text:
Sandalwood

Sandalwood is a class of woods from trees in the genus Santalum. The woods are heavy, yellow, and fine-grained, and, unlike many other aromatic woods, they retain their fragrance for decades. Sandalwood oil is extracted from the woods. Sandalwood is often cited as one of the most expensive woods in the world. Both the wood and the oil produce a distinctive fragrance that has been highly valued for centuries. Consequently, some species of these slow-growing trees have suffered over-harvesting in the past.

Nomenclature
The nomenclature and the taxonomy of the genus are derived from this species' historical and widespread use. Etymologically it is ultimately derived from Sanskrit चन्दन Chandana (čandana), meaning "wood for burning incense" and related to candrah, "shining, glowing" and the Latin candere, to shine or glow. It arrived in English via Late Greek, Medieval Latin and Old French in the 14th or 15th century.

True sandalwoods

Sandalwoods are medium-sized hemiparasitic trees, and part of the same botanical family as European mistletoe. Sandalwood is indigenous to the tropical belt of the peninsular India, Malay Archipelago and northern Australia. The main distribution is in the drier tropical regions of India and the Indonesian islands of Timor and Sumba. It spread to other regions through the incense trade route by the vast Indian and Arab mercantile networks and the Chinese maritime trade routes until the sixteenth century CE. The sandalwood of peninsular India and Malay Archipelago supported most consumption in East Asia and West Asia during the time of the incense trade route before the commercialization of Australian sandalwood (Santalum spicatum) in sandalwood plantations in Australia and China,  although sandalwood album (Santalum album) is still considered to have the best and original quality in terms of religion and alternative medicine. Santalum spicatum is marketed as the notable members of this group today by merchants because of its stable sources; others in the genus also have fragrant wood. These are found in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, Indonesia, Hawaii, and other Pacific Islands,
 * S. album is a threatened species native to dry tropical regions of Indonesia (Java and the Lesser Sunda Islands), the Philippines, and Western Australia. It was one of the plants exploited by Austronesian arboriculture and it was introduced by Austronesian sailors to East Asia, Mainland Southeast Asia and South Asia during the ancient spice trade, becoming naturalized in South India by at least 1300 BCE. In India, the principal sandal tracts are most parts of Karnataka and adjoining districts of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. Although sandalwood trees in India, Pakistan, and Nepal are government-owned and their harvest is controlled, many trees are illegally cut down. Sandalwood oil prices had risen to $3000 per liter by 2017.
 * S. ellipticum, S. freycinetianum, and S. paniculatum, the Hawaiian sandalwood (iliahi), were also used and considered high quality. These three species were exploited between 1790 and 1825 before the supply of trees ran out (a fourth species, S. haleakalae, occurs only in subalpine areas and was never exported). Although S. freycinetianum and S. paniculatum are relatively common today, they have not regained their former abundance or size, and S. ellipticum remains rare.
 * S. yasi, a sandalwood from Fiji and Tonga.
 * S. spicatum is used by aromatherapists and perfumers. The oil concentration differs considerably from other Santalum species. In the 1840s, sandalwood was Western Australia's biggest export earner. Oil was distilled for the first time in 1875, and by the turn of the 20th century, production of Australian sandalwood oil was intermittent. However, in the late 1990s, Western Australian sandalwood oil enjoyed a revival and by 2009 had peaked at more than 20000 kg per year – much of which went to the fragrance industries in Europe. Although overall production has decreased, by 2011, a significant percentage of its production was heading to the chewing tobacco industry in India alongside Indian sandalwood – the chewing tobacco market being the largest market for both oils in 2012.
 * Other species: Commercially, various other species, not belonging to Santalum species, are also used as sandalwood.

Unrelated plants
Various unrelated plants with scented wood and also referred to as sandalwood, but not in the true sandalwood genus:
 * Adenanthera pavonina – sandalwood tree, red or false red sandalwood
 * Baphia nitida – camwood, also known as African sandalwood
 * Eremophila mitchellii – sandalwood; false sandalwood (also sandalbox)
 * Myoporum platycarpum – sandalwood; false sandalwood
 * Myoporum sandwicense – bastard sandalwood, false sandalwood
 * Osyris lanceolata – African sandalwood
 * Osyris tenuifolia – east African sandalwood
 * Pterocarpus santalinus – false red sandalwood growing in southern Indian regions

Production
Producing commercially valuable sandalwood with high levels of fragrance oils requires Indian sandalwood (S. album) trees to be a minimum of 15 years old – the yield, quality and volume are still to be clearly understood. Yield of oil tends to vary depending on the age and location of the tree; usually, the older trees yield the highest oil content and quality. India continues to produce a superior quality of Santalum Album, with FP Aromatics being the largest exporter. Australia is the largest producer of S. album, with the majority grown around Kununurra, in the far north of the state by Quintis (formerly Tropical Forestry Services), which in 2017 controlled around 80% of the world's supply of Indian sandalwood, and Santanol. India used to be the world's biggest producer, but it has been overtaken by Australia in the 21st century. Over-exploitation is partly to blame for the decline. However, ethical plantations in India are on the rise, and India is expected to increase its supply manyfold by 2030, owing to favourable weather conditions and competitive pricing.

Australian sandalwood (S. spicatum) is grown in commercial plantations throughout the wheatbelt of Western Australia, where it has been an important part of the economy since colonial times. WA has the largest plantation resource in the world.

Sandalwood is expensive compared to other types of woods. To maximize profit, sandalwood is harvested by removing the entire tree instead of felling at the trunk near ground level. This way wood from the stump and root, which possesses high levels of sandalwood oil, can also be processed and sold.

Australian sandalwood is mostly harvested and sold in log form, graded for heartwood content. The species is unique in that the white sapwood does not require removal before distilling the oil. The logs are either processed to distill the essential oil, or made into powders for making incense. Indian sandalwood, used mainly for oil extraction, does require removal of the sapwood prior to distillation. , Australian Sandalwood oil sells for around US$1,500 per 1 kg, while Indian Sandalwood oil, due to its higher alpha santalol content, is priced at about US$2,500 per kg.

Sandalwood is often cited as one of the most expensive woods in the world, along with African blackwood, pink ivory, agarwood and ebony.

Sandalwood has historically been an important tree in the development of the political economy of the Pacific. Prior to colonization in the region, the sandalwood tree was a marker of status, rank and beauty. It then became an important part of the Pacific trade during the colonial period, as it was one of the few resources the West was able to successfully trade with Chinese merchants. This western trade began to put pressure on the production of sandalwood in the region.

Tonga, a Polynesian kingdom in the Oceania region, saw a severe depletion of its sandalwood tree (locally known as “‘ahi”) due a disruption of the social hierarchy, known as “fahu”, which led to heightened local competition and eventually an over harvest. Nearly all of the sandalwood resources were depleted over the span of two years. Tongan people have a unique social dynamic referred to as “fahu.” On the one hand, the kinship system of fahu is able to ensure biodiversity and sustainability in contemporary Tonga. But on the other hand, a principal factor in the over harvest of the ‘ahi tree was the result of the defensive actions of farmers defying fahu customs. As sandalwood became valuable in the market, lower-ranking family members began to harvest the trees without permission, encouraging many farmers to harvest their trees defensively and thus leading to over harvest.

In 2007, Mike Evans published a scholarly report on Tongan sandalwood overharvest and the socio-environmental implications of resource commodification and privatized land tenure. Evan’s concluded that “whatever the short-term ecological benefits of enforcing privatized land tenure, because private property not only fragments social ties by allowing an individual to deny others, it has the potential to fragment the regional ecology as well.”

Fragrance
Sandalwood oil has a distinctive soft, warm, smooth, creamy, and milky precious-wood scent. Its quality and scent profile is greatly influenced by the age of the tree, location and the skill of the distiller. It imparts a long-lasting, woody base to perfumes from the oriental, woody, fougère, and chypre families, as well as a fixative to floral and citrus fragrances. When used in smaller proportions in a perfume, it acts as a fixative, enhancing the longevity of other, more volatile, materials in the composite. Sandalwood is also a key ingredient in the "floriental" (floral-ambery) fragrance family – when combined with white florals such as jasmine, ylang ylang, gardenia, plumeria, orange blossom, tuberose, lily of the valley, etc. Its also acts as a versatile base that blends well with other woody scents like patchouli and cedar.

Sandalwood oil in India is widely used in the cosmetic industry. The main source of true sandalwood, S. album, is a protected species, and demand for it cannot be met. Many species of plants are traded as "sandalwood". The genus Santalum has more than 19 species. Traders often accept oil from closely related species, as well as from unrelated plants such as West Indian sandalwood (Amyris balsamifera) in the family Rutaceae or bastard sandalwood (Myoporum sandwicense, Myoporaceae). However, most woods from these alternative sources lose their aroma within a few months or years.

Isobornyl cyclohexanol is a synthetic fragrance chemical produced as an alternative to the natural product.

Sandalwood's main components are the two isomers of santalol (about 75%). It is used in aromatherapy, in scented candles and to prepare soaps.

Idols/sculptures
Sandalwood lends itself well to carving and has thus, traditionally, been a wood of choice for statues and sculptures of Hindu gods.

Technology
Due to its low fluorescence and optimal refractive index, sandalwood oil is often employed as an immersion oil within ultraviolet and fluorescence microscopy.

