text:
Courageous-class battlecruiser

The Courageous class consisted of three battlecruisers known as "large light cruisers" built for the Royal Navy during the First World War. The class was nominally designed to support the Baltic Project, a plan by Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher that was intended to land troops on the German Baltic Coast. Ships of this class were fast but very lightly armoured, with only a few heavy guns. They were given a shallow draught, in part to allow them to operate in the shallow waters of the Baltic but also reflecting experience gained earlier in the war. To maximize their speed, the Courageous-class battlecruisers were the first capital ships of the Royal Navy to use geared steam turbines and small-tube boilers.

The first two ships, HMS Courageous (50) and HMS Glorious, were commissioned in 1917 and spent the war patrolling the North Sea. They participated in the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight in November 1917 and were present when the High Seas Fleet surrendered a year later. Their half-sister HMS Furious (47) was designed with a pair of 18 in guns, the largest guns ever fitted on a ship of the Royal Navy, but was modified during construction to take a flying-off deck and hangar in lieu of her forward turret and barbette. After some patrols in the North Sea, her rear turret was removed and another flight deck added. Her aircraft attacked the Zeppelin sheds during the Tondern raid in July 1918.

All three ships were laid up after the war, but were rebuilt into the Courageous-class aircraft carriers during the 1920s. Glorious and Courageous were sunk early in the Second World War and Furious was sold for scrap in 1948.

Design and description

The first two Courageous-class battlecruisers were designed in 1915 to meet a set of requirements laid down by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Fisher, with his Baltic Project in mind. They were to be large enough to ensure that they could maintain their speed in heavy weather, have a powerful armament and a speed of at least 32 kn to allow them to outrun enemy light cruisers. Their protection was to be light for a cruiser, with 3 in of armour between the waterline and the forecastle deck, anti-torpedo bulges amidships and the machinery as far inboard as possible, protected by triple torpedo bulkheads. Shallow draught was of the utmost importance and all other factors were to be subordinated to this. The Director of Naval Construction (DNC), Sir Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt, responded on 23 February 1915 with a smaller version of the Renown-class battlecruisers with one less gun turret and reduced armour protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had forbidden any further construction of ships larger than light cruisers in 1915, so Fisher designated the ships as large light cruisers to evade this prohibition. If this restriction had not been in place, the ships would have been built as improved versions of the preceding Renown class. The two ships were laid down a few months later under a veil of secrecy, so they became known in the Royal Navy as "Lord Fisher's hush-hush cruisers" and their odd design also earned them the nickname of the Outrageous class.

Their half-sister Furious was designed a few months later to meet a revised requirement specifying an armament of two BL 18-inch Mk I guns, the largest guns ever fitted on a Royal Navy ship, in single turrets with the ability to use twin 15 in gun turrets if the 18-inch guns were unsatisfactory. Gunnery experts criticized this decision because the long time between salvoes would make spotting corrections useless and reduce the rate of fire and thus the probability of a direct hit. Her secondary armament was upgraded to BL 5.5 inch Mk I guns, rather than the 4 in guns used by the first two ships, to compensate for the weakness of the two main guns against fast-moving targets like destroyers. Her displacement and beam were increased over that of her half-sisters with slightly less draught.

The Baltic Project was only one justification for the ships. Admiral Fisher wrote in a letter to the DNC on 16 March 1915: "I've told the First Lord that the more that I consider the qualities of your design of the Big Light Battle Cruisers, the more that I am impressed by its exceeding excellence and simplicity—all the three vital requisites of gunpower, speed and draught so well balanced!" In fact they could be considered the epitome of Fisher's belief in the paramount importance of speed over everything else. Fisher's adherence to this principle is highlighted in a letter he wrote to Churchill concerning the battleships of the 1912–13 Naval Estimates. In the letter, dated April 1912, Fisher stated: "There must be sacrifice of armour ... There must be further VERY GREAT INCREASE IN SPEED ... your speed must vastly exceed [that of] your possible enemy!"

Fisher's desire for a shallow draught was not merely based on the need to allow for inshore operations; ships tended to operate closer to deep load than anticipated and were often found lacking in freeboard, reserve buoyancy and safety against underwater attack. This experience led the DNC to reconsider the proportions of the hull to rectify the problems identified thus far. The Courageous-class ships were the first products of that re-evaluation.

