text:
Wikipedia:Village pump/June 2003 archive 6

I've got a proposal for dealing with extended references, but don't want to clog the pump. So, I call your sattenton to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks ..Lou I 18:07 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I notice that Pizza Puzzle has removed Seanos's vote in the current Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/vote. This looks a bit strange to me. Is there some history here that I don't know about? -- Arwel 19:50 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The reason Pizza Puzzle gave in his edit summary was that the user whose vote he removed had made only one other edit, and therefore probably wasn't deserving a vote. This seems reasonable to me: otherwise somebody could make a hundred accounts to support their own view. (Why is this question here rather than the talk page in question or on Pizza Puzzle's talk page, by the way?) --Camembert

 * Just checking if there's a general policy. If you argue that one edit isn't enough to deserve a vote, how do you decide how many edits are enough? Apart from this edit reducing the count for my favoured option :), I'm uneasy about just anybody going in and removing votes that they didn't cast. -- Arwel 20:07 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I think I agree - people removing votes (at least without some discussion) makes me a bit uneasy as well, and there probably does need to be some policy on this. As far as I know, there isn't one at the moment - you might perhaps take it up at Wikipedia talk:Vote or Wikipedia talk:Decision Making Process. --Camembert

There is probably some existing discussion that I don't know about, but I came across some articles which use the "bread crumbs" navigational links commonly seen in hierarchical webpages. Namely, Appendicitis, Coeliac disease, Lactose intolerance, etc., all of which have something like:

 * Medicine > Gastroenterology > Lactose intolerance

At the top. These are understandably useful for putting the article in some context, but seems out of place on Wikipedia (since articles could be categorized according to any number of criteria, in addition to Medicine or Gastroenterology; it imposes an artificial hierarchy). Should these be removed (and maybe incorporated into a "see also" at the bottom)? -- Wapcaplet 01:40 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested in having a Wikipedia T-shirt, and doesn't want to wait for official ones, I have made a simple design that anyone may use if they are so inclined. It's on my user page. -- Wapcaplet 02:23 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I've set up a shop at http://cafepress.com/wikipedia, please leave me a message to suggest more designs. --Eloquence 05:46 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * That URL gives a "Document contains no data", http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia is the right one. andy 09:58 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * You need a space after the opening parenthesis in "contact me (moeller@scireview.de", unless you intended it to be anti-spam. --Menchi 11:31 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Ah, thanks, even Wikipedia's URL parser is better than that ;-). --Eloquence 12:17 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sweet! Okay, the next step in my plan for world domination is to make the Wikipedia T-shirt in many languages. Anyone who knows what the phrase "Edit this page" translates to in any language other than English, please visit my sandbox and fill in the translation for me. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 12:32 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The old list is at 22 languages. Not quite complete, and the phrase then was "edit the text of this page", so they're not quite the same. Of course, all you really need do is flip through the various Wikipedias with translated interfaces and copy-paste the edit link. :) --Brion 17:53 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I've nabbed all the ones I could from that list. The consensus at the Wikipedia T-shirts page seemed to be "Edit this page" rather than "...the text of...", so I decided to go with that. I got all the text I could from the interlanguage versions (most of them seem to have it written in English, since apparently they use older-phase Wiki software (?) so I couldn't get much from those). And of course, also it'd be good to verify them with people who know the language, to make sure I didn't grab the wrong text or something :) -- Wapcaplet 20:46 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I currently have 17 languages. More would be great, but this would probably be adequate for a T-shirt design. As far as I can tell, the big ones are represented (the top 10 wikipedias in terms of size are here). If nobody adds more in the next day or so, I will probably go ahead and make the T-shirt design. Of course, feel free to keep adding and/or revising the ones that are here! I can always add them to the design later. I'd welcome suggestions regarding other design elements; currently, I just plan to list these vertically, with a URL or some such at the bottom. -- Wapcaplet 23:49 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have a doubt that I haven't been able to clear looking at the Help and FAQ pages. If I want to add a new entry about a book that has no title in English because it has never been translated in English, how should I call the page? According to naming conventions it would seem that I should use the original title, but since I haven't been able to find an example I'd rather ask than making a mistake... Lazarus Long 08:31 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * If there's no existing common name for it in English, the original title is exactly what people who did need to refer to it would refer to it as when speaking English. So, yes, use the original title. --Brion 09:17 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree with Brion. However, before starting the page, think whether this book really deserves one. If you don't have much to say about it, perhaps it would be better to talk about it on the writer's page instead. Andre Engels 09:26 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I got several nasty messages ending with something like; contact wikidown! Don't have a message thingy to do that. I'm just leaving this as a notice. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 21:58 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Proposal to somewhat simplify markup to float images: see Wikipedia talk:Image markup gallery and comment please -- Tarquin 09:46 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Could someone who looks after protected pages take a look at what happened to the special pages for Book Sources? Last time I used it (maybe a week), it clicked through to Amazon, etc. Now it just goes to the Wikipedia page describing Amazon. I certainly liked the old one better, but don't know if the change was intentional.

