text:
Hail to the Chief

"Hail to the Chief" is a piece originally about a boat in Scotland, but today it is best known as the personal anthem of the president of the United States, adapted by James Sanderson from an original Scottish Gaelic melody.

The song's playing accompanies the appearance of the president of the United States at many public events; it is also played at inauguration ceremonies. For major official occasions, the United States Marine Band and other military ensembles are generally the performers, so directives of the United States Department of Defense have, since 1954, been the main basis for according it official status. It is preceded by four ruffles and flourishes when played for the president. The song is also played during a former President's state funeral after the casket is removed from the hearse. As it originated in the 19th century, the song is in the public domain due to its age.

History
Verses from Sir Walter Scott's 1810 narrative poem The Lady of the Lake, including "The Boat Song" ("Hail to the Chief") with which the clan welcomes the arrival by boat of their chieftain Roderick Dhu, were set to music around 1812 by the songwriter James Sanderson (c. 1769 – c. 1841); a self-taught English violinist and the conductor of the Surrey Theatre, London, who wrote many songs for local theatrical productions during the 1790s and the early years of the 19th century:

Scott's romance was quickly made into unauthorized romantic melodramas. In November 1810, Scott wrote to a friend that The Lady of the Lake was being made into a play by Martin and Reynolds in London and by a Mr. Siddons in Edinburgh. About the same time, Scott received a letter from a friend and army officer who ended his note with a copy of the music of the Boat Song, "Hail to the Chief."

A version of Lady of the Lake debuted in New York May 8, 1812, and "Hail to the Chief" was published in Philadelphia about the same time as 'March and Chorus in the Dramatic Romance of the Lady of the Lake'. Many parodies appeared, an indication of great popularity.

Association with the president first occurred in 1815, when it was played to honor both George Washington and the end of the War of 1812 (under the name "Wreaths for the Chieftain"). On July 4, 1828, the U.S. Marine Band performed the song at a ceremony for the formal opening of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, which was attended by President John Quincy Adams. Andrew Jackson was the first living President to have the song used to honor his position in 1829, and it was played at Martin Van Buren's inauguration in 1837. Julia Tyler, second wife of John Tyler, requested its use to announce the arrival of the president. Her successor as first lady, Sarah Childress Polk, encouraged its regular use in this manner after it was used at James Polk's inauguration; William Seale says, "Polk was not an impressive figure, so some announcement was necessary to avoid the embarrassment of his entering a crowded room unnoticed. At large affairs the band ... rolled the drums as they played the march ... and a way was cleared for the President."

During the American Civil War (1861–1865) the piece was also used to announce the arrival of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. On October 3, 1861, Davis visited with Generals P. G. T. Beauregard, Joseph Eggleston Johnston, and Gustavus Woodson Smith at Fairfax Court House (now Fairfax, Virginia) for a Council of War. While at Fairfax, President Davis also conducted a formal Review of the Troops, which numbered some 30,000. At the start of the review, the band of the 1st Virginia Infantry struck up "Hail to the Chief" and concluded with "Dixie".

President Chester A. Arthur did not like the song and asked John Philip Sousa to compose a new song, which was entitled "Presidential Polonaise". After Arthur left office, the Marine Band resumed playing "Hail to the Chief" for public appearances by the president.

In 1954, the Department of Defense made it the official tribute to the president. The 1969 hit anti-Vietnam war single, "Fortunate Son", by the American rock group Creedence Clearwater Revival, specifically named "Hail to the Chief" when referring to patriots and jingoists.

For a brief time during his presidency, Jimmy Carter banned the playing of the song. The decision proved to be extremely unpopular among the American public, however, and Carter later reversed himself.

In his 1990 Broadway musical Assassins, composer Stephen Sondheim uses variations on "Hail To The Chief", most notably in the opening of the show where he switched it from its "traditional march beat into 3/4 time, a carnival waltz" to emphasise "its more sinister elements".

Lyrics
Lyrics that were written by Albert Gamse are set to James Sanderson's music, but they are rarely sung.

The original lyrics, written by Sir Walter Scott, read:

title: Hail to the Chief


text:
User talk:Cwage

Hello Cwage, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Help desk or (if you want a broader audience) the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the Community Portal.
 * You can sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.
 * The Tutorial is a great way to learn the basics in a more perspicuous fashion.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 01:33, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Cwage


text:
Talk:Gua sha

"lack of reference" marker
I don't quite understand the need of the label on the top of this article. If you do a google search on "Gua Sha", you will find 109 thousand webpages on the topic. If you do search on the Chinese term, there are 255 thousand Chinese pages too. So we are talking about 364 thousand webpages on the topic. When the topic is about an age-old, commonly known tradition, why is a single source of reference required? How do you tell which one out of the 364 thousand webpages are authority on this topic? If I make a link to the google search result page, can I remove this "lack of reference" label? Kowloonese 22:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Kowloonese, with the edits that I have made, including the two references I have added (one being an English language text book on how to apply the technique) I imagine that the tag will soon be removed. One of the reasons, I suppose, for asking for references, is that whenever references are supplied it is relatively easy for people such as librarians to follow up on the article. I hope that the way I have added to the article meets your approval, Lindsay658 00:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Kowloonese -- Further note: I have just removed the tag. We'll see if anyone continues to feel it is unsourced, Lindsay658 00:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
Why do gua sha and cao gío have to be capitalized? These are ordinary nouns, not proper names. See Capitalization and Naming conventions. GUllman 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, could we capitalize it consistently in the article? Sometimes it's Gua Sha and Cao Gío, and other times it's gua sha and cao gío. Which shall it be? GUllman 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Went through this and changed all uppercase instances to lower case. As you point out they're ordinary nouns and so should not be uppercase. specofdust 11:47, 07 July 2011

Translation of "Gua Sha"