General characteristics
The Courageous-class ships had an overall length of 786 ft, a beam of 81 ft, and a draught of 25 ft at deep load. They displaced 19180 LT normally and 22560 LT at deep load. They had a metacentric height of 6 ft at deep load and a complete double bottom.

Their half-sister Furious was the same length, but had a beam of 88 ft and a draught of 24 ft at deep load. She displaced 19513 LT at load and 22890 LT at deep load. She had a metacentric height of 5.33 ft at deep load.

Propulsion
To save weight and space the Courageous-class ships were the first large warships in the Royal Navy to have geared steam turbines and small-tube boilers despite the latter's significantly heavier maintenance requirements. Furthermore, to save design time, the turbine installation used in the light cruiser HMS Champion (1915), the navy's first cruiser with geared turbines, was simply doubled. The Parsons turbines were arranged in two engine rooms and each of the turbines drove one of the four propeller shafts. Furious's propellers were 11 ft in diameter. The turbines were powered by eighteen Yarrow boilers equally divided among three boiler rooms. They were designed to produce a total of 90000 shp at a working pressure of 235 psi, but achieved slightly more than that during Glorious's trials, although she did not reach her designed speed of 32 knots.

They were designed to normally carry 750 LT of fuel oil, but could carry a maximum of 3160 LT. At full capacity, they could steam for an estimated 6000 nmi at a speed of 20 knots.

Armament
The Courageous-class ships mounted four BL 15-inch Mark I guns in two twin hydraulically powered Mark I turrets, one each fore (designated the 'A' turret) and aft (the 'Y' turret). These turrets were originally intended for a Revenge-class battleship that was canceled shortly after the war began. The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°; they could be loaded at any angle up to 20°, although loading at high angles tended to slow the gun's return to battery (firing position). The ships carried 120 shells per gun. They fired 1910 lb projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2575 ft/s; this provided a maximum range of 23734 yd with armour-piercing shells.

The Courageous-class ships were designed with 18 BL 4-inch Mark IX guns, fitted in six triple mounts. These were manually powered and quite cumbersome in use as they required a crew of thirty-two men to load and train the guns. The gun's rate of fire was only 10 to 12 rounds per minute as the loaders kept getting in each other's way. They had a maximum depression of −10° and a maximum elevation of 30°. They fired a 22 lb high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2625 ft/s. At maximum elevation the guns had a maximum range of 13500 yd. The ships carried 120 rounds for each gun.

Each ship mounted a pair of QF 3 inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft guns on single high-angle Mark II mountings. These were mounted abreast the mainmast in the Courageous-class ships and before the funnel on Furious. The gun had a maximum depression of 10° and a maximum elevation of 90°. It fired a 12.5 lb shell at a muzzle velocity of 2500 ft/s at a rate of fire of 12–14 rounds per minute. They had a maximum effective ceiling of 23500 ft. All three ships carried ten torpedoes and mounted two 21 in submerged side-loading torpedo tubes fitted near 'A' turret. They were loaded and traversed by hydraulic power, but fired by compressed air.

The 18-inch BL Mark I gun carried by Furious was derived from the 15-inch Mark I gun used in her half-sisters. It was intended to be mounted in two single-gun turrets derived from the twin-gun 15-inch Mark I/N turret, and her barbettes were designed to accommodate either turret in case problems arose with the 18-inch gun's development, but only one turret was actually fitted. The gun could depress to −3° and elevate to a maximum of 30°. It fired a 3320 lb, 4 crh armour-piercing, capped shell at a muzzle velocity of 2270 ft/s to a distance of 28900 yd. It could fire one round per minute and the ship carried sixty rounds of ammunition. The turret's revolving mass was 826 LT, only slightly more than the 810 LT of its predecessor.

Furious's secondary armament consisted of 11 BL 5.5-inch Mk I guns. The guns had a maximum elevation of 25° on their pivot mounts. They fired 82 lb projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2790 ft/s at a rate of 12 rounds per minute. Their maximum range was 16000 yd at 25° elevation.

