text:
Frank Crean

Francis Daniel Crean (28 February 1916 – 2 December 2008) was an Australian politician who served as a member of the House of Representatives from 1951 to 1977, representing the Labor Party. He was a minister in the Whitlam government, including as Treasurer from 1972 to 1974 and the fifth deputy prime minister for a few months in 1975.

Crean was born in Hamilton, Victoria. He attended Melbourne High School and the University of Melbourne, and subsequently worked as a tax accountant. Crean was elected to the Victorian Legislative Assembly in 1945. He lost his seat in 1947 and reclaimed it in 1949, but quit state politics two years later to stand at the 1951 federal election. Crean spent the first 21 years of his career in federal politics in opposition, albeit as a frontbencher for most of that time. He became Treasurer after the 1972 election, but economic uncertainty and factional considerations meant he was replaced by Jim Cairns after two years. He was instead appointed Minister for Overseas Trade. Crean held that position until the government's dismissal in 1975, and for its final six months was also deputy prime minister, replacing Cairns when he became embroiled in the Khemlani affair. He left politics at the 1977 election. His son, Simon Crean, was a Member of Parliament from 1990 to 2013.

Early life
Crean was born in Hamilton, Victoria, where his father was a bicycle-maker. Although his father was of Irish Catholic descent, Francis was raised in his mother's Presbyterian faith. He was known as Francis in his early life, but later changed his name to the less Irish Catholic-sounding Frank. He graduated from the University of Melbourne with degrees in arts and commerce and a diploma in public administration, and became an accountant and tax consultant.

In 1946, Crean married Mary Findlay, with whom he had three sons. One of these, Simon Crean, was the federal Labor leader from 2001 to 2003. Another, David Crean, became a minister in the state Labor government in Tasmania. His third son, Stephen, became lost while skiing and died in a blizzard near Charlotte Pass in August 1985. A massive search failed to find him. His remains were found more than two years later.

Politics
In 1945 Crean was elected to the Victorian Legislative Assembly, but was defeated in 1947. He was re-elected in 1949. He quit state politics in 1951, to stand for the safe Labor seat of Melbourne Ports in the House of Representatives. In Canberra, Crean advanced rapidly, since he was one of the few Labor members with formal qualifications in economics. Elected to the Opposition front-bench in 1956, he became, in effect, shadow Treasurer (although Labor did not have a formal shadow ministry until 1969). This position he held for 16 years. During the 1960s Crean was sometimes considered as a possible party leader, but his rather plodding public image meant that he was overtaken by Gough Whitlam, who became leader in 1967. When Whitlam finally led Labor to office at the 1972 election, Crean became Treasurer, although Whitlam had no real confidence in him. Crean's tenure coincided with the onset of high inflation and rising unemployment. He did not trust the orthodox economic advice he was getting from the Treasury, but he lacked the authority to challenge it. The leader of the Labor Left, Jim Cairns, attacked Crean's policies in the Cabinet, and in December 1974 Whitlam gave Cairns the Treasury and moved Crean to the Trade portfolio.

In July 1975 Whitlam sacked Cairns over his involvement in the Loans Affair, and Crean was elected party Deputy Leader and Deputy Prime Minister in his place, defeating Kim Beazley Sr. 47 votes to 31, with Frank Stewart receiving 11 and Kep Enderby 4.

He held this position until the dismissal of the Whitlam government in November 1975. After the election he contested the leadership, polling 13 votes to Lionel Bowen's 14 and Whitlam's 36. He retired from parliament in 1977.

Later years
From 1978 to 2004, Crean was chairman of the New Hope Migrant and Refugee Centre. In July 2006 it was reported that he was too frail to travel interstate for Gough Whitlam's 90th birthday function.

Crean died following a short illness on 2 December 2008, the 36th anniversary of the election of the Whitlam government in 1972.

title: Frank Crean


text:
Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 1

Untitled
I suggest moving this to talk:Death Penalty.

Recently elected president of the United States who broke records for the number of prisoners legally executed during his tenure as Govenor of Texas.

Of note, every one of the executed felons was executed for murder. Also of note, studies guess that ~20% of executed people are actually innocent.

''Why the emphasis? Do you claim to have a better figure?''

Including the mentally retarded Oliver Cruz; Jesse DeWayne Jacobs, whom the state called to testify against the man who actually committed the murder for which Jacobs was nevertheless executed; several prisoners whose defense attorneys were later disbarred or suspended, or who called no defense witnesses...

And we must not forget Carla Faye Tucker executed in 1998 while Bush held the gubernatorial office in the Lone Star State.

She brutally commited murder. Feminists everywhere should be proud that she was treated equally with murderers that are men.

"Equal Protection Under The Law" - The Constitution -- read it -- understand it

I'm the one who added the note about about Cruz, Jacobs, et al. I agree--I din't find anything out of place or unusual about Tucker's execution. If one believes in the penalty at all, she was an exemplary case.

''Don't get me wrong. I got no bones about what happened to her, either. It just happened on his watch.''

A good question: Why did she receive so much more publicity from news organizations than the person legally executed just before or after? Was it because she was female? Was it biased to report that case much more than the execution before or after it?

''The fact that you folks ask these questions, and "didn't find anything out of place or unusual" shows how pathetically uninformed you are, and that you don't belong anywhere near an encyclopedia article. Even if you don't believe it, and even if you don't think it relevant, you should at least be *aware* that many people felt that she should be spared because of the idea that she had been *rehabilitated*, that she had done *good works* in prison. Not simply that she was "female". Sheesh.''

And we must not forget Bill Clinton who presided over executions whilst govenor of Arkansas.

''And the relevance of this to an enclopedia article about George Bush is what, exactly? What's more important not to forget is what pathetic hypocritical ideologues Bush's supporters are. When Clinton ran back to Arkansas to oversee the execution of mentally retarded Johnny Perry, it wasn't the rabid right-wingers who were critical, it was the same people who are critical of Bush's numerous executions; consistent, principled people.''

More controversial things: plans announced to drill for oil in an Alaskan national park. Renewed bombings against Iraq. A general chill in relations with Russia - pulling of diplomats, SDI. Giving copious amounts of money to churches as instruments of morality. Refusal to participate in a campaign against global warming. Cutting government funding to feminist organizations and some kind of general move against workers unions. I have a friend whose keeping a more thorough list of minuses and pluses (the latter being the tax cut, which Americans tend to like).

Drilling for oil in Alaska on a limited scale: A good idea - either we drill here or inefficiently buy oil from OPEC. Environmentalists have an unfounded fear that a few wells in Alaska will spoil the entire state.

''Environmentalists know full well that the "few wells" imply many roads and other infrastructure, with very little return. Environmentists's fears are well-founded because they aren't ignoramuses like you and other knee-jerk right-winger ditto-heads. Turn off your Rush Limbaugh and seek more reliable sources of information.''

 * No, definitely a bad idea. Undisturbed arctic nature is vulnerable. Very much so, even. Read http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/sfcb-aeb072201.php. Once the Arctic nature is destroyed it takes a long time to recover.

 * What you don't seem to realize is that there is a third, better option. It is possible to decrease the amount of oil consumed. The US consumes vast amounts of oil by driving absolutely everywhere. The bicycle has been discovered for about 150 years in the rest of the world, but hasn't yet made it in the US. For things like just going to the mall, taking a car (or worse, a SUV) is ludicrous. Going by bike will reduce oil consumption (thus improving the international trade balance), decrease pollution (making the air fresher), and improving your personal condition (Americans are notoriously fat; this is a health problem for the individual, a source of cost and also a reduction of life quality).

 * The US has had and still has extremely low gas prices, making the "American way" synonymous with "drive everywhere, and fuck the pollution". According to http://www.gaspricewatch.com/USGas_index.asp, you can buy gas for less than $1/gallon (average $1.4). This is less than a quarter of the price in Sweden. This is not the way to handle the world. Much of the rest of the world has already realized this. The US will probably also do this, the question is if it will do so fast enough.

 * Bush junior has made it increasingly clear that he is not interested in preserving the environment so long as it will cost one iota of his precious "American lifestyle". I am curious to see what will happen in the next election (not only to see if the vote-counting farce will continue); the appearance of Ralph Nader in the last election is intriguing.

 * The rest of the world is watching. As of this writing (July 2001), the US is failing in environmental care, failing in human rights, and going for magna cum laude in arrogance. Exams are held regularly. Prepare thyself. --Pinkunicorn

A chill in relations with Russia: A good thing because the prior administration freely let money flow from American taxpayers to corrupt burecrats in Russia. In effect, the prior administration lett Russians steal from American citizens. All forms of 'aid' money should be cut off until Russia cleans itself up. If they don't like it, they should refuse the money. American taxpayers should not give money to countries that don't do what we want. Tough luck. I don't recall any other countries sending us aid packages when a hurricane strikes, Dakota floods, etc. If, as most liberals want, the US should get out of telling other countries what to do, the US should get out of sending the money also.

Refusing to participate in a campaign against global warming: A good thing. The US government should not intentionally lower our standard of living by reducing the amount of energy we use in producing product. Conservatives actually want a cleaner environment...but not one mandated by government. Do you think conservatives want to buy oil from another country? A bad move for our economy. Why do you think Bush supports the $5000 tax credit for buying a gas/electric hybrid vehicle (supported by ford and environmentalists)?

Cutting government funding to femminist organizations: Bush recently closed the OWI office at the white house. The OWI was created by the prior administration to cordinate activities of other parts of the executive branch that involve women. In short, they were a redundant part of the executive branch and had no actual power to implement/enforce regulations. Liberals do not understand that conservatives want people to be treated equally by not awarding special rights to one group of people or another. Liberals also don't understand that conservatives do not split people into demographic groups like liberals do. Splitting people into demographic groups only serves to divide and cause conflict amongst groups. An example of this is where we celebrate a whole month to one group's history yet do not celebrate any others history for a whole month. Where is 'equal protection under the law'?

