text:
MaxiCode

MaxiCode is a public domain, machine-readable symbol system originally created by the United Parcel Service (UPS) in 1992. Suitable for tracking and managing the shipment of packages, it resembles an Aztec Code or QR code, but uses dots arranged in a hexagonal grid instead of square grid. MaxiCode has been standardised under ISO/IEC 16023.

A MaxiCode symbol (internally called "Bird's Eye", "Target", "dense code", or "UPS code") appears as a 1-inch square, with a bullseye in the middle, surrounded by a pattern of hexagonal dots. It can store about 93 characters of information, and up to 8 MaxiCode symbols can be chained together to convey more data. The centered symmetrical bullseye is useful in automatic symbol location regardless of orientation, and it allows MaxiCode symbols to be scanned even on a package traveling rapidly.

Structured Carrier Message
MaxiCode symbols using modes 2 and 3 include a Structured Carrier Message containing key information about a package. This information is protected with a strong Reed–Solomon error correction code, allowing it to be read even if a portion of the symbol is damaged. These fields include:

 * 1) A 4-bit indication of the mode in use, currently either mode 2 or mode 3.
 * 2) A national or international postal code.  MaxiCode supports both numeric postal codes (e.g. a ZIP Code), and alphanumeric postal codes.
 * 3) A 3-digit country code encoded per ISO 3166
 * 4) A 3-digit class of service code assigned by the carrier

The structured portion of the message is stored in the inner area of the symbol, near the bull's-eye pattern. (In modes that do not include a structured portion, the inner area simply stores the beginning of the message.)

Application-specific information
Irrespective of mode, a variable amount of application-specific information can be encoded in a MaxiCode symbol. This format of this additional data is not strictly defined, and amongst other information may include:

 * Purchase order number
 * Customer reference
 * Invoice number
 * Tracking number
 * Indicator of the originating carrier

Modes

 * Mode 0 – Obsolete mode superseded by modes 2 and 3. (Older printers will produce Mode 0 if the firmware is outdated. Mode 0 MaxiCodes can be visually determined by examining the two horizontal hexagons in the upper right-hand corner. They will be white if the Mode is 0.  For all other modes, they are black.)
 * Mode 1 – Obsolete mode superseded by mode 4.
 * Mode 2 – Formatted data containing a structured Carrier Message with a numeric postal code. (Primary use is US domestic destinations.)
 * Mode 3 – Formatted data containing a structured Carrier Message with an alphanumeric postal code. (Primary use is international destinations.)
 * Mode 4 – Unformatted data with Standard Error Correction.
 * Mode 5 – Unformatted data with Enhanced Error Correction.
 * Mode 6 – Used for programming hardware devices.

UPS labels use Mode 2 or Mode 3 MaxiCodes.

title: MaxiCode


text:
Talk:K. Pattabhi Jois

Date of birth
(full moon was on/around 26 July:may be not exact) What do you think of saying "about 26 July"? - Kevin Saff 21:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be certain. I will ask some people on what day Pattabhi Jois celebrates his birthday, as this should settle the issue. Note that this can take some time. Wilke 03:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly (at least for a westerner), Pattabhi Jois celebrates his birthday on the first full moon of July, on whatever day that happens to be. Wilke 22:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To give a current western Gregorian calendrical date for the birth Sri K. Pattabhi Jois is incorrect since they use a lunar calendar in Karnataka. It's probably most accurate to say that Sri K. Pattabhi Jois was born on the full moon of the lunar month known as Ashadh (July-August). This particular full moon is also a festival day known as Guru Purnima, during which spiritual teachers are honored. - Souljerky

Death
With sadness in my heart, he left this earth today --90.227.133.6 (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Age
He was an inspiration to all... I just wonder, if he died this week (2009 before his birthday) and was born in 1915, should he not be 95 instead of 93? -- Dorien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.53.233 (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

some sources

 * LA times

Recent changes
User Cyberyoga has added a seperate section called Criticisms, under that he first uses the The Economist which is very much a RS and hence I have not reverted it, however it makes just a passing reference to injuries to his students. However I have not touched it. He uses Vanity fair and other source which are RS but they do not speak about Jois in particular but about a form of Yoga that Jois invented. IMO that should not be included in his article.--sarvajna (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This article of Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga is the place where we can add those criticisms also I think I am wrong when I said that Jois invented it, he just popularized it which makes it more important not to include criticism of that method of yoga in the artcile of Jois --sarvajna (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel that the article in The Economist should be used as a reference. The article is written with a very obvious axe to grind, and includes many inaccuracies (claiming that students chant 'Guruji' at the start of class, that the 6 series are meant to be practiced one series each day of the week, the running away from home story, his scorning of iyengar). The obituary was not written with fact in mind. You can actually see how the obituary came to be from the authors blog (http://andreaskluth.org/2009/06/04/a-peek-inside-editing-at-the-economist/). While The Economist may be a reputable source, I don't feel an outlying obituary full of inaccuracies should be the sole source for criticism.Dturner (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed a quote about adjustments being overwhelming that was attributed to Yoga in the Modern World. The book can be searched on google books (http://books.google.com/books?id=47w3WH9gr0gC&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=overwhelming&f=false) and the quote in question does not exist in the book.Dturner (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I now have a copy of Yoga in the Modern world. The quote in the article was: "'Adjustments' can be overwhelming, producing fear and extreme discomfort in students as they are pushed beyond their physical and psychological comfort zones in often-difficult, even dangerous āsana."  The rest of the paragraph (not included in the article) is: "At the same time, Pattabhi Jois's aphorism refers to the way heat of focused practice can leave a practitioneer stunned by the way his or her body opens up, or moves deeper and deeper into the poses, often guided or driven by a teacher's interventions.  Doubtless an inheritance from his guru Krishnamācārya's own renowned fierceness - 'When that man looked at you, you were afraid' - Pattachi Jois's 'fierce' approach pushes many of his students to achieve far more than they considered possible." (page 154)  I don't see that this quote is supporting the criticism that Jois's adjustments were dangerous, the opposite actually.Dturner (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This sentence in the article appears opinionated and unsourced/biased: "It's unlikely that students would have endured such adjustments without faith and trust in the teachers and the method." I don't see the point of this sentence, other than to mitigate the claims of the previous (sourced/cited) sentence that adjustments caused difficulty/pain/injury. And what does it matter if students who were injured had prior trust and faith in the person who injured them? I'm removing this sentence, and input welcome here or on my talk page if others disagree. Stevemidgley (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ashtanga Yoga
As the article states, Jois learned yoga from Krishnamacharya, and taught the same style of yoga that Krishnamacharya taught him. Thus, he did not "develop" Ashtanga yoga but perhaps credit is due for having preserved the practice which might have died off without him.

Many have said that the Yoga Korunta describes the Ashtanga practice but that seems to be a coincidence. The YK is a very old book which describes a vinyasa yoga system very similar to Ashtanga. So the YK isn't definitive proof that Ashtanga is the oldest version of yoga, but it does add justification to the claim that Ashtanga takes its roots from the oldest traditions. 108.31.30.50 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Shri K Pattahbi Jois/Sri K. Pattabhi Jois
I really don't know why people keep contributing information about ashtanga yoga without referencing the man himself or his family and successors. The man's name is Shri K. Pattabhi Jois (pronounced Sri, and often wrote Sri by those who don't speak Sanskrti Hindi or Kannada), and since the man did not read and write english, he could not have known to correct people who translated books for him or wrote books about him. He wrote 2 books, was interview several times, and has two living sons and two living daughters who continue to teach ashtanga yoga, and can be used as valid sources to reference things like how to spell his name and what he taught. Please for the love of peat, canwe not start referencing facts not what people think the facts are.BRIDGET MITTENS (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)BRIDGET MITTENSBRIDGET MITTENS (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRIDGET MITTENS (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:K. Pattabhi Jois


text:
Talk:Smith number

My Rationale For Merging
When I first drafted this article, I had no idea that there was already an article on the subject at Smith numbers. Obviously, one of them had to become a redirect to the other. But which one? The plural form one was older, its first draft dating back to August 30, 2003. But the singular one was more in line with the convention for so many other articles on kinds of numbers, for example, perfect number, triangular number, Keith number, super-Poulet number. Number articles with the title in the plural form are the exception, rather than the rule.

Also, I should explain why I didn't like the examples given in the older article. To select 666 and 1776 out of so many other available examples strikes me as being, intentional or not, an anti-American POV. There ought to be places to express this POV, but a Wikipedia article on an abstract mathematical concept should not be one of them.

