text:
Saint-Quentin, Aisne

Saint-Quentin (Saint-Kintin; Sint-Kwintens ) is a city in the Aisne department, Hauts-de-France, northern France. It has been identified as the Augusta Veromanduorum of antiquity. It is named after Saint Quentin of Amiens, who is said to have been martyred there in the 3rd century.

Administration
Saint-Quentin is a sub-prefecture of Aisne. Although Saint-Quentin is by far the largest city in Aisne, the capital is the third-largest city, Laon.

Mayors
The mayor of Saint-Quentin is Frédérique Macarez, a member of the centre-right LR Party.

History
The city was founded by the Romans, in the Augustean period, to replace the oppidum of Vermand (11 km away) as the capital of Viromandui (Celtic Belgian people who occupied the region). It received the name "Augusta Viromanduorum", Augusta of the Viromandui, in honor of the emperor Augustus. The site is that of a ford across the River Somme. During the late Roman period, it is possible that the civitas capital was transferred back to Vermand (whose name comes from Veromandis); almost nothing relating to the fourth century has been found in Saint-Quentin.

During the early Middle Ages, a major monastery, now the Basilica of Saint-Quentin, developed, based on pilgrimage to the tomb of Quentin, a Roman Christian who came to evangelize the region and was martyred in Augusta, giving rise to a new town which was named after him.

From the 9th century, Saint-Quentin was the capital of Vermandois County. From the 10th century, the counts of Vermandois (descendants of the Carolingian, then Capetian families) were very powerful. The city grew rapidly: the "bourgeois" organized themselves and obtained, in the second half of the 12th century (a very early date), a municipal charter, which guaranteed their commune a large degree of autonomy.

At the beginning of the 13th century, Saint-Quentin entered the royal domain. At that time, it was a thriving city, based on its wool textile industry (city "drapante"). It was also a centre of commerce boosted by its position on the border of the kingdom of France, between the Champagne fairs and the cities of Flanders (wine exportation, etc.): it had an important annual fair. It also benefited from its location in the heart of a rich agricultural region (trade of grain and "guède" (woad), a high-value blue dye).

From the 14th century, Saint-Quentin suffered from this strategic position: it endured the French-English wars (Hundred Years' War). In the 15th century, the city was disputed between the king of France and the dukes of Burgundy (it is one of the "cities of the Somme"). Ravaged by the plague on several occasions, its population decreased, while its economy was in crisis: its fair was increasingly irrelevant, and agricultural production diminished. The declining textile industry turned to the production of linen canvas. Meanwhile, the city faced major expenses to maintain its fortifications and armed troops.

Between the end of the 15th century and the mid-17th century, this strategic position was the cause of frequent misfortune. In 1557, a siege by the Spanish army (as part of the battle of Saint-Quentin) ended with the looting of the city and its desertion for two years. Given back to France in 1559, it underwent intense fortification work: the medieval wall, redesigned several times, was protected by many new advanced fortifications. Two districts were razed to make way for them. In the mid-17th century, the city escaped the sieges, but suffered the horrors of wars ravaging the Picardy region, accompanied by the plague (in 1636, 3,000 people died, out of perhaps 10,000 inhabitants) and famine.

In the second half of the 17th century, the conquests of Louis XIV moved the border away from Saint- Quentin, and it lost much of its strategic role. At the end of the 16th century, its textile production specialized in fine flax canvas (batiste and lawn). This brought prosperity, particularly in the 18th century, when these textiles were exported across Europe and the Americas.

During the First French Empire, difficulties in the export market brought economic decline. At the request of the municipality, Napoleon ordered the razing of the fortifications, to allow the city to grow beyond its old boundaries. In 1814-1815, Saint-Quentin was occupied by the Russian army, but without any damage.

In the 19th century, Saint-Quentin developed into a thriving industrial city, thanks to entrepreneurs constantly on the lookout for new technologies. Textiles and mechanical devices were foremost among a wide variety of products.

In 1870, during the Franco-Prussian War, the population repelled the Prussians on 8 October, but the city fell during the second offensive. The hopeless but heroic action had national repercussions: Saint-Quentin was decorated with the Legion of Honour. On 19 January 1871 the French army was defeated near the town.

The First World War hit Saint-Quentin very hard. In September 1914, the city was overrun; it endured a harsh occupation. From 1916, it lay at the heart of the war zone, because the Germans had integrated it into the Hindenburg Line. After the evacuation of the population in March, the town was systematically looted and industrial equipment removed or destroyed. The fighting destroyed it: 80% of buildings (including the Basilica of Saint-Quentin) were damaged.

Despite national support, the reconstruction process was long, and the city struggled to regain its pre-1914 dynamism. The 1911 population of 55,000 was achieved again only in the mid-1950s, in the context of general economic expansion. This prosperity continued until the mid-1970s, when the French textile industry began to suffer through competition from developing countries.

Monuments

 * Basilica of Saint-Quentin, built in the 12th-15th century. Heavily damaged in World War I, the vaults, windows and roofs have been restored.
 * Hôtel de ville (city hall), built between 1331 and 1509 in a gothic style. L'hôtel de ville of Saint-Quentin is famous for its peal of 37 bells. It was modified in the 19th century and heavily restored in 1926 in Art Déco style.
 * The municipal theatre Jean-Vilar, built in 1844.
 * The city has several beguinages, dating from the Middle-Age.
 * The Fervaques palace: was built between 1897 and 1911, it is the place of High court.
 * The Porte des Canonniers, a 17th century city gate

Museums

 * Butterflies' Museum which has a collection of more than 600,000 insects, displaying 20,000 of them
 * Antoine Lecuyer Museum which owns the largest collection of Maurice Quentin de La Tour's pastels
 * Academic Society, archaeologic museum Société Académique de Saint-Quentin

Transport
The Gare de Saint-Quentin is the railway station, offering connections to Paris, Reims, Amiens, Lille and several regional destinations. The A26 motorway connects Saint-Quentin with Reims and Calais, the A29 with Amiens.

Personalities

 * Alexis Yetna, basketball player
 * Viviane Adjutor, basketball player
 * Anthony Benezet, American Abolitionist
 * Dudo of Saint-Quentin (born ca. 965), historian
 * Charles de Bouelles (1479–1567), philosopher, mathematician and linguist
 * Quentin-Claude Bendier (died 1677), scholar and bibliophile
 * William Cliff, inventor of machine-woven tulle
 * Marc Delmas (1885–1931), Expressionist composer and biographer
 * Jeanne-Marie de Maille (1331-1414), saint
 * Antoine Francisque (c.1570–1605), lutenist and composer
 * Jules Gallay (1822–1897), lawyer and music historian
 * Alexandre Avez (1858-1896), politician
 * Rudy Gobert (born 1992), professional basketball player for the Minnesota Timberwolves of the NBA; 4x Defensive Player of the Year
 * Kafetien Gomis (born 1980), athlete
 * Étienne Mendy (born 1969), footballer
 * Jean Louis Marie Poiret (1755–1834), botanist and explorer
 * François-Noël Babeuf (1760–1797), known as Gracchus Babeuf, political agitator and journalist of the revolutionary period
 * Charles Rogier (1800–1885), Belgian statesman
 * Félix Davin (1807–1836), French poet and journalist
 * Jean Leune (1889 - 1944), war correspondent, writer, military officer, and member of the French Resistance.
 * Andre Trocme pacifist Protestant church leader.
 * Yves Velan (1925-2017), Swiss writer
 * Jean-Marie Lefèvre (born 1953), modernist and minimalist poet
 * Xavier Bertrand (born 1965), former Minister of Labour, Social Relations, Family and Solidarity in François Fillon's second government, conservative
 * Édouard Lucien Briquet (1854-1905) (engineer, left Paris under siege, going to work on the construction of the Trans-Saharan Railroad, in the 1870s. He moved to Brazil in 1883, working on several railroads in the interior of the country.
 * Maïa Hirsch (born 2003), basketball player drafted by the Minnesota Lynx of the WNBA in 2023.

Artists

 * Mathieu (de) Bléville, born in Saint-Quentin at the beginning of the 16th century, painter on glass (vitraux).
 * Pierre Berton (16th century), « Pierre de Saint-Quentin », stonecutter.
 * Ulysse Butin (1838–1883), painter.
 * John Cross, (1819-1861), English painter who studied at the Saint-Quentin School of Design
 * Benoît Delépine (1958-), scriptwriter, actor.
 * Michel Dorigny (1617–1665), painter and printmaker, professor at Painting Academy of Paris.
 * Delphine Gleize (1973-), film director.
 * Paul Guiramand, (1926–2007), painter and winner of the grand prix de Rome in 1953.
 * Édouard Hippolyte Margottet (1848–1887), painter.
 * Arthur Midy (1887–1944), painter.
 * Amédée Ozenfant (1886–1966), leader of Purism, an avant-garde movement of the 1920s.
 * Jean-Christophe Paré, (1957-) dancer and teacher.
 * Julie-Marie Parmentier (1981-), actress.
 * Maurice Pillard dit Verneuil, (born on 29 April 1869; died in 1942, Genève), well-known illustrator of Art nouveau.
 * Maurice Quentin de La Tour (1704–1788), pastellist, he became famous by his portrait, portrait painter official of Louis XV, benefactor of the city (foundation of School of design Maurice Quentin de La Tour).

French sartorial heritage
The city was a pivotal centre of mulquinerie.

Incidents
On 30 March 2013 five children between the ages of two and ten, were killed in a house fire in the city.

