text:
Charlotte Moorman

Madeline Charlotte Moorman (November 18, 1933 – November 8, 1991) was an American cellist, performance artist, and advocate for avant-garde music. Referred to as the "Jeanne d'Arc of new music", she was the founder of the Annual Avant Garde Festival of New York and a frequent collaborator with Korean American artist Nam June Paik.

Early life
Madeline Charlotte Moorman was born on November 18, 1933, in Little Rock, Arkansas. At the age of ten she began to study cello. After her graduation from Little Rock High School in 1951 she had a music scholarship to attend Centenary College in Shreveport, Louisiana. She attained her B.A. in music in 1955. She later attained a M.A. from the University of Texas at Austin and continued on to postgraduate studies at The Juilliard School in 1957 where she received her master's degree in cello.

Career
Following her studies at Juilliard, Moorman commenced a classical concert hall career as a cellist and joined the American Symphony Orchestra. From 1958-1963 she was also a member of Jacob Glick's Boccerini Players. However, she was soon drawn into the more experimental performance art scene of the 1960s through her roommate and friend Yoko Ono. When asked during an interview how she had become interested in the avant-garde, Moorman said that one day she had grown [tired] of a Kabalevsky cello piece and someone had suggested that she try playing John Cage's "26 Minutes, 1.1499 Seconds for a String Player," which, among other things, requires the performer to prepare and eat mushrooms.

Moorman befriended and later performed with many well-known artists of the late 20th century, including Paik, Yoko Ono, John Cage, Wolf Vostell, Joseph Beuys, Joseph Byrd, Carolee Schneemann, and Jim McWilliams. This led to her loose involvement with the Fluxus movement of avant-garde performance artists. She later worked closely with many of its protagonists to interpret enigmatic scores written in the open-ended spirit of Fluxus. In 1966, Beuys, then associated with Fluxus, created his work Infiltration Homogen für Cello, a felt-covered violoncello, in her honor. However, Moorman, like numerous other female artists including her close friend, Schneemann, was "blacklisted" by Fluxus-organizer George Maciunas for reasons that remain unclear.

Annual Avant Garde Festival of New York
In 1963 Moorman founded the Annual Avant Garde Festival of New York, which presented the experimental music of the Fluxus group and Happenings alongside performance, kinetic art, and video art. Despite the event's title the festival was not held annually. There were fifteen festivals from 1963 to 1980. In addition, the festivals were often organized at unique locations such as Shea Stadium, Grand Central Station, the World Trade Center, and the Staten Island Ferry.

As well as being a star performer of avant-garde pieces, she was an effective spokesperson and negotiator for advanced art, charming the bureaucracies of New York and other major cities into co-operating and providing facilities for controversial and challenging performances. The years of the Avant Garde Festival marked a period of unparalleled understanding and good relations between advanced artists and local authorities. Friend and artist Jim McWilliams' created numerous memorable pieces for her to perform at the New York Avant Garde Festivals, including Sky Kiss which involved her hanging suspended from helium-filled weather balloons for the Sixth Avant Garde Festival, and The Intravenous Feeding of Charlotte Moorman for the 1973 edition.

Collaborations with Nam June Paik
At the Second Avant Garde Festival, Moorman convinced Karlheinz Stockhausen to restage his performance piece, Originale, using his original collaborator Nam June Paik. This meeting began the decades-long collaboration between Moorman and Paik in which they fused sculpture, performance, music and art. In addition, Paik created many works specifically for Moorman, including TV Bra for Living Sculpture (1969) and TV-Cello (1971).

On February 9, 1967, Moorman achieved widespread notoriety for her performance of Paik's Opera Sextronique at the Film-Makers Cinematheque in New York City. For this performance, Moorman was to perform movements on the cello in various states of nudity. In the program for the performance, Paik wrote: "The purge of sex under the excuse of being 'serious' exactly undermines the so-called 'seriousness' of music as a classical art, ranking with literature and painting." During the first movement, Moorman played Elegy by the French composer Jules Massenet in the dark while wearing a bikini that had blinking lights. For the second movement, she played International Lullaby by Max Mathews while wearing a black skirt, but while being topless, and was arrested mid-performance by three plainclothes police officers. She was not able to return to perform the last two movements of the work. As a result of Opera Sextronique, Moorman was charged with indecent exposure, though her penalty was later suspended, and gained nationwide fame as the "topless cellist." She was also fired from the American Symphony Orchestra. For her court trial, Moorman and Paik restaged and filmed the first two movements of Opera Sextronique with the filmmaker Jud Yalkut, though the film was not permitted to be shown in court.

For the 9th Annual New York Avant Garde Festival in 1972, Moorman performed Jim McWilliam’s A Water Cello for Charlotte Moorman at South Street Seaport, New York City.

Other collaborations with Paik focused more on humanizing technology and less on sexualizing music. For example, works like TV Bra for Living Sculpture (1969), in which two small television sets were attached to Moorman's naked breasts while she played cello.

Following Moorman's death, Paik made a film entitled Topless Cellist (1995) about Moorman's life and avant-garde performances.

In 2001, Northwestern University Library acquired her archive. A portion of the archive's photographs, scores, props, and costumes were exhibited at the Mary and Leigh Block Museum of Art and the Grey Art Gallery in 2016 and the Museum der Moderne Salzburg in early 2017.

Death
In the late 1970s she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She underwent a mastectomy and further treatment, to continue performing through the 1980s in spite of pain and deteriorating health. She died of cancer in New York City on November 8, 1991, aged 57. Following Moorman's death, her friend and fellow artist Carolee Schneemann created an online memorial for her.

title: Charlotte Moorman


text:
Maurice Blanchot

Maurice Blanchot (, ; 22 September 1907 – 20 February 2003) was a French writer, philosopher and literary theorist. His work, exploring a philosophy of death alongside poetic theories of meaning and sense, bore significant influence on post-structuralist philosophers such as Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Nancy.