Nevertheless I'm very appreciative of the efforts of the writers of the older article, User:Kwantus, User:Fredrik and User:SGBailey. I learned the things about Smith numbers that I had been wanting to know (such as why "Smith"?) and I say thanks to those writers. PrimeFan 21:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * All I did to the old article was fix a link, but thank you anyway ;) Fredrik 23:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You're welcome. PrimeFan 20:39, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Telephone numbers

 * Smith numbers were named by Albert Wilansky of Lehigh University for his brother-in-law Harold Smith, who noticed the property in his phone number (4937775).

How bored was he????? sjorford →•← 14:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe he was trying to figure out a way to remember the phone number. As I grow older, my memory fades, but my mental computing ability remains undiminished. I can't remember anyone's phone number, but I can remember, for example, that my hunting buddy Keith's phone number is a concatenation of two consecutive Keith numbers plus a perfect number.

 * And just for the heck of it, I should mention that the sum of the digits in Harold Smith's phone number is 42. PrimeFan 18:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Basketball Court Length
The end of the article contains the line "There are 94 feet from one end of a basketball court to the other end (from basket to basket)." I'm not sure how this is relevant to the content of the article (except for the fact that "94" happens to be a Smith number, although that fact isn't mentioned here). Is there some reason this text has been included? 172.193.167.184 23:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC) It seems to be wrong as well accroding to basketball. Rich  Farmbrough 20:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference?
It is believed that about 3% of any million consecutive integers are Smith numbers. This seems unlikely. Rich  Farmbrough 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that's something I copied from the old Smith numbers article (now a redirect) without questioning it. It's not mentioned in Mathworld's article. We'll have to look at the history of the redirected article to see if we can find who originally wrote that and what their source was. PrimeFan 15:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "Fascinating" implies that smith number get rarer, and sttes only an average denisty of 2.41% for the first 10^10 integers. So I took it out. Rich  Farmbrough 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I realize this section is from 2005. It was good to take it out the 3% claim. It was in the original 2003 version of Smith numbers by User:Kwantus. My own unpublished count (original research and not for the article) says 2335807857 (around 2.34%) Smith numbers below 10^11. I would certainly expect the ratio to converge to 0. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Infinitely many palindromic Smith numbers?
Can someone with access to this journal check to see if this article
 * McDaniel,W.L., "Palindromic Smith numbers", Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 19(1987), pp. 34-37.

supports the claim that there are infinitely many palindromic Smith numbers? That would be great. Thanks, Doctormatt 22:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Smith number


text:
Talk:List of minor planets

Different sources give different names of several asteroids

 * Asteroid 7214 1973 SM1, some sources give the name as Anticlus, while others give as Antielus.
 * Asteroid 8932 1997 AR4, some sources give the name as Nagatomo, while others give as Nagamoto.
 * Asteroid 11264 1979 UC4, some sources give the name as Claudiomaccone, while others give as Claudimaccone.
 * Asteroid 14428 1991 VM12, some sources give the name as Laziridis, while others give as Lazaridis.
 * Asteroid 20495 1999 PW4, some sources give the name as Rimanska Sobota, while others give as Rimavska Sobota.

Which ones are the correct names? -- Yaohua2000 04:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I did some additional research on asteroid 8932. JPL Horizons and gives a name of Nagatomo, but  gives Nagamoto. I don't speak Japanese, but I can read some according to my Chinese knowledge. After some research on Google, I found the corresponding Japanese name of Nagatomo or Nagamoto is 長友信人, the asteroid was discoverred by 小林隆男. I googled the keyword "長友信人" "Nagatomo" and get 31 results, while "長友信人" "Nagamoto" get only 3 results. So I think the correct translation might be Nagatomo. -- Yaohua2000 05:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Once a while an asteroid may be renamed. The MPC link is always up to date.--Jyril 10:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Did these ever get resolved, after 14 years? I mean, the best way is to probably figure out who or what they were named for, and see if there's a consensus spelling for its/their name. Some of them are probably transcription errors between different alphabets and the like, mis-readings of unclear text, or just plain typos... 146.199.60.87 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am unaware if they were resolved yet, but I assume the name differences could be mis translation or typo. I think the best course of action would be to put both names, such as: "Anticlus, also known as Antielus"
 * Let me know if that works, or if we can find an alternate solution --Caez (any pronouns c:) (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just looked, no names are listed on this page, so this conversation is either out of date, irrelevant, or both. --Caez (any pronouns c:) (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The page seems to have been split from the very beginning, so that this was presumably being used as a centralised talk page. Regardless, the name issues are resolved: the MPC is the authority. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Dubious diameters and broken links
A lot of the diameters listed in the tables look dubious to me; some are wrong by 1-2 orders of magnitude. To give just one example, 470430 is given a diameter of 24 km, which at the absolute magnitude (H=16.83) given by JPL would require an albedo of 0.0006 (which is unphysical). Where do these diameters come from, who calculated the ones that aren't direct measurements, and who is going to correct the 700,000 entries that would need to be checked?

Also, why do the MPC links on all of these entries (created with Template:M+J) lead to a blank page when I click on them using Firefox, but they work okay with Chrome? Renerpho (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 * In the case of 470430, the diameter was changed from 2.7 km to 24 km by the article creator (inactive since 2022) on 22 January 2019. Renerpho (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of minor planets


text:
Captaincy of São Vicente

The Captaincy of São Vicente (1534–1709) was a land grant and colonial administration in the far southern part of the colonial Portuguese Empire in Colonial Brazil.

History
In 1534 King John III of Portugal granted the captaincy to Martim Afonso de Sousa, a Portuguese admiral. De Sousa had founded the first two permanent Portuguese settlements in Brazil in 1532: São Vicente (near the present port of Santos) and Piratininga (later to become São Paulo).

De Sousa received two tracts of land:

 * one centered on the settlement of São Vicente, extending along the coastline from Cananéia to Bertioga (within present-day São Paulo state)
 * the other extended from Parati to Cabo Frio (within present-day Rio de Janeiro state).

These two tracts, separated by the Captaincy of Santo Amaro, formed the Captaincy of São Vicente.

In 1681 the São Paulo settlement succeeded São Vicente as the capital of the captaincy, and the name of the latter gradually fell into disuse.

São Vicente became the only captaincy to flourish in southern Brazil. It ultimately gave rise to São Paulo state and provided the base for the bandeirantes to expand Portuguese America west of the Tordesilhas Line.

Territorial evolution of the Captaincy of São Vicente (1534–1709)
The Captaincy of São Vicente in Southern Brazil:

Cited texts

 * Lockhart, J.(1983), Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil. Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0521299299
 * Baptista, S.(2008) Chaptory 4: Historical Context Forest Recovery and Just Sustainability in the Florianopolis City-region UMI 3349866

 * Colonial History of Sao Paulo

title: Captaincy of São Vicente


text:
Talk:Crufts

Clarify
Maybe the page needs clarification for non-specialists. Mostly in the area of the class names. --DomCleal 21:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe it needs deletion. It's nn dogcruft. --SPUI (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel someone needs to expand this article and explain a few points more clearly. Reading it, I get the impression the original author had only a vague idea what they were on about. I would do this myself, but I'm kind of busy with grade 12. I know that sounds uppity and like I think I'm smarter then the person who wrote the article, but I don't - I just think it needs a bit of editing and explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wizard of Magicland (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "Original author" consists of about 15 people so far who have added info from a variety of sources. Anyone who has the time & resources to expand parts of the article is encouraged to do so, even if only a sentence here or paragraph there! :-)  Elf | Talk 22:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would say that most of what is here is accurate, just presented in an odd way.--The Wizard of Magicland 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

i have no idea what a "dog competition" includes. i was hoping this article would elucidate that. are they judged on breed, agility, good looking-ness? i have no idea. the criteria should definitely be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.81.103 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an article link down the bottom to "An Idiot's Guide to Crufts" - this explains it all pretty well! --Katheryn witha Y (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Pedigree Dogs Exposed Link
I came here to disagree with the link to PDE at the bottom refering to it as "45-minute TV programme about Crufts 2009": it was about dog breeding in general, not Crufts in particular. But on following the link I would like to point out that it actually goes somewhere completely different and irrelevant. Can someone a) please change the wording and b) please fix the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.177.231 (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Crufts. 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/20090221073744/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk:80/item/2040/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2040/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art

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) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crufts. 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/20090415084038/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/23/5/3 to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/23/5/3

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) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are a terrorist mouthpiece being used on this article
PeTA are a terrorist organisation and why are they being used on this page. They are not a reliable critic, and there are far better criticisms which can and have been sourced and have been sourced form the main article the terrorists do not even appear on the main article so why are they being used as the only organisation here. I smell a POV bias towards this terrorist organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.232 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearly I am not the first person to disagree with the inclusion of PETA in this article. I know they had a nutter run in the ring. But really do we need to cover it in the way it is. Why is it given such promotional language of their extremist cause. PETA are a bunch of loons and one wanker running on should not e given such prominence. Better wording would be a protester from PETA stormed the ring in 2018. There is no need to promote his vitriol and unsubstantiated bile in this article.

title: Talk:Crufts


text:
Gaff rig

Gaff rig is a sailing rig (configuration of sails, mast and stays) in which the sail is four-cornered, fore-and-aft rigged, controlled at its peak and, usually, its entire head by a spar (pole) called the gaff. Because of the size and shape of the sail, a gaff rig will have running backstays rather than permanent backstays.

