text:
Talk:Robert Smithson

Merger proposed (Partially Buried Woodshed)
The result was not to merge. --B. Wolterding 09:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Partially Buried Woodshed into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. Actually the article is quite short, and it seems that there are not so many sources about it, so that it is unlikely to expand. The content might best be merged here.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Do not merge - This significant artwork, which is also described in the Kent State shootings article, deserves its own article (as do many important artworks of artists of all historical periods), although it may also be mentioned in the article about the artist. Badagnani 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not merge I'm not opposed to a merge per se, although there are more sources available. When I get some extra time, I'd like to expand this. Spiral Jetty is the more well-known work, but Partially Buried Woodshed is a key work and I would like to see it remain an article on its own. Freshacconci | Talk 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg
File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Smithson. 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/20070225062342/http://renaissancesociety.org/site/Exhibitions/Intro.171.0.0.0.0.html to http://renaissancesociety.org/site/Exhibitions/Intro.171.0.0.0.0.html

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) 19:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Spiral Jetty Smithson Laramee.jpg (discussion)
 * Spiral-jetty-from-rozel-point.png (discussion)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Amarillo Ramp 1989 - Smithson-Laramee.jpg

title: Talk:Robert Smithson


text:
Kingdom of Kent

The Kingdom of the Kentish (Cantwara rīce; Regnum Cantuariorum), today referred to as the Kingdom of Kent, was an early medieval kingdom in what is now South East England. It existed from either the fifth or the sixth century AD until it was fully absorbed into the Kingdom of Wessex in the late 9th century and later into the Kingdom of England in the early 10th century.

Under the preceding Romano-British administration the area of Kent faced repeated attacks from seafaring raiders during the fourth century AD. It is likely that Germanic-speaking foederati were invited to settle in the area as mercenaries. Following the end of Roman administration in 410, further linguistically Germanic tribal groups moved into the area, as testified by both archaeological evidence and Late Anglo-Saxon textual sources. The primary ethnic group to settle in the area appears to have been the Jutes: they established their Kingdom in East Kent and may initially have been under the dominion of the Kingdom of Francia. It has been argued that an East Saxon or Middle Saxon community initially settled in West Kent and was conquered by the expanding kingdom of East Kent in the sixth century, but this is uncertain.

The earliest recorded king of Kent was Æthelberht, who, as bretwalda, wielded significant influence over other Anglo-Saxon kings in the late sixth century. The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons began in Kent during Æthelberht's reign with the arrival of the monk Augustine of Canterbury and his Gregorian mission in 597.

Kent was one of the seven kingdoms of the so-called Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, but it lost its independence in the 8th century when it became a sub-kingdom of Mercia. In the 9th century it became a sub-kingdom of Wessex, and in the 10th century it became part of the unified Kingdom of England that was created under the leadership of Wessex. Its name has been carried forward ever since as the county of Kent.

Knowledge of Anglo-Saxon Kent comes from scholarly study of Late Anglo-Saxon texts such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Ecclesiastical History of the English People, as well as archaeological evidence such as that left by early medieval cemeteries and settlements, and toponymical (place-name) evidence.

Decline of Romano-British Kent
In the Romano-British period, the area of modern Kent that lay east of the River Medway was a civitas known as Cantiaca. Its name had been taken from an older Common Brittonic place-name, Cantium ("corner of land" or "land on the edge") used in the preceding pre-Roman Iron Age, although the extent of this tribal area is unknown.

During the late third and fourth centuries, Roman Britain had been raided repeatedly by Franks, Saxons, Picts, and Scots. As the closest part of Britain to mainland Europe, it is likely that Kent would have experienced many attacks from seafaring raiders, resulting in the construction of four Saxon Shore Forts along the Kentish coast: Regulbium, Rutupiae, Dubris, and Portus Lemanis. It is also likely that Germanic-speaking mercenaries from northern Gaul, known as foederati, would have been hired to supplement official Roman troops during this period, with land in Kent as payment. These foederati would have assimilated into Romano-British culture, making it difficult to distinguish them archaeologically.

There is evidence that over the fourth and early fifth centuries, rural villas were abandoned, suggesting that the Romano-British elite were moving to the comparative safety of fortified urban centres. However, urban centres also witnessed decline; Canterbury evidenced a declining population and reduced activity from the late third century onward, while Dover was abandoned by the end of the fourth century. In 407, the Roman legions left Britain in order to deal with incursions into the Empire's continental heartlands.

In 410, the Roman Emperor Honorius sent a letter to his British subjects announcing that they must thenceforth look after their own defence and could no longer rely on the imperial military to protect them. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, produced in late Anglo-Saxon England and not considered an accurate record of events in the fifth century, in 418 many Romans left Britain via Kent, taking much of their wealth with them. This may represent a memory of a genuine exodus of the Roman aristocracy.

Jutish migration: 410–499
According to archaeologist Martin Welch, the fifth century witnessed "a radical transformation of what became Kent, politically, socially and in terms of physical landscape". There has been much debate as to the scale of Jutish migration; some see it as a mass migration in which large numbers of Germanic peoples left northern Europe to settle in Britain, pushing the native British population to western Britain or Brittany; others have argued that only a small warrior elite came over, dominating (or even enslaving) the Romano-British population, who then began using the Old English language and material culture of the newcomers. Currently, many scholars accept that there was significant regional variation, with the former view being more applicable in the south and east and the latter in the north and west.

In Kent, archaeological and historical evidence suggests that a large-scale immigration of Germanic peoples did indeed take place. However, some of the Romano-British population likely remained, as the Roman name for the area, Cantiaca, influenced the name of the new Anglo-Saxon kingdom, the Cantware ("dwellers of Kent").

The Germanic migration to Britain is noted in textual sources from the late Anglo-Saxon period, most notably Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; both rely on oral histories from the fifth century, and were attempts to establish origin myths that would justify the politics of the time. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a "king of the Britons" known as Vortigern invited two Germanic leaders, Hengist and Horsa ("stallion" and "horse"), to Britain to help defend against Pictish raiders. After arriving at Ypwinesfleot (Ebba's Creek, modern Ebbsfleet near Ramsgate) in Kent in 449, Hengist and Horsa led the defeat of the Picts before turning on the British and inviting more Germanic tribes to colonise Britain. Among these were the Old Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes; the latter settled in Kent and the Isle of Wight, establishing the peoples known as the Cantware and Wihtware.

According to the Chronicle, in 455 Hengist and Horsa fought Vortigern at Ægelesthrep (probably Aylesford in Kent), in which battle Horsa was killed. Hengist succeeded him as king, followed in turn by his son Æsc. In 456 Hengest and Æsc battled the Britons at Crecganford (probably Crayford). The Britons then fled Kent for their London stronghold. A similar account is provided in Bede's Ecclesiastical History: that the people of Kent and Isle of Wight were descended from Jutish settlers, and that Horsa was killed in battle against the Britons, adding that his body was buried in east Kent. The accuracy of these accounts is questioned; S. E. Kelly states that "the legendary details are easy to dismiss". Scholars often view Hengist and Horsa as mythological figures borrowed from folk tradition, to legitimise rulers in the Mid-to-Late Anglo-Saxon period.

The incoming Germanic peoples settled on the prime agricultural land of the Romano-Britons; particularly the foothills to the north of the downs and Holmesdale south of the downs escarpment. It is likely that they complemented agriculture with animal husbandry, but with nearby coasts and rivers it is also likely that they engaged in fishing and trading. The Anglo-Saxons made use of pre-existing prehistoric and Roman road systems, with 85% of cemeteries being located within 1.2 km of a Roman road, a navigable river or the coast, and the remaining 15% being close to ancient trackways. Little archaeological evidence of these early settlements exists, but one prominent example is a grubenhaus at Lower Warbank, Keston that was built atop the site of a former Roman villa, adjacent to a Romano-British trackway through the North Downs. Fifth-century ceramics have also been found at a number of villa sites around Kent, suggesting reoccupation of these locations during this period. In East Kent, fifth century cemeteries mostly comprise solely of inhumation burials, with a distinct Kentish character. Conversely, in West Kent cemeteries such Orpington mix cremations with inhumations, which is more typical of Saxon cemeteries north of the River Thames. This may suggest that West Kent at this point was independent of East Kent, and part of the Kingdom of the East Saxons north of the Thames Estuary.

