text:
Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 3

New Version(s)
I have made a start on a version which will attempt to put the real artificial consciousness position. But this, I am finding, requires contrast with the AC can never be real view so that is fleshed out too but it is not my intention to argue for that view. Please all feel free to contribute at Talk:Artificial consciousness/real. There are no special rules about contributing there. It is not my page, and there is no Master Editor: No unreasoned reverts, please, as per normal Wikipedia etiquette. All standard Wikipedia behaviour is permitted, including anonymous edits. As with all Wikipedia articles, this is a "work in progress". Tkorrovi is encouraged to contribute as is Paul Beardsell. But I understand that tkorrovi may be creating a version looking at AC from a more AC can not be real perspective and I have suggested that happen, if at all, here Talk:Artificial consciousness/notreal. Ataturk 02:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's a great start. In my view it is already the most balanced version we have had. Recognising that there are two underlying irreconcilable views viz Strong AC and Weak AC has to be the way forward. What this requires, though, is that anybody who states a supposed fact must allow that someone else modify it to state that that is only the view of those who hold the strong AC view (or only the view if those who hold the weak AC view). Paul Beardsell 03:17, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Ataturk 03:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who is Ataturk?
> No, you suggest to write an article either entirely based on one point of view or entirely based on other point of view ("real" or "not real"), this is not NPOV ("no point of view") principle of Wikipedia. As there are different points of view, then the article can be NPOV only when all these points of view are incorporated in one article. Tkorrovi

> Now you have me confused as only a few paras above you seem to be in favour of the idea. Ataturk 02:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please stop tricking, you saw clearly that my opposition was only on the ground that your last suggestion is not NPOV. Ataturk, please confirm that you are not Paul Beardell, just because you registered only during the dispute ...

 * You said I could not contribute unless I registered. Previously my contribution was anonymous.  Ataturk 04:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

... and that you have no real name (and nothing at all) on your personal page and that I never asked you this. Just if you don't confirm, then there is a very different picture of what is going on here. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

I meant Paul Beardsell Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

If you disagree with Ataturk do so without dragging me in. I take umbrage at the implication that anybody who disagrees with you must be me. Paul Beardsell 04:07, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV does not stand for "no point of view". See NPOV. 203.100.251.10 04:32, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please register, if you want to participate in decising important questions, you should also have responsibility to identify yourself. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

Stop the wind up. But thanks for replacing my heading. Ataturk 12:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consensus
The article was frozen pending consensus. As there was an edit war going on presumably not everyone is happy with the frozen version. A task was set - to achieve consensus here. A new version of the article seems to this writer to fairly represent the various POVs expressed so far. Other versions have been invited. Other contributions have been invited. This writer proposes that in the absence of other versions that the version so far contributed should be considered the consensus view if only by default. And that it be made the new unfrozen version of the article. Do not complain about this proposal, get editing if you are unhappy. 203.100.251.10 05:00, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The one (so far) new version is here Talk:Artificial consciousness/real. 203.100.251.10 05:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A discussion re freeze and new version: Village pump  203.100.251.10 16:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

tkorrovi continues to attack me but is not contributing suggestions for a consensus view of what the article should be. Neither is he contributing to the page proposed as a candidate for the new version of the article, nor is he proposing an alternative version. Paul Beardsell 16:52, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No dispute is solved yet
You make a lot of noise but you have stopped contributing. Are you happy with the proposed new version or not? Paul Beardsell 17:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I already said that I don't agree, read above. And no „new“ version as you did must be sturted, after everything is solved, work must start from protected version to honor all the contributions included there. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

Tkorrovi refuses above to contribute to any version other than the frozen one. He has ignored suggestions that he do so on the page created for him for that purpose. I suggest editing continue on a new article: Consciousness (artificial) Paul Beardsell 18:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How ridiculous is this? Now tkorrovi DICTATES what the section headings can be on this Talk page. We have an edit war about the section headings on the talk page!

I see that unsigned comments start to appear here. Presumed to be by Paul Beardsell. How much headings did tkorrovi change? 90% of the heading here are written by *you* (Paul Beardsell), so you don't like me (or perhaps anybody else) even to edit headings. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

Consciousness (artificial)
Editors are encouraged, should they find their contributions unwelcome here, to contribute to an article which has evolved from the frozen version of this one and which seems to represent practically all POVs expressed here, ever. It has also moved on and contains new and interesting edits. See Consciousness (artificial). 203.221.246.108 02:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reciprocal courtesy requested
At the top of the new candidate consensus version of artificial consciousness to be found at consciousness (artificial) the following notice can be found:

 * Please see artificial consciousness for an alternative article on this subject. This article derives from that one. See Village pump also.

I wish to have a similar notice at the top of this Talk page. I ask that tkorrovi stop removing such notice.

Ataturk 11:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, this talk page is not dependent on consciousness (artificial) talk page, maybe Ataturk (or Paul Beardsell) is recognized by users as master editor there, but he has no such status here. And please stop playing with the headings. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

New Comments
I had some reason to consider a masked attempt by Paul Beardsell to make this article effectively blank. See revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Artificial_consciousness&diff=2749589&oldid=2749452 and before that he tried to remove other components of article what he only left in the article in that revision. I tried to protect the content of this article. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

You try to protect the article from improvement. Paul Beardsell 16:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's obvious that these two comments don't belong to the section "Who is Ataturk". Moved here as new comments. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

And it is also obvious that they do not belong in the Consensus section. To start a new section place two '=' signs each side of the section header. You are able to do this for yourself. Paul Beardsell 16:36, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For making it clear. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

Can you please figure out that there should be no section below "New Comments" section, only then new comments posted by people to the end of talk page appear in *that* section. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

 * I suggest you petition the Wikipedia developers to change the system so that it works like you want. In the interim I suggest you operate in accordance with the current system.  Paul Beardsell 17:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Paul, if you even want to harrass me next few months, every day, every hour, I'm prepared for that, though it is the least what I want. I have no joice because I once started this article and cannot leave it just because of you. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

 * Stay, read NPOV, stop reverting without good reason, contribute. Paul Beardsell 17:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you please figure out that there should be no section below "New Comments" section, only then new comments posted by people to the end of talk page appear in *that* section. I just deleted another such added by you. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

I repeat what I said, I just deleted another such section header added by you. If you want to start another article, it's your concern, at least concerning artificial consciousness I maintain only this article. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

 * Your position is stronger than that: What you say by your actions is that only you maintain this article.  I am going to move Artificial consciousness to Tkorrovi's article.   Paul Beardsell 01:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

> And it is also obvious that they do not belong in the Consensus section. To start a new section place two '=' signs each side of the section header. You are able to do this for yourself. Paul Beardsell 16:36, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consensus section was last then, so it was your wish that all new comments (posted without subject) must be considered to be in last section, I considered it and so „New Comments“ section was started. But if you all the time change your wishes, then any person treated by you like that cannot possibly have agreement with you even in smallest things.

Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

If all comments go under one heading, why have a heading at all? Paul Beardsell 18:32, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged, should they find their contributions unwelcome here, to contribute to an article which has evolved from the frozen version of this one and which seems to represent practically all POVs expressed here, ever. It has also moved on and contains new and interesting edits. See Consciousness (artificial). 203.221.246.108 02:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

203.221.246.108 (presumably Paul Beardsell), the duplicate of the message above was deleted from the top of this page. You are not administrator, neither am I, so you have no right to put your opinion as a first message of the talk page as a main guideline. Also the header "Is field worthy of discussion" because by questioning that, you put yourself higher than users, who must have right to decide themselves what they like to discuss. It is assumed that people who write here find the topic worth of discussion, but if it is the case that you write here without finding the topic of this article worth of discussion, then the mildest name of such activity is trolling. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

Ridiculing heading "Tkorrovi reserves the bottom of the article for himself" deleted do I have any right to protect myself? Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

He will not allow new sections at the bottom of this Talk page. He will not allow text to be inserted at the top of the page. He will not allow perfectly reasonable titles to be inserted into the document to give it structure.