The gaff enables a fore-and-aft sail to be four sided, rather than triangular. A gaff rig typically carries 25 percent more sail than an equivalent Bermuda rig for a given hull design.

A sail hoisted from a gaff is called a gaff-rigged (or, less commonly, gaff rigged or gaffrigged) sail.

Description
Gaff rig remains the most popular fore-aft rig for schooner and barquentine mainsails and other course sails, and spanker sails on a square rigged vessel are always gaff rigged. On other rigs, particularly the sloop, ketch and yawl, gaff rigged sails were once common but have now been largely replaced by the Bermuda rig sail, which, in addition to being simpler than the gaff rig, usually allows vessels to sail closer to the direction from which the wind is blowing (i.e. "closer to the wind").

The gaff is hoisted by two halyards:
 * The throat halyard hoists the throat of the sail (the end closer to the mast) at the forward end of the gaff and bears the main weight of the sail and the tension of the luff.
 * The peak halyard lifts the aft end of the gaff and bears the leech tension. Small craft attach the peak halyard to the gaff with a wire span with eyes at both ends looped around the gaff and held in place with small wooden chocks, larger craft have more than one span. Peak halyards pull upwards, approaching the gaff at right angles.

Additionally, a gaff vang may be fitted. It is a line attached to the end of the gaff which prevents the gaff from sagging downwind. Gaff vangs are difficult to rig on the aft-most sail, so are typically only found on schooners or ketches, and then only on the foresail or mainsail.

A triangular fore-and-aft sail called a jib-headed topsail may be carried between the gaff and the mast.

Gunter-rigged boats are similar, smaller vessels on which a spar (commonly, but incorrectly called the gaff) is raised until it is nearly vertical, parallel to the mast and close adjacent to it. Topsails are never carried on gunter rigs.

The spritsail is another rig with a four-sided fore-aft sail. Unlike the gaff rig where the head hangs from a spar along its edge, this rig supports the leech of the sail by means of a spar named a sprit. The forward end of the sprit is attached to the mast but bisects the face of the sail, with the after end of the sprit attaching to the peak and/or the clew of the sail.

Sailing characteristics (small craft)
For a given sail area a gaff rig has a shorter mast than a Bermudan rig. In short-ended craft with full body, heavy displacement and moderate ballast ratio, it is difficult to set enough sail area in the Bermudan rig without a mast of excessive height and a centre of effort (CE) too high for the limited stability of the hull. Because of its low aspect ratio, the gaff rig is less prone to stalling if oversheeted than something taller and narrower.

Reaching with gaff sails
Whilst reaching, the CE being set further back, will encourage a small craft to bear up into the wind, i.e. strong weather helm. The boat builder can compensate for this at design stage, e.g. by shifting the keel slightly aft, or having two jibs to counter the effect. The gaff-cutter is in fact a very popular sailplan for small craft. The helmsman can reduce weather helm significantly, simply by sheeting out the mainsail. Sheeting out may appear to create an inefficient belly in the sail, but it is often a pragmatic alternative to having a heavy helm. A swing keel lifted halfway is the perfect treatment for weather helm on a gaffer. The usual adjustments to mast rake, or even bowsprit length may be made to a gaffer with persistent heavy weather (or lee) helm.

Running with gaff sails
On a gaff-rigged vessel, any heading where the wind is within 20 degrees of dead aft is considered a run. When running with a gaff rig, the CE of the mainsail may actually be overboard of the hull, in a stiff wind the craft may want to broach. Running goose winged with a balloon staysail poled out to windward will balance the CE; Nick Skeates circumnavigated Wylo II with this configuration. In light winds, or when racing, a watersail may also be set.

Gaffers Day
Since 1972, the Sydney Amateur Sailing Club has regularly hosted a Gaffers Day for any classic sailing boat that can "hoist a spar". Up to 90 vessels from around Australia take part in sailing on Sydney Harbour in a practical demonstration of the skills and technology used in the nautical past.

title: Gaff rig


text:
User:FoeNyx

fr:User:FoeNyxde:Benutzer:FoeNyx French user of Wikipédia

see :
 * fr:Utilisateur:FoeNyx
 * commons:User:FoeNyx
 * wikidata:User:FoeNyx

Also on OpenStreetMap with the same nickname.

title: User:FoeNyx


text:
Talk:February 28 incident/Archive 1

Naming
Why isn't this page named "228 Incident"? Several pages on Taiwan link to that page.

Acegikmo1 21:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * moved --Jiang 07:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be called 2/28 Massacre? Generally the people calling it the 2/28 incident tends to originate from those seeking to downplay it. Just like we don't call the current economic stimulus package the Rescue plan, as the Bush Administration coined it, and call it the bailout, we shouldn't call the 2/28 incident just an incident. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Liu Ming-Chuan
I am curious how relevant Liu Ming-Chuan has to do with 228 incident.:) Mababa 04:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He had everything to do with the indisputable fact that Taiwan was under no one's but China's rule. Zymogen 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias
Wow. This article is biased both in its description of the Japanese occupation and its omission of the Rebel led massacres of mainland (and even Taiwanese) civilians. This will take some revisions to make more informative and accurate.

Xuanwu 19:56, 28 Feb 2005 (Taipei Standard Time)

 * If you see something you believe is incorrect, feel free to correct it. -- Loren 17:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- i believe the treaty releasing taiwan from japanese rule did not specify a recieving country.
 * Japan took Taiwan from China by force. So recovery of Taiwan by China is both proper and rightful. Don't play that broken record of unspecified receivership again.Zymogen 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Japan did not specify a receiving country, hence the problems across the straight today. It doesn't matter what your biased opinion on the matter is, Zymogen, facts are facts. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, either by force or not, Japan took Taiwan from the Qing Empire, not China.--Jerry 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

however Republic of China is a successive state to Qing Dynasty, thus making Jerrypp772000's argument bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.0.142 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

and People Republic of China, took over Republic of China... hummmm... which makes your logic totally illogical... by the way... Qing took over Ming, and Ming took over Yuan....   so ... what does that means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.247.88 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV-ing
>>>>> 228 is indeed a sad incident occured 60 years ago and yet its fact has been distorted repeatedly for political purposes. Readers be aware. Hatred does not solve problems! The wise Heals, only the fool hates and revenges.

First of all, thanks to everyone who contributed to this article, 228 is still a highly contentious issue and the inclusion of more points of view can only be a positive thing. However I am concerned that with partisan politics being what it is, some of us may, consciously or not, inject our own POV. Therefore, I'd like to suggest making the following changes and would like some input before I make the modifications:

 * Consolidate sections 3 & 4 into a single section, abandoning the timeline format which seems to take up excessive space. Major incidents can be written up as a series of bullets.

 * To prevent injecting excessive partisanship into the article, perhaps redoing sections 1 & 2 and renaming section 2 to something a little less contentious (i.e. "Post WWII Taiwan"?)

 * Perhaps adding a new section or subsection of "Legacy" to account for differing views of the incident, as well as points of contention.

 * Seperate external links according to point of view.

Also, there are a few factual points that I'd like to get input on:

 * From section 2:
 * After Japan's surrender in World War II, Nationalist rule began in October 1945. During the immediate postwar period, the Chinese Kuomintang (KMT) administration on Taiwan was perceived as repressive and corrupt, leading to local discontent.
 * Is "percieved" the best word to use here? It seems to connotate that the corruption which many allege was prevailent in the early years of ROC administration is disputed. I was under the impression from most of the reputable sources which I have read that rampant corruption in the pre-1949 ROC was rather general knowledge and not in dispute. Perhaps alleged would be better.
 * I think alleged would work.
 * "Perceived" works in the sense that the locals certainly viewed the government as corrupt (the fact that they were was certainly the cause). Though remember that the Japanese government before the KMT was also corrupt, but they were not viewed with as much negativity. So perceptions of the two governments played a hand in how the people reacted. "Alleged" is fine, though. Xuanwu 19:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Re: Li Ao
 * Without getting into a political debate here, how credible is Li Ao's account, especially in regards to "Taiwanese seperatists and Japanese expats" being behind the rebellion? There is very little mention of Japanese expats being behind the rebellion in the account given by George Kerr who was in Taiwan at the time, Kerr mentions that nearly all of the Japanese living or stationed in Taiwan at the end of WWII were repatriated by March 1946 (p. 124)

--Loren 05:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not an expert on 228. However, I did have run into one anti-Japanese sentimented article trying to make n claim that overseas Japanese had a role in 228. From what I have read, the link is weak. From my general impression on Li Ao, he generally makes claims with his wonderful imagination. Without details on his evidence, I have no confidence on the credibility of his books.