Pre-1945
Blanchot was born in the village of Quain (Saône-et-Loire) on 22 September 1907.

Blanchot studied philosophy at the University of Strasbourg, where he became a close friend of the Lithuanian-born French Jewish phenomenologist Emmanuel Levinas. He then embarked on a career as a political journalist in Paris. From 1932 to 1940 he was editor of the mainstream conservative daily the Journal des débats. In 1930 he earned his DES (diplôme d'études supérieures), roughly equivalent to an M.A. at the University of Paris, with a thesis titled "La Conception du Dogmatisme chez les Sceptiques anciens d'après Sextus Empiricus" ("The Conception of Dogmatism in the Ancient Sceptics According to Sextus Empiricus").

Early in the 1930s he contributed to a series of radical nationalist magazines while also serving as editor of the fiercely anti-German daily Le rempart in 1933 and as editor of Paul Lévy's anti-Nazi polemical weekly Aux écoutes. In 1936 and 1937 he also contributed to the far right monthly Combat and to the nationalist-syndicalist daily L'Insurgé, which eventually ceased publication – largely as a result of Blanchot's intervention – because of the anti-semitism of some of its contributors. There is no dispute that Blanchot was nevertheless the author of a series of violently polemical articles attacking the government of the day and its confidence in the politics of the League of Nations, and warned persistently against the threat to peace in Europe posed by Nazi Germany.

In December 1940, he met Georges Bataille, who had written strong anti-fascist articles in the thirties, and who would remain a close friend until his death in 1962. Blanchot worked in Paris during the Nazi occupation. In order to support his family he continued to work as a book reviewer for the Journal des débats from 1941 to 1944, writing for instance about such figures as Sartre and Camus, Bataille and Michaux, Mallarmé and Duras for a putatively Pétainist Vichy readership. In these reviews he laid the foundations for later French critical thinking by examining the ambiguous rhetorical nature of language and the irreducibility of the written word to notions of truth or falsity. He refused the editorship of the collaborationist Nouvelle Revue Française for which, as part of an elaborate ploy, he had been suggested by Jean Paulhan. He was active in the Resistance and remained a bitter opponent of the fascist, anti-semitic novelist and journalist Robert Brasillach, who was the principal leader of the pro-Nazi collaborationist movement. In June 1944, Blanchot was almost executed by a Nazi firing squad (as recounted in his text The Instant of My Death).

Post-1945
After the war, Blanchot began working only as a novelist and literary critic. In 1947, Blanchot left Paris for the secluded village of Èze in the south of France, where he spent the next decade of his life. Like Sartre and other French intellectuals of the era, Blanchot avoided the academy as a means of livelihood, instead relying on his pen. Importantly, from 1953 to 1968, he published regularly in Nouvelle Revue Française. At the same time, he began a lifestyle of relative isolation, often not seeing close friends (like Levinas) for years, while continuing to write lengthy letters to them. Part of the reason for his self-imposed isolation (and only part of it – his isolation was closely connected to his writing and is often featured among his characters) was the fact that, for most of his life, Blanchot suffered from poor health.

Blanchot's political activities after the war shifted to the left. He is widely credited with being one of the main authors of the important "Manifesto of the 121", named after the number of its signatories, who included Jean-Paul Sartre, Robert Antelme, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Marguerite Duras, René Char, Henri Lefebvre, Alain Resnais, Simone Signoret and others, which supported the rights of conscripts to refuse to serve in the colonial war in Algeria. The manifesto was crucial to the intellectual response to the war.

In May 1968, Blanchot once again emerged from personal obscurity, in support of the student protests. It was his sole public appearance after the war. Yet for fifty years he remained a consistent champion of modern literature and its tradition in French letters. During the later years of his life, he repeatedly wrote against the intellectual attraction to fascism, and notably against Heidegger's post-war silence over The Holocaust.

Blanchot wrote more than thirty works of fiction, literary criticism, and philosophy. Up to the 1970s, he worked continually in his writing to break the barriers between what are generally perceived as different "genres" or "tendencies", and much of his later work moves freely between narration and philosophical investigation.

In 1983, Blanchot published La Communauté inavouable (The Unavowable Community). This work inspired The Inoperative Community (1986), Jean-Luc Nancy's attempt to approach community in a non-religious, non-utilitarian and un-political exegesis.

He died on 20 February 2003 in Le Mesnil-Saint-Denis, Yvelines, France.

Work
Blanchot's work explores a philosophy of death, not in humanistic terms, but through concerns of paradox, impossibility, nonsense and the noumenal that stem from the conceptual impossibility of death. He constantly engaged with the "question of literature", a simultaneous enactment and interrogation of the idiosyncratic act of writing. For Blanchot, "literature begins at the moment when literature becomes a question".

Blanchot drew on the poetics of Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul Celan, as well as the concept of negation in the Hegelian dialectic, for his theory of literary language as something that is always anti-realist and so distinct from everyday experience that realism does not simply stand for literature about reality, but for literature concerning paradoxes made by the qualities of the act of writing. Blanchot's literary theory parallels Hegel's philosophy, establishing that actual reality always succeeds conceptual reality. For instance, "I say flower," Mallarmé wrote in "Poetry in Crisis", "and outside the oblivion to which my voice relegates any shape, [...] there arises [...] the one absent from every bouquet."

What the everyday use of language steps over or negates is the physical reality of the thing for the sake of the abstract concept. Literature - through its use of symbolism and metaphor - frees language from this utilitarianism, thereby drawing attention to the fact that language refers not to the physical thing, but only to an idea of it. Literature, Blanchot writes, remains fascinated by this presence of absence, and attention is drawn, through the sonority and rhythm of words, to the materiality of language.

