text:
Talk:Judeo-Islamic tradition/Archive 1

My main objection to this article is not in the specifics of the content (which is pretty good -- I would stress the worship fo the same God, and the sometimes dynaimic exchanges between Jewish and Muslim scholars at particular times, e.g. the Golden Age), but with the nature of the article itself. I know of no such tradition, and if it exists it is, like most traditions, "invented" traditions that take on meaning at a particular time and place for particular reasons. So if this "tradition" really exists, the article should say more about who has written about it, and to what audience; who more generally uses the term, and to what ends. Slrubenstein

I think that the article pretty clearly sums it up by saying that it is a term used for discussing similarities between Islam and Judaism, but for good measure, I've added a list of examples of the terms Judeo-Islamic tradition and Judeo-Islamic for your reading pleasure. Silver Maple

RK: Please stop inserting neologism/newly coined phrase into the article until you can: Substantiate your claim. Explain why it is so important to say that judeo-islamic tradition is a neologism, and not (for example) Black hole or political correctness, which are used as typical examples of neologisms in the neologism page itself. Silver Maple

 * No one needs to substantiate a claim that a new term is, in fact, a new term. If you wish to assert that this term has existed for a long time, the onus would be on to you to prove this claim. (And if you wished to do so, I'd start with the Oxford English Dictionary. Its good for historical entymology.) I'd like you to know that this article is just like all our others; many Wikipedia articles state which terms are neologisms. You seem to think that this word is an insult; but it isn't.  Please read the entry on neologisms. Its nothing bad! RK 21:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Would you be inclined to go label all neologisms, in the interest of fairness?

 * Yes, of course. In fact, more neologisms are being labeled as such by many Wikipedia contributors, in many articles, all the time. Have you read many articles in Wikipedia? You'll see this more and more each month. RK 21:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have no problem with you talking about the first known usage of the term, or with you saying (at the bottom) that the very existance of the word/phrase is disputed by certain people/groups such as yourself, but please substantiate your insistance that it is a neologism with something more solid than your opinion. Otherwise, I can see no reason to categorically assert that this phrase is a neologism (as opposed to the 10000 other words that have been invented in the last 20 years alone), and I think that it presents a biased POV to people who read this article. Silver Maple

 * But the thousands of other new words that have been invented in the last 20 years are also neologisms, by definition. Again, precisely what do you think that this word means? What bias do you think this term is promoting? RK 21:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I think Silver Maple could benefit from a little more context, and then perhaps we can resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction. There was a period at Wikipedia where some contributors started creating articles that were basically personal essays on a variety of issues, and through which the contributors introduced words they themselves had coined. This still occurs, some times, but virtually all contributors I think reached the consensus that such essays were not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I don't want to speak for RK, but I suspect some of his strong felings have to do with this (it certainly is a concern of mine). I do not think there is any value to arguing over whether "all" new terms should be identified as neologisms or not. I think what is important is that we agree to two points that sometimes lead to blurry situations: The only questions now are
 * 1) the nature of wikipedia allows us to present on much more current, cutting edge phenomena than other encyclopedias
 * 2) yet we still want to be a good encyclopedia, with the aim of representing knowledge and not creating new knowledge.
 * 1) whether "Judeo-Islamic tradition" is the invention of some wikipedian, or a phrase some people out there really use.  Silver Maple has provided some links that convince me that it is a legitimate term that non-wikipedians use, and merits an article
 * 2) what should go in such an article?  I do not think it matters one bit whether we identify the term as a neologism or not -- personally, I think including the point adds little important information, and that more information should go into the article even if we avoid the word neologism.  As I tried to suggest above, I think it is important to explain (a la OED) to the best of our knowledge when the phrase first gained currency, and to say more about who uses the term, and why -- in short, the historical and social context of the phrase.

I disagree with Silver Maple that the article as it stands does so, and I continue to believe that adding such information would make it a more interesting, more informative, and more useful article. Slrubenstein

 * Ok, I am convinced that we don't need to mention that its a neologism. It would obviously be better to explain (a la OED) when the phrase first gained currency, and to say more about who uses the term, etc. RK 21:27 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The term "Judeo-Islamic" was in use by the mid-1960s, "Judeo-Christo-Islamic Tradition" by the mid-1970s. The term "Judeo-Islamic Tradition" was coined in Bernard Lewis's "The Jews of Islam". None of the terms are in OED3 --Imran 21:45 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * This is very useful! I do not have any of Lewis's books -- but if you could find the exact citation and put it into the article, and even perhaps say a little bit more about how Lewis was using the term and why, I think you would really be adding a lot! Slrubenstein

SilverMaple writes: "Unless you are Muslim, you can't make assertions about what _even one_ Muslim believes. You can only report what they say they believe. Better to simply report what Quran says since it is verifiable."

This could be a serious problem, SilverMaple. We certainly do know what Muslims believe. They speak their minds, they publish books, write essays, preach sermons, and have their own websites. And while we do not know what every single Muslim happens to be believe, we certainly do know what most Muslims believe. The same is true, of course, for Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. If we were to adopt your stance, we would have to assume that every book on religion is unsupportable, and unreliable...but that is just not so. The entire subjects of history and sociology depend on the verifiable fact that we can learn (to an extent) what people believe, especially when they tell us what they believe! Your rewrite would lead to rewriting every article we have on religion....and on history and sociology. We need to revert this particular change. Also, I believe that the particular change you made, as it is phrased, is incorrect. The Quran does makes two contradictory sets of claims on this topic, and the Muslim community has eventually come to a consensus position on what it "really" means. The consensus position adopts the harsher view (i.e. the Jews lied about their own scripture). We can't quite attribute this POV to the Quran with certainty, because a historical reading of the text does not necessarilly support this view. But we can point out that this is how most Muslims read the Quran. RK 21:27 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * RK, many social scientists do not claim that we can know what goes on in a person's heart or mind (what they think or feel). As Silver Maple points out, what we do know is what people say they believe.  By the way, this is another example of the point I made on the talk page on the scientific method -- many scientists, I wrote there, do not distinguish between the world and our representation of it, but for many social scientists and scholars in the humanities, this distinction is crucial, and it is crucial here.  I have no doubt that people believe things (that is the real world).  But I also have no doubt that I have no direct access to this.  All my access to this is mediated through various representations.  You yourself give a few -- people "publish books, write essays, preach sermons, and have their own websites."  Empirically, we have access to these public representations.  But we do not have access to people's thoughts and feelings.  You may not think the distinction is important but I assure you that a good deal of important social science analysis relies on the distinction.  It has been proven to most social scientists' satisfaction that what people say they "believe" often varies depending on the situation in which they asserted the belief, especially depending on the audience and the medium of expression.  Now, this article need not analyze what difference audience and media have on the expression of Muslim belief.  But it should at least be written in a way that is consistent with how social scientists analyze these things (RK, wouldn't you have the same expectation for an article on a topic covered by the natural sciences?).  I fully agree with Silver Maple that the article should be clear, it is not what "Muslim's believe," it is what specific people have said or written, it is what is represented in specific texts or rituals. Slrubenstein

 * Uh oh. I think that we are at an impasse, because what you have just written is solipsim.
 * No it isn't
 * Its just deconstructionism in disguise,
 * No it isn't. That you write this suggests that you misunderstand what deconstruction is.  I advise you not to use words you do not understand.
 * and I don't buy it. Do you really think that many Muslims don't have this belief,
 * You are distorting what I wrote. I wrote that our knowledge of what Muslims (or anyone, e.g. me or you) believe is mediated through representations.  What we really (objectively, empirically) "know" is what they do, including speach acts.
 * and that all of their writings are lies, mistakes, or grossly uninterpretable?
 * This is not only not what I wrote, it has nothing to do with what I wrote. Here we see a clear example of what I wrote on the scientific method talk page -- many people, ignorant of social and critical theory, believe that when scholars distinguish between the world and representations of the world, they are saying that the world is not real (or, by implication, that representations are false).  This is simply a misunderstanding, and I think it just reflects understandable gaps in people's education.  Like I wrote on that page, there is a lot of physics I cannot understand either; many people misunderstand Einstein's theory of relativity or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, becuase they just lack sufficient familiarity with physics.  So I am not surprised.  Nevertheless, you are wrong.  There is nothing in what I wrote that suggests that what Muslims write are lies, mistakes, or grossly iuninterpretable.  I am saying that your own claims to interpretation are false, unscientific if you like. But this hardly means that no one can interpret.  Just because you don't do it well does not mean that no one can do it well.  This is "solipsism!"  Buy a whole variety of scholars -- not just deconstructionists but hermeneuticians (no, not at all the same thing as deconstruction) lie Dilthey (history), Gadamer (philosophy) and Weber (sociology) have ways of interpreting people through their representations.
 * For one person, sure, it is possible. For a group, maybe.  But considering the massive amount of books, essays, websites, lectures, sermons that many, many Muslims write...how can you deny it has meaning?
 * I did not deny that it has meaning; in fact, what I claimed -- which you systematically ignore (and I am guessing, although I admit it is onloy a guess, because of your ignorance of modern scholarship) -- that it is precisely these things that do have meaning.
 * For you to deny what they say is anti-Muslim, condescending, and not intellectualy justifiable. RK

 * Do you really believe that we can nothing about the beliefs of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc., and that we can only write about their books?
 * As I wrote abouve, I believe that all that we know about the beliefs of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc., is through their public representatiojns (books, speech acts, rituals, visual representations, etc)
 * Nothing about Americans or Europeans, nothing about Deomocrats or Republicans?
 * I just repeat what I wrote above.
 * That position would be the end of knowledge and the end of Wikipedia.
 * Wrong. It is the beginning of knowledge.
 * We might as well burn books if this is true, because they would then be unjustifiable hogwash.
 * Again, this is your own solipsism. If, as I claim, your claims about knowledge are meaningless, then, you infer, there is no knowledge or meaning.  But RK, just because you are wrong doesn't mean that EVERYONE is wrong.  In fact, it is possible -- and in this instance, the case -- that you are wrong and other peoplea re right, that knowledge and meaning are possible.
 * This is thge reason that most historians are painfully disturbed by deconstructionism. Frankly, no historian or scientist can work with a person who claims that no one else's words mean what they say.  How can you expect anyone to work with you? As you claim, we have no direct access to your real thoughts. All our access to you is only mediated through various representations.  Empirically, we only have access to your "public representations".  But we do not have access to your thoughts and feelings!