Food
Aboriginal Australians eat the seed kernels, nuts, and fruit of local sandalwoods, such as the quandong (S. acuminatum). Early Europeans in Australia used quandong in cooking damper by infusing it with its leaves, and in making jams, pies, and chutneys from the fruit. In Scandinavia, pulverised bark from red sandalwood (Pterocarpus soyauxii) is used - with other tropical spices - when marinating anchovies and some types of pickled herring such as matjes, sprat, and certain types of traditional spegesild, inducing a reddish colour and slightly perfumed flavour.

Present-day chefs have begun experimenting in using the nut as a substitute for macadamia nuts or a bush food substitute for almonds, hazelnuts, and others in Southeast Asian-styled cuisine. The oil is also used as a flavour component in different food items, including candy, ice cream, baked food, puddings, alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages, and gelatin. The flavouring is used at levels below 10 ppm, the highest possible level for use in food products being 90 ppm.

Distillation
Oil is extracted from Sandalwood through distillation. Many different methods are used, including steam distillation, water distillation, CO2 extraction, and solvent extractions. Steam distillation is the most common method used by sandalwood companies. It occurs in a four-step process, incorporating boiling, steaming, condensation, and separation. Water is heated to high temperatures (60 - 100 °C) and is then passed through the wood. The oil is very tightly bound within the cellular structure of the wood, but can be released by the high heat of the steam. The mixture of steam and oil is then cooled and separated so that the essential oil can be collected. This process is much longer than any other essential oil's distillation, taking 14 to 36 hours to complete, but generally produces much higher quality oil. Water, or hydro, distillation is the more traditional method of sandalwood extraction which involves soaking the wood in water and then boiling it until the oil is released. This method is not used as much anymore because of the high costs and time associated with heating large quantities of water.

Hinduism

Sandalwood is considered sacred in the Hindu Ayurveda and is known in Sanskrit as chandana. The wood is used for worshipping the deities, and it is said that Lakshmi (Sri), the goddess of well-being, lives in the sandalwood tree; therefore, it is also known as Srigandha.

Sandalwood paste is prepared by grinding a piece of dry sandalwood into powder, against a stone slab. With the gradual addition of water, a thick paste forms, (called kalabham "കളഭം" in Malayalam language and gandha ಗಂಧ in Kannada) and it is mixed with saffron or other such pigments to make chandanam. Chandanam, further mixed with herbs, perfumes, pigments, and some other compounds, results in javadhu. Kalabham, chandanam, and javadhu are dried and used as kalabham powder, chandanam powder, and javadhu powder, respectively. Chandanam powder is very popular in India and is also used in Nepal.

In Tirupati, after religious tonsure, sandalwood paste is applied to protect the skin. In Hinduism and Ayurveda, sandalwood is thought to bring one closer to the divine. Thus, it is one of the most used holy elements in Hindu and Vedic societies. This paste is integral to rituals and ceremonies, for making religious utensils, for decorating sacred images, and it is believed to calm the mind during meditation and prayer. It is also distributed to devotees, who apply it to their foreheads or necks and chests. Sandalwood paste is used for most pujas both in temples and private households.

Jainism

Sandalwood use is an integral part of the daily practices of Jainism. Sandalwood paste mixed with saffron is used to worship the Tirthankaras of Jainism. Sandalwood powder is showered as blessings by Jain monks and nuns (sadhus and sadhvis) onto their disciples and followers. Sandalwood garlands are used to dress the body during Jain cremation ceremonies. During the festival of Mahamastakabhisheka that is held once in every 12 years, the Gommateshwara statue is bathed and anointed with libations such as milk, sugarcane juice, and saffron paste, and sprinkled with powders of sandalwood, turmeric, and vermilion.

Buddhism
Sandalwood is mentioned in various suttas of the Pāli Canon. In some Buddhist traditions, sandalwood is considered to be of the padma (lotus) group and attributed to Amitabha Buddha. Sandalwood scent is believed by some to transform one's desires and maintain a person's alertness while in meditation. It is also one of the most popular scents used when offering incense to the Buddha and the guru.

Sufism
In the Indian variants of Sufism, sandalwood paste is applied on a revered Sufi's grave by the disciples as a mark of devotion. The tradition is practiced particularly by devotees in the Indian Subcontinent. In Tamil culture, irrespective of one's religious identity, sandalwood paste or powder is applied to the graves of Sufi saints as a mark of devotion and respect.

East Asian religions
In East Asia, sandalwood (檀木), is the most commonly used incense material by the Chinese, Korean and Japanese in worship and various ceremonies. Some Taoist sects, following the Ming Dynasty Taoist Manual, avoid the use of sandalwood (as well as benzoin resin and frankincense) as incense in worship. In Korean Shamanism, sandalwood is considered the Tree of Life. It was transmitted to China, the Korean Peninsula, and Japan during the eastward expansion of Buddhism.

Zoroastrianism
Zoroastrians offer sandalwood twigs to the afarganyu, the urn in which the fire is kept at the fire temple (called agiyari in Gujarati and dar-e mehr in Persian), to keep the fire burning during religious ceremonies. After the firekeeping priests complete the ceremony, attendees are allowed to come up to the afarganyu and place their own pieces of sandalwood into the fire. Fire has been a sacred symbol in the Zoroastrian religion since ancient times and it is considered very important to keep the fires in the temples constantly burning. Because of its high sensitivity to fire, sandalwood works very well for this. Also, the wood has been accepted by the Yasna and Yashts (sacred texts) as an appropriate fuel for the fire. It is offered to all of the three grades of fire in the fire temple, including the Atash Dadgahs. Sandalwood is not offered to the divo, a smaller lamp that is kept in the homes of Zoroastrians. Often, money is offered to the mobad (priest) as payment, along with sandalwood. Sandalwood is called sukhad in the Zoroastrian community. The sandalwood in the fire temple is often more expensive to buy than at a Zoroastrian store. It is often a source of income for the fire temple.

title: Sandalwood


text:
Talk:Fonzie

Character traits and development section
the Character traits and development section of this article is a very long combination of biographic details about the character and information about the character's development, all without any citations.

I think this section should be split into two sections; a character biography / traits section and a "Development" section

Character traits
Extra material from the article that needs a rewrite.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC) _____

Fonzie seems to respect people brave enough to stand up to him, as evidenced in the episode where Richie recalls meeting Fonzie for the first time while he was a member of a gang called the Falcons. Fonzie resented Richie at first, threatening to beat him up; but when Richie refused to back down, Fonzie told him "you got guts". Early on, Fonzie almost invariably addressed Richie and his peers by their surnames. Fonzie regards Richie's two closest friends, Ralph Malph and Potsie Webber, as nerds, largely because of their collective willingness to do virtually anything to fit in. Contrary to Ralph and Potsie, Richie does not readily compromise his own principles and sticks to what he believes is right, and on occasion even stands up to Fonzie himself. Because of this, Fonzie begins to admire Richie and over time grows fond of him, eventually referring to him as his best friend.

At the beginning of the series, Fonzie is a high school dropout, prompting establishment characters to view him as a rebel and bad influence. Fonzie is shown once attempting to go back to school with Richie, but he later decides it just is not for him and drops out again. However, a few seasons later, Fonzie is secretly attending night school and ultimately earns his high school diploma. Through it all, Fonzie worked as an auto mechanic. He later became an auto mechanic instructor at Jefferson High School and finally a full-fledged teacher.

Fonzie has a very high moral code. He always treats others with respect and sticks up for those who cannot defend themselves. On the other hand, he often expects others to follow his example. After Chachi accidentally burns down Arnold's, for example, Fonzie disciplines him severely for his carelessness in forgetting to shut off the kitchen grill and then tossing his apron onto the grill, even though other characters (including owner Al) understand it was just an accident.

Fonzie was consistently portrayed as being very successful with women. Very few women turned down his advances or made him nervous. While displaying somewhat of a womanizing behavior, Fonzie always treated whomever he happened to be dating with utmost respect. His success with women made him a frequent source of advice for Richie, Potsie, Ralph, and Chachi. In Season 10, Fonzie maintained a long-term relationship with a single mother (played by Linda Purl), but they would break up by the following year. Though he never married in the series, he adopted a young orphan boy named Danny Corrigan, Jr., in the final season, completing his transformation from rebel to family man.

Despite his aloofness, Fonzie had more whimsical traits, such as a devotion to the Lone Ranger, whom he excitedly meets in an episode (played by John Hart). While confident with women, he blushed whenever Marion ("Mrs. C." to Fonzie), who became like a surrogate mother to him, kissed him on the cheek. She was the only person Fonzie allowed to address him by his first name, Arthur, which she always did affectionately. Richie's sister Joanie also became attached to Fonzie; his pet name for her was "Shortcake". In one episode, when it is revealed that Fonzie had never been christened as a baby, the Cunninghams stood by him at church so that he could finally be christened.

Fonzie is able to be the big brother figure Joanie needs after Richie leaves for California. Fonzie and Joanie grow to be very close, especially in the later seasons. Fonzie gives Joanie advice about everything from boys to schoolwork. Fonzie is naturally delighted when his cousin who is also his best friend decides to marry a young woman he has grown to love as a little sister. Fonzie serves as Chachi's best man at their wedding.

Fonzie self-appointed the men's restroom at Arnold's as his "office", where he, Richie, and his friends would gather to work out developing problems. Written on the walls were phone numbers of his many girlfriends, as well as a payphone. On opening night of the newly rebuilt Arnold's (after Chachi accidentally burned the old one down), Al had a desk set up in the new men's room exclusively for Fonzie. It included a desk telephone and organized pull-down sheet of all the phone numbers Al recovered from the fire.