General move against workers unions: Bush has done two things: 1. When a government contract passes from one company to another, the new company is not forced to hire all of the union workers from the company that lost the contract. This is a good thing as it allows more competition and lower cost for the service. It also forces the union workers to do better jobs and improve productivity so that the company can continue to keep the government contract. In short, government is not telling people how to run their lives as much as before. I thought that liberals whanted government to not tell people how to run their lives. Larger government == lower personal freedome.

2. Allow union members to withold their dues that go towards political operations that the union member does not want to support. How can letting workers have more flexibility and freedom be bad?

The tax cut: It reduces the taxes paid by lower income workers and causes much more of the income taxes paid to be paid by higher income workers. In effect, the wealthy, which by government standards is any household with income above $60,000 (i.e., two union schoolteachers), pay much more of the income taxes. The fact that a worker earning $30,000 will get less of a reduction in dollars and a much larger reduction in percentage is completely lost on liberals. You cannot give someone that pays $1000 in income taxes a reduction more than $1000, but you can give someone that pays $100,000 in taxes a $20,000 reduction.

Why do liberals equate more government as better...more government results in less personal freedom...?

''These are all very partisan responses. There are partisan responses to them, and partisan responses to those, and so on endlessly. I'd like to avoid the whole thing and point out I merely stated they were all controversial, and I think there can be no dispute on that. Your claim that more government is an intrinsically bad thing is far from a univeral sentiment - nor are the claims that feminism is unequal, relations with other countries don't matter, that environmentalism is paranoia, or even that tax reductions are good (though I had listed that under plus). Give me a break!''

Reread carefully without generalization and you will see that it was not stated that feminism was 'unequal'. What was stated is that conservatives do not want special rights granted to any group of people. In other words, conservatives want everyone treated equally. If special rights are granted to left handed people for example, all right handed people are discriminated against because they do not have the special rights.

Conservatives are sexists and racists who transparently lie about their prejudices as you do here.

''Feminism is supposed to be a movement about ensuring equality between the two genders. Admittedly it sometimes deviates from that a little, but as such, it is not granting anyone any special status. So I stick by that comment. The others are overgeneralizing a bit, for which I am sorry - rhetoric is hard to stop in mid-sentence - though the points in question do remain very controversial.''

''reply: Question: Is a special government office for a particular demographic group considered unequal protection under the law because the group gets speciall attention from the government and citizens not in the group do not get such special attention?

''Citizens not in the group get attention from other departments. This particular one is dedicated to helping no given individuals but to ironing out a strong demographic inequity. Treating unequals as equals leaves them so, this is a balancing force. Hypothetically should the inequity go the other way, there should be an organization to fix that to. I can see how this could easily become problematic, and it frequently does, but I don't consider the principle unequal.''

''(reply) Citizens in the group get special attention from the agency/department that everyone uses as well as the department specifically setup for their demographic group. This extra government service is denied to people outside of the demographic group. Thus, giving a lower level of government service to people outside of the demographic group. Is giving lower level of service to people outside of the demographic group discriminating against them?

Two of the main sticking points:

 * defining strong demographic inequity and measuring it. Consider an industry that has 5% of the employees are of a certain demographic group and that demographic group makes up 20% of the population.  Does that in itself make a case for systematic inequity?  Is the industry responsible to make sure that the number of qualified entry level candidates (consider a specialized field such as neurology) matches the same demographics as the general population?

 * addressing strong demographic inequity without discriminating against other demographic groups

 * determining when to end the regulations/laws specifically made to address strong demographic inequity.

Here are a couple of questions to ponder:

1. If affirmative action is meant to repay people for past

discrimination during the civil war era and before, does

Alaska and Hawaii have to be subject to this also?

Remember that Alaska and Hawaii became part of the United

States in the 1950s and therefore could not be somehow

responsible/participate in the discrimination that

affirmative action was created for.

''affirmative action is nothing of the sort. Why don't you go learn about it before asking fallacious questions?''

2. Should differencs in percentage amongst demographic

groups in the general population always have to be

reflected in university faculty, corporations, and

government agencies?

3. Should geographic discrimination be something that

needs to be corrected? Consider how many government

employees live in and around Washington DC and the

economic impact of their actions versus areas such as

New Mexico which have almost no government employees?

4. Same basic question for government ownership of land.

2/3rds of some western states are owned by the federal

government. Does that mean that 2/3rds of each of

the eastern states should be owned by the federal

government? More basically, does government ownership

of large amounts of land in a given state discriminate

against the residents of that state? (very important

in rural argicultural/ranching states on such things

as water rights).

Relations with other countries do matter. The US should be diplomatically difficult with countries that abuse their relationship with us (e.g., how Russia's burecrats have stolen millions of us taxpayers dollars for their own personal purposes).

It was not stated that envrionmentalism is not paranoia. That was incorrectly generalized in your reply. We can drill in Alaska and not spoil the environment. Most of the environmental horror stories related to oil production are from perfectly legal practices the oil companies did in the 1920s and 1930s (e.g., open storage of oil in pits, etc.). Those practices are not legal anymore.

''And actually, I forgot to mention this before, but spoiling the state is not the issue. The problem is that particular national park was set up to protect a particularly important area, one that the caribou habitually migrate to and from. Disrupting it will hurt the caribou even if it does not spread oil across the whole area.''

Are the caribou endangered? How many will be killed directly from oil production? How does this compare with whatever animal habitats are affected by drilling wells in the Middle East? How much pollution is released when transporting oil from Saudi Arabia to the United States versus transporting oil from a new Alaska well to the Alaska pipeline? -

What's the question here is if it's reasonable to start drilling for oil in a national park. To my mind this is ludicrous. A national park is set off as a piece of nature that should be preserved, not exploited as soon as someone sees the possibility of making a profit. I am very well aware that there are oil spills from tankers transporting oil. I think there are laws that govern this, but many states seem to have trouble enforcing them. This is a problem, but to me it's a problem that can be solved. If it makes the transported oil a bit more expensive, well... tough! Deal with it. Either you pay up or you walk to work. The costlier it is to use petrol indiscriminately, the less people will do so, of course. This is a desirable effect. Perhaps this discussion should be held somewhere else? Bush may be lax about environmental protection, but this is not really about him. He's just a symptom of the problem. --Pinkunicorn

Almost makes you think we are witnessing the "Malcolm effect" as it relates to the forthcoming extinction of civilization and, possibly, humanity (it's gotta happen sometime, -

Its interesting that "Barbara and Jenna Bush have been arrested for attempting to purchase alcohol with forged photo identification" has actually resulted in some serious politicial discussions (at least in the media) about the stupidity of American drinking laws. -- Simon J Kissane

Though I agree with limited drilling, the reason it has such an effect on wildlife is that above-ground pipelining (that they would use) disrupts natural migratory patterns of creatures like Elk. That is why comparatively little drilling can have a large effect on local wildlife.

On another note, for whatever the american public says, they obviously agree by not actively stopping the president, and by taking no voluntary action to reduce consumption. This includes people who vocally disagree with the drilling. they might have protested a nuke plant next to their house, but they only benignly oppose environmental disruption in faraway places.

To The Cunctator:

re: Not "because the rich primarily pay all taxes";

Well.... I guess you're not considering that Bush supported raising earned income credit.. hmm?

Reference:

http://www.cbpp.org/311eitc.htm

You really think this is a neutral position? :) "Economy: deep tax cuts, primarily affecting the rich"

hahaha

Ed

it's factual; the facts are often not "neutral"

My understanding:

By any measure, Bush's plan benefited the middle-to-upper middle class the least; percentage-wise, superwealthy individuals and lower-middle class individuals benefited the most. In raw dollars, the gross bulk of the tax revenue lost is coming from the wealthy-to-super-wealthy. People who earn too little to pay income taxes also benefit the least, since they payroll taxes weren't affected under his plan.

Of course, the proposed tax plan and the passed tax plan aren't identical, but the passed plan is very nearly what Bush wanted. Some might even say it's remarkably so, but that would only be if you're surprised at how spineless the Democrats in the Senate are.

No, I don't think it's a neutral position, though it's accurate. Any incomplete characterization can't be neutral. Instead of paring down to limit information, I'm trying to contribute what I know to the collaborative effort. If you think that information is missing, then add whatever you know. BTW, Ashcroft was a controversial appointee, though what the controversy was (and who considered him controversial) should be mentioned in the Ashcroft entry. --TheCunctator

The information on the 2000 presidential election is far from accurate or NPOV and has a pro-Bush slant. --Daniel C. Boyer
 * Be bold and change it then. :) --maveric149

This passage has a pro-Gore slant.

 * The Electoral College vote was so close that the change of any one state would change the election. That together with the vote in Florida coming in so close as to be statistically a tie, caused Al Gore to dispute the election results.  (There were a number of overseas ballots filled out or postmarked in such a way as to be invalid under Florida law that were nevertheless accepted.  If these illegal ballots had not been accepted Al Gore would have received Florida's electoral votes and thus won the election.)

I think the above is less a statement of fact than a Democratic Party argument in favor of awarding the election to Gore. Moreover, it ignores the issue of military absentee ballots that were arbitrarily discarded although the were postmarked in such a way as to be VALID under Florida law. I'm just not sure I can gain enough emotional distance from the issue to write about it neutrally. Any takers?

''a) You haven't pointed out any error of fact. b) There were no such discarded ballots. The media analysis showed just the opposite -- that the Republicans successfully pressured the precinct boards to accept numerous invalid absentee ballots -- enough to secure Bush's slim victory. c) As for "emotional distance" -- no kidding. You're so overwhelmed by emotion that you can't get the simplest *facts* right.  Go read Bugliosi's and Dershowitz's books before you say another word on the subject, here or elsewhere, if you have a shred of intellectual integrity.''

