text:
Talk:Terrorism/Draft

<Terrorism/Draft Talk:Terrorism/Draft a1

Also, I note that you use equivalence, which in this context is unmistakably resonant of "moral equivalence" - which is really just a polemic neologism coined to counter the older, more meaningful "moral relativism" term. - SV (talk) 01:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I use "equivalence" in the logical (i.e. mathematical) sense, not in the moral sense.  Making a logical distinction is different from making a moral judgement.  Paramilitary and military are different by definition, because a paramilitary group is made up of civilians.  The United States for example uses both, and it would be inaccurate to call the CIA's operations "military" or call Army special forces "paramilitary."  You may not care about such distinctions, but they are there.
 * Also, I don't see how I'm supporting the idea that the US defines the terms. War crimes and the laws of war are defined by international law, which the US did not write.  My statement was merely that the US usually pays attention to them.  To be honest, that is irrelevant, and was merely my venting frustration because it seems that your only purpose here is to attack US foreign policy.  I will not argue the point.
 * I agree that those usually labelled "terrorists" do not always engage in terrorist tactics. Incidents that are often called terrorism but really shouldn't be include the bombing of the USS Cole and the Marine barracks bombing, both of which had military targets.  Those are examples of asymmetric warfare. Isomorphic 02:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't leave me a whole lot to say in response to SV's points. :) Maybe I would add that I'm not sure that he understands that paramilitaries (or militias, irregulars, or non-state actors, or guerillas, whatever) are specifically mentioned in the laws of war, and that they are bound by them even if they are not signatories if they wish to be treated in accordance with those laws. Cecropia 06:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, well fine. This new deference to international law and its definitions is welcome. There are of course issues and caveats, and I will mention them in the draft. We different involved parties are communicating, and thats all thats really important. Is it time to have the page unprotected? There hasnt seemed to be a need for it to be so, for a few days.- SV  (talk) 16:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * "new deference to international law." Ah, good line, Steve! Did you think I'm secretly Dubya? ;-) But, seriously, I think we've made a lot of progress recently, with everyone trying to move toward a solution even with the wrestling matches. But what happens when we have the page unprotected at this juncture and someone comes out of left- (or right-) field, maybe anonymously, and start dismantling our hard-won understandings? Cecropia 16:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have not followed this discussion closely, so I won't make any changes to the draft. But I do have two comments/questions. (1) I agree that "terror" is a tactic used in war, but I think "terrorism" is something different. (2) If I understand correctly, Cecropia is trying to come up with a basic or initial definition of terrorism. I do not think this is appropriate since so much of the study of terrorism is dedicated to coming up with, or arguing for, one definition or another. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. If there is no "neutral" definition of terrorism out there that most people accept, it is not our place to propose one. I know others here have been trying to develop other ways to introduce the article and I wish them well, Slrubenstein
 * But there is a baseline definition, since the general subject is covered in international law. Basically, terrorism, if it comes down to charges between belligerents, deals with violations of the treatment of civilian populations in warfare. Most everything else is partisan finess. But I will acknowledge your question of whether "terrorism" is something different from "terror" as a tactic. Yes and no, in that the use of "ism" mucks up the whole issue, since "ism" implies a intellectual theory of political, religious, or social policy. On that basis we might argue that terrorism simply doesn't exist, because can you name a "terrorist" organization that kills innocent civilians just because they think it's a good idea? Some anarchists, maybe? Cecropia 00:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That comment might offend some peace-loving anarchists. ;) - SV (talk) 00:23, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Hello, SR. I agree with you up to the point that you say that 'we cant do anything' about the desparity. In fact, because this is not an academic context, (footnote) and because the very nature of an internet forum trancends many of the limitations of academic discourse, (and traditionally institutionally-defined terms like 'encyclopedia' and terrorism). Because we are faced with the logical interoperability problem, where the terms (inasmuch as terms have the tendency to reflect bias) do influence the language, the context, and hence the quality of the articles, we are obligated to act.  To make a precendent here of limiting the use of the term 'terrorist' to NPOV standards is not somethig that is beyond our ability, reason, or scope. -Rspfy,- SV  (talk) 00:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SV. I admit I am unconcerned about "Academic Standards Disease" but who am I to say, whether this is because I suffer from it, or because I am more sensitive to "Sitting at Starbucks and bullshitting" disease.  But my point had nothing to do with academic standards -- only with the fact that Wikipedia is not a venue for original research; this is a pretty well-established value in this community.  Of course I agree with you that the article on terrorism must be NPOV.  But no NPOV definition of terrorism may exist, in which case the only solution is to do the things that often help make an article NPOV: provide other current definitions; be clear about who uses said definition; provide some historical context (is all this too academic?  I didn't think so!).  Cecropia points out that there is a definition in international law.  If that is so (I mean, if there is a written definition established in signed international treaties or in UN resolutions) by all means that should be highlighted in the article. Slrubenstein
 * Well, I'm in complete agreement - but there is no issue here with 'original research', and thus the caution was ill-placed, and that was my reason for the retort. As for the international law definition - this is a good idea, but the term refers to a body of law, some of which is itself contradictory - not to mention dominated by US and its allied interests. That the UN said "no" to the US (yes, actually, but too slowly) in the last Iraq case is an outstanding oddity. But the real issue, again is'nt the definition - as you say, SR, we've got to represent all of the operative definitions, right? Why not then make it a little less hellish and condense these to their common logic, and by that fulcrum we can base a standard for articles - and repeat (at times) how the term breaks down by POV? This might even be put into a mediawiki message (for use with msg:tags) but that would be a bit inflexible.

 * The issue is consistency - so, for example, in the list of terrorist incidents (addr Isomorphic's comment below) the kiling of an American individual is counted as a 'terrorist' incident, (because the perpetrators were "Terrorists," right?) but the methods which inflamed Nicaragua, Vietnam, the list goes on... are omitted. Though we might all here agree that cases would be counted as "terrorism," the regular conflicts center around the inclusion of recent American attacks as terrorism (Calling Christopher Columbus' ethnic cleansing "terrorism" has just (500 years later) become OK discussion, apparently)  The chit-chat here might seem like steam, but Iso, Cecro and I are at least in agreement that the standard polemic use of the term terrorism is inflammatory. That was huge progress, considering the "poles" that we represent.

 * Since the term is mostly inflammatory, the definitions must not just be accepted, but continuously challenged, otherwise the articles on which they are based ("terrorism" as the basis for a theme of research? HA! ) will fall into the apathetic state of current propagadisms by which certain kinds of lives (or articles about them) continue to be defacto-categorized as less important than others.  It may be a vain task to try to inject logic into a localized language - ie. Arabic is considered to be too filled with colloquialisms and Allahisms to be useful for certain cases. This discussion has enlightened me on the way the 'English language' ('American language,' really) has similar pitfalls.  Thus, what this is really about, just as Cecropia and Iso have agreed to talk in terms of International law - so too must we understand the role of international English, as a language outside of the localized form we are used to.  It's good to see you again, SR,  SV  (talk) 19:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly, until today, I (and apparently others in this discussion) had overlooked list of terrorist incidents, which already exists and is rather extensive. I hate to point it out, since it only offers one more thing to disagree over and I'm reasonably satisfied with it as it stands now, but it's there and it's relevant. Isomorphic 10:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The terrorism sidebar at Mediawiki:terrorism (insert with should be editable. This article is interesting:  if only for its summary under 'definition of terrorism.'  Since there are many, and they all are, in there own way encyclopedic, I propose that we make a list of all of them List of definitions for terrorism, and then we can talk about extracting a common definition for our purposes, since, as according to the article: "There are several international conventions that define war crimes, but there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. There is not one international convention that actually condemns terrorism." - SV  (talk) 20:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Correction:Cecropia, I said above, there was no mention of Vietnam - I stand corrected - "1965 March 5 - The U.S. president starts "Rolling Thunder" bombing campaign to terrorize Ho Chi Minh into negotiating with the U.S." - Its sadly inaccurate - bombing actually began in 1962, right? - SV (talk) 20:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * SV, I'm not sure which point of mine you are responding to—this has gotten so long (but interesting) that I'm cursing that we are under the GFDL; imagine what we could sell the book rights for? ;-) But let me make a point that I have nothing invested in the Vietnam: I was against that war before I was "invited" to participate; while I was in the Army; and still am. But, as a matter of fact, I think the right date is 1965 with Rolling Thunder. AFAIK, the only source for the 1962 charge is Chomsky, and he's not reliable on the point. Cecropia 20:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fuzzy Line Between Civilian and Paramilitary
I think you're OK with noting rhetorical use between state powers and others, but in terms of combatants there is no fuzzy line. There are three main classes recognized and one important subclass. They are:
 * (1) the army of one of the combatants;
 * (2) militias (your paramilitaries) if they meet four criteria--being commanded by a person responsible for them, having a uniform or distinctive badge recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly; and conforming to the laws of war.
 * (3) "protected persons" meaning mainly civilians.