Ataturk, please don't disturb Ugen64 with your long accusations, most of what you said there has been talked about here. Just one comment by me, concerning "my own external articles" (there is only one such, no my contributions whatsoever in the other(s)). The only my "external article", what in fact is a link to download page of a freeware program, is the link named "Proposed mechanisms for AC implemented by computer program: absolutely dynamic systems". As you see from page history, there was before a heading "Proposed mechanisms for AC implemented by computer program" and under that as one item "absolutely dynamic systems". It was for a long time so, but as nobody added more links to that heading, then one editor (see history) decided to remove the subheading and make it only one link under Externel Link(s), and for a long time nobody added other external links either (see history). Also many people who edited this article didn't want to remove that link, except Paul Beardsell. This particular program written by me was once also a subject of offense by Paul Beardsell, after that he refocused on removing all the rest from the article, one possible motivation to make article blank to start his own article from that place written then mostly by him and his close friend Matthew Stannard (most of the comments on his talk page are by Paul Beardsell, he is also the same as Matt Stan). It's interesting to observe that you proposed changes to article exactly in the same wording as Paul Beardsell, supported without exception everything what Paul Beardsell said or proposed, and now are against the same link Paul Beardsell was. Then if you really are not Paul Beardsell, then you might be a twin brother of Paul Beardsell. But now concerning your criticism. It was also talked earlier in this page, there are not much freeware programs written especially for AC (what might be necessary for AC), so I considered useful to have it there, to have all such freeware programs. I am against including commercial programs or even freeware programs what are somehow used in commercial activities (maybe including book selling) as this would be promotion, whether then self-promotion or not. I cannot agree though with the argument that a link to freeware program written by me cannot be added by me. There is a huge number of links to freeware programs in Wikipedia and most likely most of them were added by either authors or by maintainers of these freeware programs. If you now want to delete links to all these freeware programs, then there are too many of them in Wikipedia and you know that you cannot do this because of the huge opposition what it would result. Also one cannot agree with the argument that freeware program cannot be included if there is not article about it in peer-reviewed journal. Yes, there is no such article about my program (the earlier version of this article with a to my program was listed though in the web page of "Science Daily", don't know whether it needed a review or not). Though there is also no negative review of my program by any expert. If there was a demand that any program or amendment to software was only accepted when published in a peer-reviewed journal, then software couldn't possibly develop to what it is now. When you know something about programming then you know how many programs there are what are never published in a peer-reviewed journal, but are in wide use. For example I entertain myself now by porting public domain vi editor Stevie to curses (Windows and Linux) and making it a "real" public domain program by changing the regular expressions code there to real public domain one. Stevie is a very important editor, based on what was written one of the best programmer's editors today called Vim, but I don't know that there is article about it in peer-reviewed journal, and if you even look how much there is talk about it in the Internet -- only a few web pages, not much interest seems to be, but it is so likely at most because people don't understand these questions much, not because it has almost no importance whatsoever. So I don't know about your point of view, show me even a precedence where link to freeware program (not anyhow used commercially) was deleted in Wikipedia because it was not published in peer-reviewed journal. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

Sorry, I had to give my condolences to close person of mine whose mother died, I could not omit that. But now I'm back to deal with possible further trolling. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

title: Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 3


text:
Government of New York City

The government of New York City, headquartered at New York City Hall in Lower Manhattan, is organized under the New York City Charter and provides for a mayor-council system. The mayor is elected to a four-year term and is responsible for the administration of city government. The New York City Council is a unicameral body consisting of 51 members, each elected from a geographic district, normally for four-year terms. Primary elections for local offices use ranked choice voting, while general elections use plurality voting. All elected officials are subject to a two consecutive-term limit. The court system consists of two citywide courts and three statewide courts.

New York City's government employs approximately 330,000 people, more than any other city in the United States and more than any U.S. state but three: California, Texas, and New York. The city government is responsible for public education, correctional institutions, public safety, recreational facilities, sanitation, water supply, and welfare services.

New York City consists of five boroughs, each coextensive with one of five counties of New York State: Brooklyn is Kings County, the Bronx is Bronx County, Manhattan is New York County, Queens is Queens County, and Staten Island is Richmond County. When New York City was consolidated into its present form in 1898, all previous town and county governments within it were abolished in favor of the present five boroughs and a unified, centralized city government. However, each county retains its own district attorney to prosecute crimes, and most of the court system is organized around the counties.

New York City is divided between two federal judicial districts. Bronx County and New York County are in the Southern District while Kings County, Queens County, and Richmond County are in the Eastern District, although both districts have concurrent jurisdiction over the waters in their respective districts.

Executive branch
The executive branch of New York City consists of the Mayor, and numerous departments, boards and commissions. The Mayor also appoints several deputy mayors to head major offices within the executive branch of the city government. The City Record is the official journal published each weekday (except legal holidays) containing legal notices produced by city agencies, and regulations are compiled in the Rules of the City of New York.

Mayor

The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the city and a magistrate, appoints and removes all unelected officers and exercises all the powers vested in the city except otherwise provided by law, and is responsible for the effectiveness and integrity of city government operations. The mayor is directly elected by popular vote for a four-year term. The mayor is also responsible for creating the city's budget through the New York City Mayor's Office of Management and Budget, submitted for approval, not drafting, to the Council.

Other citywide offices
Along with the mayor, the Public Advocate and the Comptroller are the only three directly elected citywide officials in New York City.

Public Advocate
The Public Advocate is an elected official with responsibility to ease public relations with the government, investigate complaints regarding city agencies, mediate disputes between city agencies and citizens, serve as the city's ombudsman and advise the mayor on community relations. The Public Advocate is a member of the Council. The Public Advocate stands first in line of succession to the mayoralty.

Comptroller
The Comptroller conducts performance and financial audits of all city agencies, serves as a fiduciary to the city's five public pension funds totaling nearly $160 billion in assets, provides comprehensive oversight of the city's budget and fiscal condition, reviews city contracts for integrity, accountability and fiscal compliance, manages the fair, efficient and effective resolution of claims against the city, ensures transparency and accountability in the prevailing wage rate-setting process and enforces prevailing wage and living wage laws. The Comptroller stands second, after the Public Advocate, in the line to succeed a mayor who has become unable to serve.

Non-mayoral agencies
There are also numerous commissions, boards, tribunals and offices that are independent of the mayor's office.

Legislative branch
Legislative power in the City of New York is vested in the New York City Council. The New York State Constitution empowers local governments to adopt local laws in addition to ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations.

The Council is a unicameral body consisting of 51 Council members, whose districts are defined by geographic population boundaries that each contain approximately 157,000 people. Council members are elected every four years, except that after every census held in years divisible by twenty, districts are redrawn, requiring two consecutive two-year terms, the second of which is held in the redrawn districts. The Speaker of the Council, selected by the 51 Council members, is often considered the second most powerful post in New York City's government after the Mayor.

Bills passed by a simple majority are sent to the mayor, who may sign them into law. If the mayor vetoes a bill, the Council has 30 days to override the veto by a two-thirds majority vote. A local law has a status equivalent with a law enacted by the New York State Legislature (subject to certain exceptions and restrictions), and is superior to the older forms of municipal legislation such as ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations. The codified local laws of New York City are contained in the New York City Administrative Code.

The Council has several committees with oversight of various functions of the city government. Each council member sits on at least three standing, select or subcommittees. The standing committees meet at least once per month. The Speaker of the Council, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader are all ex officio members of every committee.

Prior to 1990, the city also had a powerful Board of Estimate, a unique legislative-executive hybrid. Although it could not pass laws, it shared authority for the city budget with the council and controlled functions such as land use, municipal contracts, franchises, and water and sewer rates. The Board's membership consisted of the mayor, comptroller, president of the City Council, and the five borough presidents. The three citywide officials each cast two votes, and the borough presidents one each. In 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Board of Estimate as violating the principle of "one man, one vote", due to the dramatically unequal numbers of constituents being represented by each borough president. The city subsequently adopted its current arrangement by referendum.

Courts
The state court system in New York City has two citywide courts, the Criminal Court and the Civil Court, and several statewide courts, the Supreme Court, Surrogate's Court, and Family Court. Unlike the rest of New York, New York City counties do not have a typical County Court. Each statewide court is located in each of New York City's five counties (boroughs). There are also numerous extrajudicial administrative courts such as OATH, which are executive agencies and not part of the state Unified Court System.

The Criminal Court of the City of New York handles summons court appearance tickets, violations, misdemeanors (generally, crimes punishable by fine or imprisonment of up to one year), and conducts arraignments (initial court appearances following arrest) and preliminary hearings in felony cases.

The Civil Court of the City of New York includes Housing Court for landlord-tenant matters, Small Claims Court for cases involving amounts up to $5000, and generally has jurisdiction for damages up to $25,000. It handles about 25% of all the New York state and local courts' total filings. There are also several extrajudicial administrative courts, e.g. the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) adjudicates matters for city agencies unless otherwise provided for by law, and the city Parking Violations Bureau adjudicates parking violations.

The Supreme Court of the State of New York is the trial court of general jurisdiction, which in New York City hears felony cases and major civil cases. (Lesser criminal and civil cases are heard in the Criminal Court and Civil Court, respectively.) The Family Court of the State of New York is a family court that hears cases involving children and families. The Surrogate's Court of the State of New York is the probate court which oversees the probate of wills and administers estates.

Borough and community government
New York City is composed of five boroughs or counties, collectively comprising 59 community districts.