Regarding the recently removed "Bad Reputation with Environmental Issues" section: I feel it certainly could have been NPOV'd further, and agree that having no non-liberal reactions to Bush can make even neutral coverage of liberal opinions seem biased. Nonetheless, I think it would be reasonable to try to capture how different types of voters/people do respond to the president. Is this really so flame-prone that we can't allow even fairly factual statements about what different people believe here? --Ryguasu

The issue of the environment is increasingly seen as cross-party neither left- nor right-wing, (see http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?UpWing). I remember reading something aloing the lines that some of his actions in this area could by a reasonable extent be classified as international crimes. At any rate, while NPOV is important, the idea that the "proper development of the economy" is more important than the Kyoto Protocol is a fine case of a head in the sand. -- Tarquin 19:55 Sep 13, 2002 (UTC)

Good points. Nonetheless, I think environmental issues are still usually seen in a left/right dichotomy, and this seems, at least from my totally naive perspective, to still have a very large impact on what choices end up being made. Of course, "proper development of the economy" can mean quite a wide variety of things, from "future interests must be sacrificed for present gain; technological developments will save us from any lasting harm" to "we must have a completely sustainable, non-waste-generating economy, or our very existence will surely collapse". Maybe "proper development of the economy" is not used very well in the article. Nonetheless, I think the Earth vs. Jobs dichotomy, whether or not a gross oversimplification, is still quite active in the minds of the American electorate. --Ryguasu

Sorry, Lee. I got caught in the "edit conflict". I was gonna change it back until I got some hard documetnation. I'll hold off.

--alan D

Someone added the claim:

 * Later recounts would show that Bush also won the popular vote.

''That's a lie. In fact, all studies show that Gore even won the vote in Florida; the only Bush comes out ahead is with no recount, or only recounting the 4 counties Gore asked for; if all Florida votes are counted, Gore wins.''

I am not aware of any such study. Please provide a link to evidence supporting this claim. As far as I know, the only "recounts" done were for Florida, which did seem to indicate that Bush won there. But the nationwide popular vote wasn't close enough for recounts to make a difference--it was clearly won by Gore, and I don't think anyone disputes that. --LDC

Grolier's says Gore won the popular vote:

 * In the final tally, Gore lost by 4 electoral votes but led in the nationwide popular vote by 337,576; he was the first presidential candidate since Grover Cleveland in 1888 to win the popular vote and lose the presidency.

--Ed Poor

It was my mistake, I own up. I mixed it up with "bush won florida by recount, wins the electoral votes". I tried to fix it almost right away, but you guys are so good I got an edit conflict.

Alan D.

No problem. That's why we have lots of eyes...

209.155.42.182 seems to be determined nto to have anything bad said about Bush? He seems to keep trying to get rid of all tha things that environmenatlists see him done wrong. I could say that 209.155.42.182 is trying to get rid of them for propaganda. ie Pro Bush.

Look, I'm no fan of the man, either, but this bit is absolutely unclear: Does it refer to efforts to clone endangered species? I haven't heard anything about it either. --KQ 19:49 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)
 * Stopping reintroduction of endangered species. (could someone clarify what this means? does it refer to a particular bill?)

209.155.42.182, your "baby seals" comment here clearly shows you're not taking this issue seriously, and greatly undermines your credibility to the point where we will be forced to check everything you do here. If you want to make a positive contribution, then log in and participate in the discussion here and try to make the article better. Behaving like a 12-year-old doesn't accomplish anything. --LDC

Well i added a link to i cnat rememebr it now on the page about his environmental issues. Its all on there.

I think the section of bullet points, beginning with not signing the Kyoto Protocol should be labeled "criticism by Environmentalists" and also moved down below the foreign policy section. Moreover, these bullet points collectively could become a new article -- called something like Environmentalist agenda. --Ed Poor

 * This especially became an issue during the 2000 election. Critics often portrayed Bush as intellectually inferior to his opponents, though his academic record and background was by and large comparable to his opponents. For example, Bush's verbal SAT score was 566; Bill Bradley's was 485, and Al Gore's 625. Gore received lower grades in his sophomore year at Harvard than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale.

The college grades are relevant -- in fact, we should also mention that Gore flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School -- because they relate to the "intellectually inferior" thing. Generally, an intellectual inferior would get worse grades than his superior. This was not the case with Bush, who did better than Gore. --Ed Poor

Well then we are going to have to have an explanation of how some people don't think grades are a good reflection of intelligence and it all kinda seems mudslinging anyways. Lir 21:24 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Also it would only be appropriate to list what grades they got in specific classes as they would certainly have bearing and do we have any evidence for these things at all? Lir 21:25 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

 * You raise some good points. You want to just make the article say something like this?

 * Democrats called Bush stupid because of grammar errors when speaking in public, and Republicans called Gore stupid because he flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.

 * Anyway, I don't own this article. Do as you like, if you think it really improves the article. --Ed Poor

Yah I suppose so. If somebody shows up with some in-depth info on their grades-it would be of interest, but otherwise it seems a bit much to me. Bush's SAT score is of interest but this whole, "Bush did better than Gore did during his sophomore year..." its all a bit much Lir 13:45 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

 * It has a bearing on American politics, particularly the relationship between the Republican administration and Democratic politicians and journalists. If weren't so lazy, I would write about the 2000 presidential campaign, listing the various planks in each side's platform, as well as how they characterized the other candidate's character and platform.

 * Democrats made a point of characterizing Bush as "stupid", "dumb", "inept", "looks like Alfred E. Neuman" while portraying Al Gore as exceptionally smart. Yet Bush earned a Harvard MBA while Gore never got a graduate degree. Also, Gore's analysis of the environment has so many logical holes in it: the whole global warming thing.

''So now you're an expert on global warming? Sorry, but you're just another pathetic ideologue. And the Bush camp (with the help of Repub-owned media) deftly attacked Gore on his *virtues*, painting him as an arrogant wonk, a stiff techno-head without common sense. Regardless of school scores, and regardless of any *comparisons*, Bush ain't exactly the sharpest tack in the world, and it's rather revealing of people who try to defend his mental accuity.''

 * But this would take more energy than I have right now. So like Bush I'll just say "fuzzy math" and leave it at that :-) --Ed Poor

But Gore's math wasn't fuzzy -- that dismissal is intellectually dishonest.

 * Whether or not Gore is particularly smart doesn't address the question of Bush's own intelligence (or lack thereof). Person A doesn't suddenly become less stupid just because person B is also not very bright.  Since this is an article about Bush, it seems to me that we should be focusing on his intelligence, not the intelligence of other people.  And for what it's worth, I'm not sure that SAT scores necesssarily correlate with intelligence, and comparing gradesis exremely problematic, because they can depend a lot on the curiculum (easy versus hard classes), and sometimes very smart people run into personal difficulties while in college and their grades drop.  None of this really proves anything about intelligence, and comparing Bush to Gore on this score really belongs in the article on the election, not in this article.  (Also, going back in time more than 30 years might also be problematic for proving present-day intelligence.  Sometimes the activities of, as the article so delicately puts it, a "misspent youth", can have a negative impact in that area.) :) soulpatch

 * You are right as usual, esp. about comparing Bush to Gore on this score really belongs in the article on the election, not in this article. Btw, did you see what I wrote in Talk:Walter_Mondale? --Ed Poor

Bush’s intelligence
When you have a word for how bad your speech is, e.g. Bushisms, then that says something about a) your grammar, and b) how you can coherently form sentences. Maybe falling off his bike did something to his head. so if you feel like criticizing gore's, or for that matter Kerry’s intelligence, then take a good hard look at your self, and maybe you should start criticizing your own intelligence. Hey, you voted for bush. ;-) -leftwinger4peace

I can't believe this.
I can't believe that this discussion has devolved into a discussion about George's intelligence. He's smart enough to get into office, so clearly he isn't stupid. He's been smart enough to snow the American people into believing that BOTH elections were legal, when Representative Conyers' report on the Ohio elections clearly shows that the election was rigged, both with the voting machines AND the bullying tactics that were used at Democratic voting venues. It's called "What Went Wrong in Ohio."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

He may have gotten a 565 on the SAT, but he's no dummy. He's got Dobermans like Karl Rove and Tom DeLay doing his dirty work for him.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 1


text:
Pinus balfouriana

Pinus balfouriana, the foxtail pine, is a rare high-elevation pine that is endemic to California, United States. It is closely related to the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain bristlecone pines, in the subsection Balfourianae.

Description
P. balfouriana is a tree to 10 - 20 m tall, exceptionally 35 m, with a trunk up to 2 m across. Its leaves are needle-like, in bundles of five (or sometimes four, in the southern Sierra) with a semi-persistent basal sheath, and 2 - 4 cm long, deep glossy green on the outer face, and white on the inner faces; they persist for 10–15 years. The cones are 6 – long, dark purple ripening red-brown, with soft, flexible scales each with a 1 mm central prickle.

Distribution
P. balfouriana occurs in the subalpine forest at an elevation of 1950 - 2750 m in the Klamath Mountains, and at 2300 - 3500 m in the Sierra Nevada. In the Sierra Nevada, Foxtail pines are limited to the area around Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. In both areas, it is often a tree line species.

There are two disjunct populations: A small outlying population was reported in southern Oregon, but was proven to have been misidentified.

Age
It is thought that P. balfouriana can live up to 3000 years in the Sierra Nevada, although the highest currently proven age is 2110 years. In the Klamath Mountains, ages are only known to about 1000 years.

Related species
P. balfouriana is closely related to the bristlecone pines, being classified in the same subsection Balfourianae; it has been hybridised with the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine in cultivation, though no hybrids have ever been found in the wild.

title: Pinus balfouriana


text:
Parkinson (TV series)

Parkinson was a British television chat show presented by Michael Parkinson. It was first shown on BBC One from 19 June 1971 to 10 April 1982 and from 9 January 1998 to 24 April 2004. Parkinson then switched to ITV on which the show continued from 4 September 2004 to 22 December 2007. A parallel series was shown in Australia on the ABC between 1979 and 1982. A series entitled Parkinson One to One was produced by Yorkshire Television from 28 March 1987 to 23 July 1988.

Parkinson was revived again as Parkinson: Masterclass on Sky Arts from 2012 to 2014.

