervous system, etc.). The editors of the 39th edition acknowledged the validity of both approaches but switched to regional anatomy by popular demand.

Older, out-of-copyright editions of the book continue to be reprinted and sold, particularly on the internet. However it is not always clear which (British or American) edition these books are republications of. Many seem to be reprints of the 1901 (probably U.S.) edition. Additionally, there are several sites where various older versions can be read online.

Henry Gray wrote Gray's Anatomy with a readership of medical students and physicians in mind, especially surgeons. For many decades however, precisely because Gray's textbook became such a classic, successive editors made major efforts to preserve its position as possibly the most authoritative text on the subject in English. Toward this end, a long-term strategy appears to have been to make each edition come close to containing a fully comprehensive account of the anatomical medical understanding available at the time of publication. The explosion of medical knowledge in the 20th century led to a vast expansion of the book, which threatened to collapse under its own weight metaphorically and physically. From the 35th edition onward, increased efforts were made to reverse this trend and keep the book readable by students. Nevertheless, the 38th edition contained 2,092 pages in large format – the highest page count of any and an increase from the 35th edition, which had 1,471 pages. The 41st edition has 1,584 pages. Newer editions of Gray's Anatomy – and even several recent older ones – are still considered to be the most comprehensive and detailed textbooks on the subject. Despite previous efforts to keep Gray's Anatomy readable by students, when the 39th edition was published, students were identified as a secondary market for the book, and companion publications such as Gray's Anatomy for Students, Gray's Atlas of Anatomy and Gray's Anatomy Review have also been published in recent years.

Cultural influence

 * In Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, the book that Tom catches Becky Thatcher reading, and from which she tears a page, is implied to be Gray's Anatomy.
 * In Bette Bao Lord's 1984 book "In the Year of the Boar and Jackie Robinson", Shirley Temple Wong and her new friend Emily secretly look at the "naked people" in Gray's Anatomy.
 * Early in the 1970 Tamil film Malathi, medical students Gemini Ganesan and B. Saroja Devi try to obtain the 28th edition of Gray's Anatomy from an old book shop.
 * Jean-Michel Basquiat's art was inspired by the book's illustrations since it was read by him many times when he was a child, especially when recovering from an accident he suffered.
 * In the 1980 Little House on the Prairie episode "Laura Ingalls Wilder Part 1", Mrs. Harriet Oleson (Katherine MacGregor) is seen reading Gray's Anatomy in a perturbed manner.
 * In the 1991 movie The Addams Family, Granny (Judith Malina) reads Gray's Anatomy while Gomez (Raul Julia) is playing with his train sets.
 * In Diana Gabaldon's 1994 novel Voyager, Claire Fraser references a description of maxillary muscles in Gray's Anatomy.
 * The 1996 Steven Soderbergh film Gray's Anatomy, featuring monologuist Spalding Gray, also takes its name from the title of the book, as does Gray's Anatomy: Selected Writings, a 2009 book by British political philosopher John N. Gray.
 * In the 1998 Star Trek: Voyager episode "Message in a Bottle", the new Emergency Medical Hologram designed by Ensign Kim begins reciting the contents of Gray's Anatomy when activated, beginning with a description of the cell.
 * The American medical drama Grey's Anatomy (2005–present) is a play on words referring to both the textbook and the name of the series' lead character, Meredith Grey.
 * The name of Jim Leonard Jr.'s 2006 play Anatomy of Gray, which centers on a doctor visiting a small town in Indiana in 1880, takes its title as a play on Gray's Anatomy.
 * In Dan Brown's 2013 novel Inferno, Sienna Brooks, as a child, reads all 1,600 pages of Gray's Anatomy in ten days.
 * In the ABC television series The Good Doctor (2017–present), the lead character, Dr. Shaun Murphy, an autistic savant, often visualizes illustrations from Gray's Anatomy as he mentally diagnoses a patient's condition.
 * In the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 2, episode 2), Willow found the book in the locker of a student who is suspected of digging up a body in a graveyard.