 * No, you have access to my thoughts and feelings through my representations. One major reason for misunderstanding -- and I am thinking about the ways that the practices of other cultures have been misconstrued, the ways that plays and novels have been misinterpreted, and yes, the ways that you have misunderstood me and other wikipedians (and, to be sure, the ways I misunderstand wikipedians) is when we read into what others have written things that are not there.  Sometimes, I grant, the text invites this; the text may be unclear so we are left to imagine what the text means.  The problem occurs, as it has now, when the reader imagines s/he knows what the text means because the reader believes that s/he "knows" what the writer "thinks."  The real solution is to invite the writer to produce more texts which may be clearer.  I sure hope that is what I have done now.

 * So how can anyone trust what you write, or work with you?

 * The same way people everywhere work with one another -- we try to make sense out of people's "public representations" and respond apporpriately, sometimes make mistakes, and hope that through further communication we can approximate some kind of meaningful, constructive engagement. This is how culture and society works, RK.  This is not deconstruction -- if you want to know the "science" behind it, I recommend Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life and Frame Analysis, as well as Harold Garfinkle's Studies in Ethnomethodology.

 * We can't - unless you commit the cardinal sin of deconstructionists, and claim that "Well, what I say is true about everyone else, but not about me and my writings!". It just doesn't wash. Do your words mean something, or not? if your words do mean something, then why don't other people's words? RK 22:24 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The Killing of History: Why Relativism is wrong
 * History is in the Making: Pragmatism, Realism, and Knowledge of the Past

 * RK: I don't really think we're at an impasse. Nobody is claiming that the holocaust didn't happen (as one of your articles suggested) or trying to rewrite history by saying it wasn't real.  We, and you, are simply trying to put the information forward in an equitable fashion that respects the views of all parties.  I'm not saying that you shouldn't speak about what Muslims seem to believe, or say they believe.  Those kinds of statements are fair game.  But how could you possibly, as a person who has never claimed to be Muslim, have special insight into the minds of Muslims?  We need to justify our statements in a publically editable encyclopedia, using a reference or something.  For example, if you had said: "According to al-Ghazali, Muslims believe...", and followed up with a quote from one of his books, then I wouldn't have had any objection at all.  I would have probably checked the reference, added a few more of my own to support that statement, and possibly searched for other opinions as well.  Why not?

 * This isn't really about realism or antirealism. It isn't about saying that things aren't real if we don't have a first-hand account.  It is simply about presenting our sources.  I have read your writings, and I know that you agree that this is important.  Perhaps I just didn't express myself very well. Silver Maple

 * Perhaps I misunderstood. I am very much in agreement with this. RK 00:27 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Slrubenstein writes: "No it isn't. That you write this suggests that you misunderstand what deconstruction is.  I advise you not to use words you do not understand."

 * I don't think that I misunderstand the word; it seems to me that you were not clear. Your most previous comments did present one of the more problematic deconstructionist viewpoints. At that time, you wrote that we can't trust what people write to represent what they believe; we only have access to representations of their beliefs, and that we need to confine ourselves to analyzing these representations, and not the people's actual beliefs. Well, as written, this attitude is precisely the view that we must struggle against!  Fortunately, your new statements refute this point of view. Now that you present additional info on your POV, it seems to me that you do hold that people can clarify their statements, writings. In fact, you now say that one can do so to the point where we can understand someone else's beliefs, and that we are capable of learning about other people, and not just about their text representations. Fine by me. That is what I have been arguing. This is one of the big points I have brought up in more than one Talk page of late. Many people - including Derrida - clearly deny that we can ever learn the intent of an author, or ever learn about any group their writings. All we can really learn about is the text itself. That's sociological and historical solipsism, and it is hard (if not impossible) to communicate in writing with someone who has this view. Now that you add more information and clarification, it seems that you reject this view. RK 00:27 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * What we call the "intent" of the author is itself a textual production; that seems to me to be an evident empirical fact and to deny it requires some sort of idealism I find unscientific.

 * But authors do have an intention when they write books or issue statements; people do mean something when they speak. You yourself have an intention when you write! This is "special pleading"; you obviously have intentions when you write, yet you deny that other texts were written by people with an intention. RK

 * Yes, most authors do have an intention when they write boks or issue statements. Nowhere have I denied this fact.  Not only do I not deny this fact, I fully accept it.  All that I wrote is that our knowledge of intent is itself mediated through representations; that intent is itself a textual production.  These two claims are not only not mutually exclusive, they depend on one another.

 * But you did say just such a thing. If that isn't what you meant, then you need to be much more clear. RK 16:19 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Slrubenstein writes "many people, ignorant of social and critical theory, believe that when scholars distinguish between the world and representations of the world, they are saying that the world is not real (or, by implication, that representations are false). This is simply a misunderstanding, and I think it just reflects understandable gaps in people's education.  Like I wrote on that page, there is a lot of physics I cannot understand either; many people misunderstand Einstein's theory of relativity or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, becuase they just lack sufficient familiarity with physics.  So I am not surprised.  Nevertheless, you are wrong.  There is nothing in what I wrote that suggests that what Muslims write are lies, mistakes, or grossly iuninterpretable.  I am saying that your own claims to interpretation are false, unscientific if you like. But this hardly means that no one can interpret. Just because you don't do it well does not mean that no one can do it well. This is "solipsism!" Buy a whole variety of scholars -- not just deconstructionists but hermeneuticians (no, not at all the same thing as deconstruction) lie Dilthey (history), Gadamer (philosophy) and Weber (sociology) have ways of interpreting people through their representations."

 * I think this misses the point. For centuries, many Muslims have written, taught and lectured about a specific doctrine, in this case, the doctrine of "corruption of the text"; many of them believe that the Jews and Christians deliberately altered their Bibles in order to hide certain truths about God's revelation. This is not a false interpretation; this is an acknowledgement of a very mainstream Muslim belief that is so pervasive, so well-written about, and so well-known to them and to scholars of Islam, that no serious debate on the subject exists.  I simply can't understand why you held that I or others can't make a rather mundane statement about a well-documented position of the Muslim community.  We don't need deconstructionists or hermeneuticians to read into texts to prove that many Muslims believe this... or to prove that Christians believe in Jesus, or to prove that atheists don't believe in God, etc.  While we can't always take an individual or group at their word (for reasons you mention), when many individuals and groups give the same position, in similar ways, in many forums, with multiple opportunities for clarification, at a certain point it behooves us to say "Ok, we get it; people in groups X and Y do have this particular belief Z."  That is all I am arguing. RK 00:27 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Once every year millions of devout Jews read/are told/say that disobedient sons should be stoned. And they have done this for thousands of years.  Does this mean that "Jews believe that disobedient sons should be stoned?"  I am not questioning your interpretation of the Koranic verse, RK, I am questioning the way you use words like "interpret" and "belief;" you do not have to go back to Derrida to see how tricky these words are, how we think we know what they mean, what it means to "believe" something, but as Wittgenstein pointed out it is seldom so simple. Slrubenstein

 * Just because someone reads a sentence in the Bible...or in the New Testament...or in a dialogue by Plato...or in a comic book... doesn't mean that they believe that this statement is a fact! It doesn't mean that they intend on carrying out any actions reccomended in the text! All it means is that for some reason, an author wrote a sentence, and that many years later people happen to read that sentence. Reading something doesn't mean agreeing with a literal interpretation of it. RK 17:37 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Historians and literary critics (and many scientists) care about why statements were written, what they originally meant in their original historical context, etc. The fact that sentences are sometimes hard to interpret is an entirely separate issue.  (By the way, for others following this conversation, Jews do not follow the laws of the Bible as written.  Please see the discussion on the oral law and the Mishnah to understand how Jews read the Bible.) RK 17:37 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * RK, this is my point (that in a way, you do agree with me, and if we do disagree about some things, there is still something we can agree on and thus use as a working basis)! If you believe this about Jews and the Torah, you should believe it about Muslims too.  What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  Yes, historians and literary critics must be very attentive to context.  Perhaps by now you have forgotten, but this was Silver Maples simple point which initiated this discussion -- that instead of putting in gross overgeneralizations like "Muslims believe," that we need to be more specific about the source and context.  Given that you now seem to agree with this, I frankly wonder why you resisted it at first.