Blanchot's best-known fictional works are Thomas l'Obscur (Thomas the Obscure), an unsettling récit (which "is not the narration of an event, but that event itself, the approach to that event, the place where that event is made to happen ...") about the experience of reading and loss, Death Sentence, Aminadab, and The Most High. His central theoretical works are "Literature and the Right to Death" (in The Work of Fire and The Gaze of Orpheus), The Space of Literature, The Infinite Conversation, and The Writing of the Disaster.

Themes
Blanchot engages with Heidegger on the question of how literature and death are both experienced as an anonymous passivity, an experience that Blanchot variously refers to as "the Neutral" (le neutre). Unlike Heidegger, Blanchot instead rejects the possibility of an authentic relation to death, because he rejects the conceptual possibility of death. In a manner similar to Levinas, who Blanchot later became influenced by with regards to the question of responsibility to the Other, he reverses Heidegger's position on death as the "possibility of the absolute impossibility" of Dasein, instead viewing death as the "impossibility of every possibility".

Fiction and narrations (récits)

 * Thomas l'Obscur, 1941 (Thomas the Obscure)
 * Aminadab, 1942
 * L'Arrêt de mort, 1948 (Death Sentence)
 * Le Très-Haut, 1949 (The Most High)
 * Celui qui ne m'accompagnait pas, 1953 (The One who was Standing Apart from Me)
 * "Le Dernier homme", 1957 ("The Last Man")
 * La Folie du jour, 1973 (The Madness of the Day)
 * L'Instant de ma mort, 1994 (The Instant of My Death)

Philosophical or theoretical works

 * Faux Pas, 1943
 * La Part du feu, 1949 (The Work of Fire)
 * Lautréamont et Sade, 1949 (Lautréamont and Sade)
 * L'Espace littéraire, 1955 (The Space of Literature)
 * Le Livre à venir, 1959 (The Book to Come)
 * L'Entretien infini, 1969 (The Infinite Conversation)
 * L'Amitié, 1971 (Friendship)
 * Le Pas au-delà, 1973 (The Step Not Beyond)
 * L'Ecriture du désastre, 1980 (The Writing of the Disaster)
 * La Communauté inavouable, 1983 (The Unavowable Community)
 * Une voix venue d'ailleurs, 2002 (A Voice from Elsewhere)

Many of Blanchot's principal translators into English have since established reputations as prose stylists and poets in their own right; some of the more well-known of them include Lydia Davis, Paul Auster and Pierre Joris.

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

title: Maurice Blanchot


text:
Talk:German submarine U-460

VC9?
What does VC9 refer to? Rmhermen 23:17 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:German submarine U-460


text:
Bill Gothard

William W. Gothard Jr. (born November 2, 1934) is an American Christian minister, speaker, and writer, and the founder of the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), an independent fundamentalist Christian organization. His conservative teachings encourage Bible memorization, large families, homeschooling, aversion to debt, familial patriarchy, the submission of wives to husbands, and modest attire.

At the height of Gothard's popularity during the 1970s, his Basic Youth Conflicts seminar was regularly filling auditoriums throughout the United States and beyond with attendance figures as large as ten thousand and more for a one-week seminar. In this way, he reached many in the evangelical community from the Baby Boomer generation during their teen years and young adulthood. Other seminars during this time included an Advanced Youth Conflicts seminar, as well as seminars for pastors, physicians, and legislators.

In 2014, he stepped down from IBLP after 34 women accused him of sexual harassment and molestation, with some incidents allegedly occurring when the victims were minors. In 2016, Gothard and IBLP were sued by a group of alleged victims. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2018, as the statute of limitations had been exceeded.

Biography
Bill Gothard received his B.A. in biblical studies from Wheaton College, 1957 and then his M.A. in Christian education in 1961. He completed his Ph.D. in biblical studies at Louisiana Baptist University in 2004.

In 1961, Gothard started Campus Teams, an organization which changed its name to the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts (IBYC) in 1974. The organization's name changed again in 1989 to the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), of which Gothard was the president and a board member until his resignation in 2014.

In 1984, Gothard founded the Advanced Training Institute (ATI), a homeschooling program with a curriculum based on the Sermon on the Mount.

Gothard had many political connections with Republican political leaders, including Mike Huckabee, Sonny Perdue, and Sarah Palin. His ministry was also popular with the reality TV Duggar family and others. He has never married.

Teaching
Gothard's primary teaching, his "Basic Seminar", focuses on what he refers to as seven "Basic Life Principles". He claims that these principles are universal, and that people will suffer consequences for violating them. Gothard's principles are called Design, Authority, Responsibility, Suffering, Ownership, Freedom, and Success.

The "umbrella of authority" is the idea that in order to be protected from the devil, one must have absolute obedience to those above them in the chain of authority.

Gothard teaches that dating is morally dangerous and that courtship is the better alternative. Gothard encourages parents to be involved in their children's courtship, and that a father should be involved in his daughter's relationships, and should at the very least have the right to say "no" when a man asks to marry his daughter. Gothard also advocates conservative dress. Gothard's teachings discourage dating and syncopated music, including Christian rock. He has warned that Cabbage Patch dolls are idolatrous.

Gothard has been the subject of much debate in Christian circles, and occasionally in mass media. Various books and articles have challenged Gothard's teachings on legalism, law, and grace, and questioned his handling of the IBLP ministry.

Sexual harassment allegations
On February 27, 2014, the board of directors of the Institute in Basic Life Principles placed Gothard on indefinite administrative leave while it investigated claims that he sexually harassed several female employees and volunteers. No criminal activity was uncovered, but an investigation found that Gothard had acted in an "inappropriate manner". The claims had been publicized on the Recovering Grace website, which is a support group for former followers of Gothard's teachings. As many as 34 women who worked for Gothard have claimed that he harassed them. Gothard denied the allegations and admitted no wrongdoing but announced his resignation from the Institute in order "to listen to those who have ought [something] against him".