 * Language indeed was used to identify the identity of the passengers. However, unlike the description in the current article, the first choice is Taiwanese; if not capable of Taiwanese, then Hakka. Japanese was used for final double check. Also the national Anthem of the Japanese was another common test, interestingly. As for the question whether the Taiwanese local guards were brutal towards the mainlanders, I would like to see more evidence to support that. In general, I thought the local guards were students and peaceful. No burglar or theft occured. That's probably why the ROC military selectively targeted on people with student uniforms and killed them.

 * The term "separatist" make it sounds as if the insurgence was initiated by politically motivated people against Chinese regime. Whereas, the sovereignty of China over Taiwan arguabely does not exist from the very begining, this usage endorses the Chinese sovereignty. Thus, the term "separatist" is not neutral here, I think. Mababa 07:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Only two groups of people want to continue to stoke this fire of hatred: those who want to incite the gullibles into believing that they have an ax to grind, in order to further their own ulterior political motives; and those who are naive enough to be conned into believing they have a virtual ax to grind. Believe you me, the victims included not only Taiwanese but also mainlanders. But we all want to bury the hatchets. The DPP have been in power for close to eight years. Why don't they air the truth? Doesn't it make you wonder? Zymogen 16:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Control of Taiwan was given to China at the end of WWII. There were those who disagreed with this decision and wanted Taiwan to be its own nation. Those that wanted to remove the imposed Chinese control (i.e. the sovereignty of China) can be called "separatists." This does not endorse Chinese control of Taiwan, it's simply a word that accurately describes what some people were aiming for: separation of Taiwan from China politically. We could include this definition to avoid misinterpretation. Xuanwu 19:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure that we should characterize all of the insurgents (for the lack of a better term) as seperatists. While there were undoubtably those who favored seperation from the ROC, there were also many (if not more) who simply favored a greater degree of autonomy within the ROC, which seems at least to be reflected in the statements issued by the Settlement Committee prior to the crackdown. Perhaps we should include a small segment discussing the various motives behind different groups in the uprising? (i.e. Autonomy within ROC, UN trusteeship, TI, 27 Brigade and communist influence... etc.)?--Loren 20:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Categorizing all Taiwan locals involved in the incident as separatists would be overgeneralizing. Thanks for pointing that out. Defining the different forces at work (those dissatisfied with the current administration, those who wanted to be part of Japan, those who wanted Taiwan independence, etc.) would be useful. Xuanwu 04:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * People claiming the 228 incidents as acts of separatists should be advised to have a better understanding on the legal status of Taiwan. Though ROC was legally directed to recieve the Japanese surrender and establish occupation according to the General Order No. 1, this does not mean ROC has sovereignty over it; thus, this insurgence did not constitute separatistim in every aspect. Likewise, since US occupation in Iraq does not transfer sovereignty to US, the insurgences (caused by different motives) there was never called separatistic acts. Please understand the distinction between occupation and annexation. Taiwan is legally occupied by ROC. Taiwan legally is not part of ROC. If you want to argue this is POV, then one should be made aware of the fact that Taiwan was still legally part of Japan until 1952, otherwise Japan would not have to relinquish it in SFPT. If Taiwan is politically not part of ROC, how is it possible Taiwan to be politically part of China? The US is not politically part of PRC, would you call US politically part of China? Or perhaps you can call US officials separatists? Could you call the Iraq insurgence separatist's act as well?Mababa 01:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Taiwan is different from Iraq in several ways, though. The first is that Taiwan has not had personal sovereignty. It's been a province of the mainland, a province of Japan, and then becomes a province of the ROC after WWII. Iraq had independent rule when the US came in; the US (claims to) intend to setup a new system of independent rule to replace the old one. Thus, the US is not taking away self-government from Iraq, just bringing about a change in the internal system. Taiwan has not had the same level of autonomy as Iraq. So when Japan surrendered Taiwan and the ROC occupied it, it was not the occupation of a soveriegn country (as in Iraq) but the transfer of land between two countries. The Spanish surrender of the Phillipines to the US after the Spanish-American War is similar in nature. After taking the Phillipines, it was politically part of the US until being allowed to become a sovereign nation later on. Before that, the Phillipines were a Spanish colony and not autonomous, so this was a transfer of land not an occupation of a sovereign nation. (Yes, it was sovereign before, but not during this particular event.)
 * Taiwan is a province of the ROC (the only province, but still a province). Even if international law debates the issue, the fact that Taiwan has been ruled as a province for the last 50+ years makes it a fact in application. Therefore, Taiwan IS politically part of the ROC. Your argument about the US and China is specious since both the PRC and US are sovereign nations, while Taiwan has never been sovereign. Remember that "sovereign" means self-governing. Taiwan's governing has been done by the Japanese and the ROC government, not by a self-established Taiwan government. Xuanwu 04:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the arguement is that the status of Taiwan was unresolved as it was turned over to the Allies as an occupied territory, with the ROC being the primary occuipier under an international trust (much like postwar Germany, Japan, and the colonies of those countries) rather then a permanent territorial concession (i.e. some part of eastern Germany now part of Poland whose name eludes me at the moment). At any rate, that's probably an issue for Legal status of Taiwan. --Loren 05:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * 358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these. rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force.

 * International laws dictates that occupation is not a transfer of sovereignty. Please understand it. And, please do not invent international laws. You have equated the control with transfer of sovereignty. Transfer of sovereignty usually requires a peace treaty. ROC does not have any treaty that transfer Taiwan sovereignty to ROC. By all means, labeling 228 insurgent as separatists is not only politically oriented but also legally incorrect.

 * The fact that Taiwan province was established did not conform to international law. That's an attempt of annexation without legall sovereignty transfer. Even ROC national assembly has not annexed Taiwan into ROC constitution up to today.  3/30/47, The New York Times also pointed out that Taiwan is not a part of China formalized by any international treaty. Prescription does not work here. Moreover, the Taiwan province was established after the incident. Taiwan province is not a reason to call them separatist. Above all, you are logically fallacious by using events happened later to justify your label onto events happened earlier. If you care to skim thourgh the legal status of Taiwan or the reference I provided above, you may get some enlightment to help you understand this deal.Mababa 05:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Assuming you are correct (and I question whether you are, given your choice of language), then Taiwan would have been the property of Japan at the time. There was a peace treaty at the end of the 1895 Sino-japanese War where control of Taiwan was turned over, which would therefore fall under international law. Therefore, those insurgents who wanted Taiwan to stand alone would still be separatists since they'd be advocating separation from Japan (only in a legal sense, since Japan had abandoned the island by that point).Xuanwu 17:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I have yet seen any documents suggesting the insurgence was targeting at Japanese Sovereignty. As a matter of fact, people wanted, loved and longed for Japanese sovereignty after the Chinese occupation. Your innovative labeling the insurgents as separatists which were against Japanese sovereignty is first time I have ever heard and I am afraid that argument is not tenable. :)Mababa 06:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Usually I am not this unkind to others on Wiki, but your condenscending tone, as well as your own unwillingness to think outside a narrow paradigm, has brought me to it. The dictionary (Webster) defines a separatist as, among other things, "One who advocates disjunction of a group from a larger group or political unit." I'll break this down so you can understand. Disjunction means to break a connection; was the KMT connected to Taiwan at the time? Yes. Legal or not, a definite political connection existed (i.e. the KMT was in charge). Was the KMT a larger political unit? At the time, yes, since they still occupied the mainland. Did the insurgents want to break Taiwan's existing connection with the KMT? Yes. Therefore, the insurgents were separatists. Xuanwu 17:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Separate from who? Taiwan was not part of China!!(see below) Not now either!Mababa 01:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * And, therefore, your arguments involving Taiwan's legal status (or, basically, all your posts since the very beginning of the discussion) are irrelevant. I suggest consulting a dictionary so you know what the term in question actually means before launching into a pseudo-intellectual spiel that amounts to little more than mental masturbation. It would likely improve the quality of your contributions both to Wiki and to the Internet as a whole. Good day, kind sir. :) Xuanwu 17:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Can't we just agree that "insurgents" is a more politically neutral term?--Loren 20:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no need to resort to vulgar rheotorics to prove one's point is neutral. The word separatist is not neutral nor accurate because it depicted the Taiwanese were already part of China, which is a POV commonly used by Xinhua news agent, and also that the Taiwanese were politically motivated against the Chinese regime at the very begining, which is not true either. The phrase, "separatists" is politically charged and thus not neutral.--Mababa 01:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think we should shorten the timeline and then streamline the first section on Japanese rule in Taiwan, as it is pretty much copied verbatim from the history of Taiwan article.   Wareware 10:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds good, I'll do that. --Loren 20:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Li Ao studied Taiwan history during his time of imprisonment under Chiang Kai-shek's White Terror campaign. The professors I study with generally consider him a reputable historian. The main point of balance is to illutsrate that those who protested against KMT rule were NOT entirely peaceful (though some were) and that mainlanders were killed alongside Taiwan locals. Just because the current political rhetoric focuses on what happened to the Taiwan locals doesn't mean they were saints in the matter (and indeed they weren't; both sides had blood on their hands). If you can find other sources, that would be good. Xuanwu 19:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not denying that many of those killed were also mainlanders, though we should also mention that the ROC military garrison stationed in Taiwan also engaged in some rather dubious (and some allege, indiscriminate) actions prior to the crackdown in early March. There are also records of several student groups and volunteer police forces going out of their way to protect mainlanders from the, shall we say, less friendly groups.--Loren 20:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- I want to have a say here about Taiwan sovereignty, if any of you do not like it, that's fine, freedom of speech. Ethnically Taiwanese are Chinese, which means people who live on Taiwan today are all from Mainland China except Taiwan aborigines. There is no question before China lost war to Japan in 1895 Taiwan was a province of dynasty China. After World War Two the Republican China led by KMT came to the island and established a provincial government. 228 incident happend in 1947 and Japanese government (neither did US/Allied forces in Japan and the Far East) did not come to rescue Taiwan people with the fact Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in 1952! 228 incident should be the dispute between the Republic of China and the Japanese government with nothing to do with people who live on Taiwan in 1947 (they did not have the political right of it, because Taiwan was in a role of Japanese territory with US/allied forces in which ROC a member of it) 228 incident is rather a incident between two sovereign countries on the one side is China and another Japan and Taiwan was still a part of Japan at that time! It would be cruel to say a winning country in a war could do a lot to a occupying land/territoty, for example, Japanese military did "a lot" to people in Nanking during World War Two. But the fact is that Taiwan was a part of Japan during World War Two and Taiwanese (people live on Taiwan) fought for Japan during World War Two against allied countries and Republic of China. In 228 incident ROC troops were killing Japanese not the so called "Taiwanese" at all. Until today, we have seen no request from the Japanese government about this issue. People who live on Taiwan from 1895 to 1952 are Japanese not Chinese excluding those from China to Taiwan after 1945.