Their parents had recently separated and their father was hosting the children at his new home for the first time for the weekend, as they had been spending most of their time with their mother. At 10:30pm local time on 30 March the fire started via an unknown cause. The children's father, alongside neighbours, made desperate attempts to save the children, but by the time the emergency services arrived, it was too late. The building was considered "too dangerous to enter" and the bodies of the five children were discovered once the fire was extinguished.

The children's father was seriously burned in a failed attempt to save his children's lives and jumped through a window to safety. He was hospitalised and wasn't informed until later on Sunday that his children had died.

Twin towns - sister cities
Saint-Quentin is twinned with:
 * 🇩🇪 Kaiserslautern, Germany
 * 🏴 Rotherham, Yorkshire, England
 * 🇪🇸 San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain
 * 🇨🇳 Tongzhou (Beijing), China

title: Saint-Quentin, Aisne


text:
List of English words of Hawaiian origin

The Hawaiian language has offered a number of words to the English language. Some Hawaiian words are known to non-Hawaiian speakers, and a few have also been assimilated into the English language (e.g. aloha, meaning "hello", "love", or "goodbye", or mahalo, meaning "thank you"). English also borrows some Hawaiian words (e.g. ukulele, mahimahi, and muʻumuʻu). Hawaiian vocabulary often overlaps with other Polynesian languages, such as Tahitian, so it is not always clear which of those languages a term is borrowed from.

The Hawaiian orthography is notably different from the English orthography because there is a special letter in the Hawaiian alphabet, the ʻokina. The ʻokina represents a glottal stop, which indicates a short pause to separate syllables. The kahakō represents longer vowel sounds. Both the okina and kahakō are often omitted in English orthography.

Due to the Hawaiian orthography's difference from English orthography, the pronunciation of the words differ. For example, the muʻumuʻu, traditionally a Hawaiian dress, is pronounced  by many mainland (colloquial term for the Continental U.S.) residents. However, many Hawaii residents have learned that the ʻokina in Hawaiian signifies a glottal stop. Thus, in the Hawaiian language, muʻumuʻu is pronounced, approximately. The pronunciations listed here are how it would sound in Hawaiian orthography.

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


text:
Macintosh Performa

The Macintosh Performa is a family of personal computers designed, manufactured and sold by Apple Computer, Inc. from 1992 to 1997. The Performa brand re-used models from Apple's Quadra, Centris, LC, Classic, and Power Macintosh families with model numbers that denoted included software packages or hard drive sizes. Whereas non-Performa Macintosh computers were sold by Apple Authorized Resellers, the Performa was sold through big-box stores and mass-market retailers such as Good Guys, Circuit City, and Sears.

The initial series of models consisted of the Macintosh Classic II-based Performa 200, the LC II-based Performa 400, and the IIvi-based Performa 600. After releasing a total of sixty-four different models, Apple retired the Performa brand in early 1997, shortly after release of the Power Macintosh 5500, 6500, 8600 and 9600, as well as the return of Steve Jobs to the company. The Performa brand's lifespan coincided with a period of significant financial turmoil at Apple due in part to low sales of Performa machines.

Overview
With a strong education market share throughout the 1980s, Apple wanted to push its computers into the home, with the idea that a child would experience the same Macintosh computer both in the home and at school, and later grow to use Macintosh computers at work. In the early 1990s, Apple sold computers through a chain of authorized resellers, and through mail order catalogs such as those found in the latter third of MacWorld Magazine. A typical reseller sold Macintosh computers to professionals, who purchased high-level applications and required performance and expansion capabilities. Consumers, however, purchased computers based on the best value, and weren't as concerned about expansion or performance. To reach these customers, Apple wanted to sell their computers through department store chains (such as Sears), but this would conflict with existing authorized reseller agreements, in which a geographic area had only one reseller.

To prevent these conflicts, Apple split the Macintosh line into professional and consumer models. The professional line included the Classic, LC, Centris, Quadra, and Power Macintosh lines, and continued to be sold as-is (i.e., no consumer software bundles or limited features). The consumer line was given the name "Performa", and included computers similar to the professional line. Early Performa models were not sold with the "Macintosh" brand in order to get around the authorized reseller agreements.

The Performa line was marketed differently from the professional line. To satisfy consumer-level budgets, the computers were sold bundled with home and small business applications. Most models were also bundled with a keyboard, mouse, an external modem and either a dot-29 or dot-39 pitch shadow mask CRT monitor. Professional models, in contrast, were sold à la carte with keyboard and mouse bundles chosen by the dealer or sold separately; monitors sold with high-end Macintosh models typically used Trinitron tubes based on aperture grille technology.

While the Performa models resembled their professional counterpart on the system software and hardware level, certain features were tweaked or removed. The Performa 600, for instance, lacked the level-2 cache of the Macintosh IIvx it was based on.

Unlike the professional Macintosh lines, each individual Performa bundle was given a unique model number, in some cases varying only by the software bundle or the specific retailer that sold that model. This was intended to accommodate retailers, who could advertise that they could beat their competitors' price on equivalent models while at the same time ensuring that they did not actually carry the same models as their competitors. To help consumers choose between the options available to them, Apple created multiple paid advertisements including "The Martinettis Bring Home a Computer", a thirty-minute "storymercial" about a fictional family that purchases a Performa computer that aired in December 1994.

Apple's strategy for selling Performa machines in department and electronics retail stores did not include the sort of specialized training Apple offered to its dealers. This resulted in situations where Performa display models were often poorly taken care of; the demo computers crashed, the self-running demo software not running or the display models not even powered on. Apple tried to address the training issue by hiring their own sales people to aid the store sales staff, most of them recruited from Macintosh user groups. Despite this, however, many returned Performa computers could not be serviced properly because the stores were not authorized Apple service centers.

The problem was compounded by retailers favoring Microsoft Windows, especially after the introduction of Windows 95. Computers running Windows were generally cheaper, and encouraged by manufacturer spiffs, advertising co-ops, and other promotion programs. In addition, many stores preferred to sell their own branded white box PCs, something Apple would not allow.

As a consequence of these issues, Apple overestimated demand for Performa machines in 1995 while also underestimating demand for high-end Power Macintosh models, leading to significant oversupply issues. Introduction of new Performa models slowed as a result: whereas Apple had introduced 20 different Performa models around the world from May to December 1995, the number dropped to four in the first seven months of 1996.

For the late-1996 holiday period, sales of Performa-branded machines had dropped year-over-year by 15 percent, reflective of a company-wide drop in fourth-quarter revenues by one-third compared with 1995.

In February 1997, just days after Steve Jobs returned to the company, Apple refreshed its entire line of desktop computers, retiring a dozen Performa models based on the Power Macintosh 6200 and 6400 with no replacement, and reducing the range of Power Macintosh to six computers (plus a few Apple Workgroup Server variants). The official end of the Performa brand was announced on March 15 as part of sweeping changes at the company that included layoffs of a third of the company's workforce and the cancellation of several software products. By early 1998, Apple's lineup was reduced to four computers: One desktop, one all-in-one, and two minitowers (one of which was sold as a server product). As part of the restructuring of how Apple sold its computers in retail channels, it partnered with CompUSA to implement a "Store within a store" concept. Apple and related products were displayed and sold in a physically separate location by specialized employees (currently done at select Best Buy stores).

Performa-specific software
The Performa versions of the Macintosh System software introduced some features that were not available on non-Performa Macintoshes. The most notable of these are At Ease (parental controls), the Launcher (an application launcher similar to the macOS Dock), and the Performa Control Panel, which included several unique configuration options. The functionality of all three components were eventually folded into the operating system itself. Versions of System 7 with the additional software had a 'P' appended to the end, such as 7.1.2P which was included with the Performa 630 in mid-1994.

Software bundles usually included ClarisWorks, Quicken, a calendar/contact manager such as Touchbase and Datebook Pro, America Online, educational software such as The American Heritage Dictionary, The New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, The TIME Almanac (on models equipped with a CD-ROM drive), Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing, or Mario Teaches Typing, and a selection of games such as Spectre Challenger, Diamonds, and Monopoly.

Another software package that only the Performa was equipped with was called Megaphone by Cypress Research. MegaPhone is a screen based telephony application (SBT) that provides a powerful way to manage your telephone calls from your computer desktop. In addition to drag-and-drop dialling, callerID display, and call logging, MegaPhone includes features like VoiceMail, TouchTone Navigator, and Smart Speed Dial and facilitates Fax communications via a separate software package included in the Performa. The MegaPhone Company: MegaPhone 9.0

List of Performa models
Blanks indicate missing data.

Source:

title: Macintosh Performa


text:
Fairchild PT-19

The Fairchild PT-19 (company designation Fairchild M62) is an American monoplane primary trainer aircraft that served with the United States Army Air Forces, RAF and RCAF during World War II. Designed by Fairchild Aircraft, it was a contemporary of the Kaydet biplane trainer, and was used by the USAAF during Primary Flying Training. As with other USAAF trainers of the period, the PT-19 had multiple designations based on the powerplant installed.

Design and development
According to H.L. Puckett, "Still U.S. pilots were receiving their primary flight training in biplanes, although the low wing advance trainer was in use. A look around showed that there was no low wing primary trainer being produced in the U.A. Fairchild felt this urgency and set his organization at work on such a low wing trainer with the proposal that the new proven Ranger be used as the power plant for the new airplane to be known as the M-62. The M-62, which was to become the PT-19, was to use the experience gained from the F-24 and the more recent Model 46."