Fonzie's rough past earns him a great deal of respect and fear from more antagonistic characters. Throughout the series he served as defender and protector of Richie, Ralph, and Potsie whenever they were confronted by various bullies and hoodlums. Various episodes indicate that Fonzie has extensive martial arts training. Even opponents larger than he are shown to back down from confrontations. Those who do fight him never come out on top. In one episode, he compares his nerve strike knowledge to that of a woman (Katmandu) while both use Ralph as a training dummy. In subsequent episodes, he out-dueled an expert fencer and mangled a gangster's prosthetic iron hand with one fist. Meanwhile, more sympathetic characters idolize Fonzie due to his success with women and his imperturbable "cool." Despite the respect he has earned, several people still antagonized him – including Officer Kirk (Ed Peck), an overzealous police officer who sometimes (though never successfully) tried to frame Fonzie or run him out of town.

Richie is the only person in the series to have ever struck Fonzie without retaliation. In the episode "Welcome Home: Part 2" from Season 11, Fonzie finds Richie (who has just returned home from the Army) drowning his sorrows in a local bar after resigning himself to a job at the Milwaukee Journal rather than follow his dream to become a Hollywood screenwriter, largely to please his family. Richie punches Fonzie in the face after Fonzie tries to take him home, but puts Richie in a full nelson after Richie takes a second swing at him. "What, you think you're gonna do that to me a second time?" is what Fonzie says before pinning Richie to a pool table. They patch things up and Richie returns home and decides to go to California.

Fonzie has an almost magical ability to manipulate technology with just a nudge, bump or a snap of his fingers; he is shown starting a car, turning on lights, coaxing free sodas from a vending machine, making girls respond, or changing the song selection on a jukebox – occasionally pounding one with his fist and eliciting the response of a classic 1950s tune, such as the Elvis Presley song "Hound Dog". Somewhat hyperbolic examples of his abilities can be seen in his dreamlike encounter with the extraterrestrial Mork, such as a form of psychokinesis or a thumb capable of resisting Mork's finger.

Fonzie thinks he is never wrong and, consequently, has trouble admitting so. He attempts to say he was wrong in the episode titled "Tell it to the Marines", which originally aired on December 16, 1975, but can only get as far as an r with an unidentifiable vowel. He also has trouble apologizing and saying "sorry" as shown in "My Fair Fonzie", which originally aired on November 22, 1977. This feature of his personality was parodied by Winkler's character in Children's Hospital, an administrator who cannot admit he was wrong about a decision. (The staff assumes he is having a seizure.)

One of Fonzie's few soft spots was for his beloved iconic motorcycle. Without it, he feels uncool, as shown in the season 3 episode, "The Motorcycle", when Ralph Malph accidentally destroyed it with his car. When Mr. Cunningham told Fonzie, "it's just a motorcycle", Fonzie responded that it is what made him cool when nothing else worked.

During the episode when Fonzie on the visit to California, it is revealed that sharks are just one of his fears; the other was liver, as seen in Episode 135, "The Muckrakers", in 1975. [[User:Classicfilms|Classicfilms (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Fonzie


text:
Talk:Uma Thurman

/archive 1

Recent cuts
{SNUGGUMS and Tenebrae, Hillbillyholiday removed some content that should likely be kept. Willing to help? We will see how this goes, given the contested proposal at WP:ANI.

 * With this edit, Hillbillyholiday stated, "poor sources, too much irrelevant information." But as we can see, a solid source was included. The San Francisco Chronicle is a WP:Reliable source. And from what I know, when a subject has children, we note that they have children. We usually do not mention the names, but we do mention the fact the subject has children, and especially when the children are the result of a married couple.

 * With this edit, Hillbillyholiday stated, "poorly sourced and probably not worth mentioning." But as we can see, the first source is The Daily Telegraph, which is a WP:Reliable source. The Daily Mail removal was justified. Another source is the New York Daily News. Editors have different opinions on this source (the New York Daily News); so it's sometimes best to use a better source in its place. I will note that although the New York Daily News is published in tabloid (newspaper format), it is not a tabloid. Tabloid format is not the same thing as tabloid journalism. The content in question is about a stalker that Thurman dealt with. Worth mentioning?

 * With this edit, Hillbillyholiday stated, "oh for fuck's fucking sake...." He removed information about a custody battle. It was sourced to poor sources -- the Daily Mail and perezhilton.com. But from what I know, we usually include custody battle material. Looking on the Internet about this specific case, I see that we can replace these poor sources with this The Daily Telegraph source and this News.com.au source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Daily Mail and Perez Hilton most certainly shouldn't be used as citations. Custody battles are fine to include as long as they are credibly referenced. New York Daily News is probably a case-by-case basis. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, SNUGGUMS, I obviously agree about the Daily Mail and Perez Hilton. What about the children material? Include, right? But without mentioning the names? And is the stalker material relevant enough to include? I'll Google it and see how prominent it was. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely include, and children's names are fine to mention as long as they're properly sourced and the parents haven't tried to conceal identities. Not sure what to say about stalking. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Snuggums except for mentioning the children's names, but that may just be my own personal dislike. The SF Chronicle definitely qualifies as a RS, however, as does the Telegraph. (By putting my AGF tendencies in high gear, I guess I can assume that the questioning of those sources' reliability arose from ignorance, in which case it shouldn't happen again.) The NY Daily News is a mixed bag. I agree with most of what Flyer22 Reborn said about it, but I'd suggest that it can be decidedly tabloidy at times (probably because it's competing head-to-head with the way tabloidy NY Post). Last I checked, the Daily News doesn't make up stuff out of whole cloth, but for potentially controversial sourcing about celebrities I'd prefer another source if one is available. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * From looking at the edits, I don't think that content should be in the article. For the first example, the only content I could consider keeping is that she had two children from that first marriage.  That she was pregnant was the reason she got married sounds like celebrity gossip.  From the second example we've got WP: BLPCRIME concerns, coupled with gossip.  And the third is a legal battle, it might be noteworthy that there is one, but again the excessive detail to who leveled accusations sounds like gossip.  Broadly speaking I agree with the removals.  Though I think there might be information that could be salvaged, but it should be written conservatively and have high quality reliable sourcing to back it up.  We should make sure we're not scandal mongering.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. Kyohyi has it right. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that she has children with the man in question should absolutely be kept. We don't remove the fact that a subject has children. And if she states that she got married because she was pregnant, that is not simply celebrity gossip; it is her explaining why she got married, which is relevant. Regarding what SNUGGUMS stated about mentioning the names, see Talk:Brian Austin Green, but I'm not tied to mentioning the names. Regarding the stalker, I considered WP:BLPCRIME, which is one reason I asked, "Worth mentioning?" As for the custody battle, that should be included as well. We can include the fact that she has a child with the man and that they were engaged in a custody battle without sensationalizing the issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 * And going back to the stalker matter, apparently a conviction was secured; so it seems that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Concur with Flyer22 Reborn: If a conviction has been obtained it is absolutely pertinent. And children's names are allowed if public-figure parents or their representatives have released them to the media. There was an entire RfC in 2015 that confirmed this. Finally, if something non-libelous is properly cited to reliable sources, then it's not a BLP issue and the loophole does not apply.
 * And user:Hillbillyholiday has no right whatsoever to make an edit summary saying, "oh for fuck's fucking sake...." You can't pick and choose which rules you like and are personally acceptable, and WP:CIVIL is one of them.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Added the following with cites including a Time Life book, The Washington Post and CBS News. Made language more encyclopedic WP:TONE. Pertinent, court-documented and completely RS citing. There is no BLP issue anywhere in the following:

 * "Thurman was stalked by Jack Jordan, a man with a history of mental illness, from about 2004 to 2011. He was arrested in October 2007, and the following May was convicted in Manhattan of one count of stalking and one count of second-degree aggravated harassment. Sentenced to three years probation, he was arrested again in 2010 near Washington, D.C., on charges of violating a restraining order by attempting to contact Thurman. He pleaded guilty in November 2011 after spending 11 months in jail in lieu of $500,000 bail, and was released with time served."