 * You are again arguing against a point that I do not hold. I never believed or wrote that one could read a few sentences in the Quran (or any other book) and then claim that all Muslims believe this.  Rather, I stated the opposite; we should rely on the views of many Muslims, in many places.  This allows us clarification and context. To have a reasonable degree of certainty, we must look at many statements, sermons, books, webpages, etc.  But at a certain point a conclusion about what most Muslims believe on topic X can, and is, legitimately drawn. Muslims themslves say these things; so do historians of religion.  RK 16:19 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Slrubenstein writes: "No, you have access to my thoughts and feelings through my representations. One major reason for misunderstanding -- and I am thinking about the ways that the practices of other cultures have been misconstrued, the ways that plays and novels have been misinterpreted, and yes, the ways that you have misunderstood me and other wikipedians (and, to be sure, the ways I misunderstand wikipedians) is when we read into what others have written things that are not there.  Sometimes, I grant, the text invites this; the text may be unclear so we are left to imagine what the text means.  The problem occurs, as it has now, when the reader imagines s/he knows what the text means because the reader believes that s/he "knows" what the writer "thinks."  The real solution is to invite the writer to produce more texts which may be clearer.  I sure hope that is what I have done now."

 * Hasn't this been my view all along...that we can learn what a writer believes (or what a community believes) from their writings (and speeches, etc.)? I was never talking about the view of one person, made as an off-the-cuff remark. RK 00:27 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * My point (really, Derrida's -- but many others, including non-deconstructionists), is that you can never be sure that your interpretation is really correct. Never.  It does not matter whether you say "This is what Muslims believe" or "this is what the Koran says" (if you are giving an interpretation and not just a specific quote, of course) -- the point is, in either case, "misreading" is allways possible and almost always likely.  But this does not mean that there is no point in listening to people or reading books.  This is obvious to anyone familiar with deconstruction, which involves techniques for reading and interpreting and thus encourages the continued study of what people say and write.  Those who think that the end result of deconstruction is some sort of nihilism, that the end result is that there is no point in talking to or reading the workk of others, simply do not understand it. Slrubenstein

 * Interesting. You deny a nihilistic point of view...while simultaneously describing a classic example of deconstructionist nihilism.  That's like claiming you that you are certain there is no God, yet also claim to be agnostic.  You can't have your cake and eat it to. How can you even have the nerve to disagree with me (or anyone) after making such a statement?  You keep demanding that none of us can evey be certain we are correct...except, of course, the special case being you. That is the special-case pleading that deconstructionists always depend on! RK 17:37 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Hi RK, I changed athiest to agnostic in the previous paragraph, since the sentence seems to make more sense that way... Silver Maple

 * No, I deny a nihilistic point of view, and you insist on continuing to ascribe to me a nihilistic point of view. I think it is now clear what is goin on.  You can only count up to two, or, to use a different metaphor, you see things in black and white.  One is nihilistic, or one is positivist.  If you are not one you must be the other.  But I can count beyond two.  I see many alternatives to both nihilism and positivism.  I recognize now that, probably because of your lack of training in the humanities and the social sciences, that you simply cannot "see" the other possibilities.  You do see that it is not "white" (positivism), so you conclude, no matter what I say, that I am talking about "black" (nihilism).  And you are correct that it is not white, that I am not talking about positivism.  But that does not necesarily mean that I am talking about "black," even thought that is the only other thing you can see.  I see not only black, but blue, green, red, and so on.  I am talking about one of those other colors, but it is all black to you.  Too bad.  But I guess this is just like someone who reads a little about physics and thinks entropy and inertia are the same thing, or that the heisenberg principle is the same thing as observer bias.  A little learning is a dangerous thing!  Too bad you don't care to learn more. Slrubenstein

Silver Maple tried to change the article. He makes the demand that unless one is a Muslim, one is forbidden to report what Muslims write, preach and believe. "Unless you are Muslim, you can't make assertions about what _even one_ Muslim believes. You can only report what they say they believe. Better to simply report what Quran says since it is verifiable" This, obviously, is incorrect. RK 22:49, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

When many Muslims write about their beliefs in books, articles, and preach these beliefs in their mosques, then we should not accuse them of being liars. When experts on Islam agree, and write about these exact same things in scholarly articles and in mainstream encyclopedias, again, we should not accuse them of lying. We are obligated to report these verifiable facts. Unfortunately, we have now a double standard: Some report the beliefs of Chrisitians, Jews, Buddhists, etc.,...but when it comes to Islam alone we suddenly have a new standard: We somehow can't write about Muslim beliefs. This double standard is wrong and unjustifiable. RK 22:49, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

By the way, here are some sources for the Muslim doctrine of "corruption of the text" (i.e. the belief that Jews and Christians deliberately altered their Bibles) The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Ed. Cyril Glasse, 1989, p. 72. Also The Oxford History of Islam, Ed. John L. Esposition, 1999, p.330-332. Also, please run a Google search on this topic, and you will find dozens of Muslim websites quoting Muslim books and sermons. Frankly, I find it unlikely that all these Muslims are lying about their beliefs. Even if we feel uncomfortable with such beliefs, that is no reason to downplay them or hide them. RK 22:49, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Finally, it is incorrect to say that "The Quran says that the leaders of Judaism deliberately altered the true word of God by rewriting the Torah (five books of Moses) and the rest of the Hebrew Bible.... Some parts of the Quran attribute this to tahri fi-manawi, a "corruption of the meaning" of the words." Why is this incorrect? Because the Quran is ambiguous on this point, and the mass of Muslim writing on this topic is outside the Quran. Contrary to common belief, Muslims do not simply read the Quran and come up with their own interpretation; in practice Muslims live in Muslim religious traditions, such as Shiite, Sufi or Sunni, and each of these Muslim traditions has their own extensive and authoritative literature on the understanding of what the Quran "really means". And it is within this extensive literature that most disucssion of tahri fi-manawi takes place. RK 23:01, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Judeo-Islamic tradition/Archive 1


text:
Decal

A decal (,, CAN ) or transfer is a plastic, cloth, paper, or ceramic substrate that has printed on it a pattern or image that can be moved to another surface upon contact, usually with the aid of heat or water.

The word is short for decalcomania, a decorative technique by which engravings and prints are transferred to pottery or other materials. The technique was invented by Simon François Ravenet, an engraver from France who later moved to England and perfected the process he called "décalquer" (which means "to copy by tracing"); it became widespread during the decal craze or mania of the late 19th century.

Properties
The term "decal" refers to the mass-produced art transfer in two different states:

1. As manufactured, which consists of the artwork printed on the upper side of a paper or film label stock, temporarily affixed by a typically water or heat soluble adhesive to the upper side of a silicone- or other release agent-coated paper or film backing stock. Decals are produced, shipped, and stored in this composite state.

2. As applied, where only the adhesive-backed artwork remains, affixed to its desired (and appropriate) substrate, temporarily or permanently as designed.

Two variations include the traditional water-slide or water-dip, with the artwork screen-printed on water-resistant paper coated with a layer of water-soluble adhesive, and a dry peel-and-stick format using a standard adhesive - which technically is not a decal, as there is no "art transfer", rather an adhesive-backed label known as a sticker. When manufactured out of vinyl the latter is known as a vinyl-cut-decal.

Modern production process
Mass-production of vinyl decals starts with large rolls of vinyl sheet. Vinyl is fed through a cutting plotter or large-format printer/cutter which prints the desired image and cuts out the desired shapes. Designs are typically created using specialized computer software and sent to the machines electronically. After the patterns are cut, excess vinyl on the sheet is removed in a process called weeding. Finally, a paper pre-mask can be applied to the top of the vinyl design allowing easy application of multiple letters and shapes.

A recent innovation involves the inclusion of a radio frequency identification (RFID) circuit (chip and antenna) in the paper or film facestock.

Applications
Decals were popularly associated from the mid-20th century on with hot rod automobiles and plastic models. Along with stickers they are used to "personalize" items, such as musical instruments or sports gear.

Government agencies (and some private-public partnerships) use permanent peel-and-stick stickers on vehicles for identification. These "decals" are referred to as fleet markings and are required by law on all fire and law enforcement vehicles in the US. Most fleet markings are created from reflective vinyl with an adhesive backing that is applied in a peel-and-stick manner.

Methods of printing

 * Inkjet printing
 * Laser printing
 * Offset printing
 * Embossing
 * Photocopier
 * Thermal printing

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

title: Decal


text:
British Ornithologists' Club

The British Ornithologists' Club (BOC) aims to promote discussion between members and others interested in ornithology, and to facilitate the dissemination of scientific information concerned with ornithology. The BOC has a special interest in avian systematics, taxonomy and distribution.

The BOC was founded at a meeting of 15 members of the British Ornithologists' Union held in Covent Garden, London on 5 October 1892. This was at a time when individuals and expeditions were exploring remote parts of the world, discovering many new species of birds in the process and the BOC was formed to enable members to meet regularly to present papers, exhibit specimens and engage in discussion on wider ornithological matters. The BOC has continued to meet regularly in London (with occasional meetings elsewhere) and, as at June 2012, has held 970 meetings. Meetings now take the form of a talk followed by discussion, with refreshments available afterwards. Meetings are free and are open to members and non-members alike.

The BOC has published Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club (The Bulletin, or Bull. B.O.C.) since its formation. The Bulletin, which is published four times a year, focuses in particular on avian systematics, taxonomy, nomenclature and distribution worldwide. It regularly contains papers:

 * describing new species and subspecies of birds;
 * giving an account of the rediscovery of a species not seen for many years;
 * describing for the first time the nest and/or breeding behaviour of a little-studied species;
 * giving an account of an expedition to a rarely visited part of the world, listing the species found (sometimes extending their known range) and commenting on the absence of species which previous expeditions had recorded,
 * suggesting the actual location where poorly documented museum specimens may have been taken and uncovering cases where specimens have been mislabelled.