 * You say that you are not a student of Chinese. Therefore I can assume that you can not read Chinese characters and have no idea of just how many different characters can share the same, identical pronunciiation (which seems rather puzzling if you are a student of Chinese medicine, but anyway . . . .).
 * (1) The Chinese character for the Sha in Gua Sha does not mean "sand". It is a composite character comprised of the "sickness" radical plus the graphical component which gives it its pronunciation Sha; and it is this graphical component which, in other circumstances, and on its own, means "sand".
 * I looked up a Chinese-English dictionary at http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/ for 痧, the main entry says it can mean (1) Cholera. (2) Colic. (3) measles 痧子. It is written with the sickness radical and "sand" in the middle.  It represents the name of some medical symptoms that is a homophone of sand, its meaning is unrelated to sand except for the pronunciation.
 * Other usages include:
 * 挑痧 to pinch certain ligaments on neck as remedy for sunstroke.
 * 子午痧 (Chin. med.) an acute disease accompanied by stomach-ache, vomiting, chills, perspiration, and thirst, usu, fatal within a few hours;
 * 發痧 have attack of cholera, colic;
 * 喉痧 [hou2sha1], n., (med.) diphtheria (also called 白喉).
 * 痲疹 [ma2zhen3], n., measles (also called 痧子 61A.91).
 * 癟螺痧 [bie3luo2sha1], n., (coll.). cholera.
 * 害痧眼 contract trachoma.
 * 刮痧 scrape certain parts of the body to obtain relief from nausea or sunstroke;
 * 紅痧 [hong2sha1], n., scarlet fever (＝猩紅熱).
 * Since this is not a medical dictionary, its explanations only cover colloquial usage. Kowloonese 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (2) "Ye Ming Sha" contains the character that means "sand" and, as you say, in that meaning it is to do with the "mucopurulent discharge" that is found in the eyes after sleep.
 * (3) The term Gua means "scrape"; and, although one might argue that one uses Gua Sha to remove the fever -- and, therefore, to a Western medically trained English speaker it may seem logical to use the verb "extract" -- the traditional Chinese doctors would always refer to Qing-ing, or "clearing" the fever (by the way, the Qing is the same character as in the acupuncture point BL.1.
 * (4) Thus, the technical term can mean nothing more or less than (literally) "to scrape for cholera" and, more generally, "to scrape for fever"; and the technique itself would most likely be spoken of as having a Qing-Re, "clear heat", function as its most common application, notwithstanding its other equally importasnt, but far less frequent applications.
 * I hope that all of this gives you some encouragement to study genuine traditional Chinese medicine from traditional Chinese sources, rather than some distorted western version of it. Best to you Lindsay658 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To make the answer above a little clearer, there is a difference between a particular written Chinese character's "citation meaning" -- as in the English word good's citation meaning of, say, "opposite of evil" -- and its meaning in a specific context (its "context meaning". This idea of a "citation meaning" allows one to distinguish between, say, the bank of a river, and a bank in which you deposit money, on the basis that they are two entirely different words. In the case of Gua Sha, the "citation meaning of the two characters that comprise the compound noun mean "scrape" and "cholera" respectively. Hope that makes my point a little more easily understood. Lindsay658 23:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The verb 'Gua' does not mean 'to scrape for', it means 'to scrape away, or to clear away by scraping'. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The point of terms such as 'Qing-re' should bring to us to realise the urgency needed to interpret and update these terms into modern Chinese (Putonghua) and its translation into proper medical terminology. For example, related to 'Qing-re' is 'Re-Qi'. When you have 'Re-qi' then you need to 'Qing- re'. Take a case when Chinese consider there is 'Re-qi', when you have bad breath. I make this point not as an insult, but the Chinese people as a people have a terrible case of very poor dental hygiene; their breath stinks, their teeth are coloured and covered in plaque, and they have terrible gum disease. Why, because according to them, they have 'Re-qi'. And this 'Re-qi' comes from eating food which contain 'Re-qi'. So instead of cleaning their teeth and gums properly, they brew up all sorts of concoctions to 'Qing-re'. My case in point is, why not tell the people that 'Re-qi' is the effect felt when they have an infection? That is they feel heat in the mouth, the gums are in pain and bleed, their teeth and mouth feel pain when they eat and they have bad breath because they have too many bacteria living in their oral cavity, not because there is some kind of 'Qi' that is 'Re' in their mouth? To 'Qing' the 'Re', they need to 'Qing' their mouth, teeth and gums. 81.154.204.122 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the illuminating discussion. The difficulty of standardizing translations of Chinese Medical terms is a well-known issue (at least here in America) and thus is often the subject of many discussions (as in the writings of Flaws, Wiseman, etc.) and amongst my professors who are native speakers. And yes I am aware of the prevalance of homophones in the language. I did not draw this conclusion based on some ill-advised intuitive leap but from a source offered to me in the context of my education (where the term was translated explicitly as I mentioned). But of course, 'caveat emptor.' While I appreciate the time you took to explain, I did not appreciate the initial tenor of your response, it seemed to have an unwarranted vindictiveness in light of my fairly innocuous and earnest remark. As well, note that I used the discussion page rather than making a modification to the entry. Did you perhaps consider the possibility that I'm new to the study of TCM? In the future I will try to frame my comment in question form so as to elicit the scholarship and not the insult.--198.169.189.225 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

 * 'Sha' in this case simply means a 'disease' that is unseen, but could be felt through its effect, rather like the idea conveyed by the English word 'aether'. When speaking the word 'sha', it can have the meaning of sand, and indeed in the various different dialects of Chinese, the technique used may sound closer to 'scraping sand' than to 'scraping cholera'. 81.154.204.122 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

theory
Shouldn't there also be a section about the theory behind gua sha and its effects? Perhaps some information from scientific studies? --Lclchow (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there are any real research into it. I think the physical force and movements unknot knotted muscle fibers, and also return into circulation metabolites that had built up in affected areas. It may also stimulate the white cells to act, as well as the immune system. 86.155.215.203 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You need legitimate research, or there needs to be a section that identifies this practice lacks a credible research basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.187.122 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Whatever the theory may be, gua sha may be painful, but it gives me a damn good relief afterwards. 81.129.179.81 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 * No there shouldn't be. If there was any analysis of the science behind the practice the only conclusion could be that this is an entirely useless and misguided procedure.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Scientific studies might conclude that gua sha is helpful, or that it is harmful, or that it has no effect other than placebo. I can think of plausible reasons why any of these cases might be true. For you to conclude that it is harmful, before studies are actually performed, is itself an unscientific act. --ABehrens (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How are you giving such an emotionally driven and biased response when you are trying to defend the traditional view of skepticism on gua sha, where any kind of skepticism is supposed to be evidence based 11010010ccs (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That was neither emotional nor biased. It is just the idea behind science-based medicine: this is based on pre-scientific ideas, and there is no reason why this should help with anything. Also, you are responding to an eight-year old contribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there really no research behind this to include in the article? --68.123.153.195 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There probably is (considering TCM's thousands of years of experience), but for that one would have to be versed in TCM scientific literature as well as empirical evidence, and those who are probably don't bother due to what ensuing resistance can be expected. Currently the article states "practitioners believe", which is tricky territory due to its implications about the practitioner as well as about the person who chose such a wording. Probably a clumsy compromise as long as further information is missing, but why not just state that instead?--87.152.223.217 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"After the rubbing, when the coin is removed from the egg, it will appear black."
I feel as though this part of the article requires expansion or some kind of citation. Why does the coin appear black? What kind of coin do we have to use? Does the currency or denomination matter? Or is this just commonly held belief with no evidence? Either way I feel as though the issue should be clarified.

86.8.37.68 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Nick

 * Probably due to the formation of metal sulphide, the sulphur coming from the egg. My mum used to do this to me using a silver ring and a boiled egg, and claim the silver turning black proves that it has drawn the "illness" from me; although I suspect the blackened silver is just silver sulphide. 81.129.179.81 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This article should be merged with the article kerokan as it is basically the same thing. This article even mentions the term itself and I do not see any significant difference that would require a separate article for the term.

In addition, the Indonesian article for Gua Sha is actually an article on the Indonesian term for catching a cold (although rather distinct) and has little relevance to this article at all, I suggest that gua sha redirects to kerokan. Ajitirj (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Came across this article for the first time today, and checked the above suggestion out. Well, there is no longer an article named kerokan, so I presume it was either deleted outright or merged into this one. RobP (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The word shā doesn’t mean bruises
There’s probably a better literal translation of this character. Someone changed it to some POV marketing bunk and I reverted the IP edit, while also changing the word bruises to “ailments, illnesses”. My edit was then reverted back to an earlier version as part of an edit war between some contributors and some SPAs. Below are some translations of the character, which might help.

 * http://xh.5156edu.com/html3/15156.html
 * https://www.englisher.net/dict/zh/痧/
 * https://zh.m.wiktionary.org/zh-hans/痧

While the character in compound words refers to measles and other diseases, In TCM it is usually used to refer to acute diseases and inflammations, such as they are understood in the practice. There’s lots of quack sites, which define the word differently, but as an encyclopedia a literal translation should probably just shoot for the dictionary def.

I recommend that the word be translated as ailments or illnesses as this is what it means. Bruises, misleadingly makes readers think that the “sha” refers to the marks caused. It doesn’t; it refers to the things which are supposedly being cured by the scraping.