 * It's still a BLP issue, this guy is not a public figure so we need to be cautious about what information we include about him. Even if he's convicted, the crime itself is only marginally notable because it happened to a celebrity.  So we're including some damning information about a non-notable person, in a barely notable event.  --Kyohyi (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes and no. Or, rather, no and yes. If I were writing or rewriting the article, I'd omit his name because I tend to come down on the side of privacy for non-public figures, especially ill or otherwise vulnerable ones, and I don't believe that providing his name enhances our readers' understanding of the topic (which should be our primary objective in editing this article). However, that is my own editorial discretion, and reasonable people may disagree. I do not believe that including the name creates a BLP violation. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   18:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Point of correction: By any legal and journalistic standard in the U.S., where this occurred, he is indeed a public figure. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 * @Tenebrae: That's a clarification, not a correction. I'm well aware it can be argued that anyone who has been named in articles published by mainstream publications is a public figure. (I've dealt with that firsthand, both as writer of the first stories to name the arrested parties in pending criminal cases and as an editor having to make the call in parallel situations.) I'm also well aware that this is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of news stories, and our standards are not necessarily the same. For the purposes of our articles, the definition of "public figure" is whatever community consensus decides it is. So let me clarify, in turn. My preference is to err on the side of privacy, if possible, when writing about people who did not seek to become public figures but whose notoriety results from factors beyond their control, such as illness or happenstance. (It's not always possible, of course, and we shouldn't ever sweat it for naming a name that has already been widely disseminated in reliable sources. That's why I said there was no BLP violation.) Your preference may be different, and that's fine, but I also said that "I don't believe that providing his name enhances our readers' understanding of the topic (which should be our primary objective in editing this article)". For me, and I hope for most of us, that's a good measure to use when deciding whether to name a name. Will readers better understand Thurman's history of being stalked by our telling them her stalker's name? I'd say not. We don't indiscriminately add every kernel of known information to an article just because we can. It has nothing to do with WP:BLP and everything to do with judgment—a distinction that is too often lost around here. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I think we're actually in agreement on essentials — and may I say I am overjoyed to meet a fellow professional with an informed opinion, as opposed to laypeople working on personal beliefs and "gut instincts." The whole point I'm making is that this isn't any clear BLP violation since a) he is a public figure (one definition, from M-W's law dictionary: "an individual or entity that has acquired fame or notoriety or has participated in a particular public controversy") and b) as you know, the ultimate defense against libel is truth, so Wikipedia is not at any risk whatsoever of publishing anything libelous in the paragraph I inserted. This comes down to a matter of editors' opinions as to whether the name is useful, and that's fine. But that's completely different from any notion that the paragraph is any BLP violation.

 * As to whether the name belongs, we can certainly agree to disagree. I don't think withholding historical basics such as names and dates is good for an encyclopedia; vagueness is the enemy of accuracy and context. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Regarding this re-addition by Tenebrae and this removal by Kyohyi, perhaps that is including a little too much stalker material, but I'm thinking that the stalker aspect should be mentioned given what this source I noted above states; it was an important case for Thurman and he was convicted. I don't see the need to mention his name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 * So, except for maybe including his name and stating that he had "a history of mental illness," I think that Tenebrae's additions was fine. And in defense of including the name, the aforementioned source I included notes, "The trial attracted widespread attention because Ms. Thurman testified, along with her mother, Birgitte, a former Ford model known to friends as Nena, her father, Robert, a professor of Indo-Tibetan studies at Columbia University, and her brother, Dechen." So this a well-known case, just like the Taylor Swift assault case is widely known. And "a history of mental illness" could be argued as context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a pointed difference between Taylor Swift, and this case, is that the criminal for Swift had a certain level of notoriety as a radio show personality. This guy doesn't have anything. (or rather nothing is presented, I don't follow celebrities so I could be wrong)  The less public the personality the greater responsibility we have to their privacy, even if they are criminals.  I'm not opposed to some information on the stalking case, but we should limit it to the subject of the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 * As a journalist and author for nearly 40 years and someone who has written my share of biographical articles in newspapers and magazines, I am genuinely flabbergasted at how any responsible encyclopedia writer/researcher could not include the high-profile stalking of a subject, whether it be a celebrity or simply a public figure like a politician or a major CEO. Time Life, one of the most respected journalism and publishing institutions on earth, included the convicted stalker in a book, and all the coverage in outlets such as The Washington Post and CBS News, among many others both in the U.S. and abroad, makes him a public figure by any journalistic standard. The dentist who shot Cecil the Lion is a private citizen who became a public figure — are we not going to name him in Killing of Cecil the Lion? We're not "protecting" anyone by such whitewashing — and, as well, we have a higher duty to aggregate pertinent, public, historical information. No serious biographer would ever ignore the perils Thurman experienced in this regard, and the course she took to resolve it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 * We're not a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. And if you bring up Cecil the lion, I'm was against naming the dentist there as well.  We have a duty for privacy for all living people.  The details of the stalker aren't pertinent to Uma Thurman, the person's non-notable, and likely to stay non-notable, BLP doesn't recognize involuntary public figures.  You can add information about the case without going into the details of the criminal, and I've said as much above.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

With this edit, I re-included material about Thurman having children with Hawke and her custody battle with Busson. When it comes to Thurman winning the custody battle, reliable sources are repeating the New York Post on that; per a past discussion I had with Rivertorch years ago, and per above, I know that     Rivertorch does not like the New York Post, but it appears that it's correct on this matter. I left out the drama details of the custody battle. I did not add material about Thurman marrying Hawke because she was pregnant; this is because I did not come across a good source for it. And I left out the stalker material until we can agree on wording for it. I left out the children's names, and removed Luna's name for consistency, but anyone is free to re-add the children's names. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, Rivertorch, Kyohyi and Tenebrae, what version can you agree on for the stalking matter? Kyohyi, can you agree to include Tenebrae's addition as long as it does not include the stalker's name and the "he had a history of mental illness" part? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I have no personal opinion on the matter as long as any inclusions have legitimate references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I think we should focus on it from a more Uma Thurman perspective. Like "Uma Thurman was the victim of stalking from period x to y, the perpetrator was convicted for period z, and was re-arrested/convicted again at time R." (details filled in with reliable sourced content). --Kyohyi (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 * "history of mental illness" both provides context in general and also shows that the stalker is not an inherently evil person but a victim himself. It's of benefit to the man to show him more fully and not as a cartoon. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Kyohyi, Tenebrae's proposed content above is like what you suggest. The only thing to keep removed is the stalker's name and the "he had a history of mental illness" part. Tenebrae makes a good case for keeping the "he had a history of mental illness" part. And I noted above that the "a history of mental illness" part could be argued as providing context. So it seems that we should start an RfC on the matter next. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Is an RfC really necessary? While I'd prefer not to include the name, I don't object vehemently. And yes, his history of mental illness should be mentioned regardless of whether we mention the name. I'd actually prefer that we name the illness(es), if there's a reliable source; "mental illness" is rather vague. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   05:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I'd rather not have an RfC, but if Kyohyi or someone else can't agree to Tenebrae's proposed content, minus mentioning the name, we might need to. Stating "majority rules" on the talk page without an RfC does not always work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm not particularly inclined to share personal details, but as someone who has suffered from mental illness I don't think we're doing them any favors by telling the world about it. If they want to talk about their mental illness it's another story, but it shouldn't be us as a third party spreading it to the world.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I totally see where you're coming from. I think there's a flip side, though, and that is that keeping hush-hush about mental illnesses may help perpetuate the stigma associated with them. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   16:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * More power to them iff (that's intentional, not a spelling mistake) they are the ones who bring it to light. But it is not for third parties to decide that. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, if it's part of the public record and it's pertinent to an encyclopedic understanding of the situation. I take medication for clinical depression, a mental illness, as do many people I know in the arts and media community, so, no, I do not see a stigma in it any more than I would if I had to take cholesterol medication. It is a judgment-neutral health issue, and stigmatizing it is just plain wrong. In this particular case, it contextualizes the stalking and makes clear that he's not some terrible criminal, which is certainly the implication without mentioning it.
 * And once someone has made headlines in publications like the Daily News, websites like that of CBS News, and a Time Life book that altogether reach millions of people, in addition to the documented public records, we're shutting the barn door after the horse has been let out, as the saying goes. We're not "protecting" anyone since this is all very public, and we'd simply be whitewashing the encyclopedia, which is supposed to present neutral, pertinent facts.
 * Maybe we do need an RfC, since while I'm all for removing things cited to the Daily Mail and other tabloids — I even agree with the problematic Hillbillyholiday on that — I can see that we're bending too far the other way when we're censoring pertinent public facts cited to impeccable journalistic sources and presented in a neutral way.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's even remotely pertinent to an encyclopedic understanding of the situation. The US has laws like HIPPA for a reason, wider society disagrees with third parties discussing and sharing people's medical information.  Just because the media chose to release certain information doesn't mean we have to, we're not their parrot.  And it's not whitewashing to respect the privacy of a non-notable person, we can present the situation without getting into their personal details.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * HIPAA has nothing to do with this whatsoever. The information is it's part of a widely disseminated public record about a public figure. I've explained how and why it's pertinent, whereas your argument is simply WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. But your personal feeling is at odds with journalistic and legal ethics. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with documenting part of a widely disseminated public record about a public figure, whereas whitewashing is antithetical to an encyclopedia's mission. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Go read WP: LPI, they are not a public figure. (FYI, WP: NPF links to WP: LPI) This isn't my personal feeling, it is our duty to limit the information in our articles based on how they are relevant to the subject.  This person is only relevant to Uma Thurman because of their stalking conviction.  Not due to their health condition. I brought up HIPAA, to show the seriousness of revealing people's medical histories, and to demonstrate that there is a clear harm in doing so.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You please read WP: LPI more closely. It says itself, "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay." Anyone can write one of those. I could write an essay talking about public figures.
 * As this discussion has demonstrated, including with a legal dictionary, the stalker is a public figure. You can believe anything you want as a layman, but just like Trump supporters not believing in science, science doesn't care.
 * Your entire argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you're projecting your own personal feelings and uninformed biases onto Wikipedia in order to whitewash pertinent, truthful facts reported in extremely RS sources and even a Time Life book. You said yourself you'd have censored the name of the dentist in Killing of Cecil the Lion, which is absolutely unreasonable and un-encyclopedic. It's time for an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, let's imagine you had a biography here. Now how would you feel about your dating history, every dealing with the courts, and all your mental health issues being laid out for all to see as the top google reault? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Couple things: First, by personalizing it you're making an emotion-oriented argument that has no place in neutral intellectual discourse. Second, you're presenting a false dichotomy: Neutral presentation of pertinent, court-documented criminal activity that significantly affected a subject is not "your dating history." I have never advocated for "dating history", and you and I and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz are actually in agreement that in terms of unmarried couples, only longterm committed relationships, confirmed by the subjects or their representatives and cited to RS publications, should be included.
 * Third, I'm a public figure — not a celebrity by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever, but still a public figure, which is one reason for not using my real name — and I have no feelings one way or the other about anything that is accurate, pertinent and neutral on the Wikipedia article about me — or indeed any published article about me. If I were convicted of a crime, damn straight I would expect it to be in my Wikipedia article — presented simply and neutrally. Otherwise I would be the most self-centered, unprofessional journalist imaginable. I have a journalist-author friend who is a higher-profile public figure and who was hit with child pornography charges; he's pleaded not guilty and he isn't even advocating to have the arrest removed from his Wikipedia article. So to answer your question: That is how I would feel.
 * I've given a lot more personal information in this discussion than I think I ever have on Wikipedia. I'm hoping it provides some context for laypeople who aren't professional editors / researchers / writers and are approaching these issues emotionally.
 * And before anyone asks: I volunteer on Wikipedia both out of a sense of duty, given my skill set, and, when between deadlines, for relaxation ... which should tell you how committed I am to accuracy, good writing and context. We're on the same side there. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, regarding this, yeah, but it's not consistent. Notice that I mentioned above that I excluded the children's names? If we are going to include "Luna," which is a nickname and not the child's legal name, the other children's names should be included as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing. Luna is the common name, so my thinking was to go with that in prose and the full name in the footnoted quote from the parents' representative. But if consensus is to include the full name in prose, while it's not my preference, for the reason I've given, I'll certainly go along with it.
 * If the parents or their reps released the other children's names to the media, then yes, I believe you're right, we should include them — just as we include Blue Ivy in the Beyonce article and North in the Kim Kardashian article. I'll go take a look at the cites; was busy fixing cite formatting just now. I mean ... last name first in standard footnoting, right? Magazine and newspaper names are italicized! Oy!  :)   --Tenebrae (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Saw the cite for the first two kids. That's a tough one: CBS News is highly reliable and respectable, and does name the first two children. In any normal biographical reference or any other encyclopedia, there wouldn't be any question but that we'd include the names — children's names are a basic part of any subject's biography. But things aren't always done normally or up to outside encyclopedias' standards here sometimes, so I would say let's look for sources where the parents or the reps name the first two kids, or something equally impeccable, and try that first. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, I'm not stating that we should include the full name; I was just pointing it out. And as for retaining "Luna" and not including the other children's names, I just don't see the point. It can leave readers wondering why one child's name is mentioned, but not the first two children's names. And I'm not keen on inconsistency. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that since CBS News, a highly responsible organization, named the first two children, who are probably preteens by this point, that the parents have no strong objections. It's not like a tabloid claiming a baby's name based on anonymous "sources." What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should this four-sentence passage, or a version of it, or none of it be included in the article? "Thurman was stalked by Jack Jordan, a man with a history of mental illness, from about 2004 to 2011. He was arrested in October 2007, and the following May was convicted in Manhattan of one count of stalking and one count of second-degree aggravated harassment. Sentenced to three years probation, he was arrested again in 2010 near Washington, D.C., on charges of violating a restraining order by attempting to contact Thurman. He pleaded guilty in November 2011 after spending 11 months in jail in lieu of $500,000 bail, and was released with time served." --20:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs)