Fire control
The main guns of the Courageous-class ships could be controlled from either of the two fire-control directors. The primary director was mounted above the conning tower in an armoured hood and the other was in the fore-top on the foremast. The secondary armament was also director-controlled. Each turret was provided with a 15 ft rangefinder in an armoured housing on the turret roof. The fore-top was equipped with a 9 ft rangefinder as was the torpedo control tower above the rear superstructure. The anti-aircraft guns were controlled by a simple 2 m rangefinder mounted on the aft superstructure.

Protection
Unlike on other British battlecruisers, the bulk of the armour of the Courageous-class ships was made from high-tensile steel, a type of steel used structurally in other ships. Their waterline belt consisted of 2 in covered by a 1 in skin. It ran from barbette to barbette with a one-inch extension forward to the two-inch forward bulkhead well short of the bow. The belt had a height of 23 ft, of which 18 in was below the designed waterline. From the forward barbette a three-inch bulkhead extended out to the ship's side between the upper and lower decks and a comparable bulkhead was in place at the rear barbette as well. Four decks were armoured with thicknesses varying from .75 to 3 in, with the greatest thicknesses over the magazines and the steering gear. After the loss of three battlecruisers to magazine explosions during the Battle of Jutland, 110 LT of extra protection was added to the deck around the magazines.

The turrets, barbettes and conning tower were made from Krupp cemented armour. The turret faces were 9 in thick while their sides ranged from 7 to 9 in in thickness and the roof was 4.5 in thick. The barbettes had a maximum thickness of 6 to 7 in above the main deck, but reduced in thickness to 3 to 4 in between the lower and main decks. The conning tower armour was 10 in thick and it had a three-inch roof. The primary fire-control director atop the conning tower was protected by an armoured hood. The face of the hood was six inches thick, its sides were two inches thick and its roof was protected by three inches of armour. A communications tube with three-inch sides ran from the conning tower down to the lower conning position on the main deck. The torpedo bulkheads were increased during building from .75 in to 1.5 in in thickness.

All three ships were fitted with a shallow anti-torpedo bulge integral to the hull which was intended to explode the torpedo before it hit the hull proper and vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship. However, later testing proved that it was not deep enough to accomplish its task as it lacked the layers of empty and full compartments that were necessary to absorb the force of the explosion.

Service
During her sea trials in November 1916 off the River Tyne, Courageous sustained structural damage while running at full speed in a rough head sea. The forecastle deck was deeply buckled in three places between the breakwater and the forward turret. In addition, the side plating was visibly buckled between the forecastle and upper decks. Water had entered the submerged torpedo room and rivets had sheared in the vertical flange of the angle iron securing the deck armour in place. The exact cause remains uncertain, but Courageous received 130 LT of stiffening in response; Glorious did not receive her stiffening until 1918. Courageous also was temporarily fitted as a minelayer in April 1917, but never actually laid any mines. In mid-1917 both ships received a dozen torpedo tubes in pairs: one mount on each side of the mainmast on the upper deck and two mounts on each side of the rear turret on the quarterdeck. Courageous and Glorious served together throughout the war. Both ships were initially assigned to the 3rd Light Cruiser Squadron and later reconstituted the 1st Cruiser Squadron (CS).

Even as she was being built, Furious was modified with a large hangar capable of housing ten aircraft on her forecastle replacing the forward turret. A 160-foot (49 m) flight deck was built along its roof. Aircraft were flown off and, less successfully, landed on this deck. Although the aft turret was fitted and the gun trialled, it was not long before Furious returned to her builders for further modifications. In November 1917 the rear turret was replaced by a 300-foot (91 m) deck for landing aircraft over another hangar. Her funnel and superstructure remained intact, with a narrow strip of decking around them to connect the fore and aft flight decks. Turbulence from the funnel and superstructure was severe enough that only three landing attempts were successful before further attempts were forbidden. Her 18-inch guns were reused on the Lord Clive-class monitor monitors HMS General Wolfe (1915) and HMS Lord Clive (1915) during the war.