Borough presidents
Each of the five boroughs has an elected borough president. The borough presidents can have legislation introduced in the council, recommend capital projects, hold public hearings on matters of public interest, make recommendations to the mayor and to other city officials, make recommendations on land use and planning, and make recommendations regarding the performance of contracts providing for the delivery of services, in the interests of the people of their borough.

Borough boards
Each of the five boroughs has a borough board. They are composed of the borough president, Council members from the borough, and the chairperson of each community board in the borough. The borough boards can hold or conduct public or private hearings, adopt by-laws, prepare comprehensive and special purpose plans and make recommendations for land use and planning, mediate disputes and conflicts among two or more community boards, submit a comprehensive statement of the expense and capital budget priorities and needs, evaluate the progress of capital developments and the quality and quantity of services provided by agencies, and otherwise consider the needs of the borough.

Community boards
Each of the fifty-nine community districts has a community board composed of up to 50 volunteer members appointed by the local borough president, half from nominations by Council members representing the community district (i.e., whose council districts cover part of the community district). Community boards advise on land use and zoning, participate in the city budget process, and address service delivery in their district. Community boards act in an advisory capacity, wielding no official authority to make or enforce laws.

District attorneys
Each of the five counties of New York City elects a district attorney (DA) for a four-year term, whose duty it is to prosecute all crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county. There is also a sixth DA, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Narcotics, who is unelected, but appointed by the five elected DAs.

Public authorities
The Brooklyn Public Library and Queens Public Library are public library systems within their respective boroughs. The New York Public Library is a private, non-governmental library serving the Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island, that receives government funding. The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) provides public housing for low- and moderate-income residents. NYC Health + Hospitals (New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, or HHC) operates public hospitals and clinics. The New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) is the city's economic development corporation.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) manages the New York City Subway and MTA Regional Bus Operations through its arm the New York City Transit Authority. Despite this name, the NYCTA, like the rest of the MTA, was created by the New York State Legislature as a public-benefit corporation, which the legislature and governor of New York control. The MTA also operates the Staten Island Railway within Staten Island, as well as the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad, both of which are commuter lines that have termini in the city but run largely in the suburban counties of New York State and Connecticut.

Other regional transportation is managed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, including the bridges and tunnels between New York City and New Jersey, and all airports and seaports within the city. The Port Authority is an interstate compact operating agency jointly controlled by the Governor of New Jersey and Governor of New York.

Political parties
State Election Law defines the structure of political parties. It requires each party to have a state committee and allows them to organize county committees. The county committees are composed of at least two members elected from each election district (containing a maximum of 950–1150 registered voters). The law also allows the election of assembly district leaders. The political parties' county executive committees typically select candidates for local offices, to be ratified by the full county committees. Many small parties do not have county committees and designate candidates at the state level. The political parties' judicial nominating conventions select candidate New York Supreme Court justices. Candidates for the citywide offices of mayor, comptroller and public advocate are designated jointly by the five county executive committees of each party. In most cases, insurgents who are party members can challenge party-designated candidates by petitioning for a primary election.

Heraldry
The seal of New York City, adopted in an earlier form in 1686, bears the legend SIGILLVM CIVITATIS NOVI EBORACI, which means simply "The Seal of the City of New York". Eboracum was the Roman name for York, the titular seat of James II as Duke of York. The two supporters represent the unity between Native Americans and colonists, the four windmill sails recall the city's Dutch history as New Amsterdam, and the beavers and flour barrels the city's earliest trade goods (see History of New York City). The crest over the seal is the American eagle, added after the American Revolution. "1625", the date at the bottom, was chosen to emphasize the city's Dutch roots but has been characterized as "arbitrary" and "simply wrong" by notable city historians (New Amsterdam was actually settled in 1624).

The flag of New York City was adopted in 1915. Its blue, white, and orange bands represent the colors of the Dutch flag that flew over the city, then New Amsterdam, between the 1620s and 1660s. Located in the center is a blue print of the official Seal of New York City minus its Latin motto.

There are two official variants of the New York City flag. The Mayor's Office version adds an arc of five five-pointed stars (representing each of the five boroughs) in blue above the seal, and the Councilmanic version adds the word "COUNCIL" in blue below the seal.

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

title: Government of New York City


text:
Bunguran Islands

The Bunguran Islands are an archipelago in Riau Islands province, Indonesia, located in the Natuna Sea, the southern portion of the South China Sea. The archipelago forms the central part of the Natuna Regency, an archipelago of 272 islands in total, which is in turn included in the Tudjuh Archipelago, off the northwest coast of Borneo. The largest island of the archipelago is Bunguran or Pulau Natuna Besar (Great Natuna Island), situated in the Middle Natuna Archipelago. The group covers a land area of 1,698.6 km2 and had a population of 52,013 at the 2010 Census. It is divided into nine districts (kecamatan) – seven of which are tabulated below from north to south with their areas and 2010 Census populations, plus the number of administrative villages within that district (after the creation of two additional districts since 2010) and the postcode:

Two additional districts have been created since 2010 out of the existing districts - Bunguran Batubi (split from Bunguran Barat district) and Pulau Tiga Barat (split from Pulau Tiga district).

title: Bunguran Islands


text:
Mazatec

The Mazatec are an Indigenous people of Mexico who inhabit the Sierra Mazateca in the state of Oaxaca and some communities in the adjacent states of Puebla and Veracruz.

Language family
The Mazatecan languages are part of the Popolocan family which, in turn, is part of the Otomanguean language family.

Traditional religious rituals
Mazatec tradition includes the cultivation of entheogens for spiritual and ritualistic use. Plants and fungi used for this purpose include psilocybin mushrooms, psychoactive morning glory seeds (from species such as Ipomoea tricolor and Ipomoea corymbosa), and Salvia divinorum. This latter plant is known to Mazatec shamans as ska María Pastora, the name containing a reference to the Virgin Mary.

Notable Mazatecs

 * María Sabina
 * Julieta Casimiro

title: Mazatec


text:
130 departments of the First French Empire

This is a list of the 130 departments (départements), the conventional name for the administrative subdivisions of the First French Empire at the height of its territorial extent, circa 1811.

Note that the Illyrian Provinces were also part of France, but were not organised into departments, and so are not included in this list. Similarly, four additional French departments were also created in Catalonia (annexed from Spain in 1812); their juridical status remained incomplete until the French lost their grip on Spain in 1814. Those departments were: Bouches-de-l'Èbre, Montserrat, Sègre, and Ter.

List
The names of departments formed from territories annexed to France after 1791 have been colour-coded as follows:

Moreover, the Tanaro department was established in 1802 and disbanded in 1805; it was one of the six original départments which took the place of the Subalpine Republic. Its territory was divided between the three départments of Marengo, Stura, and Montenotte (the latter was created after the annexation of the Ligurian Republic).


text:
List of mayors of Montreal

This is a list of mayors of Montreal, Quebec, since the city was incorporated in 1832. Party colours do not indicate affiliation or resemblance to a provincial or a federal party.

Mayors of Montreal
Applebaum is the most recent non-francophone mayor, the last being James John Edmund Guerin in 1912. Applebaum is the first Jewish mayor for the city with previous holders either French Canadian, Scottish, Irish or English descent.

title: List of mayors of Montreal


text:
User talk:Fanf

September 2008
Re your edit to List of bridges in Cambridge, your terminology doesn't agree with that at River_Cam and at River_Cam, but would seem to agree with you, so River Cam apparently needs to be changed?

David Biddulph (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dirhash
Thanks for the link to the paper on Dirhash. I read it, and learned some cool stuff. -- Bilbo1507 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Next Vernor Vinge novel
Thanks for adding the link to Charlie Stross's comment on Nicholas Whyte's post ... but I've reverted it (yeah, I know that sounds silly). Why? These are all minor or fixable, but together they make me a bit uncomfortable. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. Cheers, CWC 20:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CS got the title wrong.
 * Comments on blogs are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia.
 * We already mention The Children of the Sky in the "Life and work" section.
 * Forthcoming books probably don't belong in a "Bibliography" section.

Move Thunderbolt
I'm going to merge the former Light Peak article onto Thunderbolt, and redir your page to it. But what to name it? I don't like the (Intel), I think something like (computer bus) or (expansion system)? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fanf


text:
American Anti-Slavery Group

The American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) is a non-profit coalition of abolitionist organizations that engages in political activism to abolish slavery in the world. It raises awareness of contemporary slavery, particularly among the chattel slaves of Mauritania and Sudan, raises funds to support relief and aid to enslaved populations and escaped former slaves, and lobbies government officials to increase their efforts. AASG'

AASG was co-founded in 1993 by Charles Jacobs (who served as its first research director) with African human rights activists Mohamed Athie of Mauritania and David Chand of Sudan.

Incorporated in Newton, Massachusetts, the AASG reports having "many associates and 30,000 members around the world." Recent officers include: Mohamed Athie (past president) and Charles Jacobs (past clerk and treasurer; current president and member of board of directors).

