text:
User talk:MetBoy

Hello there MetBoy, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work in the comic strip section. Cheers! --maveric149

title: User talk:MetBoy


text: Talk:Emory University

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

title: Talk:Emory University


text:
Talk:Riksdagen

I can't understand the concept of separate articles for Riksdagen and Parliament of Sweden. They refer to the same thing, but Parliament of Sweden links to Riksdag as a subsection ?

title: Talk:Riksdagen


text:
Sunnydale

Sunnydale is the fictional setting for the U.S. television drama Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003). The series creator Joss Whedon conceived the town as a representation of a generic Californian city, as well as a narrative parody of the all-too-serene towns typical in traditional horror films.

Sunnydale is located on a "Hellmouth"; a portal "between this reality and the next", and convergence point of mystical energies.

Sunnydale itself
Sunnydale's size and surroundings are implausible but justified given its origins — to sustain a human population for supernatural evils to prey upon. The town's founder spared no expense to attract a populace, and Sunnydale thus contains many elements of a large city — which the show's writers utilized fully for comic effect and narrative convenience. During the first three seasons, Sunnydale is shown to have 38,500 inhabitants, very few high schools, forty-three churches, a small private college, a zoo, a museum, and one modest main street. Even so, it has twelve gothic cemeteries. These cemeteries are so heavily used that services are sometimes held at night. Sunnydale is divided into five neighborhoods. The first is the entertainment district which contains the Bronze, Sunnydale's nightclub, which attracts some well-known artists despite a clientele consisting mainly of high-school kids. The second consists of the alleys directly behind Bronze, housing the town's surplus supply of pallets and cardboard. The high school makes up the third neighborhood. The fourth neighborhood is entirely occupied by a large graveyard, and finally, the suburban residential sprawl forms the last neighborhood. The prevalence of very nice homes is made possible by low property values resulting from frequent murders.

In later seasons it is revealed that Sunnydale contains a campus of the University of California system, as well as a profitable magic supply shop. The town is also seen to include a large park containing a creek and a lake, and one of its cemeteries is shown to be adjacent to a lake. Sunnydale has a number of parks: Weatherly Park, Glebe Park, Radcliff Park and Nelson Park are just some of the examples.

Sunnydale has a train station, a bus station, a small airport, and a small military base. There is also a seaport with a harbor deep enough to allow the docking of coastal freighters.

Directly beneath Sunnydale High School is a Hellmouth, a subterranean, mystical portal that attracts evil forces. This functions as a major plot device in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, as it explains why vampires and other demons are so prevalent in Sunnydale. Also beneath the school is a small pool of sea water with an outlet to the Pacific Ocean.

Sunnydale exhibits many common horror-movie characteristics, including an abundance of dark alleyways, abandoned mansions, and factories. The adult population is either clueless or perpetually in denial, in stark contrast to the demon-fighting, supernaturally aware teens.

By the show's seventh season, set in 2002–03, the city's population had fallen to 32,900. In the spring, the town was almost completely evacuated.

Sunnydale's surroundings
Sunnydale is somewhat isolated.

The town is situated near several acres of woods and forest, including Miller's Woods. Breaker's Woods is a 45-minute drive from town.

Sunnydale is located on or near the Pacific Ocean. An ocean port with several docked ships is nearby. Kingman's Bluff stands on a tall cliff overlooking the sea. There is a beach not too far away.

Close to or in Sunnydale is an old quarry house built beside a deep lake, located a few feet from a cliff edge. In addition, there is a hydroelectric dam in the vicinity of Sunnydale.

Within a day's drive of Sunnydale is a desert. It is stated several times that Sunnydale is approximately two hours' drive north of Los Angeles.

In the final episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer ("Chosen"), and also in the first issue of the Buffy: Season Eight comic book, Sunnydale is depicted being surrounded by desert terrain.

The episode "Pangs" reveals that Sunnydale is in the former homeland of the Chumash people, which is the area northwest of Los Angeles, centered on Santa Barbara County. The episode references a lost Spanish mission, which might be a reference to a historical mission originally located near Point Conception which was destroyed by an earthquake and relocated inland.

The episode "Shadow" (5.08) contains a telephone directory ad for the Magic Box, which uses an 805 area code. This would indicate that Sunnydale is located in Santa Barbara County, or possibly Ventura County or San Luis Obispo County (all are along the coast north of Los Angeles but south of Monterey).

Maps of Sunnydale
Maps of Sunnydale have appeared at various times during the show:

 * A large map of "Sunnydale County" hangs on the wall of Principal Snyder's office and also on the wall of Mayor Wilkins' office. This is actually a map of Santa Barbara County, California with the words "Sunnydale County" superimposed on it. According to this map, Sunnydale is located at a bend on the California coast. To the south and west of Sunnydale is the Pacific Ocean. Joss Whedon stated in November 1998 that "Sunnydale is in fact near Santa Barbara."
 * Giles uses a street map of Santa Barbara as a map of Sunnydale when he is plotting sightings of the Initiative commandos in the series' fourth season.
 * A street map of central Sunnydale is used by the Scooby Gang twice in the seventh season.
 * In the seventh season, Andrew draws a map of Sunnydale to track the First's activities. The general shape of the coastline matches the map used in season three. According to Andrew's map, there are woods between Sunnydale and the ocean to the west and to the south, and directly southeast of the town, at the location where the coast bends, there is a dark forest. There are also woods to the east of Sunnydale, as well as railroad tracks.

Filming locations
Various southern California locations are used as stand-ins for Sunnydale:

 * The exterior shots, as well as some interior shots, of Buffy's home are of an actual residence located in Torrance.
 * The exterior shots of Sunnydale High School (seasons 1–3) are of Torrance High School in Torrance, California.
 * The exterior shots of The Mansion (seasons 2–3) are of Frank Lloyd Wright's Ennis House in Los Feliz near Griffith Park.
 * Most of the University of California, Sunnydale scenes (season 4) were filmed at the University of California, Los Angeles, and in a closed sound stage designed to match the UCLA architecture. Some of the later scenes were filmed at a private business park.
 * The exterior shots of Sunnydale City Hall is the Iowa Courthouse Building, an office building in Torrance.
 * The exterior shots of New Sunnydale High School (season 7) were filmed at California State University, Northridge in Northridge, California.

Prior to Buffy's arrival
Long before humans settled the area, a Hellmouth existed at the site of the future town of Sunnydale.

In ancient times, a magic scythe was used at the site of the Hellmouth "to kill the last pure demon that walked upon the Earth." After this, the scythe was hidden, and its last guardian remained, waiting in a pagan temple that would somehow remain unnoticed for centuries.

Centuries later, the Navajo and Chumash peoples lived in this area along with one or more groups of monks and friars who also settled there. As in general Californian history, these friars are assumed to have been Spanish Franciscans, who arrived in California in the late 18th century. In 1812, there was an earthquake in the Sunnydale region that caused a cave-in during which an entire mission was lost; the very existence of the mission was soon forgotten. (The Mission La Purísima Concepción, originally sited near Point Conception and relocated to Lompoc would fit this description.)

Richard Wilkins arrived in California in the late 19th century, looking for gold. He founded Sunnydale (after considering the alternate names "Happydale" and "Sunny Acres") in a demon infested valley after a Navajo Slayer died there in 1899. He made a pact with the demons to found a town atop the Hellmouth for them "to feed on", in return for the promise of immortality by becoming a pure demon himself. Wilkins became Mayor of Sunnydale.

In the 1930s, there was at least one more major earthquake in Sunnydale. This caused a cave-in that swallowed up the Master and his lair, as well as the Satanist temple on Kingman's Bluff. (The date of this earthquake is given as either 1932 or 1937, although it is possible these were two distinct quakes.)

Sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, Richard Wilkins was again elected mayor, now under the name of "Richard Wilkins III", and served more than one term.

By the 1990s, Sunnydale appeared to have become a typical town on the California coast, with a popular mayor, a police force that Principal Snyder describes as "deeply stupid," and a local newspaper (the Sunnydale Press ). However, Mayor Wilkins had instructed the police to cover up any supernatural or mysterious violence occurring in the city and had directed Principal Snyder to conceal supernatural violence occurring at Sunnydale High.

Mystic artifacts
At some point in Sunnydale's history, the following mystic artifacts were hidden throughout the town's cemeteries and perhaps elsewhere:
 * the du Lac Cross (found in "What's My Line, Part One")
 * some, but not all, of the scattered remnants of the Judge (found and reassembled in "Surprise"); other pieces were found elsewhere and shipped to Sunnydale
 * the Glove of Myhnegon (found in "Revelations")
 * the Amulet of Balthazar (found in "Bad Girls")
 * the Gem of Amara (found in "The Harsh Light of Day")

During the series
The series begins when Buffy Summers, the current vampire slayer, moves to 1630 Revello Drive, and begins attending Sunnydale High School. There she meets new friends, including Willow Rosenberg, Xander Harris, and her new watcher, Rupert Giles. This "Scooby Gang", eventually including popular cheerleader Cordelia Chase and Willow's boyfriend Oz, often hangs out at the Bronze, the Espresso Pump (a local coffee house with a retro gas station motif) and the Sun Cinema. Buffy's mother, Joyce, works in an art gallery in Sunnydale. (It is not clear whether or not she owns the gallery.)