All three ships were in the 1st CS of which Courageous was flagship when the Admiralty received word of German ship movements on 16 October 1917, possibly indicating some sort of raid. Admiral Beatty, commander of the Grand Fleet, ordered most of his light cruisers and destroyers to sea in an effort to locate the enemy ships. Furious was detached from the 1st CS and ordered to sweep along the 56th parallel as far as 4° East and to return before dark. The other two ships were not initially ordered to sea, but were sent to reinforce the 2nd Light Cruiser Squadron patrolling the central part of the North Sea later that day. Two German Brummer-class cruiser light cruisers managed to slip through the gaps in the British patrols and destroyed a convoy headed to Scandinavia during the morning of 17 October, but no word was received of the engagement until that afternoon. The 1st CS was ordered to attempt to intercept the German ships, but they proved to be too fast and the British ships were unsuccessful.

Second Battle of Heligoland Bight
Over the course of 1917 the Admiralty was becoming more concerned about German efforts in the North Sea to sweep paths through the British-laid minefields intended to restrict the actions of the High Seas Fleet and German submarines. A preliminary raid on German minesweeping forces on 31 October by light forces destroyed ten small ships and the Admiralty decided on a larger operation to destroy the minesweepers and their escorting light cruisers. Based on intelligence reports the Admiralty decided on 17 November 1917 to allocate two light cruiser squadrons, the 1st CS covered by the reinforced 1st Battlecruiser Squadron and, more distantly, the battleships of the 1st Battle Squadron to the operation.

The German ships, four light cruisers of II Scouting Force, eight destroyers, three divisions of minesweepers, eight Sperrbrechers (cork-filled trawlers, used to detonate mines without sinking) and two trawlers to mark the swept route, were spotted at 7:30 a.m., silhouetted by the rising sun. Courageous and the light cruiser HMS Cardiff (D58) opened fire with their forward guns seven minutes later. The Germans responded by laying an effective smoke screen. The British continued in pursuit, but lost track of most of the smaller ships in the smoke and concentrated fire on the light cruisers as opportunity permitted. One 15-inch hit was made on a gun shield of SMS Pillau, but it did not affect her speed. At 8:33 the left-hand gun in Glorious's forward turret was wrecked when a shell detonated inside the gun barrel. At 9:30 the 1st CS broke off their pursuit so they would not enter a minefield marked on their maps; the ships turned south, playing no further role in the battle. The German ships had too much of a lead to be caught by the British ships before they had to turn to avoid the minefield.

Both ships had taken minor damage from their own muzzle blasts, and Glorious required five days of repairs. Courageous fired 92 rounds of 15-inch while Glorious fired 57, scoring only the single hit on Pillau between them. They also fired 180 and 213 four-inch shells respectively. Courageous's mine fittings were removed after the battle and both ships received flying-off platforms on top of their turrets in 1918. A Sopwith Camel was carried on the rear turret and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on the forward turret.

Furious was recommissioned on 15 March 1918 and her embarked aircraft were used on anti-Zeppelin patrols in the North Sea after May. In July 1918 she flew off seven Sopwith Camels which participated in the Tondern raid, attacking the Zeppelin sheds at Tondern with moderate success. All three ships were present at the surrender of the German fleet on 21 November 1918.

Post-war history
Courageous was reduced to reserve at Rosyth on 1 February 1919 before being assigned to the Gunnery School at Devonport the following year as a turret drill ship. She became flagship of the Rear-Admiral Commanding the Reserve at Devonport in March 1920. Glorious was also reduced to reserve at Rosyth on 1 February and served as a turret-drill ship, but succeeded her sister as flagship between 1921 and 1922. Furious was placed in reserve 21 November 1919 before beginning reconstruction as an aircraft carrier in 1921.

The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 required the signatory nations to severely curtail their plans for new warships and scrap many existing warships to meet its tonnage limits. Up to 66000 LT of existing ships, however, could be converted into aircraft carriers, and the Royal Navy chose to convert the Courageous-class ships because of their high speed. Each ship was reconstructed with a full-length flight deck during the 1920s. Their 15-inch turrets were placed into storage and later reused during the Second World War for HMS Vanguard (23), the Royal Navy's last battleship.

