text:
Talk:Richard Dean Anderson

Quotes
What on earth does the Carter quote have to do with this page?195.33.121.133 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He WAS the main character in the series "McGuyver"...81.145.241.116 17:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Image
Regarding the image... I ain't seein' it. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 12:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It's one of the victims of the Great Image Glitch of January '04. I notice that the notice on the Village Pump has stopped saying they expect the images to come back sooner or later, and started suggesting people re-upload the images; maybe someone'd better take the link off the article for now, either way. --Paul A 15:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Norwegian?
I hear a lot about his norwegian origins... Is it true?
 * Considering the name Anderson and that he comes from Minnesota, it seems likely that he has Scandinavian heritage, anyway.

McGyver
There should be more than a passing reference to his part in this show, since he starred in it for quite a few seasons. --69.210.64.18 03:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7 seasons. StargateX1 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * To say that he starred in it for quite a few seasons is kind of redundant. He played the titular character. Your wording seems to imply that he ever wasn't the star... Just a little harmless nitpicking... Anyway, I'm leaving this article and discussions behind now. 24.254.163.150 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Roseville
The roseville, mn wiki page claims he's from Roseville, not Minneapolis.

Father???
Isn't his father Richard Anderson, The boss on "The Six Million Dollar Man" and "The Bionic Woman"?
 * No. His father's name is Stuart Anderson. -Nunh-huh 06:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hockey?
Seems like he tried a career in hockey prior to acting? Thought I recalled he was on a minor league team or something? JME66.72.215.225

He wanted to be a professional hockey player when growing up, but he broke both of his arms within 3 weeks of each other while playing high school hockey, and re-thought his professional ambitions. He still kept playing though and has also been the honorary captain of the US Olympic hockey team (in 1988 and in 1992). See also http://rdanderson.com. -TvL

Removed deleted image(s)
Just a note to say that I have removed some [or an] image[s] from the page beacuse they were speediable under either:

 * Category:Images with no fair use rationale
 * Category:Images with no copyright tag
 * Category:Images with no source

Or similar category. Iola  k  ana |(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Air Force award?
''He was presented with an award at the Air Force Association's 57th Annual Air Force Anniversary Dinner in Washington, D.C. on 14 September 2004 because of his role as star and executive producer of Stargate SG-1, a series which has portrayed the Air Force in a positive light since it first premiered. It was presented by the then-Air Force Chief-of-Staff, General John P. Jumper. The last recipient of the award was James Stewart in 1987. At the same dinner, Anderson was made an honorary Brigadier General.'' So what award is this referring to? I couldn't find a mention of it in the James Stewart article to include the actual name of the award in this one. --user.lain 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't RDA now be referred to as "Brigadier General (Hon.) Richard Dean Anderson" at the beginning of the article?
 * I agree, Anderson is a Brig. General, and should be titled as such. - MSTCrow 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think an Honorary title is the same as being given a real title. As such I don't think this should be reflected in the lead in and should only be discussed in the body of the article. Furthermore, I always thought honorary titles could not be used in an official capacity, and had only been given to the person for decorative purporses.--NeilEvans 14:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that you may be correct, although I don't know enough about the military to be sure, and I'm hesitant to remove info unless 100% necessary (especially if the prior consensus is to leave it be). If you can find a verifiable source for proper usage of honorary military titles, we can re-visit this topic. Spazure 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some research and found these three style guides., and . While they don't deal with honorary military titles, they do deal with honorary degrees, so I would think the same rules would apply. It appears the consensus is that if a person holds an honorary doctorate, the title of Dr. should not be placed before the person's name. They also state that if it is necessary for the title to be included then it should be stated that the title is honorary. At present the article page does state that the title is honorary, but I don't feel that the title is necessary in the lead in paragraph.--NeilEvans 14:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You lead a very compelling counterpoint. I urge others watching this article to add their opinion as well. I was not able to locate any info one way or another considering military usage of honorary titles, but as we're wiki and not military, the wiki rules for honorary titles (which I didn't even think to search on, thanks!) should probably take priority here. Spazure 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NCNT says this about honorary titles. "Honorary titles should not be used at all, but the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article." So I think that's pretty conclusive that the title should not be used and only the letters after his name and then expanded on in the body of the text.--NeilEvans 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Brevet (military)

In the U.K. and U.S. military, brevet referred to a warrant authorizing a commissioned officer to hold a higher rank temporarily, but usually without receiving the pay of that higher rank. An officer so promoted may be referred to as being brevetted. For example, "He was brevetted major general." The promotion would be noted in the officer's title, for example, "Bvt. Maj. Gen. Joshua L. Chamberlain".

Ok so, since we are talking about the United States Armed Forces, May I point out that every serving President of the United States is referred as the Commander-In-Chief after they leave public Office.

General of the Army George Washington, never once held that rank while he was alive, but in fact he was Brigadier General Washington. This title is and was honorary and today continues to be used. The same case can be made for President Dwight D. Eisenhower who resigned his Army commission on May 31, 1952 to run for president. After he served two terms, his successor, John F. Kennedy, signed Pub.L. 87-3 on March 23, 1961 which returned Eisenhower to Active Duty of Regular Army in grade of General of the Army dated back to December 1944. Thusly making him an honorary General of the Army while he was President of the United States.

(David Faith (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC))(David Faith) Sunday May 4th 2008 23:59 41 Zulu

 * Ok, find an example involving someone who never officially served in the military.Thinkbui (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Brevet Colonel David Stern Crockett? In the Alamo battle in Texas?

Ok besides 42nd President of the United States William J. Clinton? A man that never served one day in uniform, No President is officially a member of the military the President is a civilian in spite of prior service. Although I am looking up other examples,

However even in this case a senior General in this case John P. Jumper. Recommend to the President of the United States (George W. Bush) that R.D. Anderson be promoted to the rank of Brigadier General and then that nomination is sent to the United States Senate. And then it has to pass in the lower house, this is the case for all United States flag officers, brevet or no.

The Civil War encouraged the granting of hundreds of Brevet commissions to regular and volunteer army officers. In the United States Navy of old it was the Captains prerogative to promote who ever to which ever rank was needed in this instance a civilian can be promoted to the rank of acting ensign, “with all the rights and privileges there to.”

A brevet rank was an honorary promotion given to an officer (or occasionally, an enlisted man) in recognition of gallant conduct or other meritorious service. They served much the same purpose that medals play today (our modern system of medals did not exist at the time of the Civil War).

A brevet rank was almost meaningless in terms of real authority. For example, a major who was a brevet colonel collected the pay of a major, wore the uniform of a major, could not give orders to lieutenant colonels, and was only eligible for commands that normally fell to majors. But he was allowed to use the title of colonel in his correspondence.

In addition, there were some unusual circumstances where brevet rank carried authority. For instance, when a force consisted partly of Regular troops and partly of state militia, command would go to the officer with the highest brevet rank (who might neither the highest ranking regular officer nor the highest ranking volunteer!). This came up during the Mexican War on some occasions, and seems to have been designed to allow Regular officers with brevets (implying experience) to assume command over higher-ranking militia officers who had neither experience nor brevets.

An officer could also claim his brevet rank when serving on court-martial duty. Since an officer cannot be tried by officers ranking lower than himself, using brevet ranks allowed more people to qualify as possible court members.

During the war itself, brevets were very difficult to get and were a sign of valor, but on March 13, 1865, the War Department gave one brevet and sometimes two to nearly every officer on duty with the army. This angered many officers and men, who saw it as trivializing the efforts of men who won brevets in combat. (J.L. Chamberlain mentions this in his memoirs, for instance.)

Like regular ranks, brevets were kept separately for the U.S. Volunteers and the U.S. Army. Thus one man could have four ranks: an actual Volunteer rank, a brevet Volunteer rank, an actual Regular rank, and a brevet Regular rank. Brevets in the Regular army were sometimes used to honor men who had already been brevetted Major General in the Volunteers and could not be brevetted again (in the Volunteers), as no brevet Lieutenant Generals were created during the war (Winfield Scott had been made Brevet Lieutenant General [of Regulars] during the Mexican War).

Brevet ranks were authorized for the Regular Army in the Articles of War of 1806; they were authorized for the US Volunteers on March 3, 1863. Partly as a result of dissatisfaction with the end-of-war brevet giveaway, brevet promotions were discontinued in 1869; although officers who had been given brevets before that date continued to use them. They were reinstated for the Spanish-American war and continued in use until after World War I.

The Confederate army did not award brevet promotions.

(David Faith (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

When searching through Wikipedia manual of style for naming conventions, it seems fairly clear what the convention is.
 * Manual of Style (biographies) does not discuss military honorable titles, probably because there in light of the other convensions wouldn't be much room for including the honorary title. For government officials, it states
 * Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper. ...
 * Further for academical titles it states:
 * Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. ...

 * Naming conventions (names and titles) states:
 * 6. Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix) such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. ...  (my emphasising)
 * Since an honorific title is less commonly used thana coutesy title, and Richard Dean Anderson absolutely is recongnized without his honorific title, this should make matters fairly clear.
 * 7. In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name. ...
 * In conclusion I find no support for including an honorary title in the opening. To conclude my remarks, take a look at an actual brigader general, Ebenezer Learned. There is no mention of his title in the opening. To include this honorary title in the Richard Dean Anderson article at the opening is thus a breach of the convensions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Arsenikk (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, and in the second place you’re trying to use civilian "Styles" for the military and that just isn't going to work! Other wise you could try a military case in a civilian court, but that never happens, military and civilian are different entities at all times, if they weren’t things would be very different! (David Faith (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

This discussion is essentially dead since Arsenikk found something in Wikpedia's "Bible", but it's been a good one, so I'll bit at least once more.