The BOC has a membership of around 370 (2011) almost half of whom live outside the United Kingdom. Membership is open to anyone with an interest in ornithology. Members formerly received printed copies of The Bulletin, but from March 2017 (Vol. 137 No. 1), it became an online-only, open access, journal.

The BOC is a registered Charitable Incorporated Organization in England and Wales (no. 1169733).

title: British Ornithologists' Club


text:
Matthew (given name)

Matthew is an English language masculine given name. It ultimately derives from the Hebrew name "" (Matityahu) which means "Gift of Jahveh".

Etymology
The Hebrew name (Matityahu) was transliterated into Greek as Ματταθίας (Mattathias). It was subsequently shortened to Ματθαῖος (Matthaios); this was Latinised as Matthaeus, which became Matthew in English. The popularity of the name is due to Matthew the Apostle, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus and the author of the Gospel of Matthew.

Maiú and Maidiú were both a borrowing of the name Matthew among the Anglo-Normans settlers in Ireland. Maitiú is the most common Irish form of the name. Matthew is also used as an anglicisation of the Irish name (meaning 'bear').

Popularity
The name Matthew became popular during the Middle Ages in Northwest Europe, and has been very common throughout the English-speaking world.

In Ireland, Matthew was ranked the 10th most popular male name in 2007. In 2008, it was ranked 15th, falling to 20th between 2009-2010, and then 24th between 2011-2012. In 2016, it was the 30th most popular male name in Ireland, rising to 26th in 2017.

In the United Kingdom, Matthew has been among the 10 most popular male names. Matthew has been in the top 2,000 most popular male names in Australia, Canada and the United States.

title: Matthew (given name)


text:
Ocean (disambiguation)

An ocean is a major body of salt water on Earth.

Ocean may also refer to:

Bodies of water

 * World Ocean, also known as Global Ocean or World Sea or simply the ocean or oceans
 * The sea

Science and astrophysics

 * Ocean world
 * Hycean planet, planet covered in water with a hydrogen atmosphere -- an ocean planet with hydrogen atmosphere
 * Lava planet, planet covered in a lava ocean
 * Magma ocean
 * Lakes of Titan, lakes of ethane and methane on the largest natural satellite of Saturn
 * Liquid hydrogen on Jupiter, sometimes described as ocean-like
 * Planetary oceanography

Places

 * Ocean (Muni), a station on the San Francisco Municipal Railway light rail network
 * Océan, a department of South Province in Cameroon
 * Ocean, Maryland, a small town in the United States
 * Ocean County, New Jersey, United States
 * Ocean Harbour, South Georgia

People

 * Ocean Hellman (born 1971), Canadian former actress
 * Ocean Ramsey (born 1987), marine biologist and shark conservationist
 * Ocean Vuong (born 1988), a Vietnamese-American writer
 * Billy Ocean, a British pop recording artist
 * Danny Ocean (singer), Venezuelan singer and producer
 * Frank Ocean, an American recording artist

Groups

 * Ocean (band), a 1970s Canadian gospel rock band
 * Oceán (Czech band), a 1990s Czech synth-pop band
 * The Ocean (band), a 2000s German post-metal band

Albums

 * Ocean (Eloy album), 1977
 * Ocean (Stephan Micus album), 1986
 * Ocean (Bebo Norman album), 2010
 * Ocean (Lady Antebellum album), 2019
 * Ocean (Karol G album), 2019
 * Oceans (Esprit D'Air album), 2022

Extended plays

 * Oceans (EP), a 2013 EP by Hillsong United

Songs

 * "Ocean" (B'z song), 2005
 * "Ocean" (Karol G song), 2019
 * "Ocean" (Goldfrapp song), 2017
 * "Ocean" (Martin Garrix song), 2018
 * "Ocean" (Spencer Tracy song), 2003
 * "Ocean" (Sebadoh song), 1996
 * "Oceans" (Coldplay song), 2014
 * "Oceans" (Evanescence song), 2011
 * "Oceans" (Jay-Z song), 2013
 * "Oceans" (Morning Runner song), 2006
 * "Oceans" (Pearl Jam song), 1992
 * "Oceans" (The Tea Party song), 2005
 * "Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)", a song by Hillsong United, 2013
 * "The Ocean" (Led Zeppelin song), 1973
 * "The Ocean" (Steve Angello song), 2015
 * "The Ocean" (Against Me!), on the 2007 album New Wave
 * "The Ocean" (Mike Perry song), 2016
 * "Ocean", a song by Cold on the 2005 album A Different Kind of Pain
 * "Ocean", a song by Five for Fighting on the 1997 album Message for Albert
 * "Ocean", a song by the John Butler Trio on the 1998 album John Butler
 * "Ocean", a song by Lady Antebellum on the 2019 album Ocean
 * "Ocean", a song by Slightly Stoopid on the 2007 album Chronchitis
 * "Ocean", a song from Lou Reed's 1972 eponymous debut solo album
 * an earlier version recorded by the Velvet Underground is found on their box set Peel Slowly and See
 * "Ocean", a song by Matt Brouwer on the 2012 album Till the Sunrise
 * "Oceans", a song by Dash Berlin, 2021
 * "Oceans", a song by Rebecca Ferguson on the 2016 album Superwoman
 * "Oceans", a song by Gary Numan on the 1979 album The Pleasure Principle
 * "Oceans", a song by The Format on the 2006 album Dog Problems
 * "The Ocean", by Sunny Day Real Estate on the 2000 album The Rising Tide
 * "The Ocean", a song by Tegan and Sara on the 2009 album Sainthood
 * "The Ocean", a song from the 1980 U2 album Boy

Radio stations

 * Ocean FM (Cayman Islands), a defunct radio station in the Cayman Islands
 * Ocean FM (Ireland), a local radio station that broadcasts to the northwest of Ireland
 * Ocean FM (UK)

Television

 * "Ocean" (Wonder Showzen episode)
 * Oceans (TV series), an eight-part series on BBC Two

Other arts, entertainment, and media

 * Ocean (comics), a miniseries by Warren Ellis and Chris Sprouse
 * Ocean (Marvel Comics), a superhuman mutant
 * Ocean Productions, an animation recording company
 * Ocean Software, a video game publisher
 * Oceans (film), a documentary by Jacques Perrin

Resorts

 * Ocean Resort Casino, in Atlantic City, New Jersey

Automobile

 * Fisker Ocean, electric crossover SUV

Air transport

 * Ocean Airlines, a cargo airline based in Brescia, Italy

Rail transport

 * Ocean (train), a Canadian passenger train
 * AS Ocean, a former Larvik company operating a whaling station and light railway in South Georgia

Ships

 * Ocean (East Indiaman), a name given to several East Indiamen that sailed for the Honourable East India Company
 * Ocean (ship), a name given to several vessels that brought convicts from Britain to Australia
 * HMS Ocean, a name given to several Royal Navy vessels
 * Ocean 40, an American sailboat design
 * Océan-class ironclads built for the French navy
 * USS Ocean, a U.S. Navy ship

Other uses

 * Big Five personality traits, known as the OCEAN model of personality
 * Cosmic ocean, a mythological motif
 * Helio Ocean, a mobile device
 * Ocean Racing Technology, a Portuguese auto racing team

title: Ocean (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:Dyck

TTC/CPGCC/UFSC

Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Curso de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Computação Disciplina: INE670700 - Teorias e Tecnologias da Cooperação

André e Venicius
Seminário: Experimentando Ambientes Cooperativos - Edição Cooperativa de Texto - Condições para a Cooperação - Importância Pedagógica de tais Ambientes.

apaguei, é só editar e 'incluir/alterar/excluir' qualquer contribuição...

Image:Andre.jpg
Hello, Dyck. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Andre.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Dyck. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dyck


text:
EMERGCON

EMERGCON (emergency condition) is a state of readiness that is separate from DEFCON, or defense readiness condition used by the United States, in that it incorporates civilian measures in addition to the DEFCON military measures.