During their time in high school, Buffy and her friends fight a number of vampires, most notably the Master, Angel, a vampire with a soul, who fell in love with Buffy; Spike, Drusilla, and Angelus (when Angel had lost his soul). Another slayer, Faith, arrives in their senior year of high school (Season 3) and lives at the Downtowner Motel until she joins forces with Mayor Wilkins.

In the third season episode "The Wish", Cordelia angrily wishes that Buffy Summers had never arrived in Sunnydale, and her wish is granted by vengeance demon Anyanka. Cordelia finds herself in an alternate universe where The Master has risen to the surface and completely taken over the town, with the surviving human population living in terror of the vampires. The school is sparsely populated; curfews are strict; humans wear crosses and drab colors to avoid attracting vampires; and almost all of the people she knew are either dead or have been turned into vampires.

At the end of the third season (June 1999), Sunnydale High School is destroyed in a great conflict that kills Mayor Wilkins and Principal Snyder. After this point, there is no mention in the television show of the political leaders of the city. The police occasionally appear, but the police chief does not. There is no further discussion of the police covering up supernatural evidence, although one newspaper headline suggests this may have continued.

As the fourth season begins (fall 1999), Buffy and Willow begin attending the University of California, Sunnydale. There they discover that the United States government was operating a "black" (secret) military unit, The Initiative, and has a laboratory and demon confinement complex in a cavern beneath the UC Sunnydale campus. The Initiative is closed down at the end of the season (spring 2000) after a climactic battle with the cyborg Adam. By this time, Tara Maclay and Anya have been added to the Scooby Gang. Later this same year, Giles purchases a magic shop named The Magic Box.

Sometime between the fourth and fifth seasons (during the summer of 2000), the mysterious "Key" is transformed into Buffy's younger "sister", Dawn Summers and the evil goddess Glory arrives in the town, leading to an increase in the number of mentally ill patients due to her ability to suck the sanity from their brains to maintain her own. The next year brings the deaths of Joyce Summers and Buffy herself (although Buffy is returned from the grave by a magic spell cast by Willow). After this point, Buffy and Dawn become co-owners of the family house.

Before Season 5's end, a scene in the city would be shown at least once in the second season of Buffy's spinoff, Angel. In the episode "Disharmony", Cordelia Chase calls Willow from Los Angeles when her high school friend Harmony Kendall turns up. We see Willow's side of this call in a rare Sunnydale scene for this series. Angel himself returns to Sunnydale at least four times in Buffy seasons 4, 5 and 7.

At the end of the sixth season (spring 2002), the Magic Box is demolished in a battle between Willow and Buffy. At the beginning of the seventh season (fall 2002), Sunnydale High School was rebuilt on the same location as before — directly over the Hellmouth.

By this time, knowledge of supernatural phenomena seems to be slowly growing in the town. Sunnydale's population is also revealed to have dropped to 32,900.

In the second half of the seventh season (early 2003), supernatural manifestations at Sunnydale High reach unprecedented levels. Within less than a month, virtually the entire population of the town flees in a mass evacuation. Soon thereafter, the cataclysmic showdown between the Scooby Gang, the Potential Slayers Buffy has gathered together, and the First Evil results in the complete obliteration of the town. Sunnydale collapses into a giant pit, closing the entrance to the Hellmouth.

During the weeks between the series finale of Buffy and the Season 5 premiere of Angel, Lindsey McDonald makes an off-screen trip to the crater and digs up the amulet worn by Spike in the final battle. He sends it to Angel at Wolfram & Hart where it releases an incorporeal Spike. The destruction of the city is mentioned several times during Angel's final season, mainly tying into Spike's brief ghostly status. It is seen one more time when a military general oversees the crater in Season 8. The destruction of the town has also led the U.S. government to brand the Scooby Gang and their Slayers an international terrorist group.

In the final arc of Season 8, the Scooby Gang return to the ruins of Sunnydale to secure the Seed of Wonder, an artifact that is the source of all magic on Earth, and serves as a battleground between themselves and a massive legion of extra-dimensional demons.

title: Sunnydale


text:
Albany International Airport

Albany International Airport is 6 mi northwest of Albany, in Albany County, New York, United States. It is owned by the Albany County Airport Authority. ALB covers 1000 acre of land.

It is an airport of entry in the town of Colonie. It was built on the site of the Shaker settlement about 6 mi north of Albany and stretching north to the hamlet of Verdoy. The airport is a Class Charlie Airspace.

Albany International Airport serves as the major air center for the Capital Region, Northeastern New York, and Western New England. In 2019, the airport handled a total of 1,518,969 passengers, which was a 3.6% increase from 2018. Many airlines serve the airport, with Southwest Airlines having the most presence. They hold 34% of the total airline share at Albany. Along with Southwest Airlines, Albany sees service with many other low-cost carriers, including JetBlue Airways, Allegiant Airlines, and Avelo Airlines. The airport is the fourth largest in New York State.

History
Albany International was the first and remains the oldest, municipal airport in the United States. In 1908 the airstrip was on a former polo field on Loudonville Road, 3 mi north of the city in the town of Colonie. In 1909 the airport moved to Westerlo Island, in the city of Albany, but at that time was in the town of Bethlehem; the airport was named at this time. The airport was named after Teddy Roosevelt's son, Quentin, a fighter pilot during World War I who perished while in air combat. A $10,000 prize was established for sustained flight between Albany and New York City; Glenn Curtiss achieved this on May 29, 1910. Other early pioneers of aviation that stopped at this early field were Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, and James Doolittle.

Mayor John Boyd Thacher II once said "a city without the foresight to build an airport for the new traffic may soon be left behind in the race for competition". He, therefore, decided to build in 1928 a new modern airport on the Shaker site near Albany-Shaker Road in Colonie, not far from the original polo fields used as the first site of the municipal airport. The Shakers not only sold the land used but also loaned the use of tractors and tools.

The early Albany Airport was often closed and threatened with a closure that prompted repeated improvements in the late 1930s and 1940s. The airport was closed from January 1939 until December 1940, when it reopened to traffic during daylight hours only, and then with no restrictions since January 1942. The airport has not been closed (other than for weather and emergency landings) since.

The February 1947 C&GS chart shows three 3500 ft runways aimed at 12, 98, and 133 degrees magnetic. By 1950, the primary runway was up to 5000 ft in length and was hard-surfaced. In 1966 and 1967, the north–south runway was extended to 6000 ft. In the 1980s, the main runway was extended again to the north to 7200 ft. The east/west crosswind runway was also extended eastward to 7200 ft from 5999 ft in the early 2000s, but the landing threshold was maintained, thus the available landing distance was unchanged because of obstructions to the east, but the full length was available for takeoffs to the west. A few years later, another 1300 ft of the runway was added to the north end of the main runway to bring it to its 8500 foot length. The north–south runway gained runway centerline lighting and the north-facing runway added touchdown zone lighting to lower landing minimums - including a category two instrument landing system approach.

ALB was jointly owned and managed by the city and county of Albany until 1960 when Mayor Erastus Corning 2nd ended the city's stake.

In 1962 a new terminal building opened. A landside building had ticket counters, a coffee shop, and baggage claim on the first floor and a restaurant, offices and viewing area on the second floor. A single-story boarding concourse extended outwards from this building. In 1968 this concourse was widened to allow more concessions and boarding space. The terminal was expanded again in 1979, with the addition of a new two-story building attached diagonally to the northwest. It had boarding gates for Allegheny Airlines on the second floor and baggage carousels on the first floor.

The Albany County Airport Authority was created by the county in 1993 with a 40-year lease to operate the airport in 1996. Construction of a new terminal began on May 16, 1996; it opened in June 1998. It was designed by Reynolds, Smith & Hills and Stracher-Roth-Gilmore, and it was built around the existing terminal, most of which was demolished upon its completion. Only the 1979 extension remains from the old terminal building.

In 1999 the Airport Authority began building a 16000 sqft addition to the new terminal for Southwest Airlines' use. The project was completed in 2000 and included the addition of two new dual jet bridges allowing passengers to board and deplane from front and rear doors of the aircraft.

Construction started in 2019 for various airport improvements. This includes a new 1,000 car parking garage, which will open in March 2020; new solar panels, escalators, energy efficient taxiway lighting, concessions are also being installed. In addition, some passenger jet bridges are being replaced.

Frontier Airlines "temporarily" left ALB in late 2022, leaving gate C1 without a use. It is unknown if Frontier intends to return to service in Albany in the future.

Future
In September 2022, the upgrades were finished and the airport secured a large amount of funding to begin a new project. This project would extend the bridge that goes from the north garage to the main terminal, adding a new feel to walking through or driving under it. It will make space for concessions and retail to appear in those spaces. The project will also improve passenger flow for the airport, and will improve the inside of the airport overall. A completion date is unknown as of October 2022 for this project.