The page has an 'edit this list' option, but I'm not sure how the old one handled the ISBN variable. So I'm don't want to attempt to reset it. Thanks Lou I 15:49 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Did you try clicking the "run a search on" links? --Brion 18:25 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Brion, you're right as usual, maybe we should exlain that "search on" is a "go to book store" link.Rhanks again,, Lou I

Wikipedia stylesheet errors

The Wikipedia stylesheet "/style/wikistandard.css" contains two errors: as well as a number of warning conditions. Can this stylesheet be fixed (at least the two error conditions)? It's at least possible that this is related to an overlap problem that's occuring in Provinces of Thailand (see Talk:Provinces of Thailand for a further discussion Bill 16:18 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * border-width: 1 (requires unit of measure)
 * padding: 2 (requires unit of measure)

 * Done. --Brion 18:22 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Brion. As it turns out, that wasn't the cause of the page overlap on  Provinces of Thailand, but it's a good thing to get squared away in any case. Bill 15:35 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Another style-sheet related issue - The differences between heading sizes are quite small, and it's really hard to distinguish  from   or even lower-level ones on some browsers (Mozilla, especially). Checking out the stylesheet, I see that:

h2 { font-size: 125%; } h3 { font-size: 112.5%; } h4 { font-size: 106.25%; } h5 { font-size: 103.125%; } h6 { font-size: 100%; }

Only 25% difference in size between the lowest-level and second-highest-level headings! If  is, say, 20 pixels high, this means:

h2: 25 pixels h3: 23 pixels h4: 21 pixels h5: 21 pixels h6: 20 pixels

Virtually indistinguishable, in any case. I would vote to widen the gap between font sizes (or, if it doesn't look too awful, leave them at the browser-default sizes by taking out these properties entirely). Could someone with knowledge and permission to modify the stylesheets please look into this? Side note: The cologneblue.css style looks good, and its heading sizes are not explicitly specified. -- Wapcaplet 21:38 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Some time ago I had written a short biography about Romano Scarpa for the IMDB. I'd like to use it here too, but I'm not sure whether what I wrote is still "mine" (and so I can do whatever I want with it) or not. On their site there's a note saying that "If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate otherwise, you grant IMDb and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate..." so it being nonexclusive I think I can use it here too... or not? Lazarus Long 19:06 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, if it's a nonexclusive license (as opposed to signing over your copyright to them) that should be fine. (I am not a lawyer, nor to I play one on TV.) Keep in mind that you should always mention it when you reuse existing work, so people don't delete it after turning up the original on google. :) A note on the talk page and the edit summary comment should do it. --Brion 19:11 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

Well, Im obviously not getting along with the mathematicians here; but, I think the "professional" mathematicians are so intent on outdoing each other with their rigorous mathematics that they fail to understand that the non-mathematician is the one who most needs this site, and nearly ALL of the math pages (even on some of the most "simple" and elementary of topics) are nigh-impossible for anyone without the proper training to understand. Kinda a Catch-22 if you see what Im saying. PP

Rest of discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics

Will someone please go to NASA and let me know if my method of putting a long description with a pic is acceptable or is there a better way. My method was to make a page specially for the large version of the pic, with its own title of View of Florida from Space (not sure why I put a capital on Space!).

 * "click here" links are really bad style. Link text should be the description itself. I've change it to: Read a full description of this image -- Tarquin 13:39 25 Jun 2003 (UTC) PS -- is an article really necessary for this? Isn't the image description page suited to your (excellent) descriptive text?

 * I think it may be better to put the long description on the image page (which it looks like you've already done), along with the larger version if desired. Then you can link to it from the "long description" phrase like so:

 * That way, they don't clutter up the article namespace. -- Wapcaplet 13:42 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I've arranged Image:Nasa.florida.750pix.jpg so that it can be linked to as a "larger version"... Evercat 13:48 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think that photo fits in with the rest of the article; I would have thought NASA's logo would be more relevant there. -- Erzengel 13:53 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Erzengel, you are quite free to put on a logo (anyone can edit Wikipedia) but that isn't what I wanted to do! I just thought an example of NASA's work would be interesting. Thanks to the rest of you for your ideas.
 * Adrian Pingstone 14:06 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Complicated images with a lot of content should have their own articles; the image description page is a a meta-page, as suggested by its color, and focusses on copyright status, source, etc, none of which a regular user should be seeing. The image article interprets what one is looking at - that string of lights is the M5 motorway, the round blob in the center of Florida is Lake Okeechobee, etc. That kind of interpretive description makes the image useful, and not just a pastiche of color dressing up an article. Sometimes people try to do it in captions, but then we end up with comically long captions with their own collection of links. If an image caption of two long sentences is still leaving out important details, I would say that image is a candidate for its own article. Stan 16:28 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I want to know if page history is sometimes deleted. I remember having seen more edits in http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Carnatic&action=history and am also skeptical about whether the first contributor wrote so much & marked that as minor. Or is Sanbox treated differently (there's a reference to it in http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sandbox&diff=18729&oldid=7457 (long before the first edit according to http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&action=history) -- Paddu 15:50 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Long, long ago (2001) the previous wiki software would delete old revisions after a while (cf KeptPages); so very old articles often are missing their earliest edits. Also some article histories are be split because someone tried to 'rename' them by simply moving content to another page; the latter can be repaired if the page with the older revisions is still around. --Brion 18:17 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * As far as Sandbox is concerned, Brion seems to have chopped off the history at some point. (The page was created by me in February 2002 to replace the old SandBox page - we couldn't move pages in those days.) That page gets hundreds of edits a month, and there's no reason to keep very old versions, in contrast to normal articles. Another thing to note about old edits is that the dates for them are often wrong. For example, that old edit of mine that you've linked above was certainly not made at 15:43 25 Feb 2002 - that's a bogus timestamp occurring on all old history pages. --Zundark 19:39 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Not on all old pages, just on the most recent ones between the software conversion in late January 2002 and the great Oops, All Timestamp Fields Reset Themselves When The Table Is Altered calamity on February 25, 2002. :) On the other hand, many edits during 2002 may be listed 7 or 8 hours off, as for a while timestamps were stored in the server's local time. --Brion 20:52 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I've been here only for 15 days now, and already five of my contributions are showing dates between Apr 2002 and Feb 2003. There is some serious date-related bug in the software. -- Timwi 21:08 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The only such that I see are redirection pages created by the software when renaming pages. Did you rename these pages:
 * 02:29 26 Feb 2003 L'Hopital's rule (moved to "L'Hôpital's_rule")
 * 16:33 29 Aug 2002 PDS (moved to "Party_of_Democratic_Socialism")
 * 08:17 9 Aug 2002 Duesseldorf (moved to "Düsseldorf")
 * 15:04 16 May 2002 Squarefree (moved to "Square-free")
 * 10:25 9 Apr 2002 Departement (moved to "Département")
 * ? The rename code is a little funky, and there may be some cases where the redirect page gets the date of the article; or if renaming a page to a title at which a redirect is already present, it may retain the date of the prior redirect. Or something. A little more info would help. --Brion 21:28 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * You guys make me feel so dumb! :) I didn't notice they were all page moves. Yes, I did perform those renames (albeit within the past 16 days). Notice there are other renames in my contributions list that appear to be dated correctly. -- Timwi 14:42 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Disney comics mess