 * Include as written -- The incident is a significant biographical event in the life of the subject, a celebrity, including her taking the stand at trial. The information is truthful and cited to impeccable sources including a Time Life book, CBS News and The Washington Post, so no BLP issues of libel are present whatsoever. The stalker was convicted, twice, so no BLPCRIME issue is present. And under legal definitions and journalistic ethics, the convicted stalker is a public figure written about and photographed in books, newspapers, magazines and TV news worldwide. The passage is written with complete neutrality and no excessive details. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Omit or shorten. I came here because I saw the RfC notice. It's pretty common for celebrities to be stalked, and even though it's reliably sourced, it seems to me to be WP:UNDUE to devote that much text to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Include, whether or not it's shortened. I would have worded this RfC differently. As seen above, there was consensus to include the material. The dispute was about whether or not to include the stalker's name and the fact that he has a history of mental illness. While one editor argued that we should be sensitive with regard to the stalker's personal details, others argued that the stalker having a history of mental illness provides context; it shows that the stalker might have had an underlying medical issue for his behavior. Furthermore, all of this is already public. Very public. I don't feel strongly either way about including the name and the mention of the stalker's mental state, but I don't see that the name needs to be included. As for whether or not to include any of it, yes, some celebrities have been stalked, but this was an important and widely reported case for Thurman, with Thurman testifying and the stalker being convicted. So I don't think it's proper to exclude the content in its entirety. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Include, except for name. As I noted above, I have some mixed feelings about this. The full proposed wording certainly meets BLP, so that's absolutely not an issue. That said, I have doubts about the encyclopedic value and the ethics of naming people who become public figures by virtue of circumstances beyond their control. It's hard to tie that strongly to a policy, although I suppose one could make an argument for ISNOT. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Include, but shorten and specifically omit name. I agree with rationale of Flyer and Tryptofish above regarding name and undue respectively. The article is about Thurman, this is a detail albeit an annoying/worrying one for her. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Include, except for name. He is non notable, and shouldn't be included in bio article. scope_creep (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * depends include if (and to the extent that) it (seems to have) upset her. As far as I'm concerned that doesn't need to be sourced from Time magazine. I'm sure we have some fans here who know her well enough that they can infer from her social media if it really bothered her. May be tricky if she didn't want to admit it on social media or in interviews. In that case: she prefers to ignore it and i feel it's in line with the policy on bios's of living persons to weigh that into the attention it gets on her wp page. I'm not at all a fan btw. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand you. You're suggesting that we should determine whether to include content based on our reading of social-media posts as to whether the subject of an article was "really bothered" by being stalked? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   21:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Preferably from reliable sources. The question is not to what extent it was covered, but to what extent it affected her. That should determine how relevant it is to her bio. PizzaMan (♨♨) 01:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * re-write with an emphasis on Thurman, and omitting private information, and unnecessary detail of the perpetrator. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude as celebrity stalking is quite a common phenomenon. It has nothing to do with Thurman and everything to do with her stalker, and this is not his page but hers. Kerdooskis (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To say it had "nothing to do with Thurman" is, first, untrue, as she took the extraordinary step of taking the stand in the trial, and b) to say that a man stalking a woman is an issue all about the man and has nothing to do with the woman strikes as remarkably sexist and a denial of the trauma the article subject experienced. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that "nothing" was an over-reach. However, I do not appreciate being accused of sexism. My point was this: The proposed passage above is all about Jordan, his actions, and his consequences. It says nothing about Thurman's reactions, and I don't think it should. (Would we really be so callous to include a sentence about the trauma it caused her or her awful experience on the stand?) It is my personal opinion that the proposed passage, and others like it, only empowers and emboldens criminals like Jordan. Therefore, I think it is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate, and I voted accordingly. Kerdooskis (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Exclude I tend to agree with Kerdooskis and am not sure why anyone would see that as sexist (I would think it was the opposite). This is an article about Thurman and her life. The quoted passage is all about Jordon:
 * He was arrested...
 * He was arrested again...
 * He pleaded guilty...
 * Only the first short sentence mentions Thurman and it gives no indication of any lasting relevance. It screams of tabloid gossip.
 * I had to search through the history to find it and discovered this paragraph was in the relationships section. How anyone could think stalking is a relationship is worrying and just makes me more certain that this passage does not belong in the article. AIR corn (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Kerdooskis and Aircorn, how does stalking have nothing to do with Thurman when it happened to her? She was stalked. She was concerned enough that charges were pressed. She was concerned enough that she testified. This all happened to Thurman. That the proposed text focuses more on the stalker than on Thurman is something that can be easily remedied. Let's look at the Taylor Swift sexual harassment case by comparison; it states, "In August 2017, Swift won a trial against David Mueller, a former morning show personality for Denver's KYGO-FM. Four years ago Swift had informed Mueller's bosses that he had assaulted her by groping her at an event. After being fired, Mueller accused Swift of lying and sued her for making him lose his job. Shortly after, Swift counter-sued for sexual assault. The jury rejected Mueller's claims and ruled in favor of Swift. Swift thereafter cleared her social media accounts, and announced that she would release her sixth studio album, Reputation, on November 10, 2017." And that is more of a "he said, she said" case, and yet we include it. In Thurman's case, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that she was stalked. Like Swift, Thurman was deeply affected by the matter. To categorize this as simply tabloid gossip, or to base its exclusion on someone placing it in the Relationships section (something that should not be done again), is silly. For wider input, I'll go ahead and contact the WikiProjects that this talk page is tagged with so that their members may weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I rarely have anything to do with these articles, I am only responding because a RFC was called. Therefore I don't know or follow what other celebrity articles say about similar issues and if there was an RFC on the Tawlor Swift paragraph I might very well !vote to exclude it as well. I am sure you are familiar with the other stuff exists arguments. This is not really about her because she is the victim here. The incident was out of her control and she was in no way active in it happening. Not to mention that the entire passage is about him. Also an RFC was called asking if that particular paragraph should be included, so I judged it on the merits of that paragraph. That someone could write an improved version of it or put it in a better spot is great, but I am not going to give my implicit support to something that seems clearly undue and off topic in its current form, without any idea on what its final form will take. AIR corn (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Aircorn, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is an essay (as I'm sure you know), is clear that an "other stuff exists" argument can be valid. I find it valid in this case, for reasons I and others have given above. As for rewriting, we can see above that rewriting is one of the options; the RfC states "or a version of it." As for the rest of what you stated, except for the current proposal focusing more on the stalker than on Thurman, I'll simply note that I disagree; I really don't have much more to state on the matter and it's better that this section doesn't become WP:Too long; didn't read. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * About the Taylor Swift material, I remember seeing (in the New York Times, for example) secondary source commentary about how Swift's composure while testifying was an important step forward in the trial process in such legal cases (how, for example, she put the harasser's attorney on the defensive during cross examination). That makes the information more about Swift herself, and more in the realm of something that attracted secondary source attention that went beyond the harassment itself into societal impact. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, I don't think anyone sees this stalking case as super notable. It's not like John Hinckley's stalking of Jodie Foster. Most of us are simply arguing that it's relevant enough to include in Thurman's Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think The New York Times, a respected and objective source as opposed to your or mine or anyone else's POV, is saying otherwise. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Include but shorten. The article should say that she was stalked and describe during what periods, and mention that the stalker was convicted twice. The other details aren't about Thurman and don't belong in her biography. Perhaps if there are other details about Thurman's involvement then those might be included. For example maybe she testified or said something particularly noteworthy to the media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Trim it. Doesn't need to focus so much on the perpetrator.  The first sentence is all that's absolutely required.  Beyond that, it becomes increasingly undue with every sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think just saying she was stalked, without trial and conviction information, makes it seem less than notable. As with anything, context is important.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate, do you think we should exclude the conviction aspect? I ask because the first sentence doesn't include the fact that he was convicted. The testifying and conviction aspects separate this from a lot of the celebrity stalking cases, which is why I think the material should be included. How do you feel about the mental illness aspect? This is also in the first sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally would not have included the stalker's name or emotional state, but I tend to take a more minimalist view than most editors, especially when it comes to BLP. I think the convictions could be argued either way, but dwelling on them to such an extent doesn't seem like a good idea.  I think we should be focusing on Thurman, not the man who stalked her.  I'm a little surprised, but we don't seem to have an article about celebrity stalking.  Maybe that would be the best place to discuss notable cases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Include in full. Arrested, sentenced, arrested again. Persistent, notable incidents of stalking over a decade is a notable event in Thurman's life, yes. TheValeyard (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly cut This is an article about Thurman, not stalkers.  Any significance for Thurman is the fact that she was stalked, not all the judiciary comings and goings and bail expenses and so forth.  I say cut it to the bone, and mention only that she was stalked and that he was convicted, perhaps with the date.  I would also support the omission of the stalker's name, on grounds of unwarranted fame/notoriety. Cpaaoi (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One could make the same argument to leave out John Hinkley Jr.'s name from the Ronald Reagan article, to use just one of numerous examples. These are public figures who went through court completed court proceedings, in this case with a guilty verdict. I believe whitewashing of highly public history goes against our primary duty.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * John Hinkley Jr is WP:OSE. I am aware that this person underwent court proceedings and was found guilty; that is what the RfC is about.  And I still don't believe the specific identity of the man is of much interest, nor all the Perry Mason judicial detail.  Because this is an article about Uma Thurman, and while it is notable that she was stalked, the stalker and his sorry tale are not notable.  Cpaaoi (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Include, except for name - He was arrested twice so IMHO there is some form of notability here, As he has a mental illness I personally think it's unfair to name him - Hard to explain so I shan't even try but hopefully you kinda get my point here, Anyway include apart from his name. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude name per
 * WP:BLPNAME preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context
 * WP:BLP1E the named perpetrator is definitely not notable enough to have an article
 * WP:TMI Is the inclusion some thing or event the subject is widely known for? What is its connection to the topic's notability?  the answer is almost certainly no
 * Summary - definitely omit the name and then ask the question, "what remains if you omit the name of the non-notable?" - the answer being that all you can say is the (famous celebrity) subject of the article was stalked. That's TMI. this piece of info neither sets the subject apart in any way (from the multitude of celebrities who get stalked, nor does it contribute to an understanding of the topics for which the subject is notable. Suggestion: Exclude Edaham (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to the above, WP:BLP1E is irrelevant since it concerns solely the creation of articles: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met [...]". It has nothing to do with notability of people mentioned in articles.
 * RE: WP:BLPNAME. This also does not apply since the policy states it is often preferable to omit a name that "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations" [as in undercover cop]. The stalker has not only been named by news organizations with millions of viewers/readers, but is both named, with a photograph in the Time Life book footnoted above on this page. Millions of viewers/readers and a book by one of the world's biggest and most renowned publishers factually does not equal "not widely disseminated".
 * WP:TMI is purely a judgment call, which is why it's an explanatory supplement and not a policy or guideline. Opinions on whether this is something Thurman is widely known will vary — given the wide media coverage and the fact she took the stand, a rarity for celebrities, my feeling is that she is as known for having been stalked as Ozzy Osbourne is for biting the head off a bird in a business meeting, which is something separate from his music. WP:TMI brings up points for consideration; it does not forbid naming a public figure who had significant impact in a subject's life.
 * As for mentioning the mental illness, I can certainly go along with those wanting to leave it out. The only reason I suggested including it was to indicate that the stalker wasn't an evil person, simply someone suffering a disease. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Apropos of the close: "Thurman was the target of a stalker from about 2004 to 2011. He was arrested in October 2007 and, following a trial in which Thurman herself took the stand, was convicted of stalking and harassment charges the following May. Sentenced to three years probation, he was arrested again in 2010 on charges of violating a restraining order by attempting to contact her. He pleaded guilty in November 2011 after spending 11 months in jail in lieu of bail, and was released with time served."