To answer your question, David, Crockett's rank came from his election to lead the TN Militia and as you know, like military ranks, those tend to stick afterwards and besides we just now call him Davy Crockett, no rank or title. I'm not sure where you were going with Bill Clinton since, as you note, the job as president is a civilian post that comes with the responsibilities as commander in chief. Unless I'm missing something, I don't believe he's widely referred to as Brevet or Former Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton nor is there any expectation that he would serve in that capacity again since it came with the job and left with the job as president.

You are correct in stating that trials concerning military matters belong in military courts and civilian matters in civilian courts, but if we were to continue with that example, if RDA committed a crime -- let's say he raped a USAF officer -- would that go into a civilian or military court? Maybe that's not he greatest example as it only says he's not an active GI, but honestly if he hasn't chosen to go by "General" and not part of the real USAF past or present even with the honorary title brevet or otherwise and there are no forces at play, not even from the USAF and its regulations nor general consensus of the public, imposing that this civilian be widely addressed as a military officer and acting is by far the only thing he's famous for, is there any reason identify him in the summary blurb of this article as anything other than his stage name?Thinkbui (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn’t a question; the fact that Colonel Crockett’s rank was elected office didn’t come up in my research, the press certain members of the military and a few civilians still call him “Former Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton” there are a few perks that come with being a retired President of the United States. That’s not a brevet, and it could possibly come again to any ex-president, he could still serve another two years but that’s not important here as you pointed out!

Your Example

Should RDA commit a crime, it would depend on where he is! Is he on a base or off? Should General Jumper steal a car off a base he be charged under civilian law, should he steal that same car down at Andrews A.F.B. he’ll be charged under military law, it wouldn’t matter if he had his uniform on much, when the U.S.A.F. gets a hold of him. it’ll be one more charge to answer for I.e., Conduct unbecoming an officer, However in this example General Anderson’s Rank will be noted for the civilian courts and would influence the military court, how he’s handled! (David Faith (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

General George Custer, is an example of Breveted Rank as he was LT.Col Custer U.S.A.

(David Faith (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Ok, It is appropriate to refer to a person by their rank not there salutation.

(David Faith (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.3.64 (talk)

Latino heritage?
IN the simpsons episode he mentioned having latino heritage.

Yeah, but that's the Simpsons. The show where Bill Clinton stated that he was "a pretty lousy president". Maybe that's not the best example (it's true and all!), but the point still stands. Anything said on the Simpsons has to be taken with a pretty big grain of salt. SpudHawg948 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Serial daters
Why is it, I wonder, that male celebrities are invariably accompanied by a list of beautiful and famous women they have dated, as if this was some kind of accomplishment rather than representing a string of failures? 82.110.248.146 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * To be fair, sometimes dating is entirely for social purposes rather than seeking a mate, or someone to mate with. It is possible for two people to date without any kind of carnal motivations. I'm not saying that's what he was doing, just playing devil's advocate. 24.254.163.150 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actor Infobox
Much of the info is not displaying. I can't seem to fix it ATM, but perhaps someone who's better at wiki editing than I can do so...

Jedikaiti (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd
I'd write an article about Richard Dean Anderson's association with Sea Shepherd, but I'm not exactly good at such things.

We have something mentioning it on his own webpage: http://rdanderson.com/signseal.htm

As well as Sea Shepherd's webpage: http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_050310_1.html

http://www.activistcash.com claims that RD Anderson is a board member of Sea Shepherd... I'm not sure if that's true or not. I'd post a direct link, but unfortunately they use a script so that you can't link directly to someone's profile on there.

Frankly, I'm not sure what to make of this myself... In some ways, I respect what SSCS does, but in other ways I don't. The goal is noble, the methodology is questionable at best. And RD Anderson's involvement with them puts him in a different light from how I originally saw him. :( 24.254.163.150 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Inaccuracy on Article
Well that sea shephard article references him as a "Director" but not on their actual Board of Directors (as is listed in the wiki article.

It appears that he is a member of the Board of Advisors - Media and Arts Advisory Board. My first thought is someone misunderstood and that he is a documentary director for them, etc. Jared555 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ve known of RDA’s relationship with SSCS for a year now and I’ve never heard of him doing anything of any significance with or for them. I’ve also learned that SSCS’s leader, “Captain” Paul Watson holds neither a captain’s license nor a military rank of Captain. It’s possible that most of the Board members of SSCS have no significant responsibilities to (or privileges within) the group other than name association, and so their titles are more or less meaningless. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Official website
Does this actor have an official website? I wrote an external link I know about but it revered as an inoffical website. How is it possible??? Egon Eagle (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Kate Ritter's website may be the closest thing to an official website for RDA, but it's still a fan site and therefore shouldn't be included as an external link. RDA may endorse the site, but neither he nor any of his representatives are involved in it in anyway shape or form and thus can't be considered his official site.  However it is a well-maintained fan site worthy of any number of citations (which I myself even added a few years ago), so referencing in the prose of this article would be much more appropriate.Thinkbui (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

concerning chronic pain
Mr Anderson

I read somewhere, can't remember where, that you had donated to a organization concerning chronic pain. If that is correct, because I've been wrong before, can you tell me if Lupus was addressed? If this isn't true just forget this message.

Thanks sher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavey (talk • contribs) 07:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 * You're not going to get an answer, sher. This is not some sort of personal blog or site run by Richard Dean Anderson.  It's a page where discussion of issues concerning the Wikipedia article on Richard Dean Anderson takes place.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Apple?
Why is there an apple where his picture should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.2.20 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Active ?!
Why is RDA marked as "active" when his last consistent appearence was in 2009 or 2011? Judging only from this wikipedia page, it looks like RDA has effectively retired. Even a minor voice acting role or TV guest appearence (2013) would not change that as it has already been four years without any new appearences. Doskey412 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Richard Dean Anderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129040652/http://rdanderson.com/archives/a2-06-07.htm to http://www.rdanderson.com/archives/a2-06-07.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405223005/http://tf.org/person/795 to http://tf.org/person/795
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108224527/http://www.retrojunk.com/details_person/14/ to http://www.retrojunk.com/details_person/14/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Health
Hasn't he recently survived a near-fatal disease only thanks to modern medicine, where the drugs he had to take made him gain quite a lot of weight? --2003:EF:13C6:EE89:BD9F:F8E4:E60B:49BC (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any reliable sources which back up anything like that nor have I personally heard that. Google doesn't turn up much. I know he broke a few bones a while back after falling down some stairs, but that isn't what you are referring to? -- The SandDoctor Talk 23:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

GEKKO
Why no mention of his production company?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Richard Dean Anderson


text:
Schweinfurt (district)

Schweinfurt is a Landkreis (district) in the northwestern part of Bavaria, Germany. Neighboring districts are (from the north clockwise) Bad Kissingen, Rhön-Grabfeld, Haßberge, Bamberg, Kitzingen, Würzburg and Main-Spessart. The district-free city Schweinfurt is surrounded by the district.

Geography
Primary rivers in the district are the Main and the Wern. The district is located between several hill chains - Haßberge to the east, the Rhön in the northwest, the Spessart to the west and the Steigerwald in the southeast.

History
The area of the district became part of Bavaria in 1814. In 1972 parts of the previous district Gerolzhofen (including the town Gerolzhofen) were merged with the district.

Archaeology
In July 2022, archaeologists announced the discovery of a 3000-year-old clay figurine that might represent a prehistoric female water goddess. The 19 cm tall clay figurine's carefully modeled eye sockets, nose, lips, and chin are obviously visible and attractive. There are 5 perforated holes at the each side of the head possibly representing a hood decorated with metal rings. Clay figurine was supposedly 10 cm higher in its original shape because its anterior surface of the upper side was missing. The artifact was cleaned by using airbrush water technology and it is currently being studied by the Bavarian State Office for the Preservation of Monuments. Lh

Coat of arms
The coat of arms shows the imperial eagle in the top part as a symbol of the former imperial city Schweinfurt. The bottom part of the coat of arms shows the symbol of the Prince-Bishopric of Würzburg, which ruled a big part of the district until 1803.

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

title: Schweinfurt (district)


text:
Talk:Circumcision/Archive 3

Mutilation text
User:Jredmond removed the text ", a form of genital mutilation. If done on males it is a the" claiming "revert to Fuzheado's last revert, for NPOV". Now I wonder what's so POV with calling things by their name? // Liftarn

 * Is there any distinct NPOV improvement by putting the genital mutilation link in the first sentence? IMHO, it's better to define the practice first and explain different POVs later ("it's mutilation", "it has cultural significance", etc.). - Jim Redmond 18:04, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The term "genital mutilation" is the prefered words to use in medicine. It's the accepted medical term for it and it's no more a POV than stating that Earth is a planet. // Liftarn

 * Aside from the blatantly partisan, I can't find anything on PubMed or Google to indicate that "genital mutilation" is the "preferred" or "accepted" term of the medical community for the practice of circumcision.  Additionally, our own Wikipedia article for genital mutilation insists that such practices are non-surgical, while the circumcision, phimosis, and paraphimosis articles recognize that there are legitimate medical uses for the practice.

 * Of course, if you can present specific instances from peer-reviewed medical journals that indicate that the medical community describes circumcision as mutilation, then we can discuss putting the mutilation bit back in the opening sentence. Until then, I remain unconvinced. - Jim Redmond 15:36, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My source is many the swedisg magazine Läkartidningen and they are only available online if you are a member, but one axample available is http://ltarkiv.lakartidningen.se/artNo22925 you may also want to check out. You can also try searching for "MGM" or "Male Genital Mutilation". Also see Talk:Female_circumcision for a discussion about what consitutes genital mutilation. // Liftarn

 * There is no POV issue here. It is a very simple term with a meaning that is clear and unmistakable. If people want to argue about it, there is only room to argue in one dimension — i.e., that the particular mutilaton called circumcision is "good" or it is "bad". These two views are matters of opinion, and have no business being included in an encyclopedia, save insofar as we are obligated to report fairly on what other people believe and say. The accuracy of the term mutilate, however, is not something that it is possible to dispute.