I'd written about this in the relevant talk pages, but I think nobody's watching them :-) I find the article Disney Comic Book a bit out of place. Besides the contents of the article, definitely improvable, the term "Disney Comic Book" itself doesn't mean much here. We already have Comic book explaining what a comic book is, and lots of Disney pages explaining what Disney means. What we'd need there is a Disney comics, with a short history of Disney comics all over the world. But there already is a Disney Comics article, still it is not about Disney comics, it is about a branch of Walt Disney Company that used to publish comics at the begininning of the 1990s. This is not very accurate IMHO, because when someone thinks "Disney comics" he's not thinking about the publisher, he's thinking about comics starring Disney Characters in general.

I think a Disney Comics (publisher) should be created (similar to Gladstone Publishing, and the current contents and references to Disney Comics moved to that article. So Disney Comic Book could redirect to a new Disney comics page that would contain a better version of this page.

Should I go ahead and do it, or are there any technical reasons not to? Conceptually I think it would really clear things up. Lazarus Long 17:50 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Be bold in updating pages -- Timwi 21:10 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * If you want to rename Disney Comic Book to Disney comics, go ahead. But you shouldn't have to rename Disney Comics to do it—Wikipedia automatically disambiguates on capitalisation (see, for instance, red dwarf and Red Dwarf). — Paul A 01:18 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Easy one for all you smart people. I have been updating the Military Operations list and having a grad old time doing it. But when I smack on the Recent Changes page, I note my annotations are credited to some obscure series of numbers; not my PaulinSaudi name. I feel like I am not getting full credit.

How can I fix this?

Now, with three tildies ? PaulinSaudi

Stop the presses! My entry above has PaulinSaudi on the change page. Is that because I used the Three TIldies technique? If so how can I get credit for my content updates which have not signature line?

I am so confused?

 * Sign with four tildes to include date.
 * Are you talking about those Contributions? Just click on "My Contri" on the left.
 * Or perhaps you forgot to log in. You can tell when you aren't logged when the top-right says "Not logged in" instead of your name. And when below the edit box, there's no "Minor edit" checkbox. --Menchi 05:28 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The other thing to note is that if you stop editing long enough (eg while writing in your WP, you will be timed out and unlogged, but you won' see that until you change a page. As Menchi said, minor edit is the best guide.

 * I seem to recall that you need to have cookies turned on (in your browser) in order to stay logged in while having multiple windows/tabs open. Perhaps that had something to do with it? Usually the best way to tell if you're logged in is to check the upper-right corner of your screen. If it says "PaulinSaudi", you're logged in. -- Wapcaplet 14:51 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

For anyone interested, copyright in the US has changed,. Basically, an author now has to pay $1 to keep their copyrights 50 years after publication. -- Jim Regan 07:33 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * That's good news. When do they have to pay up by? -- Tim Starling 07:44 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, phrased that badly. They have to pay 50 years after publication, if they don't, it becomes public domain. It's the Public Domain Enhancement Act, btw. -- Jim Regan 08:12 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * But it's just $1. I'm pretty sure their or their descendant's sense of possession or greed will drive them to pay that puny amount. Just $20, then a millennium is paid for. Mmm... that sounds too easy. >_> --Menchi 08:27 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The purpose of the act is to allow abandoned works to enter the public domain, not to make it harder to maintain copyright. The reason it's after 50 years is because that's the minimum term required by the Berne Convention -- Jim Regan 08:35 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ahem. According to the links provided the bill was introduced by two Congressmen. To become law it has to be voted on (assuming it isn't killed in committee), passed in both houses of Congress, go through a compromise committee and then be signed into law. But it would be cool if it did become law. --mav