Background
Parkinson began in 1971 when the host was offered a series of twelve shows by the BBC's Head of Light Entertainment, Bill Cotton. It was to be transmitted during the "summer lull" in a late-night slot on Saturdays (which continued throughout its run), plus from 1979 a second mid-week edition when the series was on air. A parallel series was shown in Australia between 1979 and 1982. That year, 1982, Parkinson left the BBC to be co-founder and presenter on the ITV breakfast television station TV-am, where after many schedule upheavals he ended up presenting the Saturday and Sunday morning programme with his wife, Mary Parkinson, until 1984.

Michael Parkinson would eventually return to the BBC for further series. However, in between his work for the BBC he did two series of chat shows for Yorkshire Television in 1987–1988 as Parkinson One to One, the format being an interview with a single guest (a practice occasionally employed during his time with the BBC).

He returned to the BBC in August 1995 to present a series of retrospective shows, Parkinson: The Interviews, featuring memorable excerpts, eventually presenting a new, revived version of his chat show on BBC One in January 1998. However, in April 2004, ITV announced that it had "poached" the interviewer from the BBC from the autumn of that year. Parkinson said that he was sad to be leaving the BBC but that he and the channel controller, Lorraine Heggessey, could not agree on a suitable slot for his show following the return of Premiership football highlights to the BBC One Saturday evening schedule. The ITV version of the programme, produced by Granada, debuted in September 2004, with an identical set, theme tune and format to the BBC edition. Its audience was around 6m viewers.

The last Parkinson run on the BBC (1998–2004) was one of the few recent British TV programmes that was not made in widescreen. However, his ITV show was recorded in the format with very tight close-ups.

Parkinson: Masterclass

Sir Michael Parkinson Describes it as a show he's always wanted to do. The series welcomes top-flight guests from across the artistic spectrum and, in his inimitable style, gains a fascinating and intimate insight into their careers via one-on-one interviews. He finds out how they have honed and perfected their techniques and abilities throughout their careers, and episodes also feature unique performances from the guests to demonstrate the work for which they have become so well-known. As well, the studio audience gets to ask questions of the guests. The audience is made up of the general public and students from a vast array of disciplines specially selected to gain insight into the subjects.

Programme format
Initially Bill Cotton was keen on a format more akin to the USA's Ed Sullivan Show, featuring entertainment and chat. However, Parkinson and his producer, Richard Drewett (who had worked on Late Night Line-Up), envisaged a combination of guests whose celebrity had been achieved in different fields. Their plan was that the final section of each show would become a conversation rather than a formal interview. The pair wanted to move the style as far as possible from the American prototype, even down to the removal of the host's desk, which Parkinson viewed as the "biggest obstacle to a proper interview". At first, Cotton was against this but Drewett convinced him otherwise.

A typical programme included three interviews, each lasting around 15 minutes. It was customary for the first two guests to remain after their own chats to observe and occasionally participate in those that followed. Such contributions were usually made respectfully, and when invited, though this policy backfired on occasion. In addition, some Hollywood stars were honoured in receiving a solo spot, Russell Crowe being one example. On occasion, an episode featured a single guest for its entire duration if the subject was deemed to be sufficiently deserving. This was the case in 2005 when Madonna appeared as part of her Hung Up Promo Tour; besides her interview she performed two songs.

There was usually a musical interlude at some point, featuring a current recording star. If a solo singer, he/she was accompanied by the show's musicians, who also provided the walk-on music for each guest. In the 1970s, the group was led by organist Harry Stoneham, who composed the show's theme tune. The role was undertaken by Laurie Holloway in the relaunched show.

Interviewing style
Michael Parkinson always sought guests who, besides being well known, had some sort of story to relate. He then saw his job as allowing them to tell it and did so by being open, relaxed and attentive. (He learnt very early on that in order to be an adept interviewer, he had to be a good listener.) He researched his subjects thoroughly, and, in the early shows, always had his list of questions to hand. Having guided them to an area of discussion, he rarely interrupted his guests – except to provide the occasional prompt – instead letting them expand on a particular topic. Sometimes, a person would warm to this style with unpredictable results. For example, he regards his chats with Shirley MacLaine as bordering on flirtatious. In his final programme, broadcast 22 December 2007, Parkinson stated that one of his most memorable interviews was with Jacob Bronowski in 1973.

Guests
By his own reckoning, Parkinson interviewed over 2,000 of the world's most famous people, including: Anthony Hopkins, Barry White, Barry, Robin and Maurice Gibb, Ben Elton, Bette Midler, Billie Piper, Billy Connolly, Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Bonnie Tyler, Buddy Rich, Cameron Diaz, Celine Dion, Cher, Clint Eastwood, Dame Edna Everage, Daniel Craig, Dave Allen, David Attenborough, David Beckham, David Bowie, David Tennant, Denzel Washington, Diana Ross, Dudley Moore, Dustin Hoffman, Edith Evans, Elaine Stritch, Elton John, Eric Idle, Ewan McGregor, Freddie Starr, Gary Glitter, Gene Wilder, George Best, George Michael, Geri Halliwell, Gillian Anderson, Harold Wilson, Helen Mirren, Ingrid Bergman, Jack Lemmon, Jennifer Lopez, Jeremy Clarkson, Joan Collins, Joan Rivers, John Cleese, John Lennon, Jon Pertwee, Judi Dench, Julie Andrews, Justin Timberlake, Kate Winslet, k.d. lang, Kenneth Williams, Leslie Thomas, Liberace, Luciano Pavarotti, Madonna, Mark Knopfler, Mel Gibson, Michael Caine, Michael Crawford, Michael Palin, Miss Piggy, Morecambe and Wise, Muhammad Ali, Naomi Campbell, Nicholas Lyndhurst, Noel Gallagher, Oliver Reed, Olivia Newton-John, Ozzy Osbourne, Paul McCartney, Paul Schrader, Peter Cook, Peter Kay, Peter Sellers, Peter Ustinov, Phil Collins, Pierce Brosnan, Raquel Welch, Ray Winstone, Richard Attenborough, Richard Burton, Richard Harris, Ricky Hatton, Robbie Coltrane, Robin Williams, Robert Redford, Rod Stewart, Ronnie Barker, Rowan Atkinson, Sandra Bullock, Sarah, Duchess of York, Sean Connery, Shane Warne, Sharon Osbourne, Shirley MacLaine, Simon Cowell, Thierry Henry, Tina Turner, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Tom Lehrer, Tommy Cooper, Tony Blair, Trevor McDonald, Victoria Beckham, Viggo Mortensen, and Walter Matthau.

During the 1970s, he attracted former big-name Hollywood stars, such as Fred Astaire, Orson Welles, James Stewart, John Wayne, Mickey Rooney, David Niven, Gene Kelly, James Cagney and Robert Mitchum, not on the basis that they had a film to promote, but simply because they wanted a chat. Despite this, Parkinson has since asserted that then as now, "there was just as much plugging in the seventies as at any time later. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the reason people come on to talk shows." In particular, he cites Bette Davis as being the guest who "more than anyone, made it clear she was there to plug a product, not because she was, or ever would be, your buddy."

Many guests appeared more than once and others on numerous occasions, Peter Ustinov was a guest on eight occasions. The record for most appearances is held by Scottish comedian Billy Connolly, having been a guest on fifteen occasions. His final appearance was in Parkinson's penultimate show, broadcast on 16 December 2007.

Rod Hull and Emu
Much to his chagrin, the most repeated clip is of Parkinson's interview with entertainer Rod Hull in 1976. While the pair were chatting, Hull's glove puppet, Emu, continually and (apparently) uncontrollably attacked the interviewer, eventually causing him to fall off his chair. Fellow guest Billy Connolly threatened, "If that bird comes anywhere near me, I'll break its neck and your bloody arm!" Hull swiftly got his "pet" back on best behaviour. Parkinson had always lamented the fact that despite all the star guests he had interviewed over the years, he would probably be remembered for "that bloody bird". However, in an appearance on the TV show Room 101, he got his chance of revenge when the host, Paul Merton, unexpectedly brought Emu locked in a guillotine on stage and Parkinson took his chance by beheading the puppet, saying, "Goodbye, you foul beast."