On June 17, 2014, IBLP issued a statement, summarizing the investigation conducted by "outside legal counsel". They asserted that although no criminal activity was uncovered, Gothard had acted in an "inappropriate manner" and so "is not permitted to serve in any counseling, leadership, or Board role within the IBLP ministry". In July 2015, Gothard re-launched his website, including testimonials from several women.

In 2016, Gothard and IBLP were sued by a group of alleged victims who accused him of sexual harassment and assault. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit in 2018, citing "unique complexities" with the statute of limitations, but emphasized: "We are not recanting our experiences or dismissing the incalculable damage that we believe Gothard has done."

Books

 * Advanced Seminar Textbook. Institute in Basic Life Principles, 1986, ISBN 0-916888-11-8
 * Basic Preparation for Engagement. Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, 1971, ASIN B00
 * Basic Seminar Textbook. Institute in Basic Life Principles, 1979, ISBN 0-916888-05-3
 * Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts: Research in Principles of Life. Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, 1981, ISBN 0-916888-05-3
 * Men's Manual, Vol. 1. Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, 1979, ISBN 0-916888-04-5
 * Men's Manual, Vol. 2. Institute in Basic Life Principles, 1983, ISBN 0-916888-09-6
 * Nuestro Dios Celoso/Our Jealous God: El Amor que no me deja ir/The love that doesn't let me go. Editorial Unilit 2004, ISBN 0-7899-1215-5
 * Our Jealous God. Life Change Books, 2003. ISBN 1-59052-225-7
 * Rebuilder's Guide. Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, 1982. ISBN 0-916888-06-1
 * Research in Principles of Life: Advanced Seminar Textbook. Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts 1986. ISBN 0-916888-11-8
 * Rewards of Being Reviled. Life Change Books, 2004. ISBN 0-916888-30-4
 * Self-Acceptance. Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, 1984. ASIN B0007270AO
 * The Amazing Way. Institute in Basic Life Principles, 2010. ISBN 978-0916888497
 * The Power of Crying Out. Life Change Books, 2002, ISBN 1-59052-037-8
 * The Power of Spoken Blessings. Life Change Books, 2004. ISBN 1-59052-375-X
 * The Sevenfold Power of First Century Churches and Homes. Life Change Books, 2000. ISBN 0-916888-18-5
 * Why Did God Let It Happen? Institute in Basic Life Principles, 2011. ISBN 978-0-916888-54-1

title: Bill Gothard


text:
Welwyn Hatfield

Welwyn Hatfield is a local government district with borough status in the county of Hertfordshire, England. Its council is based in Welwyn Garden City. The borough borders Hertsmere, St Albans, North Hertfordshire, East Hertfordshire, Broxbourne, and the London Borough of Enfield.

The borough includes the two towns of Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield, along with numerous smaller settlements from Woolmer Green in the north to Cuffley in the south. The borough has six railway stations on the Great Northern Railway; five being on the main line and one on the Hertford loop line. The Digswell Viaduct is a local landmark. The A1 road passes through the borough.

Much of the borough lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt which surrounds London. Welwyn Garden City is notable as being one of only two Garden Cities in the country, and is uniquely both a Garden City and a designated New Town. The University of Hertfordshire has its main campus at Hatfield.

History
Welwyn Hatfield was created on 1 April 1974 under the Local Government Act 1972, covering the area of three former districts, which were all abolished at the same time:
 * Hatfield Rural District
 * Welwyn Garden City Urban District
 * Welwyn Rural District

The new district was named Welwyn Hatfield. From 1974 to 2006 the council was called Welwyn Hatfield District Council. The council petitioned for borough status in 2005, allowing the chair of the council to take the title of mayor. The petition was agreed to by the Privy Council and a charter conferring borough status was issued which took effect on 22 May 2006, when John Hawkins was appointed the first mayor and the council's name changed to Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council.

Governance
Hertfordshire has a two-tier structure of local government, with the ten district councils (including Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council) providing district-level services, and Hertfordshire County Council providing county-level services.

Political control
The first election to the council was held in 1973, initially operating as a shadow authority alongside the outgoing authorities until the new system came into force on 1 April 1974. Political control since 1974 has been as follows:

Leadership
The role of mayor is largely ceremonial in Welwyn Hatfield, and is usually held by a different councillor each year. Political leadership is instead provided by the leader of the council. The leaders since 2005 have been:

Composition
Following the 2024 local elections the composition of the council is as follows:

Since the 2023 local elections the council has been under no overall control. While at the time Conservatives were the largest party, the Liberal Democrats and Labour formed a coalition to take control of the council, with Liberal Democrat group leader Paul Zukowskyj becoming leader of the council and Labour group leader Lynn Chesterman becoming deputy leader of the council. The joint administration continued after the 2024 local elections when Labour became the party with the most seats on the council.

The next elections are due to be held in 2026, where a third of the council's seats will be up for election.

Premises
The council is based at the Council Offices on The Campus in the centre of Welwyn Garden City, which it inherited from the old Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council. The building was completed in 1937.

Towns and Parishes
Welwyn Hatfield contains eight civil parishes. The town of Welwyn Garden City is an unparished area. The parishes are:

 * Ayot St Lawrence
 * Ayot St Peter
 * Essendon
 * Hatfield
 * North Mymms
 * Northaw and Cuffley
 * Welwyn
 * Woolmer Green

Elections
Since the last boundary changes in 2016 the council has comprised 48 councillors representing 16 wards, each of which elects three councillors. Elections are held three years out of every four, electing one councillor from each ward each time. Elections to Hertfordshire County Council are held in the fourth year of the cycle when there are no borough council elections.