The important thing is that adhering to these rules determines whether or not they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Class (2) becomes class (3) if they don't meet the four criteria. Protected persons have special rights but are not eligible to be POWs. Now Class (3) (the class numbers aren't official--I'm just trying to make it easier to explain) cannot engage in combat or combat-like activities--no shooting, sabotage, supporting the opposite combatant, covertly passing information to the other side, etc. If they do they are in the unhappy position of being neither protected by POW status nor protected person status.

The subclass and exception is that "The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with [the above terms] shall be regarded as belligerents [i.e., eligible for POW status] if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war." (emphasis added). IOW, in the exigent situation, they can resist without being subject to the commander and uniform rules, but it doesn't apply once occupied, and it doesn't allow them to conceal explosives under their clothing, hide weapons on their person, or violate any of the rules of war and still retain that POW-eligible status. Cecropia 02:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--clip --/clip
 * (1) the army of one of the combatants;
 * (2) militias (your paramilitaries) if they meet four criteria--being commanded by a person responsible for them, having a uniform or distinctive badge recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly; and conforming to the laws of war.
 * (3) "protected persons" meaning mainly civilians.

Mr Cecropia, You express the problem (not the solution) quite clearly: "The important thing is that adhering to these rules determines whether or not they are lawful or unlawful combatants." So, you say 'this set of designations fits into that set of designations.' Well, for starters, what exactly is the meaning of the term "unlawful combatant"? Isn't someone who commits a war crime also an 'unlawful combatant'? :) To say that 'this set of three terms hooks up to these two terms in these ways,' isn't saying much. But if you're expressing that this is how it is defined in international law, then please supply your reference links. Ill further ask that you show where the "terrorism" designation (not agreed upon in i8ln terms) fits in, according to international sources, not just your reasoning. It seems to me that terrorism (and the inconsistency by which war crimes are defined) throws the whole notion of 'designations' to the wind. I liken it to how US Revolutionary War "guerilla" tactics contradicted the then established conventions of European style warfare. I havent heard of anyone going back to bright red uniforms and marching in open file, behind a 14 year old with a drum, but then maybe I dont subscribe to the right magazines. - SV  (talk) 06:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * First, to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question: no, someone who commits a war crime may have been a lawful combatant, but can still be punished for the war crime. I'm talking about what inherently makes a combatant lawful. There are other issues in conventions and treaties, but the core definition is from the Annex to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 (and still in force) Section 1, Chapter 1, entitled "Qualifications of Belligerents," excerpted at illegal combatant. The essential problem is not a question of definition, though; it is the fact that international law is not like national law in one important feature: you don't have true international government (the U.N. isn't, even if you want it to be), you don't have an international police force (fantasies about U.N. "police actions" notwithstanding; and Interpol is a cooperative agency, not a governmental one, per se); and no courts of competent jurisdiction that derive their power other than from the sovereignty (and acquiesence) of the cooperating nations. In short, when one talks about legal action against, say, Osama, you can put as many seals and ribbons on the indictment as you want, but you better send an army in with the process server.

 * But much as I might be repeating what I've already said: you can "fuzzy" meanings from here to Armageddon, you can only claim the protections of the laws of war if you adhere to them/

 * You quote the Hague conventions - drafted at a time when maybe half the automobiles on the road were exactly 1 or 2hp. Is there anything you can quote that comes from the modern age of enlightenment (Regan ;) or the latest "American Camelot"?
 * These treaties are still the basis of International Law on the subject. To reiterate (deja vu all over again) my earlier point, these are rules you follow (no hiding weapons under your shirt, no blowing up innocents) if you want your opponent to follow rules based on the same law (if you want POW status, if you don't want reprisals in kind). Cecropia 00:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose the reason for the Hague definition was to bring some order to the conduct of war. It is difficult to say, in a century that killed (or murdered) 250 million people, whether the "lawful conduct" of warfare has had any effect. I do have some perspective, though: 1907 was shortly after the "Philippine insurrection," you could probably still buy Injun scalps fairly easily, and most civilized nations in the world still thought that population transfer was a decent thing to do, in certain cases.  So, people have obviously come a long way. And our discussions have come a long way as well.  Still, I think there is a generation difference (between yours an mine) in terms of when on the mountain we should take our lunch break, and how much farther there is to go.  I dont view those documents as very relevant, because they are a product of a view that came from much further down the mountain. Compare that with some scripture, which can be much older, yet is more resonant and relevant. Rfy,- SV  (talk) 03:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * A generational difference perhaps, but I think maybe also a difference of personal experiences, as I dealt with the subject on a non-theoretical basis. Let's not talk "Geneva" or "Hague" for the moment, but use the generic term "multilateral treaties." Multilateral treaties are all we've got to moderate the brutality of the world. Even the UN derives such power as it has from the power (or lack of it) of multilateral treaties, because that's what the UN charter is. If you envision a perfect world you'll have to enforce it. Would your perfect world make no distinction between civilians and military? Anybody can fight, by any means, no uniform, fang and claw, rocks, bottles, bricks, suicide bombs, nuclear devastation? Most of the world are signatories of Geneva and Hauge and they are modified from time to time. Every time anyone talks about "war crimes" or "POWs" or "international law" (in terms of conduct of war) they are talking Geneva and Hague. If you think the terms are generic, then they are nothing.

 * I respect your position, and appreciate your reference to scripture, which I consider very practical documents. Just taking the Judeo-Christian bible as a well-known example, "Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day" was the first labor law; what evolved into Kosher laws and Halal were the original Food and Drug Administration; "Feed thy beast before thyself" the first humane law, and swords into plowshares the first vision of universal peace. But still, who enforces these worldwide? If you're a Jehovah's Witness, you believe all war and government is futile, God will settle it. No nuclear state, no suicide bomber, nada, don't even bother. My generation and the ones before mine saw visions of Men on the Mountain Who Would Rescue Us. They wore robes, were perfect, and very enlightened. Some people thought the League of Nations was it. Or the United Nations was it. I thought the latter, once. In retrospect I think the UN lost it in 1950 when the world organization for peace sponsored its first war. Or wiser people from outer space would stop all our foolishness. But Michael Rennie is dead and Gort is rusting. More's the pity. Cecropia 04:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * You say (according to the definition) "someone who commits a war crime may have been a lawful combatant" - this is completely self-contradictory if you read it by todays (my) interpretation. - SV (talk)  18:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Lawful combatant is a status determined by meeting certain requirement when going into battle. War crime is a crime is a violation of the laws of war. War crimes can be committed by both lawful and unlawful combatants or by the belligerent entities themselves. Cecropia 00:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually a "war crime" is a misnomer for "a crime against humanity," which is itself a misnomer for a "crime against the Almighty," inasmuch as other human beings are divine beings in their own right. - SV (talk) 03:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW, is "right magazines" a dig at me? Please elucidate, so I can enjoy the joke, too. ;-) Cecropia 18:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * No - its a dig at the way people get their news. Not you specifically. The picture is someone sitting the pot reading a copy of People, and then feeling 'enlightened' enough to join a discussion on politics somewhere. A sterotype, particular to the most celebrated, enlightened, and self-rewarded culture. :)- SV  (talk) 18:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, the US won its revolutionary war in fairly traditional battles. It's a popular myth that the ragtag bands of sharpshooting colonists whipped the hidebound old-fashioned Brits.  The serious fighting was done by a trained Colonial army, with European advisors. Isomorphic 08:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting - But I didnt say they wore khackis and night-vision goggles, did I? The "fair" change to us was no doubt a pronounced one at the time. Know anything about the psychological (terror) effects of the (limited amounts of) guerilla warfare on the British? ;) Which reminds me - is this "original research" going to mke some changes to the definition of "terror" itself? - SV (talk) 18:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added a disclaimer to list of terrorist incidents. I tried to word it in such a way as to make the list inclusive. In the main article, I care about attempts to define terrorism. The list, on the other hand, can and should include any incident that's commonly referred to as terrorism, even if it doesn't fit any reasonable definition of such. Readers will expect such incidents to be listed, and since it's basically an index, we can't go wrong by having too much information available to the readers. Isomorphic 03:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This seems productive. Each of us being focused on three different parts of the main trunk for the whole topic, will be a useful way to divide the energy (since were all still fairly insterested in this rather lighthearted topic :\ ) Pretty soon, though, this problem will be solved - wiped from Wikipedia and soon after, from the Earth itself. And then I can go back to trolling the superstring theory articles. - SV (talk) 06:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