 * Yes, it has not yet become law (come on, Congress doesn't move that fast!). It would be great if it does, though! Check out the FAQ for details. And yes, $1 might be enough to make it happen. Consider a large corporation which has a few million properties that it wants to maintain after their normal 50-year lifespan. Right now, they can extend the copyrights indefinitely, for free, and prevent anything (even stuff of zero commercial value) from ever entering the public domain. If they had to pay a few million bucks a year to keep those unprofitable properties within their control, they might think twice about holding onto them. But yeah, as Jim Regan says, it's mostly designed for the works that are still under copyright, but nobody knows by whom. It's abandoned, and sitting around deteriorating, and nobody's legally allowed to copy them because they're still, supposedly, someone's intellectual property. -- Wapcaplet 14:59 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-

Hi, folks! I have found several articles concerning the goddess Aradia (Herodias) and relating her with Roman and Greek mythologies. Aradia is related to the Wiccan belief but not to those other religions. As I am not the adequate guy to write about Wiccan traditions, I would suggest finding another person with knowledge on the subject to correct it. Thanks.-- The Warlock 08:48 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, the original contributor'd be of no help. The mysterious s/he suddenly stopped last year in Sept. --Menchi 08:58 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't have enough experience looking at the work of Michael, so I can't make a diagnosis...Is IMX the work of Michael, and is User:Mlthomas Michael? Kingturtle 11:41 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Doesn't look like his style to me... Evercat 13:37 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I would like to seperate watch lists, so that I can differentiate between articles of great interest to me, and articles of more general interest. Pizza Puzzle

 * This sounds like a feature request. You have to make a feature request on a separate website, SourceForge, where the programmers hang out and manage the development of the software. While you're at it, please tell them to come back here and let us make feature requests on Wikipedia or at least the Meta-Wiki... -- Timwi 23:34 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I cut and pasted something from the wiki-list and put it on the talk page of User:Joe Canuck. However it is running lengthways across the page. How can I fix it to run normally? FearÉIREANN 21:14 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This is probably the cause. Pizza Puzzle

I think I've sorted it. It was the spaces at the beginning of the paragraphs causing the problem -- sannse 21:38 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I used to be able to use [necklace] and I would get a link to necklace surrounded by two brackets (useful in quotes) but now I just get 3 brackets on either side. Has the code been changed? Is there an easier way to get the result I desire without using nowiki? Pizza Puzzle

 * Well this works [ necklace ], and so does this [ necklace ] :). MB 21:30 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The easiest way I can think of is [necklace]. Another possibility would be [necklace]. -- Timwi 23:38 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Don't use the second of those; the character, whatever it is, does show up on my browser a a square-with-numbers between the bracket and the link. The &#91; is safer. -- John Owens 23:49 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

User:Evercat posted this to my page:

 * Please note: This user is repeatedly requesting confirmation of the copyright status of assorted images uploaded to Wikipedia. This is being done maliciously, in protest of the banning of User:Joe Canuck, who was banned after repeatedly uploading images of dubious copyright status, as well as assorted threats aimed at Wikipedians who objected to this.

 * For the most part, this user's questions can be ignored.

Is this Wikipedia policy to say this and Protect the page when someone legitimately questions obvious copyright problems with images uploaded without copyright documentation. I am following the words of User:Jimbo Wales and the statements by [[User:Brion VIBBER] at http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004943.html [[User:ChuckM|ChuckM]] 04:02 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please note: ChuckM is according to the evidence a user who as User:DW, User:Black Widow and User:Joe Canuck has been banned three times for his conduct on wikipedia. He is also believed to have operated under a range of names, including Ron Davis, Elliot, Olga Bityerkokoff and Jacques Delson, among others. For details on his identity, see the Joe Canuck talk page. ChuckM has now been proposed for banning by Evercat. FearÉIREANN 04:32 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * And I would note that I proposed that before Chuck's comments here... Evercat 12:10 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * See User:ChuckM/ban, by the way. Evercat 14:58 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-


text:
Talk:Progressive education

No critique ?
Have I missed something or there is no critique of this philosophy of education in this article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.151.168.48 (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Explanation
i sorry i can't discuss but im askng u to please explain educational progressivism. thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.148.67.75 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 June 2003

What are the benefit of Progressivism? Can u reply i need it for my assignment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.178.112.80 (talk • contribs).

I think the posts above me are a better refutation of the end-product of progressive education than any thesis I could have delivered.68.97.210.18 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Facts
This article in its current state is both weakly and factually questionable. Any discussion of progressivism needs to get into the nitty gritty of the competing ideologies and methods of the various kinds of educational progressive during the progressive era, as there has never been a monolithic progressivism. I don't have the time for it right now, but I may sweep back at some point...कुक्कुरोवाच 18:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Progressivism In need for answer
We've been using Dewey very lopsidedly in public schools in the US since around 1998. Schools in the US took a turn for the worst around 1998. Why are teachers still defending an educational theory that has been failing them? Why are they blaming everything but the theory for the failure of US reading & Math skills? Why do they have this insane focus on just throwing students into groups instead of helping the figure the problem out on their own? Tests are what gage student's progress & it seems in schools that tests are the only chance students get to work on their own. I'd like an answer, all of my educational professors at National-Louis & those I know from Roosevelt have informed me that I don't have the degrees to question Progressive Education. This, to me, means that we have murdered Socrates in America. I would really like someone to answer my questions on this, teachers & professors won't. I'd sign this, but if anyone knew I wrote this I'd lose any position I had at a school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.109.172 (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I’d suggest you create a user ID that doesn't personally identify you: then you can write under a proper ID, receive replies, etc.; but you won't lose your job.

 * At the same time a Wikipedia Talk page is not the best place for canvassing opinion on a topic like this. Try [Reddit], [Quora], etc.