Edaham (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How can you claim it's ineffective based on such amateur resource?
The effectiveness of Gua Sha is well known among Chinese and many other Asian people. That's why it's so popular. Now I understand there is possibility that it's just "ancient myth" and lack of modern scientific evidences. Fine. But if you want to make that claim, I would like to see some hard science evidence, like double-blind tests or at least some comparing group tests. (I do realize that double-blind might be hard in this case.) But the reference (#2), Crislip C (20 February 2015) "Traditional Chinese Pseudo-Medicine Hodgepodge" Science-Based Medicine, is such an amateur article. Good the hyperlink links to the article directly. When I read it, I can't believe this is something some people uses to disclaim such a serious medical technique. All it does is to quote randomly what some other people are saying. Really?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.48.175 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source, per WP:PARITY. If in doubt, ask at WP:RS/N. Alexbrn (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I love how the Argument from Popularity fallacy was used above without any shame! Oh how I wish schools would teach logic and critical reasoning. RobP (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I stand on my head and stick balls of cat poo up my nose, it simultaneously cures my shingles and Erectile dysfunction. There are literally no mainstream scientific studies, which disprove this treatment! Not one! Nor are there any anthropological/archaeological studies, which call into question the existence of my tribe, who have been using the remedy en-masse for thousands of years. Edaham (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * difference being that you just made something up on the spot as opposed to the therapy of gua sha, the popularity of which suggests at least some extent of effectiveness. i also notice that you havent actually said anything which proves this comment wrong 11010010ccs (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See argumentum ad populum and Burden of proof (philosophy). --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing
Please remember that WP:Biomedical information must be generally be sourced to WP:MEDRS. Restoring unreliable sources (and the maintenance template along with them) degrades the article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It should not take MEDRS applicability to dispute that which is already without standing, ELSE the floodgates would be open to a tidal wave of woo. This treatment is pre-scientific nonsense . Seriously, please note, from the “Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience” proclamation:

See: Template:ArbCom Pseudoscience and also Lunatic charlatans RobP (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors… when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience":
 * Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
 * Neutral point of view as applied to science: “Wikipedia: Neutral point of view”, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

As the article says in the lede: "Gua sha is actively harmful and has no medical benefit.[1][2] Any apparent benefit from gua sha is due to the placebo effect.[4]". This is an accurate summary of appropriate sources. We don't use unreliable primary research as WP:V and WP:NPOV are core policies. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn I really don't understand the objection against a more detailed description, or even the mention, of the relevant studies. Regarding WP:MEDRS, even if you object to the Washington post (which simply mentions the studies that are cited later specifically) and Molineskeptics at the very least, the two pubmed paper references: '''Nielsen, A. (1 September 2007). "The effect of Gua Sha treatment on the microcirculation of surface tissue: a pilot study in healthy subjects". Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Pub Med.''' and '''Braun, M. (1 March 2011). "Effectiveness of traditional Chinese "gua sha" therapy in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial". Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Pub Med.''' Are perfectly valid citations. Or am I wrong here? how are those invalid and this from a personal website valid: '''Ernst, Edzard (11 January 2013). "Gua Sha: torture or treatment?". Edzardernst.com''' which is included in the content you reverted to? Hiding the studies does not help the cause of skepticism, Showing them and describing the flaws that make them invalid does. Ernesto Berger - Ubi dubium ibi libertas. (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes you are wrong. The primary and lay press sources are not "valid" sources for biomedical information, they are unreliable sources per WP:MEDRS. We do not want to indulge in the formulation of "unreliable sources says X however Edzard Ernst disagrees" as this is a classic WP:GEVAL as well as bordering on original research. Ernst and Crislip are useful sources per WP:PARITY to augment the reliable review article we are using: PMID 29908818. In general, if in doubt about a medical source feedback can be sought at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

History into Cạo gió
I noticed that the history section only discusses how Gua sha was transferred from China to Vietnam as Cạo Gió. I propose this section is renamed "Cạo gió". Whaddya think? VdSV9• ♫ 13:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020
Hello, I have video movie which can be attached to this article: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Masaz_GuaSha.ogv#file Feel free to place this in article.

Best Regards Tonywwy (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but it isn't suitable. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Files from other language Wikipedias can't be used here. They must be uploaded here, or preferably, on Commons.  However, in this case, I'd wager there are copyright issues, and it looks like an advertisement anyway, so it would be inappropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Restoring old content
Most of the information in this article was removed over a period starting roughly in January of 2019. Much of the removal appears to have been due to concern over Gua Sha's safety and/or its lack of support in evidence based medicine. I have attempted to balance these reasonable concerns while restoring much of the original information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harimau777 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Vashi 2008 review
The article discusses side effects of Gua Sha (dermatitis, burns, etc) citing this Vashi 2008 review (currently reference 5). However, having read this review, Gua Sha is not one of the practices discussed in any of the subsections and I'm wondering what the source of these claims actually is. As it stands, the citation should be removed as it is misleading — the cited article does not state what it is being quoted as saying! 2A00:23C8:1484:DC00:9CA:BBC5:E2B:52E8 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the actual citation, as I have no access. However the landing page for the article at JAAD specifies "coining" another name for this practise, (as mentioned in the lead), so your objection is really nonsensical. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 11:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I have come across some videos where an Asian lady is getting this done and the practitioner is very gentle with the lady's face. Now, I am not sure which is the correct way of doing it, but honestly, I feel that the negative side effects mentioned in the article is the result of the wrong way of doing it. Here is an example I found on YouTube; and before anybody cries "Original Research not allowed", I would point out that I am simply providing this information for everybody's consideration. --50.32.119.84 (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN2GykDzQIA

title: Talk:Gua sha


text:
User talk:Qurgh

Hello Qurgh, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Help desk or (if you want a broader audience) the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the Community Portal.
 * You can sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.
 * The Tutorial is a great way to learn the basics in a more perspicuous fashion.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 01:34, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

May 2024
Hello, I'm Prince of Erebor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Weapons in Star Trek have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.  Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Prince of Erebor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Weapons in Star Trek have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.  Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Weapons in Star Trek. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm not vandalizing the article. I'm removing fan-fiction that someone added to it at some point in the past. The weapons in question are not seen in the Star Trek shows, and are thus not "Weapons in Star Trek". They should be removed. I'm also updating the information on the canonical weapons that are seen in the show to include the Klingon language names as given to us by Marc Okrand, the creator of the Klingon language. Qurgh (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you wish to discuss this edits, please use the Talk page for that article. If you can find evidence that those weapons were in the shows, then they should be kept, but the "evidence" for them that is linked is a fan-fiction blog that the author clearly states is "Alternative Universe" and isn't consistent with the shows. Qurgh (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Qurgh


text:
User:Baudelaire~enwiki

Hi, I'll add more information over time. For now it's a simple list of some of my favorite quotes.

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." -Napoleon

"At the moment of commitment, the entire universe conspires for your success." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

title: User:Baudelaire~enwiki


text:
Talk:Caroline Myss

Promotional photo
Link to a promotional photograph, which I believe qualifies for uploading - Non-free promotional Promotional Material

wikify
For the sake of reference, I added the wikify tag on this article because of the Books and recordings section. Books should be referenced with their ISBNs, publisher, etc., according to the style manuals.

Verify and expand
Which institutions awarded her degrees?RJFJR 00:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * According to this link, "Caroline Myss holds a doctorate in 'intuition and energy medicine' from Greenwich University in Hilo, Hawaii." And according to this Australian government webpage, "To our knowledge, Greenwich University has never been accredited by any recognised government accreditation authority to deliver higher education awards."   Until further information comes to light, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to claim that Myss holds any degrees. Snottygobble 00:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Further investigation yields this page, with the text "Myss has a master’s degree in theology from Mundelein College — a Roman Catholic school north of Chicago. She has a doctorate in philosophy from the College of Energy Medicine at Greenwich University, a “distance learning” facility with no legitimate accreditation" and this page with the text "She has a Ph.D. in Intuition and Energy Medicine from Greenwich University, a M.A. in Theology from Mundelein College, and a B.A. Journalism from St. Mary's of the Woods College." I will update the article. Snottygobble 01:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing prod
I am going to remove the prod. I confess a strong personal bias against Myss, as against other people who claim to hold degrees when unaccredited, as against other people who claim to be experts in fields that don't exist. But the fact is a member of my household owns three of her books, and Arbustoo's claim that the books are unpublished is inaccurate. On those grounds I think she is notable enough to have an article, or at least to have her notability tested through AfD. Snottygobble 23:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