In 1933, Fairchild Aircraft Corporation's chief engineer, A.A. Gassner, had hired Armand Thiebolt, as his chief structural engineer. In 1937, Thiebolt was named chief engineer, and given the task of designing the PT-19. Included in the design was the use of interchangeable parts and non-strategic materials. According to Puckett, "The proposed low wing design adapted itself readily to a wide tread landing gear, which when combined with judicious wheel location and a low center of gravity, provided protection against ground looping." The Ranger engine would also result in a narrower cowling compared to those using a radial engine, which meant increased visibility for the pilot. The reduced cowling also improved propeller efficiency and an increase in horsepower.

The cantilever wings, with wooden ribs, were covered by 3/32 inch preformed mahogany or fir plywood. The inboard portion consisted of a welded trussed 4130 structure. The fuselage used Chromoly square tubing for the longerons and brace members, and fabric covered. The cowling was made of Alclad. Both wing center sections contained the 24.5 USgal fuel tank, with landing gear housings on the outboard ends. The oleo struts were designed to withstand a 6 g acceleration from a 30 in drop. Two hollow box wood spars were used in the wing and center sections. Duramold was used to cover the wings. Early models used aluminum alloy seats made by the Budd Company, while later models used plywood seats made by Hughes Aircraft Company. Early models had metal floors and flaps, while later models used wood for both. The vertical and horizontal stabilizers were made of spruce spars, covered with 1/16 in plywood. According to Puckett, "Moisture became the arch enemy of the Fairchild PT and was responsible for the relatively small survival rate of the airplanes built."

On 15 May 1939, the M-62 prototype first flew. In a fly-off competition at Wright Field, the aircraft beat out 17 other designs. On 22 September 1939, the Army placed an order for 270 airplanes. Fairchild had to include 27 wood working subcontractors, including furniture stores, a hosiery plant and a foundry. After the start of WWII, Fairchild licensed manufacturing with Fleet Aircraft, Howard Aircraft Corporation, St. Louis Aircraft Corporation, and Aeronca.

The original production batch of 275 were powered by the inline 175 hp Ranger L-440-1 engine and designated the PT-19. In 1941, mass production began and 3,181 of the PT-19A model, powered by the 200 hp L-440-3, were made by Fairchild. An additional 477 were built by Aeronca and 44 by the St. Louis Aircraft Corporation. The PT-19B, of which 917 were built, was equipped for instrument flight training by attaching a collapsible hood to the front cockpit.

When airplane production exceeded engine production, the PT-23 was prototyped by Fairchild. Except for the engine, the airplane was identical from the firewall rearwards. According to Puckett, "The second protype PT-23 was the only one of these airplanes which was painted Air Corps blue and yellow." The PT-23 was powered by the 220 hp Continental R-670 radial powerplant. A total of 869 PT-23s were built as well as 256 of the PT-23A, which was the instrument flight-equipped version. The PT-23 was manufactured in the US by Fairchild, Aeronca, St. Louis Aircraft Corporation and Howard Aircraft Corporation and in Canada by Fleet Aircraft Corporation as well as Fabrica do Galeao in Brazil (220 or 232 between 1944 and 1948).

During 1943, USAAF Training Command received a number of complaints about durability issues with the plywood wings of the PT-19 and the PT-23 when exposed to the high heat and/or humidity of training bases located in Texas and Florida. Maintenance officers at the USAAF overhaul depots had been forced to order replacement of the wooden wing sections after only two to three months' active service because of wood rot and ply separation issues. Subsequent to this incident, the USAAF incorporated a demand for all-metal wing sections on all future fixed-wing training aircraft.

The final variant was the PT-26 which used the L-440-7 engine. The Canadian-built versions of these were designated the Cornell for use by the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan which was centered in Canada.

Operational history
Compared to the earlier biplane trainers, the Fairchild PT-19 provided a more advanced type of aircraft. Speeds were higher and wing loading more closely approximated that of combat aircraft, with flight characteristics demanding more precision and care. Its virtues were that it was inexpensive, simple to maintain and, most of all, virtually viceless. The PT-19 truly lived up to its nickname, the Cradle of Heroes. It was one of a handful of primary trainer designs that were the first stop on a cadet's way to becoming a combat pilot.

These planes were delivered to various bases all over the country by WASPs (Women's Airforce Service Pilots) between 1942-1944.

Thousands of the PT-19 series were rapidly integrated into the United States and Commonwealth training programs, serving throughout World War II and beyond. Even after their retirement in the late 1940s, a substantial number found their way onto the United States and other civil registers, being flown by private pilot owners.

Variants

 * PT-19
 * Initial production variant of the Model M62 powered by 175 hp L-440-1, 270 built.

 * PT-19A
 * As the PT-19 but powered by a 200 hp L-440-3 and detailed changes, redesignated T-19A in 1948, 3226 built.

 * PT-19B
 * Instrument training version of the PT-19A, 143 built and six conversions from PT-19A.

 * XPT-23A
 * A PT-19 re-engined with a 220 hp R-670-5 radial engine.

 * PT-23
 * Production radial-engined version, 774 built.

 * PT-23A
 * Instrument training version of the PT-23, 256 built.

 * PT-26
 * PT-19A variant with enclosed cockpit for training in Canada under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, powered by a 200hp L-440-3, 670 built for the Royal Canadian Air Force as the Cornell I.

 * PT-26A
 * As PT-26 but with a 200hp L-440-7 engine, 807 built by Fleet as the Cornell II.

 * PT-26B
 * AS PT-26A with minor changes, 250 built as the Cornell III.

 * Cornell I
 * RCAF designation for the PT-26.

 * Cornell II
 * RCAF designation for the PT-26A.

 * Cornell III

 * RCAF designation for the PT-26B.

Operators

 * Brazilian Air Force
 * 🇨🇦 Canada
 * Royal Canadian Air Force
 * Chilean Air Force
 * Colombian Air Force
 * Ecuadorian Air Force
 * Guatemalan Air Force
 * 🇭🇹 Haiti
 * Haiti Air Corps
 * Honduran Air Force - PT-23
 * 🇮🇳 India
 * Indian Air Force
 * Mexican Air Force
 * Nicaraguan Air Force
 * Royal Norwegian Air Force
 * Paraguayan Air Arm received a few Fairchild M-62s in 1940, followed by 15 Lend-Lease PT-19A in 1942-43. In the 1950s, 14 ex-Brazilian Air Force PT-19s (PT-3FG built under license in Brazil) were received. The last PT-19 was retired in 1972.
 * Peruvian Air Force
 * $\phi$
 * Philippines Air Force
 * 🇿🇦 South Africa
 * South African Air Force
 * Southern Rhodesia
 * Rhodesian Air Force
 * Royal Air Force
 * United States Army Air Corps/United States Army Air Forces
 * Uruguayan Air Force received 17 PT-19As and PT-19Bs under Lend Lease in 1942, with 50 PT-26s being delivered in 1946–1947.
 * Uruguayan Navy
 * Aviación Militar received 20 PT-19As under Lend Lease.
 * Peruvian Air Force
 * $\phi$
 * Philippines Air Force
 * 🇿🇦 South Africa
 * South African Air Force
 * Southern Rhodesia
 * Rhodesian Air Force
 * Royal Air Force
 * United States Army Air Corps/United States Army Air Forces
 * Uruguayan Air Force received 17 PT-19As and PT-19Bs under Lend Lease in 1942, with 50 PT-26s being delivered in 1946–1947.
 * Uruguayan Navy
 * Aviación Militar received 20 PT-19As under Lend Lease.
 * Uruguayan Air Force received 17 PT-19As and PT-19Bs under Lend Lease in 1942, with 50 PT-26s being delivered in 1946–1947.
 * Uruguayan Navy
 * Aviación Militar received 20 PT-19As under Lend Lease.
 * Aviación Militar received 20 PT-19As under Lend Lease.
 * Aviación Militar received 20 PT-19As under Lend Lease.

Surviving aircraft

, there were 98 airworthy aircraft worldwide.
 * One example is found at the Travis Air Force Base Aviation Museum, Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, California.
 * Another is in storage at the Reynolds-Alberta Museum in Wetaskiwin, Alberta.
 * Fairchild PT-26A-FE Cornell II 'N58799' is flying in the Netherlands
 * Fairchild PT-19A (283435) is flying in Alabama with the Birmingham Escadrille of the Commemorative Air Force after a 22 year restoration started in 1986.

title: Fairchild PT-19


text:
Tickell's blue flycatcher

Tickell's blue flycatcher (Cyornis tickelliae) is a small passerine bird in the flycatcher family. This is an insectivorous species which breeds in tropical Asia, from the Indian Subcontinent eastwards to Bangladesh and western Myanmar. The Indochinese blue flycatcher was formerly considered conspecific. They are blue on the upperparts and the throat and breast are rufous. They are found in dense scrub to forest habitats. The name commemorates the wife of the British ornithologist Samuel Tickell who collected in India and Burma.

Description
Tickell's blue flycatcher is about 11–12 cm long. It sits upright and forages mainly in the overgrowth. The male's upper parts are bright blue, its throat and breast are red, and the rest of the underparts are white. The female is duller blue with a brighter blue brow, shoulder, rump, and tail. It hybridizes with the pale-chinned blue flycatcher (Cyornis poliogenys) in the Eastern Ghats of India and these hybrids have sometimes been treated as a subspecies vernayi. The juvenile is streaked and has a spotted mantle, scaly brown upperparts, head and breast, with just the wings and tail being blue.

They have sometimes been known to feed even after dusk. Apart from flying insects they may occasionally pick up crawling insects.