 * If you want your question to stay, you might correct the following: *turn for the worse; *students'; comma splices.
 * Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone up to the task of cleanup?
This article is badly in need of some cleanup. I found it in rather poor shape; there was a large amount of material that appeared twice, as if someone hit "Ctrl-V" one too many times. Also, it is basically an essay, and not an encyclopedia article, with no hyperlinks or Internet-friendly navigation. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to apply to this project, so I am relying on other well-wishing Wikipedians to take up the task of bringing this up to a higher standard.

Marcfonline 02:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

 * Support - as nominator. reason for move is the correct name for the theory is progressive education.  --Tigereyes92 (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I would not be surprised to find both terms in use, with a minimal distinction of meaning; but this article is about progressive education. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverse infringement
This article was tagged in March 2010 quite rightly for its resemblance to. However, it looks very likely that this content was copied from Wikipedia. Take, for example, the following evidence: Two changes in July 2008, and  are not reflected in that external site, which makes it seem extremely likely that this article was copied for use in that book some time before then.
 * The article was created in 2001, at which point it contained little of the current text. It did, however, say, "Progressivists claimed to rely on the best available scientific theories of learning. Most believed that children learned as if they were scientists, following a process similar to John Dewey's model of learning." This is on page 18 of the tagged suspect source, but that source cannot date back to 2001. On page 6, it quotes a 2003 source. Even in that section, there is evidence of natural evolution. Page 18 reflects this change of 1 April 2005 and this change of 10 August 2006 and this change of February 2007 by different contributors.
 * The bulk of the material entered the article in July 2007. However, while this bulk growth of the article can itself be a red flag, there is still further evidence of natural evolution thereafter. The section heading added later in July 2007 by a different registered account is on page 25 of the external document, as are the textual changes introduced by that contributor when he "tried to make sense of the snippet of text after the bibliography". The "philosophy" section added by a different account in August 2007 is on page 18 of the source, while the"Development in the United States" header added in March 2008 is on page 19. Figures altered in October 2007 are on page 22 of the source as altered rather than as they originally were. See also.

As a final point, note the section immediately above this one in that book, on page 17, "Educational Essentialism". A comparison of that text with our article suggests their copying was not limited to this text. The section following on page 25 also looks familiar.

The Wikimedia Foundation and wikipedia community take copyright concerns seriously, and thanks are due the contributor who sought the investigation, since we have to be sure when such duplication exists that content on the website complies with copyright policy. I believe under the circumstances that we have to conclude that in this case, infringement is reversed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

PEA links to communism
I discovered that according to this article, the Progressive Education Association (1955) lost the sponsorship by the Carnegie Foundation and Rockefeller Foundations due to "the involvement of many members of the PEA in communism". I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 * And therefore ...? Wegesrand (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

broader consideration needed
Generally, the North American (US and Canada, anyway) "progressive" movement had three sides: pedagogical, organizational , and curricular. The article as it stands touches on some of the ideas behind pedagogical p.e., but overlooks another dominant strain in the testing and sorting movement, much inspired by eugenic thinking. See Thorndike, Terman, et al as supporters of this. Another strain of p.e. was organizational, to make schools as efficient as possible. Here one would touch on Cubberly and his influence, and the historical work of David Tyack (One Best System). Curricular diversification was a third element, and which was promoted by a number of people. So yes, this entry needs some major reworking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejdamer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Americocentric
This article (like many, I guess) is very americocentric. For example, in the section Maria Montessori, we have "Montessori education spread to the United States in 1911": from where? The author has not even told us in which country Ms Montessori started her schools, but now says that it came to the US!

Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Progressive education


text:
Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg

The Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg (Archiepiscopatus Salisburgensis; Fürsterzbistum Salzburg; Erzstift Salzburg; Erzbistum Salzburg) was an ecclesiastical principality and state of the Holy Roman Empire. It comprised the secular territory ruled by the archbishops of Salzburg, as distinguished from the much larger Catholic diocese founded in 739 by Saint Boniface in the German stem duchy of Bavaria. The capital of the archbishopric was Salzburg, the former Roman city of Iuvavum.

From the late 13th century onwards, the archbishops gradually reached the status of Imperial immediacy and independence from the Bavarian dukes. Salzburg remained an ecclesiastical principality until its secularisation to the short-lived Electorate of Salzburg (later Duchy of Salzburg) in 1803. Members of the Bavarian Circle from 1500, the prince-archbishops bore the title of Primas Germaniae, though they never obtained electoral dignity; actually of the six German prince-archbishoprics (with Mainz, Cologne and Trier), Magdeburg, Bremen and Salzburg received nothing from the Golden Bull of 1356. The last prince-archbishop exercising secular authority was Count Hieronymus von Colloredo, who was a patron of the Salzburg-native composer, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Geography
The prince-archbishopric's territory was roughly congruent with the present-day Austrian state of Salzburg. It stretched along the Salzach river from the High Tauern range—Mt. Großvenediger at 3666 m—at the main chain of the Alps in the south down to the Alpine foothills in the north. Here it also comprised the present-day Rupertiwinkel on the western shore of the Salzach, which today is part of Bavaria. The former archepiscopal lands are traditionally subdivided into five historic parts (Gaue): Flachgau with the Salzburg capital and Tennengau around Hallein are both located in the broad Salzach valley at the rim of the Northern Limestone Alps; the mountainous (Innergebirg) southern divisions are Pinzgau, Pongau around Bischofshofen, and southeastern Lungau beyond the Radstädter Tauern Pass.