As the first large, or "fleet", carrier completed by the Royal Navy, Furious was extensively used to evaluate aircraft handling and landing procedures, including the first ever carrier night-landing in 1926. Courageous became the first warship lost by the Royal Navy in the Second World War II when she was torpedoed in September 1939. Glorious unsuccessfully hunted the GERMAN CRUISER Admiral Graf Spee in the Indian Ocean in 1939. She participated in the Norwegian Campaign in 1940, but was sunk by the German battleships GERMAN BATTLESHIP Scharnhorst and GERMAN BATTLESHIP Gneisenau on 8 June 1940 in the North Sea. Furious spent the first months of the war hunting for German raiders and escorting convoys before she began to support British forces in Norway. She spent most of 1940 in Norwegian waters making attacks on German installations and shipping, and most of 1941 ferrying aircraft to West Africa, Gibraltar and Malta before refitting in the United States. She ferried aircraft to Malta during 1942 and provided air support to British forces during Operation Torch. Furious spent most of 1943 training with the Home Fleet, but made numerous air strikes against the GERMAN BATTLESHIP Tirpitz and other targets in Norway in 1944. She was worn out by late 1944 and was reduced to reserve in September before being decommissioned the following year. Furious was sold in 1948 for scrap.

title: Courageous-class battlecruiser


text:
Talk:Sex reassignment therapy

Requested move 16 May 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  buidhe 22:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sex reassignment therapy → Medical gender transition – The expression "medical gender transition" is more common and readily understandable, corresponding to the terminology used in trans health scholarship and among trans communities. By contrast, sex reassignment therapy is ambiguous and because of the term "therapy" can readily create confusion with psychotherapy for trans people. Since "medical gender transition" more common and recognizable terminology, it would be easier to find by those relatively unfamiliar with trans topics and who are searching for information about it.

2607:F2C0:EACA:14C:C445:BB90:44EF:FED3 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:Common name and WP:NCMED. See this recent move discussion that took place at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery. Similar rationale applies. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The IP's assertions are unsourced. "Sex reassignment" is the far more common medical term than "gender transition", and medical sources are what count per WP:NCMED. On PubMed, using quotes, "sex reassignment" returns 1,245 results (and "sex reassignment therapy" returns 10 results), while "gender transition" returns only 141 results (and "medical gender transition", only 3). I don't see any alternative to saying "therapy", as it says "sex reassignment" right in the title and defines it in the first sentence. Also, a big part of it is called hormone therapy. I don't think the risk of confusion with psychotherapy is a problem. Crossroads -talk- 04:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as the wrong search, first because it doesn't address the issue of "therapy" being an inappropriate word, and two because of the search queries being over-inclusive as they'd include every instance of "sex reassignment surgery" even if the word is only or primarily used in that way, includes words that are just mentioned even if they're not prominently used in the article, and because it's all years instead of the more relevant last 5 years. Limiting to 5 years and to abstract + title (as a proxy for important words), the searching""sex reassignment"[title/abstract] NOT "sex reassignment surgery"[title/abstract] NOT "surgical sex reassignment"[title/abstract]" gives 47 results whereas "gender transition"[title/abstract] NOT "surgical gender transition"[title/abstract] NOT "gender transition surgery"[title/abstract] gives 115 results, and searching ""transition"[title/abstract] AND (transgender[title/abstract] or transsexual[title/abstract]) NOT "surgical transition"[title/abstract] NOT "transition surgery"[title/abstract]" gives 297 result. It's clear that in the last 5 years, the "transition"/"gender transition" have been more common than "sex reassignment" when talking outside of the specifically surgical context, which is not the topic of this page.

 * Oppose. The current tittle appears to be the more common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible COPYVIO
Checking for copy violations, from (% values are from Earwig's copyvio detector; these do not indicate who copied from whom; that is a separate check): Mathglot (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * meit.info: 51.3%

And the following two examples, copied from the US News article (see footnote #16), inserted August 27, 2015 by Flower f5a9b8 : These were reported by at WT:MEDRS. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "No patients expressed regret about the transition process, including puberty suppression."
 * "De Vries nevertheless cautioned that the findings need to be confirmed by further research, and added that her study didn't set out to assess the side effects of puberty suppression."
 * Uhhh... That meit.info site is a straight-up porn site, but they do indeed seem to copy several sentences of text from the article midway down the page for no apparent reason. I suspect that they plagiarized us rather than the reverse. Crossroads -talk- 05:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that! Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 * US News: 56.1% Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Sex reassignment therapy


text:
Talk:Codd's 12 rules

Entry contents
The contents of this entry seems to be a copy of what can be found here:

http://www.databaseanswers.com/codds_rules.htm

Note that this is (at least marked as) Chris Date's version, an interpretation of Codd's rules. Chris Date is himself a "thinker" in this field, and while quite insightful, also prone to re-interpreting the past (particularly when it comes to NULL and other concepts which have evolved over time.) It would be helpful if this entry had original quotes, mis-thoughts and all, no?