Service history
Between 1946 and 1961, American Airlines, TWA and Colonial/Eastern flew to Albany, but nonstop flights did not travel farther than New York City and Buffalo until 1967. Eastern left in 1961 and TWA left in 1965, leaving Mohawk and a few American flights. The first jets were American and Mohawk British Aircraft Corporation BAC One-Elevens in late 1966; concurrently, runway 1/19 was extended south sometime in 1966–67, from 5,000-6,000 ft.

Before airline deregulation in 1978, most flights at Albany were on "trunk carriers" (American Airlines and Eastern Air Lines) and "local service carrier" (Allegheny Airlines, which renamed itself USAir in 1979). After deregulation, many new airlines expanded to Albany. Most did not survive the 1980s.

Airlines at Albany after deregulation include:
 * Braniff International Airways, which added Albany as part of an unsuccessful expansion in 1979. Albany was the only Upstate New York city served by the colorful Dallas-based airline that shut down in 1982.
 * Empire Airlines, a regional carrier based in Utica, opened a hub at Syracuse Hancock International Airport after deregulation and operated flights from Albany and other Northeast cities with a fleet of regional jets and turboprops.
 * Mall Airways, a commuter carrier, ran a hub at Albany in the 1980s; its small turboprops flew around the Northeast and into Canada.
 * People Express Airlines, a low-cost carrier founded in 1981 with a hub at Newark International Airport. People grew quickly into a major carrier, but couldn't maintain it and was purchased by Continental Airlines in 1986. Continental's Continental Express and Continental Connection affiliates served Albany until the merger with United in 2010.
 * Piedmont Airlines, a pre-deregulation local service carrier based in North Carolina, expanded to the Northeast with a hub at Baltimore–Washington International Airport; they flew to Albany from there. They bought Empire in 1985 and merged them into itself. In 1989 Piedmont was bought by USAir.
 * Republic Airlines, an airline formed from the merger of three pre-deregulation local service carriers, began flying from Albany to their Detroit hub in 1984. They were bought by Northwest Airlines in 1987; Delta Air Lines bought Northwest in 2008 and took over their operations in 2009.
 * TWA (Trans World Airlines) served Albany briefly around 1979–1981 during a short-lived experiment running a hub in Pittsburgh.
 * United Airlines had long served Rochester and Buffalo, and added Albany and Syracuse in 1982. United and its affiliates serve Albany today.

During 1986–1987, the airline industry saw a series of mergers; after 1989, the US airline industry was dominated by six "legacy carriers": American, United, Delta, Northwest, USAir, and Continental. All six served Albany themselves or by their regional affiliates. During the 1990s, Albany and other Upstate markets enjoyed little low-fare service, and the legacy carriers mostly kept fares high. Southwest Airlines' entry into Albany in 2000 brought a new era of low fare service.

CommutAir hub

In early 2001, CommutAir (now CommuteAir) started to invest in an Albany hub. The hub was to connect a number of smaller cities in the Northeastern United States via the Albany hub. This allowed passengers to travel between cities that lack the demand for a direct flight between them while still bypassing busy, delay-prone hubs in major cities. These flights were operated under the Continental Connection brand using Beechcraft 1900Ds. The flights were scheduled in banks so that passengers would only have a 20-minute layover in Albany between flights, thereby minimizing travel times.

At its peak, CommutAir served Allentown, Bangor, Binghamton, Boston, Buffalo, Burlington, Elmira, Portland, Harrisburg, Nantucket, Wilkes-Barre, LaGuardia, Islip, Hartford, White Plains, Manchester, Providence, Syracuse, Rochester, Saranac Lake, Plattsburgh, Montréal, Ottawa. The hub was closed down in late 2005 to shift operations to Cleveland. A few of the markets did do well.

As of December 2023, CommuteAir operates several daily flights from Albany to its hub at Washington Dulles International Airport for United Express. CommuteAir also has one of its key maintenance bases at Albany, serving its ERJ-145 fleet. Previously CommuteAir’s main maintenance base was located at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, but CommuteAir moved the maintenance base to Albany in 2014.

Main terminal
The main terminal is divided into two levels. Level 1 includes the main check-in area, baggage claim, car rental, and taxi services. Level 2 includes a public waiting area. The security checkpoint leads passengers to a central atrium and all three concourses.

Concourses
Concourse A was opened in 1998. The concourse currently hosts Allegiant Air and United. Concourse B hosts American, Delta, and JetBlue. Concourse C was opened in June 1998 as part of the airport's $184 million renovation project. Concourse C has three gates, with two currently being used by Southwest, while the other is currently unassigned after being vacated by Frontier.

Car
Albany International Airport has direct access to I-87 and New York State Route 7 via Albany-Shaker Road, a 3.3 mi, four-lane boulevard. On August 14, 2018, New York state officials announced the new I-87 Exit 3 which will provide direct access to Albany International Airport. The airport is served by major car rental companies Hertz, Enterprise, Budget, and National as well as by Uber, Lyft, local taxi and limousine services.

Bus
Albany International Airport is served by CDTA Routes 117, 155, and 737. Route 737 provides access to Downtown Albany, while Route 117 provides access to Colonie and Guilderland via Colonie Center and Crossgates Mall. Adirondack Trailways and Vermont Translines also provides intercity bus service to and from the airport. You can also pick up a Vermont Translines bus to Vermont and Southern New York.

Rail
The closest rail station to Albany Airport is Schenectady Amtrak Station in Downtown Schenectady at 10 mile from the airport and mainly services western New York and goes east–west. For more rail options, Albany–Rensselaer Amtrak Station is 14 mile away and services as the main Amtrak operations center in the Capital Region, they service New York City and Western New York, east–west and north–south.

Walking
As of October 2020, a new sidewalk spans across Albany Shaker Road from Route 155 to Wolf Road. A pedestrian and bicycle path is also accessible via the new sidewalk at the corner of Albany Shaker Road and Route 155. There is also a small viewing area and park at the corner of Albany Shaker road and the exit 3 ramp off I-87.

Incidents and accidents
On September 16, 1953, American Airlines Flight 723, a Convair 240, was flying Boston-Springfield-Albany-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-Detroit-Chicago when it crashed and caught fire after flying into a series of radio towers in a fog while descending for landing. All 28 occupants on board (25 passengers and 3 crew) were killed.

On March 3, 1972, Mohawk Airlines Flight 405, a Fairchild Hiller FH-227, crashed into a house in Albany, on approach to Albany County Airport. The crew had difficulty getting the cruise lock to disengage in one of the engines. While the crew attempted to deal with the problem, the aircraft crashed short of the airfield, killing 16 of the 48 people in the aircraft and one person on the ground.

On June 17, 2024, at approximately 8:15 A.M., a Piper PA-31 Navajo carrying one pilot took off from Runway 1-9 at the Albany International Airport only to crash minutes later next to neighborhood and library property in Colonie, killing the pilot. The plane was headed to Montreal, where the pilot had been returning after a previous landing in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Two members from the Federal Aviation Administration arrived to the scene of the crash along with several police vehicles and EMTs, with members from The National Transportation Safety Board travelling to Albany from Washington, D.C. to investigate.

title: Albany International Airport


text:
Wikipedia talk:Milestones/Previous

100,000 talk
How often is the counter updated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.141.122.252 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 19 January 2003(UTC).

 * The counter was started on July 20, 2002. --mav —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 19 January 2003 (UTC).

I bet, Tuesday will be the day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.141.106.226 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 January 2003 (UTC).

 * 100 articles left, you could be right

Ok, I bet the 100,000th article will be 1952 in science fiction :) -- Merphant 10:11 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the article on Louis Theroux was number 100,000, just beating my old hometown of Hastings, New Zealand. Lisiate 03:58 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

No, no, no, I think your one just about beat mine! I think I got the 99,999th and 100,001st articles, though. :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 04:10 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure it wasn't demarchy? Main page says 100063 articles right now, and Special:Newpages says that the 64th-newest article is demarchy. -- Merphant 12:35 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * But does each one of those new pages have a comma in them? If they don't, then they are not counted as articles. --mav 19:11 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

That's odd, as I checked the Main Page article count after Oliver and I did our simulpost and it was definately over 100,000. Perhaps there have been some page deletions since then. WHo can give us a definative answer? Lisiate

We can just estimate so give a list of articles created round the 100,000th one-fonzy
 * I'm sure the counter changed when I deleted some of the bogus Star Wars entries people created. Koyaanis Qatsi

200,000 talk
(originally at Celebrating 200,000) And the prize for the 200,000th article on the English language Wikipedia goes to:
 * 00:42, Feb 2, 2004 Neil Warnock (196 bytes) . . User:SimonMayer

Congratulations to all Wikipedians. Today is a great day.