If there were some people on Taiwan want independence it would be Taiwan independence from Japan! Then it would in the condition that Japan has the right to send it's troops to Taiwan to punish those who want independence from Japan during 228 incident. So 228 incident was more like fight for nothing and gained nothing in return for those who rioted, it's just ridiculous for those who suffered and died because they did nothing but attract threat to them and to Taiwan in the end at that time, legally speaking.

In fact, as far as I know, KMT corruption and the war with the Communist that financially crackdown the Nationalist government are two major reasons to cause the 228 incident in Taiwan. Those who do not like 228 incident should blame the Japanese government not protecting Taiwan against allied forces including UK/US/Russia and ROC troops.

About sovereignty of Taiwan, as Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in 1952, Taiwan either became a land of Allied Trusteeship or a ROC controlled territory. President Truman of the US stated that US has no territorial desire to Formosa and the Taiwan question should be solved in the UN. But later President Truman and allies accepted ROC administration on the island. Thus Taiwan was "accepted" and "agreed" by winning countries of World War Two (which ROC a member of it at that time) to be ruled and administered by Republic of China. Then because of the wartime period with the communist rebellion, ROC implemented Martial Law on the island until early 90's. In 1996 first direct presidential election was held in Taiwan province and Fujian province of ROC with Lee Teng Hui elected and inaugurated according to the ROC constitution as president of ROC.

Today, Taiwan is a province of ROC and definitely not a Japanese territory anymore, and Taiwan has no legal binding/connection with Japan anymore. Some people in Taiwan who lean toward Taiwan independence argue that Taiwan was not formally transferred to Republic of China but the fact is that Taiwan is a recovered territory of China. In fact Taiwan independence from China is impossible because it will cause war and Taiwan will lose the war (PRC has nuclear weapon).

Li Ao is not a historian, thus should be ignored.
Li Ao is a politician, not a historian. His accounts are falsified to gain political advantages. --Tp kde

 * Please read our NPOV policy. All viepoints must be taken into account and attributed to achieve NPOV. We cannot ignore Li Ao because he is a major figure and many people believe what he writes. On top of presenting his view, we can provide opposing views. We cannot censor material here. --Jiang 05:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, as long as he is not regarded as a "historian", I am ok with that.Tp kde 19:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Li Ao's status as a politician does not mean he is not also a historian. K.C. Wu was a political figure under Chiang Kai-Shek's regime, but his research into ancient Chinese history is still cited today. Unless you can provide specific examples of where Li Ao has allowed his political POV to taint his books (in terms of falsifying data), his status as a scholar of Chinese history stands, though there is certainly room to disagree with the theses he proposes. Xuanwu 22:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he is not recongized as a historian in Taiwan. Unless you can show me how is he a historian, or else anyone (that publish a book about "history") can be regarded as a historian.Tp kde 22:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given that Wiki itself lists Li Ao as a historian, the burden of proof rests on you, since you seem to be disagreeing with the consensus that he does pursue Chinese history. In addition to Wiki, Li Ao is considered a historian by Wen Guixiu, executive editor at the Oxford University Press's China branch. (Source: ) And the BBC says similar things. (Source: ) I'd say those are fairly credible endorsements. Xuanwu 22:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So, if I remove the information about Li Ao as a historian on wiki, would it make any difference?
 * Obviously you are not from Taiwan. If you said that Li Ao is a historian in Taiwan, the population there would laugh at you... like you were from the outerspace. -- Human history is closely connected to "the place" and "the population" which the historical event occured. If the majority of the population, especially of those who experienced the event as it unfold, don't consider what Li Ao said was correct, why would you think that he was right? If he is not right, why are his points mentioned?
 * Li Ao's points were left here not deleted because jiang insisted "NPOV", not because Li Ao is a historian. Insisting Li Ao as a historian in Taiwan history (or "ROC" history in Taiwan), would mislead people and involve politics.... Raising the profile of this subject matter does not serve Chinese well -- even KMT wants to be evasive....Tp kde 23:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * All I wanted to say was that Li Ao is not more authoritive than others when it comes to Taiwan's history. Many of the elderly population in Taiwan can prove him wrong. Give him the title "historian" would be sarcastic in some way.
 * The truth about 228 incident is not all that controverial, given that there are only three different group of people: the "know nothing", "smoke grenade", and "know something". As far as I know, Li Ao is only "smoke grenade" at best.Tp kde 00:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That "as far as I know" is well put from you. Which category should you belong to? What's important is that Li Ao does provide proofs for all his arguments. Also, please give us a definition of historian, many so-called historians in Taiwan are no less biased than Li Ao. (Notice how Li Hung-Hsi 李鴻禧 is regarded as historian) bobbybuilder 22:04, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Li Ao is no historian, he's a polemical pro-China writer with a long history of lying and grandstanding for political causes -- like, for example, claiming that the CIA sent him a report saying that the 319 assassination attempt on Chen was faked. Nothing he writes can be trusted. Further, Kerr was in a position to actually know whether there were Japanese on the island and to what extent, since he was in the US consulate on the island as a consular official. It is a staple of Chinese nationalist/facist political discourse that Taiwan independence is a secret plot of the Japanese, Li Ao is simply following that line. By treating Li Ao as a serious historian rather than as a right-wing polemicist, the 2-28 Wiki in effect becomes POV. This should be deleted, and instead, a paragraph put in noting that it is a staple of Chinese discourse on Taiwan that TI is a Japanese plot, and that no evidence suggests any Japanese involvement in 2-28. I've gone ahead and edited the passage -- Michael Turton

 * Such an irony for someone so biased to talk about NPOV. For this certain Michael Turton, before you do anything on Wiki, please learn how to sign properly. Bobbybuilder 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Assume good faith. The mere absence of what you consider a "proper" signature is irrelevant to the point under discussion. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits regarding KMT whitewashing
The fact that the KMT attempted to whitewash 228 was already covered in the Legacy section and the original intro. The article itself already covered the purging of Taiwanese elites. There is no point including such a large chunk of borderline POV information in the intro. The reader can go through the description of 228 in the article and decide for him/herself why the KMT decided to repress knowledge of 228. --Loren 04:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

the 1st paragraph
the 1st paragraph is irrelevant to the incident. esp the controversial words " china relinquished its claims..."

the introduction should start in 1945. or trace al the way bacy 1600 or 300...