She no longer does readings
To me, this also takes away from her credibility. I think this should be mentioned in the article. If I were a fake and making money off of books based on my alleged experiences, I'd probably avoid activities that could prove my experiences to be false. I'm not alleging this of her at all, just saying that not doing readings is very convenient.--24.167.191.204 10:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I had a telephone reading by her in 1989. She was in New Hampshire, and I was in Virginia. Initially, I was skeptical and I told her nothing about myself, and she told me some amazing things about myself that she could not have possibly known other than through psychic ability. Throughout the reading, I did not give her any clues or any information, and she was still very accurate. Yes, I would agree that it should be included in this article that she no longer does readings, but it is not because she is a charlatan. She definitely has some type of psychic gift that can not be written off as guesswork. She told me some things that were so true - and personal - that I can not share them here. I learned a lot about myself from that reading, and I still think about that experience today. JGKlein

 * P.S. - Take a look at some of the videos of her giving talks on YouTube, especially the one entitled "Being Fearless". Whatever anyone thinks of her, it can't be denied that she is quite an extraordinary woman! JGKlein

Error in Second Paragraph

 * I am uncertain if I am putting this information in the correct place, so please forgive me if I am in error. This article has a mistake in it. Caroline Myss did NOT first appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show in 2002. I know this for a fact because I began to study her works after seeing her on the show in the late 1990s. I believe it was in 1997 or 1998. As I recall, she appeared twice within one year, the first time to promote "Anatomy of the Spirit" and the second time to promote "Why People Don't Heal and How They Can". I sent the audiobook of Energy Anatomy on cassette to a friend living in San Francisco. She moved out of California in 1999. I had never heard of Caroline Myss until she appeared on Oprah, and I have been actively studying her works since "Anatomy of the Spirit". So the source sited is incorrect. xanderson —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Caroline Myss. 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/20130218092611/http://www.natural-connection.com:80/resource/yoga_journal/why_people_dont_heal.html to http://www.natural-connection.com/resource/yoga_journal/why_people_dont_heal.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007102030/http://www.shiftinaction.com/discover/luminaries/caroline_myss to http://www.shiftinaction.com/discover/luminaries/caroline_myss
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070308155534/http://www.myss.com:80/bio.asp to http://www.myss.com/bio.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204025040/http://www.hayhouseradio.com:80/hosts_index.php to http://www.hayhouseradio.com/hosts_index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509085358/http://www.hayhouseradio.com/day_by_day.php to http://www.hayhouseradio.com/day_by_day.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060105013410/http://shiftinaction.com:80/discover/luminaries/caroline_myss to http://shiftinaction.com/discover/luminaries/caroline_myss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caroline Myss. 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/20090226232649/http://in.integralinstitute.org/talk.aspx?id=728 to http://in.integralinstitute.org/talk.aspx?id=728

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) 11:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caroline Myss. 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 tag to http://www.icandoit.net/speakers/speaker_details.php?author_id=59
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719124857/http://myss.com/news/media/ to http://www.myss.com/news/media/

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) 03:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Caroline Myss


text:
Talk:Southern Levant

Definition
The lead currently gives two definitions, one being the "widest definition" and the other being the archaeological definition. In the thread above at, we have a long list of conflicting defintions. The lead should not cherrypick, but provide a balanced overview. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead is backed by consensus/supported by the DRN and is comprehensive and good. It won't change unless consensus changes. Drsmoo (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please self-revert this edit then. Either we work constructively and consensually on the lead, or we don't change it at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I note you chose not to comment on this. Since you will not self revert, I conclude that you consider yourself free to amend the lead, which means the same must apply to me. I have a number of changes to make, which I will propose in due course. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As you can see the RFC has now been closed. I will revert in a few hours after the 24h are up. Drsmoo (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What will you revert? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The changes to the lead as well as the currently WP:Synth/WP:Undue "terminology" section (until the Synth is removed and it's improved to reflect the RFC) Drsmoo (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have already agreed it is not undue, as did the rest of the contributors at the DRN. Since you think the drafting is synth, then change it to your preferred version and explain your reasoning. We are here to engage in constructive discussion, not to endlessly edit war. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I said it was Cherry Picked, Synth, and Undue. It doesn't help the article to have only two editors working either, or one, so I'd actually prefer to have the involvement of additional editors in drafting sections, rather than drafting it myself. Drsmoo (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Call it what you like, except UNDUE, as you and the entire DRN already agreed it was appropriate. I have waited patiently for two months since you unilaterally removed the section. It is time for you to either engage in discussion or walk away. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happily engaged in discussion right now, I said it was Undue during the DRN as well. "Additionally, a major issue is the insertion of WP:UNDUE, cherry picked "criticisms" of the subject that are inserted into the article via original research. These comments have no place in an article about a geographical region. Their existence in the article is basically a result of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Drsmoo (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)"
 * That was your opening statement. After that, Debresser and Laurel Lodged both suggested that all well sourced opinions should be included, and the moderator wrote "My own opinion, and I try to be neutral, is that if some editors think it is needed, it probably serves a purpose." You then wrote "I think the section you're referring to is the Academic Usage section, I agree it should remain in the article. [...] The sources themselves are fine as long as they're presented in context. Drsmoo (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)".
 * It says something depressing about the effectiveness of our communication when we can argue in circles over objectively and clearly written evidence of a historical debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you strangely deleted the majority of my actual post, which is that the section as presented was UNDUE and SYNTH. Drsmoo (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There was agreement, including from me, that there could be an academic usage section, but there was no consensus for the addition of Synth. Also, what do you mean you "waited two months"? You proposed to have the whole article deleted two weeks ago. Drsmoo (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion was requested by another editor. Frankly I don't feel strongly either way, but thought it was good to have the discussion as deletion discussions normally attract a good crowd.
 * You deleted the terminology section in May, and after being challenged you turned aggressive and edit warred. So I pulled back and decided to wait. And now here we are two months later, with almost no progress. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, the deletion proposal was opened by you and you advocated for the article's deletion, just as you voted to delete the category, and have gone through Wikipedia deleting mentions of/links to the southern Levant en masse. I opened the mediation/RFC in an attempt to get outside editors involved. Before the RFC was even closed, you argued for the article's deletion. Drsmoo (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Outside Question
I can see considerable back-and-forth. There has been so much back-and-forth that it isn't really clear to me what the question is. What is the question about which I was asked to offer an opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The current discussion is over the content of the terminology section. There is also a wider discussion over expanding/revamping the article. Drsmoo (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert, thanks for coming in to help here. Anything you have time to give a view on would be appreciated. The other editor and I desparately need outside perspectives to keep us grounded. At the heart of this there are two debates - one is how to interpret what scholars are saying re the usage of the term (which we are summarising quite concisely so far in the thread immediately below this one), and the other (which we have made early steps towards engaging on in this "definition" thread) is how to describe how scholars actually define the region of Southern Levant, given the breadth and variance of the different geographical boundaries given in scholarly descriptions. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Major revamp
User:Oncenawhile invited me to come back and participate in the ongoing discussion.

I suggested we should be clear to our readers that this term is primarily used in archaeology to avoid political overtones. I didn't make explicit suggestions about how to do that in the RfC closure because that wouldn't be appropriate as part of a closure. I'm happy to make suggestions as a follow-up now but procedurally that means I'm now an involved editor.

I note that much of the content in the lead section aren't repeated in the following sections. So if I were to brush up the article, I would merge the existing lead section into the "Terminology" section, then write a completely new lead section to summarise the article. I might also rename "History" to "Archaeological findings".