 * In the true spirit of Wikipedia, I'd help Wikipedia by expanding it, but I don't know anything about football. fabiform | talk 02:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * For those who are interested, you might want to check out Modelling Wikipedia's growth. Very interesting read. →Raul654 02:18, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

congrats! (and lets go on to 250,000...) TeunSpaans

 * Talk about shooting low. According to Modeling wikipedia's growth link, that should happen in June, 2004 ;) →Raul654 02:39, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * The index of the print version of Encyclopedia Brittannica contains approximately 750,000 entries, if I remember correctly. That's about four times our present article count. How about that as a short-term goal? -- Seth Ilys 02:48, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * If that is the case, we'd better rise more money to buy servers. -- Taku 02:58, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * That number seems high - 750,000. The whole set of print encyclopedias only has 65,000 entries, according to  Fuzheado 04:26, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Not right. The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica has 65,000 articles. It may still very well have 750,000 entries in its index. --mav

 * I understand the distinction. I should have said 65,000 "articles" but didn't since Britannica calls them entries, not articles.  Nevertheless, 750,000 "index entries" doesn't seem in sync with 65,000 articles. I'm no data mining expert, so I'd like to see a source for the "750,000." Fuzheado 05:05, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Just looked in one of my textbooks (Introduction to Reference Work, Katz, v. 1, p. 227) where I was recalling the stat from. Accoring to its comparison table for major encyclopeias; the 2000 print Brittannica has 790,000 index entries (I was off by 40,000). The largest article count it lists is the 2000 online Britannica at 83k. I assume those stats came (originally) from the publisher. Most of the index items listed in Britannica don't have dedicated entries of their own; they're people or places or concepts that might get one or two mentions in some other 500-1000 word article essay. We can create dedicated entries for each of those that aren't subordinate to any other topic or article. I felt it might be a useful comparison point, one it looks like we might reach (at present growth rates) in about two years (at about five years from Wikipedia's birth). -- Seth Ilys 07:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info. Yes, it would be interesting to try creating an automated index, but I suspect that Google and a search engine obviates the need for actually creating an exhaustive alphabetical list. It would be interesting nonetheless. -- Fuzheado 08:01, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Getting the word out
Ok, question - has anyone outside of wikipedia actually noticed? I added a couple geek friendly Featured articles to the main page in anticipation of a slashdotting (for the record, my submission was shot down in 2 minutes flat). →Raul654 08:04, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please don't - that would kill the second hand server that we are now using. Things are slow enough as it is. We should concentrate on the project-wide 500,000 press release instead. By the time we hit that milestone, the new server farm should be up and running. --mav 08:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, keep slashdot out. For the benefit of the lazy, [here are the stats for the combined wikipedia projects. We're at 300,000 combined. Which means we're still looking at years before we hit a half-mill. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 08:19, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, those stats are old. (September 2003). IIRC we are closer to 420k total articles at the moment. - snoyes 08:26, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * And given en and non-en hit 150,000 at virtually the same time, it looks like non-en has been growing (in terms of article count) 40% quicker than en over the last four months. This is great news in terms of our goal to be truly global and multi-lingual. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:12, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Check the sums at Multilingual_statistics. According to that we have added ~40,000 articles since New Years Day. As of Feb 1 we have 460,855. --mav

 * That makes the big half million be set to arrive by the end of the month, or even sooner if the extra servers go live smoothly. Looks like the announcement and the server go live are going to have to be carefully managed after all - originally people thought they wouldn't overlap. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:14, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I estimate 2 weeks. --mav

YEAH! ^^ -- Schnee 18:39, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Slashdot
Well, we're getting slashdotted now :) →Raul654 21:55, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

According to Alexa, wikipedia's traffic has recently grown to the point where its popularity (in terms of daily traffic) is similar to Slashdot's. See the Alexa comparison of Slashdot and Wikipedia. Which explains why Wikipedia needs beefier servers. -- Dwheeler 23:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * That's only because most Slashdot users are on Linux, which doesn't have the Alexa spyware. LDan 01:57, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, last I heard, Windows was the most common OS to access slashdot. It's claimed that that is because most people check from work, but there's no evidence (besides anecdotal) to back that up. →Raul654 02:20, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Here is a link to the slashdot article: link. Hope I get modded +5 Informative! Goodralph 01:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I award you 5 wikipedia mod points →Raul654 09:05, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yea, I notice a lot of wiki readers posting there. I saw LordKenneth trolling as well. →Raul654 01:40, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't realize having an opinion was trolling. - Lord Kenneth 02:54, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Britannica's Index
So, is it decided that Britannica's index, while having 750,000 references, are mostly just redirects to one or two words in adjacently related articles? →Raul654 10:44, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * See Size comparisons. Britannica has about 80,000 articles and so about 670,000 redirects. They do more combining into single long articles than we do - even in digital editions. Note we have 56,000,000 words on en as of this month - Britannica has 55,000,000. At this moment in time we are winning in terms of breadth and freeness and they are !IMO! ahead in depth (virtually all areas), consistenty of depth across subject areas, quality of writing and copyediting, illustrations, sensible linking and systematic consistent layout. Obviously we will soon blow them away in terms of size, but importantly I think the quality gap is coming down all the time, and could quite possibly disappear entirely within %SOME_PERIOD_OF_TIME_I_DON'T_DARE_GUESS_AT . User:Pcb21

 * Wow - I didn't realize in terms of word for word comparisons it was that close. On the issue of depth, I tend to think we are better (breadth and depth-wise) at more technical articles (esp. anything nerd related - grin) than Britannica. Also, as far as pictures go, I think we're going to start blowing them away soon - Wikipedia is basically a giant vacuum for public domain pictures. →Raul654 11:45, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Milestones/Previous


text:
Talk:Anarchism/Archive 3

''Since I did a major rehaul of this part of Wikipedia, I also archived previous discussion. See Talk:Anarchism/Archive2 for older discussion and Talk:Anarchism/Archive1 for even older discussion.'' -- Faré 00:05 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * major rehaul was done on this page. Do the other editors agree about it ?

It looks like the article was deleted. In addition, the majority of anarchists do not oppose rules, but rather rulers. I have doubts that Fare actually read the article before he deleted it. The previous article said that anarchy was not anomie, this says that it is anomie. (anon)

 * I admire your ability to, without reading through the two archives, assess Faré's actions regarding this article. Kingturtle 06:20 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * I admire your ability to determine what (anon) did or did not read without her telling you. In any case, this new version suffers from severe problems, not least is that it balkanizes the text into a dozen different articles. This always makes articles harder to edit, introduces redundant text, and is generally much harder to read (constantly having to switch back and forth). Since Faré has not really justified the new form of the article, would s/he like to do so? Alternatively, if s/he wants to work on this version, it could be moved to Anarchism/Temp. As it stands I am opposed to the article in its current form. Graft

The new version needs a lot of work, but, after an intial reaction of "what the fuck have you done?", I think this could be a step in the right direction. Let's review:

For some time, there has been a consensus that the anarchism page (this one) should disambiguate between the various forms of anarchism -- libertarian socialism or "traditional anarchism", anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-primitivism, green anarchism, etc. However, I don't think any of us wanted this page to just point to the others: we wanted this page to discuss the primary similarities and differences between the ideas and the ways in which they relate. So we didn't want a disambiguation page that just listed the various theories that were called "anarchism". We wanted an in depth disambiguation that pointed out the differences between all the theories and ideas.

Before this "major rehaul", we had an article that mainly dealt with different theories, explaining (quite well) the differences and similarities. There was also some history and a brief description of what anarchism is not. I felt the structure was getting a bit out of hand, though: there was so much to say, and with many different people adding bits here and there, it was becoming slightly bulky, the history caught up between descriptions of libertarian socialism and the others, the section on philosophy shoved in the middle.

Our problem with this article is not the content, but the structure of the content. This is the one problem we have not yet resolved. Currently, we seem to be writing a book, and it looks like it will take the form of a series of essays. Is that what we want?

Seperate articles
This new version has made a start at a 'contents' listing and seperate articles on seperate subjects. But how do these seperate topics deal with the problem of what we mean by "anarchism"? For example, Spanish anarchism will no doubt refer to anarchist communism (libertarian socialism) and anarcho-syndicalism as "anarchism", ignoring the fact that some people think anarchism is a capitalist thing, which could easily confuse. Normally, someone writing on Spanish anarchism would be writing for an audience familiar with anarchism as a socialist theory, not a capitalist one. But here we are writing for a general audience, which is something which is not often tackled by anarchists, at least not when discussing anarchism itself in such depth and from a neutral point of view.

Another problem with these article is the question of titling, particularly the Anarchism/etymology page: I understand that this naming format is not advised for various reasons. Someone said, quite rightly, that it makes perfect sense in computing, but not in an encyclopedia. On its own, that article title would suggest an article on the relationship between anarchism and etymology or something along those lines, which is quite bizarre to say the least.