 * Actually, superstring theory is something I'm interested in, partly because my daughter is considering a physics career. Is it true that there is no hard evidence to either prove or disprove the theory? Cecropia 18:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It is not yet produced what we called a critical experiment, that is an experiment capable of decisively determining whether or not the theory is the correct one. What can be said about it so far is that is in accordance with known experiments, but there is not yet enough experimental evidence to say that it must be adopted in order to explain experiments that cannot yet be explained by other experiments. Hope that helps. -- Decumanus 18:26, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I know very little about it (hence my "interest") -all I understantd is that M-theory is the applauded, more unified way of looking at at the whole notion, and its taken off from there into branes- andwhathaveyou. Thank God for PBS programming. - SV  (talk) 18:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Take it Live?
The current Draft is looking very sharp, actually. I'm thinking that we should expand the intro to give some hints of whats below, (summary, not redundancy) and then take it live. I think the page should still stay protected, though, so we should state an agreement to update it. SV(talk)

 * I think we could take it live in more or less its current form. I agree the page should remain protected and have any changes discussed through Talk until we feel comfortable that it is stable. When we remove the protect altogether, maybe we could keep an eye on major changes viewed against the baseline of what we've hashed out?

 * What opening summary do you suggest that would help the reader to understand what's coming without adding excessive verbiage or redundancy? Cecropia 19:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know you have all put in a good deal of work, but I question the opening; I agree that "terror" is a tactic, but there is something jarring about defining terrorism as a tactic. If "terrorism" is too loaded a word to reduce to one NPOV definition, then perhaps it is enough for the article to say so. But it is my sense that most people, when they use the word "terrorism," are referring to something more than a tactic. Yes, terrorists, use terror as a tactic. But I think there are many people who would also say that non-terrorists sometimes use terror as a tactic. The "ism" adds something -- perhaps an ideology, perhaps an institutionalization of terror, or using terror not only as a tactic but as a strategy ... Unless you are using the word "terror" solely to describe an emotional state. That is certainly reasonable as a personal choice, but I don't think it reflects common usage anymore. Slrubenstein
 * The third paragraph of the opening deals with non "terrorists" who use "terrorist tactics". The opening is accurate and about as non-POV as we can get, otherwise we're essentially saying "we don't know what it is, but we're going to blather on about it for a few thousand words anyway." ;-)

 * Just yesterday a sentiment similar to our opening was made by by 9/11 Commission Member Jamie S. Gorelick (former deputy attorney general in the Clinton Administration) who said "[...]terrorism is a tool. It is not an enemy in itself; it's a tool." Cecropia 20:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but that womans apparent point in pushing that, was shown when she next tried for ten minutes to get Powell to agree with her that 'the enemy is Islamic extremism.' Either she was pushing a bigoted bias there, or she was trying to open up a wider point. I hate to talk so plainly. -SV

 * Well, I don't know what axe she has to grind. She seems to be the harshest critic of the Bush Administration in the conference, even among the Democrats--she was Madeline Albright's subordinate, so that much is consistent. I think she was trying to make the point that a specific group of terrorists (not IRA, say, or the Tamil Tigers, or Shining Path) is what the US is at war with, rather than the more nebuolous "terrorism." Personally, as I noted somewhere on the wiki, I don't believe that terrorism is an ism particularly because it is a tactic, not a theory of society or government (compare to Trotsky's permanent revoluation'', which was.

 * However, beyond her prejudice, whatever it may be, my point is that she expressed the idea that terrorism ia a (tactic, tool, method of warfare, whatever) rather than a philosophy. Cecropia 21:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

 * I agree with Steve's read of things. The lead in the article is strong, but trips over the paradox which he described. It could be smoother, but then, we may as well copy the whole Definition of terrorism article over as the lead. -SV(talk) 20:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That much we can all agree on, and any insinuation of an apparent or likely ethnic bias, will certainly need to be swept away as unspeakable obviousness, or an assumption in its own right. ;) -SV(talk) 21:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I feel comfortable in saying that the opening covers our major basis in as few words as possible, paragraph by paragraph.
 * Core non-country-specific definition
 * Expected military objective of the attack
 * Terrorist tactics may also be used by non-state actors
 * Political controversy over use of the term
 * Etymology
 * Then we go on to the heavy duty wrangling after the TOC
 * Cecropia 21:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I understand. But though Gort be rusting and Rennie gone on, theres no reason to keep the wrangling exclusively below the TOC line, (which is like a wall, in a lot of cases ). Its a question of style, really - a dictionary style entry, we can all agree, is inapplicable, given the various flavors. Ill take a crack at it - we do the usual back and forth for a little bit. There should be an article, btw: lead. -SV(talk) 21:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, we should have a link to Gort in the terrorism article. If a mindless robot programmed to destroy everybody unless they behave in a manner determined by a culturally insensitive alien robot isn't terrorism, what is? Cecropia 22:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * 'The attempt to impose moral standards or oppose immorality through means of violence' - That may be the paradoxical definition we are looking for. Gort certanly needs an article --I thought you were talking about St. John's Gort. -SV(talk) 01:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Corporate terrorism

 * "We don't comment on the corporate terrorist activities of PETA. They are corporate terrorists and just like the United States government, we will not negotiate with corporate terrorists." - KFC spokeswoman Bonnie Warschauer New American Empire
 * That's just being stupid on the part of the KFC spokeswoman. I have no idea what she thought she meant by "corporate terrorist".  PETA are activists - they use emotional shock tactics, but I've never heard of them using violence.  We probably should put in something about groups like the Earth Liberation Front, or at least a link to ecoterrorist. Isomorphic 19:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we should be careful about diluting the definition with too many "hyphenated" subissues. I'm not trying to give destructive advocates a pass on anything, but in a discussion of warfare where you're thinking about The Hundred Years War or the Iraq War or World War II, you might think twice in including the "War on Drugs" or three times about Mr. Clean's "War on Dirt." Cecropia 19:59, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't care that much about this issue.  A link under "related topics" might still be appropriate. Isomorphic 20:43, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

State terrorism
Is there really discussion of going live with the current version? Has anybody read the section on state terrorism lately? Not only is it inappropriately placed before the more universally recognized forms of terrorism, it's also way longer than the rest and is blatantly POV. I'm going to clean it up. I won't mourn it if a lot of what I delete disappears forever, but if anyone wants to salvage anything, put it in state terrorism, not in the main article. Isomorphic 20:43, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Last two sections
I also object to the last two sections. The US waged terrorism in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, and we're going to blame Israel for Palestinian terrorism? How much of this article are we going to devote to Chomsky's views? Seriously? Whenever I try to NPOV something Stevertigo writes, he leaves my edited version and writes more POV into a new section. I'd try to NPOV the new stuff, but I'm getting tired of this, and I don't want the entire article to be "Blah, but Chomsky claims Blah. And also Chomsky says blah and blah." Isomorphic 22:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) BTW, lest I do nothing but criticize, I do like the new intro. Nice, concise, and gets the point across. Isomorphic 22:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, Heaven forbid we don't get what we want. I agree that since they are controversial, (and way too over-specific) they should be removed. It would be interesting to include them as hypothetical possibilities that engage us to think about the issues, but that's not factual and not encyclopedic, is it?  That's now out of the way.  I think it's ready to sent up to the big kahuna.  Cecropia and you and I all appear to agree. -SV(talk) 23:19, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Politicization
Ah, it's good to see the fruit of so much labor ready for prime time. However, before everyone gets that good night's sleep (or after, if everyone is snoring) I have a thought about this section and the last paragraph in particular:
 * "Some believe that it is impossible to define the term terrorism in any neutral or objective way. According to this viewpoint, the term "terrorism" is inherently and inescapably political in nature, and is always defined and used politically. Hence, "history is written by the victors," and it is the dominant society who dictates to history which particular acts of violence will or will not be labeled as "terrorism."