Notable moments

 * On his appearance in the 1970s series, Orson Welles insisted that Parkinson dispose of his list of questions beforehand, reassuring him, "We'll talk."
 * Reticent about discussing himself, Peter Sellers agreed to take part only if he were allowed to walk on as someone else. Once introduced, he appeared dressed as a member of the Gestapo, impersonating Kenneth Mars' role in The Producers, and performed a number of lines in character before removing his "mask". He then settled down for what is arguably one of Parkinson's most memorable interviews.
 * Richard Burton's chat had to be recorded during the afternoon, for fear that the notorious drinker would be inebriated by the evening if allowed sufficient access to alcohol. Accordingly, the audience was hastily convened and as a result, mainly comprised staff of the BBC canteen – still in their kitchen whites. Burton confessed afterwards that the view from the studio floor as he walked on made him think that the "men in white coats" had caught up with him at last.
 * During Kenneth Williams' second appearance in 1973, the talk turned to politics, and particularly the Carry On star's unsympathetic views for trade unions. Williams accepted an invitation to return three weeks later and discuss these with trade unionist Jimmy Reid. The hostile nature of their debate turned an entertainment show into something more akin to a serious current affairs programme, and the then Controller of BBC One Paul Fox, directed that the programme was not to venture into that sort of territory again. However, Williams would become one of Parkinson's most celebrated guests, making a total of eight appearances over the years.
 * In the interview with Helen Mirren in 1975 Parkinson suggested that her good "figure" could detract from her performance. Parkinson's attitude during the interview has been described as sexist by Mirren and many others. Although Mirren spoke dismissively about Parkinson in later interviews, she also laid part of the blame on the Zeitgeist, the seventies being a "perilous" period for women. "I feel it’s of its time, and of its time it’s embarrassing," Parkinson told Piers Morgan in 2019. "It was over the top, absolutely so."
 * Parkinson stated that the most remarkable man he ever interviewed was Muhammad Ali, who appeared four times on the show. During one appearance, the famously articulate Ali launched into an extraordinary tirade when Parkinson challenged him on the nature of his religious beliefs. This caused Parkinson to be lost for words.
 * Parkinson witnessed David Niven being physically sick in his dressing room shortly before his interview. The actor informed him that he had always suffered with nerves. However, once before the cameras, he proved to be an accomplished raconteur.
 * John Conteh was on the same show as Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. Parkinson asked the boxer if it was true that he never had sex before a fight. While Conteh looked embarrassed, Cook chipped in with an observation for the host: "I wouldn't ask you if you have sex before a show. I can see that you have."
 * When comedian Dave Allen appeared in an edition that was transmitted on Halloween in 1981, Parkinson invited his guest to read a suitably themed poem. As he did so in his familiar Irish brogue, and as the ghostly nature of the words became ever more unsettling, the studio lights were gradually dimmed, leaving just a spotlight on Allen. After completing the final line ("And now, as the witching hour approaches...") with much gravitas, he paused, before exclaiming, "What a load of crap!"
 * When the show was relaunched on the BBC in 1998, the star guest on the first programme was Sir Anthony Hopkins, who demonstrated his talent for mimicry by telling several Tommy Cooper jokes. The studio audience was very appreciative, and Parkinson was visibly gratified to the actor for getting his new series off to a good start.
 * On the programme featuring John Prescott, his own interview was followed by one with Phil Collins. However, the UK's Deputy Prime Minister interjected frequently and at great length during Parkinson's chat with the musician. The exasperated host finally pleaded, "May I have my guest back, please?"
 * Before being interviewed as a well-known comedian in his own right, Peter Kay was once a warm-up act for the Parkinson studio audience. In 2005, Parkinson returned the compliment by appearing alongside other UK celebrities such as Ronnie Corbett, Jim Bowen, Geoffrey Hayes and Shakin' Stevens on Kay's video with Tony Christie for their number one single, "(Is This the Way to) Amarillo".
 * In 1999, Woody Allen was visibly disturbed when the line of questioning turned to details of the custody battle for his children.
 * In October 2003, while in the UK to promote her film In the Cut, Meg Ryan made a controversial appearance on Parkinson, which resulted in negative publicity. The press accused both Ryan and Parkinson of being rude to one another. Ryan gave a few one-word answers, and after she acknowledged that she wasn't comfortable with the interview, Parkinson asked her what she would do if she were in his position now. She replied that she would "just wrap it up". Parkinson later revealed to the press that he felt her behaviour to his earlier guests, Trinny Woodall and Susannah Constantine, whom she turned her back on, was "unforgivable". Ryan also commented that Parkinson was a "nut" and said that she was "offended" by him as he was like a "disapproving father" in his tone. In a 2006 survey of British TV viewers, her behaviour on the show was voted the third "most shocking" TV chat show moment ever.
 * In an episode broadcast on ITV on 4 March 2006, Tony Blair became the first serving Prime Minister to be interviewed by Parkinson and volunteered the information that he believed he would be judged by God for the Iraq War. He also told of how Cherie Blair's father (Tony Booth) had asked if he could light a marijuana joint when they first met.
 * Parkinson was once asked if there was anyone that he regretted never having interviewed. He replied, "Sinatra was the one that got away. Otherwise, I've met everyone I have ever wanted to meet."

Retirement
Michael Parkinson announced his retirement on 26 June 2007:

After three enjoyable and productive years at ITV, and after 25 years of doing my talk show I have decided that this forthcoming series will be my last. I’m going to take next year off to write my (sic) autobiography and consider other television projects. My thanks go out to all those who have worked on the shows down the years and the viewers for their loyal support and occasional kind words.

The last regular Parkinson programme (the penultimate of the final series) was broadcast on ITV on 16 December 2007. An extended edition, it featured Billy Connolly, Peter Kay, Michael Caine, David Attenborough, Judi Dench, David Beckham, Jamie Cullum and Dame Edna Everage. The episode drew in 8.3 million viewers.

The last show, broadcast on 22 December 2007, showed memorable clips from previous interviews.

title: Parkinson (TV series)


text:
Sittella

The sittellas are a family, Neosittidae, of small passerine birds found only in Australasia. They resemble nuthatches, but whilst they were considered to be in that family for many years they are now afforded their own family. They do not migrate other than for local movements.

The sittellas are small woodland birds with thin pointed down-curved bills, which they use to extricate insects from bark. Nests are open cups in forked branches.

They were formerly classified in two separate genera with the black sittella in Daphoenositta and the varied and Papuan sittellas in Neositta. The two genera are now usually merged, with Daphoenositta having priority.

Evolution and taxonomy
The true evolutionary affinities of the sittellas have long been clouded by their close resemblance to the Northern Hemisphere nuthatches. As late as 1967 the sittellas were retained in that family by some authorities, although doubts about that placement had been voiced in the previous decades. Both their climbing technique and overall morphology are extremely similar; however they differ both in their sociality and their nesting behaviour, as sittellas create nests on branches whereas nuthatches nest in cavities in trees. In addition the specifics of the morphology of the leg differed, with sittellas having leg muscles more similar to those of the honeyeaters. Their placement was then moved to various families, including the Old World babblers (an infamous wastebasket taxon), the true treecreepers (Certhiidae, which range across the Holarctic and Africa) and the Australian treecreepers (Climacteridae). Their relationship with the Australian radiation of passerines was suggested by S.A. Parker on the basis of egg colour, nest structure and nestling plumage, and their position in this radiation was vindicated by Sibley and Ahlquist's DNA–DNA hybridization studies. These researchers placed the sittellas in a monotypic tribe within the superfamily Corvoidea. Today they are afforded their own family in a clade close to the berrypeckers and longbills (Melanocharitidae) and the whistlers (Pachycephalidae). A molecular genetic study published in 2019 found that the family Neosittidae was sister to the family Mohouidae containing the yellowhead, whitehead and pipipi.

The sittellas comprise a single genus, Daphoenositta, which contains two species. The two species were once considered to be two genera, but when the two were lumped the genus name of the less well known black sittella was adopted (due to priority), while the family retained the family name based on the junior synonym (Neositta). The most common species, the varied sittella, was once thought to represent several separate species, including five species in Australia, but in spite of considerable variation in plumage there are extensive zones of hybridization where the forms overlap (including an area of Queensland where all five Australian subspecies exist), and are now thought to be a single species with eleven subspecies. The black sittella has three recognized subspecies.

Daphoenositta trevorworthyi is a fossil sittella species from the middle Miocene, representing the oldest known fossil record of the sittella family. The species was described from a distal tibiotarsus discovered in the Riversleigh World Heritage Area in northwestern Queensland, Australia.

Morphology
The two species of sittella are small passerines which resemble nuthatches in appearance. The wings are long and broad, and when spread have clearly fingered tips. The family has a generally weak flight, which may explain their inability to colonize suitable habitat on islands like Tasmania. The legs are short but they have long toes, but in spite of their lifestyle they show little adaptation towards climbing. They have short tails and are between 10 and 14 cm in length and 8 and 20 g in weight, the black sittella tending to be slightly larger and heavier. The bill is dagger shaped in the case of the black sittella and slightly upturned in the varied sittella. The plumage of the black sittella is mostly black with a red face; that of the varied sittella is more complex, with the numerous subspecies having many variations on the theme. The sexes of some subspecies have entirely black heads, other white, and others dark crowns and paler throats. The backs of most subspecies are grey with darker wings, and the undersides are generally streaked or white. All sittellas exhibit some sexual dimorphism in plumage.

Vocalizations
The calls of sittellas are generally simple and uncomplicated. Apparently the family has no need for long distance territorial calls, and the majority of calls are simple contact calls utilized to retain flock cohesion. The most commonly heard call is the chip contact call, although there also exists a rallying call (to call together the group), as well as begging calls issued by incubating females.

Habitat and behaviour
The sittellas are social and generally restless birds of scrub, forests and woodlands. In Australia they generally avoid only the dense rainforest, whereas in New Guinea this is the only habitat they inhabit, avoiding only lowland forest. They generally live at low densities, between 0.1 and 0.6 birds per hectare, and are sedentary. The sittellas are generally highly social, usually being found in groups of five or more individuals and only more rarely in pairs. Studies of varied sittellas in New South Wales suggest that they live in clans of eight to twelve individuals and defend mutual territories against other groups. Within the groups, mutual preening is common, and in the evening the groups roost communally as well. Birds traveling to the evening roosts do so at slightly different times, timing their arrival at 30–60 second intervals, presumably so as not to attract the attention of potential predators. Roost sites are usually high in trees on slightly inclined dead branches. All the birds in the group roost next to each other, touching, and facing the same direction. Amongst Australian birds varied sittellas are usually the first to arrive at roost sites in the evening and the last to leave in the morning, although they are not necessarily the first to sleep or last to wake. At the roost site the position occupied along the branch is generally not random; instead males generally adopt positions at the edges of the group whilst young birds tend to be found in the centre.

Diet and foraging
The principal component of the diet of sittellas are insects and other arthropods. In one study in New South Wales adult beetles were the most common component (~36%) of the varied sittella's diet; particularly favoured were weevils, ladybirds, leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae) and click beetles (Elateridae). A further quarter of the diet was composed of spiders and true bugs. Also taken were beetle and moth larvae, grasshoppers, termites, wasps and bees. Ants were taken relatively infrequently compared to other Australasian birds in similar niches. The proportion of any one item in the diet apparently varies geographically and seasonally, for example another study found that beetle larvae composed 87% of the diet. The diet of the black sittella has, like other aspects of its biology, been little studied, although the stomach contents of one that were examined contained caterpillars and spiders.