AASG maintains close ties to The Sudan Campaign, for which Charles Jacobs serves as a co-chairman.

AASG central components
AASG says that the first step in eradicating slavery is educating the public that it still exists. AASG builds awareness through publications, school curricula, conferences, and a Speakers’ Bureau — consisting mainly of survivors of slavery. ASG advocates for the freedom of those degraded by slavery through government lobbying and online campaigns, which locate pressure points in corporations that benefit from slavery, governments that tolerate human bondage, and leaders who remain silent. On their website, AASG state that they have a network of activists around the world who are passionate about freedom. Grassroots activism takes the form of rallies, candlelight vigils, freedom marches, petitions and letter-writing campaigns. AASG partners with organizations working on the ground to provide rehabilitation and support to victims of slavery. By providing food, shelter, education, and rehabilitation, AASG equips survivors with the tools they need to rebuild their lives. ''
 * Awareness
 * Advocacy
 * Activism
 * Aid

Modern-day slavery
On June 4, 2008, the U.S. released a trafficking in persons report. In this report Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated, "Trafficking and exploitation plague all nations, and no country, even ours, is immune."

Controversies
The AASG claims of contemporary slavery have been met with criticism from BBC journalist David Hecht.

Hecht has challenged the AASG claims of rampant slavery in Sudan. "Yes, there is a slave (and master) mentality in Africa, but nothing like the dehumanized institutions that Frederick Douglass had to fight in America." He also reported that Western media are often naïve misunderstandings of the facts. Claiming that outside those areas controlled by the Sudanese Government, the old practice of intertribal feuding continues. In these raids prisoners are taken, who must then be ransomed. What looks like the purchase of slaves is actually the redemption of prisoners of war.

Anti-Slavery International has also stated that, "The charge that government troops engage in raids for the purpose of seizing slaves is not backed by the evidence."

Controversy of redemption program
The AASG supported program of arrangement of payment to human traffickers for the "freedom" of slaves has come under fire. Aid workers, missionaries, and even the rebel movement that facilitates the redemption of slaves in the claim it is often an elaborate scam or a "corrupt racket." Groups, including the Sudan Embassy, Canada, state that the practice of paying the rebels prolongs the war, while others claim it brought the "perverse incentives" of slavery in many areas. Manase Lomole Waya, who runs Humanitarian Assistance for South Sudan, a group based in Nairobi, praises AASG for its effort, but brings a warning: "We welcome them for exposing the agony of our people to the world," he said. "That part is good. But giving the money to the slave traders only encourages the trade. It is wrong and must stop. Where does the money go? It goes to the raiders to buy more guns, raid more villages, put more shillings in their pockets. It is a vicious circle."

Charles Jacobs, president of the American Anti-Slavery Group, concedes there is an increase in slave-taking since 1995 in terms of the growing intensity of the Sudanese war, but rebukes characterizations that it creates a market for the slave trade. He asserts that although war is the context for the slave trade, it cannot be the main cause. Thus, the transactions to free slaves do not contribute to the cycle of violence in the Sudan.

title: American Anti-Slavery Group


text:
Dain

Dain is a surname, and may refer to:

 * Alphonse Dain (1896–1964), French Hellenist
 * Claudia Dain, American author of romance novels
 * Guy Dain (1870–1966), British physician
 * Jack Dain (1912–2003), British–Australian Anglican bishop
 * Killian Dain (born 1985), Irish wrestler
 * Mungau Dain (1994–2019), ni-Vanuatu actor and villager
 * Ralph Dain (1862–?), English footballer

title: Dain


text:
Italian wedding soup

Italian wedding soup, known in Italian as minestra maritata, is a soup consisting mainly of green vegetables and meat in chicken broth. It is popular in the United States, where it is a staple in many Italian restaurants and diners.

Origin
The term wedding soup comes from a mistranslation of the Italian language phrase minestra maritata ('married soup'). Minestra maritata more directly translates to 'wedded broths'. The marriage of its meats and vegetables inside of its broth is the only matrimony relevant in this context.

Ingredients
Italian wedding soup consists of green vegetables (usually endive and escarole or cabbage, lettuce, kale, and/or spinach) and meat (usually meatballs and/or sausage, the latter sometimes made of chicken and containing Italian parsley and Parmesan cheese) in a clear chicken-based broth. Sometimes it contains pasta (usually cavatelli, fusilli, acini di pepe, pastina, orzo, etc.), lentils, carrots, or grated Parmesan cheese. Egg whites are also a common addition.

title: Italian wedding soup


text:
TPR Storytelling

TPR Storytelling (Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling or TPRS) is a method of teaching foreign languages. TPRS lessons use a mixture of reading and storytelling to help students learn a foreign language in a classroom setting. The method works in three steps: in step one the new vocabulary structures to be learned are taught using a combination of translation, gestures, and personalized questions; in step two those structures are used in a spoken class story; and finally, in step three, these same structures are used in a class reading. Throughout these three steps, the teacher will use a number of techniques to help make the target language comprehensible to the students, including careful limiting of vocabulary, constant asking of easy comprehension questions, frequent comprehension checks, and very short grammar explanations known as "pop-up grammar". Many teachers also assign additional reading activities such as free voluntary reading, and there have been several easy novels written by TPRS teachers for this purpose.

Proponents of TPR Storytelling, basing their argument on the second language acquisition theories of Stephen Krashen, hold that the best way to help students develop both fluency and accuracy in a language is to expose them to large amounts of comprehensible input. The steps and techniques in TPR Storytelling help teachers to provide this input by making the language spoken in class both comprehensible and engaging. In addition, TPR Storytelling uses many concepts from mastery learning. Each lesson is focused on three vocabulary phrases or fewer, enabling teachers to concentrate on teaching each phrase thoroughly. Teachers also make sure that the students internalize each phrase before moving on to new material, giving additional story lessons with the same vocabulary when necessary.

TPR Storytelling is unusual in that it is a grassroots movement among language teachers. After being developed by Blaine Ray in the 1990s, the method has gained popular appeal with language teachers who claim that they can reach more students and get better results than they could with previous methods. It is enjoying increasing attention from publishers and academic institutions. A number of practitioners publish their own materials and teaching manuals, and training in TPR Storytelling is generally offered at workshops by existing TPRS teachers rather than at teacher training college.

History
TPR Storytelling was developed by Blaine Ray, a high school Spanish teacher in California, during the 1990s. Ray had had initial success teaching using total physical response (TPR), but was disappointed when his students stopped finding this technique to be interesting. Ray was familiar with Stephen Krashen's theories, and he was confident that his students would acquire Spanish naturally if he gave them enough comprehensible input. He set about finding a way to combine TPR with stories, with input from Krashen and from other foreign language teachers, and the result was Total Physical Response Storytelling.

This new method continued to evolve with the input of teachers, and by 2000 there was a greater emphasis on reading and the spoken class story, with the time spent doing traditional TPR being reduced. To reflect these changes, the TPRS acronym was changed to stand for Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling. TPR Storytelling is now trademarked by Blaine Ray.

Although TPR Storytelling is a growing movement among foreign language teachers, particularly in the United States, it has received little coverage in academia. In the United States the method has gained support from some language teachers, and some school districts use it exclusively in their foreign language programs. It has also been used in language revitalization programs. In Jerusalem, Israel TPR Storytelling has been adapted by The Polis Institute, a school for ancient languages and the humanities. In adapting the strategy of storytelling, the Polis Method excludes translations and explanations in any language other than the one being taught.

Method
TPR Storytelling is broadly divided into three steps, with each being regarded as essential for a successful program.

Step one: establish meaning
In this step the students are introduced to the new vocabulary phrases for the lesson. There is no set number of new items to be introduced in a given session; however, three is generally considered the maximum number that can be effectively taught in a lesson. Limiting the phrases like this allows the teacher to focus on them and provide many repetitions for the students. This emphasis on thoroughly learning new material is designed to give the students a feeling of confidence and to provide sufficient repetitions to facilitate acquisition (unconscious control in recognition and output) of the new items.

The three phrases (structures) are written on the blackboard, or another place where the students can easily see them, and are translated into the students' native language if a shared native language is available. If students forget what a phrase means, they can glance at the board and check the meaning at any time.

The teacher may elect to practice the new phrases using gestures, in a style modeled after traditional TPR. This gives the students the chance to get used to how the phrases sound before hearing them in context. It is also intended to keep the atmosphere of the class relaxed and conducive to learning.

Then the teacher asks questions about the students using the target phrases. These questions are known as Personalized Questions and Answers (PQA). To ensure these questions are comprehensible to the students, the teacher uses a variety of techniques and comprehension checks. Depending on the responses from the students and the atmosphere of the class, these questions might lead into a scene or skit often referred to as extended PQA. The details discovered by the teacher from PQA are often used as the basis for the class story.