However, I do think that, despite these problems, the seperate pages may well be the best way to go about developing this subject on wikipedia. I think the first thing we should be doing, though, is deciding exactly what the structure of the anarchism articles should be. A bit of research and comparison may be in order: perhaps if we look at encyclopedic structures and at how similar topics/problems have been handled on wikipedia before. If a similar problem hasn't been encountered, and we can sort this out, we may be able to set a useful precedent on wikipedia.

So how about we brainstorm a structure for these articles? --Sam. Sam I am. and i don't eat green eggs and ham. 19:00 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism might propose collective management, but "collective management" links to Collectivism. This is confusing since Collectivism is the name of the economic system that Bakunin advocated; Bakuninist collectivism is related to but different from libertarian socialism. What is more, Collectivism does not describe Bakuninist collectivism at all; it only describes corporatism and state capitalism. Most libertarian socialists want decentralized planning, not central control (and none want corporatism or state capitalism). Perhaps instead it should say "libertarian socialism proposes self-management" (or "decentralized planning"). -- bpt 02:15 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think that the problem is with Collectivism, that should be disambiguated between the general meaning of collectivism (any theory proposing compulsory collective management) and the particular theories that have gone under that name (i.e. movements like Bakunin's that were collectivist but opposed the Marxist movement). -- Faré 08:47 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

The description of libertarian socialism now links to self-management, since this is perhaps the most important thing about a libertarian socialist economy, and because Collectivism currently has little to do with collective management or with Bakuninist collectivism (which is only one kind of libertarian socialism). -- bpt 23:12 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * I nevertheless think that (1) Collectivism should be rewritten, and (2) there should be a link from the blurb about left-anarchism to collectivism. -- Faré 16:33 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

As for the structure of the article, I don't have anything better to propose than what I did currently, but and don't want to ever see again the mess of information grown over information "anarchically" (haha) where readers are lost in biased destructured information. Considering the diversity of anarchist movements, the reader should be able to distinguish who thinks what, or else, he will see a lot of contradictory claims and conclude that anarchists are just incoherent loonies who hold all these claims simultaneously. Short introductory material plus focused articles is the way to go. -- Faré 16:33 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest the rewording of this paragraph ... -> "On the contrary, the anarchy sought by anarchists is the absence of hierarchy, power and authority, which the anarchists consider as immoral, oppressive, detrimental, and sources of violence, disorder and misery. Anarchists claim that human relations should be based on voluntary associations only."

I don't think it is accurate enough. Power is not inherently immoral. For example, workers on general strike is a practise of power. Anarchists oppose the abuse of power, which is always the result of heirarchies of authority and control.

I'm proposing the quoted section be replaced with this ... -> On the contrary, Anarchism is the ideal that society should be organised without social, economic or political structures or relationships that have been constructed on hierarchy and cohersive authority, domination or exploitation. The anarchist believes that these types of structures and relationships always results in some form of suffering, repression and fear. For this reason they are fundamentally unethical and destructive, and need to be abolished.

So what's the feeling about it? -- asger 14 May, 2003

 * Do you feel like an anarchist? I think that anarchist literature should be consulted as to whether the term "power" is adequate - but it seems to summarize the concept well to me. Now, even Murray Rothbard makes a distinction between "Power over Man" vs "Power over Nature", opposing the former, promoting the latter. In any case, your paragraph seems much too convoluted to me, and doesn't tell as much. The ideal is to keep things simple. (sp: it's "coercive") -- Faré 22:15 16 May 2003 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if really a discussion on this topic was necessary, it should be moved to a different page, for instance named Anarchism and Power. -- Faré 07:08 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Where did all the text get moved to? Surely some of it was relevant to this page. Pizza Puzzle

 * Which text are you talking about? The text in the current Talk? Well, it's right here above you. I was talking about not adding any stuff to the current article, and moving any stuff putatively added to the article from there to a different page. If you want to start a page on Anarchism and Power -- go ahead!

 * It should be noted that anarcho-capitalists argue for, rather than against, capitalism; such anarchists oppose the regulation of corporations.

Is that last emphasised comment correct? I thought anarcho-capitalists opposed the limited liability shareholders enjoy as owners of corporations?

 * That is correct. Anarcho-capitalists believe in a vary darwinist notion of capitalism, if u invest in a capitalist structure, the anarcho-capitalists want to be able to take you completely out of the game. Limited liability is a means of protecting people from corporations - it is a regulation that prevents other corporations from holding you personally liable for the overall failings of your corporation. The anarcho-capitalist has no need for such protections as he intends to succeed.
 * Other such regulations, which the anarcho-capitalists want to remove, are those governing the mininum wage, environmental protections, worker safety regulations, health care regulations, anti-discrimination regulation, etc etc - granted most of them don't believe that such deregulation will create an "evil corporate empire" - but certainly other anarchists feel that is exactly the result which anarcho-capitalism will create. Pizza Puzzle

Anarchism and 'anarchist-capitalism'
I think that the overhaul is a very good idea, and it says something very nice about Wikipedia that anarchism is so widely discussed. I personally see Wikipedia as a project that embodies a lot of anarchist values.

However, I am still quite uncomfortable with the fact that the current article presents capitalist and individualist anarchism on equal footing with libertarian socialism, in terms of the attention they are given. Again: historically, not a single one of the people associated with individualist or capitalist 'anarchism' ever referred to themselves as anarchists, nor were they refered to as anarchists by anyone except those who wanted to discredit them. This is true of Benjamin Tucker, Walt Whitman, Max Stirner, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick or anyone else in this vein that you'd care to name. I also think it's pretty clear that the anarchist movement - historical and contemporary - also has absolutely nothing to do with these ideas. Maybe these realities, which I think are relatively uncontroversial, need to be reflected in the way we construct the article, i.e. at least mentioning the dubiousness of calling these trends 'anarchist'?

p.s. - coming soon from me: anarchism and democracy

Uri

 * Nozick was not an anarchist, though he wrote about anarchism. It is a common misconceotion that because the most famous book of Nozick was called "Anarchy, State and Utopia", that he was an anarchist. But actually in the first part of the book (Anarchy) he criticised anarchy, and showed how the state could rise from the state of nature (anarchy) without coercion. In the second part of the book (State) he explainded, why not a larger state than a minimal state (night watchman state) was justified. In the third part (Utopia) he introduced his own ideal society.--213.243.156.126 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As it stands I think it would be possible to accuse this page of inaccuracy, certainly if we look at the actual historical Anarchist movement. The main division within the anarchist movement has always been between the Syndicalist and Anarcho-Communist trends within Anarchism, which is not represented at all within the page, rather than between individualist and collectivist traditions. In some senses the Indivdualist tradition can, and perhaps should, be seen as an entirely separate, certainly when it comes to anarcho-capitalism (as the page on it acknowledges to some extent).

I also think there should be something on the external differentation of Anarchism - namely is rejection of Statism which separates its from other Left  traditions i.e. Marxism and Social Democracy (encapsulated in the slogan Against Capital & State.) I don't think you can have a real understanding of what Anarchism is (or at least has been historically) with out referrring to this. Its certainly been far more important to the historical Anarchist movement than a division between Individualism and Collectivism - mostly individualism has been viewed as a minor philisophical trend confined largely to a few individuals.

Tallus

Here is the evidence you requested on Caplan's economic views VV, from his autobiography, as currently posted on his own website: "Rand’s politics was also largely on target: laissez-faire capitalism is indeed the only just social system, socialism is institutionalized slavery, and the welfare state’s attempt to reconcile these poles is a travesty."

The claim that anarchism is mere anti-statism is a limiting claim, it is to claim that the anti-capitalist views of all the original anarchists (proudhon, bakunin, kropotkin, tucker, spooner, stirner, etc) were non-essential to anarchism regardless of their own claims to the contrary and the logic of those claims which has never been challenged in any compelling fashion by so-called "anarcho-capitalists." Given that, it is a narrow conception of anarchism that confines it to 'mere' anti-statism, and a more broad conception that accounts for the full history of anarchism as, in part, an anti-capitalist movement.