13 rules
There are 12 rules. Shouldn't the article (albeit not the title) be updated to reflect this, if we're going to include a "rule zero"? Neilc 01:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Codd himself called them 12 rules, even though there are, in fact, 13 rules. McKay 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

albeit 0 still stands as a place (number) value. With this in mind 13 is actually 14, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.57.4 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 * They were called the "12 Rules", but there are 13 of them. This has been noted in the article now. SqlPac (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons & examples
This article would be a lot more valuable if examples were shown to illustrate why the rules are necessary. I'll give an example example:
 * For Rule 3 (regarding null values) There have been several reports of law-enforcement agencies designating the use of a value (e.g. "NOTAG", "NO PLATE") on parking tickets to indicate the absence of a license plate on the violator's vehicle. Later, an individual jokingly or inadverdently registers a custom license plate having one of these key values and is inundated with notices regarding unpaid parking tickets.

--Theodore Kloba 16:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not opposed to having examples on the pages, but I don't think that we want to clutter up the rules more than they already are. Maybe having some sort of summary at the top, and examples at the bottom. If you'd like to organize such an effort feel free. I've a bunch of examples (in SQL Systems mostly), of why violations of any of these rules are very bad. McKay 16:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The interconnectivity of Rules 4 and 9. Rule 9 is very difficult to achieve (Dataphor), but for many reasons is very desirable, but without Rule 4, how are applications to be able to adapt, if it can't ask the DBMS what each of the tables look like. Removing a column from a table, and if the application doesn't look at the structure to see if the columnn is still there, who knows what will happen? (Well, the application develper might be able to figure it out, if he knows what he's doing. McKay 03:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You are suggesting original content, which is not allowed on wikipedia.70.189.92.82 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Actual 12 Rules
I think that this article should have two main sections. The first section would be the actual rules, as stated by Codd, verbatim, without interpretation. This is the closest I could find: http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~sgomori/570/coddsrules.html The second section would be an elaboration of the rules and "what they mean". The distinction of course is to allow Wikipedians to separate the actual rules from sections they can supply valuable input into. // Brick Thrower 08:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Rule [Rule #]: [Rule Name]:
 * [Codd's description]
 * [What it means]

Just an idea McKay 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You are suggesting original content, which is not allowed on wikipedia. 70.189.92.82 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

13 Rules Revisited
There seems to be no discussion of Neilc's 2004 comment pointing out that there are actually 13 rules in the article while the article's title is Codd's 12 Rules. I note that links to this article from others, e.g. the one defining a true relational database management system, also refer to 12 rules. This certainly led me to expect to see 12 rules when I clicked on the Codd's 12 Rules hotlink on that page. I was first startled and then annoyed when I encoun- tered 13 rules instead of 12.

After looking into this matter, I've concluded that what this article refers to as Rule 1 should really be called Rule 0, since that is how it is referred to by commentators such as Date and Hite. I suggest four modifications to the article: 1) The first sentence could be modified to read "Codd's 12 rules are a set of rules proposed by......"; 2) A sentence could be added to the effect that "While Codd's rules are typically referred to as Codd's 12 Rules, references to them usually list 13 rules, starting with Rule Zero."; 3) the list of rules should be renumbered so as to run from Rule 0 through Rule 12; 4) a reference to Codd's 1985 Computerworld articles (Computerworld October 14th 1985 and Computerworld October 21st 1985) should be added somewhere in the first or second paragraph.