I'm on the move for the next 2 days or so, so I can't do a major edit to the article myself at the moment. But I'm happy to muck in later on if welcome. Deryck C. 22:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi Deryck, thanks for agreeing to help - the one other editor and I are not doing too well on our own.
 * I am fine with your overall proposal subject to one point - we don't have any sources stating that "Southern Levant" is used to avoid political overtones. The relevant source states that "Levant" is used to avoid political overtones. It may seem like a subtle point but it's at the heart of our ongoing dispute here. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Deryck, looking forward to working with you and other editors on the article. The sources do refer directly to the southern Levant in terms of avoiding political overtones/as a neutral term. Dever and Sagona describe the southern Levant as non-political and strictly geographical, while Flannery describes the term as "generic" and Whiting writes of the southern Levant "The term has been used to avoid confusion with the 'Israel' of the Old Testament and because of the political sensitivity in the area". Burke describes the apolitical nature of the word Levant itself (including both the northern and southern Levant) as does Levy Drsmoo (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that none of these sources provide the meta statement that the term Southern Levant is used in the mainstream in order to be apolitical. Whilst we may want to conclude that some are close enough to make a jump (synth), such a jump would give a misleading impression because we certainly have nothing close to suggesting that the term "Southern Levant", apolitical or not, is in mainstream usage. In fact, the three sources above which directly advocate use of the term ( Sagona de Geus, Whiting and Flannery - note that Dever advocates Near East) are doing just that - advocating - and are not providing any commentary on the extent of wider usage. And for every advocate there is a critic - de Geus, Arnold and Paléorient call the term Southern Levant awkward, strange and imprecise, respectively. The only two meta sources which provide a scholarly description of wider usage (Burke and Levy) are actually talking above the Levant (not the southern part), and Burke says the terms which are actually used for the southern part are Israel and Canaan, not Southern Levant. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Break

 * I am not sure that the term is "primarily used in archaeology to avoid political overtones". Certainly that hasn't been my experience, as an archaeologist working in the Southern Levant. I realise that doesn't get us anywhere, though.
 * It seems to me from reading this talk page that we've already tried and failed to construct that narrative out of the scant mentions in the few "meta" sources we have. Clearly, some scholars have moved from "Syro-Palestinian Archaeology" to "Southern Levantine archaeology" to avoid political overtones, and have discussed the term in that light. But that does not mean the term originated or is primarily used in that way; cf. BCE/CE, which many people consciously switched to for political neutrality, but which had an independent existence long before that, and many more people now use purely out of convention. My suspicion is that political concerns are much more relevant in the archaeology of historical periods, and especially in American "biblical archaeology", which is beset with these kind of problems. But the region also has a prehistory that has nothing to do with the Bible or the Israeli-Palestine conflict, where using biblical terminology like "Israel and Canaan" would be absurd, and "Southern Levant" is simply the obvious term for the geographic region. Scanning Google Scholar suggests to me that papers on these early periods actually make up a significant portion, if not a majority, of sources that use the phrase "Southern Levant". The problem is those who simply use the term as a straightforward geographical description are unlikely to write about it in a "meta" way.
 * So what I'd suggest is that rather than obsessing over a political debate which is barely visible in our sources, we take the tens of thousands of RSs that use the term as evidence that it is notable and widely accepted term for a geographic region (albeit perhaps only within the field of archaeology), and get to work on writing an article about that: its geography, climate, history, etc. Joe Roe (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One last thing I'd add is that, as far as I know, there are no other names for this region. There are names for its constituent parts (Israel, Judea, Canaan, Palestine, Transjordan, Negev, Sinai, Al-Hamad) and larger regions that include it (Levant, Syria, Syria-Palestine, Holy Land, Near East, Middle East, Eastern Mediterranean), but nothing that's used in precisely the same way. I'd suggest that justifies us having an article that extends beyond a discussion of terminology, and that as long as that expansion was done carefully it would be more than a content fork (as was suggested on my talk page.) Joe Roe (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi many thanks and I like your thinking. One point we need to agree on before approaching such a task is what actually is the definition of the region. Your posts above suggest you have a clear sense of this in your mind, so it would be great if you could share with us. We then need to square that with all the other scholarly defintions proposed, such as those at: . Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I realise you and Drsmoo have put a lot of effort into this article and my apologies if the above comes across as me cutting through that, but you did ask for outside opinions!
 * I think the definition in my head is more or less in line with the sources collected above. The quick and easy definition is Israel, Palestine and Jordan (the modern countries). Coming up with geographical boundaries makes things more fuzzy, especially in the north and east: but the Litani River seems to be commonly cited, and you can imagine a line drawn between that and the Jebel Druze such that it includes a bit of southern Lebanon and Syria (but not the Damascus basin); everyone agrees the eastern boundary is "the desert" but it's a bit unclear where the desert begins. There's a somewhat Israel-centric tendency in the later archaeology of the region that would put say you're in desert as soon as you're out of the rift valley or even as soon as you cross the Jordan, but in reality there's a semi-arid zone that you could see extending as far as the Iraqi-Jordanian border (especially in prehistory) which I think ought to be included. Joe Roe (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Lemme see. If I were to rewrite the lead section, I'll write it as such: In archaeology, the Southern Levant refers to the geographical area that encompasses the southern half of the Levant. This terminology is a strictly geographical designations and is often chosen to avoid political overtones of other names for the area such as Syria-Palestine.

Evidence of human civilisation in the region since pre-history has been found. Artefacts from various cultures throughout the Bronze Age and the Iron Age have also been excavated. Later historical periods in the region from the Assyrian Empire onwards are generally named after the reigning dynasty. Because of its rich history, the Southern Levant is among the most extensively excavated regions in the world.

The area of the Southern Levant corresponds approximately to modern Israel, Palestine, and Jordan; some definitions include parts of nearby territories.

...and then merge the existing lead section's content to the "terminology" section as appropriate. Deryck C. 13:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I think that's a significant improvement over what we have now, both in terms of accuracy and readability. I'd suggest maybe dropping the "In archaeology," – it's not solely used in archaeology, even if it is primarily (e.g.  ). I also think the second paragraph doesn't say a great deal—every part of the world has a prehistory and a history that is "rich" in some way—so perhaps it would be better to hold off putting history in the lead until we have something more fleshed-out to summarise. So I'd suggest something like this:

The Southern Levant is a geographical region encompassing the southern half of the Levant. It corresponds approximately to modern-day Israel, Palestine, and Jordan; some definitions also include southern Lebanon, southern Syria and/or the Sinai Peninsula. As a strictly geographical description, it is often used by archaeologists and historians to avoid the religious and political connotations of other names for the area such as Palestine, Canaan, the Land of Israel or the Holy Land.
 * Joe Roe (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I think that works really well! Drsmoo (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about listing out the overloaded placenames in the last sentence, but I can live with that. Actually I'll make the edit now to get us started. Deryck C. 17:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern with this lead paragraph is that we have no source for the last sentence. See my post immediately above the word "Break" above this thread (the post was timestamped 07:11, 26 July 2016). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We do have sources though, in the body paragraph which the lead references. Drsmoo (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No we do not. As I have explained above, none of the sources state that "often chosen to avoid political overtones of other names". Levant yes, but not Southern Levant. Even if we put sources aside, one can't argue that Palestine / Land of Israel / Southern Levant are all different regions, and also argue that they are used as synonyms. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Drsmoo's point here. Avoiding political and/or religious connotations is basically what Burke, De Geus, and Arnold are all trying to do. It may calm down some controversy by reducing the amount of discussion in the lead on which terms they're trying to avoid and have that discussion in the body text instead... Deryck C. 10:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that Joe's proposal is fine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Would removing the references to specific alternative terms assuage your concerns? Or is the assertion that S. Levant is used out of political correctness in general? I see Deryck's point that the list may be a bit much for the lead, and in the body we could explain that they are not completely coterminous with "Southern Levant", but are terms for similar-ish regions that historically have served the same function in scholarly literature. Joe Roe (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe, I am fine with the similar terms - in the RFC above I had advocated including them in the lead. The conversation around the list of partially-synonymous names has been very confusing to date, with some individual editors making both sides of the argument in different circumstances.
 * My focus is whether the statement re political correctness is OR, and whether we are in danger of misleading readers as a result. I look at is as follows: it is clear some writers have advocated for its use as an apolitical term. They are explictly advocating though, which suggests such logic is not widespread. We have two meta-sources which explain that Levant is used in an apolitical sense versus Syria-Palestine, but these same sources do not go on to make the same statement regarding "Southern Levant". One of these goes on to explain that most PhD's use the terms Israel or Canaan instead. And Canaan is certain apolitical.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's definitely a case of some people using it that way (a minority, I suspect) and I think the article puts a tad too much emphasis on that at the moment. Maybe for a start we could switch "it is often" to "it is sometimes"? Joe Roe (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Joe, "It is sometimes" is good. There are scholarly sources which state that "many" (in work related to biblical archaeology) have adopted the term, and that the term is popular (in that field) for that reason, but I agree that the article should focus primarily on the actual region of the southern Levant (as you wrote: "its geography, climate, history, etc."). Given that the article is for a geographical region, which of course far predates biblical archaeology, it does seem that a bit too much emphasis is being placed on usage of the term by those studying biblical archaeology. Now that the map seems to be sorted, I'd be happy to help with writing up a geography section. Drsmoo (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're reaching a sensible position here. My remaining concern is that the lead is POV as to usage of the term, since it includes a sentence stating the key argument used by those who advocate for use of the term (for which we have three underlying scholars wih scholars advocating), but nothing showing the concerns raised around usage (for which we also have three scholars providing critique). Oncenawhile (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more strongly. As was mentioned previously, there's no scholarly debate over usage of the term, and there isn't a single source which describes usage of southern Levant as controversial. Of the sources you described as critical, De Geus directly says he advocates for use of southern Levant in the chapter, Arnold directly says he uses southern Levant in the chapter, and Palorient continue to use southern Levant and have done so hundreds of times. In contrast, there are reliable sources which describe the term southern Levant as being popular in biblical archaeology due to its neutrality:

 * “He advocated for more neutral terms instead, some of which, such as “archaeology of the southern Levant,” have caught on and are in use today.”

 * There are also multiple sources which describe southern Levant as being neutral (not advocating, but stating its neutrality as a fact):

 * “The term 'southern Levant' has been used in general to designate the area presently occupied by the modern countries of Israel and Jordan. This term has been used to avoid confusion with the 'Israel' of the Old Testament and because of the political sensitivity in the area.“ - Whiting

 * “We will refer to this region by the generic term Southern Levant” - Flannery

 * “In that case the area should really be referred to by a broader and more neutral term such as the ‘southern Levant’” - Fischer

 * “If 'Palestine' is to be avoided for related reasons, 'South Levant' or some other neutral terms should be used” - Cobbing

 * "The Southern Levant, a politically correct term to indicate the complex of Jordan-Palestine-Israel, with the addition of Lebanon” - Liverani

 * “(Note here, too, my use of the politically neutral appellation ‘southern Levant’)” - Joffe

 * "In this thesis the term 'southern Levant' will be used to refer to the modern states of Israel and Jordan, the Occupied Territories, and the Sinai peninsula. To subdivide this region the term ' Transjordan' will be used to refer to the area east of the Dead Sea Fault (delineated by the Hulah Valley, the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba), while the term 'Cisjordan will be used to refer to the area west of this line. These terms are used as they are the most politically neutral terms available." - Rutter

 * The idea that we must "balance the lead" to satisfy a "controversy" which isn't mentioned in any reliable source, based on "critical opinions" from authors who advocate and use the term regularly, is nonsensical. Drsmoo (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have misread my post? This doesn't appear to relate to the point I made. Or are you referring to someone else's post? I can't see where anyone mentioned a controversy. There are simply arguments for and against the usage of the term, as in eveything in life. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Maps
I thought it would be useful to make some maps of the region based on the sources above: one for the "geographic" definition, and one for the "country-based" one. I've gone for the most inclusive definition in each case, and including the Sinai is somewhat awkward in my opinion, but a couple of sources mention it, so.

I don't know whether we want to include one or both in the article itself. Since the definition has been the source of some debate, I thought I'd raise it here first. Joe Roe (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * This is really helpful, thank you. My initial preference is for the geographic map, though both maps are great. I also agree with your decision to use the most inclusive definition for two reasons. One being that it would be confusing for readers if Wikipedia presented a limited map, while research described as being in the southern Levant was conducted outside of that map. The other reason being that the widest definition was approved by the RFC. If we want to use both, what are your thoughts on having the country-based definition as the base, and then the red of the geographic definition as a transparent overlay? Drsmoo (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is very helpful. Given the variety of definitions out there, perhaps we could show both the narrowest and the widest definitions for both. Either all overlaid on a single map (ie 4 sets of boundaries) or two maps with 2 boundaries each. I would have a preference for the latter as I suspect it will be clearer. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I think it would be difficult to put both the countries and the geographical area on the same map without it getting too messy. We can always include both (although my preference is for the geographic one; I think it's both nicer to look at and better conveys that this is a slightly fuzzy concept).
 * I've updated both maps to include "core" and "inclusive" definitions. Joe Roe (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These are excellent. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joe, these maps are beautiful, my preference is for the geographic one for the same reasons, and I also think having a single map would be better to avoid confusion. A similar minimalist/maximalist layout is featured in the Levant article as well. Based on what you wrote here, it seems your preferences is for having just the geographical image, so I'm making an edit to conform with that. If your preference is for the double image, apologies for the misunderstanding and feel free to revert. Drsmoo (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sticking with one sounds good to me. Joe Roe (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm unable to revert it myself due to the region being arguably within ARBPIA, if so editors are limited to 1 revert per 24h, so I'd personally be unable to make the revert myself having reverted earlier today. Drsmoo (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need an RFC or similar here. To my mind, just showing the geographic-feature-based definition is ignoring half the sources out there, as well as ignoring the only definition that has clearly defined boundaries. It also inaccurately reflects the reality of the breadth of usage of this term. The beauty of two maps is that it combines clarity with accuracy - the ideal that Wikipedia strives for. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, and I think if there's disagreement on this the most sensible thing to do is stick with the most conservative option (two maps). Joe Roe (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Badia
I believe this term is used more broadly than just for the Syrian and Jordanian steppe - as this source states, it is also used for the Negev. As a generic word for steppe, Bedouin literally means "people of the Badia". Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, but it's also used in English to refer to the region, like how "the steppe" usually refers to the Eurasian steppe. Joe Roe (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Tabuk
The geographic map shows Tabuk and the western part of that province in Saudi Arabia as being in the Southern Levant. Whilst it makes some sense from a cultural and historical perspective, does anyone have any sources which include part of Saudi in the SL? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 * This could be a (flimsy) justification?
 * "The southern Levant, as defined here, is delimited by the Litani River to the north, the Jordan Rift Valley to the East, the Gulf of Aqaba to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea and Sinai Desert to the west."
 * But to be honest I was just trying to get a nice ellipse. Doing that and getting Sinai clipped more of Saudi than I liked (which is what I meant above when I said Sinai was awkward.) If you think it's too misleading I can try and tweak it out. Joe Roe (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be easy to fix with the clone tool. I have Photoshop and can work on it if that would be helpful :) Drsmoo (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings - the satellite photo above shows clearly that there are no obvious geographic boundaries between SW Jordan and NW Saudi Arabia. But we have no sources supporting the inclusion of any part of Saudi, unless we read generously into Gulf of Aqaba as Joe mentioned. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there we're getting into the deficiencies if our sources' definition there. The Southern and Eastern boundary is "the desert", but it's very difficult to say where the steppe stops and the desert starts. I'd say Aqaba is well into the true desert, but the sources include not only that but Sinai, then why not Tabuk, or the Nefud for that matter? I was trying to convey the uncertainty of that boundary with the feathering on that side, so maybe a solution is to make that more prominent? Joe Roe (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They sounds like it would be helpful Drsmoo (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's my obsessiveness over neatness rather than technical obstacles that's the problem. I'll just sacrifice the nice ellipse shape. But thanks for offering :) Joe Roe (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, looking forward to getting the maps completed and improving the text Drsmoo (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The ellipse is sufficiently broad that most people would get the obfuscation abound the Gulf of Aqaba. It's a useful obfuscation. Keep the neat ellipse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Negev
Is everyone convinced the Negev should be in the "core geographically-defined region"? Geographically and historically the Negev is a continuation of the Badia and the Sinai, which would suggest it should be treated just as they are. This is clear from the satellite photo above. On the other hand, most sources seem to include it, even when not including the Sinai and Badia. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Odd question, the sources do include it, they don't "seem" to include it. The article is based on scholarly sources rather than original research from looking at a photo. Drsmoo (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