The goal of the teacher during step one is to provide as many spoken repetitions of the new structures in context as possible. This lays the foundation for student recognition of the structures during the storytelling time.

Step two: spoken class story
In step two, students hear the three structures many times in the context of a spoken class story. This story is usually short, simple, and interesting, and will contain multiple instances of the target structures used in context. The number of times the structures are heard is further increased by the circling questioning technique. TPRS teachers aim to say each new structure at least 50 times in the course of a story, and it is not unusual to hear those structures 100 times.

The teacher will usually use a skeleton script with very few details, and then flesh the story out using details provided by the students in the target language, making a personalized story for each class. Using the circling technique, teachers can ask for these new details while still keeping the target language comprehensible. Advanced TPRS teachers are able to improvise, creating stories solely based on student answers to questions about the day's vocabulary structures. The focus is always on the target structures, allowing the details to support those structures.

The actions in the story may be acted out by volunteers from the class. When the teacher makes a statement that advances the story plot, the actors will act out that statement and then wait while the teacher continues with the circling questions.

The story will often take place in distinct locations. The main character in the story may start off in one location with a problem that they need to solve. They may move to a second location, where they try to solve the problem, but fail. Then they may move to a third location where they resolve the problem. This narrative device is used to maximize the repetitions of the target structures, to make the story easy to understand, and to make the target phrases easy to remember. "Keeping space", or having students or the teacher physically move to locations in the classroom that represent the various locations in the story, is an aid to students in understanding the action and language they are hearing.

After the story has finished the teacher may retell it in briefer form, retell it with errors having students correct them, or ask the students to retell the story, allowing them to use the structures they just learned. This can be in pairs, in groups, or one student retelling in front of the class.

Step three: reading
Step three is where the students learn to read the language structures that they have heard in steps one and two. A number of reading activities are used in TPRS. The first, and most common, is a class reading, where the students read and discuss a story that uses the same language structures as the story in step two. The next most common activity is free voluntary reading, where students are free to read any book they choose in the language being learned. The other activities are shared reading and homework reading. For shared reading, as in first-language literacy activities, the teacher brings in a children's picture book, and reads it to the students in class, making it comprehensible through circling and other means. Homework reading, as the name implies, means assigning specific reading for students to do at home. All readings in TPRS are comprehensible to the students, which means a very low ratio of unknown words (if any).

Class reading
The class reading is the most common type of reading activity in TPR Storytelling. TPRS teachers will typically include a class reading as part of every TPRS lesson sequence. This reading is based on the story that the students learned in step two - sometimes it can be the same story, and sometimes it uses the same language structures but with different content. Ideally, the story should be structured so that students will be able to understand most of the story on first view.

The teacher will often begin the class reading by reading aloud the story, or a portion of the story, then having the students translate it into their first language. This translation could be done with individual students, or by the whole class. Translation is utilized selectively in this way as a direct method of ensuring an accurate understanding of the language meaning. This process aims to ensure that all of the students understand all of the words in the reading, as well as the meaning of the reading as a whole.

Next, the class will discuss the reading in the target language. With the goal of making the discussion 100% comprehensible, the teacher will use the same TPRS techniques as in step two. Also, the teacher may make use of the pop-up grammar technique, where grammar points contained in the reading are explained very briefly - in 5 seconds or less. A limited number of grammar points are focused on in any particular reading and they are "popped up" frequently to enhance student retention. The discussion can touch on a wide range of topics related to the reading.

Free voluntary reading
Many TPRS teachers include Free voluntary reading (FVR) in their foreign language programmes. The research for FVR is very strong, and has consistently shown that FVR is as good or better than taught language lessons. Free voluntary reading can be done in the classroom or at home, but many teachers prefer to focus on spoken stories in class, as it is hard for students to get listening input outside school.

Shared reading
Shared reading, often called "Kindergarten Day", refers to the practice of the teacher reading a children's picture storybook to the students. The name is intended to conjure up the image of being read to as a child, but the activity can be done with any age group.

Homework reading
As the name implies, this is a specific reading that is assigned to all students for homework. The teacher can give a quiz on the reading when the students get back to class.

Techniques
Many smaller teaching techniques are key to the success of TPR Storytelling. They range from the simple, such as speaking slowly or paying close attention to the students' eyes, to the complex, like the circling technique of asking questions. These techniques all have the same basic aim of keeping the class comprehensible, interesting, and as efficient as possible for language acquisition.

Circling
"Circling" is the practice of asking a series of simple questions about a statement, all in the target language. It is intended to provide repetition of the target vocabulary in context and enable students to learn the vocabulary, grammar and phonology of their new language in a holistic way. There are four basic types of circling questions: "yes" questions, "no" questions, either/or questions, and "wh" questions such as what, where, when, and how many. There are also more advanced circling techniques which teachers can optionally include, such as the "three for one" and false statements. The teacher expects a response from the students after each statement or question, to check whether they have understood. If the teacher says a statement, then the students show that they understand by responding with an expression of interest such as "Oooh!" or "Aaaaah". If the teacher asks a question, then the students answer the question.

The students can answer the questions with just one or two words. The point of asking these questions is not to force the students to speak; rather, the questions are a method of checking comprehension while simultaneously repeating the target vocabulary in context. Therefore, students need not worry about speaking in full sentences, and indeed this would detract from the process of concentrating on the input provided by the teacher. By answering using single words or very short phrases the students can keep their attention focused on the words to be learned.

Circling questions are always about content that has already been established. If a question is about something not yet established, then it is not considered a circling question. Consider the example on the right, "Dave wants a Ferrari." The following questions all ask for details not already established in the statement "Dave wants a Ferrari", and so are not examples of circling questions:
 * Teacher: Why does Dave want a Ferrari?
 * Teacher: Where does Dave want to drive his Ferrari?

Staying in bounds
Staying in bounds means only using words that the students understand. Words that are in bounds are:
 * Words that all the students have already learned
 * Cognates
 * Proper nouns that the students know

Any words not in the list above are considered "out-of-bounds". Teachers must be on constant alert to keep their language in bounds. If a teacher does say something out-of-bounds, then the solution is to make it comprehensible, by writing it on the board and translating it immediately. If a teacher can stay in bounds all the time, and can speak slowly enough for the students to understand, then their class will be 100% comprehensible. This helps the students become confident in their language abilities and motivates them to succeed.

Slow
Even if students know the words that the teacher says, they will not understand if the teacher speaks too quickly. By speaking slowly, teachers give students more time to process the language and therefore they have more chance of understanding. When students first hear vocabulary or grammar, the necessary gap between each word can be as long as two full seconds. As students get used to the language structures, the teacher can slowly increase the speed.

Comprehension checks
The most direct way of finding out if students understand the language is to ask them what it means. In TPR Storytelling, teachers check comprehension early and often. There are a few ways of doing this:
 * Time-out sign
 * The teacher agrees on a sign for the students to use if they don't understand something. This is intended to save them from being embarrassed about not knowing something they think everybody else understands.

 * Finger count
 * The students hold up their fingers to show how much they understand. Ten fingers means they understood 100%, seven fingers means they understood 70%, five fingers means 50%, etc.

 * "What does  mean?"
 * The teacher asks the students what specific words mean. Teachers generally use this after they asked a circling question but didn't get a strong response. This question is usually asked in the students' first language, to ensure understanding.

 * "What did I just say?"
 * The teacher asks the students "What did I just say?" in the students' first language. This way the students can be sure of the full meaning of the sentence or question they just heard. This should not be used as an attempt to catch students out; rather it is just a check to remind students of something they cannot remember at that moment.

Pop-up grammar
"Pop-up grammar" is the practice of making very short grammar explanations about the specific vocabulary students are learning at that moment. This technique is most often used in the class reading of step three, but it can be used at any time. The teacher draws the students' attention to a grammatical feature of one of the sentences they have been learning in the story, and explains it in five seconds or less. This brevity is intended to keep focus on the meaning of the language as much as possible.

Personalization
Personalizing the language class is a key way to make the target language interesting and meaningful for students, and personalization is used extensively in TPR Storytelling. A personalized message is much more likely to be comprehensible and interesting than one that is not personalized. Using this in classes can be as easy as asking students simple questions about their lives in the target language. Other good personalization techniques are the use of celebrities or of other characters the students know (such as the school principal).

Teach to the eyes
Teaching to the eyes is a way of connecting with students while talking to them in the foreign language. More importantly, looking the students directly in the eyes while speaking gives the teacher a good indication of whether or not they understand what is being said. As the name suggests, to do this teachers will look into the eyes of individual students while they teach. Teachers are encouraged to choose one student and talk to them directly. After they have finished talking to that student, they can pick another student in a different part of the room to talk to. Focusing attention on individual students like this helps teachers to assess student comprehension levels, and also keeps the teacher's intonation conversational and interesting. It is also helpful in preventing problems with discipline. Students' eyes will reveal if they understand or if there needs to be more clarification.