Overview
Generally, EMERGCONs are a state of readiness following an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) attack. Other forces go to DEFCON 1 during EMERGCONs. There are two types of EMERGCONs:

 * Defense Emergency: A major hostile attack on United States and/or allied forces overseas, and/or an overt action made against the United States. This must be confirmed by a unified commander or higher authority.
 * Air Defense Emergency: A major hostile attack by aircraft or missiles seems probable, is imminent, or is taking place on the continental United States, Canada, or Greenland. This declaration is made by the Commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

Although the United States military has gone into defense readiness at various times (such as the Cuban Missile Crisis), it has never had a major EMERGCON.

title: EMERGCON


text:
Talk:Matthew Perry

Personal Section
Why is there no personal section to this article? There is one for every other ex-'Friends' star. What's the deal? 92.9.232.39 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 * You're right, there was one a few days ago, now it's gone... what happened? Felipe-11 (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The personal section was a mess, which is why it was removed. First, there were virtually no citations for any of the information, per the Wikipedia guideline WP:CITE.  Second, it was full of trivial information that is irrelevant to an encyclopedia, like his fling with Julia Roberts or certain bands he likes; that is information better suited to fan websites than to Wikipedia (read WP:TRIVIA).  The only sourced information was to his well-publicized battle with substances; since everything else in the 'personal' section was pointless, uncited information except for that, I moved it under the biography section.  Please don't add trivial information, and if you can't find a mainstream newspaper or magazine talking about whatever it is you wish to include here, it should not go here because that means it is either 1) not true; or 2) unimportant (the policies and guidelines for this are WP:Verifiability and WP:Undue weight).  -- >David  Shankbone  14:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Without a personal section of any sort this article feels dodgy, like it's been air-brushed, which is weird since in interviews Perry is pretty open.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a long time ago, but the content remains for people like me to still read it. That being the case, I would like to respond. First, this article now has a short Personal section. However, if someone believes an article is lacking specific content, then that person should do the research and add the content, being sure that content has reliable, reputable third-party sources. Anyone can come to a Talk page and complain about missing content, but if someone takes the time to start a topic to complain, then I submit that such time and effort is better used providing a solution rather than a complaint. We are all responsible for the content in Wikipedia and any editor has the authority to add content to a page. Why not do it yourself rather than complain and expect someone else to do it? I think that sometimes editors don't realize that they have that authority. Don't be afraid to add content. Jump in! You can do it! MarydaleEd (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well said! 173.186.176.108 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to figure out how to edit on wikipedia. Maybe someone who is stronger at this stuff than I am could do it for me. I thought it would mean a lot to Matthew Perry if we said he was known for his work to help people who struggle with addictions before the bit about his role as Chandler. Kind of like a thank you letter for all he did and who he was to millions of people. @David Shankbone@Alistair Stevenson@Felipe-11@MarydaleEd Emmyswan (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * no need to write this 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 92.12.53.143 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unsure as to what you are referring when you very angrily wrote "no need to write this," but the numerous angry emojis you added to your post reflect rude and uncivil writing. That type of angry posting is in violation of Wikipedia's Code of Conduct. Please see WP:UNCIVIL. While you need to familiarize yourself with that Code of Conduct, you still had a point of view that I would be happy to pursue with you. Even though it might not have been expressed properly, you still had a message you wanted to get across and your opinion is valuable. What is it that made you so angry and to what were you referring when you wrote "no need to write this"? I would be happy to respond to you if I could know what you meant. I am always here to help! Thanks. MarydaleEd (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is there a - instead of a –
Traditional Wikipedia format would say (August 19, 1969 – October 28, 2023). However, the current version of the article says (August 19, 1969-October 28, 2023). An unspaced "-" is used. A hidden note says it was discussed on talk page. It was not. Koridas (Heyyyyyyy) 02:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Because someone changed it literally ten minutes before you posted this — you could have corrected it instead of posting here. The invisible comment is referring to nationality. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023
Parents: his mother is Suzanne Langford (Morris) as per his book 209.203.4.181 (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo  22:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Matthews mothers name is missing from the parent section. 142.169.16.112 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, the parent section is only for notable parents i.e. one that have Wikipedia articles about them. 08:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we pick a better photo
I know there are some limitations on what photos we can use based on licensing, But typically once people die the recent photo is replaced by an image of the person at their prime.

Do we have a photo of Perry from the 1990s? It's the decade he's best to remember from. Alternatively, one from post-2004, when he said he started seeking treatment. 219.89.63.45 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Matthew Perry


text:
Sun City

Sun City may refer to:

United States

 * Sun City, Arizona, Del Webb's original "Sun City" development, and model for subsequent communities
 * Sun City Festival (Buckeye, Arizona)
 * Sun City, California
 * Sun City Center, Florida
 * Sun City, Florida
 * Sun City, Kansas
 * Sun City, Summerlin, Nevada
 * Sun City, Hilton Head, South Carolina
 * Sun City, Texas
 * Sun City West, Arizona
 * A nickname of El Paso, Texas

Other places

 * Sun City (South Africa), a luxury casino resort, situated in the North West Province of South Africa
 * Translation of Cité Soleil, a Haitian commune
 * A nickname of Cagliari, Sardinia
 * Literal translation of Ilioupoli, Greece
 * A nickname of Szeged, Hungary
 * A nickname of Écija, Spain ("la ciudad del sol")

Television

 * Sun City (TV series)

Music

 * "Sun City" (song), a 1985 protest song by Artists United Against Apartheid
 * Sun City (album), a 1985 album by Artists United Against Apartheid
 * Sun City Girls, American rock band
 * Suncity, a 2018 EP by American singer Khalid

title: Sun City


text:
Old Order German Baptist Brethren

The Old Order German Baptist Brethren, also called Petitioners, are a small group of very conservative Schwarzenau Brethren.

History
The history of the Old Order German Baptist Brethren dates back to 1708, when the Schwarzenau Brethren were formed in Berleburg under the leadership of Alexander Mack. Soon they moved to Pennsylvania to escape religious persecution in Europe. In the 19th century many of them moved west with the frontier, to Ohio, Indiana and beyond.

In 1860s and 1870s the traditionalists among the Brethren opposed the adoption of innovations such as revival meetings, Sunday schools, and foreign missionary work. Stressing church discipline, Annual Meeting authority, and the preservation of the "old order" of church ordinances, worship, and dress, they formed the Old German Baptist Brethren in 1881.

The Old Order German Baptist Brethren split from the Old German Baptist Brethren in 1921, when members of the latter began to adopt automobiles. Though similar to the Old German Baptist Brethren in faith and practice, the Old Order German Baptist Brethren represent those who desired to maintain a strict adherence to tradition, such as the use of horse and buggy for transportation. They also do not use electricity nor telephones but do allow tractors for field work.

Beliefs and practices
The Beliefs of the Old Order German Baptists are in many ways similar to the Old German Baptist Brethren, the group from which they emerged.

The Old Order German Baptists use tractors and other motorized equipment in their farming, while the Old Brethren German Baptists, a similar horse and buggy group, farm with horses.

Men wear suspenders, dark denim and workshirts. Beards are encouraged but not required. Women wear long dresses with the Brethren style cape (Triangular, loose in front and back), aprons and tied white head coverings.

In spite of the name, Old Order German Baptist Brethren do not use the German language anymore, neither a German dialect in everyday life nor Standard German for Bible and church as Old Order Amish and many Old Order Mennonites do, because they had already given up the use of the German language when the first split of conservatives from the main body occurred in the early 1880s.

Demographics and congregations
In the early 1970s there were only about 20 families left in the Old Order German Baptist Brethren church, according to some estimates.

As of 2000 the group had 125 members and a total population of 281 in 3 congregations in Ohio. These Congregations are found in the area of Covington, Gettysburg and Arcanum. They have meeting houses south east of Covington, near Versailles and west of Pleasant Hill. Some members far from the meeting houses meet in private homes, like the Amish.

Name of the group
Since their formation in 1881 and until the early 1900s the Old German Baptist Brethren were often referred to as Old Order German Baptist Brethren. Since the formation of the Old Order German Baptist Brethren in 1921 this then misleading name fell mostly out of usage, but in some few cases it persists until today. The Old Order German Baptist Brethren should also not be confused with the Old Brethren German Baptists, a similar horse and buggy group that split off from the Old German Baptist Brethren and formed in 1939.

title: Old Order German Baptist Brethren


text:
Talk:List of CAx companies

Unfortunately the original list was probably copied from Internet without mush thinking and verification. It is not a good approach to put information into an encilopedia without firsthand knowledge or rigorous verification.

I did some initial editing just to show what was wrong with this list. The editing is by no means complete. For example, I even din't finish splitting the list into company names and software names.

I am strongly against free advertising of commercial companies, (and even initially deleted this list from CAD page) but since someone else thinks differently (the list is restored an moved here), I will not wage any war and even not propose to vote on the issue.

But please, unless the company is a milestone in the industry, PLEASE let their respective public relation personnel earn their money by keeping this list current.

 * mikkalai

Proposed new format
make the list provide more useful information.

Example

Some people find this tabular format extremely difficult to use and edit, and the fact that we're on a CAD page makes it unnecessary to say that these are related to CAD software. The categorizations (whether it's CAD or CAE) are exceedingly blurry, and the revenue of a product is generally unenlighting in a historical context, or unknown. Such details and discussions can easily be put onto the pages of their own.

Here is an alternative format:

 * Dassault Systèmes
 * CATIA | COSMOS | SolidWorks (was SolidWorks Corporation) | ACIS 3D Modeler (was Spatial Corp.) | Euclid-IS (was of Matra DataVision)

 * UGS (Formerly Unigraphics Solutions)
 * NX | Parasolid | SolidEdge | I-DEAS (was of SDRC)

List CAD Companies not Software
I-DEAS,Unigraphics and Solidedge are different CAD Software rolled out by UGS since I'm not familiar with editing articles over here, can someone please correct it?

Yup. Many of those are not companies.

 * EDS not cad
 * ESRI not cad
 * CADDS5 ?
 * Cadkey ?
 * CATIA soft
 * Euclid
 * I-DEAS soft
 * Inventor soft
 * Matricus ?
 * ME huh ?
 * Pro/ENGINEER soft
 * QCad free software soft
 * Solid Edge soft
 * Solid Works soft
 * Think3 ?
 * Unigraphics soft
 * VariCAD soft
 * Vectorworks ?

 * AutoCAD (by Autodesk) soft
 * Caddie soft
 * MicroStation (by Bentley Systems) soft

 * IC-Ed ?