General and cited references

 * Online- and PDF versions of the 1st edition at Open Library/Internet Archive. Several other editions are also available at this site.
 * a brief history of the British Edition of the book.
 * a brief history of the British Edition of the book.

title: Gray's Anatomy


text:
List of human anatomical features

The detailed list of human anatomical features.

 * Head
 * Eye
 * Ear
 * Nose
 * Nostril
 * Mouth
 * Lip
 * Philtrum
 * Jaw
 * Mandible
 * Gingiva
 * Tooth
 * Tongue
 * Throat
 * Adam's apple
 * Vertebral column
 * Arm
 * Elbow
 * Wrist
 * Hand
 * Fingers
 * Thumb
 * Nails
 * Skin
 * Hair
 * Thorax
 * Breast
 * Abdomen
 * Genitalia
 * Penis (male)
 * Scrotum (male)
 * Vulva (female)
 * Leg
 * Thigh
 * Knee
 * Kneecap
 * Calf
 * Ankle
 * Foot
 * Toes
 * Buttocks
 * Anus

Joints

 * Development of the joints
 * Classification of joints
 * The kind of movement admitted in joints
 * Articulations of the trunk
 * Articulations of the vertebral column
 * Articulation of the atlas with the epistropheus or axis
 * Articulations of the vertebral column with the cranium
 * Articulation of the mandible
 * Costovertebral articulations
 * Sternocostal articulations
 * Articulation of the manubrium and body of the sternum
 * Articulation of the vertebral column with the pelvis
 * Articulations of the pelvis
 * Articulations of the upper extremity
 * Sternoclavicular articulation
 * Acromioclavicular articulation
 * Humeral articulation or shoulder-joint
 * Elbow-joint
 * Radioulnar articulation
 * Radiocarpal articulation or wrist-joint
 * Intercarpal articulations
 * Carpometacarpal articulations
 * Intermetacarpal articulations
 * Metacarpophalangeal articulations
 * Articulations of the digits
 * Articulations of the lower extremity
 * Coxal articulation or hip-joint
 * The knee-joint
 * Articulations between the tibia and fibula
 * Talocrural articulation or ankle-joint
 * Intertarsal articulations
 * Tarsometatarsal articulations
 * Intermetatarsal articulations
 * Metatarsophalangeal articulations
 * Articulations of the digits
 * Arches of the foot

Angiology

 * The blood
 * Development of the vascular system
 * The thoracic cavity
 * The pericardium
 * The heart
 * Peculiarities in the vascular system in the fetus

Anatomical landmarks
On the trunk of the body, the chest is referred to as the thoracic area. The shoulder in general is the acromial, while the curve of the shoulder is the deltoid. The back as a general area is the dorsum or dorsal area, and the lower back as the lumbus or lumbar region. The shoulderblades are the scapular area and the breastbone is the sternal region. The abdominal area is the region between the chest and the pelvis. The breast is called the mamma or mammary, the armpit as the axilla and axillary, and the navel as the umbilicus and umbilical. The pelvis is the lower torso, between the abdomen and the thighs. The groin, where the thigh joins the trunk, are the inguen and inguinal area.

The entire arm is referred to as the brachium and brachial, the front of the elbow as the antecubitis and antecubital, the back of the elbow as the olecranon or olecranal, the forearm as the antebrachium and antebrachial, the wrist as the carpus and carpal area, the hand as the manus and manual, the palm as the palma and palmar, the thumb as the pollex, and the fingers as the digits, phalanges, and phalangeal. The buttocks are the gluteus or gluteal region and the pubic area is the pubis.

Anatomists divide the lower limb into the thigh (the part of the limb between the hip and the knee) and the leg (which refers only to the area of the limb between the knee and the ankle). The thigh is the femur and the femoral region. The kneecap is the patella and patellar while the back of the knee is the popliteus and popliteal area. The leg (between the knee and the ankle) is the crus and crural area, the lateral aspect of the leg is the peroneal area, and the calf is the sura and sural region. The ankle is the tarsus and tarsal, and the heel is the calcaneus or calcaneal. The foot is the pes and pedal region, and the sole of the foot the planta and plantar. As with the fingers, the toes are also called the digits, phalanges, and phalangeal area. The big toe is referred to as the hallux.

title: List of human anatomical features