Development and westward expansion: 500–590
In the sixth century the Kingdom of Kent had some relationship with the Merovingian-governed Kingdom of Francia, which was then extending its influence in northwestern Europe. Textual sources suggest that Kent may have been under Merovingian control for part of this century. Archeological evidence of Frankish material culture from this period has been found in Kent, but not in other areas of lowland Britain, suggesting a trade monopoly with the Frankish kingdom.

Sixth century Kentish artefacts have been found in continental Europe, in particular in the areas of modern Charente, western Normandy, the Rhineland, Frisia, Thuringia, and southern Scandinavia. They are relatively absent between the Sein and the Somme across the English Channel from the Saxons in Sussex, suggesting that trade was established between particular tribal or ethnic groups rather than by geography. There is also archaeological evidence of Kentish trade links in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and copies or imitations appearing in cemeteries further afield, in areas such as Wiltshire and Cambridgeshire.

Archaeological evidence suggests that at some point in the sixth century, East Kent annexed West Kent. To the south lay the Weald, a dense forest of no value to the Kentish elite, leaving the fertile area west of the kingdom attractive for conquest, particularly the Darenth Valley and the dip slopes of the North Downs to the west of the Medway. During the sixth century, while the archaeological record in Kent includes items from Jutland, the dominant influence became Frankish.

Established kingdom and Christianisation: 597–650
Firmly in the control of an elite class, Kent is the first Anglo-Saxon kingdom to appear in the historical record in 597. The monk Bede refers to Kent as ruled by Æthelberht at this period, making him the earliest reliably attested Anglo-Saxon monarch. Bede states that Æthelberht was a bretwalda who controlled everything south of the River Humber, including other kingdoms. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to wars in sixth-century Britain, but most were in the west and did not affect Kent; the one exception was a battle between the Kentish and West Saxons in 568, during which Æthelberht's forces were pushed back into Kent. Æthelberht's reign also produced the Law of Æthelberht, the oldest surviving text in Old English.

According to Bede, the Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England began in Kent under Æthelberht's reign when the Benedictine monk Augustine arrived on the Ebbsfleet peninsula in 597, bringing the Gregorian mission with him. Æthelberht's Frankish wife, Bertha, was already a Christian, with Æthelberht himself converting a few years later. Æthelberht's attempts to convert Rædwald demonstrate the links between the Kingdom of Kent and Kingdom of East Anglia, with shared North Sea interests.

During this period, Anglo-Saxon kings moved around their kingdoms continually, subsisting on goods from the local populations and reciprocating with gifts. Various seventh and eighth century documents attest to the fact that Kent was governed by two kings, possibly a dominant one in the east and a subordinate in the west, perhaps reflecting the earlier divide. Trade with Francia was extensive in the seventh and eighth centuries and appears to have been under control of the kings of Kent, through the ports of Dover, Sarre and Fordwich.

This period witnessed the end of furnished burial, marked archaeologically by less regional distinctiveness of grave goods and more artefacts decorated in the Salin Style II motifs. It also saw the emergence of elite burials with far greater wealth than others; notable Kentish examples have been found at Sarre Anglo-Saxon cemetery and the Kingston Barrow cemetery, while the elite Taplow burial in modern Buckinghamshire also contained Kentish characteristics, suggesting a potential Kentish influence in that region.

Decline and Mercian domination: 650–825
In the seventh century, Kent's power waned as that of Mercia and Northumbria grew, but it remained the fourth wealthiest kingdom in England, according to the Tribal Hidage with 15,000 hides of land recorded in the seventh or eighth century. However the period was tumultuous for the Kentish royal family; Kent was ruled by Ecgberht from 664 to 673, but between 664 and 667 two royal cousins, Æthelred and Æthelberht, were killed at Eastry royal hall, perhaps because they were a threat to Ecgberht. Ecgberht was succeeded by his brother, Hlothere, who ruled from 674 to 686 before being overthrown and killed by one of Ecgberht's sons, Eadric, who had allied with the South Saxons; Eadric then ruled until 687.

In the late seventh century, Kent gradually came to be dominated by Mercia. There had been a Kentish royal hall and reeve in Lundenwic until at least the 680s, but the city then passed into Mercian hands. The loss of Lundenwic probably broke Kent's monopoly on cross-Channel trade and its control of the Thames, eroding its economic influence. According to Bede's later account, in 676 the Mercian king Æthelred I led an attack that destroyed many Kentish churches. Mercia's control of Kent increased in the following decades; by 689–690 East Saxon kings under Mercian overlordship were active in West Kent, and there are records attesting that Æthelred arbitrated on the income of the Christian communities at Minster-in-Thanet and Reculver, indicating strong Mercian control over the east of the kingdom too.

In 686 Kent was conquered by Cædwalla of Wessex; within a year, Cædwalla's brother Mul was killed in a Kentish revolt, and Cædwalla returned to devastate the kingdom again. After this, Kent fell into a state of disorder. The Mercians backed a client king named Oswine, but he seems to have reigned for only about two years, after which Wihtred became king. Wihtred, famous for the Law of Wihtred, did a great deal to restore the kingdom after the devastation and tumult of the preceding years, and in 694 he made peace with the West Saxons by paying compensation for the killing of Mul.

Records of Kent following the death of Wihtred in 725 are fragmented and obscure. For forty years, two or even three kings typically ruled simultaneously. This division may have made Kent the first target of the rising power of Offa of Mercia: in 764, he gained supremacy over Kent and ruled it through client kings. By the early 770s, it appears that Offa was attempting to rule Kent directly, and a rebellion followed. A battle was fought at Otford in 776, and although the outcome is unknown, records of following years suggest that the rebels prevailed; Egbert II and later Ealhmund seem to have ruled independently of Offa for nearly a decade thereafter. This did not last, however, as Offa firmly re-established his authority over Kent in 785.

Religious centres of this period, minsters containing a church, were often far larger than lay settlements, with access to many resources and trade links; the Minster-in-Thanet was recorded as possessing three trade ships.

The seventh century saw the reintroduction of masonry in Anglo-Saxon England, primarily for churches. The earliest churches in the region have been termed the "Kentish Group" and reflect both Italian and Frankish influences in their design; early examples include St Pancras, St Mary, and St Peter and St Paul, all part of St. Augustine's monastery in Canterbury, as well as St. Andrews in Rochester and St Mary in Lyminge.

In the late seventh century, the earliest charters appear, giving estate boundaries, and showing reclamation of land, for use by livestock, from the Wantsum Channel and Romney Marsh. The Ebbsfleet watermill near Gravesend in West Kent, dated to circa 700, also reflects new uses of the landscape.

Canterbury grew into the economic and political centre of Kent during the seventh century, as evidenced by rubbish pits, metalworking, timber halls, and sunken-feature buildings from the period. Intensive development was also present at Dover, and possibly at Rochester, although archaeological evidence is lacking. It is known that both Canterbury and Rochester were the home to major mints in this period, primarily producing silver sceattas. This suggests that from the seventh century onward, kings in Kent were establishing control over the kingdom's economic structure.

During the eighth and ninth centuries, a number of fortified earthworks, most notably Wansdyke and Offa's Dyke, were constructed as barriers between the warring kingdoms; the Faestendic passing through the Cray Valley and the routeway that has since become the A25 were likely Kentish earthworks of this period designed to protect the kingdom. Evidence for such militarisation might also be seen in the Rochester Bridge burdens, documented from the 790s, which lay out the obligation for the Roman bridge across the River Medway to be maintained, which would be vital for allowing Kentish troops to cross the river.

After King Ealhmund presumably died shortly after witnessing a charter in 784, his son Egbert was driven out of Kent and into exile by Offa of Mercia. It is clear from charters that Offa was in control of Kent by 785. Rather than just acting as overlord of his new possession, he attempted to annex it or at least reduce its importance by creating a new diocese in Mercia at Lichfield, possibly because the archbishop of Canterbury Jænberht refused to crown his son Ecgfrith. Jænberht resigned a part of his bishopric and the pro-Mercian Hygeberht was chosen by King Offa to replace him "through enmity conceived against the venerable Jænberht and the Kentish people", according to Offa's eventual successor Coenwulf. In 796 Offa died, and in this moment of Mercian weakness a Kentish rebellion under Eadbert Praen temporarily succeeded. Offa's eventual successor, Coenwulf, reconquered Kent in 798, however, and installed his brother Cuthred as king. After Cuthred's death in 807, Coenwulf ruled Kent directly.