More importantly, Caplan's FAQ is highly biased toward so-called "anarcho-capitalism." It selectively quotes Proudhon and Tucker in a few lines to give the impression that they were supportative of capitalist relations, totally ignoring the direct evidence that each rejected capitalism explicitly. Furthermore, in several passages the FAQ conflates anarcho-capitalism with individualism, giving the subtle impression that because most of the early collectivist anarchists embraced individualism this means they somehow endorsed capitalism. Not only is there the aforementioned explicit evidence against this, but individualists themselves rejected capitalism and most considered themselves socialists, so this is a very dishonest presentation. This heavily biased article written from the perspective of a controversial fringe group claiming to be anarchists only belongs on this page by the greatest stretch of what could be considered a related subject, but if it is going to be linked from here then it ought to at least have a sincere and straightforward description. - Kev 11/19/03

 * "Controversially narrow" is transparent idiocy. He is clearly using the term in a broad sense, encompassing both views (I even yielded to your complaints about this broad usage (as per this very page) by using "controversially").  You may not feel he gives enough weight to one view, but that does not mean he is using a narrow definition.  "So-called" is equally pointless and daft.  What next?  The "so-called" Democratic party?  I will accept that Caplan is a capitalist, but your other edits are dishonest and part of a continuing trend. -- VV 09:22, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * VV, you seem to have a real personal problem with me. And I really mean with me, as many others have made the exact same edits that I have and you have done nothing to change them.  Call me all the names that you want, you have yet to explain why limiting anarchism to mere anti-statism is necessarily a "broad" definition instead of a "narrow" one.  You simply repeat that this must be the case and continue to edit as though you are speaking from some position of authority, which I find strange given your apparent lack of knowledge concerning the history of anarchism itself.  So be it, lets remove the distinction altogether and leave it as controversial.  And please, tone down the rhetoric and the insults, they aren't helping anyone.  - Kev 11/19/03

 * Believe I have a personal problem if you wish, but all I see of you is an IP address which makes bad edits. I reduced my counter-editing during the course of discussion, and also because the other edits are less flagrantly obnoxious than yours.  Do you not know that broad means inclusive?  Narrow means it limits the term to a more specific meaning.  No knowledge of anarchy is needed to understand these words. -- VV 06:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Cripes, as if there is only one way to view everything and your way must be the ultimate truth. Of course that view is more inclusive from one perspective, it is also more narrow from another.  Should I get all arrogant now and ask you if you don't know that narrow means limited in scope, and that to limit anarchism to mere anti-statism would indeed narrow its definition?  You call it "inclusive" because it allows more ideologies into the label, I call it "exclusive" because it restricts a great deal of the ideology itself from the label.  Neither view is "wrong" VV, they are both coming from a different viewpoint.  That is why wikipedia values NPOV so much, and that is why neither modifier belongs to a neutral page.

And yes, you desperately need some basic knowledge of anarchism, your assertions beg for a little bit of knowledge of the history of this movement to back them up. You have already incorrectly labeled one FAQ as "coming from a libertarian socialist perspective." You don't even realise that this completely ignores individualists, who are themselves libertarian socialists but would disagree with a lot of the points in the FAQ. But then you suddenly hee and haw about a simple disclaimer that parallels your own concerning the blatantly capitalist bias of the link that you yourself imported to this page, a bias you don't even recognise because you have obviously not read any of the authors that FAQ intentionally misrepresents.
 * Caplan is in fact a capitalist, therefore the FAQ that Caplan wrote does in fact come from the perspective of a capitalist. Are you disagreeing with either of these statements?  If not, then your only recourse would be to assert that it is irrelevant that his FAQ comes from the perspective of a capitalist, but then you would have to go back on your own edits and admit that it is irrelevant that the FAQ which was linked to previously comes from the perspective of collectivists (not libertarian socialists, as it does not).  Get over yourself already VV, and stop pretending you have the only valid viewpoint on wikipedia.  And VV, if you find the exact same edits made by others to be less "flagrantly obnoxious," then it only lends to the assertion that you have a personal grudge here.  - Kev 11/20/03

---

I came across a gramatically mangled paragraph on anarchism, freedom as unconstrained desire, anarchy of the market, and Marxism's views on Anarchism. I untangled the grammar and the thread of the idea. In part I had to change it: dialectical materialism is /not/ practiced by all marxists (many critique it as Engel's peversion, and "diamat" is associated with the worst sort of Stalin/Mao dialectic.)  Whereas many anarchists practice historical materialism as a methodology and are just as critical of freedom as unconstrained desire. I really doubt that the paragraph needs to exist there at all, since its talking about a minor view of freedom which is a partisan sub issue. If anyone wants to delete the para, that's fine with me. If anything that kind of debate should go into a page on anarchist debates on freedom and seperately Marxism's relationship with anarchism. --Fifelfoo

 * You're probably right -- it seems a bit in depth for a general introductory/disambiguation page. Also, you've made it seems as if Marxism is a form of anarchism: "Marxism and other forms of anarchism.." -- Sam

 * I've edited that section to disambiguate anarchism being historical materialist, marxism being historical materialist, but marxism not being anarchist. Thanks for observing that!  If a third person comments that the section in question is irrelevant (2nd para of Anarchism: the basics) I'll start new articles on Anarchism and Marxism, the methodologies of anarchist theory.  I think the section on anarchism being identity politics is trite and irrelevant.  Its not npov.  Its not substantiated outside of the USA.  etc. etc.  --Fifelfoo

 * Now that you mention it, Anarchism and Marxism is an essential page. There are two interwoven aspects to consider:
 * the historical interplay between the two, from Marx and Bakunin to historical alliances and conflicts in the Spanish Civil War and in Russia and the Ukraine (Nestor Makhno) in particular; and
 * the ideological and methodological differences and similarities between Maxist or class-struggle anarchism and traditional statist Marxism.
 * Sam

 * I concurr. Additionally Anarchism and Marxism is the best place to put information about a few movements.  ie: Johnston-Forrest tendency in Trotskism and the American workerist Marxisms;  Socialisme ou Barbarie and Solidarity (UK) in the 1950s-60s;  The Hungarian Revolution;  Councilism;  Poterie Operaia and Autonomia Operaia.  These movements emerge out of traditional Marxism (not Leninism) and emerge with anarchist platforms.  They don't really fit in Libertarian Socialism because they don't emerge from that theoretical / historical background.  --Fifelfoo

 * I've started the article with a start to the historical conflict -- do you think you could begin the discussion of the methodological similarities and differences? Let me know what you think--Sam 11:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Which anarchists don't hold the sovereignty of the individual as a central principle? --Sam

 * Quite a number. I'd suggest any anarchism which doesn't derive from the liberal political tradition of the individual for themself.  Any ontological trandition which sees the person as a reflection of the community.  Historical materialism is one such example.  Green anarchism and primitivism is another (both which also follow doctrines of sovereignty of the biological habitat.)  "Individualism," strangely enough, isn't a dominant ontological doctrine for a politics of personal liberty :).  --Fifelfoo

This might not be the place where it will receive the most attention, but I don't think the following comment (formally hidden at the top of the anarchism page so that it was the first thing editors saw) is all that useful. I think it may be discouraging edits, which is a bad thing. We can adhere to the idea, if we like, without having it so intrusively displayed. --Sam
 * Anarchism is a very controversial topic. Before drastically changing anything on this page, you might want to consult the talk page:
 * http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism
 * Please do.
 * Also, the previous contents of the page were preserved here:
 * http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism/old
 * Here are the main principles that are being followed by the current page:
 * THIS PAGE IS FOR DISAMBIGUATION ONLY.
 * It should be as brief and as to the point as possible.
 * Any lengthy description, controversy, enumeration should be moved to other pages, if not already done.
 * Our ideal of perfection is as per this quote:
 * Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add,
 * but when there is no longer anything to take away.
 * -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 * Enough said!

 * I disagree; I think that comment should be there. The risk of discouraging useful edits is minimal compared to the gain of discouraging potential edit-war scale edits.  I don't think, for instance, someone wanting to make a minor fix or add a link would be dissuaded by that text. -- VV 23:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I think we've lost a lot of what we had on anarchism. I think there's a lot of stuff that belongs here that won't be here under the policy defined above: like discussions of the differences between the views of, say, Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin; the use and misuse of the term "anarchist" from the French Revolution to the May Day protests in London. Perhaps we're scared this page will get too long! At that point, we break off discussion into sub-pages, in the way it is done on country pages. But too much of what we're putting on subpages belongs here -- and too much of it is getting ignored where it is. --Sam

 * I might start a page at User:Sam_Francis/Anarchism and see what I can come up with as an alternative. That might be the easiest way.. -- Sam 00:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Anarchism is a generic name given to theories and movements which call for the abolition of government and other forms of authority - the simplest possible civics. In the view of anarchists, the complexity of civics is inversely related to its potential for fairness - thus simpler is better.

In all that I have read about anarchism, I've never seen it framed in terms of civics, at least not using that terminology. To me, this doesn't seem to be a particularly useful way of describing it: first of all, it requires the reader to know what "civics" is. Second, this terminology makes the introduction seem overly academic, as I see it; it is not the most accesible of language. I think we can achieve the same end with less complex language, as per George Orwell's rules in his essay "Politics and the English Language".