The species shows regional variations in plumage and size and several of these populations have been designated with subspecies names. The nominate form is found in India, Nepal and Myanmar. The Sri Lankan population is separated as jerdoni (or nesea/mesaea said to be darker ) The Sri Lankan population is C. t. jerdoni which has a longer bill. C. t. indochina extends in range from Myanmar, through Thailand into Cambodia and Vietnam. Southern Thailand, peninsular Malaysia and northeast Sumatra has the population C. t. sumatrensis while lamprus is an insular population on Anamba Island. In the past this species has been considered as a subspecies of the blue-throated blue flycatcher (Cyornis rubeculoides) which resembles this but has a blue throat.

Habitat and distribution
Tickell's blue flycatcher breeds in dry forest, scrub, bamboo and gardens.

Behaviour and ecology
The metallic song of the bird includes a series of clicks followed by five or six notes that end abruptly. The metallic song consists of short clicks followed by five or six notes resembling that of the Spot-breasted fantail. Alarm calls include churr and clicking notes. It is a wary bird and is easily observed in small gardens too. It is a forest-loving species which is found in thick cover and shade, and particularly haunts the banks of wooded streams.

They feed mainly by capturing insects in flight but their prey include other insects such as termites and earwigs that may be gleaned or picked from the ground. Now they are being observed inhabiting garbage places. During the breeding season, they may take larger prey including small vertebrates. A bush frog has been reported as prey in Sri Lanka. The breeding season is April to August (March to June in Sri Lanka). It nests in a hole in a tree or amongst rocks that is lined with fine grass and fibres and lay 3–5 eggs.

title: Tickell's blue flycatcher


text:
Talk:Security guard

Grammar
Until the 1980s, the term watchman was more commonly applied to this function, a usage dating back to at least the Middle Ages in Europe where there was no form of law enforcement (other than it being a private matter).

The phrase "other than it being a private manner" doesn't make sense grammatically. Maybe "no form of public law enforcement" would be better?

I also don't see a source for this, but I may have just missed it. 138.88.143.153 (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Yeah. I made an edit to remove it. It's just unclear, and likely not necessary.   signed, Willondon (talk)  00:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Security guard


text:
Talk:Arletty

Untitled
''This article was listed on Votes for deletion in May 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Talk:Arletty/Delete.''

About her wartime liaison
"My heart is French but my body is international." The exact translation is "My heart is french but my ass is international." It's not as politically correct, but it's true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.216.27.106 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Corrected (& cited for). By the way, if anyone wants to work further on this article, the source I cited for this looks like it has considerable information not currently in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I long suspected "ass" in American English was used as a veiled way of saying "cunt": 'hot ass' etc. Nice to have it confirmed, if conly by checking the French original of that sentence. :D 83.254.151.165 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"horizontal" collaboration with the occupying Nazis
The statement "many French women behaved in this manner during World War II" sounds a bit smug. It would be helpful if we had some notion of what "many" means, and an authoritative source for this statement. In France this "manner of behavior" was sometimes called "la collaboration horizontale" and women accused of it often had their heads shorn in retribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.211.248 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Removed the sentence. Philip Cross (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Arletty and her german lover
She met him in 1941. After the Phoney War. Could you please correct this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallort (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Date of Death
Obituaries of the time give her death as July 24, 1992 http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/25/arts/arletty-94-french-film-actress-legendary-since-hotel-du-nord.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-arletty-1535292.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/film-obituaries/5796290/Arletty.html Thisdaytrivia (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arletty. 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/20131002100250/http://www.spearswms.com/good-life/books/25097/and-the-show-went-on.thtml to http://www.spearswms.com/good-life/books/25097/and-the-show-went-on.thtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130232538/http://www.monnaie-de-collection.com/PBSCCatalog.asp?CatID=217619 to http://www.monnaie-de-collection.com/PBSCCatalog.asp?CatID=217619

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) 05:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Arlette - Arletty
The article says she took the stage name “Arlette”. There appears to be no explanation of how Arlette became Arletty. I don’t know if there is an error or any omission here, so I will leave it for someone more knowledgeable. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arletty


text:
Bruce McNall

Bruce Patrick McNall (born April 17, 1950) is an American former Thoroughbred racehorse owner, sports executive, and convicted felon who once owned the Los Angeles Kings of the National Hockey League (NHL) and the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian Football League (CFL).

McNall claimed to have made his initial fortune as a coin collector, though Metropolitan Museum of Art director Thomas Hoving claimed he smuggled art antiquities as the partner of Robert E. Hecht. In the 1980s McNall produced several Hollywood movies, including The Manhattan Project and Weekend at Bernie's.

McNall bought a 25 percent stake in the Kings from Jerry Buss in 1986, and bought an additional 24 percent in 1987 to become the team's largest shareholder. He was named team president that September, and purchased Buss' remaining shares in March 1988. He then shocked the sports world on August 9, 1988, when he acquired the NHL's biggest star, Wayne Gretzky, along with Marty McSorley and Mike Krushelnyski, from the Edmonton Oilers for Jimmy Carson, Martin Gelinas, three first-round draft picks and US$15 million. McNall raised Gretzky's annual salary from less than $1 million to $3 million, which, in turn, triggered a dramatic rise in NHL salaries throughout the 1990s.

In 1992, McNall was elected chairman of the NHL Board of Governors—the league's second-highest post.

In 1991, McNall, Gretzky and actor/comedian John Candy purchased the CFL's Toronto Argonauts. Prior to the 1991 season, McNall enticed Raghib "Rocket" Ismail away from the National Football League by signing him to a four-year contract for a then-unheard-of $18.2 million. Although Ismail led the Argonauts to the 1991 Grey Cup championship, he returned to the U.S. after two seasons in Toronto.

At one point, he also owned the finest copy of the most expensive baseball card, Honus Wagner's 1909 T206 card.

Thoroughbred racing
McNall also owned Thoroughbred race horses and in 1990 won France's most prestigious race, the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, with the colt Saumarez. He also owned a 50% interest in Trempolino when the French colt won the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe in 1987. He was also a partner with Wayne Gretzky in the colt Golden Pheasant who won races in Europe as well as the Arlington Million in the U.S. and the Japan Cup at Tokyo Racecourse.

Decline
In December 1993, McNall defaulted on a $90 million loan, and Bank of America threatened to force the Kings into bankruptcy unless he sold the team. He sold controlling interest in the Kings in May 1994 and resigned as chairman of the board of governors, though he still remained as president and governor of the Kings for a time. Shortly afterward, he granted an interview to Vanity Fair in which he admitted smuggling many of his prized coins out of foreign countries. His claim of graduating from the University of Oxford was also debunked.

On December 14, 1993, McNall pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy and fraud, and admitted to bilking six banks out of $236 million over a ten-year period. He was sentenced to 70 months in prison. Immediately after his conviction, it emerged that his free-spending ways had put the Kings in serious financial jeopardy. They were ultimately forced into bankruptcy in 1995. The financial problems from the McNall era plagued the Kings for several years afterward.

McNall was released in 2001 after his sentence was reduced by 13 months for good behavior. He was on probation until 2006. McNall remained on good terms with many of his former players, with Wayne Gretzky, Rob Blake, Luc Robitaille and others visiting him in prison. Gretzky even refused to allow the Kings to retire his number 99 until McNall could attend the ceremony. McNall also attended Robitaille's uniform retirement ceremony in 2007. He credited his celebrity friends who supported him. Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn visited, "Michael Eisner, who suggested I write the book and bought it, always took my call", while "Dick Zanuck was always there, Tom Hanks would write to me, Bert Fields would send his books, and Barry Kemp wrote long letters. They kept me going."

McNall's autobiography, Fun While It Lasted: My Rise and Fall in the Land of Fame and Fortune, was published by Hyperion Books in 2003. In 2004, McNall became co-chair of A-Mark Entertainment. He took a role with Peter M. Hoffman at Seven Arts Pictures in 2003 and is credited on Nick Cassavetes' 2012 movie, Yellow.

title: Bruce McNall


text:
Talk:Murder of the Hatuel family

Page protected
I have protected this page due to a dispute over cited sources. Please resolve differences here. --Viajero 08:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

They are terrorists, not militants. Murderers, not martyrs.

Both The Popular Resistance Committees and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the deaths. The terrorists videotaped the children as they bled to death. This has become a common practice of Palestinian terrorist groups. The New York Times has reported the practice of filming attacks on Israelis on both 12 May and 13 May, 2004 "The militant Islamic group Hamas claimed responsibility for the shooting and said they would release footage of the attack." New York Times. Reuters news agency reported on May 11 that Hamas filmed an attack: "Hamas said in a statement...it had film of the attack..."

establishes the new practice of terrorists filming their attacks. NYT and Reuters cite two examples. INN cites one example.

---

Of all the citations brought by OneVoice, only the extremist settler mouthpiece Arutz Sheva claimed that this particular attack was filmed. No other source claimed it, not even the usual array of right-wing Israeli media outlets. In such cases, the usual explanation for the discrepancy is that Arutz Sheva invented the information. This has happened many times in the past and OneVoice has been (all too willingly) misled by them several times before in Wikipedia. The details of the claim are also extremely doubtful and not at all like cases where an attack is known to have been filmed. If it was filmed that would have been from a distance and the filmers would have left immediately for obvious reasons. The claim stinks like standard A-7 lies. The "terrified toddlers" quote is also unacceptable. Anyone who knows anything about children will know that toddlers are the last people to be scared of gunfire. --Zero 05:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Why does the above paragraph seem to focus on invective against a single news source and deal with the filming and the nature of this terrorist attack secondarily? It would be called ad hominum.  A method of argumentation known as a logical fallacy.