Mercian authority was replaced by that of Wessex in 825, following the latter's victory at the Battle of Ellendun, and the Mercian client king Baldred was expelled.

Viking attacks: 825–1066
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Kent was first attacked by Viking raiders in the late eighth century. Kent and southeast England would have been an attractive target because of its wealthy minsters, often located on exposed coastal locations. In 804, the nuns of Lyminge were granted refuge in Canterbury to escape the attackers, while in 811 Kentish forces gathered to repel a Viking army based on the Isle of Sheppey. Further recorded attacks occurred on Sheppey in 835, through Romney Marsh in 841, in Rochester in 842, Canterbury (Battle of Aclea) and Sandwich (Battle of Sandwich) in 851, Thanet in 853, and across Kent in 865. Kent was also attractive for its easy access to major land and sea routes. By 811, it is recorded that Vikings built fortifications on the Kentish north coast, and over-wintered their armies on Thanet in 851–852 and Sheppey in 854–855. At this point, Canterbury and Rochester still had Roman walls that could have been refurbished, but they were nevertheless attacked by the Vikings: Rochester in 842, Canterbury in 851, and Rochester again in 885, when they laid siege until it was liberated by Alfred's army. The Burghal Hidage lists the construction of the Eorpenburnam fort, possibly Castle Toll. Hoards have been found, particularly around the West Kent coast, that might have been wealth hidden from the Vikings.

In 892, when southern England was united under Alfred the Great, Kent was on the brink of disaster. Alfred had defeated Guthrum the Old and allowed Vikings by treaty to settle in East Anglia and the North East. However, other Danes were still on the move. Haesten, a highly experienced warrior-leader, had mustered huge forces in northern France having besieged Paris and taken Brittany. As many as 350 Viking ships sailed from Boulogne to the south coast of Kent in 892. Between 5000 and 10,000 men, with their families and horses, came up Limen estuary (the east-west route of the Royal Military Canal in reclaimed Romney Marsh) and attacked a Saxon fort near St Rumwold's church, Bonnington, killing all inside. They moved on and over the next year built a fortress at Appledore. Hearing of this, Danes in East Anglia and elsewhere then rose against Alfred. They raided Kent from Appledore, razing a large settlement, Seleberhtes Cert (present-day Great Chart near Ashford). They moved further inland and engaged in numerous battles with the English, but after four years they gave up. Some retreated to East Anglia and others fled to northern France and settled in Normandy.

A large Viking army led by Thorkell the Tall besieged Canterbury in 1011, culminating in the pillage of the city and the eventual murder of Archbishop Alphege, on 19 April 1012, despite Thorkell’s attempts to keep him alive to sell him for ransom.

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

title: Kingdom of Kent


text:
Talk:Michael Lerner (rabbi)

Rabbi
If people whose semicha isn't universally recognized aren't called by the title "rabbi", then by this logic, no Conservative, Reconstructionist, or Reform rabbis should be called "rabbi". I added "rabbi" back in at the top. Dreyfus 01:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dreyfus, as well as others disgusted with RK's repeated anti-Jewish-Renewal edits on this and other articles, will be pleased to know that RK has been banned from editing Judaism-related articles for one year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.73.152.99 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

November 2010: Somebody using the ID "contacteeperson" now appears to be going through all the Jewish Renewal and other alternative rabbis and removing their credentials as rabbis -- I was first alerted to this happening on the Yonassan Gershom page, then went to contacteeperson's contrib page, and found that he/she/it had done the same on Michael Lerner, Arthur Waskow, Lynn Gottlieb, Goldie Milgram, pages, and many others. Clearly this is somebody with a non-NPOV agenda vandalizing the Renewal pages. Rooster613 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I looked into this person's list of contributions and sort of suspected they were up to the same, but am not sufficiently familiar with Jewish Renewal to be sure of this. I'm mainly just familiar with Lerner (whom I worked for in the summer of 2007 [I created the stub of the "Left Hand of GOd" article at that time]) and Art Green (whom I took an undergrad course for in 1974).--WickerGuy (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Followup: Contacteeperson is a confirmed sockpuppet and has been banned, along with a whole sockfarm under the same puppetmaster, many of whom were vandalizing here also. Rooster613 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

rabbinic ordination
rabbis have been historically defined as those who have recieved the Jewish tradition from another who has received it... going back to the first rabbis. Since the founder of Aleph, Zalman Schecter-Shalomi, unquestionably received his simcha in an acceptable, orthodox manner, those ordained by him should also be fully recognized as rabbis. The term "rabbi" does not connote any clerical role, but only that one who knows the Jewish tradition and is a teacher of it. While the Aleph program of study is less rigorous than other yeshiva programs, it should still be recognized so long as affiliation is mentioned to avoid confusing him with an Orthodox rabbi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.73.152.99 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2004

"Reconstructionist" comment refactored from "Error in the Lerner article" section

 * For the maximum convenience of some of the more careful editors (& talk users), the full context of a contrib made where it was off-topic is included (albeit struck thru) in the following.

Apologies if this is posted in the wrong spot - I'm not too familiar with the Wikipedia editing system. Anyway, there is I think an error on this page, since it states that Lerner supports a binational state in Palestine/Israel. Lerner has in published articles specifically opposed a binational state on the grounds that in it, the Jewish people wouldn't have national self-determination. I haven't been able to find any reference outside this Wikipedia article that states that Lerner supports a binational state, nor anything in his writing that suggests it. 141.117.102.38 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Dale Whitmore
 * I've gone ahead and made the deletions that Dale suggests. To include the reference to Lerner's support for a binational state, I think the editor should provide a footnote that can be checked. I've also deleted the category Reconstructionist rabbi because Lerner is not one. Though one or more of the rabbis who sat on his beit din may have been ordained Reconstructionist rabbis, that does not make him a Reconstructionist rabbi. He is not and never was a member of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA). The RRA does not accept "private semichah" candidates for potential membership. Sam* 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)The preceding contarib was originally place in the "Error in the Lerner article" secn, and refactored to here.
 * I've refactored Sam*'s half-off-topic contrib. AFAI can see, it is a response to one of our discussion topics, followed by starting a new discussion on another one. If i've missed some relevant context in my refactoring, i trust colleagues will correct my error. --Jerzy•t 05:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Recognition by Orthodox community?
I will repeat my question: why is it important to mention that representatives of the Orthodox community do not recognize the rabbinical credentials of someone who does not claim to be an Orthodox rabbi? How is this "crucially important for his authority"? CJCurrie 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice attempts to give Mr. Lerner more reputation than he has in reality. Not to note that this "rabbi" is not-recognized by any Orthodox Jewish authority is POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How many Reconstructist rabbis are recognized by representatives of the Orthodox community? CJCurrie 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean if I don't come up with a number, you'll remove the factual phrase here to support you POV edits in New anti-Semitism? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was (and remain) quite willing to take this discussion as a standalone argument unrelated to NAS. My point is that it may not be especially notable if someone from the Reconstructionist community hasn't been given rabbinical accreditation from a representative of the Orthodox community. CJCurrie 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but in this case, your POV is "especially notable". Thank you for expressing it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "my POV". My argument is as follows:
 * (i) It is (presumably) not unusual for individuals recognized as rabbis in the Reconstructionist community to lack accreditation from representatives of the Orthodox community.  (If I'm mistaken on this point, please correct me).
 * (ii) Therefore, it is not unusual for individuals who identify as rabbis to be denied accreditation from representatives of the Orthodox community.
 * (iii) The fact that Lerner lacks such accreditation is therefore neither surprising nor noteworthy, and does not invalidate his authority.
 * (iv) Therefore, there is no compelling need for us to mention that he lacks such accreditation.
 * The article already includes extensive discussion of his credentials. Mentioning this as well appears both unnecessary and gratuitous.  CJCurrie 02:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should WP undermine mainstream Jewish beliefs? Let me guess: because it would be NPOV. LOL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Reconstructionist Judaism is non-mainstream? (And don't tell me that it's statistically small -- we both know that isn't the same thing.)   CJCurrie 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reset indentation