 * * Mutilate: to destroy or remove a material part of — Websters.

 * Tannin 13:24, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * No, it's quite possible to dispute the term's accuracy. Language isn't a fixed thing, and even Webster's different versions vary in their definitions of "mutilate".

 * And even if "mutilate" is an accurate term, it has a very POV connotation - that the procedure is "bad" - and as such it is not appropriate here, except in a sentence like "Opponents of circumcision classify it as genital mutilation".

 * I used your phrase "Opponents ... classify it as ... mutilation" in my rewrite of Genital mutilation. --Uncle Ed 16:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Finally, one article posted on a Swedish-language site and hidden from non-subscribers does not prove that The Medical Community agrees upon anything.   Come to think of it, the mere fact of controversy should itself prove that doctors don't agree.  As such, we should not include phrases like "and is withing (sic) the medical community seen as a form of genital mutilation", which imply agreement where there is none.

 * I'm still unconvinced. Keep trying. - jredmond 16:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where do you find evidence of that doctors disagree with using the term "genital mutilation"? Since it's clearly is a form of mutilation by any use of the term it should somehow be included in the article. Also the intro should be rewritten to cover both male and female circumcision (becoming gender neutral). I think the controvery over calling things what they are is due to the US bias of Wikipedia. // Liftarn

Mutilation controversy
Let's try and see where we agree first, and then describe the areas of disagreement.

 * Clitoris - I think just about every Western man agrees that removing a girl's clitoris is "mutilation". It's an essential part of her sexual organs; removing it makes orgasm difficult or impossible, which in turn is highly likely to affect her relationship with her mate.
 * Labia majora, labia minora - We're probably also agreed that removing or trimming the lips of the vulva is "mutilation". (Some may quibble that plastic surgery is okay if it makes them look prettier, but I don't think that's the issue here! :-)

 * Foreskin - This is controversial, with advocates locked in an irresolvable conflict.
 * Many Jews (and Muslims?) and possibly some others regard removing the foreskin as a religious requirement. A significant number of believers within these faith traditions DISAGREES. I guess we better mention this disagreement.
 * Hygiene - Some people advocate circumcision as an aid to male hygiene: the smegma is less apt to collect around the penis's tip, if there's no foreskin to keep it around. It smells bad (or attractive?), they say. I daresay some who have a religious motive for circumcision cite the hygiene aspect hoping to convince people who don't accept the religious reason -- can we mention this angle, or am I just speculating?
 * Sexual function - There is considerable disagreement among fans of sexual intercourse about whether male enjoyment of sex is diminished or enhanced by circumcision. Perhaps puritans hope for diminishment?

I don't know if any of the above analysis helps. If not, then just consider this:
 * Some advocates regard all infant circumcision as "mutilation" and opposed it adamantly. (I think all of agree that this is a true statement, i.e., it's true that there are advocates who regard the matter this way.)
 * Some advocates deny that circumcision of male infants constitutes "mutilation". (This is also correct, isn't it? I mean, there are advocates who promulgate this point of view.) --Uncle Ed 16:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it is mutilation. However, some find the word offensive. Some words are avoided because they feel uncomfortable. For instance in Sweden I have never heard anybody use the word "piercing" when it's done in the ears. Having the ears pierces is so mainstream it's not even considered a form of piercing. Also circ is not the only form of mutilation, only the most common form. Also from another perspecive I find it odd that we have an article about female circ, but not about male. // Liftarn

You can't call it mutilation as a fact. That statement will be true or false depending on your point of view concerning circumcision. If you are against it then the definition of mutilation will fit, if are for it then the definition will not fit. Dictionary.com defines mutilation as (1) To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. (2) To disfigure by damaging irreparably. (3) To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. 1: Your foreskin is not a limb, but it may or may not be considered essential, that is dependant on your POV. 2: While circumcision is irreparable, whether it is disfigurement or damaging is again dependant on your views. 3: You are certainly excising or altering a part of you but whether that makes you imperfect or not is once again a judgement based on POV. Add to that mutilation certainly implies negativity. In the quest for a NPOV article it would be a mistake to imply negativity by calling circumcision mutilation without a qualifying explanation such as the one Uncle Ed alluded to above. --Starx 03:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Male circumcision and death
By the way, should we mention that an estimated 50-300 male babies die each year in the USA as a result of circumcision? // Liftarn

Not without a reference like this: "While American medicine keeps no systematic record, estimates of US deaths rates range to over 200 per year." --Uncle Ed 16:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * "Deaths attributable to newborn circumcision are rare; there were no deaths in 500,000 circumcisions in New York City52 or in 175,000 circumcisions in US Army hospitals.51 A communication published in 1979 reported one death in the United States due to circumcision in 1973, and the authors' review of the literature during the previous 25 years documented two previous deaths due to this procedure.53"

The above website seem sympathetic to "genital integrity", so I doubt that they're downplaying the life-or-death aspect. --Uncle Ed 17:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The actual rate of death from "medical" circumcision is unknown. A rate can be calculated from Gairdner's paper of one death in 5600 circumcisions, but that was in England in the 1940s, and it must be lower now. Grimes (1978) gave a figure of two deaths per million, but citing a 1953 study. It is certainly more than one in 1,200,000 since there is on average more than one in the US every year. The problem is that deaths indirectly due to circumcision, such as that of Dustin Evans Jr, are not attributed to it as they should be... (from another anti-circumcision site)

I'm getting the idea that it's when primitive tribes do it (especially to girls) that it's so dangerous. But, we'll know when we finish the research. Anyone else want to do the googling now? --Uncle Ed 17:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First, a quote from "Webster's Dictionary" is completely useless. Anyone can make a dictionary and call it "Webster's". You might as well say your definition is from "some dictionary". On the other hand, the "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" has a long tradition and reputation for accuracy, and the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "mutilate" as :
 * 1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
 * 2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE. G

Given this definition, I don't think it is neutral to use it to describe circumcision. Many people would disagree that a circumcised penis is "altered radically", "imperfect", or "permanently destroyed", yours truly included. The word mutilate has a very strong connotation of negative effect and therefore using it to describe circumcision is inherently POV.

Finally, I think that the POV problem that User:Jmabel was alluding to in Talk:Circumcision/Archive 2 is that this article focuses too much on the controversy and strong opinions held by advocates on both sides of the circumcision debate. The reality is that most people don't hold strong points of view on circumcision—like me, many people simply don't care whether or note babies are routinely circumcised or consider whether or not it is mutilation. As a circumcised male, I find much of the anti-circumcision advocates' implications that my parents and pediatrician mutilated me or that I'm in some way sexually dysfunctional not only specious, but offensive. In fact, I'd qualify my POV as being against BOTH anti-circumcision and pro-circumcision advocates, who seek to normalize society and make everyone's penises the same. But I don't see this POV represented in the article at all. Nohat 17:24, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

I regard any alteration of the natural state of an infant's body (or child's body) without a compelling medical reason to be mutilation. We know the "disease prevention" argument is entirely specious; it would be far more effective to perform routine radical mastectomies on girls for disease prevention than to perform routine circumcision on boys. The only true reasons for circumcision is for an alteration in appearance and in function. While many men seem to feel that circumcision has not affected their sexual functioning, a significant number do. Thus, while I agree that the "mutilation" thing should be couched in NPOV language, I strongly feel that that's exactly what it is by any truly objective definition. And it's clearly a COERCIVE act; that's inescapable -- the victim has absolutely no say in the matter on any level at any time in his life. jaknouse 17:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If your definition truly were objective, it wouldn't use subjective terms like "mutilate". Nohat 17:50, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

Let's not confuse "objective" with "neutral". Anyway, Jaknouse has a point of view:

 * Any alteration of the natural state of an infant's body (or child's body) without a compelling medical reason is "mutilation".

Let's do a bit of research and see if we can find a published author who agrees, and then quote that source. Heck, why not quote two different sources, one medical and one civilian? There's plenty of room in the database... --Uncle Ed 18:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To destroy or remove a part of: it's that simple. If you don't like the term or feel that it is POV, that is because you are attaching your own feelings to it. Tannin 20:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Ha, ha. I wish it were that simple. The word mutilation has connotations of disfigurement and dysfunction as well. If your doctor removes a wart from your nose, are you "disfigured"? Is all plastic surgery "mutilation"? I clipped my fingernails this morning, "removing a part of" my hands -- call the mental hospital, Uncle Ed mutilated himself! --Uncle Ed

 * The wart is not an essential part of your body, just like a cancer. Removing them are clearly not a mutilation. Plastic surgery is indeed altering, but it's not (or at lieast isn't supposed to be) "as to make imperfect". Oh, and don't worry about your fingernails. It's not living matter and they will grow back, just as your hair. But let's say you had cut off your earlobe (a bit van Gogh here) and there was no medical reason to do so, then I would see that as mutilation. // Liftarn

 * I also find the word mutilate to be very negatively loaded. silsor 20:50, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * As I explained above, this definition is suspect. Allow me to give some definitions of "mutilate" from three major respected dictionaries of English:

 * From Merriam-Webster:
 * 1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect  2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE

 * From the American Heritage Dictionary:
 * ''1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See synonyms at batter1. 3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

 * From the Oxford English Dictionary:
 * ''1. trans. To render (a thing, esp. a book or other document) imperfect by cutting out or excising a part; to change or destroy part of the content or meaning of. 2. trans. To deprive (a person or animal) of the use of a limb or bodily organ, by dismemberment or otherwise; to cut off or destroy (a limb or organ); to wound severely, inflict violent or disfiguring injury on. Also intr. In early use freq. in Sc. Law; cf. MUTILATION n. 1. 3. trans. In extended use: to cut back or curtail so as to render ineffectual; to impose brutal or ruinous change on

 * So, unless you can provide some evidence that your definition is somehow "better" or "more true" than these, or that performing a circumcision meets the criteria for "mutilate" as described here, then I suggest you cease using the dictionary definition argument, as we've clearly shown it doesn't support your argument. Nohat 21:01, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

I agree, and I am completely against circumcision. Let's use the term "mutilation" with attribution, as it implies certain conclusions (foreskin=essential, removing foreskin=makes body less perfect) which are at the very center of the circumcision debate.—Eloquence 20:54, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * On the contrary, those extra definitions simply support my point. To deprive of a limb or an essential part: a circumcised penis has been deprived of the foreskin (usually including the ridged band) and always including a non-trivial quantity of nerve tissue. To cut off or destroy (a limb or organ): the same applies. Which part of the words "cut off" don't you understand? Tannin 21:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * What part of "negative connotations" do you not understand?