In the north and east, the prince-archbishopric bordered on the Duchy of Austria, a former Bavarian margraviate, which had become independent in 1156 and, raised to an archduchy in 1457, developed as the nucleus of the Habsburg monarchy. The Salzkammergut border region, today a UNESCO World Heritage Site, as an important salt trade region was gradually seized by the mighty House of Habsburg and incorporated into the Upper Austrian lands. In the southeast, Salzburg adjoined the Duchy of Styria, also ruled by the Habsburg (arch-)dukes in personal union since 1192. By 1335, the Austrian regents had also acquired the old Duchy of Carinthia in the south, the Styrian and Carinthian territories were incorporated into Inner Austria in 1379. The Habsburg encirclement was nearly completed when in 1363 the archdukes also attained the County of Tyrol in the west. Only in the northwest did Salzburg border on the Duchy of Bavaria (raised to an Electorate in 1623), and the tiny Berchtesgaden Provostry, which was able to retain its independence until the Mediatisation in 1803.

Previous history
The Vita Sancti Severini biography by the Early Christian chronicler Eugippius, reported that during the Decline of the Roman Empire about 450 AD the local capital Iuvavum in the Noricum ripense province was already home to two churches and a monastery. Very little is known of the early bishopric during the Migration Period, and the legendary Saint Maximus of Salzburg is the only abbot-bishop known by name. A disciple of Saint Severinus, he was martyred in the retreat from Noricum, after the Germanic Western Roman officer Odoacer had deposed the last Emperor Romulus Augustulus and declared himself King of Italy in 476. In his conflict with the Rugii tribes, Odoacer had his brother Onoulphus evacuate the Noricum ripense province in 487/88, whereby Iuvavum was abandoned and with it the bishopric. Saint Severinus had already died in 482 in the castrum of Favianis (present-day Mautern in Lower Austria), six years before the departure of the Roman legions from the region.

Bavarian bishopric (c. 543/698–798)
From the sixth century onwards, the northern areas of the later archbishopric were resettled by Germanic Bavarii tribes, who established themselves among the remaining Romance population, while Slavic tribes moved into the southern Pongau and Lungau parts. About 696 Saint Rupert, then Bishop of Worms in Frankish Austrasia and later called the apostle of Bavaria and Carinthia, came to the region from the Bavarian town Regensburg and laid the foundations for the re-establishment of the Salzburg diocese. After erecting a church at nearby Seekirchen he discovered the ruins of Iuvavum overgrown with brambles and remnants of the Romance population, who had maintained Christian traditions. The former theory that he arrived already in c. 543 during the time of the unsourced early Bavarian dukes appears less likely than that he worked during the reign of the Agilolfing duke Theodo II (c. 680–717), when the Bavarian stem duchy came under Frankish supremacy. The bishops of Salzburg traditionally marked the foundation of their diocese as being the year 582, and struck coins commemorating the 1,200-year anniversary of the event in 1782. In any case, it was not until after 700 that Christian civilisation re-emerged in the region.

Rupert established a monastery dedicated to Saint Peter at the site of a Late Antique church in the former Iuvavum. St Peter's Abbey received large estates in the Flachgau (Rupertiwinkel) and Tennengau regions from the hands of Duke Theodon II, including several brine wells and salt evaporation ponds which earned Iuvavum its German name Salzburg. In 711 Rupert also founded the Cella Maximiliana in the Pongau region, the later town of Bischofshofen. His niece Erentrude established a Benedictine nunnery at nearby Nonnberg about 713. In 739 Archbishop Boniface, with the blessing of Pope Gregory III, completed the work of Saint Rupert and raised Salzburg to a bishopric, placed under the primatial see of the Archdiocese of Mainz. St. Vergilius, abbot of St. Peter's since about 749, had quarrelled with St. Boniface over the existence of antipodes. He nevertheless became bishop about 767.

Early archbishopric (798–1060)
Arno, bishop since 785, enjoyed the respect of the Frankish king Charlemagne who assigned to him the missionary territory between the rivers Danube in the north, the Rába (Raab) in the east and the Drava in the south, an area which had recently been conquered from the Avars. Monasteries were founded and all of Carinthia was slowly Christianised. While Arno was in Rome attending to some of Charlemagne's business in 798, Pope Leo III appointed him Archbishop over the other bishops in Bavaria (Freising, Passau, Regensburg, and Säben). When the dispute over the ecclesiastical border between Salzburg and the Patriarchate of Aquileia broke out, Charlemagne declared the Drava to be the border.

Archbishop Adalwin (859–873) suffered great troubles when King Rastislav of Moravia attempted to remove his realm from the ecclesiastical influence of East Francia. In 870 Pope Adrian II appointed the "Apostle of the Slavs" St. Methodius the Archbishop of Pannonia and Moravia at Sirmium, entrusting him large territories under the overlordship of the Salzburg diocese. It was only when Rastislav and Methodius were captured by King Louis the German that Adalwin could adequately protest the invasion of his rights. Methodius appeared at the Synod of Salzburg where he was struck in the face and imprisoned in close confinement for two and a half years.