Sittellas forage on horizontal branches and the trunks of trees. Their foraging techniques has been described as hopping rapidly along the length of a horizontal branch, pausing briefly to peer for prey, and occasionally hanging underneath the branch but usually on top of it. Most of the time is spent on branches rather than on the trunks. Birds on the trunks may travel upwards or downwards. Within the forest sittellas usually forage in the canopy. There are sexual differences in foraging, with males and females choosing to forage in slightly different microhabitats within the tree. Prey items are usually gleaned directly from the bark, although in a few instances sittellas will sally from the branch in order to snatch aerial prey. Having obtained prey sittellas will use their feet to hold it while they eat it, in a similar manner to parrots, and will also use their feet in order to hold back strips of bark in order to pry underneath it. There have even been isolated reports of tool use in some populations of sittellas. Sticks were used to pry boring beetle larvae out of cavities, in a similar fashion to that of tool using woodpecker finches of the Galápagos Islands.

Breeding
Very little is known about the breeding of either of the two species of sittella in New Guinea, although black sittellas in breeding condition have been observed August and May, suggesting that they may either be biannual breeders or year round breeders. The varied sittella populations in Australia are cooperative breeders (and the group composition of black sittellas suggest they are too), and possibly have to be in order to be successful. There is some evidence that not only to groups cooperate in raising the young, not an uncommon strategy in birds, but have a plural breeding system, where more than one pair inside the group nest, and the group help raise both broods. There have even been instances of two females sharing a nest.

95% of the nests found in a study in New South Wales were in stringybarks, particularly the species Eucalyptus macrorhycha. The nests were almost always located high in the tree. Nest construction took around 7 days, but lining and decorating the nest added a few days to this. Nest building duties were shared amongst the group, and the speed of construction depended on how many birds were involved. Nests are usually placed in the prong of two branches, and is a deep cup decorated in the bark of the tree it is built in, thereby camouflaging it. Around 2–3 eggs are laid and incubated by the breeding female (or females if two are sharing the nest) for 19–20 days. Whilst incubating the breeding female is fed by the breeding male and helpers. After hatching the female broods the young for a few days, and for up to two weeks at night. The chicks are fed for 19–20 days in the nest. After fledging the chicks have a protracted period of parental care lasting up to 80 days, although 60 days is more usual.

title: Sittella


text:
Talk:Dimitri II of Russia

There were 2 false Dimitries. Why there is only 1 on the list?

title: Talk:Dimitri II of Russia


text:
User:Adam Carr/Talk Archive2

Hey, do you mind if I put your picture of Marathon inside of a table? I was going to fix up the Battle of Marathon article to match the other WikiProject Battles (with the template and such). If I did that though, it would need to be smaller, but with a link to the larger picture of course. I just thought I should ask first since it's your picture :) Adam Bishop 01:00, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If we called it the Roman Empire all the way through to 1453, that might be a little confusing...it's not centred on Rome, they don't speak Latin, they aren't pagan, and by 1453 at least they don't have much in common at all with the old empire. I know they considered themselves Romans, as did the rest of Europe unless it interfered with some political consideration, but I think in this case the 19th century historians are right to use a different name.

Anyway, if you have more pictures to add, that would be great! Would you happen to have a picture of Mistra? I found some good ones but none of them were public domain... Adam Bishop 03:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! I've never been to Mystras, or Europe at all...I will make it someday, I'm sure. As for Epidauras, don't worry, there are plenty of Greek cities that still need articles and pictures. Eretria is the one I see most often, I have just never gotten around to writing anything about it! Adam Bishop 04:00, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, good work on various articles. (It is nice having another PhD about the place.) Can I please urge you to desist from making critical personal comments about Lir. You appear to aware of the past history there. (I was one of his major critics.) However since coming back he has been IMHO genuinely trying to put his past behind him and simply work on articles. In doing so he has impressed a number of his former critics, including User:172, who was a very outspoken critic of his in the past but is a strong supporter of his work since his return. Given that there are some on wikipedia who have what they feel are scores to settle with Lir, I think it wise to avoid becoming the vehicle that triggers off another Lir war. Some people think he has not changed and is simply biding his time. I disagree and do believe, to use that old catholic phrase, that he has a 'firm purpose of amendment'. But I think the guy needs space to be allowed to prove himself. After the roasting he got in the past he is highly defensive at the moment. Perhaps his critics are right, but I don't think so, and do believe he is trying to do the right thing. But it would be a great pity is someone of his ability ended up driven from wikipedia by criticism of what happened many months ago, even though he has not repeated that behaviour and is trying to put it behind him. Basically, give the guy space at the moment. By all means be critical of specific edits you disagree with, but don't make generalised judgmental statements about him, for in the current climate, they risk bringing those with old scores they wish to settle back onto the talk pages to ignite Lir War III and driving the guy away. lol FearÉIREANN 04:24, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re: changing Nazi Germany to Germany; its a pet peeve of mine and I hope my endorsement of your action does not enduce you to change it back. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Oh the joys of historiography. I am a history nut and can be driven mad by attempts at biased history on wikipedia, as you saw with Mother Teresa. I am expecting the cowpat to hit the fan next on Pope Pius XII, given that Erik, as well as his thing about MT, also has a thing about PP. Neither MT nor PP are exactly favourites of mine, but trying to use neutral language and balanced content is and Erik's 'case for the prosecution' style, though well meaning, can be infuriating to professional historians. Turning Catholicism from a hotch-potch of nutty theories and agendas into a proper encyclopædic article was a nightmare, with even left wing athiests like User:172 horrified at the POVs being pushed. (And neutrality, of course, interpreted as 'censoring truth', ie, the agenda-pushing analysis of one side or the other.)

Maybe, if you get the chance, you might look up Pope Pius XII and give it an academic analysis. It needs more properly researched evidence from the critics, as opposed to the current mention of one discredited play. And its defenders section makes statements that may be fact or well written spin by a Pius defender; which, I'm not sure until I can do more research. I've simply added in stuff from good quality sources that I have been able to lay my hands on. lol FearÉIREANN 05:28, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Great article on Ronald Munro-Ferguson, I've highlighted it on the main page. - user:zanimum

If it is the intention to link to the country article, then try Britain so we don't lead readers to a history of the term Britain, which is quite irrelevant in this context. --Jiang 06:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam,

It was only after I had had a go at Socialism that I noticed your intention to edit it. Had I known, I probably wouldn't have gotten involved. However, having done so, I found I had to revert a number of large deletions by Alun, who made the text exceedingly Anglocentric (an improvement?!?!), adding bits that were badly written and/or wrong. He then undid many of my changes, and I tried once again to merge everything. As it now stands, virtually all of the previous text plus his contributions are joined together, not always smoothly. As you will seen in the Talk page, I have implored him not to make any more deletions without discussing things first.

I have a favor to ask of you: now I know you are a superb writer and editor, and I know that many articles here have had too many authors and need a strong hand, and I don't want to cramp your style, but could you please tread judiciously in this case? As you will see if you review the recent Talk messages, I am trying to make Alun understand that he can't be quite so single-minded, that has to edit more circumspectly, and that he has to discuss major deletions. He is a young -- 16 -- and doesn't have a very highly developed sense of his own limitations. Hence, could I ask you, if you plan to delete any paragraphs or sections, to list them on Talk with your reasons? I know it is cumbersome but we need to set a good example.

I hope the article doesn't undergo any further bizarre mutations from the time I post this to the time you start working on it. I look forward to seeing what you do with it!

-- Viajero 20:42, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Alun is certainly keen but doesn't have a fully developed understanding of NPOV. His article on the history of British Socialism is appalling, for example and reads like an authorised history of the Labour Party. Secretlondon 11:22, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Adam, could you have a look at Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian billionaire behind bars. I've done my best, but it needs work. Karl Marx

You're welcome. Since reverting occasional vandalism is so easy, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether user pages are protected or not; the end effect is the same. Some people suffer from targeted vandalism, e.g. Hephaestos is targeted by Michael; in such cases, protecting the page is energy-saving measure. And sometimes friendly people do make useful alterations to one's user page. -- Cyan 04:55, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand what GH is saying to be honest. If it was part of the history of Poland, I can't see why he objects to it being in the article about the history of Poland. Anyway, I'm not getting involved in a history fight. You historians are too scary. Maybe you should ask Jtdirl or 172 as they'll likely understand the issue more than I do. Angela 16:54, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

I think you are very brave to get involved in the dispute of competing nationalisms which has enveloped every debate on Poland and Prussia. I wish you luck Secretlondon 11:22, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

I have absolutely no recollection of editing any of your conversations with Szopen, nor does my "user contributions" page indicate that I have done so. What are you referring to? john 09:37, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear Adam

I am afraid, your knowledge about Holocaust in Poland is highly POV. I oppose putting nonsenses about eternal Polish anti-Semitism as NPOV. To build the true picture one must take into account very complicated mixture of Nazi crimes, Soviet crimes, Polish resistance and Polish-Jewish tensions, including anti-Semitism. Have you ever read "Sofie's Choice"? It is excellent book, and gives balanced kicks everyone. However, it doesn't take into account problem of responsibility for communism, that is so complicated problem, that nobody yet wrote nothing resambling balanced view.

After all, you can blame Poles from Jewish POV, and dead Jews can be blamed from Polish POV, but the NPOV is that both nations suffered terribly from the hands of Nazis. I am not sure if you are able to write something NPOV, so maybe both sides should blame each other, so we have more then one POV. Better then nothing.

What you don't understand for sure, is that General Government is not the name of German administration in Poland, but it is the name of German colony, that consists of about 30% area of Poland. Putting the description of the administrative divisions of the whole Poland, to General Government make equal sense to putting administrative divisions of Britsh Empire to article about England alone.