Amputation

 * If you're so adamant about including the "to cut off" meaning of "mutilate", then surely you have no objection to "amputate" - it means "to remove by or as if by cutting; especially : to cut (as a limb) from the body", is used in medical texts describing circumcision, and carries considerably less POV baggage. - jredmond 22:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"foreskin amputation"? "forscinectomy"? // Liftarn

 * "Foreskin amputation" is one way to describe it. "Amputate" could also go into the section describing the procedure itself - "the foreskin is separated from the glans, then amputated". - jredmond 16:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mutilation
Hello, I've been reading the mutilation discussion and I think that it maybe better to do as you've been trying to do, find a word that is better suited to the situation. Mutilation has a negative connotation, and thus a likely pov problem, (from www.m-w.com):

Synonyms MAIM, cripple, dislimb, dismember, mayhem Related Word damage, hurt, injure, mar, spoil; deface 2 Synonyms STERILIZE, alter, castrate, change, desexualize, fix, geld, neuter, unsex

Perhaps use foreskin amputation like it was suggested and use the mutilation term as the "discription used by some opponents of circumcision" in the pro/con section. --ShaunMacPherson 05:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Amputation is correct, but because of its associations with limb removal, I could easily see someone getting the impression that circumcision involves the removal of part of the glans, too. What is wrong with "Circumcision is the surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin..."? Shimmin 20:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That would be because it IS damage to the body. I don't see how anyone can say that it isn't -- Tarquin 12:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Really, that's just your POV. "Damage" implies loss or harm, and since some people think that circumcised penises are superior to uncircumcised ones, calling it damage implies that circumcized penises are somehow damaged, a "fact" with which I and many others would disagree. Do you damage your hair by cutting it? A Sikh would say yes, but most people would say no. I don't see that the dispute over circumcision is fundamentally any different. Also, "amputate" doesn't really work either, because it is usually used for limbs, like arms and legs. You don't "amputate" your hair when you get a hair cut. Nohat 21:29, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

 * I think there's a difference between circumcision and cutting one's hair, as hair is dead tissue, lacks feeling, and has no major role in sexual intercourse. "Amputate" is defined as "To cut off (a projecting body part), especially by surgery", which I think fits the definition of circumcision.  As to whether it is "damage" (defined as "loss of value or the impairment of usefulness"), I think that making an assertion either way would expose POV, but certainly the ideas presented in favor of and opposed to calling circumcision "damage" should be presented in the article.  Acegikmo1 01:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem is that the core usage of the word "amputate" is for removal essential appendages, like arms and legs, and that is what most people associate with the word "amputate". By markedly using the word to describe circumcision, you are associating amputation of arms and legs (generally considered a drastic and unpleasant thing to do) with circumcision, thereby promoting the anti-circumcision POV. Using "amputuate" is not neutral, and should therefore be avoided. Nohat 19:00, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

 * Actually not using the word is POV. It is a form of amputation (it's also a form of mutilation, but let's not get into that now). // Liftarn

Nohat: since some people think that circumcised penises are superior to uncircumcised ones -- well, they are demonstrably wrong. And anyway, it is still damage to tissue. If I have a life-saving operation, there is still damage done to me when they cut me open. -- Tarquin 16:36, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Many of the people who I mentioned who consider circumcised penises superior to uncircumcised one (including myself) base their belief on an aesthetic judgment. Who are you to declare that my aesthetic judgment that circumcised penises are more attractive and therefore superior to uncircumcised penises is in any way "wrong"? Furthermore, your point about "damage" to tissue is true of any surgical procedure, but this fact is not generally considered salient to the procedure. It is obvious that removing the foreskin cuts blood vessels and causes a wound that eventually heals, but calling attention to this fact is just an excuse to push the "circumcision is evil" POV. If you're going to insist on pointing that out on circumcision, you'll have to go and add it to every article on surgical procedures. Nohat 19:00, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

So you think aesthetics justify the removal of a body part that has a clear purpose? Do you approve of female circumcision too, because it's more aesthetic? -- Tarquin 12:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Blah blah blah. You keep twisting your argument so it applies less and less to the debating what should be content of this article and more and more to simply disputing anything I have to say. Aesthetics are a justification used all the time for modifying people's bodies. Ever heard of plastic surgery? Breast enlargement? Face lift? Nose job? As for female circumcision, I'm gay, so I don't really have any opinions one way or the other on the appearance of female genitalia. However, I believe it has been shown that the negative effects of some types of female circumcision are dramatically greater than the purported negative effects of circumcision of males, so I can see there is reason to oppose those procedures. Furthermore, according to female circumcision, most such procedures are performed between the ages of 4 and 8, and unlike circumcision, which is usually performed on newborns, this is an age when the child will remember the procedure any pain that might be associated with it. Nohat 14:56, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

 * The child will remember the pain, but not on a conciious level. That's why anastethics is used nowdays. The pain can cause an infant to go into shock. // Liftarn

 * There is NO functional difference between male and female circumcision per se. The negative effects of "female circumcision" are due to: 1) that it's done coercively without consent; 2) it's usually done without anesthetic; 3) it's usually done in an unsanitary method and often if not usually results in at least some degree of infection; 4) it's usually linked with other practices such as infibulation that go well beyond circumcision.  In any case, newborn baby males DO feel pain, they DO feel the irritation afterwards, and the procedure is done WITHOUT their consent in any way.  Nohat, if you feel the circumsized penis is more esthetically pleasing, that is your personal preference and you are entitled to it, but many owners of circumsized penises, such as myself, DON'T feel so, but had NO CHOICE in the matter.  My circumcision was forced on me, AGAINST my (now) conscious will, and it was mutilization, an invasion of my body, abusive, coercion against me, a deprival of my rights.  If someone wants to be circumsized on reaching an age of rational consent, I say, fine, it's his perfect right.  Mutilating babies, however, is WRONG.  And it is mutilation because it irrevocably alters the state and function of a body part. -- Anon user 63.155.184.240

 * Uh, you haven't read anything of the NPOV argument, have you? - jredmond 16:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I admit it, the statement "Mutilating babies, however is WRONG" is POV. Also POV is a statement like ". . . I say, fine, it's his perfect right."  But, if you define mutilation as alteration of the natural state and function of a body part, then most of the above is actually NPOV except for the capitalization of certain words.

 * Not everyone agrees to that definition of mutilate. I contend that the word is inherently POV and should not be used unless attributed to a particular belief. The statement pushes the following disputable POVs:
 * Circumcision constitutes "mutilation"
 * Circumcising babies is wrong
 * It is possible to "coerce" a baby
 * The pain felt by newborn babies is fundamentally the same as pain felt by sentient persons
 * Circumcision is abusive
 * Newborn babies have the right not be circumcised
 * etc. All of these are contestable. Nohat 19:10, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

It's not POV to state that circumcision constitutes mutilation. To say that genitaly mutilating babies is wrong is POV, soem people obviously feel that genital mutilation is OK. To state that the pain felt by babies is the same as pain felt by sentient persons is in line with current medical knowledge so it's not POV. To state that circumcision is abusive is POV, but to state that non-consentual circumcision is abusive is not. To state that newborn babies have the right not be circumcised is perhaps POV since it raised the qyestion about what a right is. // Liftarn

 * Nohat, you're not really making any point at all. Any statement of "X is wrong" is contestable. The point here is (at least it was) about the plain dictionary definition of the word "mutilation". The foreskin has a function: that is fact. It is removed permanently and irreversibly: that is fact. -- Tarquin 10:21, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * It is, however, not a fact that circumcision constitutes mutilation. It is merely an opinion. Using the word "mutilation" to describe some change is tantamount to condemning or holding in contempt that change. Mutilation has a negative connotation and it is impossible to use it to neutrally describe something, The only reason you want to use it to describe circumcision is because you are contemptuous of circumcision. There is nothing about the word "mutilation" that says anything about consent or removal of living tissue or that whatever is mutilated has to have a function. These are all aspects of the word that you have invented. The salient feature of the word "mutilation" is that the person who uses it is contemptuous of the change being described, and it is inappropriate to use such words on Wikipedia without clearly explaining who is holding the opinion of contempt, as it is a clear and obvious violation the Neutral Point of View policy. Nohat 14:38, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * Yes, is is a fact that circumcision (both male and female) constitutes a form of mutilation. That you don't want to accept this is your POV, but please keep the article free from your bias. // Liftarn

 * It's like I'm talking to a wall. What part of "mutilation" is inherently POV (or biased) do you not understand? Nohat 15:26, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

That's your POV. You are ofcourse entitled to an opinion, but just because you think something doesn't make it a fact. // Liftarn

 * No, it's not just my point of view. Mutilation IS an inherently biased word. The only reason you insist on using it is because you are intent on portraying circumcision in a negative light, which is a violation of NPOV policy. Nohat 15:54, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I am not "intent on portraying circumcision in a negative light", but I am interested in showing it in an unbiased light. If you have a problem with unbiased text and words I suggest you first take a look at your own bias. You whitewash certainly is POV. // Liftarn

 * If you're truly interested in showing anything in an unbiased light, then you'll stop insisting that we use any word which carries strong connotations. - jredmond 16:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see it as such. English is not my native language so I may miss some finer differences, but the same word in Swedish is "könsstympning" ("kön" means genitalia and "strympning" is the process of cutting something off, it has the same root as "stump") and it's a direct translation of the English term "genital mutilation". For instance the terms FGM (female genital mutilation []) and MGM (male genital mutilation) is often used. They aren't used by pro-mutilation groups and individuals, but they are often used in unbiased contexts. // Liftarn

I am astonished at the temerity of you, Liftarn, as a non-native speaker, to argue with native speakers about what words in their own language mean! I am simply dumbfounded that you would have such impudent assurance as to engage in such a heated debate using an understanding of the meaning of a word based on how it is translated to another language! Anyone who has learned a second language should know that even if words have equivalent denotations in different languages their connotations can vary dramatically, as seems that's the case with "mutilation". I'm a fairly competent Spanish speaker but I would never, ever have the gall to argue with a native Spanish speaker about the meaning of a Spanish word. For shame, Liftarn, for shame. Nohat 18:11, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * I'm astonished that you take to personal remarks. I think the problem here lies more with your bias than with the word itself. // Liftarn

 * Nohat may have crossed the line with those comments, but his overall point still stands: the word "mutilate" has negative connotations in English. Any word with negative connotations is inherently POV.  Because it is POV, it is not appropriate for this article, except when characterizing the positions of circumcision's opponents.