I'm writing this as a computer user, not a computing historian or information technologist, so I will leave it to others to evaluate my comments and make any suitable edits to the article rather than be presumptuous and actually edit it myself. --JRamlow 10:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The numbering of the rules seems correct, though such an introductary paragraph would be welcome. As would a link or reference to his original work. McKay 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Modified intro to indicate there are actually 13 rules numbered 0 through 12. SqlPac (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to SQL
The sentence "In fact, however, the rules are so strict that even systems whose only interface is the SQL language fail on some of the criteria" seems to be completely out of place here. SQL does not guarantee in any way that the system is relational. It might be a good idea to rephrase that as "In fact, some of today's most popular and sophisticated systems fail on some of the criteria". Rkrush 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The sentence is original content, I'm removing it.70.189.92.82 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Rule 6
Since the publication of Codd's rules a paper which demonstrated that Rule 6 is undecideable has been written and acknowledged by Codd as being correct. See H. W. Buff: Why Codd's Rule No. 6 Must be Reformulated. SIGMOD Record 17(4): 79-80(1988) and E. F. Codd: Response to "Why Codd's Rule No. 6 Must be Reformulated". SIGMOD Record 18(1): 16(1989). Codd has subsequently issued a major revision to rule 6 which appears in his book on the Relational Model Version 2. 82.37.0.72 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't have my copy handy. Can someone add it and source it (if it hasn't been yet)? SqlPac (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rule 3 ?
Rule 3: Systematic treatment of null values: blah blah blah Does someone care to explain? I'm no SQl expert, but all rules make sense, except rule 3. I understand the first part, treatment of null values; it's really the "blah blah blah" that's bothering me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.128.134 (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * "The DBMS must allow each field to remain null (or empty)." - In SQL terms, the DBMS must allow you to place NULL in columns which are... "nullable".
 * "Specifically, it must support a representation of 'missing information and inapplicable information'..." - In SQL terms, NULL represents missing information or inapplicable information.
 * "...that is systematic, distinct from all regular values (for example, 'distinct from zero or any other number,' in the case of numeric values),..." - In SQL terms, NULL is not equal to any other value. NULL is not equal to zero, it is not equal to one, it is not equal to an empty string, it is not equal to anything.
 * "...and independent of data type." - In SQL terms, NULL can be used in place of integers, floating point numbers, fixed point decimals, character data, or any other data type.
 * "It is also implied that such representations must be manipulated by the DBMS in a systematic way." - In SQL terms, NULL behavior and manipulations are well-defined by the standard. SqlPac (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NULL values are "undefined values", much in the same way that division by zero is "undefined". What is important here is that they are handled by the RDBMS consistently. Therefore any opperation between two or more columns (values) where one column contains a NULL value should result in a NULL! In otherwords not matter what you try and do with a NULL, add it, subtract it, concatenate it convert it will always result in a NULL value. This is a valuable concept, even though it sometimes causes programmers and DBA's considerable more work to process these values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BitBangerDBA (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 * No, thats not true. NULL can produce true and false values in three-valued logic when used with logic operators. Also, you can test whether some value is NULL or not, and this produces true/false. 93.87.212.7 (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You are not differentiating comparison operations from manipulation operations. The results of manipulating a variable or column whose value is NULL with any other variable or column will always produce a NULL. Comparing a variable or column for a value of NULL is not the same thing. For example the following statemant returns 0 rows: "SELECT * FROM SYSCOLUMNS WHERE AUTOVAL = NULL". However the following statement returns thousands of rows: "SELECT * FROM SYSCOLUMNS WHERE AUTOVAL IS NULL".

Please note the following in the SQL Server books online: "The SQL-92 standard requires that an equals (=) or not equal to (<>) comparison against a null value evaluates to FALSE. When SET ANSI_NULLS is ON, a SELECT statement using WHERE column_name = NULL returns zero rows even if there are null values in column_name. A SELECT statement using WHERE column_name <> NULL returns zero rows even if there are nonnull values in column_name." By default the ANSI_NULLS setting is turned ON in SQL Server sessions. There is another SQL-92 setting as well. CONCAT_NULL_YIELDS_NULL is another SQL-92 standard that is set to "ON" by default for all sessions. Very rarely if ever would you want to change these default settings.