New version
Based on the discussions above I've just uploaded a new version of the "geographic" map that hopefully emphasizes the approximate nature of the eastern and southern boundary a bit more, and de-emphasizes the Sinai and Tabuk regions in the broad definition, and the Negev in the narrow definition. Per User:Laurel Lodged's comment, I've stuck with neat-but-slightly-inaccurate ellipses rather than go for total accuracy, though, because I agree that it helps get the message across that this is all very inexact. Joe Roe (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Something spoken in the actual Hebrew language
Just out of curiosity 24.116.42.170 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southern Levant


text:
User talk:Rain-Man

Hello Rain-Man, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Help desk or (if you want a broader audience) the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the Community Portal.
 * You can sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.
 * The Tutorial is a great way to learn the basics in a more perspicuous fashion.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 01:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rain-Man


text:
NBA Most Valuable Player Award

The NBA Most Valuable Player Award (MVP) is an annual National Basketball Association (NBA) award given since the 1955–56 season to the best performing player of the regular season. Since the 2022–23 season, winners receive the Michael Jordan Trophy, named for the five-time MVP often considered to be the greatest player in NBA history.

Prior to 2021, the winner received the Maurice Podoloff Trophy, which was named in honor of the first commissioner (then president) of the NBA, who served from 1946 until 1963. With the switch to the Michael Jordan Trophy, his name was moved to a new Maurice Podoloff Trophy given to the team with the best regular season record. Until the, the MVP was selected by a vote of NBA players. Since the, the award is decided by a panel of sportswriters and broadcasters throughout the United States and Canada.

Each member of the voting panel casts a vote for first to fifth place selections. Each first-place vote is worth 10 points; each second-place vote is worth seven; each third-place vote is worth five, fourth-place is worth three and fifth-place is worth one. Starting from 2010, one ballot was cast by fans through online voting. The player with the highest point total wins the award. As of the, the current holder of the award is Nikola Jokić of the Denver Nuggets.

Every player who has won this award and deemed eligible for the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame has been inducted. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar won the award a record six times. He is also the only player to win the award despite his team not making the playoffs in the. Both Bill Russell and Michael Jordan won the award five times, while Wilt Chamberlain and LeBron James won the award four times. Russell and James are the only players to have won the award four times in five seasons. Moses Malone, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Nikola Jokić each won the award three times, while Bob Pettit, Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, Stephen Curry and Giannis Antetokounmpo won it twice. Russell, Chamberlain, and Bird are the only players to win the award in three consecutive years. Only two rookies have won the award: Chamberlain and Wes Unseld (1968–69). Seven players who won MVP (combining for eleven total awards) are considered "international players" by the NBA: Hakeem Olajuwon of Nigeria, Duncan of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Nash of Canada, Dirk Nowitzki of Germany, Antetokounmpo of Greece, Jokić of Serbia, and Embiid of Cameroon.

Stephen Curry (2015–16) is the only player to have won the award unanimously. Shaquille O'Neal (1999–2000) and LeBron James (2012–13) are the only two players to have fallen one vote shy of a unanimous selection, both receiving 120 of 121 votes. Since the, only three players have been named MVP for a season in which their team failed to win at least 50 regular season games—Moses Malone (twice, and ), Russell Westbrook  and Nikola Jokić.

Effective with the 2023–24 season, when a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the league and its players' union took effect, players must appear in at least 65 games to be eligible for most regular-season awards and honors, including MVP. To receive credit for a game for purposes of award eligibility, a player must have been credited with at least 20 minutes played. However, two "near misses", in which the player appeared for 15 to 19 minutes, can be included in the 65-game count. Protections also exist for players who suffer season-ending injuries, who are eligible with 62 credited games, and those affected by what the CBA calls "bad faith circumstances".

title: NBA Most Valuable Player Award


text:
User talk:Sdalu

Welcome
Hello Sdalu, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Help desk or (if you want a broader audience) the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the Community Portal.
 * You can sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.
 * The Tutorial is a great way to learn the basics in a more perspicuous fashion.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 01:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I love the photos
Welcome from me too. I see you're off to a roaring start, and I'm very impressed with the photos you've uploaded - all the japanese ones are great, and the polar bear one is excellent too. You might like to make up a little gallery or list of your photos, and/or add yourself to Wikipedians/Photographers. Unfortunately a recent software update has temporarily broken the feature whereby I can tell which articles reference a given picture - did you include the polar bear photo in an article yet? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for your tips and feedback. Pictures included in stub articles don't seem to be referenced, is it the bug you are refering to? The polar bear photo was for the San Diego Zoo, I finally added it, but I think a view of the zoo itself would be better, so I left a note in the discussion section (I hope it was the purpose of this section) -- sdalu 10:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The backlinking issue isn't confined to stub pages, or even to new ones. Stubs really aren't anything special, they're just articles to which someone has added a stub message. And yes, you've understood the point of the article talk page perfectly (although you'll often find that uncontrovertial articles aren't watched by so many people, and so your question may languish unanswered). -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 19:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New Photo Matching Service
Hi there,

I'm contacting you because you listed yourself at Wikipedians/Photographers. You might be interested in a new wikiproject page that lists photographers and articles that need photos by location. The page is located at Photo Matching Service or WP:PMS GabrielF 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Anne Frank Tree
The Anne Frank Tree is about to be cut down. I found you took one photo from a nearby church. Do you happen to have a more detailed photo of the tree? See the article. Thanks. (SEWilco (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

title: User talk:Sdalu


text:
Talk:Mathcounts

Outdated Sources
Some of the source links no longer work, would it be possible to find some new ones? AlanZhu314159265358979 (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ciphering Round
I don't know if the ciphering round is necessary, and it almost certainly doesn't have many reliable sources. Would it be possible/good to remove it? AlanZhu314159265358979 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Sandbox, ur answeres are wrong, i had to fix one of yours, and thats the only one i looked at.. o yea dont erase it richard ni's gonna win (2007)

Just being watchful: Those problem examples don't happen to be copyrighted, do they? If they're copyrighted, they have to go. Mike Church 01:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure. I removed them, just to be safe. --Lst27 21:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we can include some sample problems as fair use, just as we can quote from a book. Also, does anyone know the exact ratio of boys to girls at various levels of competition? I would estimate that when I was at nationals, there were about 200 boys out of 228 contestents, but I have not seen exact figures. Dan Gardner 18:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dan: I don't know it off the top of my head, but as I was a competitor last year (my team had 3 boys and 1 girl, by the way), I can find out. Just...give me a few days, as I don't have the yearbook here with me. --Fermatprime 01:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At the New Hampshire 2006 State Compeitition, there were three girls in the top 12. I know there were at least three others competing, but there weren't that many. --lioness713 19:09, 13 Mar 2006

By the way, are you sure about the prizes? I know that I got a TI-89 in 2003, so I doubt that TI-83+ Silvers have been given since 2001. --Fermatprime 23:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Am I sure? No, absolutely not. I'm probably thinking of something else. Fix it if you know it's wrong. Aerion 00:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's typically the newest TI model, regardless of line. The 84-silver was the prize last year, I believe - I got a TI-92 in... 1996? (feeling old) (ESkog)(Talk) 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that the National Countdown round was modified for ESPN to include more problems per match: however, I don't know the numbers. Can anyone help?69.204.162.12 07:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

mathcounts 2006
Supposedly the Mathcounts National Competition 2006 is held in Arlington, Virginia from May 11-14. And Lockheed Martin sponsors it

Individual vs. Alternate
What is called an Alternate in this article is becoming known as an Individual- I was an "Individual" in 2005, and there was a bit of confusion about what to call it. to quote the Mathcounts website:

"A school may register one team of four and up to four individuals for a total of eight participants."