 * If your own bias prevents you from seeing this, then this argument will continue to get nowhere. - jredmond 14:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * We already have article about words with negative connotations. Some examples are genocide, rape, murder, terrorism et.c. If the use of words with negative connotations really was to be avoided they could be replaced with more neutral terms such as "multiple euthanasia", "involontary sexual intercourse", "death help" and "assymetric warfare". // Liftarn

 * And if you had bothered to read the articles you linked on genocide, rape, murder, terrorism, you would have found that each one contains a detailed description of the meanings of those words and how they are often used pejoratively and by whom. I'm not saying that we should not use the word "mutilation" to describe cicumcision, I'm simply saying that we can't call it that without specifying who calls it that and why. Nohat 17:51, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

 * I talked to a native-English and Swedish-speaking friend of mine, and he seems to think that not only does the word könsstympning have a pejorative connotation, but that it's almost always used to describe female circumcision. He says that the word omskärning is the more usual term for male circumcision (which is sometimes specified precisely as manlig omskärelse) and female circumcision is more neutrally described as kvinnlig omskärelse. He says "könsstympning is the harsher, more loaded term". He also says "in general, Swedish society tends to look down on any circumcision as a weird process", and given that it seems Liftarn is just as likely to be biased about circumcision as I am. Now of couse, I don't speak any Swedish so I won't presume to tell Swedes how to use their language, but these facts seem to point to a potential source of Liftarn's bias but not to why he seems unwilling to concede that he's trying to push his POV. Nohat 00:46, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

"könsstympning" is used to describe both male and female circumcision ("omskärelse" in Swedish) as well as some rarer practices. The useage of the term "genital mutilation" is advocated because it simplifies the language. If you just say "circumcision" people may think it's just the male form you are refering to. If you instead use the term "genital modification" it isn't clear what you are refering to. Try the google test and see what you find. I think I understand why you are trying to push yout POV, perhaps it's beacause I'm an "outsider" I can see the issue without your cultural bias. // Liftarn

 * The term "genital mutilation" is advocated because it simplifies which language? Swedish?  This isn't the Swedish Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia, and what might be appropriate in the Swedish Wikipedia might not be here.  Also, such arguments are evidence of your own cultural bias.

 * As for the "Google test", when I google "genital mutilation" (with or without quotes) I get a slew of articles on female genital mutilation, one or two on episiotomy, and a few brazenly partisan pieces on circumcision. If I google "male genital mutilation", then it's all partisan.  So your Google test does nothing to prove your spurious point; if anything, it disproves it by reinforcing the evidence against the term "mutilation". - jredmond 15:59, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * It proves the term "genotal mutilation" is indeed used for this type of ritual. Now do the full test and also google for "genital modification". // Liftarn

Another issue
A ritual where you simply cut the ridged band have been suggested as a more humane alternative to removing the entire foreskin. Perhaps this could also go into the article. // Liftarn

 * Sounds like a plan, though I'm not sure where we'd put it under our current article structure. - jredmond 16:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization
I reorganized the article, putting all the discussion of contemporary circumcision at the top, and the history at the end, rather than having the history separating two sections containing information about contemporary circumcision. I also renamed the section "The movement against routine neonatal circumcision" to "Contemporary attitudes towards circumcision", which more completely describes the content of that section. I also reorganized that section so the pro-circumcision content comes first, and the anti-circumcision content comes second. I defend this decision on two prongs: first, arguments are usually presented in PRO/CON order, but also, the pro-circumcision content in that section is only most of one paragraph, while the remaining five paragraphs are anti-circumcision, so putting the pro-circumcision content first balances the fact that it's much less. Feel free to tweak it, but if you revert it, I'd like to know why. Nohat 22:48, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

 * I think the opening paragraph neees more work. Perhaps something like "Circumcision is the amputation of some parts of the genitalia on males and females. For the female version see female circumcision. Only the male version is discussed in the remainder of this article.". // Liftarn

 * Amputation is removal in general, including accidental removal. The existing "surgical removal" implies intent, which is important here.  Just what do you find lacking in that phrase? Shimmin 12:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * "surgical amputation"? Anyway, my main point is that circumcision is described as removal of the foreskin. Well, females don't have any foreskin so the description is wrong. After all this discussion about the usage of "mutilation" I also find it odd that nobody have commented on that the current text reads "Female circumcision is a term applied to a variety of mutilations performed on female genitalia". Double standards perhaps? // Liftarn

 * Actually, women do have the analog of a foreskin. The structure of the vulva is highly variable, and in some women it's virtually indistinguishable from the clitoris, while in some women it's quite distinct.

Where?
Quote: The United States is the only country that still practices circumcision routinely on a majority of infants for non-religious reasons.

This seems suspect, especially in light of the later discussion concerning South Korea. Additionally, a number of Pacific Island nations are mentioned in the list. Is circumcision in these nations a native practice, or was the custom instroduced by English missionary activity or medical practice? Shimmin 18:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * South Korea does not practice routine neonatal circumcision. On island nations, circumcision is a native religious practice (Christian explorers were opposed to circumcision).—Eloquence 18:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

"anti-circumcision"
"Many of these groups try to avoid vocabulary like "anti-circumcision" in order to avoid confusion with the adult circumcision issue; the critics of the movement, however, often use such vocabulary." This sentence is unclear: what is "the adult circumcision issue"? I think a discussion of debate over terms is appropriate, but I'm not sure what this means, so I'm not the one to clarify. Nohat 00:58, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * I believe what's meant there is that most opponents of infant circumcision have no problem with adults choosing of their own free will to become circumsized, so they are not categorically against circumcision, thus want to avoid the term "anti-circumcision".

Council of Florence
The Council of Florence is also viewed by many, including the Catholic Encyclopedia as cementing the rupture between Roman Catholicism and other Christian denominations, including Greek Catholics and Hussites. Exact opposite is true. The Council of Florence was last attempt of reconcialition of both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. There were no Greek Catholics at that time and since their establishing they were always in good terms with the pope. Hussites had nothing to do with Council of Florence. It was the Council of Basle they took part in. Since the orginal statement was meaningless, I've deleted it. -- Vít Zvánovec 12:52, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Circumcision/Archive 3


text:
Bad Taste

Bad Taste is a 1987 New Zealand science-fiction comedy horror film directed, produced and filmed by Peter Jackson, who also starred in it and co-wrote the screenplay, along with Tony Hiles and Ken Hammon. Independently produced on a low budget, it is Jackson's first feature film. Jackson and friends take on most of the key roles, both on and off-screen. The plotline sees aliens invade the fictional New Zealand village of Kaihoro to harvest humans for their intergalactic fast food franchise, where they face off against a four-man paramilitary force. The film provided Jackson with the leverage necessary to advance in the film industry.

Since its release, Bad Taste has become a cult film and has received generally positive reviews.

Plot
The Astro Investigation and Defence Service (AIDS) sends their agents Derek, Frank, Ozzy, and Barry to investigate the disappearance of the entire population of the town of Kaihoro. They find the town has been overrun by man-eating space aliens disguised as humans in blue shirts. Barry kills one of the aliens and is attacked by others. After Derek notifies Frank and Ozzy, he begins torturing Robert, an alien they caught earlier. Robert's screaming attracts a number of aliens in the area. Derek kills the would-be rescuers, but he is attacked by Robert and falls off a cliff ledge, to his presumed death.

Meanwhile, a charity collector named Giles is passing through Kaihoro. He is attacked by Robert, but escapes in his car. He stops at a nearby house for help. Another alien answers the door and captures Giles. He later wakes up in a tub of water filled with vegetables and is told he is about to be cooked and eaten. Derek also wakes up to find that he landed in a seagull's nest. He also finds that his brain is leaking out the back of his head, so he stuffs it back in. He proceeds to use a hat to hold it in place.

That night, Frank, Ozzy, and Barry infiltrate the aliens' house and find a room filled with bloody cardboard boxes. They kill a nearby alien, and Frank wears its shirt to infiltrate an alien meeting. He learns that the residents of Kaihoro have been harvested for alien fast food and also hears of their recent hostage. Robert vomits into a bowl, which the aliens dine on, including the disguised (and disgusted) Frank. He escapes and tells the others of the plan. They sneak out to save Giles as the aliens sleep.

At sunrise, they try to leave but are attacked by the aliens, which quickly dissolves into a gunfight. Derek emerges. When his hat is shot off due to the ensuing gunfire, he starts losing more of his brain, so he uses his belt as a headband. He grabs a chainsaw from the boot of his car and heads for the aliens' house. As the boys leave with Giles, the alien leader (Lord Crumb) and his followers morph into their true form and follow. Ozzy uses a rocket launcher to explode Frank's car, which has been overrun by aliens.