Teaching materials
A number of teaching materials have been developed for use with TPR Storytelling. There are books of suggested lesson plans, manuals explaining TPRS methodology, listening material, substitute DVDs, and many target language readers by a variety of authors and publishers. These readers have been translated into multiple languages and include appropriate cultural references for each target language. These materials are generally written by TPRS teachers themselves; so far, the large publishing companies have been reluctant to publish materials that aren't based upon a fixed grammar syllabus. Small TPRS publishers like Command Performance Language Institute, TPRS Books, Fluency Fast, Fluency Matters, Chalkboard Productions and Albany Language Learning/Squid For Brains are appearing to fill the need for materials to fit the TPRS community. Newer, self-published novels can be found on Mike Peto's blog.

Conferences
There are three main U.S. conferences for TPRS teachers: NTPRS, which focuses on TPRS, and IFLT, which focuses on general comprehensible-input based instruction, and Comprehended World Languages, which focuses on TPRS/TCI and provides a lab teaching option. NTPRS stands for National TPRS. These conferences take place every year in the United States.

Theory
TPR Storytelling is based on two key theoretical pillars: the input hypothesis, and mastery learning.

Input hypothesis
The Input Hypothesis, proposed by Dr. Stephen Krashen, suggests that language development is a function of the input received by the learner. Krashen asserts that there are two distinct ways of learning language: language "learning" and language "acquisition". Language "learning" is learning that takes conscious effort on the part of the learner. It is characterized by learning grammar rules, memorizing vocabulary lists, and performing speaking drills. Language "acquisition" is learning that is subconscious and takes little or no effort on the part of the learner. It is characterized by listening to and understanding messages, reading interesting books and articles, and other enjoyable activities that take place in the language being learned. According to Krashen's theory, the only thing that can lead to fluency in the language is language "acquisition". Language "learning" can only be used as a way to consciously edit speech or writing, and it is never the cause of spontaneous, unrehearsed speech or writing.

In light of this theory, TPRS teachers spend the vast majority of their class time on input-based activities. The table below shows the activities used in TPR Storytelling, and whether they encourage language learning, language acquisition, or both. The activities that include a language learning component all take up a relatively short amount of class time. On the other hand, the pure acquisition activities take up large amounts of time. For typical TPRS classes, the ratio works out at about 5% of time spent on learning and 95% of time spent on acquisition.

The affective filter
Another key component of Krashen's theory is the affective filter. The affective filter hypothesis states that language is more easily acquired when people are relaxed and open to learning. On the other hand, if people are experiencing negative emotions such as anxiety, self-doubt, and boredom, language is much less likely to be acquired.

For this reason TPRS teachers always try to make students look good in the stories and discussions. For example, an otherwise average student could be given the role of a star baseball pitcher in a class story. It is usually considered good form to make celebrities look bad in comparison to the students. The class story in question might see the pitcher winning a game against an all-star team of professional batters, ideally in a humorous way. This use of humor and making the students look good is built on the idea that students learn language better when they are enjoying themselves.

Mastery learning
Mastery learning is a method of instruction in which students thoroughly learn all material they are studying. Students do not progress on to learning new material until they have mastered current material. This gives students a feeling of control, and indeed, of mastery. In language learning this is particularly important, as this feeling of control is directly related to the ability to learn. This is demonstrated by Krashen's research on the "affective filter".

The mastery approach to learning manifests itself in TPR Storytelling in many ways. Firstly, the number of new vocabulary phrases to be learned in each lesson is usually no more than three. More words than this may be introduced during the lesson, but the three phrases are the only ones that the students will be expected to know. Secondly, these vocabulary phrases are repeated many, many times, in context, using the "circling" technique. This repetition helps the students to internalize the words thoroughly. In addition, the same words are used during the class reading, giving even more repetition. If after this the students still aren't comfortable with the target words, the teacher can simply tell a new story using the same vocabulary phrases in the next lesson. Thirdly, teachers will try as far as possible to review all previously covered vocabulary in every lesson, finding ways to work the old vocabulary structures into class stories and class discussions.

Research
In addition to the research backing up the general theoretical foundations of TPR Storytelling, that is, Krashen's Input Hypothesis, there exist some studies dealing with TPRS specifically. The results of these studies indicate that TPR Storytelling may be more efficient, in some cases, than more traditional methods, like the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM). For example, Garczynski (2003) followed two groups of students over a six-week period, one of which was taught with TPR Storytelling, and the other of which was taught with the audio-lingual method. Both groups of students learned the same vocabulary from the same textbook. The students who learned with TPR Storytelling scored slightly higher than the students who learned with the audio-lingual method, and the TPR Storytelling students showed a much greater rate of improvement than their ALM peers. However, ALM was a method that lost popularity in the late 1950s, when it was strongly criticized for its lack of "scientific credibility and it was only a matter of time before the effectiveness of the method itself was questioned." (Wikipedia: Audio-lingual method.) It should be clarified that TPRS, which stands for "Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling, is not directly associated with "Total Physical Response (TPR) in spite of the similarity of their names. James Asher, the creator of TPR in the 1960s, did compare his TPR with ALM with results showing TPR superiority over ALM. Asher's study was performed in 1977, when it was still pertinent to compare new methods like TPR with old ones like ALM. Comparing TPRS, created in the 90s, with ALM, created in the 1960s, is not pertinent anymore. Not all research studies suggest a significant advantage for TPR Storytelling.

Glossary
There are a number of terms that teachers use when talking about TPR Storytelling. Some of these are standard terms in teaching and others are specific to TPRS.

 * Acquisition. This refers to the subconscious process of becoming fluent in a language. This term was popularized by Stephen Krashen, and is often contrasted with language learning, which Krashen uses to refer to the conscious process of learning a language. He argues that conscious language learning does not result in fluency.
 * Barometer or barometer student. This is the student who has the most difficulty understanding the language in any given class, but who is actively trying. Teachers should go slow enough for this student to understand.
 * CI - Comprehensible input. This refers to language which the students can understand.
 * Circling. The practice of asking many easy questions about a statement. See the circling section above.
 * Four-percenters. The estimated four percent of learners who choose to sign up for advanced courses, beyond the basic requirements to get into accredited colleges.
 * FVR - Free voluntary reading. This means reading books for pleasure, without deadlines or assessments. See the free voluntary reading section above.
 * Home-run story. This is a class story that goes particularly well. It is often a cause for celebration among teachers new to TPR Storytelling.
 * Kindergarten day. This is the practice of teachers reading picture books to their students. See the kindergarten day section above.
 * Parking. This is when the teacher stays focused on one sentence and gets many repetitions of the target vocabulary, rather than moving quickly through the story.
 * Passive PMS. This is an outdated way of referring to PQA (Personalized questions and answers).
 * PMS - Personalized mini-situation. This refers to the spoken class story of step two.
 * Pop-ups or pop-up grammar. This refers to giving very short grammar explanations, usually five seconds or less. See the pop-up grammar section above.
 * PQA - Personalized questions and answers. This is the practice of asking questions to the students about their lives using the day's vocabulary structures. It is part of step one.
 * Reps - Repetitions.
 * Staying in bounds. This means only using words that the students know. See the Staying in bounds section above.
 * Teach to the eyes. This is the practice of looking in students' eyes when talking to them, considered essential for building rapport. See the teach to the eyes section above.
 * TPR - Total Physical Response. A language teaching method invented by Dr. James Asher where students respond to commands given in the target language.
 * TPRS - Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling. The subject of this article. It is a language teaching method originally based on Total Physical Response, but that has evolved a separate methodology.

title: TPR Storytelling


text:
Kouilou Department

Kouilou (Kwilu, Kuilu ) is a department of the Republic of the Congo. Covering the country's coastline, it has an area of 13,650 square kilometres and at the start of 2023 it was home to about 97,362 people. The department borders Niari Department, the commune of Pointe-Noire, and internationally, Gabon and the Cabinda area of Angola.

Since 2011 the town of Loango has been the capital of the Kouilou department. Before, the capital was Hinda (see "Villages and towns" part).

Kouilou is also the name of a river, the Kouilou-Niari River.

Administrative divisions
Kouilou Department is divided into six districts:

Districts

 * 1) Hinda District
 * 2) Madingo-Kayes District
 * 3) Mvouti District
 * 4) Kakamoeka District
 * 5) Nzambi District
 * 6) Loango District

Villages and towns

 * Hinda (old capital of the department until 2011 )
 * Madingo-Kayes
 * Mvouti.

title: Kouilou Department


text:
Talk:Gandhi (film)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Text/image box
Please put Co-Producer: Rani Dube credit in in box - for some reason, she has been edited out, and I can't seem to gether re-included. 81.98.138.129 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
I have rewritten this in NPOV. However I do think an extra paragraph that starts off with something like "This film one critical acclamation because..." would not go amiss.