Wards
The wards of the borough are:

 * Brookmans Park & Little Heath
 * Haldens
 * Handside
 * Hatfield Central
 * Hatfield East
 * Hatfield South West
 * Hatfield Villages
 * Hollybush
 * Howlands
 * Northaw and Cuffley
 * Panshanger
 * Peartree
 * Sherrards
 * Welham Green and Hatfield South
 * Welwyn East
 * Welwyn West

Wider politics
The borough boundary differs from Welwyn Hatfield parliamentary constituency only by the single ward of Northaw and Cuffley being within the borough, but in the parliamentary constituency of Broxbourne. All other Welwyn Hatfield wards are the same for Borough and Constituency. From 2005 to 2024 Welwyn Hatfield Constituency was represented by Conservative Grant Shapps.

title: Welwyn Hatfield


text:
Talk:Antiparticle

Untitled
The spin of an antiparticle is equal to the spin of the corresponding particle, not its negative. In fact, the spin is never negative, only its projection can be nagative. I corrected the first paragraph accordingly.

Elad Tsur May 25 08:08:56 UTC 2005

"below addition by xxxx" not necessary Mark - keeping it unattributed is part of the deal. The record does show which user writes what though, and youd be wise to log in under a name (whatever it may be) to establish some sort of identity. This helps in a number of ways - including in our ability to talk to you through your talk page.

Best, 豎&#30505sv

Somebody just added a page for Chung-Yao Chao, and claims he's the discoverer of the first antiparticle, while this page says it's Carl Andersen. Is the Chao page a hoax? -- Walt Pohl 07:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Sources are spare, but it may be the case he was a student working at Andersen group. --Pjacobi 09:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Superparticles and antimatter
It is said in the supersymmetry article that "if the superparticles are found, it is analogous to discovering antimatter." Does this make any sense or is it mistaken for antiparticles?Mastertek (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Color charge
Color charge is not a scalar which is negated for an antiparticle. Quarks lie in the 3 of color and antiquarks in the 3*. Gluons are not necessarily their own anti-particles, since their C parity is undefined, but they all lie in the 8 of color. I've removed the misleading references to color charge here. If someone wants to put it back, it should be discussed better. Bambaiah 06:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Stückelberg-Feynman interpretation
On the section "2.1 The Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation ", it is Stückelberg-Feynman interpretation or 'Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation'? -- 218.103.149.76 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Historically it used to be called the S-F effect. In particle physics, over the last couple of decades, there has been a movement towards putting names in alphabetic order if the publication record reveals independent discovery. This is why I used the order F-S in the article. On the other hand, an alternative scheme which puts names in chronological order of discovery is also used. I'm not particularly attached to the ordering. Bambaiah 09:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Any idea about Stückelberg vs Stueckelberg? --Pjacobi 10:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Stueckelberg is perhaps better for people used to English language spellings. There is a tendency for umlauts to drop out of respellings otherwise. Bambaiah 11:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * IMHO in this case its even more complicated. I was under the impression that "ue" is the right spelling in this particalur case, and the "ü" spellings found on the Web are based on misguided attempts to restore the umlaut. --Pjacobi 11:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I checked up Helvetica Physica Acta and it is indeed E.C.G. Stueckelberg. Bambaiah 12:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Content
Now that we got the name right, what about the content? I'm inclined to think that the diagram is all wrong! The antiparticle moves into the direction of the backward light cone, not into the space-like direction. Comments? --Pjacobi 09:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * You are right. the diagram makes no sense. it shows an anti-particle traveling faster then the speed of light. If the person that made the diagram to begin with doesn't correct it within a few days, I'll remove it. I'ts better to have no diagram then an incorrect one.

Bosons
I changed "bosons (if they exist)" to "bosons". The existence of bosons is not disputed. Numerous bosons have been detected, including fundamental particles (such as the photon, W, Z) and composite particles (mesons, many atoms, etc.) -- Tim314 19:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we see antimatter?
Is there any problem with photons striking antimatter conglomerates (assuming that such an object existed) and being reflected and absorbed so as to illuminate the object? Would it look like matter, since it has all of the same basic characteristics? --HantaVirus 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as it didn't come into contact with matter. I know people who are working to verify this with the Hydrogen spectrum. -- SCZenz 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering...
Well, if anitparticles would appear normally, meaning they would interact normally with light energy, how would they interact with warmth, or x or gamma rays? And would antiparticle clusters exist in the same forms as normal matter, solid, liquid, gas etc.?

 * I Assume that by "warmth" you mean Infrared Radiation. IR radiation, X-rays and gamma-rays are all light but at different wavelengths.Dauto 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Backward in Time
I would have enjoyed seeing somewhere in Wikipedia an in-depth discussion of the implications of considering antiparticles as moving backward in time, and of considering that there are no time differences between events in the time frame of a photon. The notion that there may exist only one photon (or perhaps one at each energy level) in the entire universe is particularly compelling. Could it be true, for example, that all interactions of elementary particles (and, therefore, all physical systems) are causally connected? David (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

???
Waht is the difference between a Neutron and an Anti-Neutron if they bothpossess no chagrge becasue they are neutrons? please explain in simple terms! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.226.175 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This question has already been answered in [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandi.abir (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Opposite quantum numbers
This article seems to imply that the only difference between particles and anti-particles is their electromagnetic charge. Is it not the case that they in fact have opposite quantum numbers?

User: L Ollyver 15:30, March 25 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, you are right. Dauto (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Majorana particles
From the article: However, other neutral particles are their own antiparticles, such as photons, the hypothetical gravitons, and some WIMPs. These are called Majorana particles and can annihilate with themselves.

I've come across different definitions of a 'Majorana particle'. Some sources list it as any particle that is its own antiparticle and some limit it to fermions. However, Majorana particles redirects to the Majorana equation, which is for spin-1/2 particles. This doesn't describe photons (spin-1) or gravitons (spin-2). Thoughts?