 * But when their parents are running around screaming, as one normally does when one is being shot at, I would expect the toddlers to be more than a little bit terrified. Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

 * While I can understand why 209.135.35.83 finds it important to mention the filming of some terrorist attacks, I havn't managed to find any particularly reputable source that reported filming of this particular attack. I think we should mention it on any pages documenting terrorist attacks in which it is widely accepted that the attacks were filmed, but that is not the case in this instance.  In addition, I don't think it is necessary to write quite so much about it.  The murder seems, to me, to be far more important than the filming of it.  --Caliper 22:51, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

To Be Added
June 16 2004, Ben-Gurion University in the Negev will award Tali Hatuel, murdered by Arab terrorists, a posthumous Masters of Arts degree in Social Work. Her husband, David Hatuel, will receive an MA in Jewish Philosophy at the ceremony.

Tali Hatuel, her unborn son and her four daughters - aged two to eleven - were shot dead at point-blank range by Arab terrorists from Gaza on May 2, 2004.

Is this still disputed? If so, what? It's been protected for nearly two months. Ambivalenthysteria 10:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will certainly continue to delete the same crud if it is inserted again, but one can always hope that it won't be. --Zero 12:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm going to unprotect the page, and we'll see how it goes. Ambivalenthysteria 12:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

murder vs kill
Jay, I do not think "killed at close range" does the truth the complete justice it deserves. There is a difference between the definition of kill and murder. "Kill" can be construed as justified and murder cannot. We use different terms for politicians, such as assassinate, because they are specific, in this case, a defenseless woman and her four daughters was shot at point blank range with AKs. It is a clear cut case of murder, there was no self defense, the people were unarmed civilians, the people who committed this were of "sound mind." Calling it anything else is whitewash.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

 * First, stop throwing out the noncontroversial edits with the controversial. You keep restoring a spelling mistake, as well as a reference to a separate attack as a "killing" despite nobody dying except the attackers.

 * On the main issue, you've just answered your own question. "Kill" can be construed as justified and "murder" cannot. So by describing something as "murder", we are making a statement that it was unjustified. I believe that it was murder, jayjg and Cragmont presumably do too. But as long as there are large groups of people who see the situation differently, we can avoid the appearance of bias by using a strictly factual word. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Then find someone who thinks that it was a justified attack. Are you going to quote Hamas or the perpetrators? Do you see how ridiculous this fear of offending goes to? We have a definition for murder, it fits the case, it should be labeled with the defintion it fits, not a morally amigious whitewash.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is ridiculous, but people hold ridiculous beliefs. You yourself display with approval on your personal page a poster depicting the borders of Israel encompassing the entire area of the West Bank and Jordan, above which is superimposed a hand holding a rifle. I don't think I need to say anything else. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
 * It does not follow that because someone holds a ridiculous belief, that one should refrain from calling a murder a murder lest the person with the ridiculous belief take offense.

In other words, you last argument is an ad hominem poisoning the well run around. Do you have an actual argument that can defend using one definition when there is a specific term in place for the exact instance listed in the article? It appears that you do not. Murdering civilians is against both state and international law, not to mention all standards of human morality. It is also the mainstream standard with which we judge actions of others. Wikipedia does not hold into account fringe definitions when others are available.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

 * I already made my argument. "Kill" can be construed as justified and "murder" cannot. So by describing something as "murder", we are making a statement that it was unjustified. This is not neutral. Normally I wouldn't be so pedantic, but on a topic like this where you and your opposition have such strong feelings, it's necessary. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

 * And now, without waiting for an answer, you have broken the 3RR, assuming that applies to repeatedly changing one word of an article. – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

Guy, you've now duplicated the opening sentence, which is extremely bad form. We don't have to call it murder, because by simply saying "pregnant woman and four young daughters shot and killed at close range by Palestinian gunmen", we give an entirely neutral account of the facts, yet also a horrific example of murder. Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)

Perhaps I had my emotions take the better of me. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't glossed over in the name of neutrality. I hope everyone understands. Anyways, I will self revert to Jay's version.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

 * Did you mean to remove the images? – Smyth\talk 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Not at all. It was a bad copy edit on my part.