However, you are right, that those description, that doesn't apply to GG should be removed form GG. (Please do it). GH

Huh - I have absolutely no memory of doing that - nor do I have any idea why I would do that. I'd also note that if you check out my "user contributions" page, it doesn't show said edit. Apologies if I did somehow do it, but I really have no idea how that came about. john 21:17, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure how it would then appear in the article history as though I'd done it, though...it's all very strange. I do recall looking at the Szopen talk page, but I certainly have no memory of reverting (or of typing in an edit summary about reverting, which indicates that it can't have been done inadvertently). Very strange... john 19:33, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello there, I noticed you are a profesional historian, so I wondered if you could take a look at this article I wrote: Great Depression in the United Kingdom. I tried to get User:172 to look at it but he seems too busy. I just wondered if you could give me any feedback and/or tips from a profesional: cheers G-Man 01:10, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Liked your addition to Poetry re the Greek: maybe it would be useful to add the old English scop, which shares a root with the modern 'shape'? Cheers Bmills 11:15, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suppose I was thinking that while the Greek is the direct root of the English words, the concept of the poet as Old English scop/shaper, Scots makar/maker is a common thread in many European traditions (although the Irish file is cognate with 'to see'). So that the idea is not just Greek, but also vernacular? Bmills 13:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, we had a brief exchange about overlinking awhile back. At the moment, a discussion about this has resumed at Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context and I would be most interested in hearing your views as a professional historian. I feel that wikipedia links should be used judiciously and only to link higher-order concepts related to a given article, but to my dismay I seem to be in the distinct minority here about that. Thanks. -- Viajero 13:42, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam. Sorry it took me so long to get back. We have a major new exhibition opening in my Museum on Monday, so I don't know whether I am coming or going. As for the Armenian quote: I remember reading somewhere that it is one of the "urban legends of the Holocaust" and that Hitler never really said it. I do not know, but I have been unable in the little time I have to track the source of the quote either. Danny 00:01, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On the Armenians, please see [[media:Adamthwaite219.jpg|p219]], [[media:Adamthwaite220.jpg|p220]], and [[media:Adamthwaite221.jpg|p221]] which I extracted from amazon.com (told you it was a useful resource). Then please ask Danny to hard-delete them as they are a possible copyright issue. I'd want to look at the paper of Koch cited on p219 before saying anything about the authenticity. However it does seem that this "speech" appeared during the war and its provenance is an issue. I should have just left for a week away from home so I'll leave this in your hands. --Zero 00:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am just thankful RK didn't see that. LOL. Danny 11:48, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I haven't had the pleasure of RK's company. Adam

Hi Adam, the work on the translation is great but Wikipedia is not a place for source texts. It really needs to be placed at Wikisource. Are you aware of the discussion of the same article at the Polish Wikipedia? It is at Dyskusja źródeł:Protest Zofii Kossak-Szczuckiej if you are interested. I was not able to understand the whole discussion but it seems to have been decided to implement a Źródła (Sources) namespace instead of moving the text to Wikisource. I was speaking to Taw about it and it seems the namespace is preferred over ps because the interface of ps is in English. I think the article on the English Wikipedia should be an explanation of what the document is with a link to the full text at the Wikisource address. I appreciate the work that you and GH are putting into the translation, but it is best that this is moved to a proper location. Angela 21:37, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Adam, i see you're still here and making a fuss (and i bet proud of it :) ). I just had a look in Zofia Kossak-Szczucka and i have a comment for you (since you written it an i also wanted to say hello): dont you think the debate part should be better if not in "dialogue" - that is summarized? Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 11:52, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Photos don't require captions if they are unambiguous; please see the Manual of Style. - Hephaestos 13:56, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * If you don't want me to copy-edit the articles you write (uniformly excellent ones, I might add) I will of course respect that; if you expect nobody to do it I'm afraid you will be sorely disappointed. This is a wiki. - Hephaestos 14:09, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Again, refer to the manual of style. These are accepted norms. In my opinion removing the caption does improve the readability of the article.  There's no reason the reader should be repeatedly beaten over the head with what the article is about, once he or she is past the first couple of sentences.  Were I to do a complete copy edit I would also probably change "Kurt Schumacher" to simply "Schumacher", for example. - Hephaestos 14:20, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * As a contributor of 600 captioned photos. I think you are correct, Adam. Any photo without a caption looks quite odd to me, I can't explain why. So no matter how obvious the subject, I would always use a caption. Just looks unprofessional without it!
 * Adrian Pingstone 14:32, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Hi Adam. I left a note last night about the spelling. The two English-language biographies I have at home, Heiber and Manvell, give his name as Joseph. Heiber even goes on to say that his name is spelled "Joseph Göbbels" on his birth certificate. I will try and check some more sources today, but I have an incredibly hectic day (exhibition opening tonight, and I'm running a symposium tomorrow). Danny 11:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

''Re List of socialists - is there another Herbert Morrison? Adam 06:27, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)''

The other is Herbert Morrison (announcer), he is the fellow who narrated the Hindenburg disaster. - SimonP 04:14, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand your point about not existing term Lubus in English. If you write let say an article about the geography of China. If the name of the province doesn't exists in English, you simply should adopt local name. In the matter of fact, some territories that were taken over by Poland after WWII in the West, didn't belong either to Pomerania or Silesia, but they were known under term Ziemia Lubuska when they belonged to Poland. The term is also mentioned in the German vikipedia see Neumark. Before WWII they belonged to Brandenburg province, but Brandenburg is located even West from Berlin. The best idea is to introduce the term Lubus that is even the name of Polish Voivodship. GH

I don't agree. In English these territories are generally known by their German names. My pre-war German atlas tells me that all the annexed territories were in East Prussia, Pomerania, Brandenburg or Silesia. English-speaking readers don't need to know their historical Polish names in this article. Adam 08:39, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also, what to the words Natolin and Pulawy mean in English? Adam

http://www.rochester.edu/College/McNair-Program/2000Journal%20/History2000.html

Names of the towns, where communist factions gathered. GH

While I read that, this will interest you also:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa/REGIONAL/ECE/gluchowski.pdf Adam

At the first sight seems interesting. Requires further reading.GH

Dear Adam, just to tell you that i found arborealoids very funny. I think you put the finger in a serious problem in a very stilish manner... Cheers, Muriel 12:17, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Adam, could you possibly post it as a personal subpage? (assuming you still have the markup). Thanks -- Finlay McWalter 22:59, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Funniest thing I've read in a while, and a very serious point. Glad to see it appeared to have some effect, too. Bmills 16:28, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I promise to look at it over the weekend. After Sunday, life returns to normal. YAY! Danny 01:38, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On Zionism, yes we are close. I have a few small edits I want to make in the next day or two. --Zero 11:57, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(Apologies for re-editing). I may not answer in some hours bc I am quite busy today. Pfortuny 16:24, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What I got with respect to Aplank is what I wrote and his "signature". There is no more. Also, I only stated my opinion, I did not know it was definitive for the unblocking of the article. Please do paste this text there if you think it proper. I have also been surprised at its de-blocking... Pfortuny 16:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As you can see, Wik has reverted your edits to Adolf Hitler. I have reverted to include your edits. I hope you can appreciate my cooperative actions. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Saddam was avowedly anti-socialist. Lirath Q. Pynnor

If you happen to have the books you recommend for "further reading" on hand, it would be nice if you could include the ISBN, so it automatically shows up as a link (e.g., ISBN 1-57835-065-4). --Jiang

...of course I do. --Jiang

Dear Adam, i followed your example in the Augustus Caesar and just finnish the rewrite of Julius Caesar. Care to have a look in an inoffensive (i sure hope) topic? I see you are involved in the Macedonian fun. Beware with the signatures! Cheers, Muriel 13:33, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are smart. That's why i asked you to read. I was not sure, that was in the old version, i'll remove it. Muriel
 * Good night then (here is 3pm). And please do check the text. I'm not famous for my grammar... Cheers, Muriel

I'm happy. Just make sure you guys agree with any changes I made. Danny 04:59, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm happy for the Zionism article to move to its final resting place. --Zero 12:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You seem to put in random values for image widths. If you put them in at all (not really necessary) you should use the correct value. You can get it by displaying the image by itself then using "page info" or whatever your browser has to see information about the page. --Zero 12:56, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

i've started work on a 3DB article for Wiki at 3DB

If you're more informed then me about DB's history could you flesh the article out thank you.

PMA 13:04, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for you're edits and comments on the great depression UK article by-the-way, I will consider them. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you G-Man 12:38, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You should be advised that someone other than the anonymous IP that used to sign as GH has claimed the username GH, so the anonymous IP formerly known as GH is now AM. -- Cyan 02:43, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(Pasted from Talk:John Howard)

It may come as a shock to some, but society is divided along lines of class, and different classes tend to have different views about political issues because they have different interests in those issues. It has been one of the most consistent facts of Australian political history that the majority of working-class Australians have been opposed to immigration, because of the belief that immigrants take jobs from Australian workers. This belief may be true or false, but it is idle to deny that the belief is widespread (see White Australia Policy. The central fact about the 2001 election was Howard's success in using the Tampa issue to arouse working-class fears about immigration (in this case illegal immigration) and using this to drive a wedge between the two parts of the ALP's base, the working class and the middle class left. Adam 04:19, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but was the ALP's election loss the result of John Howard's scaremongering or Kim Beazley's failure to adequately respond? Or a combination of both? Gosh politics is a complicated thing. I can't believe I even considered a career in politics. --  Mark Ryan 04:32, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Beazley succeeded in persuading the majority of working-class voters that an ALP govt would take an equally strong line on illegal immigration. (It was after all the ALP govt which introduced mandatory detention). If Beazley had taken the Carmen Lawrence line, the ALP would have lost 20 seats rather than the four they did lose. The price he paid for that was that large numbers of middle-class ALP voters voted Green instead, but since most of those votes came back as preferences that cost the ALP no seats. Adam 04:43, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * You sound like you don't think Carmen Lawrence's election as President of the ALP would be good bad thing for the party. -- Mark Ryan

The ALP has a fundamental problem in that its activist core is mostly from the middle-class left, while a large part of its voting base is still from the traditional working class. In opposition the activists are dragging the party to the left, a trend Crean is too weak to resist. Lawrence polled 8,000 votes, but there are probably a million voters who the ALP has lost since 1993. The activists have indulged themselves by electing Lawrence president, but the ALP won't win an election until it has a leader who can take the party back to where its voters are. Adam 04:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Have you noticed that Simon Creane doesn't really smile? Like, even when he does smile, his eyes don't smile. - Mark Ryan