 * I never heard the term"Majorana particle applied to a boson. Dauto (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really confused. In the talk page of the Majorana Equation article is stated that NO known Majorana particles exist. So who the heck is correct? (I've never heard of them). Either they exist and a photon is one, or any reference to them should be removed from this article. 72.172.1.86 (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Vague to the point of uselessness
We have a pretty detailed understanding of the Standard Model. I expect that an article on antiparticles would at least enumerate the elementary ones and go on to explain how compound particles also have/are antiparticles. In the standard model, are photons the ONLY (elementary) particle to be their own antiparticle? I strongly urge someone to rewrite the introduction to include reference to the list of particles with antiparticles, and particles without. If I recall, this article doesn't even specify that atoms and larger "particles" do not have antiparticles? (or do they?). We should get the basics right. The basics include the realm of discourse.72.172.1.86 (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No Antiquarks article
The link to Antiquarks appears to be broken and I can't find one with a quick search. I recommend someone verify this and start an article on Antiquarks if it doesn't exist. GABRIEL FILMSTUDIOS (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently antiquark itself is a redirect to the main quark article. DavRosen (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible remark
This parenthetical remark in the second paragraph of the introduction defies standard English syntax, and cannot be parsed: "(a kind of all particles usually interacted with is made of)". I recommend deleting it. (If you think it necessary or useful, a separate parenthetical sentence can be added to the end of the paragraph explaining that the vast bulk of visible, palpable matter is composed of particles rather than antiparticles; substituting a percentage for the word "vast" would be nice, if that is known or conjectured.) --  Solo Owl   17:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

elementary particles
Can it not be possible that there is a third thing besides particles and antiparticles that is made by the anhiliation of them. A third thing can also be possible which can be force particle as bosons. 171.50.171.101 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum. Bosons may have antiparticles, just like fermions. The antiparticle of a W+ is a W-. The article describes self-conjugate particles which are their own antiparticle. Pls delete the comment. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Stückelberg vs Stueckelberg
It seems that his name is spelled "Stückelberg", but that many of his publications were made under the name "Stueckelberg". I have edited some parts of the article to reflect that, but maybe someone else should check that as well? Also, I believe that "it is inconvenient for me to spell his name correctly" should not be considered a valid argument to choose one spelling over another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:25BD:9201:D986:96F3:3E88:13FD (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Antiparticle


text:
Talk:Principality of Antioch

[Untitled]
Hmm... wasn't Bohemund already Prince of Taranto? john 00:01 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure he was a count in Taranto, and then he declared himself a prince in Antioch just for prestige. Adam Bishop 00:10 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Runciman calls him Prince. "The princes at first held back, but Guiscard's son Bohemond, now prince of Taranto" (History of the Crusades, Vol. 1, p.112) john 00:19 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I don't have any sources that refer to him as anything other than "Bohemund of Taranto," they never give a title (I unfortunately don't own Runciman or any of the big histories).  Googling for him turns up results with Prince, Duke, and Count as a title (not that that really means much).  I could swear there was some minor controversy because he called himself a Prince when he actually wasn't... Adam Bishop 00:29 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I never followed up on this - Runciman has the habit of calling all the major crusade leaders "princes", including Godfrey and Raymond, who were certainly a duke and a count respectively. This comes from the convention of calling their crusade the "princes' crusade," when what is meant is that they were wealthy nobles as opposed to a crowd of poorer knights and soldiers. They weren't literally princes, and neither was Bohemund, as Taranto wasn't a principality. Adam Bishop 01:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, upon further reading, it seems that Taranto really was a principality under the king of Sicily. I guess I don't know very much about southern Italy at this period. In any case, calling all the crusaders "princes" is still hyperbole, and the problem is not whether or not Bohemund was already a prince, but that he claimed Antioch at all. Hopefully this is the last I will have to say about this :) Adam Bishop 02:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss his titles (and status) under Talk:Bohemund I of Antioch. I think he was not COUNT of T, but allodial prince there. 62.78.106.188 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Map
Please see the Map showng "Antioch under Byzantine Protection". Please edit it and remove Edessa as a county, its under Syrian control by 1158, when Antioch was made a Byzantine vassal.Tourskin 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, KOJ was bigger as Adam pointed out. I can edit the map if you want, just leave a message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabr-el (talk • contribs) 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Coinage
"Helmet" denier of Antioch, 1163-1216.  PHG  Per Honor et Gloria 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Historiography/Further Reading

 * I am wanting to add two sections. The first would be on the historiography on the principality. This would include the main primary sources: Walter the Chancellor; Ralph of Caen; Albert of Aechen; and Fulcher of Chartres. I would like to write quite generally about the nature of their sources as they majorly effect the current information we have on Antioch. I think there should also be a small section on secondary sources which mention the new works published by scholars in recent years on Antioch, including Thomas S. Asbridge, E. S. Bouchier (published in 1921 but no mention on the page) and Joshua Birk. In the second section I think a further reading list should also be added so anyone interested in this topic who wants to read beyond Wikipedia has clear access to different types of sources. Thanks Preciousfacts (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Preciousfacts Thank you for improving the article. Further reading sections are always a good idea so good move adding one! The new section on relationship with other Latin settlements is a significant improvement. The text is well referenced and provides context for the events recounted in the article. I wondered if you might be able to check over one sentence in particular? Secondly, alliances between Latin rulers was secured through their shared situation in the East. This alliance was strengthened by feudal ties and marriage alliances between eastern Latin rulers There's a mixture of singular and plural here so the wording needs tweaking. I was going to do it myself but wasn't sure if you wanted to focus on one alliance (in which case it would be worth specifying which) or several. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Principality of Antioch


text:
Talk:Sovereign Base Area

Comments

 * in a manner analogous to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Is this really so? - Montréalais

 * Sounds right to me. What's wrong with it? -- Tim Starling 01:08 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I understood that the naval base was merely leased to the United States from Cuba. I guess I don't understand how that's different from, say, an embassy being leased to a foreign government. I don't think you could argue that Ottawa is Swiss-cheesed with tiny little embassy-sized pockets of "foreign" territory. - Montréalais