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

"Murdered .. by terrorists"
This one has cropped up again. I'm sorry but it's not necessary to use this kind of language - it's a value judgement and it's out of bounds according to any Wikipedia policy or guideline you care to look at (take your pick - WP:TERRORIST, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP etc). With these killings, or any other killing in any other conflict, we only need to use the most simple and neutral language to describe what happened. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for outrage (whether justified or not). And in this case the facts pretty much speak for themselves as to how horrific this was in any event. However I'm tired of edit-warring over this sort of thing, and also tired of having to have endless debates about it, so would be grateful if someone else would comment or act, here and on Koby Mandell as well, where we have the same issue. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of sympathy with your comments. However "shot and killed"—what the introduction currently reads—leaves the possibility that her death was not intended (eg. they were only intending to shoot her legs). In this instance "murder" is the correct word. www.merriam-webster.com has this as the first definition: "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice". For this word, no value judgement is required, surely?  almost - instinct 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I submit this for approval:"Tali Hatuel (June 28, 1970 - May 2, 2004) was an Israeli settler in Gaza who, along with her four young daughters, was murdered at close range by Palestinian ambushers in the Gaza Strip. She was eight months pregnant with her fifth child."I've removed the repetition of the date of her death, and removed the specification of her daughters' ages, as that is covered later on.  almost - instinct 15:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Ambushers? I really think "terrorist" explains what they are and what their intention is (even if they are "freedom fighters", they are acting as terrorists, and anything else is a POV suggesting otherwise. However, if for some reason, the Wiki community likes to express a POV, how about making it a little more realistic and use "militants". However, in all honesty, the only correct term is terrorist IMO. I won't fight "militant", although I disagree. I am more interested in "murder" being upheld rather than "kill" or "shot".Sposer (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why I put "ambushers". Since no documentary evidence vis-a-vis intentions is currently cited, they aren't our business (WP:NOR). As "ambusher" is irrefutable there's no need for IMO or POV. Just plain facts. They ambushed, they murdered. As Nickhh said above, the facts are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.  almost - instinct 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It is POV when you hide that they are terrorists or militants. Even the pro-Palestisnian media outlets like BBC call them militants. I can understand -- although I disagree with -- wishing to tone it down from terrorists and use militants, but what is an ambusher? It doesn't describe what their aim is or what they are. A militant/terrorist group claimed responsibility. So, I don't understand how there is no documentary evidence. Sposer (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read your conversations with nickhh, so I guess I not surprised at this. Its not a question of toning it down. An ambusher is someone who ambushes. This is what happened. Then they murdered. I said "there no evidence of their intentions". We can't ask them because they're dead. Anyway, its clear from nickhh's attempts to explain to you that there's no way of making you understand. I've tried to smarten this page up. Maybe people who care so clearly about this should spend their efforts on making the page look less amateurish. All the refs need a proper cite template and some of them need renewing. I'm wiping this page from my watchlist.  almost - instinct 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are missing I guess is that groups that claimed they were part of their organization make it clear what the intention is. Whether it is revenge or not, whether it is justified or not, it is terrorism. I have never used the term "innocent women and children" because the terrorists that executed these people certainly do not consider them innocent. However, what they did was a terrorist act and it was murder. Since terrorist -- rightly so -- has a negative connotation, which is the explanation for not using it in the Wiki guidelines -- I unhappily am willing to deal with militant. Not sure why one shouldn't use negative terminology here, since murder, last I looked, is bad, but out of respect for Wiki guidelines, I have not reverted to terrorist. I will let somebody else with a greater moral compass that I have eventually do that, as I am sure they will.Sposer (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't use the word 'terrorism' of many eminent murderers on both sides of this conflict, people whose political lives have been marked by great distinction. Earlier killers justified their acts as political acts of terror (Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Arafat, etc....). So what you are endeavouring to do is to make a class distinction. If you are a gunman down in the ranks of those groups that perform these acts of terror, you argue they are terrorists (as indeed they are, just as the poor woman and her family were squatters living on stolen land, but we call them 'settlers' as a neutral term). Those who, for example, belong to the IDFs sniper squads who have shot through the head several dozen children at school or play,(the one or two who earn a page in Wiki are usually subject to Pallywood editing, and their murderers or killers are simply soldiers performing orders). To avoid endless litigation, one choses neutral language, and, as several editors have noted, let the readers judge for themselves. Unlike several thousand victims on the other side, the family has its wiki page. That is, in itself, sufficient. It should not be spoiled by any attempt to use the tragedy, one of several thousand, for political ends. Morals, unlike ethics, cut both ways, and compasses point to the direction, analogically, of greater rhetorical magnetism.  Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, if you saw the discussion I had with nickhh, I wrote that I felt that Sharon, Begin, et al, were terrorists during the struggle with Britain for the establishment of the State of Israel. As far as IDF goes, I am not going to incite a riot here, because I honestly do not know enough about it. I have been careful also to not legitimize, in any of my statements, anything about the settlers. However, murder is not a valid response to anything.Sposer (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I've read the discussion. What we know or feel is not material to wiki editing which has peculiar rules, but ones that safeguard against the danger of editors substituting themselves for reliable sources, instead of simply harvesting them. I'm sure you have the best intentions, but the point made by Nickhh comes from long experience as an editor, and is accepted by all sides. It isn't controversial. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Nishidani, is a "settler resident" some sort of non-human creature? Or perhaps sub-human, and therefore worth being shot at point-blank range, along with her 4 daughters? Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're reading too quickly. If you slow down a tad, you'll note that in phrases of the type 'settler resident in/ at', 'resident' is an 'adjective' not a noun doubling the substantive 'settler' pleonastically, as is shown by the at, which personally I disliked, but used because 'in' would only create stylistic problems with the following 'in'. Actually PhilKnight's text was the sensible one, Amoruso mucked it up though adding the town name, which I've now retained. As for your remarks, I know that Israeli flesh and blood is, as several rabbinical thinkers influential with these squatters have stressed, 'ìnfinitely more valuable' than Palestinian or other human flesh and blood, having that extra nefesh, etc., but this knowledge did not inform my edit, as it shouldn't influence your counter edit.Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about, and don't really care about your religious beliefs. Please don't use talk pages as a soabox. In any event, she was a resident of Gush Katif, and a regular human being, just like everyone else - she doesn't need the special designation "settler", just as her murderers don't need the special designation "terrorist", as you have pointed out above. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have no idea of what I am talking about, perhaps that explains why you make certain edits. Why complain of WP:SOAP when you yourself are potshotting at the proverbial black kettle. Your remarks show you did not understand the point of my edit. Phil Knight's text had 'settler', which Amoruso suppressed. I restored the word 'settler' but this created a problem with the rest of Amoruso's edit, which supplied Gush Katif. Restore 'settler' with  Gush Katif and you get ugly English ('settler of Gush Katif': you can say 'Gush Katif settler', which may have been the way to go, but then again, like you I was busy, watching Tom Hanks in the New York airport.) So being a reasonable man, I wrote she was a 'settler' (who was) resident at (better in) Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip'. You didn't see that the point of my edit was to restore 'settler', and mistook 'settler resident' as two nouns. No big deal, we all have misprisions. As to the word 'settler' implying she was not a regular human being, take that to some wiki arbitration court. It's too weird an illation for me to handle at this late hour. In fact I took your sardonic rejoinder implying I was trying to make out by restoring 'settler' (resident in) that she deserved killing absolutely off-the-planet. Unfathomable, except as a prickly riposte to an innocent edit. Hence my rejoinder, in a parallel tone, alluding to your improper refusal to have Ian Lustick used as a reliable source on remarks made at Baruch Goldstein's funeral, simply because you dislike having a well attested if rather radical rabbinical opinion registered on wiki pages. Other editors have no problem with the word 'settler', only Amoruso did, and now you.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * She was a resident of Gush Katif, not a special species of human being, and please stop soapboxing about poorly sourced POV you kept trying to insert into unrelated articles. B'Tselem has no trouble saying her daughters were "residents" of Katif, and the word "settler" in this context is used as a way of justifying her murder. Quite distasteful. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many sources, B'tselem, included, also call such people 'settlers', and no one has accused (well one never knows) B'tselem of regarding them as justigying murder. I repeat, I find your objection incomprehensible. Does it mean all uses of 'settler' in the West Bank contexts in Wiki are invitations to a Nabokovian beheading? I believe you reverted my edit by misreading it, and have failed to simply look closely at what happened.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, there are lots of sources that call the attack a terrorist attack:
 * In May 2004 Tali Hatuel, a pregnant 34-year-old mother, was killed with her four daughters in a terrorist attack at the Kissufim crossing in the Gaza Strip
 * In the four years since the terrorist attack, Hatuel has grown more and more connected to One Family and its activities
 * Mourners gathering for the 2004 funeral of Tali Hatuel and her four daughters, who were shot to death by Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip.
 * Let's use the more neutral terms, o.k.? Just like "militant" vs. "terrorist". Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Ian Lustick is one of the world's foremost authorities on the issue of Jewish settler fundamentalism. Nothing to do with WP:SOAP, nor poorly sourced POV. GOod evening Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, please stop soapboxing about poorly sourced POV you kept trying to insert into unrelated articles. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest that you consider some form of dispute resolution, possibly a RfC? FWIW, the Washington Post article uses 'settler', and the New York Times article describes those who attended a memorial service (who themselves were attacked) as 'settlers', so I'm not convinced the term is being used to 'justify her murder'. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * It's ok to say that she was a settler, but we can also begin the sentence by saying that she was "a murder victim of horrible Islamic terrorism who".... so it's better to use factual neutral language like "resident". Amoruso (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Just as not calling the executioners terrorists is POV whitewashing murder, not calling her a settler ignores the fact that she lived in a place disputed by many. That does not justify the act or make her any less human. Might be better though to drop settler and say; " a resident of Gush Katif, a town in (whatever is current allowable terminology for parts of Israel won/taken/annexed during war with its enemies)" Sposer (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The executioners"? Was she a criminal, then, lawfully executed by the State? Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added that gush katif was a settlement bloc. Although in wikipedia where there are wiki links I think it's redundant. Btw, I think you can sense the problem. You say - "in a place disputed by many". The truth is, that a person trying to push the term settler for her is trying to say that her right for being alive is disputed. Amoruso (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * This discussion is becoming slightly heated; could I suggest that you focus on the article content, instead of making comments about other editors? PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I did not make any comment about any specific editor... if it was referred to me. I meant a person who would try to use such a term will be making this point. Amoruso (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've linked the term "Israeli settlement" in the lead, so it stands out even more. Everything O.K. now? Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth (and as the person who kicked off this latest bout of editing a while back) I think - subject to Nishidani's point below - it's much better phrased now all round. It clarifies what happened to who, without using judgemental language, or any language that might be perceived as making a judgement or comment of any sort. --Nickhh (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * AgreedNishidani (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although having said that, I notice "murder" is back in. A variation on the phrasing in the Washington Post article cited in the lead might be better - "shot at close range and killed after being ambushed by Palestinian gunmen while driving on a local road". It gives more immediate detail. Also I'm not sure we need "Israeli" twice in the space of five words. --Nickhh (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've argued for this exact wording in the past. I'll fix it. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Shot and then killed at close range by Palestinian gunmen, in an ambush, while she was driving on a local road.' Generally the reduplicative hammering effect (Israel etc.) should be avoided everywhere. It's the first lesson journalists learn from copyeditors.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was murder, plain and simple. It was planned and premeditated with intent, which is the definition of murder and not a synonym for shot and killed at close range. Any another verbiage requires the reader to read further to find out the horrific details and figure out that it was murder. Shot and killed at close range could be justified to avoid harming people in other vehicles nearby, etc. She and her children were murdered. Even from the terrorists' perspective, where they think it is the right thing to do, it is still a planned killing - a murder. Sposer (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Look, it was murder. I don't think anyone has a problem with that, and you persistently fail to see what the problem is. Throughout wiki I/P articles a different language has been employed. I don't like it, you don't like it, but in thousands of exhausting debates people before us have arrived at a consensus to employ different terms. Baruch Goldstein coldly premeditated the murder of 29 Arabs. It is called 'a perpetration' of a massacre, massacre because it is over 5 people, but he is not, if I recall correctly called a 'terrorist' or a 'murderer'. The word 'murderer' bizarrely occurs only in reporting his own death, as after spraying a crowd of Muslims at prayer in a mosque for several minutes, some of them managed to kill him. You want to change all these episodes? Make a general argument on the relevant Wiki debate forum about language propriety. Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I thank Jayjg for doing the right thing here, and I will restore his version shortly. Yes, she was murdered, a horrifying and nauseating crime in my view. But we need to be consistent across Israel-Palestine articles. To take another example, James Miller (filmmaker) was found by a coroner's court to have been murdered by the IDF, but our article does not mention the M-word, except in reporting the court's proceedings and the verbatim quotes of participants. On the other hand, criminal murders such as that of Jack Drummond we do call murder, so you would have a legitimate case for arguing for a change - but you would have to do so throughout the whole gamut of I-P articles.
 * --NSH001 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Good, change Goldstein and Miller to murder. Hatuel is murder too. So, basically what you are saying is that it is better for Wikipedia to change history than to state what happened. The problem is in the less clear cases, where it will be pure NPOV violations to call it murder. The ones you stated are not such cases.Sposer (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * What we are collectively saying is that, while most of us would, as you, call a spade a spade, the conventions of wiki usage, reflect policy. Neither I you nor anyone else in here had much to say in determining that policy, but since its guidelines are those that will be invariably invoked if one alters this or any other text (see Eden Natan-Zada, Asher Weisgan) to insert the word 'murder', we don't waste out time and that of other editors. This can only change, not by insistent editing of the word on one article, but by recourse to arbitration to alter the policy guidelines. This has nothing to do with personal bias, the politics of the region, or morals, or indeed normal linguistic conventions. Work in wiki, and you have to work by its rules, just as if you play chess, you don't move according to the moves operant in checkers.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Can somebody please point me to the Wiki policy that says you cannot say a terrorist commited murder (especially when you are not even allowed to call a terrorist a terrorist). Sposer (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Well ask Jayjg on his talkpage, if no other editor in here sees your request or can oblige you in the meantime. I don't read the wiki rule book, but work empirically and note what the administrators say in irascible disputes over this issue. But generally, your bewilderment may be clarified by perusing a work put out by a theorist in 2003, which I downloaded and read off the Centre for Strategic Studies website at the time. I've gone and clipped out just one of many relevant sections in that analysis (remember this is a scholar within the American Defence Establishment writing). I recommend reading the whole text, which, I note, can now be also accessed fully on Google Books.

 * Jeffrey Record, ‘’Bounding The Global War on Terrorism’’, Dec 2003, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave, Carlisle, PA, Diane Pub.Co. ed. pp.7-9

 * "'Perhaps inadvertently, the contemporary language on terrorism has become, as Conor Gearty puts it, “the rhetorical servant of the established order, whatever and however heinous its own activities are.” Because the administration has cast terrorism and terrorists as always the evilest of evils, what the terrorist does “is always wrong [and] what the counter-terrorist has to do to defeat them is therefore invariably, necessarily right. The nature of the [established] regime, the kind of action that is possible against it, the moral situation in which violence occurs--none of these complicating elements matters a jot against the contemporary power of the terrorist label.” Thus Palestinian terrorism is condemned while Ariel Sharon is hailed as a man of peace. Richard Falk observes that:"

 * "“Terrorism” as a word and concept became associated in US and Israeli discourse with anti-state forms of violence that were so criminal that any method of enforcement and retaliation was viewed as acceptable, and not subject to criticism. By so appropriating the meaning of this inflammatory term in such a self-serving manner, terrorism became detached from its primary historical association dating back to the French Revolution. In that formative setting, the state’s own political violence against its citizens, violence calculated to induce widespread fear and achieve political goals, was labeled as terrorism."