Soon after, the Magyars ravaged Great Moravia and not a church was left standing in Pannonia. Archbishop Dietmar I fell in battle in 907. It was not until the Battle of Lechfeld in 955 that the Magyars suffered a crushing defeat, and ecclesiastical life in Salzburg returned to normal. The following year after Archbishop Herhold allied with Liudolf, Duke of Swabia and Duke Conrad the Red of Lorraine, he was deposed, imprisoned, blinded, and banished. Archbishop Bruno of Cologne, called the Bishop-Maker, appointed Frederick I archbishop and declared the Abbacy of St. Peter independent.

Investiture era (1060–1213)
In the era beginning with Pope Gregory VII, the Latin Christendom entered a period of internal conflict. The first archbishop of the era was Gebhard, who during the Investiture Controversy remained on the side of the Pope. Gebhard thus suffered a nine-year exile, and was allowed to return shortly before his death and was buried in Admont. After King Henry IV abdicated and Conrad I of Abensberg was elected Archbishop. Conrad lived in exile until the Calistine Concordat of 1122. Conrad spent the remaining years of his episcopate improving the religious life in the archdiocese.

Prince-archbishopric
Archbishop Eberhard II of Regensberg was made a prince of the Empire in 1213, and created three new sees: Chiemsee (1216), Seckau (1218) and Lavant (1225). In 1241, at the Council of Regensburg he denounced Pope Gregory IX as "that man of perdition, whom they call Antichrist, who in his extravagant boasting says, I am God, I cannot err." During the German Interregnum, Salzburg suffered confusion. Philip of Spanheim, heir to the Dukedom of Carinthia, refused to take priestly consecrations, and was replaced by Ulrich, Bishop of Seckau.

King Rudolph I of Habsburg quarrelled with the archbishops through the manipulations of Abbot Henry of Admont, and after his death the archbishops and the Habsburgs made peace in 1297. The people and archbishops of Salzburgs remained loyal to the Habsburgs in their struggles against the Wittelsbachs. When the Black Death reached Salzburg in 1347, the Jews were accused of poisoning the wells and suffered severe persecution.

In 1473, he summoned the first provincial diet in the history of the archbishopric, and eventually abdicated. It was only Leonard of Keutschach (reigned 1495–1519) who reversed the situation. He had all the burgomasters and town councillors (who were levying unfair taxes) arrested simultaneously and imprisoned in the castle. His last years were spent in bitter struggle against Matthäus Lang of Wellenburg, Bishop of Gurk, who succeeded him in 1519.

Matthäus Lang was largely unnoticed in official circles, although his influence was felt throughout the archbishopric. He brought in Saxon miners, which brought with them Protestant books and teachings. He then attempted to keep the populace Catholic, and during the Latin War was besieged in the Hohen-Salzburg, declared a "monster" by Martin Luther, and two later uprisings by the peasants lead to suffering to the entire archdiocese. Later bishops were wiser in the ruling and spared Salzburg the religious wars and devastation seen elsewhere in Germany. Archbishop Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau gave the Protestants the choice of converting to Catholicism or leaving Salzburg. The cathedral was rebuilt in such splendour that it was unrivalled by all others north of the Alps.

Archbishop Paris of Lodron led Salzburg to peace and prosperity during the Thirty Years' War in which the rest of Germany was thoroughly devastated. During the reign of Leopold Anthony of Firmian, the remaining Protestants in Salzburg were expelled in 1731. He invited the Jesuits to Salzburg and asked for help from the emperor, and finally ordered the Protestants to recant their beliefs or emigrate. Over 20,000 Salzburg Protestants were forced to leave their homes, most of whom accepted an offer of land by King Frederick William I of Prussia.

The last Prince-Archbishop, Hieronymus von Colloredo, is probably best known for his patronage of Mozart. His reforms of the church and education systems alienated him from the people.

Secularisation
In 1803, Salzburg was secularised as the Electorate of Salzburg for the former Grand Duke Ferdinand III of Tuscany (brother of Emperor Francis II), who had lost his throne. In 1805, it became part of Austria. In 1809, it became part of Bavaria which closed the University of Salzburg, banned monasteries from accepting novices, and banned pilgrimages and processions. The archdiocese was reestablished as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Salzburg in 1818 without temporal power.

Up to today, the Archbishop of Salzburg has also borne the title Primas Germaniae ("First Bishop of Germany"). The powers of this title – non-jurisdictional – are limited to being the Pope's first correspondent in the German-speaking world, but had once included the right to preside over the Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. The Archbishop also has the title of Legatus Natus ("born legate") to the Pope, which, although not a cardinal, gives the Archbishop the privilege of wearing red vesture (which is much deeper than a cardinal's scarlet), even in Rome.