 * Name of stalker and mention of mental illness removed.
 * Thurman taking the stand is included.
 * Specific charges changed to "stalking and harassment" and specific amount of bail deleted.
 * Locale of second arrest deleted.
 * Thurman already was the grammatical subject of the sentence.

This addresses each point of the close. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 * It's been 11 days without comment, let alone objection, so since it matches all the points of the RfC close, I will add it to the article now. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Maya Thurman-Hawke
redirects here, but this page contains no information about her, not even her name. That should only be the case if "Maya Thurman Hawke" is a pseudonym for Uma Thurman. Since she's starring in a major BBC miniseries, shouldn't she have her own page by now anyway?  Serendi pod ous  08:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did it myself.  Serendi pod ous  18:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Serendipodous, non-notable children's names are sometimes redirected to one of the parents' Wikipedia articles, usually in a section about the child. This article already mentioned the child, but not by name until you added the name and the brother's name. Per what is stated at Talk:Brian Austin Green, we usually don't add the names of non-notable children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I created her article. So now if she's not notable it will have to go through AfD.  Serendi pod ous  00:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox model ?
Template:Infobox model ? 64.175.40.194 (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Uma not Hindu name
I thought I wouldn't modify without discussion.

Although it is right to say that Uma is a Hindu name and an aspect of Parvati, her dad (who I met at a retreat in India) is Tibetan Buddhist, not Hindu.

I would expect that Uma is named after the Tibetan Wealth deity Uma Devi. Uma Devi is an import originally from Hinduism,but she is a Tibetan Buddhist deity with forms and attributes of Tibetan Buddhism. She's a fairly obscure deity but she is included in some Nyingmapa health practices and maybe in other schools too.

I should point out also that Hinduism imported plenty of stuff from Buddhism. So it's not clear what the origin of the name is, but in this context, it is Tibetan Buddhist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 19:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right. Wikipedia should not imply that Uma Thurman or her parents adhere to Hinduism. It should not imply that her parents intended her name to be of Sanskrit origin or to have any connection whatsoever to any Hindu deity. If the etymology is to be included, it should be sourced to a publication that discusses it in the context of Uma Thurman. The two citations provided in the article make no reference to Uma Thurman, so they are utterly unacceptable. See WP:BLP for an explanation as to why Wikipedia should carefully treat sensitive claims such as those about religious views or name choices. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The paragraph describes the origin of the name – nowhere does it claim that Uma's parents are Hindus, not does it mention anything about religious views. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but it implies it. That much is obvious to at least two people. If an adherence to Hinduism is not to be implied, why mention her name being shared by a Hindu deity? Who made this connection anyway? A Wikipedia user? Surtsicna (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I now see that the article used to say that her name had Buddhist connections, but the source cited there is no longer accessible. This was replaced with a reference to Hinduism; the reference is accessible and says that Thurman was "named after the Hindu goddess of beauty". So which is it, Hindu or Buddhist? Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2023
She stars as the President of the United States in the romantic comedy Prime Series ‘Red White and Royal Blue’. 211.30.39.85 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As it says, twice. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Uma Thurman


text:
User:Kosebamse/stuff

Kosebamse on Wikipedia
I am a German with a Norwegian username and a focus on the English Wikipedia, where I have also been an admin from mid-2003 until 7 February 2006 (see below). Technically still active, but nowadays slowed down to the point of invisibility, part out of disillusionment about Wikipedia's inability to honor professional knowledge and writing ability, part out of real life commitments.