Some modifications to the list
Here, check it out. This is why I've somehow re-arranged the list:
 * Alibre, Inc. - Alibre Design, solid modeler
 * Applicon - Introduced BRAVO! in 1983. It was a Mech Design/NC system that ran on VAX.
 * Autodesk - AutoCAD, MicroCAD, Inventor, etc.
 * Ashlar Inc. - Ashlar Vellum CAD
 * Bentley Systems - MicroStation
 * CadCam Systems
 * CADOpia - IntelliCAD
 * CalComp - CADVANCE
 * CNC Software Inc. - MasterCAM
 * Computervision - CADDS
 * Dassault Systèmes - CATIA, ENOVIA, DELMIA
 * EaglePoint - EaglePoint 2000
 * Electronic Data Systems - Unigraphics NX
 * Felix CAT - Felix CAD
 * Foresight Resources, Co. - DrafixCAD
 * GESTEL - solidThinking for OpenStep and Mac
 * Graphsoft - ArchiCAD
 * Hewlett-Packard - HP-ME10
 * Imagineer - Imagineer Technical
 * IMSI - TurboCAD
 * M&S/Intergraph
 * ISICAD - CADVANCE (From CalComp)
 * Land CADD - Site Designer
 * Matra DataVision - Open CASCADE
 * Micro-Control Systems - CADKEY
 * Nemetschek
 * Numerica Software - Visual CADD
 * Parametric Technology Corp. - PRO/E
 * ReVit Technology - ReVit
 * Robert McNeel & Associates - Rhino 3D
 * Shape Data Ltd. - ParaSolid
 * SoftSource - vDraft
 * SolidWorks Corporation - SolidWorks, COSMOS
 * Surfware, Inc. - SurfCAM
 * T&W Systems - VersaCAD
 * Think3 - ThinkDesign
 * UNC Software GmbH - CAM Specialist
 * UniGraphics - NX, I-DEAS
 * U.S. Army Research Laboratory - BRL-CAD
 * Varimetrix - Varimetrix
 * Xitron Software - XCAD

Far from complete, but we're getting there. lfdgonzalez 19:30, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Please add IronCAD to the list of CAD companies, www.ironcad.com

CoCreate is an independent software company now, no HP management. However, HP is still very likely CoCreate's largest customer so as such I'm sure they have influence.

IK

IRONCAD

HP/CoCreate
I knew CoCreate was a subsidiary of HP. I don't know if it's still under HP's management or influence. Could someone check it out?. Oh, and BTW, I believe MSC.ADAM is a simulation software, not CAD. I'm not taking it out since I still need to check it out.

Regards

lfdgonzalez

CoCreate is independent from HP since 2000. Also, HP is not even CoCreate's largest customer anymore; hence, HP does not have more influence on CoCreate than on any other company from which they happen to buy software.

clausb

CoCreate was bought by PTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.149.5 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As many of the companies in this list provide more that just CAD software, should this list be expanded to include other engineering (PLM) applications software (already some in list), such as CAM, CAE, translators, viewers and PDM; and therefore listed in order of company? Or should this be a list of CAD software products, and other lists should be made for CAM, CAE and PDM software then a separate list of PLM company

Merge with lsit of CAM companies
Actually I think the list should be List of PLM companies then list CAD CAM CAE and PLM

See Talk:List_of_CAM_companies for discussion pro and anti the idea of merging the lists.

I think ANVIL should be added to one of the lists (used by BAe on many of their projects.

Electronic CAD companies missing
This list is missing all of the largest electronic CAD companies (designing silicon chips and board design) - Synopsys, Cadence Design, Magma, Mentor Graphics. I would fill in the table but all of these companies have at least a half dozen to many dozens of products. Dyl 05:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whomever is maintaining this article needs to look at List of EDA companies. Either include those ECAD companies or this article ought to be renamed List of MCAD companies (or something like that). Dyl 16:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Individuals?
This list provides means for adding CAD companies, but is it an appropriate place to link an individual programmer also providing CAD software? I am trying to put Marvin Gozum's VGACAD here somewhere for the sake of being linked somewhere as opposed to orophaned. --89.212.75.6 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC) also rattleCAD by myself http://rattlecad.sourceforge.net/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/rattlecad/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.27.219.8 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Should service companies really be listed here?
There seem to be some companies listed that provide CAx services, but not software. Is this the right place for them to be listed? Should they be moved/removed from the list? It seems like the list will be overwhelming large and therefore less useful if it includes every service provider. --Jbaylor (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

companies to mention

 * Cetina CAD - Front Panel Designer
 * ZWCAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.189.110 (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

organisation of list
CADs should be ordered by category (ie. "general", "architectural", "electrical", "mechanical", "other", etc.) --60.241.153.201 (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Nice to have 'sort by column' for table(for column 1,2,4,6).

CADAM and CATIA
See In-house CAD software. It says that CADAM evolved into CATIA. No, it did not. The products are totally separate projects. See IBM, Lockheed and Dassault Systèmes. Page 22 has "CATIA provides alternative to CADAM" that is probably enough to clarify things. Sam Tomato (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

notability questions
Looking over the history of this page, I don't see that the notability of this topic has ever been addressed. ~TPW 14:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of CAx companies


text:
Ben Linder

Benjamin Ernest Linder (July 7, 1959 – April 28, 1987), was an American engineer. While working on a small hydroelectric dam in rural northern Nicaragua, Linder was killed by the Contras, a loose confederation of rebel groups funded by the U.S. government.

The autopsy report stated that Linder had gunshot wounds to the back of the legs (indicating he had his back to the killers), while on the ground he suffered multiple wounds to his face (the coroner noted as from an ice pick) and died from a close range gunshot to the head. The other two men were also executed in the same way. It is unknown if they were similarly tortured first. There was no mention in Linder’s autopsy report of grenade fragments.

Coming at a time when U.S. support for the Contras was already highly controversial, Linder's death made front-page headlines around the world and further polarized opinion in the United States.

Biography
The California-born Linder was raised in a secular Jewish family in San Francisco and later Portland, Oregon. He graduated from Adams High School in Portland, Oregon in 1977. While in college at the University of Washington, Linder enjoyed juggling and was often seen around Seattle riding a 5 to 6 ft unicycle. He graduated in 1983, with a degree in mechanical engineering. He left his Oregon home that summer and moved to Managua, the capital of Nicaragua.

Linder felt inspired by the 1979 Sandinista revolution, and wanted to support its efforts to improve the lives of the country's poorest people. The Reagan administration, however, was determined to cripple the revolution. Beginning in 1981, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly trained, armed and supplied thousands of Contra rebels. A major element of the Contras' strategy was to launch attacks on government cooperatives, health clinics and power stations—the things that most exemplified the improvements that had been brought about by the revolution.

In 1986, Linder moved from Managua to El Cuá, a village in the Nicaraguan war zone, where he helped form a team to build a hydroelectric plant to bring electricity to the town. While living in El Cuá, he participated in vaccination campaigns, using his talents as a clown, juggler, and unicyclist to entertain the local children, for whom he expressed great affection and concern.

On April 28, 1987, Linder and two Nicaraguans were killed in a Contra ambush while traveling through the forest to scout out a construction site for a new dam for the nearby village of San José de Bocay. The autopsy showed that Linder had been wounded by a grenade, then shot at point-blank range in the head. The two Nicaraguans—Sergio Hernández and Pablo Rosales—were also killed at close range. Linder was posthumously awarded the Courage of Conscience award on September 26, 1992.

Controversy
Linder's death quickly inflamed the already-polarized debate inside the United States, with opponents of U.S. policy decrying the use of taxpayers' dollars to finance the killing of an American citizen as well as thousands of Nicaraguan civilians.

The administration fought back, with White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater quoted in The New York Times as saying that U.S. citizens working in Nicaragua had "put themselves in harm's way". Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, an ardent proponent of the Contra War, echoed that view, saying that Linder should have known better than to be in a combat zone.

Linder's mother Elisabeth, in Nicaragua for her son's funeral, said, "My son was brutally murdered for bringing electricity to a few poor people in northern Nicaragua. He was murdered because he had a dream and because he had the courage to make that dream come true. ... Ben told me the first year that he was here, and this is a quote, 'It's a wonderful feeling to work in a country where the government's first concern is for its people, for all of its people.'"

During a Congressional hearing in May 1987, some defenders of U.S. policy in Nicaragua responded, launching personal attacks on Linder's family and other witnesses. The Village Voice reported one exchange between Republican Congressman Connie Mack of Florida and Elisabeth Linder, who had just given emotional testimony about her son's work and motivations. Mack accused Mrs. Linder of using her grief "to politicize this situation", adding, "I don't want to be tough on you, but I really feel you have asked for it."

The death of Linder, coming as Congressional hearings investigated the Iran-Contra Affair, fueled the debate in the U.S. over the covert war in Nicaragua. The next year, Congress refused to renew aid to the Contras. But the civil war, conscription into the army, the collapse of the economy, and the curtailment of civil liberties in the mid-1980s all combined to cause the defeat of the FSLN government in February 1990 elections. In July 1996, American journalist Paul Berman published an article in The New Yorker featuring an interview with a man who claimed to have killed Linder. Linder's parents and their lawyers publicly denounced the article and disputed the veracity of the man Berman interviewed. In 2001 journalist Joan Kruckewitt, who lived in Nicaragua from 1983 to 1991 and covered the war between the Sandinistas and the Contras for ABC Radio, wrote a book entitled The Death of Ben Linder giving a more sympathetic portrait of Linder's life, work, and death.