Bishops of Salzburg

 * Rupert of Salzburg 696–716/18
 * Virgil of Salzburg 746–784
 * Arno of Salzburg 784–821
 * Adalram 821–836
 * Dietmar I 874–907
 * Pilgrim I 907–923
 * Gebhard of Salzburg 1060-1088
 * Thiemo 1090-1102
 * Conrad I of Babenberg 1106–1147
 * Eberhard von Biburg 1147–1164
 * Conrad II of Babenberg 1164–1168
 * Adalbert III of Bohemia 1168-1177
 * Conrad of Wittelsbach 1177-1183
 * Adalbert III of Bohemia 1183-1200
 * Philip of Spanheim 1247–1256
 * Ulrich von Seckau 1256-1265
 * Ladislaus of Salzburg 1265-1270
 * Frederick III of Leibnitz 1315–1338
 * Henry of Pirnbrunn 1338–1343
 * Ordulf of Wiesseneck 1343–1365
 * Pilgrim II of Pucheim 1365–1396
 * Gregor Schenk of Osterwitz 1396–1403
 * Eberhard III of Neuhaus 1403–1427
 * Eberhard IV of Starhemberg 1427–1429
 * John II of Reichensperg 1429–1441
 * Frederick IV Truchseß of Emmerberg 1441–1452
 * Sigismund I of Volkersdorf 1452–1461
 * Cardinal Burchard of Weissbruch 1461–1466
 * Bernhard II of Rohr 1466–1482
 * John III Peckenschlager 1482–1489
 * Friedrich V of Schallenburg 1489–1494
 * Sigismund II of Hollenegg 1494–1495
 * Leonhard von Keutschach 1495–1519
 * Matthäus Lang von Wellenburg 1519–1540
 * Ernest of Bavaria 1540–1554
 * Michael of Khuenburg 1554–1560
 * John Jacob of Khun-Bellasy 1560–1586
 * George of Kuenburg 1586–1587
 * Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau 1587–1612
 * Marcus Sittich of Hohenems 1612–1619
 * Paris von Lodron 1619–1653
 * Guidobald of Thun 1654–1668
 * Maximilian Gandalf of Kuenburg 1668–1687
 * Johann Ernst von Thun 1687–1709
 * Franz Anton von Harrach 1709–1727
 * Leopold Anton von Firmian 1727–1744
 * Jacob Ernest of Liechtenstein-Castelcorno 1744–1747
 * Andreas Jacob of Dietrichstein 1747–1753
 * Sigismund III of Schrattenbach 1753–1771
 * Hieronymus von Colloredo 1772–1812 (last prince-archbishop, lost temporal power in 1803 after secularization)
 * Leopold Anton von Firmian 1727–1744
 * Jacob Ernest of Liechtenstein-Castelcorno 1744–1747
 * Andreas Jacob of Dietrichstein 1747–1753
 * Sigismund III of Schrattenbach 1753–1771
 * Hieronymus von Colloredo 1772–1812 (last prince-archbishop, lost temporal power in 1803 after secularization)

See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Salzburg for archbishops since 1812.

title: Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg


text:
Talk:Eye of the Beholder (The Twilight Zone, 1959)

Untitled
Please discuss this episode to anyone who has seen it.

Most famous episode of all
This is really the most famous episode? I'd always thought "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" or "It's a Good Life" or "Time Enough at Last" would hold that distinction. Citation?
 * I wouldn't say there's a "most famous" episode of the TZ, but all these make up the big 5 or so.

-G

Voice dubbing
Donna Douglas's voice is NOT heard in this episode, she is dubbed by the other actress. Donna's talents were not such that she could turn her thick accent off at will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.120 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, Maxine Stuart was going to dub through the end, but then the director decided that Donna Douglas was such a good actress that they would just leave it and let her say the lines. Marc Zicree's "The Twilight Zone Companion" talks about it, and you can find other details online, I would think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.176.179 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nine Surgeries or Eleven?
This page says that this is Janet's ninth surgery. However, I know for a fact that this is Janet's eleventh time in the hospital. She says so herself in her conversation with the doctor. Am I wrong here? User:notecardforfree 1:11 PST June 13, 2007

 * No, You are right. The doctor thinks it is her ninth but is corrected by Janet who says it was 11th Bridgemo 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What's with the alternate title?
The trivia section notes that "The Private World of Darkness" is the original title, yet "Eye of the Beholder" is the "correct" title. Can anyone add some insight as to why it was changed? I seem to remember not finding an explanation on the alternate titles in Zicree's Twilight Zone Companion, either, so any other leads would be helpful. Henryrothschild (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Seems to me that "Eye of the Beholder" is something of a "spoiler." WHPratt (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, while the phrase from the proverb does, in one sense, tip off the final reveal, the power of the story results from the fact that the conclusion inverts the concept.WHPratt (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * SyFy Channel showed this today as part of their traditional Twilight Zone Marathon for holidays. And what does the blurb on our on-screen cable guide (Spectrum) say? "'The Eye of the Beholder' A woman's natural beauty makes her a freak in a futuristic society." Thus does Gracenote, Inc., with just 12 words to work, blow the reveal! WHPratt (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Another pop culture reference
I'm watching an episode of Spongebob right now and the entire thing is an extended homage to this classic Twilight Zone episode. See link here: http://spongebob.wikia.com/wiki/The_Two_Faces_of_Squidward I'm a wiki n00b, so figured I'd let someone else do the honors and actually add this to the real page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.94.226 (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Need to distinguish original from remake
Right now, details of the two versions seem to be mixed together... AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Title
This article refers to the episode as "Eye Of The Beholder" and "The Eye Of The Beholder." Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.232.120 (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Possibly the definite article was dropped from the infobox header to keep it short... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Having just watched this episode, I can state with absolute certainty that the title is "Eye of the Beholder." I.e., the initial "The" is not present and therefore the entire page/article should be renamed accordingly to match reality.  There should be no confusion on this point.  I am happy to provide a screen capture should anyone need more convincing.  WavSlave (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

over qualification ?
Is the qualifier "(by the contemporary viewer's standards)" necessary? This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Gloryroad (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't read this as a putdown of modern standards, but rather acknowledgement of the context of the story. We, the viewers, will regard these two as beautiful and handsome, while the world they're in storywise considers them hideous. Stating this without the qualification belies the lesson. WHPratt (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Date in title
The title says 1959 but it wasn't broadcast until November of 1960. Rich Kutney (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)