Query on how identity was determined
"Rebels would often check to see if the individual in question could speak Taiwanese or Hakka as a means of determining their identity. Japanese was used for a final double check as well as the Japanese National Anthem. Persons who failed the above were identified as mainlanders and were often beaten or killed."

My concern is - there were plenty of "mainlanders" from Fujian who spoke minnan dilects, Taiwanese is essentially minnan dilect with elements of Japanese influence. Wouldn't it have been easier and more accurate to ask the individual to speak mandarin chinese and verify the accent? Plenty of "mainlanders" speak minnan and there were "mainlanders" who were hakka.

BlindingCranium

 * I doubt that most Taiwanese at the time were proficient enough in Mandarin to speak it, much less identify regional accents. Also keep in mind that even with Min-nan several regional accents exist. -Loren 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Communism in Taiwan
Communism has long existed in Taiwan for a long time before anti-Communism tide (anti-Communism McCathyism) hit Taiwanese society. Since 1927, Chinese Communist Party has had a branch in Taiwan and at that time, the Taiwanese female leader of Chinese Communist Party "Xie Xue-Hong"(谢雪红) was the main figure to resist to Japanese occupation and later pro-USA KMT government. During the 228 incident in Taiwan in 1946, the leader of pro-USA KMT government "Chiang Kai-Shek" ordered army to massacre communists, many taiwanese communists fled to mainland(China). Many people of them are now still main figures of Chinese Communist Party

After 228 incident,the Taiwan society extremely has been disappointed to the Kuomintang authority, a part has implanted the Taiwan independence mood, but majority transferred to support the Chinese Communist Party,and the red influence rapidly inflated in Taiwan. On the other hand, Chinese Communist Party army successively won in the mainland, various party politics unit sends the person to Taiwan. Until 1949, Taiwan has nearly proliferated the Chinese Communist Party members from all governmental agencies, military units, transportation units, communication, electric power to the intellectuals of institutions. This gave advantageous political context that Taiwan will have been already "liberation" in namely by Chinese People's Liberation Army.

The reactionary reign of terror implemented white terror(anti-Communism and massacre) in 1950s

However in 1950 Korean War erupted, US ship drove into Taiwan strait, Pro-USA KMT authority refights the steady footsteps, and the strategic circumstance appears the basic transition. KMT rallies the sentiment to govern the strength and the implementation of white terror policy and leftists were massacred. Many underground party members encounter were executed by shooting, including Guo Xiu-cong, Li Cangjiang,who knew Li Deng-Hui very much(Note: Li Deng-hui, known as Lee Teng-hui, once a member of Chinese Communist Party, but he betrayed the party and his comrades to KMT, later he betrayed KMT to pro-independence mobs. He was criticized as being a political opportunist by many taiwanese). Recent years, the name lists file of persons who were shot has flowed out from the Taiwan Security Bureau , it is surprising to behold, representing the 50's brutall(bloody) years which red strengths were eradicated by KMT forces, and this also was "bandit's spy on nearby your body" the political propaganda at that time background, Taiwan entered the age which found it unbearable to recall the cruelly wither

Note: Xie Xue-Hong(谢雪红), born in Zhang-Hua county, Taiwan province. She was the leader of Taiwan province branch of the Chinese Communist Party during Japanese occupation. After 228 incident, she fled to China and later became congresswoman of National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China

Picture below: Taiwanese heroine Xie Xue-Hong(谢雪红) ,who was born in Taiwan and was the leader of Taiwan province branch of the Chinese Communist Party severely condemned USA attempts to divide Taiwan from China in 1949

[]

 * Here's a contemporaneous news article (no picture) regarding the same Ms Xie:
 * --Mliu92 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

228?
It's such a strange name - where does it come from? 62.141.24.89 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Feb-28. Shawnc 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the sentence "After a warning shot fired by one of the agents went astray and killed an onlooker" is inappropriate for an article on this site? It's found in the first paragraph of the "Uprising and crackdown" section. 130.74.170.60 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Most Taiwanese believed that Chiang Kai-shek ordered his troops to carry out the crackdown.
There was a short edit war over the sentence "Most Taiwanese believed that Chiang Kai-shek ordered his troops to carry out the crackdown." and the use of the term "violently". Regarding the sentence, if it can be supported with poll results or something like that it should probably be in the article, but in stead of where it was it should be moved to the "legacy" section as it affects how people view Taiwan's history and relationship to ROC.

Regarding the word "violently", given that people were intentionally killed, I think "violently" is correct and belongs. Certainly by this definition violently 3: caused by force : not natural, the term is used correctly and doesn't need to be removed. I also think it belongs because without it provides a better understanding of what the article is about.

But what about the of "quickly" in the same sentence? Didn't the incident continue for several weeks? That doesn't seem "quick" to me.Readin (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree to remove "quickly" from the sentence. Other than that, the statement is not POV.-- Jerrch 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the contemporary accounts suggest local decisions to use force. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Structure
I think the article could use some re-structuring; for example: the introduction is way too long. --K kc chan (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I think the last paragraph can be moved to the Legacy section.-- Jerrch 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

kind people
I removed these sentences for acouple reasons. On both sides there were kind people. Some Taiwanese helped to hide the mainlanders who fled the attacks by the Taiwanese rebels who were in control of the island. Some even protected the mainlanders. Unfortunately, many of these Taiwanese were also killed by the rebels for helping out the mainlanders. During the violence many unlawful elements also merged with those protesting legitimate political demands. First, they have no citation. Second, it says there were kind people on both sides, but then only describes kind people among the Taiwanese. Third, when mentioning the Taiwanese it doesn't even portray them as a "side", instead separating using "rebels" to distinguish those on a side from Taiwanese who were kind. In short, if the first sentence about kind people on both sides is true, then the rest of the sentences violate NPOV. It is unclear however whether the first sentence is true because no citation is provided. Readin (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

uncited contention
I removed this section because it was completely uncited and it wasn't clear to me what it added to the article. Also its NPOV has been questioned on this talk page in that it calls Li Ao a historian based on the fact that Wikipedia calls him a historian. However, the article on Li Ao provides no citation for calling him a historian. And the "List of Historians" has him listed as a historian of China, not of Taiwan. The 2-28 You Don't Know is mentioned, but no link or quotes are provided for verification. If they were, I would check to see if he actually uses the term "Taiwanese separatists" and if so put them in quotes. To use them unquoted is misleading because according to the citation of, it is clear that the Chinese were considered an "occupation army" and it seems Taiwanese didn't identify with "Chinese" (article says "Formosans use the adjective "Chinese" as a synonym for inefficiency and confusion." and quotes Taiwanese as saying "You were kind to the Japanese, you dropped the atom on them. You dropped the Chinese on us".)

Points of contention

 * According to The 2-28 You Don't Know, by Li Ao (a pro-reunification politician, historian, and writer), Taiwanese separatists and Japanese expatriates played a role in the rebellion, an observation made by several other Chinese historians of the time upon whose work Li Ao's record is based. This is contradicted by the account given by George H. Kerr who was in Taiwan at the time as a US Foreign Service officer. Kerr mentions that nearly all of the Japanese living or stationed in Taiwan at the end of WWII had been repatriated by March 1946.

 * Kerr also mentions that the goals among the insurgents were varied and not necessarily linked to Taiwan independence. For example, the Settlement Committee issued statements demanding greater autonomy within the ROC, but stopped short of independence. Li Ao also notes the heterogeneous nature of the insurgents. He writes that the separatist subset was noteworthy for those members who used violence in the pursuit of their political goals.

Some say that as many as 30,000 Taiwanese died during the backlash. Others claim, especially those in the pan-Blue political camp in Taiwan, that the majority of those killed were innocent civilians from the mainland. The number of victims is still being researched. The government has recently declassified sensitive material that is aiding the investigation.
 * The total number of victims is still in dispute. The official estimate is somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 killed.