The song "Fragile" on Sting's 1987 album, ...Nothing Like the Sun, is a tribute to Ben Linder. In 1989 American artist Mike Alewitz painted a mural in Linder's memory in Esteli, Nicaragua. Singer-songwriter Dean Stevens wrote and recorded "The Children Knew Ben" on his 1989 CD, Seeds, for Volcano Records. The 1990 book Animal Dreams by Barbara Kingsolver is also dedicated to his memory, as was the (now closed) Ben Linder Cafe in Leon, Nicaragua, which was adorned with his photo and memories of his life's work. A week after Ben's death a group of Jugglers for Peace toured Nicaragua performing shows in Schools, military camps, co-operatives, villages and on the streets celebrating his life and work. They were invited to join in a peace march with other activists to the town where he worked and made a video documentary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYzKfn7ZwkU&t=1243s

title: Ben Linder


text:
Talk:United Malays National Organisation

Untitled
Nice article. External links to Malay sites on this English website are not so useful though ;-) -- Viajero 21:37, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Fixed link to point to English section of said website =) -- Jpatokal 17 Nov 2003

Copyright violation
The "Demise of UMNO" section is taken almost verbatim from here, which in turn quotes a FEER article liberally. This has to be rewritten. Jpatokal 05:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Editing without proper source or discussion
to all those who redacted UMNO Ideology(user:142.55.149.161, user:80.193.96.218, user:Bobk, user:60.48.197.32, user:Tbhotch). Please do not revert or edit without dicussion. Thank you

Francabicon
could you please explain the addition of materials on this edit? Thank you and have a great day. SunDawn talk  04:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 * @SunDawn Hi, I would like to say that i wrote those two is because that the party itself happen to participate in those events. If they didn't participate in those events i wouldn't write it. Maybe can you let me know what did i do wrong on this part for further improvement. Thanks for you question have a nice day Francabicon (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Francabicon Would be a good idea to cite sources for what you included. Sisuvia (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sisuvia Hi there thank you for your respond, does linking the main article in wikipedia count as one because i've did that thou. please do advice me because i'm bot sure. Francabicon (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Anti Icerd, Sheraton Move and other controversies
So i would like to ask everyone here is participating in Anti ICERD and Sheraton considered as a controversies because apparently there is one contributor that claims that it is not controversial.Francabicon (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Hello could you provide explanation on why do you think that anti ICERD rallies as controversial?  SunDawn  talk  13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @SunDawn well ICERD was a good factor that prevent racism and according to researchers that they had no affect on bumiputera rights but despite the government action not implementing it they still launch a big protest. As for the sheraton move well they are seen part of the it which leads to the political instability. Francabicon (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi i would like to address something that is that francabicon2 is impersonating me and also what i wrote is valid facts and it consist of other contributors work too.Francabicon (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fresh discussion
@Francabicon I like to do a fresh start on the controversies sections and my point of view.

To summarise quickly first, I do think some of these are better merged as part of history while the rest does not involve UMNO as much. Do note that UMNO is a large political parties, individual actions by a small portion not acting on behalf or in UMNO official status, does not contribute to as UMNO actions or stand. The actions of whichever Malaysia governments in power, regardless who is in power, should be noted in their individual government terms articles instead of UMNO article here.

 * 1MDB - If you look at the article itself, the main actors are Jhow Low and Najib. There are several lawsuits by UMNO members against Najib, etc, there are UMNO members being dismissed etc. It's generally quite messy but its worth a quick mention. A better summary of UMNO involvement will be better so I would say we can keep it.

 * Challenge to UMNO's right to exist - I have included in this diff as part of UMNO's history. It can be slightly expanded there but it should not exist in a standalone controversy. Apparently they already have the approval from RoS Malaysia to extend the 5 year period to 6 years, unless there is more significant issues regarding the elections.

 * Keris Incident - I am half divided on this, it has an impact on UMNO but ultimately this is an incident by Hishammuddin Hussein himself. I am leaning to not keeping it in UMNO article here. If there is an insistence to keep it somewhere, to merge into UMNO history and probably the general elections article as one of the factor or post elections analysis.

 * anti-ICERD rally - The main article only mentioned that it jointly held the rally/protest and that's all. Political parties join/hold rallies/protests all the time. Is there any significance to UMNO or by UMNO? While the rally/protest is significant, UMNO is simply upholding its manifesto and policies. This should really just be in the history that they held a rally against ICERD.

 * Implementation of bumiputera policies (12MP) - This should really be just in the 12MP wikipedia article which I copied over earlier. This is simply just another policy in line with with its manifesto and policies.

 * 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis - This is not a controversy but a full-fledged crisis which rightfully has it own article. UMNO's participation is only at the high level, with only its key members. It should be just in the history section with link to the article similar to Challenge to UMNO's right to exist.