While I can agree with that being a legitimate argument, I don't think it is fair to say terrorism is "always" defined politically. For example, Nazi Germany did many terrible things in warfare, but a fair reading would describe some (blitzkrieg) as legitimate war tactics, but the V2 bombing that targeted civilian areas as terrorism. So my point is that terrorism is still a useful descriptive term even with a hated enemy, unless we can come up with a less charged but accurate generic term to describe the same general behavior, as "ethnocentrism" is a less charged term than "racism."

Also, the politicization section focuses mainly on belligerents simply claiming that the word is used politically, thus is meaningless. But there is a second front in this, as it were, in claims that terrorism the speaker defends is only one aspect of terrorism. Over use of the term to describe (as recently here) rogue opponents of Fried Chicken franchises as terrorist is a shot in this battle. Cecropia 00:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky
It's true that Chomsky is a prominent linguist, but he is also very prominent as a well known leftist critic of American and other policy and something of a loose cannon. I'm not saying he's always wrong but some of his tangents are not worthy of history, such as apologia for the Khmer Rouge and assertions about Vietnam not backed up by other histortical writing, especially The "Pentagon Papers." I think he can be quoted relevantly, but not extensively. Since his comment on "terrorism" does not come from the simple academic discipline of linguistics, couldn't we say "Linguist and leftist critic Noam Chomsky"? Cecropia 00:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rverted FYVM's edits
Aside from the fact that most of the edits are a barely coherent POV and/or off-topic rant, this new user violates Username and the referenced section Profanity. I realize this person can sign up again under a different username, but I feel it damages the Wikipedia to let this stand without challenge. Cecropia 14:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * He's just a reincarnation of User:Bird. He's on a crusade against Wikipedia, and spent some time yesterday trying to mess up everything I've worked on because I told him off.  You can pretty much revert anything a Bird reincarnation writes, as none of it is going to be useful.  Isomorphic 16:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the edit, all he did was revert the most recent series of edits. The "POV, off-topic rant" was just what the section looked like until I edited it down.  The most egregious bits were written by User:62.212.110.113, a French editor whose history shows a rather strong POV.  Isomorphic 16:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A Proposal
Terrorism should be defined objectively and not politically or emotionally (even though fear is an emotion). The best operational definition that matches the way people actually use the word is Acts of War committed by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)

This definition captures the special nature of Terrorism, does not obsess on civilian vs. military targets, and excludes all the things people want to exclude (crime, warfare, accidents, vandalism). This definition fairly includes both the Contras and Hezbollah. This definition gives a crisp definition to the phrase "State-sponsored terrorism" that otherwise tends to merge with warfare or covert action by governments. This definition can be agreed upon by people with differing religions and moral codes. This definition is pretty resistant to the duplicity of lawyers, propagandists, and politicians, and does not depend on multi-lateral treaties. Definitions are useful so that we may have words to use in our treaties. We cannot let treaties be the only origin of our definitions.

The Terror of the French Revolution and certain Marxist states is a related but different phenomenon deserving of its own word. This Terror always induced fear and was intended to induce fear and obedience. Modern Terrorism sometimes (apparently) intends to create over-reaction. Note that the September 11th attacks produced more anger than fear. Should we call al-Queda an "Angrist" organization?

It is hoped that an agreement on the meaning of Terrorism may facilitate the communication and negotiation that ends it.

 * While I agree with your sentiment that it would be highly desirable to have an objective definition, which a number of us have been working toward, I feel your definition does not really touch any accepted legal or functional definition of the term except in the popular mind, bolstered enormously by 9/11.

 * In fact, at least in terms of treaties, conventions and tradition, there are virtually no true non-state terrorists, because terrorists tend to represent the interests of states or combinations of states, and, as succinctly put after 9/11, "they do not exist in disembodied space"--i.e., they usually train and operate with the aid and/or acquiescence of states. The best-known example of arguable non-state actors in war-like acts are pirates, which still exist, but in their modern incarnation are more like highwaymen than terrorists or belligerents. Still, even pirates (during the most active age of piracy) had state support, which is why the formation and international sanctions against the Trucial States were effective in reducing piracy.

 * I would refer you back to the substance of our discussions defining terrorism more by its method, intent and effect than by who does it. Cecropia 04:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This draft is long since superceded. Should we be deleting it? Isomorphic 00:33, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Terrorism/Draft


text:
Andhra Christian College

The Andhra Christian College or A.C. College is one of the oldest colleges in India located in Guntur Andhra Pradesh. It started in 1885. AC College is part of the education enterprise of the Protestant churches. It admits intermediate, undergraduate and graduate students and awards degrees through the Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar to which it is affiliated.

Saint George is its patron saint. At the entrance of the college, there is a statue of the saint slaying the dragon.

Elected officials of the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church administer the college.

History
AC College was established in 1885 in Guntur City and was one of the first colleges in India to offer graduate programs. Protestant missionaries from the U.S.A established the college. The then United Lutheran Church in America (ULCA) through Rev. Fr. John Christian Frederick Heyer (known as Father Heyer) established the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church on 31 July 1842.

Administration
Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC) through its Board of Education administers the college. The school consists of three entities:
 * Day College
 * Evening College
 * College of Law

Intermediate
Pre-university or Intermediate courses are offered. The college is affiliated to the Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, a regulatory authority for pre-university courses in Andhra Pradesh.

The following course combinations are available:
 * Biology, Physics, Chemistry
 * Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry
 * History, Economics, Ciicvs
 * Ciicvs, Economics, Commerce

Graduate programmes

 * Bachelor of Arts (B.A.)
 * Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.)
 * Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.)

Post-graduate programmes

 * Master of Arts (M.A.) English and History
 * Master of Science (M.Sc.) Chemistry and Zoology

Business

 * Kallam Anji Reddy

Film

 * Sobhan Babu
 * N. T. Rama Rao
 * Jaggayya
 * Jaya Prakash Reddy

Literature

 * Jandhyala Papayya Sastry, poet who wrote Pushpa Vilapam

Politics

 * Paturi Rajagopala Naidu
 * Bhavanam Venkatarami Reddy
 * Kasu Brahmananda Reddy
 * N. G. Ranga
 * N. T. Rama Rao
 * S. V. L. Narasimham
 * Jesudasu Seelam
 * Yadlapati Venkata Rao
 * Pinneli Ramakrishna Reddy

Theology

 * Victor Premasagar
 * B. V. Subbamma

In film

 * Pilla Zamindar, a Telugu film, was filmed at the college. It was named Mangamma Memorial College in the movie.
 * Chalo a Telugu film, starring Naga Shaurya and Rashmika Mandanna, was filmed in the college. It was named as KGN college in the movie.
 * Brochevarevarura, a Telugu film, starring Sree Vishnu and Nivetha Thomas, shot here

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

title: Andhra Christian College


text:
Mindset (computer)

The Mindset is an Intel 80186-based MS-DOS personal computer. It was developed by the Mindset Corporation and released in spring 1984. Unlike other IBM PC compatibles of the time, it has custom graphics hardware supporting a 320×200 resolution with 16 simultaneous colors (chosen from a 512-shade palette) and hardware-accelerated drawing capabilities, including a blitter, allowing it to update the screen 50 times as fast as an IBM standard color graphics adapter. The basic unit was priced at US$1798 1984. It is conceptually similar to the more successful Amiga released over a year later. Key engineers of both the Amiga and Mindset were ex-Atari, Inc. employees.

The system didn't sell well and was only on the market for about a year. This was lamented by industry commenters, who saw compatibility taking precedence over innovation. Its distinctive case remains in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

History
Roger Badertscher was head of Atari, Inc.'s Home Computer Division until 1982 when he resigned in order to set up a new company to produce a new personal computer. As president of Mindset Corporation, he brought a number of Atari engineers with him.

Design
In most computer systems of the era, the CPU is used to create graphics by drawing bit patterns directly into memory. Separate hardware then reads these patterns and produces the actual video signal for the display. The Mindset added a new custom-designed VLSI vector processor to handle many common drawing tasks, like lines or filling areas. Instead of the CPU doing all of this work by changing memory directly, in the Mindset the CPU sets up those instructions and then hands off the actual bit fiddling to the separate processor.

Badertscher compared the chipset to the Intel 8087 floating-point processor, running alongside the Intel 80186 on which the machine is based. There are a number of parallels between the Mindset and the Amiga 1000, another computer designed by ex-Atari engineers that offered advanced graphics.

The Mindset's look was designed by Robert Brunner who would go on to provide design and direction for all Apple product lines from 1989-1997. His distinctive case for the Mindset is included by the Museum of Modern Art, New York, in its permanent collection.