I'm not sure who Kerr is but if he is reliable and citations are provided his data should be in regular section, not in "points of contention". Readin (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Massecre was one day?
"The number "228" refers to the day of the massacre" I think every source I've ever read on 228 says the incident lasted several weeks. The statement that it was only one day is uncited. Anyone have a good source to day how long the "228 Incident" lasted? I'm tempted to change the statement to read "The number "228" refers to the day the massacre began." Readin (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The massacre lasted for months.-- Jerrch 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

CCP POV?
Hi, I was wondering what the CCP had/has to say about the events. I suppose they did comment on the issue once or twice in the past? I think it could, for example, be interesting to know if the CCP's evaluation of the events has changed in recent years or not. Yaan (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if CCP POV is any more relevant than any other nation's POV. This happened in Taiwan/Formosa outside of CCP control.--24.193.80.232 (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should CCP's POV be less relevant than any other nations? Are you sure that event happened in Taiwan/Formosa under any other nation's control at that moment, except CCP? Actually, Kerr's book confirmed that the CCP had involved the incident. Your position is not NPOV. --90.136.147.184 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs Citation
"Subsequently, Taiwanese perceptions of the Japanese occupation during the colonial era were significantly more favorable than perceptions in other parts of East Asia"

This needs a citation, otherwise it should be removed for P.O.V. reasons.

 * While we generally are supposed to require citations, the rule is honored as often in the breach as in the application. In this case why do you think POV is a problem? Readin (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

pro-Japanese involvement
The issue of pro-Japanese involvement appears to be from this source, but without the all important qualifier.

 * On March 19th or 20th 1947, the Formosan Provincial Government newspaper "Hsin Sheng" published an editorial entitled, "Who are the Criminals", as follows:
 * (1) Industrialists who co-operated with Japan still dream that Formosa should go back to Japan so that they could regain prosperity under Japanese rule. But the present Government is not going to allow middle-men to make profits. The profits should be for the country. The industrialists therefore agitated the young people to rebel against the government.

Qualifier: “To anyone not familiar with the background, and unaware of the real facts the Government statements might appear reasonable enough, but UNRRA officials had long learned to take Chinese official publications with several grains of salt. Some had found that the opposite to the published statements was frequently more correct.”

Source: Shackleton, Allan J., Formosa Calling: An Eyewitness Account of the February 28th, 1947 Incident, Taiwan Publishing Co (Taipei: 1998), Chapter XI (http://homepage.usask.ca/~llr130/taiwanlibrary/formosacalling/formosaframes.htm) DOR (HK) (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

removal of "anti chinese"
the "native taiwanese" people are actually descended from chinese who moved to taiwan from fujian and guangdong provinces from china. so whether or not they could be technically "anti-themselves" cpi;d be disputed, as they are descended from chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.158 (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 * No matter who the Taiwanese descended from, they can (and frequently do) perceive themselves as different from the Chinese. Certainly the US is mainly inhabited by people descended from Europeans, but they prefer to view themselves as being American. There are some Americans who have anti-European feelings (and vice versa obviously). So using "anti-Chinese" in the article is readily understandable and follows usual language conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.166.35 (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:February 28 incident/Archive 1


text:
User:Soilguy5

HELLO! I am some guy interested in philosophy and zen buddhism. I was part of the team that first coordinated the Reverse Time Ideology.

The ONE and ONLY SOILGUY 16:05, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Soilguy5


text:
St Anne and St Agnes

St Anne and St Agnes is a church located at Gresham Street in the City of London, near the Barbican. While St Anne's is an Anglican foundation, from 1966 to 2013 it was let to a congregation of the Lutheran Church in Great Britain.

History
The first mention of a church on the present site is in documents of 1137 which refer to 'St Agnes near Alderychgate' and the 'priest of St Anne's' which was situated near Aldredesgate'. There was confusion over the name since the church was described variously in Norman records as St Anne-in-the-Willows and as St Agnes. Its unusual double dedication, unique in the City, seems to have been acquired some time in the 15th century.

The church was gutted by a fire in 1548 but was rebuilt soon after. Further work was done in 1624. However, the building's 14th century tower was its only section to survive the Great Fire of London in 1666 (and then only partially).

St Anne and St Agnes was rebuilt by Sir Christopher Wren in 1680, with possible contributions from Robert Hooke. The small brick church is of an unusual design in London, being based on that of a Greek cross; it utilises a vaulted square within a square, a formula based on the Nieuwe Kerk in Haarlem in the Netherlands. Wren also used a similar design at St Martin Ludgate and St Mary-at-Hill. The parish was united with the parish of St John Zachary by Act of Parliament in 1670 as St John's was not rebuilt after the Great Fire.

The church was extensively restored in the 18th and 19th centuries, but was largely destroyed by Second World War bombing by German bombers during the London Blitz during the night of 29–30 December 1940. It was rededicated in 1966, largely through donations by the worldwide Lutheran church, for use by the exile Estonian and Latvian communities in London. The reconstructed interior is a mixture of replicas of the prewar fittings and original or copied fittings from other London churches, some of which had also been destroyed in the war but were not reconstructed. The congregation of St Anne's Lutheran Church left the church in June 2013, and began to share St Mary-at-Hill with its existing Anglican congregation. The building, now called the VOCES8 Centre, has become the home of the VOCES8 Foundation, an educational charity incorporating the vocal ensemble Voces8.

Famous past parishioners have included the poet John Milton and John Bunyan, author of ''Pilgrim's Progress.' John Wesley, founder of Methodism, preached twice at the church in 1738. The church was designated a Grade I listed building on 4 January 1950.

title: St Anne and St Agnes


text:
St Augustine Watling Street

St Augustine, Watling Street, was an Anglican church which stood just to the east of St Paul's Cathedral in the City of London. First recorded in the 12th century, it was destroyed by the Great Fire of London in 1666 and rebuilt to the designs of Christopher Wren. This building was destroyed by bombing during the Second World War, and its remains now form part of St Paul's Cathedral Choir School.

Medieval church
The church stood on the north side of Watling Street, at the corner with Old Change. According to Richard Newcourt, the dedication was to St Augustine of Canterbury, rather than St Augustine of Hippo. The earliest recorded mentioned of the church is from 1148. In 1252–3 Alexander le Cordwaner made a grant of land on the north side for its enlargement. John Stow, writing at the end of the 16th century called St Augustine's " a fair church," adding that it had been "lately well repaired." The church was partly rebuilt, and "in every part of it richly and very worthily beautified" in 1630–1, at a cost to the parishioners of £1,200. The foundations of the northern half of the medieval church were revealed when burials were removed in 1965. The archaeological evidence indicated that the 12th-century church was about 61 ft long, the thirteenth century extension 59 ft long and 16 ft wide.

The medieval building was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666.

Rebuilding after the fire
After the fire the parish was united with that of St Faith's, whose congregation had previously worshipped in the crypt of St Paul's Cathedral. St Augustine's was rebuilt to a design by Christopher Wren; the foundations, revealed by the excavations of 1965, were mostly of re-used stones set in mortar. The new church opened in September, 1683, but the steeple was not finished until 1695.

The interior was about 51 ft long – shorter than the medieval building – 45 ft wide and 30 ft high. The nave was divided from the aisles by an arcade supported on Corinthian columns with unusually high bases. The naves and aisles were barrel vaulted, the nave vault being pierced by three skylights on each side. There were galleries on the north side, and at the west end, but the latter was taken down when the organ was moved to the south side. The walls were originally panelled to a height of 8 ft, but this was later considerably reduced. The reredos had Corinthian columns and the pulpit was of carved oak. The pulpit was modernised by Arthur Blomfield in 1878.

Rectors of the church included John Douglas, later Bishop of Carlisle and of Salisbury, from 1764 to 1787, and Richard Harris Barham, author of the Ingoldsby Legends, from 1842 until his death in 1845.

Destruction
The church was destroyed by bombing in 1941. It was not rebuilt, but the tower was restored in 1954 and later incorporated into a new choir school for St Paul's Cathedral, completed in 1967.

The remains of the church were designated a Grade I listed building on 4 January 1950.

Faith, the church cat
The church cat, named Faith, became quite well known after the air raid which destroyed St Augustine's. Days before she was seen moving her kitten, Panda, to a basement area. Despite being brought back several times, Faith insisted on returning Panda to her refuge. On the morning after the air raid the rector searched through the dangerous ruins for the missing animals, and eventually found Faith, surrounded by smouldering rubble and debris but still guarding the kitten in the spot she had selected three days earlier. The story of her premonition and rescue eventually reached Maria Dickin, founder of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, and for her courage and devotion Faith was awarded a specially-made silver medal. Her death in 1948 was reported on four continents.

title: St Augustine Watling Street


text:
Electronic assessment

Electronic assessment, also known as digital assessment, e-assessment, online assessment or computer-based assessment, is the use of information technology in assessment such as educational assessment, health assessment, psychiatric assessment, and psychological assessment. This covers a wide range of activities ranging from the use of a word processor for assignments to on-screen testing. Specific types of e-assessment include multiple choice, online/electronic submission, computerized adaptive testing such as the Frankfurt Adaptive Concentration Test, and computerized classification testing.

Different types of online assessments contain elements of one or more of the following components, depending on the assessment's purpose: formative, summative and diagnostic. Instant and detailed feedback may (or may not) be enabled.