 * "The definitional mire that surrounds terrorism stems in large measure from differing perspectives on the moral relationship between objectives sought and means employed. It is easy for the politically satisfied and militarily powerful to pronounce all terrorism evil regardless of circumstance, but, like it or not, those at the other end of the spectrum are bound to see things differently. Condemning all terrorism as unconditionally evil strips it of political context and ignores its inherent attraction to the militarily helpless. This is not to condone terrorism; it is simply to recognize that it can reflect rational policy choice."

 * "Terrorism, like guerrilla warfare, is a form of irregular warfare, or “small war” so defi ned by C. E. Callwell in his classic 1896 work, Small Wars, Their Principles and Practice, as “all campaigns other than those where both sides consist of regular troops.”18 As such, terrorism, like guerrilla warfare, is a weapon of the weak against a “regular” (i.e., conventional) enemy that cannot be defeated on his own terms or quickly. Absent any prospect of a political solution, what options other than irregular warfare, including terrorism (often a companion of guerrilla warfare), are available to the politically desperate and militarily helpless? Was Jewish terrorism against British rule in Palestine, such as the 1946 Irgun bombing attack (led by future Nobel Peace Prize Winner Menachem Begin) on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (killing 93, including 17 Jews), justified as a means of securing an independent Jewish state? “Terrorism may be the only feasible means of overthrowing a cruel dictatorship, the last resort of free men and women facing intolerable persecution,” argues Laqueur. “In such conditions, terrorism could be a moral imperative rather than a crime--the killing of Hitler or Stalin early on in his career would have saved the lives of millions of people.” In short, in circumstances where the choice is between one of two evils, might selection of a lesser evil be justifi ed? The United States chose to fight alongside Stalin to defeat Hitler, and it effectively became a co-belligerent with Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s war with the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran. In both cases, the United States allied itself with two of the 20th century’s greatest practitioners of state terrorism for the purpose of defeating what it at the time regarded as the greater evil."

 * "Morally black and white choices are scarce in a gray world. One man’s terrorist can in fact be another’s patriot. “Is an armed Kurd a freedom fighter in Iraq but a terrorist in Turkey?” asks Tony Judt. “Were al-Qaeda volunteers terrorists when they joined the U.S. financed war [against the Soviets] in Afghanistan?” To be sure, consensus on the definition of terrorism is hardly necessary to prosecute counterterrorist operations against specific terrorist organizations. We know a terrorist act when we see one, and we know that al-Qaeda is an enemy. But lack of definitional consensus does impede the study of terrorism, which is a necessary component of dealing with the phenomenon itself."

 * Not quite what you asked for, but I hope not irrelevant to your reflections.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for well-thought-out reply. I do get the terrorism thing (and removed my initial rant regarding that in the talk page). I disagree with it, but abide by it (I do consider Irgun, Sharon, et al terrorists, by the way, along w/al-qaeda volunteers when the U.S. was involved). However, murder is murder, terrorist or not. The lunatic that ran down people is Israel the other day murdered those people, though I would not call him a terrorist. Same for the soldier who murdered him. I will look at the talk page.Sposer (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I would strongly dissent from any attempt to put on a linguistic par a man who runs down a bus full of people with a bulldozer, driven by homicidal intent, whatever the obscure motives that pushed him over into that insane rage, and the soldier who, as the former still pressed the peddle to crush the mother, killed him. The former is obviously 'murder', the soldier killed the murderer: he did not 'murder' the murderer.

 * I thought the reports I saw had the guy driving the bulldozer under control by another officer. If that was incorrect, I take my statement back. Now, back to your comment. Cheers. Sposer (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 * My sincere apologies. I must admit I just, exceptionally, read the headlines about this. If it is, as you say, and I trust your word, then you are right, and the soldier murdered the bulldozer driver, just as the bulldozer driver murdered. Were a novelist or God (much the same thing, since both assume omniscience) to look at these things, probabaly they would not think of these categories at all, but of a by now diffuse pathologization of psychological tipping points, where all 'actors' in these events are driven by all but unfathomable, if in the last analysis, highly coherent templates of history. That reflection does not, however, absolve us, as sublunary beings, from calling a spade a spade, and a murder a murder.

 * Not so much laziness, my, having read so much gruesome lunacy on all sides, I have reached saturation point, and rage vanquished by melancholy. But that is no excuse. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 * No worries. Believe me, I am not 100% sure either, and this stuff kills me. As an American and a Jew, if what I thought I saw (in the supposed pro-Israel U.S. media) is correct, it is very disturbing. If the Israeli courts sentenced the bulldozer driver, then, even if you believe a Palestinian cannot get justice in Israel, there is at least some sort of review of what happened. If he was summarily executed by a soldier, without a trial, it is wrong and the soldier should be arrested and go to trial. I will try to dig into the reports and understand what the media has said. Either way, actually getting at the "truth" in anything in this conflict is virtually impossible as I do not think there is a single fully objective neutral group on this subject anywhere. Regards. Sposer (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 * To be honest, only a very occasional article in the US mainstream media says something useful on this. I think it's best to check the Israeli media on things like this, (Ha'aretz for the NYTs line, The Jerusalem Post for a more conservative view,etc.) since they are less 'politically correct', give a wide range of perspectives, and often adversarial reportage of the kind you rarely find abroad. Perhaps someone has already made a wiki article on the incident. It's the sort of thing that gets an instant page, and if so, you could look at their sources, and indeed contribute. Summary execution is, I'm afraid, rather typical in this area. For Christians and Muslims doing it, together or independently, see the Eden Natan-Zada article, so in that regard instant 'justice' of the kind you mention about the soldier is, culturally, a part of the scene, and an index of how badly the perennial conflict has stressed democratic principles in the area. As to objective neutral reportage, quite true. B'tselem reports on injustices only to Palestinians, as do CPT in their various newsletters, that's their brief, but both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, though under attack by most governments, do supply on their websites fairly comprehensive coverage of all abuses by all parties, be they Hezbollah and Hamas, or Israel, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and at least strive to use stringent criteria and objectivity. Before signing off, I'd like to thank you for your contributions to Wiki in your professional area of expertise, which I knew zilch about. Best wishes and have a fine Thanksgiving day (Shabbat has passed (European time of wrting), so best wishes for next week's). Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Final note. Just remembered an incident of murder similar to Tali Hatuel's, since it is registered on the Hebron page, a city in whose history I've long had an interest. I checked and it actually has 'murder' in the title, but the text talks of a killing. This is quite exceptional. Murder of Shalhevet Pass. One could raise objections to this, (I happen to be sympathetic, generally speaking, to the plight of the Palestinians of that city, and highly critical of the community from which that innocent victim came), but to do so would be in extremely poor taste. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 * For the rest, I don't think you will find anyone disagreeing with you that these ambushes of civilians constitute murder. Language is not logical, conceptualisation tries to be. Each language makes over time its culturally-specific categories, where killing, murder, assassination are blurred or distinguished according to natiove juridical traditions. In modernity, with homogenization and emergent global rules, all sorts of problems arise when one uses terms in one's own language or worldview, that are 'natural' and 'obvious' but, outside of that language, worldview or hegemonic framework, are neither obvious or natural. I happen to subscribe to a universalist perspective: we must find common definitional ground for things like this. In areas of conflict, as specialists like Reading remind us, this is no easy task, philosophically, in fact, as the works of Michael Walzer (and his critics) show,to name another authority. 96 children were 'killed' from IDF fire last year in the Palestinian Territories, as opposed to 4 (I have read one, but I will give the upper figure) in Israel from Palestinian fire. Some of the former can be dismissed as what is euphemistically called 'collateral fire'. A lot can't, given the situations as described by Amnest and B'tselem, and, over the long term, the extraordinary (statistically) precision of headshots at children in conflict-neutral locations (schools). The standard impression in newspaper accounts is that in the one case, a legally constituted state is defending itself, and an insurgent population is engaging in terror, and therefore only acts by the latter can be read as terror. Though popular, this doesn't work for serious analysts interested in a theory of conflict, terrorism, and concepts of the state. (The modern liberal state being classically a government that is given a monopoly of violence in exchange for the legal assurance that the exercise of that power will not be arbitrary against the citizens who constitute it, as opposed however to the residual right of early modern states to exercise their prerogatives of violence against other states and their citizens.Napoleon was a mass murderer, but once he lost, he was never executed. The pattern is still with us). It does not require much reflection to see how this creates, for conceptualists, great difficulties, for the categories become political, and instruments of discursive power in the battle over public opinion. Conceptualists seek, given their logical and mathematical approach, neutral terms with the widest referential comprehensiveness in analysing conflict.  Anyone who kills children, women and the unarmed is, notwithstanding contexts, theories and the like, what is euphemistically called a murderous c.... But there are a lot of men regularly enrolled in armies, who do their duty, and wittingly in the course of that duty, kill the innocent. The case on this page gives an instance from the periphery. It is not, for that, alien to the nature of national armies, as a perusal of any recent memoir from grunts in Iraq will remind us. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Text to be fixed.
terrorist may indeed be 'off their rockets' but normally do not, except in Japanese idioms from the 30s/40s (human torpedoes) behave like rockets, launching themselves, as in:

"The Palestinians attackers had launched themselves from a group of nearby . .."