Frank and Ozzy hunt for Lord Crumb and kill many aliens along the way. Meanwhile, Derek kills an alien with his chainsaw and replaces the missing parts of his brain with its brain. An alien prepares to shoot Frank and Ozzy, but it is beheaded by Derek after he bursts through the wall behind it. Frank and Ozzy are shocked to see him alive.

After they escape the house, Lord Crumb shoots Ozzy in the leg and Frank fires his rocket launcher at the leader, but it misses and almost hits Derek, finally taking out a sheep in a nearby meadow. Derek is knocked out by Lord Crumb and the house transforms into a giant space ship, which blasts off into space with Derek still aboard.

On board, Derek looks out the window to see that he is leaving Earth. Crumb is then killed by Derek, who ambushes him and cuts through the alien with his chainsaw. Derek proclaims into his phone: "I'm coming to get you bastards!" He then puts on the alien leader's skin, laughing maniacally as he rockets towards the alien planet. On Earth, the rest of the group drive away into the sunset in Derek's car.

Cast

 * Terry Potter as Ozzy / 3rd Class Alien
 * Pete O'Herne as Barry / 3rd Class Alien
 * Peter Jackson as Derek / Robert
 * Mike Minett as Frank / 3rd Class Alien
 * Craig Smith as Giles Copeland/ 3rd Class Alien
 * Doug Wren as Lord Crumb
 * Dean Lawrie as Lord Crumb SPFX double / 3rd Class Alien
 * Peter Vere-Jones as Lord Crumb's voice
 * Ken Hammon as 3rd Class Alien
 * Costa Botes as 3rd Class Alien

Production
Much of the film was shot in and around Jackson's home suburb of Pukerua Bay in northern Wellington, using a 25-year-old 16mm Bolex camera. Originally begun as a 20-minute short film called Roast of the Day, Bad Taste was shot primarily on weekends over the course of four years, at an initial cost of around $25,000. Toward the end of the shoot the New Zealand Film Commission invested around NZ$235,000 into the film to ensure its completion. Heavily influenced by special effects pioneer Tom Savini, Jackson incorporated many absurdly gory special effects.

Peter Jackson himself plays two acting roles. In one early scene halfway down a cliff, careful editing, utilising shots taken months apart, makes it possible for the two characters, Derek and the alien Robert (both played by Jackson), to fight one another.

Bad Taste begins Jackson's penchant for using the Morris Minor in his films - Giles drives a Morris Minor. Subsequently, every car in Meet the Feebles is a Morris Minor (including a limousine) and several are seen in Braindead.

A combination of blank firing firearms and homemade weapon props were used in the film. Most of the firearm props were made using recycled aluminium and wood. The actors also had to shake them to simulate the recoil. A flash and sound effect was added later during post production.

All the alien masks in the film were baked in Peter Jackson's mother's oven.

Kaihoro, the name of the town whose inhabitants are butchered, is a Māori word coined by Jackson and his crew early in the shooting of the film. It has two parts - "kai" which means food and "horo" which means town or village. Foodtown is also the name of a New Zealand chain of grocery stores. Kai horo in Te Reo Maori means 'greedy' - but is made up of the words Kai (food) and horo (quickly) which, loosely translated, could be said to mean fast food, a play on the fate of the villagers.

The sheep in the film was to have played a larger role as a running gag, being surprisingly aggressive and chasing "The Boys" at various points throughout. This was reduced to the single sheep/rocket launcher moment of the final scene.

Release
The film sold to many countries after playing in the market at the 1987 Cannes Film Festival. Despite its wide acclaim, the film failed to impress at the 1989 NZ Film and Television Awards, winning no awards. As well as this, a TVNZ executive spoke out the next day about whether or not the film industry needed films like Bad Taste. The film did however still win favour among the country's cult film audiences. In France, the film received 29,339 admissions.

Reception
Bad Taste received generally positive reviews. Kim Newman of Empire gave the film three stars out of five, with praise being directed to the special effects. For AllMovie, Jason Buchanan wrote that Bad Taste was "amazingly resourceful," but that it moves at such a "hyperactive" pace that "it's nearly impossible to draw a breath, much less take a moment to laugh at the revoltingly hilarious exploits." In a much less positive review, Time Out summarised that although "the film had its moments," it was not a worthwhile watch.

The film holds a 71% approval rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 21 reviews with an average rating of 6.40/10. The site's consensus reads: "Peter Jackson's early low-budget shocker boasts a disgusting premise—aliens harvesting humans for fast food—that gives the budding auteur plenty of room for gross-out visuals and absurd cleverness." On Metacritic, the film holds a score of 52 out of 100 based on reviews by 4 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews."

Censorship
The banning of an already cut version of Bad Taste in Queensland, Australia, three weeks into its run, led to the firing and dissolution of the Queensland Film Board of Review in 1990. The film had to be trimmed for release in Australia at the time, as the OFLC felt the gore too excessive. When released on home video in Australia, the words "BANNED IN QUEENSLAND" was proclaimed on the cover. The uncut version was released by Universal Home Entertainment on DVD in 2004.

Apart from the uncut version, there is a heavily cut FSK 18-rated and an even more censored FSK 12-rated version in Germany available on DVD. The former is cut by approximately 6 minutes, the latter by approximately 10 minutes.

Home media
The film was first released on DVD in 2001 by Anchor Bay Entertainment.

In December 2018, Peter Jackson announced that he plans to restore Bad Taste, along with his two following films Meet the Feebles and Braindead (known as Dead Alive in North America) for a possible 4K release.

Legacy
During his acceptance speech at the 2004 Academy Awards, Jackson mentioned Bad Taste (along with Meet the Feebles), joking that it had been "wisely overlooked by the Academy."

On 15 September 2001, the Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington, New Zealand, hosted Armageddon. One of the main features for the 2001 convention was the cast of Bad Taste attending for a quick question and answer session on the main stage, and a screening of the film. The cast members who attended were, Craig Smith (Giles), Pete O'Herne (Barry), Mike Minett (Frank), Terry Potter (Ozzy), Ken Hammon (Writer, 3rd Class Alien), and Dean Lawrie (Lord Crumb SPFX Double, 3rd Class Alien).

In 2008, Empire ranked Bad Taste as the 416th greatest film of all time, based on opinions from readers and industry professionals.

Australian grindcore band Blood Duster sampled Bad Taste in their 1993 EP Fisting the Dead, which includes the track "Derek" referring to the character played by Peter Jackson.

title: Bad Taste


text:
Lila McCann

Lila Elaine McCann (born December 4, 1981 ) is an American country music singer who made her debut at age 16 with the single "Down Came a Blackbird." Reaching a peak of No. 28 on the Billboard Hot Country Singles & Tracks charts, the song was the first release from her 1997 album Lila, which became the highest-selling album for a debut country music act in 1997 and was certified platinum in the United States.

In 1998, McCann played Kelly Wyman, an aspiring country singer in the Walker, Texas Ranger episode "Eyes of a Ranger" on CBS.

McCann followed Lila with two more albums: 1999's gold-certified Something in the Air and 2001's Complete, before being dropped by her label in 2001. She signed to the independent Broken Bow Records label in 2005, releasing five singles for the label before being dropped in 2008. Overall, she has charted twelve singles on the Billboard country charts, with the highest-peaking being 1998's "I Wanna Fall in Love" at No. 3. Her second-highest peaking single, 1999's "With You", which reached No. 9 on the country charts and No. 41 on the Billboard Hot 100, her only entry on the latter chart.

Biography
Lila Elaine McCann was born in Puyallup, Washington. She gave her first public performance at age four, when she sang "You Are My Sunshine" in her father's country music band. Later on, she became a local performer in her own right, singing in small venues around her hometown. By the time she was in her early teens, McCann recorded "Down Came a Blackbird", a song which was given to her by her manager, Kasey Walker. McCann's version of the song was sent to Seymour Stein, president of the Asylum Records label, who signed her to a recording contract in 1997.

1997-1998: Lila
"Down Came a Blackbird" was issued in mid-1997 as the first single from her debut album, Lila; the song went on to peak at No. 28 on the Billboard country charts. Released in June 1997, Lila drew critical acclaim and comparisons to LeAnn Rimes. These comparisons stemmed from the fact that both singers, who were teenagers at the time, were recording material that was considered mature for their age. Lila was also the highest-selling album for a new country music act that year, earning platinum certification in the United States for shipments of one million copies. "I Wanna Fall in Love", the album's second single, became McCann's highest-charting single at No. 3 on the US country charts and No. 1 on the Canadian country charts. However, the third and fourth singles (a cover of Sheena Easton's "Almost Over You" and the Mark Spiro-Andrew Gold collaboration "Yippy Ky Yay", respectively) failed to make Top 40 in the US, although the former was a No. 38 in Canada. Later in 1998, McCann recorded a song titled "To Get Me to You" for the soundtrack to the movie Hope Floats. This song was released to radio, although it did not chart.

1999-2000: Something in the Air and Complete
McCann's second album, Something in the Air, was issued in 1999. Originally slated as its lead-off single was "You're Gone", which featured harmony vocals from Vince Gill, Steve Wariner and Bryan White (of whom the latter two also co-wrote the song). This song was withdrawn before it could chart, however, and "With You" was its replacement. This song entered Top Ten on the country music charts, and peaked at No. 41 on the Billboard Hot 100, giving McCann her only entry on the latter chart. Something in the Air was certified gold in the United States; although three additional singles were released from it, none reached higher than No. 41 on the country music charts.