I like to note again that while each event are notable, it does not mean every event should be placed into the controversy section. It means every single event in UMNO's History would be categorised in a way or another. While WP:CSECTION is an essay, I find it is quite a good guide. From wikipedia's article Controversy, Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view, some of the events are more of criticism rather than controversies. Some are not sustained in nature and generally a lot are not adhering to Neutral point of view. In short, in my opinion, perhaps only the 1MDB scandal should be included, while the rest are written away in history or removed. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your respond, now what i'm saying is based on me and a few of the editors understanding so please don't misinterpret my word for another meaning or misunderstand what I'm saying. now as far as we are concern this is a few statement that we have provided repetitively to others within the community. :
 * 1MDB - since you had agree upon it then i won't state further
 * Challenge to UMNO's right to exist - this isn't written by me so i might not have the right to comment but from my basic understanding that this is a controversy at the highest level as this is umno directly challenging the federal institution of Malaysia basically it cannot be more controversial itself. As I felt that this is a work that is provided by other contributors and it has been there for quite sometime basically mostly everyone agree that it should be place there.
 * Keris Incident - this isn't written by me so but i do think this is a bit controversial as well this is basically racism at the point of it as various BN allied parties have publicly criticize umno for performing such actions.
 * anti-ICERD rally - This is held by nearly all umno higher ups with party members seen with them too. So this is umno basically participating part of it also it isn't personal rally too as it is part of their manifesto and policies. It is part of their history and controversies as ICERD is based on racial equality where they are totally against.
 * Implementation of bumiputera policies (12MP) - this is drafted mostly by umno members part of their manifesto and previous attempt by najib government basically it is attacking minority.
 * 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis - this a full-fledged crisis which rightfully has it own article which i've linked. Key members are party representatives also you cannot stuff over 3 million members into one small meeting room for it to consider as umno action. yes it should be history and also controversy as they are going against the people's will.
 * Now i would also like to note again that I'm not publicly attacking you as i would take this as a discussion or debate.So i hope that we can get on good terms to discuss like civilize people and without using derogatory words to get to an agreement. Also work like this is made by other fellow contributors so don't think that removing large chucks of useful data will do any good for future editors who wish to edit over here as their hard work is all wipe by a particular users by instating that it is invalid. Hope to hear your respond and Thank You. Francabicon (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 * @Francabicon Please do tag me in replies so I get a notification about it. I am going through all the incidents so we do not have to go back and forth partially on items and then all the past items being dragged out again.
 * Challenge to UMNO's right to exist - You failed to provide any rationale except that it is controversial and that other people has written it for a long time and therefore acceptable. Wikipedia does not works in either way. You have to prove why it is controversial which you failed. Yes, there is a court case at the highest level but was rejected hence not notable unless there is more follow up actions. Nobody had further challenged RoS or UMNO at any levels which will fail sustained and significant coverage. Also, even it had existed for a while, it does not mean it is automatically accepted. All content are technically subjected to discussion and can be WP:BRD.
 * Keris incident - Same as above. As again, this is an action by an individual, not UMNO, unless it is UMNO sanctioned and approved and he is acting on behalf of UMNO then yes, it is UMNO. Again, it has been there for a while does not means it is accepted.
 * anti-ICERD rally - On this line of argument, which you should have brought out much earlier in previous discussion, I am able to accept it but not in a controversy section. I would suggest putting it in the Ideology section instead per your argument of part of their manifesto and policies and ICERD is based on racial equality where they are totally against. Since it is their ideology, it is better to be there and with some criticism (if appropriate) that it is considered racism etc (will need reliable sourcing on the criticism part).
 * Implementation of bumiputera policies (12MP) - hence I placed the full section over to Twelfth Malaysia Plan article as the masterplan is by the ruling government not UMNO. Even if the government is 100% UMNO, the plan is by the government, not UMNO (UMNO has politicians who are not part of the government). It's a similar concept to PAP of Singapore.
 * 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis - Similarly with the above point. The crisis is caused by UMNO's top politicians, which are inside a room. Did all 3million UMNO members triggered the crisis and they are representative of UMNO in this crisis or just the top politicians causing the crisis? It is part of the history and hence it should be noted somewhere in their history and not an exceptional section.
 * Also, I hope you understand that controversy sections are best avoided as it is rather disjointed and serves only to highlight certain incidents (unless they are the mostly the main reasons why the article exists). UMNO has a long history and while there are many incidents along the history, the controversy section is rather Recentism and only serves to emphasize such incidents. I hope you put down your political positions and viewed this neutrally. If you cannot do so, I would strongly suggest that you should leave the topic alone. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 * User Francabicon can't accept the truth because he/she is a PH suppoter. Yet can't admit the truth. His's Complaints about these other 4 issue except 1mdb really messed up. ICERD rally is not a Controversy but He/she wrote it under Fake newskini is Exactly how they lied. And Francabicon and Leesjy still same manner and yeah, they actually Pure Sock Puppets. It is better to block Francabicon because he keep denial his "Facts" are right, Regards.LeesjyM3 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @LeesjyM3 how does being a potential hydrogen (pH) supporter related to this matter or politics and there is no news site call (Fake newskini). I would like to warn you that publicly accusation of impersonation is a very very serious matter hope that you can consider carefully before writing any manner. if i may say that you have all right to say that I'm wrong but it won't resolve any matter that you can't prove why it is wrong please act speak like the commenters above and giving me real facts and evidence. My sources are adheres to independent source without political funding or other opposition from the current party. Francabicon (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @LeesjyM3 and @Francabicon: I like to warn both of you to be WP:CIVIL on Wikipedia. Regardless of your political positions, Wikipedia is not a battleground for supporters to fight or gain support for your political inclinations. Francabicon, your sarcasm here does not help in anyway and only serves to make things worse. If other editors chose not to be civil, ignore and move on. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Justanothersgwikieditor i actually have zero clue on what is @LeesjyM3 is talking about because i don't start any fight for any political motivation and I'm not being sarcastic when he said about being a "PH" supporter because i literally have zero clue on what is he talking about because PH through my understanding is pH. I've literally google "fake newskini" as i do not know of any news site called that name. when i say that i push used actual news source from sites. Francabicon (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Francabicon : This is rather disingenuous on your part and that while I come here to discuss in good faith without looking at your edit history, your choice of defence has left me with no other choices.
 * To write on UMNO and Malaysia's political crisis and claiming that you do not know what PH stands for and claims it is pH is rather a poor move. Especially considering your own user profile indicating you are a Malaysian and listed your political leanings, it's rather hard to believe that you do not know the political coalition that ruled your country. Also you had been editing various constituency articles which has PH contesting the ward and its rather not possible for you not to notice PH is on these pages.
 * You had used Malaysiakini as sources/references in your original writings a few times and you claimed you do not know what LeesjyM3's mention of "fake newskini" would likely means? Given the obvious PH claims by you, it is rather obvious that you chose to purposely distort the meaning and tried to claim innocence.
 * Evidence of knowledge of Pakatan Harapan : Editing on PH's page, mention of PH in your edit summary "cannot prove my sources are siding with PH", adding of picture to PH's page
 * Using malaysiakini as source : Note that this is part of a series of original content by you and not a revert of deletion of content.
 * Political bias : bias in your edit summary "Umno had already serveral cases elected bad performing politician in office", spamming controversial events in UMNO article, likely copied huge chunks of another article aka 1MDB scandal into UMNO article giving it UNDUE weight when it is fully covered in its own article
 * While there were disruptive editors, rude and uncivil language and behaviour only make things worse and regardless of how other editors behave, we need to be CIVIL. I came to discuss in good faith and noted both disruptive behaviour on the both of you and your chose to be frivolous and sarcastic. If you only pointed your behaviour towards LeesjyM3, I could and likely let this go but to behave in the same way to me, this is rather unacceptable to me. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Justanothersgwikieditor in that case i do apologies on this matter above as i haven't use PH for quite sometime so i didn't know what he was talking about and i also hope to discuss in good faith for the matters above. Hope you understand that i don't take estimation of certain words without certainty. I would like to point out that i sometimes may use words that provide misunderstanding. So yes i do not wish to start a fight on some matters. As i said that i do not edit certain things without research or blatant accusation but if someone have told me that if it is wrong the you can prove me wrong.hope that that clears your understanding. Francabicon (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Francabicon I am not convinced by your reasoning and your non-apology. As much as you claim you like to discuss in good faith, but it is rather obvious you are pushing a certain viewpoint and placing a lot of WP:UNDUE weight on negative aspects of UMNO, via the controversy section. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I found this dispute following Justanothersgwikieditor's post to WT:MY. It is not clear, reading above, exactly what the dispute is about. Is the dispute about the existence of the controversy section as a whole, or over individual items within it? What are the edits/contents most at question here? CMD (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 * @Chipmunkdavis Thanks for reading. The dispute is about the existence of the controversy section. I broke down the section to its individual parts for easier discussion. It is best to read the Fresh discussion sub section onwards. I was mostly for the removal of all the subsections except for the 1MDB scandal but on second thoughts now, I am advocating for the removal of the entire section. Thanks! Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I would like to take a step back and point out how bad this article structure is. The article is almost completely the "History" section. "Ideology" has one paragraph, which is laughably poor for a political party that ruled a country continuously for 60 years. The Controversy section is the third, and final, prose section (the rest of the article is statistical tables). I agree controversy sections on the whole are poor, and should not exist, as controversy should be integrated into the rest of the article. However, there isn't much in this article to integrate into. Sadly good examples of Political party articles seem sparse (Bharatiya Janata Party and Progress Party (Norway) look to be among the better ones), but at the very least "Implementation of bumiputera policies" sounds like a topic that fits well into Ideology. CMD (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chipmunkdavis From my reading of your reply, if the appropriate sections/structure are there, it will be good to move/merge some of the incidents to the correct sections. So for a quick breakdown of the listed incidents.
 * 1MDB - To be moved to history with appropriate links to the main article, 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal.
 * Challenge to UMNO's right to exist - I have already written this into history so it should not exist on its own.
 * Keris Incident - As per my previous comment here, to be removed and to be merged into the appropriate general elections article as one of the factor or post elections analysis (incident was said to be a factor causing election results to be affected.).
 * anti-ICERD rally - To be merged into Ideology section as part of their bumiputera policy
 * Implementation of bumiputera policies (12MP) - To be merged into Ideology section as part of their bumiputera policy. I had previously copied the section to Twelfth Malaysia Plan as the policy is carried out as 12MP so it is appropriate there as well.
 * 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis - To be merged into history of UMNO. The crisis is there in some form but probably needs a rewrite and linked to the main article.
 * Do let me have your views. Thanks. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into them all individually, but the principle sounds good. The only one you want to remove is the Keris incident? CMD (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well only the Keris incident is a personal incident and should be removed from here totally (as mentioned, it can exist in some certain forms in other articles if appropriate). My main objective is to remove a standalone controversy section and stop the constant edit war over it (the edit war keeps showing up in my monitored recent changes). If we can come to an agreement to move/merge the Controversy section to other sections, it should calm the page and editors down. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept your reasoning and i won't edit any further regarding this matter above. Francabicon (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


text:
Juhani Aho

Juhani Aho, originally Johannes Brofeldt (11 September 1861 – 8 August 1921), was a Finnish author and journalist. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature twelve times.

Early life
Juhani Aho was born at Lapinlahti in 1861. His parents were Henrik Gustaf Theodor Brofeldt and Karolina Fredrika Emelie "Emma" Brofeldt (née Snellman). The Brofeldts were a priestly family: Theodor was a relatively well-known revivalist preacher whose sermons were published in 1917 as ''Rovasti H. G. Th. Brofeldtin saarnoja'' and his father had been a chaplain and his grandfather a vicar. Juhani had two younger brothers Kaarlo Kustaa Brofeldt (1865–1936) and Petter Fredrik Brofeldt (1864–1945) who, following Juhani's example, adopted the Finnish names Kalle and Pekka as well as the surname Aho.

From 1872 to 1880 Juhani Aho attended the Kuopion Lyseo, one of the few upper secondary schools offering education in Finnish. During his time at the school he adopted the pen name Juhani Aho for many of his school works. In the 1880s he studied at the University of Helsinki and was associated with political radicals. His literary pursuits were aided by Elisabeth Järnefelt and her circle, the "Järnefelt school", who were pioneers of Finnish realism.

Career
Aho's literary output is wide-ranging since he pursued different styles as time passed.

He started as a realist and his first novel Rautatie (Railroad, 1884), which is considered one of his main works, is from this period. Later he moved towards neoromanticism with novels Panu and Kevät ja takatalvi as well as Juha. The last one is one of his most famous works and has been twice as adapted an opera, by Aarre Merikanto and by Leevi Madetoja, and to film four times, most recently in 1999 by Aki Kaurismäki.

His novel Yksin (Alone), published in 1890, controversially bold by the standards of Finnish literature in that epoch, is a roman à clef. Its tale of unrequited love is the autobiographical novel of Aho's passion for Aino Järnefelt who, at that time, was secretly engaged to Jean Sibelius, whom she would later marry. The initial feelings of anger and jealousy that reading the novel provoked in Sibelius were soon forgotten and, in later life, Aho and Sibelius were close friends as well as neighbours in Järvenpää, where the composer had a villa christened "Ainola" (the Place of Aino). Aho married Venny Soldan-Brofeldt in 1891.

In addition to his novels Aho wrote a number of short stories of distinct style, called "splinters" ("lastuja" in Finnish). Their topics could vary from political allegories to depictions of everyday life.

The first and most famous of the short stories is Siihen aikaan kun isä lampun osti (When Father Brought Home the Lamp), depicting the effect of the innovation on people living in the countryside. Nowadays the title is a Finnish saying used when something related to new technology is introduced.

Aho was one of the founders of Päivälehti, the predecessor of the biggest newspaper in Finland today, Helsingin Sanomat. He was also one of the active contributors of a cultural magazine, Valvoja.

Aho loved fly fishing. In 1906 he got to know Huopanankoski rapids in Viitasaari. After that he went there every spring and autumn for 14 years. He also went summers in Laukkoski, Pornainen.

Aho died in Helsinki in 1921. The photographer Claire Aho is his granddaughter.

title: Juhani Aho


text:
List of the most popular names in the 1970s in the United States

These are the most popular given names in the United States for each respective year in the 1970s.