As development continued and it became clear that the machine would be ready before the MS-DOS-based Microsoft Windows 1.0 was, Bill Gates became personally involved in the project to assist Mindset in emulating IBM character graphics without losing performance. Once Mindset officials determined that most of the desirable software was compatible, development was frozen and the OS burned to ROM in late 1983. The ROM does not run about 20% of the PC software base, including Microsoft Flight Simulator. WordStar is one of the PC applications reported to run, and Mindset publicized a list of 60 applications that run unmodified. The software base was expected to increase dramatically once a final version of Windows was released.

Before its release, in early 1984 Jack Tramiel is rumored to have tried to buy Mindset's technology. before ultimately buying Atari and designing a new machine from off-the-shelf parts, the Atari ST.

Release
The Mindset was released on 2 May 1984. The base model with 64 KB RAM (32 KB user RAM, 32 KB VRAM) and no floppy-disk drive sold for US$1,099, a 128 KB (user RAM) model with single disk was available for $1,798, and a 256 KB (user RAM) dual-disk version cost $2,398. The disk-less version of the machine was still usable, as the system also included two ROM cartridge ports on the front of the machine that could be used for the operating system and another program. The canonical cartridge is an extended version of GW-BASIC. The machine is packaged in a unique enclosure designed by GVO of Menlo Park, visually separated into two sections with the ROM slots in the lower half and the optional diskettes on the upper half. It was sold complete with a custom nylon carrying case.

Mindset's president said its graphics capabilities were unmatched except on US$50,000 workstations. At the time it garnered critical acclaim, with reviewers universally praising its graphics and overall performance which was much faster than contemporary PCs. although in many cases with the caveat that the market was rapidly standardizing.

Disappearance
By the summer of 1984, it was clear the system was not selling as expected, and the company re-purposed it for the video production and graphics design markets. That was followed in August by a round of layoffs, and another in January 1985, this time half the employees were let go. The company filed for Chapter 11 protection on 28 August 1985, and never emerged.

By 1985, when it was clear the system was not living up to its promise and Windows 1.0 was a flop in general, John J. Anderson published a review of the system decrying that the personal computer market was beginning to value compatibility over technology. He wrote:

...the marketplace has "matured," and in its maturation process it has lost much of its original spark, innovation, and imagination. Today supposed graphics "experts" think of graphics in terms of when to use a pie chart as opposed to a bar chart. Today a program like City had better run on the Commodore 64, or else be capable of charting the cost of equity capital. Today the idea of designing machines that push the envelope of graphics price/performance has caved in to the design of machines that are compatible but cheaper. It is a shift in emphasis that makes the micro world a colder place for those who are motivated enough to seek something more.

Mindset II
The Base System Unit is referred to as Model M1001; later a "Mindset II" computer was released, a badge engineered version of the M1001, with an adhesive label designating "II" under the embossed name. Internally the Video Processor Board is a separate mini-daughterboard. Its enhanced functionality is not totally understood – but from the "Mindset II Advanced Professional Videographics System" user's guide it makes mention of "Chaining" two Mindset's:

"It is possible to genlock any Mindset System to a Mindset II. In such a case, the composite video output of one Mindset is used as an external video source for the Video Production Module connected to the Mindset II. It is very important that the Mindset System being used as a video source be set in the interlaced mode. Otherwise, vertical locking will not occur."

The Mindset II is referred to on the front of the user guide as Model# M1500, however other internal pages reference is an M1000-II and also make mention of Mindset Video Production Module Model# M1011. The system included 512 KB system RAM, 128 KB VRAM, and 40 KB ROM. The primary resolution was 640x400, 4-color, double-buffered.

Description
The system architecture is based on the Intel 80186, with proprietary VLSI chips that enhance and speed up the graphics. Although it is disk compatible with the IBM PC's DOS, its enhanced graphics capabilities make achieving full IBM compatibility more difficult than its competitors. Bill Gates became involved with development, assisting Mindset in emulating IBM character graphics without losing performance. Once Mindset officials determined that most of the desirable software was compatible, development was frozen and the OS burned to ROM, which locked out 20% of the PC software base, including Microsoft Flight Simulator. WordStar is one of the PC applications reported to run, and Mindset publicized a list of 60 applications that run unmodified. The software base was expected to increase dramatically once a final version of Windows was released.

Mindset's design is modular in many aspects. The top of the case has an opening to access its system bus; this allows for the expansion module to plug into the main computer module to add memory and one or two disk drives. The Mindset was designed by several ex-Atari engineers like the Amiga 1000, another computer of the era with an advanced graphics subsystem and modular expandability. Jack Tramiel (forming Tramel Technology, Ltd.) tried to buy Mindset's technology in Spring of 1984.

A dual 5.25-inch floppy drive module that sits above the main unit was available and part of the common sales configuration for the system. The module also includes 224 KB of expansion memory as well.

Mindset has dual front-mounted ROM cartridge ports with a locking knob on the left side of the main computer module to lock the ROM modules into place. The Mindset has the option (through its System Configuration Utility) to be able to select whether the system boots from left or right ROM carts, or disk drive. Cartridges can also contain CMOS RAM, which is retained when unplugged by a battery in the cartridge case. Cartridges were envisioned to be a primary medium for software distribution on the Mindset, but sales of the system were too low for cartridges to be economical, and software was distributed on disk instead.

While released in 1984, models of the M1001 Mindset computer with BIOS ROM code 1.07 and earlier show a copyright notice of (c) 1983 Mindset Computer Corp.

Sound processor
Mindset has a custom sound-processor (CSP). The optional Sound Module adds a second CSP, along with a right channel audio output jack. There are four operating modes:

Rear ports
The rear of the computer is equipped with the following ports:

 * Audio left
 * Composite out
 * TV/RF
 * Channel 3/4 select switch
 * RGB video
 * EXT sync
 * Aux in
 * Aux out

The rear of the main computer module also has 3× 36-pin Expansion bus slots.

The Dual Disk/Memory Expansion Unit adds an additional three 36-pin Expansion bus slots to the system.

Expansion modules

 * Dual Disk Drive / Memory Expansion Module. Some are marked Model # M1003 and others M1004, despite there being no internal or external differences.
 * Printer Module – parallel
 * RS-232-C Module – serial
 * Modem Module 300
 * Modem Module 1200
 * 128 KB memory "Cartridge Module"
 * Hard Drive System, consisting of an Interface "Cartridge Module" and HD loader on NVRAM cartridge
 * Stereo Module – adds right channel output jack and second sound processor

Peripherals

 * Mouse
 * Analog joystick
 * Touch Tablet
 * Video Production Module – video fader

Video game
Only one video game has been released for the Mindset:
 * Vyper (Synapse Software, 1984)

title: Mindset (computer)


text:
User talk:Fourlittlediamonds

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

If you need editing help, visit How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 08:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fourlittlediamonds


text:
Legislative Council of Quebec

The Legislative Council of Quebec (French; Conseil législatif du Québec) was the unelected upper house of the bicameral legislature in the Canadian province of Quebec from 1867 to 1968. The Legislative Assembly was the elected lower house.

The council was composed of 24 members, appointed by the lieutenant governor upon the recommendation of the premier. Each councillor nominally represented a portion of the Province of Quebec called a division. The boundaries of these divisions were identical to the ones used for Canada East by the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada and were also identical to the boundaries still used today by the Senate of Canada for Quebec. The division boundaries were never changed to accommodate territorial expansions of Quebec in 1898 and 1912.

The Legislative Council was abolished in 1968 and the Legislative Assembly was renamed the National Assembly of Quebec. Since the abolition, Quebec has a unicameral legislature.

Powers of the Legislative Council
The council had the right to introduce bills, except of a financial nature, and to amend or reject bills passed by the Legislative Assembly. Its speaker, known in French as orateur, was by right a member of the Cabinet, and its members could serve as ministers or even premier. Two Quebec premiers, Charles-Eugène Boucher de Boucherville and John Jones Ross, were members of the Legislative Council.

Appointment of members of the Legislative Council
Members were originally appointed for life. In 1963, the rule was changed to force members to retire at age 75, but that did not apply to members who had already been appointed. In the event, the change remained entirely theoretical since the council was abolished before it could be applied to anyone.

Abolition of the Legislative Council
Effective December 31, 1968 the Legislative Council was abolished, and the Legislative Assembly of Quebec was renamed the National Assembly. As a consequence, Quebec now has a unicameral legislature. The establishment of the original system dates back to the Constitutional Act of 1791.