 * My understanding is that embassies are part of the foreign state whilst in use. Canadian law would not apply in, say, the Saudi embassy. A famous British incident involved a police woman, Yvonne Fletcher being shot from the Libyan embassy in London. Noone was prosecuted, because the perpetrator was on Libyan soil and protected by diplomatic immunity jimfbleak 06:05 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, embassies are not under the foreign state's jurisdiction, although the host nation needs official permission to physically enter them. It was the Libyan diplomats' status as diplomats that meant they could not be arrested, not where they committed their crimes. On the other hand, the Sovereign Base Areas are British territory. I couldn't find the relevent text of the 1960 treaty, but the British law implementing the treaty, the Cyprus Act 1960, states "The Republic of Cyprus shall comprise the entirety of the Island of Cyprus with the exception of the two areas defined as mentioned in the following subsection," namely Akrotiri and Dhekelia, over which "nothing in the foregoing section shall affect Her Majesty’s sovereignty or jurisdiction over those areas" . They are thus unlike Guantanamo Bay, which is Cuban territory under US lease. 68.239.76.176 03:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid you are all misunderstanding the status of the Sovereign Base Areas. In the case of Guantanamo Bay, the nation of Cuba existed and then Guantanamo Bay was leased to the US.  The same does not apply to Cyprus.  In the case of Cyprus, the whole island was, prior to Independence, a UK colony.  At Independence the Republic of Cyprus was created, excluding those areas of the island that were retained by the UK.  What is now the SBAs were UK territory before the Republic was created.  Essentially, the SBAs have never been "Cypriot".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sink Fleet (talk • contribs) 02:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Akrotiri, the famous Minoan archaological site on Santorini, buried by the volcanic explosion of Thira--- now redirects here, because a minor UK base on Cyprus is also named "Akrotiri." Perhaps a disambiguation page would be in order? Wetman 00:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Post Empire
The UK retained several militray bases throughout the Empire following decolonisation for a period of time eg Singapore, Simonstwon in South Africa etc? Were these sovereign bases? Astrotrain 20:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I miss information as to why th UK is in Cyprus and perhaps more importantly why it doesn't leave. If Turkey has to give back a part of Cyprus, why is the UK exempt?

The confusion arises because of a misunderstanding of sovereignty. The UK occupy the Sovereign Bases legally because they were established through the international Treaty of Establishment. Turkey occupies the north of Cyprus illegally following a military invasion in 1974 of the Repuclic of Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus was established also by the international Treaty of Establishment. --Sink Fleet (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're debating this point (an activity seperate from editing this page), one argument is that the Turkish north was the result of an invasion of the Republic of Cyprus, while the SBAs were never part of independent Cyprus but holdovers from the British colony of Cyprus. And the Republic of Cyprus agreed to the SBAs in its treaty with Britain in 1960, while it never agreed to the invasion. 68.239.76.176 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the SBAs parts of BOTs?
The Sovereign Base Areas are described as one of BOTs in the article British overseas territories. Is the British Government classifying SBA as a special type of BOT? If it is true, I think it should be explained in both British overseas territories and Sovereign Base Areas. ―  韓斌 / Yes0song  ( 談笑  筆跡   다지모 ) 14:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland
It is not appropriate to refer to the Treaty Ports as "Sovereign Base Areas" etc. That terminology was NEVER used to describe them when the UK controlled them. Referring to them in that way is a "Wiki-invention" even if they were bases etc. The practical silliness of calling them a "Sovereign Base Area" also arises because at the time the UK occupied them, the UK's sovereign was the sovereign for all of Ireland. Admittedly, the UK did not administer Ireland at the time - only the treaty ports but Ireland had a Governor General and the UK sovereign was the sovereign. Ireland only ceased to be a British dominion in 1949. This is silly use of terminology with no historic or academic pedigree. Basically just made up. The Treaty Ports were never referred to as "Sovereign Base Areas" during the period the UK occupied them. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the argument relating to sovereignty may be more nebulous than you assert. However, I agree that referring to the Treaty Ports as "Sovereign Base Areas" is inappropriate unless a suitable source can be provided for doing so.  In fact, I rather suspect we have here a variant on the myth that embassies are "foreign territory".  Besides anything else, if the port areas weren't part of the Irish state's jurisdiction, the original Article 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann would mean that Acts of the Oireachtas didn't extend to the port areas; and I can see no Act passed in 1938 to extend that jurisdiction to the reacquired territory!  Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