Name use
About the "Mahatma" thing - I see it was originally excluded, then added, modified, then removed again. Most folks think it was his real first name. They don't realize it is an honorific of sorts. Even the article on his life here in Wiki is titled Mahatma_Gandi. The real first name, Mohandas, is buried in the article. Until there is agreement on what to do about that, we'll never get it right here. - Bill - 13 Jan 05

Not sure that it's necessary to use his real name when most people know him as Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi. I'm having a hard time agreeing that using his common name is bad. Cburnett 21:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was going to change this to say Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi which I think would be the best approach - note the Gandhi article now is listed under his actual name. I'll watch and if there are no objections make the change. Gr8white (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of extras
At the top it says approx 300,000 extras, and at the bottom, approx 250,000 extras in the funeral scene. Somebody want to find out which is the more accurate number? Maybe check the Guinness Book. —  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  05:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-18t19:24z

Controversy
Some things should be said about the controversy of this film, especially its bias towards Jinnah, who is depicted as an all in out villain when he too in reality desired a united country, however one with strong protections for minorities (particularly the Muslims). -Afghan Historian 17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)]]
 * There should be section about historical (un)reliability of the movie (some material can be found in review ) but without growing into yet another war zone, please. Pavel Vozenilek 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this page seeking expanded information on the controversy mentioned about the film on the main Gandhi page- only to find there was no mention of it! 68.211.142.198 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [didnt bother to log in.. whatever]

another thing left out in the movie is the (albeit) background behind gandhi's assassination. Nathuram Godse (the assassin) should've got at least a couple of scenes to explain his motive behind such a huge self-destructive step. but then again history is always presented to us like 'they' want us to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caprico4 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lord Chelmsford dab
Thanks for fixing the link Mackensen. Do you have a source reference, or is this based on the dates he was Viceroy? -- Jeandré, 2006-02-17t11:20z
 * Based on dates, but I feel pretty good doing that. He was Lord Chelmsford from 1905 to 1933, which covers much of the period in question. He was directly concerned with the Armritsar massacre. While both the second baron and second viscount were alive during Gandhi's life, neither seem to have had anything to do with him. It's a safe bet. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi II
I added a trivia note about the Gandhi II shetch in the movie UHF. It may need expanding, especially if any groups took offense to it. Strangely, UHF got more negative press for the poodle throwing scene than anything else... though I doubt the real Gandhi would have cared for the sketch if he had been alive to see it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.162.192.39 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-17t19:27:30z.

Section seems too long as it is. Maybe a one-liner with a link to UHF would be more appropriate? (that or kill it) 68.211.142.198 20:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's "Ghandi II, he's back, and he's mad!"Pustelnik (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Black and white?
My DVD is color, and IMDb's technical specs says "Technicolor", but IMDb's main details says "Color: Black and White / Color (Technicolor)". Anyone have sources explaining this? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-24t18:54z

 * There are sequences in the film recreating MovieTone newsreel type footage tht are in black and white. I know this is a year since you asked the question but if you ever come back to this page I hope that this helps. MarnetteD | Talk 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-02t21:20z

Best Foreign Language Film?
Why is this film in this category if it's in English? Is Indian English a foreign language for Americans? In this case you speak least 1 "foreign language" :PP

 * The answer is here - Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film; the category is badly-named, as before 1986 the Golden Globe award was only called 'Best Foreign Film', i.e. it was simply for non-American films, regardless of language. Cop 633 20:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the summary text
The end of the summary says that Gandhi, at the end of his life, was planning to convince both India and Pakistan to remerge as one nation. Thats not actually the case. He says in the film that his goal was to make peace between the two countries. He said that he, with a heavy heart, had accepted the country's partition but felt that they couldnt part as enemies. It was for his fight for peace between both neighbors and greater Muslim rights that got him killed. He didnt have any plans to remerge the two countries, as he accepted the August 14-5 1947 division as final. Afghan Historian 22:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Expand synopsis
Someone needs to expand the synopsis to follow the movie more closely. Right now it's just a loose summary of Gandhi's life, with little reference to what actually appears on screen, and which events are covered most thoroughly, etc. etc. 67.52.196.130 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is now a Gandhi Special Edition DVD with a Richard Attenborough commentary which would provide a better editor than me with lots of details about the film to help expand this limited page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.252.188 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

John Briley
I notice that screenwriter John Briley, who won an Oscar for this film, doesn't have an article! -- Orange Mike 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gandhimovie.jpg
Image:Gandhimovie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken care of (dusts hands). Robert K S (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Did this movie succeed in box office?
They spent $ 22 Mn. for its prodution.How much did they recover?any idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.90.114.6 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * $52 767 889 (USA)
 * $07 700 000 (UK)
 * $06 896 000 (Australia)
 * $12 245 441 (Germany)
 * $79 609 330 for those 4 countries
 * SEK 12,044,631 (Sweden)
 * $24,970,000 (USA rentals)
 * -- Jeandré, 2008-08-02t19:04z
 * -- Jeandré, 2008-08-02t19:04z

Content about accuracy added
I think people will come to this article, after seeing the movie, wondering how accurate it is. I tried to add some information that would help in that direction. It would be idea to have a detailed synopsis with a discussion of how each part was the same or different from reality, and an additional section covering broader issues of interpretation. Mark Foskey (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

NO information about Oscars?
This movie has won 8 academy awards but still there is no mention of it except in the introduction paragraph. I think for a movie which has won 8 awards deserve a much better article. Can you guys eloborate on the exacts of the academy awards that this movie has won? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonix768 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Salt March?
This article does not even mention the word salt. lol. 98.117.125.221 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor the massacre 98.117.125.221 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a history article so you won't see every item that occurred in the film (or indeed in Gandhi's life) mentioned. Per WP:PLOT that section is to be kept brief and the one on this page currently meets those guidelines. I am not saying that the items you bring up are not important because they are. There just might not be room for them in the synopsis section of the article. Please see WP:MOSFILM for further guidelines. MarnetteD | Talk 23:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen this movie. The event is a big part of the movie.98.117.125.221 (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall Historical Accuracy
The film largely sidesteps portraying Gandhi accurately. It glosses over the peculiarities of his character in order to present a more appealing image. I propose a new section which would detail the most major of the discrepancies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefiningEternity (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis misrepresents film's opening statement ("No man's life...")
The opening statement ("No man's life...") as represented in the current synopsis differs significantly from the opening statement given in the published screenplay, which reads merely:
 * No man's life can be encompassed in one telling. There is no way to give each year its allotted weight, to include each event, each person who helped to shape a lifetime. What can be done is to be faithful in spirit to the record, and to try to find one's way to the heart of the man... (Briley, 1983, p. 15)

I double-checked on 2007 version of the Gandhi DVD ("25th anniversary edition"), which agreed exactly with the published screenplay (see time about 1:09 of "chapter 1" on the DVD), except it omitted the comma after "record".