 * More to the point ... This article already notes (in more detail than is probably necessary) that the institution from which Lerner graduated is not accredited by many in the Orthodox and Conservative communities. Throwing in "non-recognized by any Orthodox authority" elsewhere in the article is at best superfluous, and at worst a sneering aside. CJCurrie 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See above: he is not even a Rec. rabbi. WP should not give Mr. ML superfluous authority. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he was a Rec. rabbi. I'm saying many people who *are* Rec. rabbis likely aren't recognized by representatives of the Orth. community either, and that Lerner's status on this front is far from unique.  Also, I don't believe it's for us to determine whether Lerner's rabbinic credentials are "superfluous" or not.  If you want to comment on the AAJR's status in the Jewish community, perhaps you could write an article on the group rather than re-inserting an unnecessary aside here.  CJCurrie 04:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The justification for clarifying his credentials outside the Jewish Renewal world, especially Orthodoxy, is that the article cited "Orthodox rabbis" as a partial basis for his credentials. Therefore, either the point is left in and made NPOV or it is deleted. I (Narcissus14) chose to leave it and make it NPOV. But simply reversing my edits is not wiki-ish, my friends. Be honest, fair, and NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcissus14 (talk • contribs) 21:58, March 26, 2007
 * Your initial edit which I reverted cited no references, and therefore seemed to be based on your own POV and WP:OR. Now that you've included references, it is clear that that was not the case, although I'm not familiar with allexperts and I don't know whether it's is a credible source with respect to matters of halakha. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the Michael Lerner article at allexperts.com and in my opinion it's not a reliable source. Its comments about Lerner's semicha are vague and unsourced: "Lerner identifies himself as a duly ordained rabbi, although many of his critics [who?] dispute that claim on grounds that he was given a private rabbinic ordination by a beit din consisting of three "Jewish Renewal" rabbis, whose ordinations are recognized only by those within the Jewish Renewal community and Reconstructionist Judaism, the smallest of American Judaism's major congregational bodies. ... Orthodox Judaism, the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly typically consider such an ordination invalid. Although that process, known as semicha, was common in the past after years of independent study, it is much less frequent in the United States these days. To pursue the structured rabbinic training seminary or institution background is more typically the norm." As I wrote, the statements are vague ("typically", "less frequently"), unsourced, and worst of all, they're not specifically about Lerner. I edited the paragraph to say what the source, a news article, can support. If you can find other reliable sources that say that (a) the Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform movements never accept private ordination and therefore must reject Lerner (because his ordination was private), or (b) the movements specifically reject Lerner (for whatever reason), or something else about Lerner, put it back in. WP:BLP has tough rules about what you can write about a living person, and writing negative things that are vague and can't be attributed to reliable sources can't be included. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

--> We keep throwing the word "invalid" around here. I have not seen a reliable source stating that Reform, Conservative or Reconstructionists view private ordinations as "invalid." The Orthodox movement's Rabbinical Council of America has a list of Rabbis who, if you hold a private ordination from them, you are eligible for membership in the Council. So, if Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionists view all private ordinations as invalid, does that mean they consider Orthodox ordinations which are fully accepted by the Orthodox movement as being invalid? No. Not allowing a Rabbi with a private ordination into your rabbinical association is NOT the same as considering a Rabbi's ordination "invalid." You can get ordained by HUC or RRC and not simply go and join the Rabbinical Assembly (conservative), likewise, graduating from the Jewish Theological Seminary (C) does not guarantee you'll be accepted into the CCAR (Reform). The issue has nothing to do with validity, it has to do with those movements simply wanting to ensure a little quality control. By restricting membership to their own seminaries they control what their Rabbis are taught and can be assured that they are educated to a standard set by the movement. That has NOTHING to do with considering a private s'micha "invalid" which has never been said by any reputable Reform or Conservative source (go ahead, try and prove me wrong with a reliable source). TimOliv (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Credentials
Lerner is very prolix about all his accomplishments and Jewish learning (on his website). But about his ordination, he merely states that the rabbinical court that granted it consisted of three Orthodox rabbis, all of whom had, in turn, also been ordained by Orthodox rabbis. But Lerner has consistently refused to identify these rabbis, so his claims to an Orthodox ordination are, on their face, invalid. Credentials whose origins are kept secret are not credentials. 74.66.82.195 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in the Lerner article
Apologies if this is posted in the wrong spot - I'm not too familiar with the Wikipedia editing system. Anyway, there is I think an error on this page, since it states that Lerner supports a binational state in Palestine/Israel. Lerner has in published articles specifically opposed a binational state on the grounds that in it, the Jewish people wouldn't have national self-determination. I haven't been able to find any reference outside this Wikipedia article that states that Lerner supports a binational state, nor anything in his writing that suggests it. 141.117.102.38 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Dale Whitmore

 * Re the part of the following contrib that is struck thru, see Jerzy's contrib below it.
 * I've gone ahead and made the deletions that Dale suggests. To include the reference to Lerner's support for a binational state, I think the editor should provide a footnote that can be checked. I've also deleted the category Reconstructionist rabbi because Lerner is not one. Though one or more of the rabbis who sat on his beit din may have been ordained Reconstructionist rabbis, that does not make him a Reconstructionist rabbi. He is not and never was a member of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA). The RRA does not accept "private semichah" candidates for potential membership. Sam* 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This section concerns the claim of a "binational state" error. I have struck the off-topic material thru, here at its original location, and copied it in to a new subsec'n in the "Rabbinical status" section above, in the interest of ensuring it is not missed by those with no interest in the b'l state discussion. --Jerzy•t 05:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
This reads too much like a promotional article. Not to the point where it's ridiculous, but definitely to the point that it's unencyclopedic. --Leifern 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC) This is true. Plus, when I added quotations from Lerner most recently published book, thyey were removed. Someone seems to police the page in a way that keeps an article on a minor but controversial political figure reading like a press release form Tikkun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evidence-based (talk • contribs).
 * Your paragraph was deleted because it was plagiarized from a newspaper article. When you put it back, I edited it so that it was no longer a cut-and-paste version of the Forward article.
 * Please, please think about what I wrote on your Talk page:
 * I hope you've had a chance to see the changes that have been made to your contributions, especially those at Tikkun (magazine), Michael Lerner (rabbi), and Jewish Voice for Peace.
 * I hope you'll take a little time and (a) review the change logs on those pages and (b) read the links at the top of this page, especially How to edit a page and Manual of style.
 * Your contributions are important, but you shouldn't copy and paste material directly from your sources. Review some of the ways in which other editors have changed your contributions to see how to turn your links to outside sources into footnotes or external links. ...
 * As I've written before, if you have questions, please ask. There are plenty of people who would like to help. Every article has a Talk page (click on the Discussion tab). You can post a message for any editor on her/his personal Talk page as well. Malik Shabazz 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Malik Shabazz 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the original source of the article, but portions of it seem like they were copied from press releases, especially all the quotes that praise Lerner. I added a tag that flagged the article as "unsourced." I tidied up the article this week -- in the process, I deleted rave reviews for several of Lerner's books -- but I have neither the time nor the interest to research Lerner's life to find reliable sources for this article. Maybe somebody else will do it. Malik Shabazz 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Hagiography has its place, of course, but not on Wikipedia.  Objectivity and all criticism seems to be diligently expunged form this page.Historicist (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Those are pretty serious claims, and they are demonstrably false. Are there specific issues in the article you think need addressing? — Malik Shabazz 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist
I just removed the section entitled "Conspiracy Theorist." It was copy-and-cut plagiarized and hopelessly POV. However, the facts themselves were basically true. If someone wants to add the section back in, it would provide some balance to the article. Unfortunately, articles indicating his real beliefs are scattered all over the Internet. - Pingveno  (  talk  |  contrib  ) 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence-based (talk • contribs) restored the paragraph you removed, word for word, in another section. I've been editing the article for the past few days, and I edited the paragraph from the Forward so (a) it isn't a cut-and-paste job and (b) it's NPOV. Malik Shabazz 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reorder and change level of heading "Criticism of leftist antisemitism"
I first moved said heading just below the "Lerner's Views" item, and then changed the heading level to make it a subheading of "Lerner's Views", since it seems to me that Lerner's "Criticism of leftist antisemitism", whether or not one agrees with such criticism or characterization, falls under that category. I'll have more to say about that later, but this is just a technical note about a technical edit. --Davecampbell 07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A note about Lerner's "Criticism of leftist antisemitism"
First an apology - the following is mostly either my opinion or my personal factual knowledge or both. I was involved in a different organization (Bay Area United Against War, aka BAUAW) during the period in question when ANSWER is accused of "barr[ing] him from speaking at their rallies ... because of his criticism". I have my own criticisms of ANSWER, and my own criticisms of Lerner, but the actual basis of denying Lerner personally a spot on the platform, is that, because of the rancor between the various organizations within the anti-war movement, a custom had arisen as a peace-keeping measure to not have such rancor broadcast from the rally stage. The broad mass of the anti-war movement were already sick of the sectarian infighting, as well as the principled discussions that invariably devolved into sectarian infighting, and demanded in numerous ways that we organizer-types concentrate on stopping the (insert expletive) war. Lerner had already made a habit of trashing ANSWER from numerous platforms; it was decided not to invite him to do so from theirs - and the rest of us agreed, in an open letter (which may still be extant, but I'm not up for researching it at the moment). ANSWER and others talked it over with the Tikkun organization (which, as noted, was a member of the ANSWER coalition), and another representative spoke at the rally instead. The only party who expressed dissatisfaction with the result was Lerner.