Also, I don't think this is the way most anarchists would describe their ideas. -- Sam

So, what, in particular, was really wrong with this revision? --Sam 21:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Missing counter (n)pov
This article is nice in itself, and Anarchism is discribed relatively npovly, but I do feel that a counter-pov should be described here. Why so many people, from high philosophers to the man of the street, don't share anarchist ideas and ideals? As it's written here, one might wonder why so few countries ever tried anarchism and why so few people would say they are anarchists themselves. Maybe I missed a link somewhere explaining all those things. If not so, the editors of this article have made a really god job, but may have missed one important part of this job: write for the enemy. I may try to fill this weakness, but I'll need some help. gbog 09:31, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Being one of the many contributors to this page, thanks for the appreciation! I understand what you're saying; I'll try to help show the arguments against anarchism. Hopefully we can fit it into a newly structured article. I'll give it some thought. --Sam 13:54, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * In fact, I plan on making quite a few additions and changes, so make any contributions you're thinking of and I'll then incorporate them into the changes I intend to make. They should fit nicely! --Sam

 * I am thinking about it but it's not easy to explain. I guess there are some thinkers that would argue that order imply hierarchy in itself, that a fully "flat" order is not working. There is also the Hobbes theory for "authorization" where citizens decide to "authorize" someone to rule them in order to avoid civil war. Another argument against anarchism could be stated with the need for protocolar customs. If you invite many different persons for a dinner, say a Bishop, an old Duchesse, a defense minister, an ambassador and a big boss of some big corporate. If every body sit where s/he wants at the table, underlined conflits will probably transform a happy time in a nightmare for most of the guests... So, thats why protocol is so important in diplomatic meetings, and state before the dinner, where you should place each guest so that everybody feels s/he is at the right place, according to his/her respectability. This example, even if a little bit stupid because only few persons are facing such protocolar problems, is the way I could explain an argument against "pure freedom to sit where you want" (what is not anarchism, I know). I have only few knowledge about "anarchy" but I have seen some meetings involving people who would share those ideas, and I noted that, even if they were very nice to each other, they needed such things as "central committee", "first secretary", "discussion manager", that are other names for the same function: "representants of the group" and "decisioners". So, even if I personnally share the ideals of anarchism, I'm afraid that it's remains utopia, maybe because when you throw the "power" by the door, it is always coming back through the window, or something like that. I'm sorry that I don't have enough English readings about the subject to give real meat to this (counter)side of the article. Some theoricians may have written on the topic: Paul Ricoeur, John Rawls, and so on. gbog 06:45, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Lir: please answer me this: which anarchists don't oppose government? --Sam 21:56, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Comments left on article talk pages are not likely to be read or responded to by a specific recipient; try using my talk page... Most anarchists do not oppose government, as the wikipedia npov'ly defines it; this article, already clearly states that anarchists do not support "chaos or anomie" -- they support laws, rules, regulations, etc (with the possibile exception of "anarchi-capitalists")
 * Anarchists support a form of democracy known as "true democracy"; they oppose hierarchical and oppressive governments (such as republican/totalitarian governments); anarchists oppose the government, and all traditional notions of government; but, not all government. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Please provide some references for your arguments; in particular, an example of an anarchist who doesn't oppose government. -- Sam

title: Talk:Anarchism/Archive 3


text:
Rainbow Harvest

Rainbow Harvest (born August 26, 1966) is an American actress best known for her roles as Karen in Old Enough, Megan Gordon in Mirror, Mirror, and Daryl Tarses in television sitcom series FM. She was active between 1983 and 1991 before leaving the acting profession to work behind the scenes until she eventually left the film industry entirely.

Early life
Rainbow was born in New York City. She was accepted into the prestigious High School of Performing Arts, graduating in 1985. She took her first film role at age 16 playing a lead in Old Enough, released in 1984.

Personal life
Harvest married actor Kevin Wixted whom she met filming the episode "Cory and Dean Got Married" of 21 Jump Street where they played the titular characters. She would later retire from acting in 1991 to work behind the camera before leaving the film industry entirely.

Since, Harvest returned to Benedictine University to obtain a bachelor's degree in Art, Masters of Science in Management and Organizational Behavior. She would go on to receive a second Masters in Information Technology from Purdue University Global.

title: Rainbow Harvest


text:
El Nuevo Día

El Nuevo Día (English: The New Day) is the newspaper with the largest circulation in Puerto Rico. It is considered mainstream and the territory's newspaper of record. It was founded in 1909 in Ponce, Puerto Rico, and today it is a subsidiary of GFR Media. Its headquarters are in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.

El Dia
El Nuevo Día was founded in 1909 in the city of Ponce as "El Diario de Puerto Rico," later changing its name to "El Día" in 1911, a name it kept for nearly seven decades. Its founder was Guillermo V. Cintrón, with assistance from Eugenio Astol and Nemesio Canales. Its editorial staff consisted of Felix Matos Bernier, Juan Braschi, Nemesio R. Canales, Felix Astol, and Eugenio Deschamps.

In 1928 Guillermo V. Cintron sold the paper to Guillermo Vivas Valdivieso who formed an editorial team consisting of the three Gil De Lamadrid brothers (Jesus, Joaquin and Alfredo), Enrique Colon Barega, and Julio Enrique Monagas, and published the paper until 1945. Under his directorship the paper also started distribution in San Juan, Puerto Rico. On 8 November 1945, the newspaper was acquired by Ponce native and future governor Luis A. Ferré. Its board of directors consisted of Raul Matos Balaguer, Arturo Gallardo Guerrero, Miguel Sotero Palermo, Juan A. Wirshing, and Luis A. Ferre. After Ferré was elected governor of Puerto Rico in 1968, his eldest son, Antonio Luis Ferré, purchased the paper from his father. The paper's slogan was "Y vivamos la moral, que es lo que nos hace falta" (roughly, "And let us live by the moral yardstick, which is what we lack).

El Nuevo Día
Two years after this, in 1970, Antonio Luis moved the newspaper to San Juan and renamed it "El Nuevo Día". The paper's first director under Antonio Luis Ferre was Carlos Castañeda. During its first years in San Juan, El Nuevo Día's newsroom was located in the "Torre de la Reina" building, near the Luis Muñoz Rivera Park in Puerta de Tierra. It subsequently moved, in 1986, to its current location municipality of Guaynabo.

"El Nuevo Día" continues to be owned and published by the Ferré family. The newspaper's current president is María Eugenia Ferré Rangel and the current editor is Luis Alberto Ferré Rangel. As of 2006, El Nuevo Día is the most widely read newspaper in Puerto Rico, with a daily circulation of 155,000.

Its main competitor in terms of sales is El Vocero. Content-wise, both papers have somewhat different news formats and audiences. While El Nuevo Día has been known largely for its political reporting, El Vocero has traditionally taken a more tabloid-oriented approach, giving greater prominence to news stories on daily street crime. More recently, however, "El Vocero" has begun to put greater emphasis to political and business news, making it a more direct competitor to "El Nuevo Día."

In addition to its political and community sections, El Nuevo Día also has sports, entertainment and business sections. Its previous television commercial campaign slogan read: El Nuevo Día: Un Gran Periodico ("El Nuevo Día: A Great Newspaper"). The campaign slogan recently changed to "El Nuevo Día: Conocer es Crecer" ("El Nuevo Día: To Know is to Grow").

From 2003 to 2008, El Nuevo Día had an Orlando edition called El Nuevo Día Orlando. It started publication on 2 September 2003 and was published on weekdays. On 13 November 2009, the newspaper began to circulate free of charge. The paper printed 25,000 copies daily. A study showed that 96% percent of people who read the Orlando edition read it at home. The Orlando edition ceased publication on 29 August 2008.

Columnists

 * Benjamín Torres Gotay
 * Eduardo Lalo
 * Fernando Cabanillas
 * Geovanny Vicente
 * Jaime Lluch
 * José Curet
 * Juan Zaragoza
 * Mayra Montero
 * Pedro Reina Pérez
 * Rafael Cox Alomar
 * Rosa Mercado
 * Silverio Pérez

title: El Nuevo Día


text:
Talk:Class envy

Where does this term come from? The article as it stands doesn't reference any source or investigative tradition. (Such as anthropology, sociology, or whatever.) Is the term from a particular discipline? (If so, how widely accepted within that discipline is it, and how central is it?) From political rhetoric? (If so, whose rhetoric?) Without some useful context, it's just a highly value-laded but meaningless article. Tannin

"Some people claim that the primary cause of the discontent of the poor is the generation of envy towards the rich by some third force. These proponents of the idea of class envy describe class relations primarily interms of voluntary cultural beliefs. The term's culturalist response to class antagonism denies the possibility of a genuine basis for class conflict."

Can someone explain to me what this means? "Some third force...culturalist response". What does this mean? This is either nonsense, or can be written in plain English, if it is not nonsense, I don't know, because I have no idea what it is talking about. Please rewrite in English if you think it needs to be there. -- Lancemurdoch 06:30, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding class envy, I have always heard this term employed in terms of the working class and/or poor envying the rich. Remember, envy means not just resentment of another, but desire to have what another has. In the case of the poor and working class, it is difficult to impossible to get what the rich have. In terms of the rich, it is very easy for them to "have" what the working class have - all they have to do is get a job, and not live off rents or profits. Under the entry for "class envy", I think that material has no place. It's possible it might have a place elsewhere, but not here, since everyone knows what direction the envy in the common parlance of class envy goes. -- Lancemurdoch 06:40, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Class envy," far as I can tell, is just a rhetorical cliché used to discount political arguments that attack social inequity as being merely a manifestation of envy. "Class envy" isn't a concept of any historic substance, like, say, "class consciousness" or "free market." My 2¢--delete this entry.