Is there any basis whatsoever for the current page's version of the opening statement? Its text appears to have remained unaltered since it was first inserted by User:Emcardi on September 8, 2006 (DIFF). Possibly Emcardi's text could be a translation of a non-English subtitle for a non-English version of the DVD. But I don't think it matters, except for a possible footnote: We should quote whatever is used in the main English-language release of the film. -- Health Researcher (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * PS: I just updated the synopsis quote to be accurate (DIFF). It seems amazing that the inaccurate text persisted for more than 4 years. Since this page was getting about 1000 hits per day (in 2007), which has risen to about 2000 per day (2011), that means about 2 million people viewed the faulty text before it was corrected. Rather sobering. Health Researcher (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * FYI, see WP:Manual of Style (film) for guidelines for writing the synopsis. -- Health Researcher (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
This edit added material that isn't supported by the sources, but represents an interpretation and OR by an editor. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it contains WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerning its release to theaters. Also this ref has no info in it about this film showing at the Odeon nor does it mention Princess Diana and it should be removed ASAP. Indeed why is Diana being singled out for her attendance at this film. Undoubtedly, she was only one of several well known people to be at the screening and per WP:UNDUE her mention could be removed. Also the edit mentions that "The film had a limited release in the US on 8 December 1982, followed by a wider release in January 1983" twice in successive paragraphs and we don't need this redundancy. Lastly since we cannot read Derek Malcolm's article there is no way to know if the IP has used more OR in interpreting what he wrote making its use dubious. MarnetteD | Talk 01:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have reservations about the detailed info regarding US box office figures. This is a British film and it would seem to, again, violate UNDUE to have such detailed mention of the US dollar amounts. I would suggest that we just mention the final dollars total as that would remove some of the OR. MarnetteD | Talk 01:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As highlighted on the Admin Noticeboard in great detail by two other users, these edits are valid and do indeed contain the content in question. They are not WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or mere interpretation, they are valid, appropriate sources for the details that are being added. The in70mm.com source is a wesbite about films that have been shown in 70mm format (as opposed to the usual 35mm format). The page in particular is for the Odeon Leicester Square (as seen at the top of the page) and just before halfway down on the page is a reference to Gandhi being shown there in 70mm at a royal premiere in Dec 1982. It does not mention Princess Diana, but there is another source (Princess Diana Remembered) that does that and actually shows a press clipping and photos of her at the premiere (she's meeting Ben Kingsley in one of them). It is irrelevant whether or not you can read Derek Malcolm's review online, and you should refer to WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE for further clarification. The Guardian newspaper archives are available via proquest.com, which I have access to and have checked. The two Guardian articles cited specify the date and cinema of the royal premiere in London and also the budget of the film in Derek Malcolm's review. In the UK, royal film premieres are big, prestigious events (and are often televised) as only one or two films per year have a royal premiere. It is a relevant detail to any film article if it has been selected for a royal premiere. I have no problem with the duplicated details about the US release being trimmed a little, as long as the dates and sources are still intact. I don't have a problem with the film's budget in US dollars being removed either since, as you say, it is not an American film. The final US gross should remain though, but it should clearly state that this is only the US gross and not worldwide (neither Box Office Mojo or The Numbers.com have the worldwide gross). Roguana (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. There was only one user on the noticeboard who maintained the edits were valid, and he refused to even look at the sources. Your comment above tells me you aren't even following the discussion here, as you didn't address the problem at all. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The original IP user and Masssassi-UK both made it clear on the admin noticeboard. Read it again. Roguana (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for missing the mention of this film on he Odeon link. I would suggest moving it to the end of this phrase " Odeon Leicester Square in London" to avoid confusion. None of the edits by the IP or M address the problem of OR and they were not posted there to attempt to gain any consensus. That is what we are doing here. Also remember that building consensus is not a vote. MarnetteD | Talk 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem moving the 70mm source to the place you suggested. However, the problem of WP:OR only seems to be a problem to you. Having looked at all of the sources used, I cannot see any WP:OR issue. The content added just state what the sources say. Can you elaborate further on what you think is OR in the article (though bear in mind that if you have not been able to access The Guardian archives then that source in particular cannot be questioned until you do). Incidentally, The Guardian archives also state that the Royal Premiere for Gandhi was televised on the night in question at 10.30pm but both Prince Charles and Princess Diana were present. I've just found some ITN raw footage used from the telecast on You Tube. Not sure if its usable (though simply including another source from The Guardian alone would be sufficient as it mentions them both) but it might be beneficial to watch if you still have doubts about the factuality of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIYLNt5inFw Roguana (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a habit of ignoring what other editors say. The problem of OR is recognized by myself and MarnetteD.  I explained the OR in the noticeboard report you claimed to have read, which it sounds like you did not.  The Numbers source does not make the claims that the editor says it does, and the claims it does make are at odds with more reliable sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

________________________________________ The Numbers source gives a full weekly breakdown of the film's releases in the US including theater count, grosses and dates. It is far more comprehensive than the Box Office Mojo source which has several weeks of data missing. Box Office Mojo is not a more reliable source, and both it and The Numbers have equal value as sources, but in this instance, The Numbers includes more comprehensive information which makes it a preferential source. From The Numbers, we therefore know when the film came out, when it opened wide, the date it was at its widest release (which is the week of the Oscars) and its final US gross.
 * Issues
 * The Numbers source says nothing about ""success at the Academy Awards".
 * "Wide release" is not "widest release" as the editor claims. In fact, the former is sourced while the latter is OR.
 * Its wide release was on February 25, 1983, not January 21, 1983. The IP is interpreting a table rather than acknowledging the actual wide release.
 * Limited release was December 10, not December 8. The source the IP is using is wrong.
 * It looks like limited release started even earlier in New Delhi and London, then a week later on December 8 in New York, and then presumably in LA or somewhere else.
 * From The Numbers we can see that the film had been on release for 5 days in four theaters at the end of its first weekend (there is a day count column in the table). Its first weekend started on 10 December 82 (which was a Friday), but it it opened on the 8th (Wednesday). The release date is also stated before the table.
 * The Numbers shows that the week of the Oscars, the film went into 825 theaters, which was its highest theater count. Links and sources about the 55th Academy Awards are already in the article which shows it took place on 11 April 83 and that the film won 8 Oscars. This is simply a fact, not an opinion. The table also shows that the film went into wide release from 21 January 83, went it went from 16 theaters to 350. This is a wide release. It went even wider in February, but even wider still in April. The table gives all of these details in the theater count column. This information is purely for the US and is nothing to do with its international release dates, so mentioning those is irrelevant. Again, Box Office Mojo is by no means a superior source to The Numbers so you cannot claim that these details are wrong simply because you don't want to accept them. Roguana (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This post is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH where it states If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. The numbers doesn't mention the Oscars. What you need is a reference from some other source that mentions the fact that the film was released to more theaters due to its receiving the Best Picture award. MarnetteD | Talk 03:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine to reword the sentence along the lines of "the film went into its widest release in 825 theaters on 15 April 1983 . This was four days after the 55th Academy Awards Ceremony in which the film won 8 Oscars ." Both sentences are factually accurate and individually sourced, and it is a relevant fact that the film's Oscar success boosted its popularity to some extent. But trying to wiki-lawyer away this detail altogether is just purposely obstructive and I was hoping you had moved beyond that now. Roguana (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not wikilawyering and to accuse us of such is inexplicable. We are simply pointing you in the direction of wikipolicies that we are following and there is no reason for us to "move beyond them". I am not sure why you are trying to avoid them. There must be sources out there connecting A and B if you do not want to search for them (and you certainly aren't required to do so) then there is no need to mention the Academy Awards at all in the section in question they get mentioned more than once in other parts of the article. MarnetteD | Talk 04:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As the two facts are no longer joined in the same sentence, there is nothing preventing them from being in that section of the article. Films often get box office boosts if they win at the Oscars, and it becomes a relevant fact if they do. Splitting the two facts into separate, sourced sentences avoids any potential infringment of WP:SYNTH as they are simply two noteworthy facts and readers can see the relevance themselves without us spelling it out for them. I never said I was avoiding the policy and I actually took the time to offer a solution. Roguana (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion, I have entered the changes as discussed above. Roguana (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello, everyone. There is vandalism throughout this article now. Can someone please fix it? I would but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.84.208 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Release Date(s) inconsistency?
In the infobox, the release dates specify New Delhi, United Kingdom and United States. This seems like a blatant inconsistency to me, with the first one being a city and the other two being countries. I made a relevant edit (changed New Delhi to India), only for it to be reversed without explanation. Can someone explain as to why this is in fact not an inconsistency? --Pragunkhera (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Not inconsistent at all. New Delhi was the world premiere then the next two listings are for the general release in those countries. This is standard practice for this info and is covered by the documentation for the field and at WP:MOSFILM. 13:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the explanation! --Pragunkhera (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

 * You are welcome . MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gandhi (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303223323/http://central.d127.org/library/classprojects/gandhi/Documents/Attenborough%27s%20Truth.pdf to http://central.d127.org/library/classprojects/gandhi/Documents/Attenborough%27s%20Truth.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead Actor Infobox MOS
Is there any reason Ben Kingsley is listed on the bottom of the list of actors in the info box? Ben Kingsley is the one who portrays Gandhi, so I just thought it would make more sense to list his name first. I am used to seeing lead actors listed before supporting actors, which is how this article was when the article was first written. I am not as active on Wikipedia anymore, so I don't want to make any changes if there is some new MOS guide. Let me know what you guys think...GuyHimGuy (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONSENSUS names in the infobox are based on the way they are listed on the poster for the film. His name comes last. This happens at times when it is an actors first film. It does not lessen his importance to the film or the role or its article on wikipedia. MarnetteD|Talk 15:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a terrible rule anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.72.239.107 (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ben Kingsley is listed first in the film's credits, and furthermore he was listed first in other versions of the film's poster - if not in the one currently used in the infobox. Paraphernalia such as posters are secondary in relation to the film itself. The article is about the film, not the film's poster or promotional materials. 90.241.149.44 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to get a new WP:CONSENSUS at the filmprojet talk page. Until that happens the infobox will follow the current guiudelines. MarnetteD|Talk 15:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is to replace the current poster with the one you linked to. I don't know the ins and outs of adding pics to WikiP but I'm sure you could ask somewhere and get that done. MarnetteD|Talk 16:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gandhi (film)