The term "Sovereign Base" is the official one in use, even on the military maps. The Irish treaty ports were never deemed such. They are under UK sovereignty (regardless of whethe there is a monarch or not) as that is the way they were set up. Perhaps we learned from the Irish model. Acorn897 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Result: Oppose merge Reading over the opposes and merge rationales, the issue here is whether or not they should be one article, or two or three separate article. From the looks of it, there is stronger reasoning for keeping both articles separate. SalopianJames' merge rationale included the idea of splitting them up, and I am going to do this in a few days, just in case anyone wants to overrule me. Right now, the result is this: Move this article to "Sovereign Base Area," split "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" into "West Sovereign Base Area," and "East Sovereign Base Area." This is due to the installations being separated, even if there is material which seems to state otherwise. Also, the Sovereign Base Area page treats these as separate installations, and there is enough material out there to create three independent articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Afternoon folks, I'd like to propose the articles Sovereign Base Areas and Akrotiri and Dhekelia be merged together. This is because there is a large amount of duplication between the articles given that the only SBAs that have ever existed are those in Cyprus, thus the explanation for them given in the SBA article could be nicely merged into the main one. Either existing article would be fine, as far as I can see, as the destination page (although I'd prefer the resulting article be the Sovereign Base Areas one, personally). In addition, two child articles, one on the West and one on the East SBA, could then be created, leaving the main article containing content general to both whereas specifics, such as geography, local settlements and borders, could then be included in the WSBA or ESBA articles. Suggestions are, as ever, most welcome! Thanks in advance, SalopianJames (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the subject is about the type of territory designated "Sovereign Base Areas". Although these only presently exist on the Island of Cyprus, the article should be expanded into past bases with the designation which is the subject of the article. In my humble opinion the duplicated content talking about Cyprus should be removed, and the article should focus on the bases themselves, summarizing content from those articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, though, the Cyprus SBAs are the only ones that have ever been (and most likely ever will be), unless there are others not belonging to the United Kimgdom? SalopianJames (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, referring to the Cyprus SBAs as 'Akrotiri and Dhekelia' is somewhat misleading anyway, as they also include settlements such as Episkopi and Ay Nik Station, hence why they are referred to as the WSBA and ESBA by BFC. SalopianJames (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick search of the term Sovereign Base Area does make it appear that the only SBAs, so far, have been on the island of Cyprus. That being said, as they are independently Notable in their own right I do not see a sufficient reason to merge these articles at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Merge these are articles on the same subject; let's keep all the information in one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge As per buckshot.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, redirecting here. If they're the only ones, there's no point having the other article. CMD (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Presumably there must be a whole legal definition behind these designations that would be relevant to any other SBAs (whether they exist or not), regarding issues like governance and jurisdiction (some of this appears to be in the A&D article). I think the SBA article article should explore such politics in a general sense. The A&D article can then link to that definition and concentrate more on the specific histories and use of these locations, without getting bogged down in the definition of an SBA. Admittedly this would be more important if there were more SBAs; as the ones on Cyprus are the only ones, it makes my oppose a bit weaker... Ranger Steve   Talk  13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, The fact that this is the only example of SBAs is in itself a reason for keeping the article. Acorn897 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk)
 * Merge These are the only "Sovereign Base Areas" there ever have been or are ever likely to be - search the internet and paper libraries for as long as you like, but you will never find any other. There is no legal concept of a Sovereign Base Area - their legal status is British Overseas Territories (fair enough each BOT is different, and there are several unique/rare aspects of the SBAs, but they are still BOTs). It is like saying there should be an entry for "United Kingdom" separate from "Great Britain & Northern Ireland", because the fact there is only one UK means it must be an interesting & separate concept - it doesn't. Now that the ludicrously unsupported connection with the Irish Treaty Ports has been dropped from these entries, it is time to face the simple fact that the SBAs & "Akrotiri & Dhekelia" are exactly the same thing - anyone with anything that they think shows any real difference should produce it. Waldronfan (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC) By the way, this debate is the flip-side of the discussion on the Akrotiri-Dhekelia page about whether to rename that page to include SBA in the name - nothing seems to have come of that. If anyone wants the source for the fact that there is legally one entity, a single British Overseas Territory, called "the SBAs of A&D", then look at British Nationality Act 1981, as amended by British Overseas Territories Act 2002 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/contents - s50(1) says “ 'British overseas territory' means a territory mentioned in Schedule 6" and Sch6 has a paragraphed list which includes "The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (that is to say the areas mentioned in section 2(1) of the Cyprus Act 1960)". And if anyone can find any evidence anywhere of any use of "Sovereign Base Area" in any case other than Cyprus, then they need to let the world know. Waldronfan (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge preferably under the title "The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia". Malpascru (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. We don't need two article on two aspects of the same thing. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge One article can cover what the two currently do without seeming cumbersome or feeling like two articles are needed, I found it weird that there were two when I was reading up on the subject Jasonfward (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A paragraph about the history is missing in this article. UK had, before WWII, sovereign base areas in Ireland for example (see Berehaven). That is this article can not be merged with "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiff (talk • contribs) 08:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge I thought this zombie myth about the Irish Treaty Ports had been laid to rest long ago, but it seems the Berehaven article is still infected. In all the searching I have done on this I have never seen any trace of the Irish Treaty Ports ever being called "Sovereign Base Areas", except on Wikipedia - if anyone has any actual evidence that they ever were called that, then they need to produce it. There just is no general concept of a "Sovereign Base Area" - it was a one off name for the territory in Cyprus. By the way, it is used in the sense of a sovereign base-area - it is the broad area including the bases, but the current SBA article refers to the Areas as if they were just the bases (whereas the Akrotiri-Dhekelia article now correctly sets out that the Areas include the Cypriot-owned farmland and village outskirts around the actual bases). How do we bring this to a close?83.137.249.158 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this? The closer seems to have abandoned his own suggestion... SalopianJames (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I have just tried editing this page, to make it about what it says it is about - "Sovereign Base Areas", which are Areas, not Bases (there are several military bases contained within the SBAs, but the SBAs themselves spread much wider and are a British Overseas Territory, not just an overseas base of the British armed forces). I have done this as an alternative to what really should happen, which is that this page should be scrapped altogether, with anything that it contains that does not duplicate the Akrotiri and Dhekelia page being moved over to there. The point is that "Sovereign Base Area" just is not a generic term - there only ever has been one pair and only ever will be - it is just a label dreamed up in 1960 for the one-off arrangements in Cyprus. Having this as a separate page is like treating "United States" or "United Kingdom" as if they were separate generic terms which each happened to have just one example (USA and UK-GBNI) - there is just no point in it. The continued survival of this page is due to whichever Wikipedia editor originally suggested that the Irish Treaty Ports should somehow also be thought of as SBAs (even though the term was never used for them - at least this has now been dropped on Wikipedia), and then to people who assume there must be such a thing as a notable concept of a "Sovereign Base Area" just because the term is used (but in the plural) in one single solitary case of an unfortunately cumbersome name "the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus". Whether or not Kevin Rutherford is going to get around to splitting Akrotiri/Western SBA from Dhekelia/Eastern SBA (or leave them together), the issue is that this page is entirely bogus in suggesting that there is any general concept of an SBA outside of the pair that form one British Overseas Territory on the island of Cyprus. Can we just agree to scrap this page? Waldronfan (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this page is redundant and deserves to be flushed once and for all. --Lubiesque (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sovereign Base Area