In formative assessment, often defined as 'assessment for learning', digital tools are increasingly being adopted by schools, higher education institutions and professional associations to measure where students are in their skills or knowledge. This can make it easier to provide tailored feedback, interventions or action plans to improve learning and attainment. Gamification is one type of digital assessment tool that can engage students in a different way whilst gathering data that teachers can use to gain insight.

In summative assessment, which could be described as 'assessment of learning', exam boards and awarding organisations delivering high-stakes exams often find the journey from paper-based exam assessment to fully digital assessment a long one. Practical considerations such as having the necessary IT hardware to enable large numbers of student to sit an electronic examination at the same time, as well as the need to ensure a stringent level of security (for example, see: Academic dishonesty) are among the concerns that need to resolved to accomplish this transition.

E-marking is one way that many exam assessment and awarding bodies, such as Cambridge International Examinations, are utilizing innovations in technology to expedite the marking of examinations. In some cases, e-marking can be combined with electronic examinations, whilst in other cases students will still hand-write their exam responses on paper scripts which are then scanned and uploaded to an e-marking system for examiners to mark on-screen.

Application
E-assessment is becoming more widely used by exam awarding bodies, particularly those with multiple or international study centres and those which offer remote study courses. Industry bodies such as The e-Assessment Association (eAA), founded in 2008, as well as events run by the Association of Test Publishers (ATP) that focus specifically on Innovations in Testing, represent the growth in adoption of technology-enhanced assessment.

In psychiatric and psychological testing, e-assessment can be used not only to assess cognitive and practical abilities but anxiety disorders, such as social anxiety disorder, i.e. SPAI-B. Widely in psychology. Cognitive abilities are assessed using e-testing software, while practical abilities are assessed using e-portfolios or simulation software.

Types
Online assessment is used primarily to measure cognitive abilities, demonstrating what has been learned after a particular educational event has occurred, such as the end of an instructional unit or chapter. When assessing practical abilities or demonstrating learning that has occurred over a longer period of time an online portfolio (or ePortfolio) is often used. The first element that must be prepared when teaching an online course is assessment. Assessment is used to determine if learning is happening, to what extent and if changes need to be made.

Independent work
Most students will not complete assignments unless there is an assessment (i.e. motivation). It is the instructor's role to catalyze student motivation. Appropriate feedback is the key to assessment, whether or not the assessment is graded.

Group work
Students are often asked to work in groups. This brings on new assessment strategies. Students can be evaluated using a collaborative learning model in which the learning is driven by the students and/or a cooperative learning model where tasks are assigned and the instructor is involved in decisions.

Pre-testing – Prior to the teaching of a lesson or concept, a student can complete an online pretest to determine their level of knowledge. This form of assessment helps determine a baseline so that when a summative assessment or post-test is given, quantitative evidence is provided showing that learning has occurred.

Formative assessment – Formative assessment is used to provide feedback during the learning process. In online assessment situations, objective questions are posed, and feedback is provided to the student either during or immediately after the assessment.

Summative assessment – Summative assessments provide a quantitative grade and are often given at the end of a unit or lesson to determine that the learning objectives have been met.

Practice Testing – With the ever-increasing use of high-stakes testing in the educational arena, online practice tests are used to give students an edge. Students can take these types of assessments multiple times to familiarize themselves with the content and format of the assessment.

Surveys – Online surveys may be used by educators to collect data and feedback on student attitudes, perceptions or other types of information that might help improve instruction.

Evaluations – This type of survey allows facilitators to collect data and feedback on any type of situation where the course or experience needs justification or improvement.

Performance testing – The user shows what they know and what they can do. This type of testing is used to show technological proficiency, reading comprehension, math skills, etc. This assessment is also used to identify gaps in student learning.

New technologies, such as the Web, digital video, sound, animations, and interactivity, are providing tools that can make assessment design and implementation more efficient, timely, and sophisticated.

Electronic marking
Electronic marking, also known as e-marking and onscreen marking, is the use of digital educational technology specifically designed for marking. The term refers to the electronic marking or grading of an exam. E-marking is an examiner led activity closely related to other e-assessment activities such as e-testing, or e-learning which are student led. E-marking allows markers to mark a scanned script or online response on a computer screen rather than on paper.

There are no restrictions to the types of tests that can use e-marking, with e-marking applications designed to accommodate multiple choice, written, and even video submissions for performance examinations. E-marking software is used by individual educational institutions and can also be rolled out to the participating schools of awarding exam organizations. e-marking has been used to mark many well-known high stakes examinations, which in the United Kingdom include A levels and GCSE exams, and in the US includes the SAT test for college admissions. Ofqual reports that e-marking is the main type of marking used for general qualifications in the United Kingdom.

History
Early adopters include the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, (which operates under the brand name Cambridge Assessment) which conducted its first major test of e-marking in November 2000. Cambridge Assessment has conducted extensive research into e-marking and e-assessment. The syndicate has published a series of papers, including research specific to e-marking such as: Examining the impact of moving to on-screen marking on concurrent validity.

In 2007, the International Baccalaureate implemented e-marking. In 2012, 66% of nearly 16 million exam scripts were "e-marked" in the United Kingdom. Ofqual reports that in 2015, all key stage 2 tests in the United Kingdom will be marked onscreen.

In 2010, Mindlogicx implemented onscreen marking system for the first time in India at Anna University enabling easy operations and efficient conduction of high stakes examination.

In 2014, the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) announced that most of the National 5 question papers would be e-marked.

In June 2015, the Odisha state government in India announced that it planned to use e-marking for all Plus II papers from 2016.

Process
E-marking can be used to mark examinations that are completed on paper and then scanned and uploaded as digital images, as well as online examinations. Multiple-choice exams can be either marked by examiners online or be automarked where appropriate. When marking written script exams, e-marking applications provide markers with online tools and resources to mark as they go and can add up marks as they progress without exceeding the prescribed total for each question.

All candidate details are hidden from the work being marked to ensure anonymity during the marking process. Once marking is complete, results can be uploaded immediately, reducing both the time spent by examiners posting results and the wait time for students.

The e-marking FAQ is a comprehensive list of answers to frequently asked questions surrounding e-marking.

Advantages
It has also been noted that in regards to university level work, providing electronic feedback can be more time-consuming than traditional assessments, and therefore more expensive.

In 1986, Lichtenwald investigated the test validity and test reliability of either personal computer administration or a paper and pencil administration of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R). His project report included a review and analysis of the literature of pre-mid 1980s E-assessment systems.

A review of the literature of E-assessment from the 1970s until 2000 examined the advantages and disadvantages of E-assessments.

A detailed review of the literature regarding advantages and disadvantages of E-assessment for different types of tests for different types of students in different educational environment from childhood through young adulthood was completed in 2010. In higher education settings, there is variation in the ways academics perceive the benefits of e-assessment. While some perceive e-assessment processes as integral to teaching, others think of e-assessment in isolation from teaching and their students' learning.

Academic dishonesty
Academic dishonesty, commonly known as cheating, occurs at all levels of educational institutions. In traditional classrooms, students cheat in various forms such as hidden prepared notes not permitted to be used or looking at another student's paper during an exam, copying homework from one another, or copying from a book, article or media without properly citing the source. Individuals can be dishonest due to lack of time management skills, the pursuit of better grades, cultural behavior or a misunderstanding of plagiarism.

Online classroom environments are no exception to the possibility of academic dishonesty. It can easily be seen from a student's perspective as an easy passing grade. Proper assignments types, meetings and projects can prevent academic dishonesty in the online classroom. However, online assessment may provide additional possibilities for cheating, such as hacking.

Two common types of academic dishonesty are identity fraud and plagiarism.

Identity fraud can occur in the traditional or online classroom. There is a higher chance in online classes due to the lack of proctored exams or instructor-student interaction. In a traditional classroom, instructors have the opportunity to get to know the students, learn their writing styles or use proctored exams. To prevent identity fraud in an online class, instructors can use proctored exams through the institutions testing center or require students to come in at a certain time for the exam. Correspondence through phone or video conferencing techniques can allow an instructor to become familiar with a student through their voice and appearance. Another option would be personalize assignments to students backgrounds or current activities. This allows the student to apply it to their personal life and gives the instructor more assurance the actual student is completing the assignment. Lastly, an instructor may not make the assignments heavily weighted so the students do not feel as pressured.

Plagiarism is the misrepresentation of another person's work. It is easy to copy and paste from the internet or retype directly from a source. It is not only the exact wordage, but the thought or idea. It is important to learn to properly cite a source when using someone else's work.

Interoperability
To assist sharing of assessment items across disparate systems, standards such as the IMS Global Question and Test Interoperability specification (QTI) have emerged.

title: Electronic assessment