I've always thought (speaking as an ALP member) that Crean was a hopeless loser. He's only still in the job because the left are propping him up for fear of having Beazley back. Beazley is the only Labor leader the electorate likes or trusts, but I guess we will now have to let Crean lose us another election before we can get rid of him. Adam

 * I've never really liked Kim Beazley, from what I've seen of him. He reminds me an awful lot of Paul Keating, since both of them (along with Peter Costello) are the sorts of politicians who think that they are serving their electorates by standing up in parliament and acting like small children. I have nothing terribly against Paul Keating, since his economic reforms were excellent, but I like Prime Ministers more like Bob Hawke... slightly placid and more like a Statesman. The seemingly overbearing attitude of Kim Beazley reminds me a lot of the bully in the playground in primary school: dominant, scary and homophobic. Not exactly the sort of people I like. -- Mark Ryan

Having met KB several times I can assure you that is a very mistaken impression. He is as scary as my teddy-bear, extremely intelligent, very funny, with a strong social conscience. I think he is one of the great PMs we never had. He is conservative on some matters, but (as a gay journalist) I have never heard of him being homophobic. Adam

Hey,

I just created some redirects to the Governor General of Australia articles (User:Jiang/redirect). It's always a good idea to create redirects for all possible variations of a name (esp. full names and nicknames) not only to prevent the creation of duplicate articles, but to increase the chances someone will stumble on something you wrote.

Consider doing the same for the Australian PM articles, if I don't get to it first. --Jiang

And a happy Sunday to you, Dr Carr...

Yea, it's all very wonderful. I'm taking my standard 1 hour break between physics problem sets. I'd hoped to get drunk (or something), but my roommate got sick so I had to flee Berkeley. Home sweet home. Cheers, Jiang

I just read it. It's quite comprehensive in my opinion, but then, I've learned most of it just now. (They didn't teach us most of this in (our American) high school.) I haven't talked extensively with anyone old enough who would remember. The Free Speech Movement was last brought up in my presence during orientation. --Jiang 10:36, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maybe something to do with bio and engineering? Fake arms? Microsopic needles? Beats me...

Yes, it does sound a bit nasty to me also. Perhaps that's why I chose it. I will be able scare people with my degree. --Jiang

FYI: I had to list History of Arab and Ottoman Egypt as a possible copyright violation. I know you were just splitting the article. I suspect some of the adjacent text from the original article is also a copyright violation, I'll check. Daniel Quinlan 08:39, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Adam, in case you dont know this already:
 *
 * Cheers, Muriel

That's a brilliant article on Oxyrhynchus. It sets a high standard. Wetman 00:39, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Did you say brilliant? Recommend it to Wikipedia:Brilliant prose! --Menchi 00:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks. Adam

In regards to unprecedented set of falsehoods about me the Talk:Zionism page, you need to be aware that Zero0000 and Danny have a personal animosity towards me. Zero0000 has been angry at me when I called him on his past gross statements towards Jews (he repeatedly claimed that public death threats to mass-murder Jews does not count as anti-Semitism.) I would strongly urge you not to believe a word they say about me; as I hope you can see for yourself, they are fabricating positions I do not have, and ruthlessly attacking for them. Zero0000's latest statements are not only incorrect, but paranoid. This is grossly dishonest behaviour, and it causes me to question all the other things they have written. I don't care if people disagree with me, but fabricating positions I do not have, and insulting me for such non-existent positions, obviously makes any form of cooperation impossible. I am uncertain of how much longer I can stay on Wikipedia if I repeatedly harassed in this fashion. RK 02:37, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

I am most definitely not getting involved in your disputes with Zero and Danny. I have found all three of you to be intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues involved in this article, and I wish you would conduct your feuds elsewhere. As far as I can see you are arguing about one sentence in the post-zionism section. If no agreement can be reached I will delete the whole paragraph, which is pretty marginal anyway. Adam 03:14, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam -- About History of Arab and Ottoman Egypt, I can't promise anything. (I already have several contributions stacked up that need to be finished & added to Wikipedia, as well as some research I'm trying to integrate into some existing articles.) What I'm doing at the moment is making some tweaks & obvious & easy fixes as I read this "slab of text." At 178kb in size, it's going to need some dicing to fit into more malleable pieces; it's a bitch just to view over my dial-up connection. Hopefully, even if I don't modernize what's there, I can make it clear to the next volunteer what the next steps should be with this potentially useful chunk of information. -- llywrch 05:23, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations on Oxyrhynchus. Beautifully written and very clearly illustrated. Adrian Pingstone 08:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Not to pour water over your face, but you should really attribute those images. Not that we don't trust you, but it should be done for Wiki's sake. Apparently some people don't bother doing them, but it's just one URL: One copy-and-paste. Plus, people may, out of mere curiosity, want to see more pictures where they come from. Thanks for your attention. --Menchi 08:53, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Seconded. I hadn't noticed the lack of image attribution.
 * Adrian Pingstone 20:31, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * When we speak of attributing the source of an image, we don't mean stick it on the photo (as a caption or subtitle), we mean to place them in the image description page, like this. Adrian above, for example, has done that for every single photo he uploaded -- This applies equally to photos not taken by yourself and those that are.

 * Now, even though sticking your name on your photo is not what we mean by attribution, from my understanding, that is not against the GNU policy, but most people don't like that. It feels territorial of one's ownership. I personally don't mind it, but the best approach is to simply type up the source in the image description page. --Menchi 00:42, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry to follow you around Menchi but a few more examples might help Adam. Have a look at Trainer, Giotto di Bondone, and Airshow, click on the pic and you can see how I handle pic descriptions (which is what we meant by image attribution).
 * Adrian Pingstone 08:37, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

-

Hi Adam, do you know anything about the copyright status of the Protest of Zofia Kossak-Szczucka article that you worked on? It is now at Wikisource and Ec has asked for confirmation that it is not a copyvio. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Thank you. Angela 20:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: User:Adam Carr/Talk Archive2


text:
Metropolitan Borough of Hampstead

Hampstead was a civil parish and metropolitan borough in London, England. It was an ancient parish in the county of Middlesex, governed by an administrative vestry. The parish was included in the area of responsibility of the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1855 and became part of the County of London in 1889. The parish of Hampstead became a metropolitan borough in 1900, following the London Government Act 1899, with the parish vestry replaced by a borough council. In 1965 the borough was abolished and its former area became part of the London Borough of Camden in Greater London.

Geography
It included Primrose Hill, Hampstead, Belsize Park, West Hampstead, South Hampstead, much of Hampstead Heath and part of Kilburn and Cricklewood. Some street signs still bear the 'Borough of Hampstead' name.

Ecclesiastical parish
The ancient parish, was originally dedicated to St Mary, but in 1747 it was rededicated to St John. It was in the Diocese of London. From 1852, as the population of Hampstead increased, a number of new parishes were formed:
 * Christ Church, Hampstead. in 1852
 * St Saviour, Haverstock Hill, in 1856
 * St Mary, Kilburn in 1856
 * St Peter, Belsize Park in 1859
 * St Paul, Avenue Road in 1864
 * St Stephen, Hampstead in 1869
 * Trinity, West Hampstead in 1872, (renamed Holy Trinity in c.1930)
 * St Mary the Virgin, Primrose Hill in 1873
 * Emmanuel, West Hampstead in 1885
 * St Cuthbert, West Hampstead in 1886
 * St James, West Hampstead in 1888
 * St Luke, West Hampstead in 1898

In addition, as the population of neighbouring areas increased, parts of Hampstead parish were included in new parishes:
 * All Souls, St John's Wood in 1865 with parts of All Saints, St John's Wood
 * St Augustine, Kilburn in 1870 with parts of St Mark, Marylebone and St Saviour, Paddington

Coat of arms
The arms were granted in 1931, and are based on a device used by the Hampstead Vestry without authority, and adopted by the Council on its formation in 1900.

The mitre stands for the Westminster Abbey, to which the Manor of Hampstead was granted by Ethelred the Unready in 986, and remained in its possession until 1539. The fleurs-de-lys and stag's head are from the arms of the Hickes family, one of whom, Viscount Camden, purchased the Manor. On his death in 1629 it passed to the Noel family from whose arms are taken the fretty chief. The Manor was sold to Sir William Langthorne in 1707, who is represented by the white cross and red fleurs-de-lys from his arms.

The holly is from the seal of the old Hampstead Vestry, which grows profusely in the area.

Charges from these arms were used, together with charges from the coats of arms of Holborn and of St. Pancras, when the new coat of arms of the London Borough of Camden was designed in 1965.

The former coat of arms can still be seen on Hampstead War Memorial.

Population and area
The metropolitan borough was conterminous with the Vestry authority, when it was formed in 1900. Statistics compiled by the London County Council, in 1901 to show the population growth in London, over the preceding century.

Hampstead had an area of 2265 acre in 1901. The populations recorded in National Censuses were:

Hampstead Vestry 1801-1899 Metropolitan Borough 1900-1961

Politics
Under the Metropolis Management Act 1855 any parish that exceeded 2,000 ratepayers was to be divided into wards; however the parish of St John Hampstead did not exceed this number so was not divided into wards. By 1873 its population had increased enough for the incorporated vestry to be divided into four wards (electing vestrymen): No. 1 (18), No. 2 (15), No. 3 (15) and No. 4 (12).

In 1894 as its population had increased further so the incorporated vestry was re-divided into five wards (electing vestrymen): Town (18), Belsize (12), Adelaide (9), Kilburn (21) and West End (12).

The metropolitan borough was divided into seven wards for elections: Adelaide, Belsize, Central, Kilburn, Priory, Town and West End.

Parliament constituency
For elections to Parliament, the borough was represented by one constituency:
 * Hampstead

title: Metropolitan Borough of Hampstead