It is interesting to note that, while on one hand Lerner is forced to fend off attacks from the ADL and others who equate any criticism of Israel with antisemitism, he yet insists that any criticism of the idea of Israel, of Zionism, is "leftist antisemitism". He is entitled to that opinion. He has many vehicles for expressing it. But the fact that such a disproportionate number of the organizers of the anti-war movement (including some of the more vociferous critics of Israel) are Jewish, and as such we do not take kindly to real antisemitism, might be taken into account. As for the occasional picket sign (which the newspaper and TV cameras always seem to focus on) which could be considered antisemitic (the swastika = Israeli flag pops up way too often), most of us are put off by that sort of thing, but we can't control what signs people carry. From the stage, I can't testify personally (because I frankly don't pay attention to the speeches, I'm too busy trying to organize), but I'd be surprised if anyone would ever get away with pulling a Mel Gibson; I find it much more likely that, again, the anti-Israel rhetoric went further than Lerner is prepared to go, or allow.

--Davecampbell 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I live on the East Coast. I read about the Lerner/ANSWER spat second-hand and I also got the impression that there was more to it than he said. But in my experience, the speakers at ANSWER rallies spend an inordinate amount of time bashing Israel and blaming the Iraq War on Israel. It makes me very uncomfortable and unwelcome, and many fellow Jews feel the same way. At the last big rally they had in Washington, Rabbi Arthur Waskow led a separate march that met the bigger rally so that Jews and others could show that we were opposed to the Iraq War but also opposed to the anti-Israelism and sometimes antisemitism of the ANSWER crowd. And when ANSWER invites the same speakers who make the same speeches every time, they can no longer claim that they have no idea that their speakers will be bashing Israel and the Jooooz. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Working for the Clintons?
In another article on the Seattle Seven, Learner was reported to have later been on the Clinton's advisement council. Any verification?

This seems a significant claim.

RRM MBA (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know
whether to mention this (and how) on the mainpage: Rabbi Lerner's Response to Amma.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.160 (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * That's a dead link at the Tikkun site. Here's a no-hits search trying to find a replacement within their site. A Google search suggests it relates to coverage of Mata Amritanandamayi that is probably at least referred to in old revisions of her WP bio. --Jerzy•t 04:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This entry on Michael Lerner sounds as if it was written by Michael Lerner.
I have rarely encountered a wikipedia article at greater distance from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.14.97 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * When I was personally working for Michael Lerner and told him I was a registered WP editor, he said he was unhappy about this article and asked about changing parts of the article and I said we couldn't because it would be a conflict of WP conflict-of-interest policy. So unless you are speaking metaphorically/rhetorically, no- he did not write it.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WG's expressed attitude is exemplary, and in fact overdone: Lerner objecting to content isn't a reason for leaving it as it is; his or his agent's or friend's objections could be very valuable to our decision making about the article --
 * _ especially if labeled as authorized by him (both bcz his concurrence as to questions of neutral or unfavorable fact makes him often a convincing authority, and bcz acknowledgment of self-interest helps us cut to the chase in weighing his view of himself against conflicting views, and _ especially if relevant credible sources are provided.
 * That said, i'm disappointed with the logic: WG says "he did not write it", without even telling us that his boss seemed sympathetic to our stds, or is just too principled a guy (in light of, perhaps, WG's years of working hand in glove with him) to get someone less principled than WG to do it, or even whether the revision in question still has the dissatisfying info and which edits removed it, if not. --Jerzy•t 04:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I should probably fess up that while working for Lerner, I myself created the very very short "stub" article on his book The Left Hand of God. I felt that if it was confined to two brief paragraphs (essentially an amazon.com style description) and not a detailed analysis (let alone critque), I was not violating conflict of interest guidelines. Longer analysis (and critique) could be added by other hands. Since then, virtually no one has worked on it. However, I kept my hands off the Lerner article proper (this one) religiously.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Having said what i have abt WG's preceding contrib in this secn, i feel obliged to acknowledge WG's high principles in following up, w/in less than a half-day, with the qualification disclosure. I haven't inspected our The Left Hand of God (book) article, but i find the restraint WG describes to be everything WP ed's should expect of one another. --Jerzy•t 04:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * [snicker] But please edit NPoV'ly, rather than religiously. [grin] --Jerzy•t 04:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article could really use someone close to Michael Lerner providing some data - his birthday, for example. And on the subject of dates, It has him graduating from high school one year before he enteres the seminary - probably not right.  Just a minor typo, but I don't think anyone close to Michael Lerner has been editing this. Alexgriz (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism of Leftist Anti-Semitism"
I know there's already two headings in this talk page with that same title, but they're old and I think this deals with a different subject.

That being said, the language being used is outrageously NPOV. Take this sentence: "...that has risen among some leftists." Which leftists? Who are they? How are they anti-semitic? The language is taking this charge as granted and is basically implying that Mr. Lerner is pointing out objective reality.

This sentence is also written in the same fashion: "...the left often denies antisemitism". Could there be a more biased sentence? This could all be fixed with a simple "he asserts" or "believes that", and I would be more than happy to do so, but the article is locked, and as such, the problem can't be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.59.30 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

antisemetism in the new left is a well documented fact, the old left had also its antisemites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:8600:B080:C1C2:A679:AFDC:4CDD (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

He is only a "self professed" Rabbi
He never graduated from any rabbinic seminary and has no rabbinic ordination recognized by any branch of Judiasm.[ http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/07/poor-michael-lerner%E2%80%99s-petunias/] Membership in the Board does not mean anyone has acknowledged one’s rabbinic credentials as bona fide; to join only one pays annual dues.[ http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/07/poor-michael-lerner%E2%80%99s-petunias]

He has no Rabbinic training and was never ordained as a Rabbi by any Rabbinic training seminary or institution. [ http://www.conservativetruth.org/opinionet/archives2/ccsp/2002/ccsp52.htm] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contacteeperson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 * In no way do these fit Wikipedia's criterion for reliable sources. They are blatantly partisan sources. However, JWeekly states The Board of Rabbis of Northern California has accepted Michael Lerner who received ordination from Aleph, the Alliance for Jewish Renewal.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin: Please change or delete
Admin: Please change (or just delete)

"Some local rabbis disagree with his credentials. The president of the Northern California Board of Rabbis and JTS graduate Rabbi Alan Lew states "That is arrogant nonsense" "I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah [Jewish mysticism]" [13]

to

Some local rabbis challenge Lerner's decision to not be educated in a classical Jewish Seminary, although Lerner has said that the nonseminary track is one taken by "every Chabad rabbi takes, & every ultra-Orthodox rabbi". When Lerner attacked seminaries for being "more interested in producing organizational men for Jewish life than spiritual leaders connected to the deepest spiritual and social-justice minds", rabbi Alan Lew said ""That is arrogant nonsense...I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah"[same citation]

The quote in the article in no way challenges his ordination, and as it stands it is unclear what "credentials" mean and the cited quotation is wayyyy out of context.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 * At the discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, User:FormerIP agrees that User:SevaSevaSeva has doctored his sources. Please remedy.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 * So put the entire quote in. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not an appropriate solution. When you two come up with one, use this: editrequest (but don't include the tl| visible in the edit box).  If any admins happen to be watching here: the passage Seva has added is indeed improper and should be removed per BLP while this discussion takes place.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

SevaSevaSeva now blocked: Sockpuppet investigations/ Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just getting started with a civil and friendly conversation with him on his User talk page.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Added a lot of references
I've added a lot of citations to this article. I'm not sure if they are enough to justify removing the tag at the top of the article, but they will certainly discourage overzealous dissidents from deleting large chunks of material on the grounds that it is uncited.