I wish to keep personal details out of Wikipedia. If you know me in real life, please respect my desire for privacy and keep that knowledge out of the Internet. Thanks. (If you need to contact me privately, please e-mail me through the link on my user page.)

As a concession to the perennial anagram mania, be it known that "Kosebamse" is equivalent to: "Meek Basso" (which seems to characterize me in a way), "Be As Smoke", "Smoke Base", as well as a lot of other nonsense.

Editing
I usually adhere to a one-revert-rule. I do sometimes revert other peoples' contributions, but normally try not to re-revert except in cases of obvious vandalism.

Biases
I am a moderate deletionist. Otherwise, I try to keep wiki-ideologically neutral, and when in doubt, err on the side of common sense. Not so Wikipedia-specific attitudes that I am inclined to subscribe to: existentialism, skepticism, Zen, Old European (and proudly so), and common sense.

Mottos
I already have three mottos on my user page, but if I were to add another one, it would be something along the lines of "When you write an encyclopedia, consider the reader's needs, not your own."

My law
I have had the honor to phrase a possibly significant observation about the social dynamics of Wikipedia. See User:Raul654/Raul's laws (# 10).

Admin? No thanks.
I have requested removal of my admin status on the English Wikipedia, which I have held for about two and a half years. The reason is that I thoroughly disagree with the ways of the community these days, particularly the excessive legalistic nitpicking that has replaced good will and common sense. It is my belief that these developments result from a failure to adhere to a few basic principles: Which is what Larry Sanger wrote in his farewell message in 2002, and which is as true today as it was then; the only slight amendment that I would add to adapt his message to 2006 would be a reference to bureaucratic minds obsessed with process instead of content.
 * to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
 * to be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate,
 * to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,
 * to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project,
 * to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,
 * to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and
 * to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

I will continue to contribute to the encyclopedia, but I don't want to be perceived as one who identifies with the ways of the madhouse.

Vandalism
My userpage has been vandalised at least seven times until now. I consider that an accumulation of compliments by people who wish to acknowledge my decent attitude.

Bragsheet
I have left recognizable traces of my cerebral activity in these articles (lots of minor contributions excluded). This list also serves as a quasi-watchlist i.e. I tend to look into the related changes once in a while.

Medicine: Local anesthetic - Local anesthesia - General anaesthetic - Anaphylaxis - Bronchoscopy - Barbiturate - Succinylcholine chloride - Blood pressure - Medicine - Pleural cavity - Intravenous drip - Scapula - Blood plasma - Epinephrine - Vasoconstrictor - Terms for anatomical location - Scar - Intubation - Heparin - Muscle relaxant - Apnea - Tumor - Melanoma - Mechanical ventilation - Sepsis - Cancer - Plastic surgery - Metacarpus - Hyperbaric oxygen therapy - Route of administration - Antiemetic - Ankle - Medical ventilator - Aspiration (medicine) - Laryngoscope - Lumbar puncture - Stent - Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation - Retinopathy of prematurity - Adrenal gland - Corticosteroid - List of physiology topics: respiration - Blood donation - Hypovolemia - Drowning - Acute phase protein - Heart rate - Heart rate monitor - Breast cancer - Lipoma - Malignant hyperthermia - Ketamine - Post dural puncture headache - Caesarean section - Azygos lobe

Seas, islands, coasts, canals, rivers: Baltic sea - Ertholmene - Poel - Hiddensee - Greifswalder Oie - Ruden - Vilm - List of islands of Germany - Amrum - Neuwerk - Gotska Sandön - Grimsey - Caledonian Canal - North Sea - Trave - List of islands of Denmark - Limfjord - Æbelø - Kiel Canal - North Sentinel Island - Åland - Smålandsfarvandet - Guldborgsund

Sailing, boats, navigation: Nautical chart - Winch - Halyard - Nautical mile - Cutty Sark Tall Ships' Race - Hydrographic office - Courtesy flag - Kiel Week - International 806 - Gondola - List of Lights

Russia: Vladimir Dmitrievich Nabokov - Pavel Miliukov - Russian Provisional Government, 1917

Norway: Jæren - Bjørnøya (now moved to Bear Island (Norway)) - Norwegian Polar Institute - Theodor Lerner - Statens kartverk - Hidra

Golf: St Andrews Links - Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews - Golf - United States Golf Association - Golf handicap - Golf ball - Golf glossary - Tee

Astronomy, optics: Star - Solar eclipse - Deep sky object - Astronomy - Astro-Physics - TMB Optical - Mangin mirror - Maksutov telescope - Eyepiece - Equatorial mount - Altazimuth mount - Binoviewer - Alpha Persei Cluster - Per Collinder - Collinder catalog - SDSSJ0946+1006 - Open cluster - Star hopping - Abell 1689 - Hanny's Voorwerp - Peas (Astronomy)

Politics: Program on International Policy Attitudes - Extraordinary rendition - Human Rights Watch

Wikipedia: Welcome, newcomers - What Wikipedia is not - Glossary - Policies and guidelines

Various: Tango (dance) - Ironman Triathlon - Problem-based learning - Dolphin brain - Bay rum - Gorch Fock (author) - Tango music - Panama hat - Hinge - Drop (liquid) - Baseball - Fräulein - Sibel Kekilli - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - SUSE - Tropical cyclone - Lake Baikal - Ascenseur pour l'échafaud - Catnip - Kyrill (storm) - Lethe - List of duels - South Pole - Lecithin

Works I hope to see published during my lifetime

 * The Original of Laura
 * I/O (album)
 * The Book of Dust

Weep o mine eyes
I am not overly sentimental... but here's a collection of works that inevitably choke me up.

Music:
 * Purcell, Dido's lament (aria and choir) from Dido and Aeneas
 * Bach, countless choral works, impossible to pick any one, but if I absolutely had to I'd consider the "Dona nobis pacem" from the Mass in B minor
 * Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 9 "Jeunehomme" (KV 271): Andantino
 * Beethoven, Piano Concerto No. 4: Andante con moto
 * Beethoven, String Quartet op. 59. No. 1 (Razumovsky): Adagio molto mesto
 * Schubert, Winterreise: all of it
 * Schubert, Piano Sonata in B flat (D. 960): Andante sostenuto
 * Schubert, String Quintet op. post. 163, (D. 956): Adagio
 * Schubert, String Quartet No. 14 "Death and the Maiden": Andante con moto
 * Schumann, Quintet for piano & strings op. 44: In modo d'una marcia - poco largamente (suggested recording: Leif Ove Andsnes & Artemis Quartet, 2007. Breathtaking.)
 * Tchaikovsky, String Quartet No. 3 in E minor op. 30: Andante funebre e doloroso ma con moto
 * Wagner, Lohengrin Ouverture
 * Rachmaninov, Piano Trio No. 2 in D minor op. 9 ("Trio Élégiaque #2"): Quasi Variazione
 * Strauss, Metamorphoses
 * Leonard Cohen, Come Healing
 * Webb Sisters & Leonard Cohen, If it be your will from the "Live in London" album
 * Peter Gabriel, The Power of the Heart (by Lou Reed)

Novel:
 * Philip Pullman, The Amber Spyglass: the final chapters (The Dunes and The Botanic Garden)

Poem:
 * Rilke's last: Komm du...

Movie:
 * Kay Pollak, Så som i himmelen
 * Lars von Trier, Breaking the Waves
 * Anthony Minghella, The English Patient

Weep o mine eyes is a beautiful madrigal by John Bennet, by the way.

Suggestions Suggestions are welcome. No academic opinions, please. Comments welcome on User talk:Kosebamse/stuff.

Suggestions by Kat:

Music:
 * Samuel Barber, Adagio for Strings
 * Alan Hovhaness, Symphony No. 6
 * Gabriel Fauré, Pavane
 * Arvo Pãrt, Fratres
 * Pavel Chesnokov, "Salvation is Created"
 * Edward Elgar, Enigma Variations, "Nimrod"
 * Mozart, Requiem: the whole thing, really.
 * Vincent Persichetti, Symphony #6, movement 2

Novel:
 * Alan Lightman, Einstein's Dreams

Suggestions by Antandrus:

Music:
 * Josquin Desprez, "Déploration de la mort de Johannes Ockeghem"; "De profundis" (second setting; the one for five voices)
 * Nicolas Gombert, Musae Jovis (élégie sur la mort de Josquin) (get the recording by Studio de musique ancienne de Montréal)
 * Beethoven, from the string quartet opus 130, "Cavatina"; from the string quartet opus 132, "Heiliger Dankgesang eines Genesenen an die Gottheit, in der lydischen Tonart."
 * Gustav Mahler, Symphony No. 5, "Adagietto"
 * Gustav Mahler, Das Lied von der Erde, "Der Abschied"
 * Alban Berg, Lyric Suite, final section: "Largo Desolato"

Poem:
 * Westron wynde, anon, late 15th century

Rejoice o my heart
Music:
 * Bach, Keyboard Concerto in A BVW 1055, Allegro ma non tanto.