McCann's third album, 2001's Complete, was issued on Warner Bros. Records, due to the closure of Asylum Records's Nashville division which resulted in the transfer of Asylum's roster to the Warner Bros. label. Nineteen years old at the time of its release, McCann felt that the album marked an increased level of maturity in her work. The first single from Complete, "Come a Little Closer", reached a peak of No. 43 on the country music charts. After it came "Because of You", which failed to chart. McCann was dropped from Warner Bros.' roster in 2002, following the release of a Super Hits compilation which was composed of material from her previous albums.

2005-2008: Switch to Broken Bow
On November 20, 2005, McCann married her boyfriend Mike Wolofsky in Nashville. Later that same year McCann signed to a new recording contract with Broken Bow Records, an independent record label. Although four singles were issued on the label between 2005 and early 2006, no album was released on Broken Bow during that timespan. A fifth single for Broken Bow, titled "That's What Angels Do", was shipped to radio in December 2007, and entered the country music charts at No. 60. McCann left Broken Bow Records in early 2008 and announced in October of the same year that she was expecting her and her husband's first child, Abraham Elliot (born December 15, 2008). In 2011, Lila and Mike had their second son Benjamin (born December 6, 2011), while she worked as a successful photographer, operating a photography business in the Nashville area.

2016-present: Paint This Town
At the end of 2016, she started working on a new album through a PledgeMusic campaign. She released the new album Paint This Town on March 3, 2017, through the campaign as a download and physical copy for those who ordered it through the campaign. Then on August 18, 2017 she released it through iTunes.

On June 17, 2019, McCann posted on her official Instagram and Facebook pages that she has happily remarried a woman and is openly gay.

title: Lila McCann


text:
Adjutant

Adjutant is a military appointment given to an officer who assists the commanding officer with unit administration, mostly the management of human resources in an army unit. The term adjudant is used in French-speaking armed forces as a non-commissioned officer rank similar to a staff sergeant or warrant officer but is not equivalent to the role or appointment of an adjutant.

An adjutant general is commander of an army's administrative services.

Etymology
Adjutant comes from the Latin adiutāns, present participle of the verb adiūtāre, frequentative form of adiuvāre 'to help'; the Romans actually used adiūtor for the noun.

Military appointment
In various uniformed hierarchies, the term is used for a number of functions, but generally as a principal aide to a commanding officer.

A regimental adjutant, garrison adjutant etc. is a staff officer who assists the commanding officer of a regiment, battalion or garrison in the details of regimental, garrison or similar duty. In United States Army squadrons, the adjutant is often the officer-in-charge (OIC) of the administrative platoon.

UK and other Commonwealth countries
In the British Army, an adjutant (adj; sometimes actually referred to as this) is usually a senior captain, and sometimes a major. As the colonel's personal staff officer, he was once in charge of all the organisation, administration and discipline for a battalion or regiment, although now the bulk of administrative work is carried out by the regimental administrative officer (RAO). Until the 1970s the adjutant was also the regimental operations officer, although this job is now filled by a separate officer. In the British Army, adjutants are given field rank and as such are senior by appointment to all other captains, ranking just behind the majors. Unlike the RAO (who is an officer of the Adjutant General's Corps), the adjutant is a member of the corps or regiment of which their unit is a part.

The adjutant's job is not solely a 'backroom' one, since he usually accompanies the colonel—Captain David Wood, the adjutant of 2 Para, was killed in action at the Battle of Goose Green, for example. Normally, in a British Infantry battalion, the adjutant controls the battle whilst the CO commands it. As such, the adjutant is usually a person of significant influence within their battalion. In the Foot Guards, the adjutant of the unit in charge of Trooping the Colour is one of three officers on horseback.

In many Commonwealth armies, the adjutant performs much the same role as in the British Army. There is no RAO position within the Australian or Canadian armies, where an adjutant performs the administrative role with the assistance of a Chief Clerk, who usually has a rank of Warrant Officer Class Two.

Canada
In the Canadian Armed Forces, the term adjutant is used in common with other English-speaking armies, and the corresponding French term is Capitaine-adjudant.

Bangladesh
The Bangladesh Army has the appointment of adjutant which is similar to that in old British system. Though the authorization is of captain rank, often a lieutenant can be appointed as adjutant, although a Lieutenant posted as adjutant will not receive the staff pay as a captain with same appointment. Resaldar Adjutant (RA) or Warrant Officer Adjutant  (WOA) is a position unique to the Bangladesh Army. He is a warrant officer who acts as deputy to the adjutant. In spite of this, the WOA or RA does not have any authority in official correspondences. His main role is the transmission and the execution of the adjutant's orders in all companies. On all formal parades, the standard procedure is for the Squadron/Company Sergeant Major to first report to the RA/WOA, and the RA/WOA in turn to report to the Adjutant.

India
The Indian Army has the position of adjutant, which is based on the old British system. The adjutants in most cases are captains but in some cases hold the rank of major (especially in Regimental Centres). Subedar adjutant (SA) is a position unique to the Bangladesh Army and Indian Army. He is a subedar who acts as deputy to the adjutant. On all formal parades, the standard procedure is for the company havildar major to first report to the subedar adjutant, and the subedar adjutant in turn to report to the adjutant. In the British Indian Army, the equivalent position was the jemadar adjutant, who held the lower rank of jemadar.

Pakistan
The Pakistan Army has the appointment of Adjutant which is similar to that in old British system. Adjutants in the Pak Army are mostly captains and sometimes lieutenants. The Pak Army also holds the rank of junior adjutant (JA) who works as an aide to the adjutant and is of the rank of subedar, an equivalent rank to warrant officer or sergeant in Western armies. The Regimental Adjutant is also Commander of Regimental Provost and Assist Commanding Officer in all matters pertaining to discipline, training and operational planning.

United States
In the US Army, historically the adjutant was generally a member of the branch or regiment of the parent unit (e.g. in an infantry battalion, the adjutant was usually an infantry officer). In 2008, as a result of the Army's transformation, the Human Resources community implemented the Personnel Services Delivery Redesign, which recoded the adjutant position in battalions to an officer from the Adjutant General's Corps. The adjutant general at the battalion-level is generally a junior captain or senior first lieutenant and, in conjunction with the S-1 section, manages the administrative functions of the unit. The adjutant also works closely with the unit's command sergeant major for awards ceremonies, traditional ceremonial functions, casual events (hails and farewells), evaluation reports, and management of correspondence and other secretarial functions. Based upon the needs of the commander, an adjutant typically from the combat arms branches may still be specially appointed in modern-day to assist a brigade commander to ease his/her burden of command.

There is a bugle call announcing the adjutant that is still used in military ceremonies today.

In the United States Marine Corps, the adjutant serves as the senior administrator for their unit, and is the OIC (officer in charge) of the S-1 or admin shop.

The USMC MOS handbook says:

"Adjutants coordinate administrative matters for Marine Corps staff sections and external agencies at the staff level. They ensure that every Marine in their command has administrative resources both for day-to-day tasks and long-term career progression. Adjutants supervise the execution of administrative policies. They receive and route correspondence, preparing responses to any special correspondence. They also manage their unit's legal matters and monitor fitness reports, among other administrative duties."

France
In the French Army, Air Force and Gendarmerie, the ranks of adjudant (premier maître in the navy) and adjudant-chef (maître-principal in the navy) may be considered equivalent to Commonwealth warrant officer ranks. These ranks are senior to the rank of sergeant and junior to the rank of major. Like the officers, the adjudants are entitled to the mon before their rank, as in "mon adjudant".

In France, each corps has a colour (gold for most infantry units, artillery, the air force and engineers, or silver for most cavalry units, transport and materiel corps). A French adjutant wears a band, with thin red line, in the opposite colour to that of his corps. A chief adjutant wears a band, with thin red line, in the colour of his corps. In order to distinguish an adjutant from a chief adjutant it is necessary to know the arm's colour.

In cavalry units, adjudants and adjudants-chefs are addressed by tradition as "lieutenants".

Netherlands
Within the Netherlands Armed Forces the seniormost non-commissioned officer rank across all branches is called adjudant-onderofficier. The rank is both rated OR-8 and OR-9 within the NATO rank structure, however, it is only after 3 years as an adjudant-onderofficier that there is advancement to OR-9.

Adjutant general
An adjutant general is both a rank and a role that may represent the principal staff officer of an army; through the adjutant general, the commanding general receives communications and issues military orders.

In the United States, the adjutant general is the chief military officer of the United States National Guard units in any one of the American states. This use of the term reflects the early history of the United States, because of which each of the 50 states has partial sovereignty, including the right to maintain military forces; the Army National Guard and Air National Guard are state units that can be called to federal duty in case of national emergency.

title: Adjutant


text: User talk:82.166.194.150

title: User talk:82.166.194.150


text:
The Daily Nebraskan

The Daily Nebraskan, established in 1871 as the Monthly Hesperian Student, is the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Although many journalism students are on staff, the Daily Nebraskan is independent of the university's College of Journalism and Mass Communications. The newspaper is entirely student-produced and managed, and has a professional general manager, Allen Vaughan, who joined in July 2019 after the retirement of Dan Shattil, who retired in October 2019 after 37 years at the helm. The paper publishes every school day during the fall and spring semesters, with the exceptions of the Tuesday before Thanksgiving break and the last four days of finals week. It publishes weekly during summer sessions. The newspaper covers campus and Lincoln news, along with arts, entertainment, and sports. There is also an opinion page featuring student columnists. In addition, other articles published include the 1948 Nebraska parking riots, the campus strike of 1970, and articles that were written by Warren Buffett's parents.

History
The Daily Nebraskan was first published as a monthly and a weekly edition before becoming a daily paper. Its official birthday is June 13, 1901. As the newspaper's style and content changed, so did its identity and moniker. From 1871 to 1885, the paper was published by the Palladian Literary Society and known as the Monthly Hesperian Student. The first editor of the Hesperian was W.L. Sweet and the paper contained only six sections.