The Union Nationale government of Premier Jean-Jacques Bertrand passed the legislation, known as "Bill 90", to implement the change. Previous governments had made unsuccessful attempts to eliminate the upper chamber. In fact, the first attempt dated all the way back to Félix-Gabriel Marchand, in the late 19th century. Quebec was the last Canadian province to abolish its upper house.

When it was dissolved, it had 15 members of the Union Nationale and 9 Liberal Party members.

The Red Chamber
The large chamber that housed the Legislative Council is also known in French as le salon rouge (the red hall) and in English as "the Red Room" because of the predominance of the colour on the walls. It is now used for committee meetings and for important state functions that require a large, impressive hall, such as inductions into the National Order of Quebec.

Speakers of the Legislative Council of Quebec (1867–1968)
The Speaker of the Legislative Council (in French, the Orateur) was appointed by the government. Most Speakers sat in the Cabinet. The Speaker was the presiding officer of the Legislative Council, but could vote like other members. In the event of a tie, the Speaker did not have a casting vote. The motion simply failed.

Legislative Council divisions

The twenty-four members of the Legislative Council were each appointed to represent a division of Quebec. The divisions were originally defined by statute for the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada in 1856, when elected members were included in the Legislative Council. The statutory descriptions of the divisions were then incorporated into the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, 1859. In 1867, the British North America Act, 1867 simply adopted the existing twenty-four divisions for the new Legislative Council of Quebec, although the new Council was appointed, rather than elected.

Although the boundaries of Quebec were extended northwards twice, in 1898 and again in 1912, the boundaries of the Legislative Council divisions were never altered.

Alma
The Alma division was defined as: "The Parishes of Long Point, Pointe-aux-Trembles, Rivière des Prairies, Sault aux Récollets, in the county of Hochelaga, and that part of the Parish of Montreal which lies to the East of the prolongation of St. Denis Street; the County of Laval, that part of the City of Montreal which lies to the East of Bonsécours and St. Denis Streets, and their prolongation."

Bedford
The Bedford division was defined as: "The Counties of Missisquoi, Brome, and Shefford."

De la Durantaye
The De la Durantaye division was defined as "The remainder of the County of L'Islet, the countie[s] of Montmagny and Bellechasse and the Parishes of St. Joseph, St. Henri and Notre Dame de la Victoire, in the County of Lévi." (See the description of the Grandville division for the explanation of the "remainder of the County of L'Islet".)

De la Vallière
The De la Vallière division was defined as: "The Counties of Nicolet and Yamaska, the Townships of Wendover, Grantham, and the part of Upton which lies in the County of Drummond."

De Lanaudière
The De Lanaudière division was defined as "The remainder of the County of Maskinongé, the Counties of Berthier and Joliette, with the exception of the Parish of St. Paul, the Township of Kildare and its augmentation, and the Township of Cathcart". (See the description of the Shawinigan division for the explanation of the "remainder of the County of Maskingongé".)

De Lorimier
The De Lorimier division was defined as: "The Counties of St. John and Napierville; St. Jean Chrysostôme and Russeltown in the County of Chateauguay; Hemmingford in the County of Huntingdon."

De Salaberry
The De Salaberry division was defined as: "The remainder of the County of Chateauguay, the remainder of the County of Huntingdon, and the County of Beauharnois." (See the description of the De Lorimier division for the explanation of the parishes which were excluded from the De Salaberry division.)

Grandville
The Grandville division was defined as: "The Counties of Temiscouata and Kamouraska, the Parishes of St. Roch des Aulnets and St. Jean Port Joli, and the prolongation thereof in a straight line to the Province Line in the County of L'Islet."

Gulf
The Gulf division was defined as: "The Counties of Gaspé, Bonaventure and Rimouski."

Inkerman
The Inkerman division was defined as: "The Counties of Argenteuil, Ottawa and Pontiac."

Kennebec
The Kennebec division was defined as: "The Counties of Lotbinière, Mégantic and Arthabaska."

La Salle
The La Salle division was defined as: "The remainder of the County of Quebec, the County of Portneuf, and all that part of the Banlieue of Quebec which lies within the Parish of Notre Dame de Québec." (See the description of The Laurentides division for the explanation of the "remainder of the County of Quebec".)

Lauzon
The Lauzon division was defined as: "The remainder of the County of Lévi, the Counties of Dorchester and Beauce." (See the description of the De la Durantaye division for the explanation of the "remainder of the County of L'Islet".)

Mille Isles
The Mille Isles division was defined as: "The Counties of Terrebonne and Two Mountains."

Montarville
The Montarville division was defined as: "The Counties of Verchères, Chambly and Laprairie."

Repentigny
The Repentigny division was defined as: "The Parish of St. Paul, the Township of Kildare and its augmentation, and the Township of Cathcart, in the County of Joliette, the Counties of L'Assomption and Montcalm".

Rigaud
The Rigaud division was defined as: "The remainder of the Parish of Montreal, and the Counties of Jacques Cartier, Vaudreuil and Solanges." (See the description of the Alma division for the explanation of the "remainder of the Parish of Montreal".)

Rougemont
The Rougemont division was defined as "The remainder of the County of St. Hyacinth, the Counties of Rouville and Iberville." (See the description of the Saurel division for the explanation of "the remainder of the County of St. Hyacinth".)

Saurel
The Saurel division was defined as "The Counties of Richelieu and Bagot, the Parishes of St. Denis, La Présentation, St. Barnabé, and St. Jude, in the County of St. Hyacinth."

Shawinigan
The Shawinigan division was defined as "The Counties of Champlain and St. Maurice, the Town of Three Rivers, the Parishes of River du Loup, St. Léon, St. Paulin, and the Township of Hunterstown and its augmentation, in the County of Maskinongé."

Stadacona
The Stadacona division was defined as "The remainder of the City and Banlieue of Quebec." (See the description of the La Salle division for the explanation of "remainder of the City...of Quebec".)

The Laurentides
The Laurentides division was defined as: "The Counties of Chicoutimi, Charlevoix, Saguenay and Montmorency, the Seigniory of Beauport, the Parish of Charlebourg, the Townships of Stoneham and Tewkesbury, in the County of Quebec."

Victoria
The Victoria division was defined as: "The remainder of the City of Montreal exclusive of the Parish." (See the description of the Alma division for the explanation of the "remainder of the City of Montreal".)

Wellington
The Wellington division was defined as: "The remainder of the County of Drummond, the County of Richmond, the Town of Sherbrooke, the Counties of Wolfe, Compton, and Stanstead." (See the description of the De la Vallière division for the explanation of the "remainder of the County of Drummond".)

title: Legislative Council of Quebec


text:
Tatiana Nikolayeva

Tatiana Petrovna Nikolayeva (Татьяна Петровна Николаева; May 4, 1924 – November 22, 1993) was a pianist, composer, and teacher from the Soviet Union.

Life
Nikolayeva was born in Bezhitsa, in the Bryansk district, on May 4, 1924. Her mother was a professional pianist and studied at the Moscow Conservatory under the renowned pedagogue Alexander Goldenweiser, and her father was an amateur violinist and cellist. Nikolayeva won first prize in the International Johann Sebastian Bach Competition in Leipzig, which was founded to mark the bicentenary of Bach's death in 1750. Dmitri Shostakovich, who was a member of the jury, composed and dedicated the 24 Preludes and Fugues, Op. 87, to her: it remained an important part of her piano repertoire.

She sat as a jury member on international competitions such as the Paloma O'Shea Santander International Piano Competition, the International Tchaikovsky Competition and the Leeds Piano Competition. She recorded her own transcription of Sergei Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf. Nikolayeva was the teacher of Nikolai Lugansky. Among her other students were András Schiff, whom she taught in summer courses at the Hochschule für Musik Franz Liszt, Weimar, and Michael Korstick, whom she taught during her master classes at Musikhochschule Cologne, Germany.

She died on November 22, 1993, in San Francisco, nine days after succumbing to a brain haemorrhage during a performance of one of the Op. 87 fugues at the Herbst Theatre.

As James Campbell-Methuen commented in her obituary, "Aside from the Shostakovich, though, Tatiana Nikolayeva will be remembered as a Bach player who flung stylistic considerations to the winds and played the music with an irrepressible musical intelligence and knowledge of the resources of her chosen instrument."