NPOV
Replaced the very POV paragraph:

''Some cliches expressing envy towards the rich include:
 * that the rich "won life's lottery".
 * referring to low income people as 'working people' and not stating that higher income people also work.
 * that the rich "were born with a silver spoon in their mouthes" - that wealth is inherited rather than attained through effort.
 * referring to all business people as robber-barons.

with the less POV paragraph:

''Those who believe in the existance of class envy argue that statments like the rich "won life's lottery" or that the rich "were born with a silver spoon in their mouthes" are examples of class envy. They also argue against referring to low income people as 'working people' because they that higher income people also work. They also reject referring to all business people as robber-barons.''

Saul Taylor 14:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Despite my paragraph above, someone re-inserted the "rich envy the poor" section and commented - "The wealthy can't shed their privilidge (sic) like a fur coat. Proletarian status isn't easy to pick up." This is a strange analogy, it reminds me of St. Francis of Assisi when he...sheds his fur coat and gives up his privilege to attain the status of the workers and poor. And it was as easy as taking off his fur coat and renouncing his inheritance. Beyond this, the "rich envy the workers/poor" section is as large as the "workers/poor envy the rich" section, even though I have never heard the term class envy used except in the context of the workers/poor envying the rich. I have removed it again. Someone nominated this page for deletion, which seems to be a good idea. It's poorly written, it makes no sense, anything that makes sense belongs elsewhere, and this is apart from people making POV complaints. -- Lancemurdoch 04:23, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Francis was a toff all his life. His father had courtiers chase him around Italy watching out for him. He may have renounced his class, but his class certainly didn't renounce him. Also consider the Church's toleration of Francis, but its extirpation as heresy any movement of the poor demanding the same things. I support deletion over either version of the page, but should it exist, it should include a section on the wealthy's envy of the poor. For a concrete example of the rich's envy of the poor, and how wealth and class can't be cast off, there's a British song out there called "Common people." -- User:Fifelfoo

From VfD

 * "Class envy" isn't a developed concept, like, say, "class consciousness" or "free market." It just means "envy." If you want to get expansive, it is a rhetorical cliché used to discount political arguments that attack social inequity as being merely a manifestation of envy.  Might be mentioned in a description of political rhetoric, or in a dictionary under "envy," but it's not a theory or a "phenomenon" or a "sociological practice." It's misleading to give this it's own article, as if it were one of those things. Delete. BTfromLA 09:13, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, though it might need some modifications to make more NPOV. Anthony DiPierro 09:22, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Jack 09:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the problem with this page is more that it makes no sense than that it is POV.  Here is how this page started out yesterday "Class envy is a phenomenon where one class envies conditions of another. Some people claim that the primary cause of the discontent of the poor is the generation of envy towards the rich by some third force. These proponents of the idea of class envy describe class relations primarily interms of voluntary cultural beliefs. The term's culturalist response to class antagonism denies the possibility of a genuine basis for class conflict."  What is a culturalist response to class antagonism?  Merriam Webster's dictionary doesn't even have the word culturalist in it.  This whole article seems to be four syllable made-up words strung together that ultimately make no sense.  I get no idea what this idea called class envy is - anything that seems to be actually saying something instead of being postmodern gobbledygook seems more fit for Class warfare or Class struggle bercause it is describing class antagonism, not "class envy".  Does anyone reading this feel they have a better idea of what class envy is than before they read it?  I certainly didn't.  And I spent a bit of time just reading the words and trying to figure out if they meant anything.  Also yesterday there was a section as large as the workers envying the rich on the rich envying the workers, which I took out as well.  99% of the time I hear about class envy, it is the workers supposedly envying the rich, the idea of an equal-sized part on the opposite is to me ridiculous.  I have been radically revising this article, and it still makes little sense. -- Lancemurdoch 19:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was POV when I came to it, and tried to break down some of the neo-conisms without turning my contribution into a POVed critique.  The fact that the term has no standing in social science, and is an undefined polemic term means it needs to go.  However, SimonP's alterations fix the article.  Due to the article's use by the Tory's and Wall Street Journal its useful to have Simon's explanation, which I found much clearer than the previous versions. --User:Fifelfoo

Justifications of changes
I made some fairly large changes to the article.
 * I reconstituted it into an article on the polemical phrase class envy. There is no political science or sociological idea of class envy.  This is understandable as anyone who would supports the idea of envy would also not believe in social class as an important notion.
 * I reworded almost everything to cut some of the excessively polysyllabic verbosity.
 * I tried to cut some of the sweeping statements such as "Those who accuse the poor of class envy claim that the wealthy are justified in their current position, and that any claim that the wealthy did not achieve the position through effort is envy."
 * I also cut out the list of expressions describing the wealthy, as I find their connection to the issue at hand to be tenuous at best.

-SimonP 07:04, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

{VfD} Keep. Just may suggesst that some of Capitalism's concepts be included. Otherwise it seems good (just glanced @ it though) JDR

"Argument" just a simple assertion
"The simplest counter-argument is that one's feelings are irrelevant in discussions of politics, and that even assuming class envy truly exists, it does not detract from the validity of the ideas put forward by those who harbor this emotion. "

How is the above an argument? It seems to be a simple assertion. And does anyone really believe that "feelings" are irrelevant in discussions of politics? That seems like an absurd claim.

--Mc6809e 20:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"In other words, arguments based solely on the perceived emotional state of the opposing side should not be credited by any clear thinking individual (if one is envious, that has no bearing on whether one is right or wrong)."

This is another silly assertion. Emotional state can interfere with the very "clear thinking" the author advocates. If this emotional state is indeed corrupting judgement, then that should be pointed out.

Furthermore, there is plenty of historical precedence for considering "envy" a vice and morally wrong. Simple claiming that it "has no bearing on whether one is right or wrong" is again a simple assertion and not an argument.

That entire paragraph is a poor one and should be omitted.

--Mc6809e 21:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * In Wikipedia, we do not remove arguments simply because one reader doesn't like them. Having settled that, let me explain what the argument you consider so "poor" is actually trying to say: The point is that "class envy" is an ad hominem fallacy. An assertion should be judged on its own merits, not on the merits of the person making the assertion - in other words, if a complete lunatic says that 2+2=4, you can't say that he is wrong simply because he's a lunatic. If you want to prove him wrong, you've got to prove that 2+2 does not equal 4 (good luck with that!). Similarly, if a person is "envious" or "emotional" or doesn't have "clear thinking", that doesn't prove anything about what he is saying. If you disagree with him, you have to prove that his arguments are wrong, not that he is "emotional". An emotional man can still make perfectly valid arguments. In fact, most people are emotional when they discuss matters that are very important to them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A First World notion
As far as I know, "class envy" is essentially a First World notion. In societies with a tiny number of rich and a huge number of poor (as opposed to a tiny number of super-rich and a huge number of merely rich), the class struggle is not described as "class envy". Leninism explains this quite well. Imperialism bribes its own working class with superprofits extracted from the Third World, turning that class into an aristocracy of labour that is not exploited. The conflict between that class and the domestic bourgeoisie will be relatively tame, something like "class envy", since the class interests of both classes are similar (crucially, they're both in favour of imperialism). In a Third World country, the disparities are much sharper and the competing classes are not allied, so the class struggle is a bitter one. No one would dare to characterise as "class envy" the struggle of workers who go to bed hungry at night. Shorne 05:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nice comment Shorne, though its also arguable from outside of Lenin (and the labour aristocracy argument also arises outside of Lenin too). Unfortunately this misshapen phrase "class envy" is apparently in use by a couple of US newspapers and the UK Tories.  Previous attempts to discuss instances of ruling or middle class appropriation of lower class culture faltered when the article went through a Votes for Deletion.  (Louis XIV's court life, /pastoral/ plays etc., rap as middle class fashion).  I think it would be great to point out that outright class war, concieved of as such by all involved, still exists, Korean strikes etc., to point out that this article has limited scope. Fifelfoo 22:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
Has this actually been cleaned up for neutral point of view? Maybe it's neutral tone of voice, but it seems the composite author is presenting a fairly Marxist academic worldview, which is a fringe veiwpoint, in a seemingly rational tone in order to make it appear perfectly normal. I don't ask for a rightwing diatribe against class warfare, after all politics is about interest groups so it makes sense that classes would fight against each other in those areas where their interests diverge. But, we could at least put forward a pro-market view that production of new wealth is more important than reallocation of existing wealth.

 * Have you had a full-frontal? That's just as NPOV as the view you're critiqueing.  Neither Marxism nor pro-market view points are NPOV. Fifelfoo 06:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Myth of the dole bludger?

 * Elements of "class envy" phenomena can be said to exist in many cultures - for example, the persistent Australian myth of the "dole bludger," one who avoids work and lives on the wealth of others.

Myth? I know plenty of them.

Myth? Meet my cousins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.32.25 (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Used on The Simpsons by that HaHa bully character
Used in the live episode, when Bart is sad that the chubby dweebish kid has a bigger and better tree house than him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simprovised67.45.96.152 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Class envy