To uncite is to incite deletion by the excited.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the BLP note requesting citations. Over 30 have been added to the article since the note was posted. Activist (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is a talk page for?
I have given up trying to edit Wikipedia, it is solidly under the control of leftists. Now I only post rants my opinions on the talk pages, exposing the hypocrisy and bias of the Wikipedia's liberal controllers. But sometimes when I do, libs come in and revert it because of the explanation "not a forum for general discussion." Even when I make numerous references to the article and how to make it better. The same happened on this article, an admin reverted my edit after I asked why there is no section for "criticism," the way there would be if Lerner was not a liberal.Winston S Smith (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 * The Criticism section on the Wikipedia article on Al Sharpton is much longer than the Criticism section in the article on Bill O'Reilly. Although there is no "section" as such, there is plenty of criticism of left-wing film director Oliver Stone in the article on him, and hardly any criticism at all in the WP article on William F. Buckley. Maybe you should be careful about scapegoating the alleged liberal bias of the editors of Wikipedia.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Soundly put. Activist (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I'm looking to see if we can merge the relevant information from Beyt Tikkun Synagogue, the synagogue Lerner founded, here. There's not a lot of detail about the synagogue to sustain an article, but lots about Lerner contained in its references and it might improve this article too. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose merger. Beyt Tikkun Synagogue has survived two AfDs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even so, does that mean it's better as a stand-alone, or better here? That an article is not deleted is not an argument against merging.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Michael Lerner (rabbi). 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/20120327053912/http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/05/seattle_seven_vietnam_proteste.php to http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/05/seattle_seven_vietnam_proteste.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325093716/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/451/451.F2d.372.26889.html to http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/451/451.F2d.372.26889.html
 * Added tag to http://www.cityclubofsandiego.com/city_club_past_details_db.asp?id=13334
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706010801/http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/index.cfm?n=27&sn=85 to http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/index.cfm?n=27&sn=85
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222010038/http://www.shiftinaction.com/discover/luminaries/rabbi_michael_lerner to http://www.shiftinaction.com/discover/luminaries/rabbi_michael_lerner
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025092534/http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=covenant to http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=covenant
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025092005/http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070228183252814 to http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070228183252814
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210023227/http://www.morehouse.edu/communications/newsreleases/archives/000203.html to http://www.morehouse.edu/communications/newsreleases/archives/000203.html

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) 01:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Michael Lerner (rabbi)


text:
Simmering

Simmering is a food preparation technique by which foods are cooked in hot liquids kept just below the boiling point of water (lower than 100 °C) and above poaching temperature (higher than 71–80 °C). To create a steady simmer, a liquid is brought to a boil, then its heat source is reduced to a lower, constant intensity (smaller flame on a gas stove, lower temperature on an induction/electric stove).

In food preparation
Simmering ensures gentler treatment than boiling to prevent food from toughening and/or breaking up. Simmering is usually a rapid and efficient method of cooking. Food that has simmered in milk or cream instead of water is sometimes referred to as creamed. The appropriate simmering temperature is a topic of debate among chefs, with some contending that a simmer is as low as 82 °C.

Japanese cuisine
In Japanese cuisine, simmering is often considered one of the four essential cooking techniques, along with grilling, steaming, and deep frying.

American cuisine
Food prepared in a crockpot is simmered. Examples include stews, chili, soups, etc.

Bulgarian cuisine
Bulgarian traditional food, especially tender meat dishes are often simmered for extended periods of time. Examples include stews, soups, Vanyas, etc.

Dutch and Flemish cuisine
In traditional Dutch and Flemish cuisine, less tender cuts of beef are simmered for several hours to obtain carbonade flamande. Traditionally a small flame is used, fed by burning oil. On modern stoves, the source of heat is put very low, or a simmering plate is used to diminish the heat. Usually a cast iron pan is used with a thick bottom. The meat is ready if it can be easily torn apart into threads.

Persian cuisine
Simmering is one of the most popular styles of cooking in Iran and Afghanistan. In traditional Persian cuisine, almost all types of Persian Khoresh are simmered for several hours. That is also the case with some other Iranian dishes like Abgoosht, Bozbash, etc.

Jewish cuisine
Simmering is the main cooking techinque used in Shabbat stews because by Shabbat's law cooking is forbidden on Shabbat. Almost every jewish diaspora group had different versions of their sabbath stews with the common practice of boiling before Sabbath begins and than kept on a blech or other devices to heat the food. Many Shabbat dishes simmers overnight to conform to Jewish law including cholent (Ashkenazi Jewish), Hamin (Sepharadic Jewish) and T'bit (Iraqi Jewish) and more.

Modern stoves
Some modern gas ranges are equipped with a simmering burner, with such burners usually located at the rear of the range. Many electric ranges have a simmer setting.

Slow cookers
Slow cookers are countertop electrical appliances used to simmer foods for hours at a time.

title: Simmering


text:
List of historic sites in Scotland

There are thousands of historic sites and attractions in Scotland. These include Neolithic Standing stones and Stone Circles, Bronze Age settlements, Iron Age Brochs and Crannogs, Pictish stones, Roman forts and camps, Viking settlements, Mediaeval castles, and early Christian settlements. Scotland also played an important role in the development of the modern world, and there are many industrial heritage sites and museums. A few of the best known are listed below:

Neolithic sites

 * Callanish, Lewis
 * Corrimony, Glen Urquhart (Glenurquhart)
 * Croftmoraig, Perthshire
 * Kilmartin Glen, Argyll
 * Machrie Moor, Arran
 * Maeshowe, Orkney
 * Ring of Brodgar, Orkney
 * Skara Brae, Orkney
 * Standing Stones of Stenness, Orkney

Roman sites

 * Antonine Wall, Scottish Lowlands
 * Trimontium, Scottish Borders

Monuments

 * Wallace Monument, Stirling
 * National Monument, Edinburgh
 * Nelson Monument, Edinburgh
 * Scott Monument, Edinburgh

Historic sites and battles

 * Stirling Bridge, 1297
 * Bannockburn 1314
 * Killiecrankie, 1689
 * Glenfinnan, (Raising of Standard in 1745, see Jacobitism)
 * Culloden, 1746

title: List of historic sites in Scotland


text:
User:Elano

.

title: User:Elano


text: User:Jumbo~enwiki

title: User:Jumbo~enwiki


text:
Tristan Corbière

Tristan Corbière (18 July 1845 – 1 March 1875), born Édouard-Joachim Corbière, was a French poet born in Coat-Congar, Ploujean (now part of Morlaix) in Brittany, where he lived most of his life before dying of tuberculosis at the age of 29. He was a French poet, close to Symbolism, and a figure of the "cursed poet".

He is the author of a single collection of poetry Les Amours Jaunes, and of a few prose pieces. He led a mostly marginal and miserable life, nourished by two major failures due to his bone disease and his "ugliness" which he enjoyed accusing: the first is his sentimental life (he only loved one woman, called "Marcelle" in his work), and the second being his passion for the sea (he dreamt of becoming a sailor, like his father, Édouard Corbière). His poetry carries these two great wounds which led him to adopt a very cynical and incisive style, towards himself as much towards the life and world around him.

He died at the age of 29, possibly from tuberculosis, a childless bachelor with no work, entrenched in his old Breton manor, misunderstood by his contemporaries, and his innovative poetry was not recognised until well after his death.

Family and schooling
His mother Marie-Angélique-Aspasie Puyo, 19 years old at the time of his birth, belonged to one of the most prominent families of the local bourgeoisie. His father was Antoine-Édouard Corbière, known for his best-selling novel Le Négrier. A cousin, Constant Puyo, was a well-known Pictorialist photographer.