Partial repertoire

 * Preludes, Op. 34 (Shostakovich)
 * Piano Concerto No. 1 (Tchaikovsky)

Compositions

 * Violin Concerto (1972)
 * Symphony (1955; rev. 1958)
 * 24 Concert Études, Op. 13 (1951–53)
 * Piano Quintet (1947)

title: Tatiana Nikolayeva


text:
User talk:Clossius

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

If you need editing help, visit How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 08:11, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vera Rubin discovered evidence for 'dark matter' decades ago
I was reacting to the 'Did you know' notation which incorrectly attributed the discovery of dark matter only to Einasto, when Vera Rubin did the work decades ago in the midst of great incredulity. It is just to share credit with Einasto, but it is incorrect for the 'Did you know' notation to grant entire credit when she and Fritz Zwicky blazed the trail decades ago. Ancheta Wis 20:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) But because I didn't want to mess up 'Did You Know' with a small detail, which, after all is designed to entice new people into Wikipedia, I reasoned that a curious person could just click on Einasto, as you did. So my scheme worked. And Einasto would be happy to share the credit with a giant, which Vera Rubin indeed is. It is again unjust that such a quiet scientist like Rubin would be ignored, in this age of women's rights. Notice again the inadequate article on Zwicky.

Her work on galactic rotation was not attributed either in that article or in the dark matter article, so where do we start ... I chose to start with a glaring injustice in Did You Know.
 * Added link in the galactic rotation article. You are free to delete her listing under Einasto, if you wish, of course.Ancheta Wis 22:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Imperial Germans
Am not less impressed, but somewhat intrigued. Why no simple redirect from Reichsdeutsche to Imperial Germans? --Ruhrjung 18:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Because there is a Discussion Page attached to the Reichsdeutsche page, and I read somewhere that it is "bad form" to delete or move or redirect pages with discussion, and I am certainly nobody who would try to "take along" the discussion. Hence I thought that this way of indirect referral would solve the problem. Clossius 19:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see! (I ponder to do it anyway, but it's no hurry!) --Ruhrjung 20:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems to be done now, but at least not by myself. :-) You know, one of the most interesting experiences on wiki for me is that because of the group dynamics, one has to be much more careful with what one says or does than one has to be when writing scholarly articles for journals or "classic" encyclopedias, although those are signed and credited to one's name. So, anonymity and the wiki system makes one not more bold, but less so. Clossius 06:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's well put. --Ruhrjung 07:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plato's Republic
If you are a classicist can you check out Talk:Republic start in the archived section and check out Greek Philosophies on Republic and its talk page and need help at the Policy thinktank at Revisionism.WHEELER 17:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, what a discussion there! I'm not a classicist, but I deal with Greek Philosophy (and political philosophy) quite a bit. The problem is, to get into this Republic discussion (this is what happens if one gives the Politeia that name!) would require the same effort as a full scholarly paper (and I just finished one on Xenophanes and am a bit exhausted). What is true is that this is a Classics discussion that can only orient itself towards the Greek text, not any translation, not even by Jowett (a great man indeed, but really, not quite a Jaeger! ;-)) Clossius 20:52, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Estonian?
Hello, Clossius. You are not by chance an Estonian are you?

 * No, by chance I am actually not (quite), but I'm interested in EE subecjt matters. Clossius 12:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Law and Economics
I see you reverted my change to the link in Wilhelm Lexis as this is a standard name. I've tried to apply my change in a compromise manner, as all I want is for the link to work, but the real issue might be the Law and economics article; perhaps it should be moved to Law and Economics? There are many articles linking to it in its current case. I'm not an expert in this area; if you think this would be more appropriate capitalisation, I suggest you move the page and revert my change to Wilhelm Lexis again.--gadfium 00:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The issue is a bit debated even within the scholarly community dealing with the issue. The problem, I think, is that for many, the capitalization/decapitalization issue is somehow ideological, and so there is a problem here.  Usually, L&E experts are wary that "law and economics" means "the legal discipline, and the field of economics as well", whereas "Law and Economics", or even better "Law & Economics" (which I prefer also), signalizes that this is a specific scholarly method or, better, approach (economic analysis of the law, broadly understood).  But I don't care for the issue strongly enough to get into the issue of the (highly problematic) L&E article, so I won't revert anything again and just let it go. Clossius 08:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Max Weber
I will be putting ol' Max on Featured candidate soon, after 2 peer reviews I think he is ready for big time. Since you have helped before, I'd appreciate any last checks you could give the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

William V. Spanos
Hello Clossius, I would like to know your opinion about William V. Spanos, is he a notable enough scholar to have an article about him in Wikipedia? He has published few papers about Heidegger, Arendt, Derrida, etc. so I venture a guess you might have heard of him. Please see Votes for deletion/Spanos. Cordially, jni 10:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi jni, I'm afraid that I have to reply with the weasel answer that "the name rings a bell" but that I could not have placed the name, and that I'm not familiar with any of his work from my own dealings with the Heidegger, Arendt etc. discourse. From his website, he seems to be a "postmodernism-conservative". :-)  But I must say - and that has to do with my own view of Wikipedia - that that I see no reason on earth why he should be deleted; he's certainly more important than your arverage college professor (just 12 hits on Google Scholar, but many more on Google itself), and the presses and substance matter of his pieces are solid enough.  Of course, the article is a stub and is missing especially the key contributions and merits of Spanos, but this is not a "vanity piece" (and if it were, I wouldn't care either; I think vanity is fine for those who have at least a bit of a reason to be vain :-)). Clossius 07:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your comments. I too wouldn't have minded if Prof. Spanos had written this article by himself, even with slight vanity it would probably have been more insightful than what we currently have. Can't fault the person who nominated this for deletion though, the first version was almost totally incoherent and without context. Nowadays so much total garbage gets posted to Wikipedia making it hard to spot the few notable entries among the chaff. jni 15:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania!
Hi Clossius, We could use some Wikimania help, particularly with coordinating travel plans, flights and hotels, and getting information about the city together to hand out to attendees. +sj +  05:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Adolph Wagner
Hi, Clossius

I didn't actually move the article from Adolph Wagner to Adolf Wagner. I just noticed that there were two articles for this person, and they needed to be merged, with a redirect from one to the other. If you feel the article belongs under "Adolph", you are quite free to move it and you have the power to do so. To help you do this, I have deleted the redirect, and all you need to do is to move the article from Adolf Wagner to Adolph Wagner. You can then create a new article on the other Adolf Wagner to avoid future confusion. Deb 16:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I wonder who duplicated the Adolph Wagner article under the wrong heading. I will do so, not because of a feeling, but because it's not accurate to list him under another person's name.

Professor
I've made the change in the article Professor which you reverted. Sorry, but your opionion is just plainely wrong. I'm affiliated with a german university (however not as a professor) and the title Professor is not a life long title but related to the work position. This is also explained in the corresponding article in the german wikipedia Professor which i referenced in my change.

I will cite: "Professor (von lat. profiteri, 'öffentlich bekennen, vortragen') ist die Berufsbezeichnung (bzw. Dienstbezeichnung) eines in der Regel beamteten Lehrers an einer Hochschule (auch: Hochschullehrer)."
 * -> Professor [...] is the work title [...] of a teacher at a university.

Also: "Im Fall von Ehrenprofessuren und außerplanmäßigen Professuren handelt es sich um einen Titel (Titularprofessur)."
 * -> In the case of honorary professors and außerplanmäßig (outside of the regular plan) professors it is a title".

Even more: "Der Unterschied besteht vor allem darin, dass der Titel erhalten bleibt, auch wenn der Beruf nicht mehr ausgeübt wird (man kann ihn aber aberkennen oder niederlegen), während die Berufs- oder Dienstbezeichnung bei Aufgabe der Tätigkeit nicht mehr weiter besteht (eine Ausnahme bildet allerdings die Emeritierung oder Pensionierung)."
 * -> The main difference is that the title will still remain after the job is no longer fullfilled (it is however possible to return it or have it rejected), while the work title will not remain any longer after the end of the job entitlement (with an exception beeing the retirement or emeritus).