In 1885 the name was shortened to The Hesperian. At that time the University of Nebraska–Lincoln had multiple student publications; one of these, The Nebraskan, also known as The Rag after its editor, was founded in 1894 by Frank T. Riley. For seven years UNL would have two weekly newspapers until The Daily Nebraskan was organized on January 13, 1901 as a consolidation of The Hesperian and The Nebraskan. The evolved newspaper flourished beyond rival publications.

While the editorship of the paper was first elected by the student body as an official publication, the paper is now financially supported by the University and more work is published. Of its leaders, the most well-known is notable Nebraskan author Willa Cather. In 1892, Cather became the literary editor of The Hesperian; in November 1893 she was named the managing editor. Cather would hold this position until she graduated from the university in 1895.

In the mid-2000s, the daily paper converted to publishing tri-weekly, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Later, it switched to a twice a week schedule. Beginning in the fall of 2017, the DN was to complete its transition to a digital-first publication at its dailynebraskan.com web address, and print a monthly newsmagazine.

Satire
Throughout its publication, the Daily Nebraskan has always included pieces of satire. For most of its history the paper collected articles with a satirical tone over the course of the year and assembled them together for the April 1st publication. Iterations of this special daily edition were sometimes jokingly referred to as the Daily Halfaskan. Like the front page included on the left, the satirical papers published on April Fools were humorous and lampooned facets of university life in Nebraska.

Students of satire at UNL found this single issue of satire too limiting a venue and decided to launch an additional student paper. In 2008, The DailyER was launched as a bi-weekly publication dedicated to satirical and radical news.

title: The Daily Nebraskan


text:
Travesties

Travesties is a 1974 play by Tom Stoppard. It centres on the figure of Henry Carr, an old man who reminisces about Zürich in 1917 during the First World War, and his interactions with James Joyce when he was writing Ulysses, Tristan Tzara during the rise of Dada, and Lenin leading up to the Russian Revolution, all of whom were living in Zürich at that time.

Background
The real Henry Carr was a minor consular official who played Algernon in a production of The Importance of Being Earnest in Zürich in 1917 in a group of actors called The English Players, for whom the real James Joyce was the business manager. Carr and Joyce had an angry disagreement after the production, which led to legal action and accusations of slander by Joyce. The dispute was settled with the judge deciding in favour of both disputants on different counts. Joyce later had his revenge by parodying Carr and the English Consul General in Zürich at that time, A. Percy Bennett, as two minor characters in Ulysses, with Carr being portrayed as a drunken, obscene soldier in the "Circe" episode.

In the 1970s, Tom Stoppard, struck by the fact that Joyce, Vladimir Lenin and the Dadaist poet Tristan Tzara were all in Zurich in 1917, wrote a play that brought all three together seen through the unreliable memory of the octogenarian Carr looking back five decades later. In Travesties Carr is the central figure with the others in orbit around him. He is seen both as an old man reminiscing and as the young man of 1917 – the same actor plays both Carrs.

After the first performance of Travesties, Stoppard received a letter from Henry Carr's widow expressing her surprise that her late husband had been included as a character in Stoppard's play.

Plot
The play is set in Zürich, Switzerland during the First World War and in the 1970s. In 1917, three historicallly important figures were living in Zürich: the modernist author James Joyce, the communist revolutionary Lenin, and the Dada founder Tristan Tzara. The play centres on the less notable Henry Carr, a British consular official, as he recalls his encounters with these three. As he reminisces, Carr's memory becomes prone to distraction, and the narrative veers away from historical accuracy.

The young Carr spies on Lenin, argues with Tzara about the nature of true art, is persuaded by Joyce to play Algernon and later quarrels over the cost of buying new trousers for the role. The old Carr concludes the first act: "I dreamed about him, dreamed I had him in the witness box, a masterly cross-examination, case practically won, admitted it all, the whole thing, the trousers, everything, and I flung at him – 'And what did you do in the Great War?' 'I wrote Ulysses,' he said. 'What did you do?' Bloody nerve." After further confused memories and mix-ups in the second act, the old Carr concludes the play: "Great days ... Zurich during the war. Refugees, spies, exiles, painters, poets, writers, radicals of all kinds. I knew them all. Used to argue far into the night – at the Odeon, the Terrasse – I learned three things in Zurich during the war. I wrote them down. Firstly, you're either a revolutionary or you're not, and if you're not you might as well be an artist as anything else. Secondly, if you can't be an artist, you might as well be a revolutionary … I forget the third thing."

Original production
Travesties was first produced at the Aldwych Theatre, London, on 10 June 1974, by the Royal Shakespeare Company. The production was directed by Peter Wood and designed by Carl Toms. It closed on 13 March 1976 after 156 performances at the Aldwych and the Albery Theatres in London, and the Ethel Barrymore Theater in[New York.

 * Henry Carr – John Wood
 * Tristan Tzara – John Hurt
 * James Joyce – Tom Bell
 * Vladimir Lenin – Frank Windsor
 * Bennett – John Bott
 * Gwendolen – Maria Aitken
 * Cecily – Beth Morris
 * Nadya – Barbara Leigh-Hunt

 * Cast changes
 * Tristan Tzara: Robert Powell; Tim Curry
 * James Joyce: John Quentin; James Booth
 * Vladimir Lenin: Harry Towb
 * Gwendolen: Meg Wynn Owen
 * Nadya: Frances Cuka

1993 production
A revival of the play, directed by Adrian Noble and featuring a revised text that abbreviated Cecily's lecture on Lenin in Act II by moving much of it to the interval, was staged by the Royal Shakespeare Company at its theatre in the Barbican Arts Centre in September 1993. The production transferred to the Savoy Theatre in March 1994.
 * Henry Carr – Antony Sher
 * Tristan Tzara – David Westhead
 * James Joyce – Lloyd Hutchinson
 * Vladimir Lenin – Geoffrey Freshwater
 * Bennett – Trevor Martin
 * Gwendolen Carr – Rebecca Saire
 * Cecily Carruthers – Amanda Harris
 * Nadya – Darlene Johnson

2016–2017 production
A new revival, directed by Patrick Marber, was performed at the Menier Chocolate Factory from September until November 2016. The production "broke box office records at the Menier Chocolate Factory, becoming the first play in the company’s history to sell out ahead of its first preview". In February 2017 the play, and company, transferred to the Apollo Theatre in London, where the run continued until April 2017.

 * Henry Carr – Tom Hollander
 * Gwendolen Carr – Amy Morgan
 * Tristan Tzara – Freddie Fox
 * Cecily Carruthers – Clare Foster
 * Vladimir Lenin – Forbes Masson
 * James Joyce – Peter McDonald
 * Nadya – Sarah Quist
 * Bennett – Tim Wallers

The production's designer was Tim Hatley, the lighting designer Neil Austin, and Adam Cork was the sound designer and composer of original music.

2018 production
Patrick Marber's revival transferred to Broadway in spring 2018, with Tom Hollander reprising his role as Henry Carr and Peter McDonald reprising his performance as James Joyce. Travesties opened on 24 April 2018 at the Roundabout Theatre Company's American Airlines Theater in New York.

 * Henry Carr – Tom Hollander
 * James Joyce – Peter McDonald
 * Tristan Tzara – Seth Numrich
 * Lenin – Dan Butler
 * Gwendolen – Scarlett Strallen
 * Cecily – Sara Topham
 * Nadya – Opal Alladin
 * Bennett – Patrick Kerr

The Roundabout Theatre Company's education team have produced an 'Upstage' guide to Travesties which puts the play's themes in historical context and contains interviews with the director, cast, and crew. The revival has been praised by critics with Ben Brantley of The New York Times commenting that he "...would venture that this latest incarnation is the clearest and surely one of the liveliest on record. It should prove ridiculously entertaining for anyone with even a passing knowledge of its central characters, and a stroll through the groves of Wikipedia should offer adequate preparation for anyone else."

2019 Australian production
The Australian premiere of the 2016 script adaptation opened in Melbourne in winter 2019, with Dion Mills taking the role of Henry Carr. The production was directed by Jennifer Sarah Dean.

 * Henry Carr – Dion Mills
 * James Joyce – Johnathan Peck
 * Tristan Tzara – Matthew Connell
 * Lenin – Syd Brisbane
 * Gwendolen – Joanna Halliday
 * Cecily – Gabrielle Sing
 * Nadya – Milliana Cancur
 * Bennett – Tref Gare

Awards and nominations

 * Awards

 * 1976 Broadway Production
 * 1976 New York Drama Critics' Circle Award for Best Play
 * 1976 Tony Award for Best Play
 * 1976 Evening Standard Award for Best Comedy
 * 1976 Tony Award for Best Actor in a Play – John Wood

 * Nominations

 * 2017 West End Production
 * Laurence Olivier Award for Best Revival
 * Laurence Olivier Award for Best Actor – Tom Hollander
 * Laurence Olivier Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role – Freddie Fox
 * Laurence Olivier Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role – Claire Foster
 * Laurence Olivier Award for Best Sound Design – Adam Cork
 * WhatsOnStage Award for Best Play Revival
 * WhatsOnStage Award for Best Supporting Actor in a Play – Freddie Fox

 * 2018 Broadway Revival
 * Tony Award for Best Revival of a Play
 * Tony Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role in a Play – Tom Hollander
 * Tony Award for Best Sound Design of a Play – Adam Cork
 * Tony Award for Best Direction of a Play – Patrick Marber
 * Drama Desk Award for Best Revival of a Play
 * Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Actor in a Play – Tom Hollander
 * Outer Critics Circle Award for Outstanding Revival of a Play (Broadway or Off-Broadway)
 * Outer Critics Circle Award for Outstanding Actor in a Play – Tom Hollander
 * Outer Critics Circle Award for Outstanding Director of a Play – Patrick Marber
 * Drama League Award for Outstanding Revival of a Broadway or Off-Broadway Play
 * Distinguished Performance Award – Tom Hollander and Seth Numrich

title: Travesties