During his schooling at the Imperial Lycée of Saint-Brieuc where he studied from 1858 until 1860, he fell prey to a deep depression, and, over several freezing winters, contracted the severe rheumatism which was to disfigure him. He blamed his parents for having placed him there, far from his family's care and affection. Difficulties in adapting to the harsh discipline of the college's noble débris (distinguished relics, i.e., teachers) gradually developed those characteristics of anarchic disdain and sarcasm which were to give much of his verse their distinctive voice.

Poetry
Corbière's only published verse in his lifetime appeared in Les amours jaunes, 1873, a volume that went almost unnoticed until Paul Verlaine included him in his gallery of poètes maudits (accursed poets). Thereafter Verlaine's recommendation was enough to establish him as one of the masters acknowledged by the Symbolists, and he was subsequently rediscovered and treated as a predecessor by the surrealists.

Close-packed, linked to the ocean and his Breton roots, and tinged with disdain for Romantic sentimentalism, his work is also characterised by its idiomatic play and exceptional modernity. He was praised by both Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot (whose work he had a great influence on).

Eliot used his self-description as "Mélange adultère de tout" as the title for one of his own (French) poems. Many subsequent modernist poets have also studied him, and he has often been translated into English.

His complete poems appear in two volumes with translations by the English poet Christopher Pilling.

title: Tristan Corbière


text:
User talk:Jumbo~enwiki

Welcome to the Wikipedia! Be warned, though -- this place can be addictive. -- Modemac 01:51 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jumbo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jumbo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jumbo~enwiki


text:
Hariti

Hārītī (Sanskrit), also known as, , is both a revered goddess and demon, depending on the Buddhist tradition. She is one of the Twenty-Four Protective Deities of Mahayana Buddhism.

In her positive aspects, she is regarded for the protection of children, easy delivery and happy child rearing, while her negative aspects include the belief of her terror towards irresponsible parents and unruly children.

In both Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, she is venerated as a protector deity, but in many folk traditions is often recognized as a female demon of misery and unhappiness towards children and parents.

Iconography
The iconography of Hārītī shows similarities to the Greek goddess Tyche and may have been transmitted to East Asia through the influence of Greco-Buddhism. In Greek art, Tyche was depicted in the presence of children, carrying a cornucopia (horn of plenty), an emblematic gubernaculum (ship's rudder), and the wheel of fortune; she may stand on the wheel, presiding over the entire circle of fate.

In Chinese Buddhism, Hārītī is also known as Hēlìdì (訶利帝) or Hēlìdìmǔ (訶梨帝母). In Chinese tradition, she is one of the Twenty-Four Protective Devas (二十四諸天 Èrshísì zhūtiān), a group of Dharmapalas who are venerated as protectors of Buddhists and the Dharma. Statues of this group (and Hārītī) are often enshrined within the Mahavira Hall in Chinese temples and monasteries. Hārītī is a figure of the 26th chapter of the Lotus Sutra, and is especially important to Nichiren Buddhism. In Shingon Buddhism, she is named Karitei (訶利帝) or Karitei-mo (訶梨帝母). Her iconography is based mostly on the Dai Yakusha Nyo Kangimo Narahini Aishi Jōjuhō (大薬叉女歓喜母并愛子成就法).

In Japanese tradition, Kishimojin is an aspect of Kannon, the goddess of mercy, and she bears the epithets "Bringer of Happiness" (歓喜母) and "Giver of Children and Easy Delivery" (子安鬼子母神).

Narrative
According to a Thai-Burmese Thervada oral story popular in southeast asia, Abhiriti or Hariti was a yakshani born in Buddhasasana of Buddha Vesabhu. She is considered to be daughter of Mother Dhamma. Once in city of human realm, a helpless Yaksha infant was hungry and crying. None of humans was willing to get him stop because his brutal appearance. The innocent prayed to Mother Dharma. Mother Dharma looked at him with infinite compassion or mercy. From that compassion, Hariti was born. She came to the realm of earth and lactating to the hungry demon infant. When he is satisfied and stopped crying, she went to realm of Yaksha and gave the child to his guardians. The king of Yakshas was very impressed with her. He proposed her for marriage and becoming mother of all asuras/demons. She agreed with the permission of Mother Dharma. There are hundreds of stories about Hariti and her dedication to her devotee and respon for prayers. Once upon time, earth realm experienced extreme drought, lacking crops and water. Human realm was in huge chaos, in that circumstances, buddhist monks advised them to pray Hariti to help them, human n non humans started praying Kubera and Hariti. Out of mercy, Hariti with help of divine powers, rain was happened, greenery was returned and blessed the earth realm with prosperity. She created a divine jar which provide infinite Siri/Prosperity to the human realm.

Yakshas are usually live more than humans even for many kalpas. Hariti is considered as the possesser of mysterious wealth of the earth. She was steadfast in ethics, mindfulness, and wisdom. Her husband was the king of yaksha, the kubera. She had no children. Once she was dwelling in the city of rajgir where Buddha Shakyamuni was staying. In search of experience of motherhood, she started bringing unhappy human babies in her abode from Rajgir city where the Buddha Shakyamuni was staying. Consequently, victim mothers from Rajgir pleaded to the Buddha. Buddha went to the abode of Hariti and brought one of her kidnapped beloved children with him in his vihara. Hariti was devastated when she found out. After futilely searching for that little, she finally appealed to the Buddha. The Buddha revealed how she was suffering in the absence of one child, similarly, many of other mothers and families were still suffering from the loss of their beloved children. Hariti acknowledged that their suffering is bigger than her. She returned all the kidnapped babies to their mothers and again became steadfast in the Dhamma. Buddha taught her Dhamma rituals associated with upbringing of a child. Hariti started practicing universal metta and karuna to all beings. Hariti declared that she is no longer a woman with no children, she is now the mother of all beings. Hariti promised the Buddha that she would protect and love children of all realms. She practices and teaches the four Brahma viharas to all worldly beings, for benefits of her children. Buddha hailed her as the Jagatmata or the mother of all realms. In Theravada, she is the supreme mother of all humans as well as non humans who hari(eliminates or destroys)(-ti) obstacles from their life.

According to another Mahayana myth, Hārītī was originally a rākṣasī of Rajgir at the same time that Gautama Buddha also lived there. She had hundreds of children of her own, whom she loved and doted upon, but to feed them, she abducted and killed the children of others. The bereaved mothers of her victims pleaded to the Buddha to save them. So, the Buddha stole the youngest of her sons, Piṅgala (in a variant version, the youngest daughter), and hid him under his rice bowl. After having desperately searched for her missing son throughout the universe, Hārītī finally appealed to the Buddha for help.

The Buddha pointed out that she was suffering because she lost one of hundreds of children, and asked if she could imagine the suffering of parents whose only child had been devoured. She replied contritely that their suffering must be many times greater than hers. She then vowed to protect all children, and in lieu of children's flesh, she would henceforth only eat pomegranates. Henceforth Hārītī became the protector of children and women in childbirth. In exchange, the Buddha gave her bodhi, which enabled her to withstand black magic and evil powers, and gave her the facility to cure the sick.

In the Japanese version of the tale, Kishimojin enlisted the aid of the Ten Rākṣasī Women (十羅刹女) to abduct and murder the children of other families. In some variants of the myth, the Ten Rākṣasī Women are themselves daughters (or daughters' daughters) of Kishimojin. When Kishimojin accepted the Buddha's teachings, the Ten Demon Daughters did likewise.

title: Hariti


text:
User:Gerald~enwiki

jag heter gerald...

title: User:Gerald~enwiki


text:
League

League or The League may refer to:

Arts and entertainment

 * Leagues (band), an American rock band
 * The League, an American sitcom broadcast on FX and FXX about fantasy football
 * League of Legends, a 2009 multiplayer online battle arena video game, often called "league"

Sports

 * Sports league
 * Rugby league, full contact football code, often referred to as just "league"

Other uses

 * League (unit), traditional unit of length of three miles or an hour's walk
 * League (non-profit), a program for service learning
 * The League (app), a dating app

title: League


text:
James Dickey

James Lafayette Dickey (February 2, 1923 – January 19, 1997) was an American poet and novelist. He was appointed the eighteenth United States Poet Laureate in 1966. He also received the Order of the South award.