This makes it absolutely clear that in the vast majority of german Professors the term "Professor" is not a title but a work position. This is also reflected in the fact that unlike the title 'Dr.' (Ph.D.) the term 'Professor' can NOT be added to the name for example in the passport or identity card. I'm not sure where you got your wrong opionion from, but sorry, it is wrong. Just trust the german wikipedia article. -- de:Benutzer:Kju 13:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The German wikipedia, where I am also active, is plainly wrong there, but I did not have the time to improve it there. It may well be that you think you are right, but factually you are not.  It is by now so that even if you are Ordinarius or Extraordinarius (C4 or C3, by now mostly W3 or W2) and you quit, you may retain legally the title Professor.  This was debatable with the "Hessenprofessoren" of the 1970s, C2 and so on, but by now it is absolutely clear that this is so.  The German law and usage are very clear here; we have respective laws, court decisions of the respective courts, approvals by the ministries, and of course comments in the respective Wissenschaftsrechts-commentaries, handbooks, the recommendations etc. by Wissenschaftsrat, KMK and the like.  Look at the entry you changed - I do not say that Professor is a title, indeed it hardly is in Germany, but that it also has a title function that is separate from the position.  Yes, it is not legally a title like the Dr., in that it does not get into your ID cards etc., but it is a title in the sense that you retain it legally (and there are severe penalties if you use titles you are not en-itled to in Germany) even if you quit.  As regards the German article, es ist ja oft so, daß wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter das nicht so genau wissen, and even professorial colleagues are not always sure of the herrschende Meinung in Rechtsprechung und Literatur.  I should say that this is not a personal issue for me (I can tell you outside of wiki why not), and I find this even odd and regrettable - once you quit being a Professor, you should not retain the title, i.m.h.o., but my opinion is not what matters - nor is yours.  I'll revert the article again; if you have a problem with that, we can either do arbitration right away, or we can start citing the respective literature (not the German wiki, please), which admittedly would be a bit tedious (and not readily understandable for the readership here), but if it has to be... Clossius 18:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Tallinn
Hello, I noticed your today's disparaging comments about a Russian church. Can you tell me - do you find this church or this any better, or do you dislike all colourful and extravagant architecture in principle? Just curious, Ghirla | talk 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not like the Romanov revival style of the turn-of-the century in general (with exceptions), and I don't think the ANC is particularly beautiful as such - it can be in a certain light, from certain perspectives, etc. But my point in this discussion was not disparaging, au contraire - I think the ANC is the most "real" church in Tallinn by now (at least in the Toompea/Vanalinn area), because it is actually used as a church; it is welcoming to foreigners, and people of all classes and generations go there to pray and worship. I think that is what matters. I do, in principle, like Russian Orthodox (and Greek Orthodox) churches, though not the ones you mentioned (I like extravagant architecture, but not necessarily colorful). But that is really a non-wiki matter of taste; I think ANC was indeed intended as "show architecture". Even that "works" sometimes, but in this case, what is fascinating to me is that was primarily meant as a political symbol has turned into a real church. Clossius 18:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for detailed explanation. You may want to check my article on Russian architecture, by the way. --Ghirla | talk 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Erik S. Reinert
I'm the press contact for no.wikipedia, and Mr. Reinert found my name and contacted me about some vandalism on his bio. The bio was written by one of his students, and he is reluctant to edit an article about himself. I noticed that you've reverted vandalism in the article before, so I thought I'd let you know what's going on. Someone is trying to bring personal issues into this article. Reinert has documentation to support his claim that falsehoods have been inserted, which he'll be sending to me later today. I'll keep it on my watchlist, but since you've already looked after it I also hope that you'll continute to keep an eye out for any trouble. Cnyborg 12:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Doing what I can, but I really hope this will stop some time soon. This guy and his sockpuppets are really slanderous and libelous, and it's well beyond what should happen on wikipedia. Just saw it has happened again. Clossius 16:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Gustav von Ewers
Could I trouble you for a source for this article? not apparently on German Wikipedia. Best wishes, Staffelde 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You mean to insert scholarly (printed) sources? Clossius 16:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I meant only to ask you to identify whatever source it was you had used to write the article. Best, Staffelde 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The usual biographical literature of course - the standard German, Russaian, and Estonian histories of the University of Tartu, the essay on his Chair (which has a good biosketch with the data and evaluation of his work), and there is a big recent biography by an Estonian scholar with a summary in German. Clossius 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Many thanks for adding them. Best, Staffelde 13:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Xenophanes / Monotheism
(discussion moved to Talk:Xenophanes)

Your book
Hello, I've been impressed with your edits and was curious about your "real-world" publications. Can you direct me to some? I understand if you would rather remain anonymous, but on the other hand I would be interested in reading your work. -Halidecyphon 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, many thanks. :-) You can write me an e-mail and we can discuss that. Unfortunately (but systemically), this is not a subject best discussed here. Clossius 06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Conflict over Conflict Thesis
Hello, Clossius. I hope you will believe that I am making a serious effort to be NPOV on Conflict thesis and Andrew Dickson White. I am not sure what you see as the problem, so you are going to have to explain it more if you want me to address it. You seem to have the feeling that there must be some historians who would regard White's book as decent history, if a little dated. What would it take to assure you that it is not? Maestlin 08:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I am not sure I know of any serious historian of science today who judges the historical contribution of scholars according to the standards of today, i.e. of what today is believed to be correct. It's hardly a matter of feeling to say that in its time, White's was indeed decent history - nor that it was and (actually to my own surprise) is a book that is actually read. I think that's also reflected in the contemporary literature both on White and on the history of science. Clossius 10:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Wikisource
I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Psychology Wiki
Hi Clossius,

I noticed that you are interested in contributing to a community with fellow academics, and thought you might be interested in this project which I am involved in, The Psychology Wiki.

I won't say too much, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called Wikia, which was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. There are Google Ads on the site, but we dont make money from the project, they're just to pay for the bandwidth, storage and technical support that Wikia give us.

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the invitation. This looks like a very cool prpject - exactly the direction Wikipedia ought to be going -, and I've signed up and will be happy to see how the project is going (and will contribute to that myself of course :-)). Clossius 07:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Hanno_Drechsler.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hanno_Drechsler.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 01:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The copyright status is completely clear; it is not necessary to change anything there. This is the case regarding US law as well as the German one. If someone really feels she or he would enjoy additional information, I would however supply it before getting into some no-win fight. Clossius 13:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hanno_Drechsler.jpeg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hanno_Drechsler.jpeg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How can one possibly get a kick out of deleting images, especially where there is no legal issue...? Clossius 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nurksestamp.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nurksestamp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Emu logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Emu logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Defen1618.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Defen1618.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. - AWeenieMan (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Clossius! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jüri Allik -

File:Marburgalt.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Marburgalt.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.

 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:PhilippIHesse2.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:PhilippIHesse2.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.

 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Zentrale Dombauverein zu Köln von 1842 has been nominated for listification
Category:Members of the Zentrale Dombauverein zu Köln von 1842 has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

File:HEbbinghaus.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HEbbinghaus.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗ plicit  09:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Clossius


text:
Talk:Lal Bahadur Shastri

Variety of English
The header of the Talk section claims that the article is written in Indian English with its "own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence)".

This comment is inaccurate,in particular with regard to spellings. The examples must have been given by an American. These spellings are used everywhere in the English-speaking world except in the USA. Dori1951 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of "ji" suffix in name
I have deleted the honorific suffix "ji" in Shastri's name on the three occasions I saw it in the the Early Years section and the one in the Jai Jawan Jai Kisan section. The main reason is better compliance with a NPOV. It is also not widely understood outside the Subcontinent and could be confusing for readers unconnected with the region.

For the same reason I deleted an instance of the use of "Shri" where it did not appear to be a quote. Dori1951 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture
A film named "The Taskhent Files" directed by Vivek agnihotri depicts the conspiracies about his death and unfolds several harsh truths about the then Indian government Umang Madhogaria (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Portrait of Lal Bahadur Shastri in the Central Hall of the Parliament.jpg

bharat ratna
lal bahadur shastri was the first bharat ratna(posthumously) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.74.111.57 (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7th Nizam with Lal bahadur Shastri.jpg

Legacy
The boxed quote appears five lines after it should, and splits the third paragraph. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

death in lead
According to various intelligence agencies, he was assassinated by the United States through CIA. This claim is based on the confessions of Robert Crowley, the second-in-command of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (responsible for covert operations), as recorded in the book 'Conversation with the Crow' by Gregory Douglas.

These are extensively written at the death portion, which is a popular claim on his death which is important. He is the only prime minster of india which has a popluar claim that cia was behind his death, also from various sources.

discuss here before you remove this from the lead. This has been already written in the death section Afv12e (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 * @Chronikhiles Afv12e (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, especially those that pertain to news and individuals. I don't believe any of your sources are reliable. Chronikhiles (talk)  06:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i have removed news9live reference and added other reliable sources, including those used at the 'death' section Afv12e (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lal Bahadur Shastri