One 'launches an assault/attack'. 'Launch' as a reflex verb means the person is catapulted. It should therefore be modified to idiomatic, and less gruesomely 'comical' English.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The definition of "launch" in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary goes:"vi 1 a : to spring forward or take off b to throw oneself energetically"so it seemed perfectly apt to me. Though to be fair, that was a supposition on my part, and they might have languidly sauntered out of the buildings, whistling and telling jokes. Anyway, this just goes to confirm that this kind of page really isn't my natural milieu. I'm very glad to see it being looked after.  almost - instinct 13:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Nishidani is right though - while perhaps technically correct, it does sound a little odd when used in that way. Language matters, whether it's provoking heated political debate or just an issue of making sure it reads well! --Nickhh (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of a nicety of idiom, and I appreciateAlmost-instinct's ref to Webster's definition, because my point needed refining. What it, like most dictionaries, doesn't go on to explain is that 'to launch oneself'+ in/to is one thing, as per Websters, but to 'launch oneself'+ from cannot help an English ear from prompting the mind's eyes to imagine an act of catapulting oneself. In linguistic analysis, reflexives have some of these curious properties retroactively entailed from the postpositional forms that accompany them. Compare 'To throw oneself into' a game/ 'to throw oneself from' (...into as game). Perhaps I am oversensitive, and most readers will not, as I did when first setting eyes on the passage, start at the image, because it conjured up an image of cartoonish ninjas that jarred with the tragedy we are reading about. This is not a political point. It's purely a matter of style and, above all, good taste. Any such comical undertones should be rigorously guarded against, especially in describing a violent assault.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record may I point out three things?
 * "Cartoonish" or "comical undertones" were far from my intention.
 * My ear is English, too.
 * I am not arguing for this word to be reinstated: I appreciate that pages such as these must have the most neutral language.
 * But may I defend my ability to use the English language? I still think that "they launched themselves from" is far from incorrect in terms of usage. In a way they did catapult themselves. They made the decision that this attack should be made—and then they sent themselves out to commit the violence. But anyway, let's stop being distracted from more important matters.  almost - instinct 19:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, sir. We have, like most other peoples, a very rich and nuanced language at our disposal, with dozens of ways of describing essentially the same thing. One of the vices of Wiki is that, esp. in I/P type articles, content is all the rage as amateur historians rush to do battle over the black and white approach to history: and style, the tactful ear for le mot juste goes by the way. It is not a distraction. When violence, and the dead, are the subject, clear, precise language is almost de rigueur, not least out of respect. I gather you are rather young. Language takes a long time to yield up its secrets, ask anyone, or read Helen Vendler, or Christopher Ricks Still, apologies for my paternalism.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know not whence cometh the intelligence that I am unburdened by years, but your source is a false friend. Still, its entertaining to be reminded of the narrative voice of The Debt to Pleasure  almost - instinct 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Just between the two of us, it was phrasing like 'languidly sauntered' that caught my attention. Your choice of language bespeaks a good familiarity with literature, but not the edgy obsessiveness of a lifetime's passionate folly. For 'saunter' (a verb beloved of James Joyce) implies already the insouciance intended by 'languidly', and yet, while reminiscent of the Baudelairean flâneur of, by now, Benjamian fame, it jars ever so slightly with its companionate adverb, in that 'saunter' is nuanced towards 'sprightly' whereas 'languid' hints at sluggishness, even if, in the prose of the 1890s, it betokened a cultivated air of aristocratic otiosity worn disarmingly to épater les bourgeois. The effect is to conjure up intuitions of relative inexperience, confirmed by your subsequent defence of the usage.

 * Perhaps, in noting such things, as Hardy advised in Afterwards, I risk sliding towards the vapid cavillings of the Casaubonesque as your allusion to Tarquin suggests. One thing is certain: to allow, in a narrative of lethal assault, a choice of idiom that evokes catapulting action, airborn terrorists closing on their unwitting prey like spirited ninjas, or Harrypotteresque ghouls materializing out of nowhere before their victim, is to undermine the sobriety required for the tragic by the resonant caricature, typical of, if not limited to, adolescent taste, which such language trails in its connotative wake. I wouldn't point this out were it not for the fact that, swept up into the hurlyburly of wiki editing, my own impromptu prose strikes me, once the edit is made, as suffering from all of the defects of hectic composition, something I associate with an unbridled immaturity, a still unmastered past of amateurism returning with mocking vengeance. Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

proper article name
The article is not a biography as the name suggested therefore I renamed the article to a more appropriate name which was used in the media to describe the event. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"settler" in the lede
moved from User_talk:AgadaUrbanit and edited, discussing this edit

For interest... ...I think an intelligent wiki-rules based bot tasked with identifying a redundant word while maximizing consistency with sources and policy would have ranked "Israeli" as having the same or a higher degree of redundancy than "settler". On the other hand I would expect the majority of Israeli editors and supporters of Israel to remove the word settler from an article like this no matter what.
 * given that the sources cited say
 * Palestinian gunmen shot and killed a pregnant Jewish settler and four of her children in Gaza as Israel's ruling Likud Party rejected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to pull out of the area.
 * Palestinian militants killed a pregnant Jewish settler and her four young daughters as Israel's Likud party voted on proposals to pull out of Gaza.
 * ...and given that both sources make it clear shortly thereafter that they lived in a settlement in Gaza
 * ...and given that the Wikipedia article said "Jewish Israeli settler" followed shortly by "near their home in Gush Katif bloc of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip"

Also, given that we describe where people lived, their ethnicity/nationality and what happened, I think a bot that was informed by its human coach that ignoring source based labels is okay if they are implicit would therefore conclude that the source based labels used to describe the Palestinians (e.g. "militants") must also be redundant because the label is implicit from the nature of the act. I would not expect the majority of Israeli editors and supporters of Israel to draw that conclusion.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Hope you're well too, Sean. AFAIK "Settler" in I/P context is an Israeli who's home is inside Israeli-occupied territories. I think "settler" is a redundant definition, considering the context: we say their home was in Gush Katif bloc of Israeli settlements next sentence.  Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC) edited for article's talk page: 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile the inconsistency between what you think and what sources say ? Why is only the first instance of "settler" a redundant definition, considering the context, and not all instances of "settler", considering the context ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Sean failed to address why do we need "a settler ... living in a settlement" stylistically. Noone argues, saying "settler" is reliable, however quoting RSes in a reply to a stylistic remark is besides the point. Policy wise, WP:LEAD requires a concise summary of the body: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview.  Why do we need to repeat ourselves obsessively?  AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The word is relevant because reliable sources make it relevant. And they likely think it is relevant that they were settlers because that is a rather important detail in their killing. It isnt obsessively repeating. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything useful to say about personal perceptions of style. If style and conciseness in the lead is your concern, you can remove the unnecessary Israeli prefix from Israeli settlement in line with the sources or remove details like the names/ages of the children. If the word settler is removed from that sentence, it should be put it back somewhere else in the lead because that label was selected by multiple sources for reasons that don't matter from a content decision making perspective. If anything, the label appears less frequently in the article than it appears in sources that discuss the subject. I would suggest adding the following to the lead from the article body "Hatuel and her children were the first settlers in Gaza to be killed since 2002 and the attack "provoked extreme tension in Gaza".[10][11]". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murder of Hatuel family. 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/20131203011339/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/049/2004/en/f7dfbf50-d5dc-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/mde150492004en.html to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/049/2004/en/f7dfbf50-d5dc-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/mde150492004en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016030037/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%2BObstacle%2Bto%2BPeace/Memorial/2004/Tali%20Hatuel to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%2BObstacle%2Bto%2BPeace/Memorial/2004/Tali%20Hatuel

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) 17:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Hatuel family. 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/20120402095858/http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=17&region=TER to http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties_data.asp?Category=17&region=TER

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) 13:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Hatuel family. 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/20120323184958/http://articles.cnn.com/2004-05-02/world/gaza.shooting_1_palestinian-medical-officials-israeli-troops-israeli-helicopter-gunship?_s=PM:WORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2004-05-02/world/gaza.shooting_1_palestinian-medical-officials-israeli-troops-israeli-helicopter-gunship?_s=PM:WORLD

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) 15:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2022
Murder of Hatuel family → Murder of the Hatuel Family – I believe this is the grammatically correct term? Correct me if wrong. Dunutubble (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. We generally avoid headlinese in article titles, and this would be consistent with, e.g. Execution of the Romanov family Colin M (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NATURALNESS, but "family" should not be capitalized. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why was "family" capitalized in the request? Is it a typo? Super   Ψ   Dro  14:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Super Dromaeosaurus - That was a typo. Thanks for pointing it out :) Dunutubble (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, strong support to the move. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Non-controversial request, just doing it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Murder of the Hatuel family


text:
User:Isomorphic/Hall of Fame

There are many great people here on Wikipedia. Sometimes we forget this and focus on the worst. Here, I shall honor a few Wikipedians who, in my humble opinion, exemplify the best of Wikipedia.

 * Jwrosenzweig - always calm, always polite. Out of all the admins, he is the one I try to imitate.
 * Angela - somehow, she is everywhere, doing everything.
 * Jimbo Wales - Wikipedia is what it is today because of Jimmy Wales. A good leader knows when to act, and when to stay silent.
 * UninvitedCompany - thoughtful, polite, and intelligent.
 * Ta bu shi da yu - if you know him, of course you know why.

title: User:Isomorphic/Hall of Fame