Kicking the bucket in the high arctic
From User talk:Bishonen:

Ballooon landing on main page
Well! well! well! What a surprise! Congratulations. Giano | talk 06:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No as a matter of fact I did not! allthough I was going to. Very intelligent human beings such as Raul and myself though can comminicate by telepathy, so I will take the credit for it being there just the same. Have you removed the pretentious text though? "Gently slipped away, guided by angels, into a better world" is the way I would express it Giano | talk 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You do realize the pretentiousness comes in the very first sentence, and will thus appear ON the Main Page itself? I you want to change it, you'll have to do it here, not just in the article text. Oh, I forgot, you can't, can you? Upcoming Main Page text is protected. Only us admins can edit it. And, let me see, you aren't one, are you? MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . Bishonen | talk 10:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Don't worry I'm sure one of your peers like Orane would do it for me. Giano | talk 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and best wishes for the article being on main page, and all the attention that brings. Perhaps "lost the fight, epic and enduring, as all must in the end, against that most bitter of enemies, foe to joy, widow's grief and orphan's warder, death?"  Or, to make the expert editor happy, "Kicked the bucket."  In fact, I think, "Andree kicked the bucket on White's Island in 1897" will be great.  Geogre 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I liked the first one better, however "lost the fight" just doesn't strike the right note, does it? Perhaps "succumbed to pitiless cruelties of nature" would be more apt? Note the poetic overblown redundancy! KillerChihuahua?!? 12:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Apt schmapt. I declare we have a consensus for croaked. Bishonen [[Image:Tulipface spin.gif|30px]] talk 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure. How about "...in which all three expedition members labored in futility to push up the daisies that (alas!) would never bloom in their cruel arctic graveyard." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * .....when their last soft breath was lost on the glacial breeze which enshrinined them for eternity in their sarcophagi of ice. Giano | talk 17:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "...then did Fama, with her mournful trumpet sound the passing of these noble men and valiant heroes." Geogre 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * and the world was then still, as only sobbing sounded across the frozen tundra Giano | talk 17:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, given the frigid fate of our three heroes, who was sobbing exactly? The polar bears?  I think not - they would have been most relieved.  Perhaps "...and the world was then still, the silence broken only by the gentle sighing of the Hyperborean air, the groaning of the ice, and the padding of polar bears." -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgive him.....he is British..they have no romance in their souls, they see not the beauty in having their bolox frozen off. Giano | talk 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The horrors
From User talk:Scientizzle

Dear Vile Anathema:

I am here to offer puerile, yet amazingly accurate, statements about your parenthood, personal hygiene, intelligence and/or sexual practices. For your breakage of the Wikipedia caused me, for several fraught moments, to be without guidance as to which band is teh suxx, who is uber-ghey, and which celebrities, both male and female, suffer from firecrotch. Additionally, I was unable at a crucial moment to accurately articulate which variety of Pokemon spawns the "Wigglytuff" The vacuum created in my life by the absence of this information caused me to experience an utter breakdown, during which I spoke in polysyllabic words and manifested unwanted signs of intelligence. You are personally responsible for this horror, and I fully intend to bill you, in full, for the cost of the necessary therapy and medications which will be required for me to recover from this highly-traumatic incident. Did no one ever tell you it's not nice to break the intarweb?

You, sir, are full of lose and pleh. May ducks roost uneasily in your underthings. Insincerely, Gladys J Cortez 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Troutslap!

 * This is my favorite response so far...Thanks! — Scientizzle 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I am panting with relief at the information which you were so kind as to impart to me on my talk page. (Also: yAy! i GOt my 1irsT B@RnST@r!!!!! (Ok, actually that looks like "....got my first PORNSTAR", which...You know, that would be almost as good. Almost. :) )) Fer serious, d00d...thanks! Gladys J Cortez 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I salute you, and hereby offer to bronze what's left of the trout once everyone, including myself, gets their whack at you. I laughed really loudly and long at the AN/I on all this. total Awesomeness! ThuranX (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

 * "The other day I was accused by a Stormfront member of being a traitor to the white race and/or a Jew, however today you tell me I'm a Nazi. Would you people please make up your minds? I'm getting mighty confused." Ta bu shi da yu on User talk:Borderer
 * User:Silsor/quotes
 * There is no excuse for incivility on Wikipedia. Tony Sidaway, of all persons

Definition of scientific theory in a nutshell
From Intelligent design:

"This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
 * Consistent (internally and externally)
 * Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
 * Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
 * Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
 * Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
 * Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
 * Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
 * Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word."

Miscellanea, random stuff, nonsense
Proceed at your own risk. Don't try to take anything here too serious.

Predictions about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Later comments in bold. Spoilers ahead.
 * Harry and most of the good guys will survive. It is a children's book after all, although one taken to the limits, and that is a good reason not to kill the heroes. (Good guess but not exactly difficult)
 * The veil is there for a reason, most likely serving as an entrance to the otherworld (quite possible that it predates the ministry, by the way). (Bad, bad Jo. This would have needed explaining) We may see an otherworld episode with our heroes (correct), possibly involving Sirius, James, and Lily, (half correct, as they visited him, not he them) and possibly an Orpheus and Euridice-like story with Harry and Ginny. (Chance missed, Jo)
 * Snape's other two memories will come into play. Before they start occlumency, Snape removes three memories from his mind and one memory (presumably one of these threee) is later seen in the pensieve; the other two may be as significant. (Prediction overfulfilled)
 * Harry's psychological deficits may be helpful in the final showdown. It would be a befitting end for the Dark Lord to succumb to his enemy's weaknesses rather than strengths. Particularly Harry's inability to control his temper and his poor performance at occlumency may turn out to be some surprising advantage. (Not such a bad guess, but it was a flaw of Dumbledore's plan - not of Harry's psyche - that brought about ultimate victory)
 * There will be victims on the good side, and their deaths will be heroic and heartbreaking. (Correct, but not difficult to foresee. Dobby's death was indeed a heartbreaking episode.) Obvious candidates are practically every member of the Order of the Phoenix (correct, but pretty obvious too), and particularly Hagrid and Neville. And of course Luna, Luna, and Luna. (wrong, wrong, and wrong)
 * There's more to the R.A.B. message than meets the eye. The language is strange, and the numerology (sevenses galore) is suspicious. (Irrelevant)
 * Fawkes will have a central role (well, at least his feathers had). His connection to Dumbledore (and Harry) is still poorly understood (and remains so), but his capability of being born again might become essential, perhaps for Harry to survive a trip into the otherworld (off the mark). And the question of his tail feathers is still enigmatic: the occurence of the "priori incantatem" effect at the graveyard is not the last that we have seen of that. (Quite correct, and it's interesting that Voldemorts intelligent use of several other wands contributes to his downfall)

The following are less serious, just some idle speculation:
 * The whole Horcrux story might be the greatest red herring of it all. It is getting very speculative here, but the real problem to solve might lie elsewhere (hint: Godric's Hollow, the missing day, Voldemort's wand). (Not a bad guess. Although Harry makes a decision to go for the Horcruxes instead of the Hallows, the latter would have been a very real possibility; and they have much to do with Godric's Hollow, too.
 * Figg might turn out to be not a squib after all. (Not really)
 * Goblins and giants will have a relevant role, and possibly also centaurs and house-elves, but muggles quite certainly (the muggle PM was not introduced without a reason). (Off the mark)
 * Kreacher's malevolence may lead to a crucial plot twist and turn out to be helpful for the good side. (Quite off the mark)

And this one is a bit over the top:
 * Taking the idea of red herrings even further, Voldemort might be one himself and the true enemy could be lurking  where we don't suspect him (did I hear someone saying "Snape"?). (Off the mark. Snape's true loyalty becomes obvious in the scene at the frozen pond.)

One statement for the record: The idea that Harry's scar is a horcrux seems rather far-fetched (though intriguing, given the chance that in a final showdown Voldemort might have to undo his horcrux in killing Harry) (which he has to, indeed, but with quite unexpected consequences). However, Voldemort wanted to kill baby Harry and did not expect his curse to backfire. So, if that use of "avada kedavra" was intended to create a horcrux, he would have intended to leave it in a dead baby, which does not seem to make much sense. And if he had intended to use his killing of James or Lily to create a horcrux in Harry, then again, why would he try to kill him afterwards? (the idea of inadvertently creating a horcrux is a little over the top, though)

And another statement for the record: intended or not, the parallels between Ginny Weasley and Lyra Belacqua are rather interesting. Lyra's loyalty and courage, her strength of character, her aptitude at lying come to mind. It would be fascinating to read a "Ginny and her Death" chapter (chance missed, Jo). If the worst comes to the worst, I could even imagine her in a botanic gardens-like scene (although Harry is so far not portrayed as someone who would willingly part with his "subtle wand") (well, he is getting there in the course of the book. Some scenes from "The forest again" and "Kings Cross" are among the strongest writing that Jo has produced, by the way). Oh and by the way, I would give a Rowling library for a chapter by Pullman, just to set that straight... (amend that to "a Rowling bookshelf". That last book was quite impressive.)

And yet another one for the record. This is the most insightful theory that I have read before the final book was published. Take it one step further (enter "that awful boy") and you have most of the backstory. Bravo!

Teletubbiepedia
...and I have been a part of it: Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur

Links

 * Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, ehem

Putinism

 * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-September/053941.html
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=173593364

Subpages

 * User:Kosebamse/IRC
 * User:Kosebamse/Case study
 * User:Kosebamse/Wik's views
 * User:Kosebamse/thoughts
 * User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages test
 * User:Kosebamse/Wikipedia is not a sentient being
 * User:Kosebamse/Memory
 * User:Kosebamse/How to survive on wikipedia

title: User:Kosebamse/stuff