This is what my school did, and called them, but we also had several two or three alternates, whose scores did not count at all, unless one of the top eight was unavailable. Individuals' scores are counted, but are not part of the team score unless one of the top four is unavailable. Anyone else think this distinction should be added to the article? -lioness713

We had a team of 4, and 6 individuals, as well as 2 alternates. Maybe this has changed recently? Twelvefortyeight (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Winning doesn't assume highest score
Individual scores in the written competiton determine seeding for the countdown round, but the place in the countdown round (formerly ladder-style, now single-elimination) actually determines the final placing. I'm not sure if it's clear or not otherwise in the text of the article. --Christopherlin 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

really? i was about to leave a message here about that. I just placed fourth (fourth overall written score) in my state competition (no bragging intended) but gave no correct answers in the Countdown Round. I received a Fourth place individual trophy, and not advancing in the Countdown Round didn't change anything. I'm not sure how it works at the National Level for being the Champion, tho.

The countdown round method is confusing overall, though. I've seen it done three different ways. At my Chapter meet in 2005, it was done in ladder style. This year, it was single-elimination. However, it is done in a group at the state level, at least in New Hampshire. The first seven of the top twelve to get a problem correct advance. Then a certain number of those seven, and so on, until the winner of the Countdown is found. Lioness713 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

whoops. found a website that confirms what you were saying: the National Champion is the winner of the Countdown Round. Probably so they can show the special part on ESPN... thanks for catching my incorrect editing 216.107.230.230 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * No problem. That happens a lot on Wikipedia. School, chapter, and state all use individual written score to rank. Nationals is different. I see that I wasn't clear on that in my comment above. Sorry about that. When I did MathCounts, Countdown was done as group for chapter and state, and ladder at nationals. I forget how exactly our group Countdown worked, but it's been a while.

 * Fourth place means you're going to Nationals, right? Congrats and good luck there! BTW, don't forget to log back in when making edits/comments. --Christopherlin 12:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * From discussion on a forum with lots of people who had gone to MathCounts Nationals and people going this year, it's pretty obvious to see there are many different styles of doing Countdown and ranks even at states. For example, some states take the top 4 of the former Nationals style competition (top 10 seeded by written score, ladder style tournament) to determine who goes to Nationals while in my state, the top 16 go up and go single elimination in a random seeding with the top 4 written scores advancing. SandBoxer 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Anybody want to check the MathCounts handbook? I think there was a requirement that the 4 going to nationals were the written. --Christopherlin 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * According to the 2006 copy of the handbook I downloaded from the MC website, "The four highest-ranked Mathletes and the top team coach from each State Competition will receive an all-expenses-paid trip to the National Competition." That we knew, but what constitutes "highest-ranked"? It's not that clear. (And thanks, Christopherlin, for the luck. I need a lot of it!) Lioness713 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Nope, it doesn't have to be the written but it is in a lot of states. For example, Michigan uses Countdown round to decide the four that go to Nationals under the old 10 person ladder format (which means only top 3 written are guranteed) while Connecticut uses written only. SandBoxer 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem examples source?
In the comment above (at the top, from two years ago), there was a question about whether they were copyrighted. That question still applies, but I think they can be used as fair use if the source is given. (Or even if they are now public domain, one should give the source for the sake of verifiability.) Does anyone know where they came from? Are they from a particular year's exam, or given as samples of the sort of level to be expected? One may as well give the answers, too (as footnotes, perhaps). Rigadoun 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sprint

Chapter: 2005 Chapter #30 Answer: 59

State: 2005 State #26 Answer: 76

Nationals: 2003 Nationals #30 Answer: 1/8

Target

Chapter: 2005 Chapter #7 Answer: 33

State: 2005 State #4 Answer: 112,875

Nationals: 2003 Target #4 Answer: 22.5

Team

Chapter: 2005 Chapter #9 Answer: 0.039

State: 2005 State #4 Answer: 8

Nationals: 2002 Nationals #7 Answer: 4(155151513-fixed)

Countdown

Chapter: 2005 Chapter #79 Answer: -7

State: 2005 State #1 Answer: -72

Nationals: 2005 Nationals, was the problem Neal Wu won with Answer: 168

I'll do all the problems later if I have time and put them on the talk page. SandBoxer 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems done SandBoxer 00:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronology Problems
I realized that some lists are old-to-new (1984-2006) and some that are new-to-old (2007-2002. I think they should all probably be old-to-new, but give me your thoughts. FruitMart 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Chen on Regis & Kelly?
I just deleted a section from the article. Until someone can verify that he did appear on Regis & Kelly, that section will have to stay out of the article. RJaguar3 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Never mind. I just found a verifiable source. RJaguar3 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

 * 1. Well written?: There are some typos, like a space omission in "Countdown Round" (which I fixed), and some others. Also, a few more wikilinks throughout the article would be helpful. (I know that there isn't a lot to link in this article, but try to incorporate more links.) ✅
 * 2. Factually accurate?: There are some uncited statements, most notably the "Examples of problems" section. Perhaps it should be removed, as Wikipedia is not a resource for math problems; an external link to example problems could be given in the "External links" section. Also, one of the cited links,, redirects to , which requires special membership to access; such links should be avoided. ✅
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Please provide information on its history; how did it all begin? (I don't mean a list like Timeline of Mathcounts, but rather a description.) ✅
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: I would advise that you provide a photo of people competing at a MATHCOUNTS competition. Readers will wonder: What is the atmosphere like? Also, on the description page for Image:MathCounts trophy.jpg, there is a deprecated PD tag, which should be replaced with something more specific. ✅

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. King of ♥   ♦   ♣  ♠ 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

King of ♥   ♦   ♣  ♠ 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I've addressed some of the issues. I'll work on the others now... Nousernamesleft talk and matrix? 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Completely done. I'm resubmitting for GA now... Nousernamesleft talk and matrix? 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

GA
The article has addressed all issues that were brought in its last nomination, I can not see a reason why it can not be promoted to GA now. One note though, I'd prefer to see some more pictures in this article to improve its visual attractiveness. Λua∫ Wi  se  (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Title
Is it MATHCOUNTS, Mathcounts, or MathCounts? Let's have some continuity.  Spencer T♦C 00:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Commonly written MathCounts (though that's wrong), on the logo and the website it's MATHCOUNTS, per MOS it should be Mathcounts in every instance it occurs in this article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If they call themselves MATHCOUNTS, why are we not using that case? DMacks (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahah, Manual of Style (trademarks) looks pretty applicable, and indeed would give Mathcounts. DMacks (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7
This topic is moderately notable, but not quite prominent enough to make it onto the Version 0.7 release. Walkerma (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Spirit stick award?
Shouldn't there be some sort of explanation of what the spirit stick award is somewhere in the article? Jumping straight into it in the recent results section is confusing. 68.238.252.115 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Title Change
I think the title should be MATHCOUNTS, not Mathcounts.

Davidkim2106 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * MOS:TMRULES says to use standard word/title/sentence-case even if the official name of something is all-caps. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Numbers after state-name in winners table
In some state-names in the "State-team winner" column are followed by a parenthetical number. What does it mean? DMacks (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mathcounts Cancellation 2020
Mathcounts is canceled this year(2020) due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Initially, all state rounds that had not occurred were canceled, and they were working on a new way to qualify people for nationals, and then they canceled nationals as well. Twelvefortyeight (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mathcounts