Dickey is best known for his novel Deliverance (1970), which was adapted into the acclaimed 1972 film of the same name.

Early years
Dickey was born to lawyer Eugene Dickey and Maibelle Swift in Atlanta, Georgia, where he attended North Fulton High School in Atlanta's Buckhead neighborhood. After graduation from North Fulton High in 1941, Dickey completed a postgraduate year at Darlington School in Rome, Georgia. Dickey asked to be dismissed from the Darlington rolls in a 1941 letter to the principal, deeming the school the most "disgusting combination of cant, hypocrisy, cruelty, class privilege and inanity I have ever since encountered at any human institution." In 1942, he enrolled at Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina and played on the football team as a tailback. After one semester, he left school to enlist in the military. During World War II, Dickey served with the U.S. Army Air Forces, where he flew thirty-eight missions in the PacificTheater as a P-61 Black Widow radar operator with the 418th Night Fighter Squadron, an experience that influenced his work, and for which he was awarded five Bronze Stars.. He later served in the U.S. Air Force during the Korean War. Between the wars, he attended Vanderbilt University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and graduated magna cum laude with a degree in English and philosophy (as well as minoring in astronomy) in 1949. He also received an M.A. in English from Vanderbilt in 1950.

Career
Dickey taught as an instructor of English at Rice University (then Rice Institute) in Houston, Texas in 1950 and following his second Air Force stint, from 1952 to 1954, Dickey returned to academic teaching. Dickey then quit his teaching job at the University of Florida in the spring of 1956 after a group of the American Pen's Women's Society protested his reading of the poem called The Father's Body; he quit rather than apologize. This incident some critics believe he manipulated to his advantage, he became a successful copy writer for advertising agencies selling Coca-Cola and Lay's potato chips while in his free time writing some of his best poetry. He once said he embarked on his advertising career in order to "make some bucks." Dickey also said "I was selling my soul to the devil all day... and trying to buy it back at night." He was ultimately fired for shirking his work responsibilities.

His first book, Into the Stone and Other Poems, was published in 1960. Drowning with Others was published in 1962, which led to a Guggenheim Fellowship (Norton Anthology, The Literature of the American South). Buckdancer's Choice (1965) earned him a National Book Award for Poetry. Among his better-known poems are "The Performance", "Cherrylog Road", "The Firebombing", "May Day Sermon", "Falling", and "For The Last Wolverine".

He published his first volume of collected poems, Poems 1957-1967 in 1967 after being named a poetry consultant for the Library of Congress. This publication represents Dickey's best-known poetry. After serving as a visiting lecturer at several institutions from 1963 to 1968 (including Reed College, California State University, Northridge, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Washington University in St. Louis and the Georgia Institute of Technology), Dickey returned to academia in earnest in 1969 as a professor of English and writer-in-residence at the University of South Carolina, a position he held for the remainder of his life. It was there that he was also inducted into Omicron Delta Kappa, the National Leadership Honor Society, in 1970.

Dickey wrote the poem The Moon Ground for Life magazine in celebration of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. His reading of it was broadcast on ABC television on July 20, 1969.

His popularity exploded after the film version of his novel Deliverance was released in 1972. Dickey wrote the screenplay and had a cameo in the film as a sheriff.

On January 20, 1977, Dickey was invited to read his poem The Strength of Fields at the inauguration of Jimmy Carter.

Personal life
In November 1948 Dickey married Maxine Syerson, and three years later they had their first son, Christopher; a second son, Kevin, was born in 1958.

Christopher Dickey was a novelist and journalist, providing coverage from the Middle East for Newsweek. In 1998, Christopher wrote a book about his father and Christopher's own sometimes troubled relationship with him, titled Summer of Deliverance. Christopher died in July 2020.

Kevin Dickey is an interventional radiologist and lives in Winston-Salem, NC.

Two months after Maxine died in 1976, Dickey married one of his students, Deborah Dodson. Their daughter, Bronwen, was born in 1981. Bronwen is an author, journalist, and lecturer. Her first book, Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon, was published in 2016.

Death
Dickey died on January 19, 1997, aged 73, six days after his last class at the University of South Carolina, where from 1968 he taught as poet in residence. Dickey spent his last years in and out of hospitals, afflicted with severe alcoholism, jaundice and later pulmonary fibrosis.

Poetry

 * Into the Stone and Other Poems (in Poets of Today VII) (1960)
 * Drowning with Others (1962)
 * Two Poems of the Air (1964)
 * Helmets (1964)
 * Buckdancer's Choice: Poems (1965) —winner of the National Book Award
 * Poems 1957-67 (1967)
 * The Achievement of James Dickey: A Comprehensive Selection of His Poems (1968)
 * The Eye-Beaters, Blood, Victory, Madness, Buckhead and Mercy (1970)
 * Exchanges (1971)
 * The Zodiac (1976)
 * The Owl King (1977)
 * Veteran Birth: The Gadfly Poems 1947-49 (1978)
 * Tucky the Hunter (1978)
 * Head-Deep in Strange Sounds: Free-Flight Improvisations from the unEnglish (1979)
 * The Strength of Fields (1979)
 * Falling, May Day Sermon, and Other Poems (1981)
 * The Early Motion (1981)
 * Puella (1982)
 * Värmland (1982)
 * False Youth: Four Seasons (1983)
 * For a Time and Place (1983)
 * Intervisions (1983)
 * The Central Motion: Poems 1968-79 (1983)
 * Bronwen, The Traw, and the Shape-Shifter: A Poem in Four Parts (1986)
 * Summons (1988)
 * The Eagle's Mile (1990)
 * The Selected Poems (1998)
 * The Complete Poems of James Dickey (2013)
 * Death, and the Day's Light (2015)
 * Death, and the Day's Light (2015)

Filmography

 * Deliverance (novel / screenplay) (1972) - Sheriff Bullard (cameo film role)
 * The Call of the Wild (screenplay) (1976)
 * The Call of the Wild (screenplay) (1976)

title: James Dickey


text:
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)

The naming of articles on aircraft types should normally follow a standard format of [MANUFACTURER]-[DESIGNATION]-[NAME], for example Morane-Saulnier MS.755 Fleuret. In some cases the type may not have a designation or name, or inclusion of all these elements would not meet the common name policy. Further clarification of the policy is available on Official names.

 * Manufacturer: This should be the main designer and manufacturer of the type. If the type has been produced by different companies or different company names then consensus should be reached on a case-by-case basis on which to use. For example, use Supermarine Spitfire rather than Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire — although either is correct, the former is used by consensus. Be wary of using non-contemporary names like Boeing DC-3 or British Aerospace Spitfire.
 * Designation: This can be either the manufacturer's designation or the military designation depending on which is more common. If an aircraft has multiple designations then use the most common or none if this would cause confusion. If the exact designation of a certified aircraft is unclear because official sources differ, the Type Certificate Data Sheet should take precedence. In cases where the TCDS official designation varies significantly from the name the aircraft is marketed under, then this should be explained in the article text. (i.e. Hughes 369 is marketed as the Hughes 500, LC41-550FG is marketed as the Cessna 400).
 * Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military. Do not use nicknames or foreign reporting names, (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 not Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed) for example. If the type has multiple names then either use the most common or none if this would cause confusion.
 * Child articles: Articles that are split from, or are sub-articles, of the "parent article" should, as far as is practical, retain the manufacturer-designation-name as the first part of the title and the specific topic of the article after that. For instance the main article Bell UH-1 Iroquois has a sub article Bell UH-1 Iroquois variants. An exception to this would be List of Bell UH-1 Iroquois operators, which follows standard Wikipedia-wide nomenclature for list articles.
 * Exceptions: Any guideline can have exceptions as some aircraft are so well-known that it makes more sense to break the usual rules. In theory, the Anglo-French supersonic airliner should be the Aerospatiale–BAC Concorde, but it is so well known as simply Concorde that it is better to use the common name.
 * Redirect: Whatever format is agreed or used for an article, consideration should be given to create redirects from other variations of the name.
 * Renaming: These guidelines should be considered when proposing the renaming of an article or the name of the article is disputed. Consideration should be given to renaming current articles when needed but they should not be renamed en masse without agreement from other editors.

title: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)