These are the same for every RDBMS that claims to adhear to the SQL-92 standards.

no popular "relational" DBMSs are actually relational . ..
Even if such repackaged non-relational products eventually gave way to SQL DBMSs,  no popular "relational" DBMSs are actually relational , be it by Codd’s twelve rules or by the more formal definitions in his papers, in his books or in succeeding works in the academia or by its coworkers and successors, Christopher J. Date, Hugh Darwen, David McGoveran and Fabian Pascal. Only less known DBMSs, most of them academic, strive to comply. The only commercial example, as of December 2010, is Dataphor.

What is ORACLE or INGRESS then?

Wikipedia's article states it so. ..

I am confused :S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.51.138 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SQL is based on relational algebra, but it's far, far from being 100% relational. Also, ORACLE or INGRESS are far, far from being 100% compliant with SQL standard. 93.87.212.7 (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Re: The comments above, it's INGRES or Ingres, not INGRESS. Originally named for the machine where the source for the University Ingres project lived.  The machine was one of the 'painters' systems at UC Berkeley and was named for Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, a French Neoclassical painter.  The back-formation "INteractive GRaphical Retrieval System" was used in marketing.98.248.42.250 (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

By Cohen's logic since T,F,N that makes sense. The problem is you are use 2v when 3v is required. 2601:6:1780:DE6:24F6:20:7468:99C6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC) http://www.storyofmathematics.com/20th_cohen.html 2601:6:1780:DE6:24F6:20:7468:99C6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Codd's 12 rules


text:
Activity theory

Activity theory (AT; Теория деятельности) is an umbrella term for a line of eclectic social-sciences theories and research with its roots in the Soviet psychological activity theory pioneered by Sergei Rubinstein in the 1930s. It was later advocated for and popularized by Alexei Leont'ev. Some of the traces of the theory in its inception can also be found in a few works of Lev Vygotsky. These scholars sought to understand human activities as systemic and socially situated phenomena and to go beyond paradigms of reflexology (the teaching of Vladimir Bekhterev and his followers) and classical conditioning (the teaching of Ivan Pavlov and his school), psychoanalysis and behaviorism. It became one of the major psychological approaches in the former USSR, being widely used in both theoretical and applied psychology, and in education, professional training, ergonomics, social psychology and work psychology.

Activity theory is more of a descriptive meta-theory or framework than a predictive theory. It considers an entire work/activity system (including teams, organizations, etc.) beyond just one actor or user. It accounts for environment, history of the person, culture, role of the artifact, motivations, and complexity of real-life activity. One of the strengths of AT is that it bridges the gap between the individual subject and the social reality—it studies both through the mediating activity. The unit of analysis in AT is the concept of object-oriented, collective and culturally mediated human activity, or activity system. This system includes the object (or objective), subject, mediating artifacts (signs and tools), rules, community and division of labor. The motive for the activity in AT is created through the tensions and contradictions within the elements of the system. According to ethnographer Bonnie Nardi, a leading theorist in AT, activity theory "focuses on practice, which obviates the need to distinguish 'applied' from 'pure' science—understanding everyday practice in the real world is the very objective of scientific practice. ... The object of activity theory is to understand the unity of consciousness and activity." Sometimes called "Cultural-Historical Activity Theory", this approach is particularly useful for studying a group that exists "largely in virtual form, its communications mediated largely through electronic and printed texts." Cultural-Historical Activity Theory has accordingly also been applied to genre theory within writing studies to consider how quasi-stabilized forms of communication regularize relations and work while forming communally shared knowledge and values in both educational and workplace settings.

AT is particularly useful as a lens in qualitative research methodologies (e.g., ethnography, case study). AT provides a method of understanding and analyzing a phenomenon, finding patterns and making inferences across interactions, describing phenomena and presenting phenomena through a built-in language and rhetoric. A particular activity is a goal-directed or purposeful interaction of a subject with an object through the use of tools. These tools are exteriorized forms of mental processes manifested in constructs, whether physical or psychological. As a result the notion of tools in AT is broad and can involve stationary, digital devices, library materials, or even physical meeting spaces. AT recognizes the internalization and externalization of cognitive processes involved in the use of tools, as well as the transformation or development that results from the interaction.

History
The origins of activity theory can be traced to several sources, which have subsequently given rise to various complementary and intertwined strands of development. This account will focus on three of the most important of these strands. The first is associated with the Moscow Institute of Psychology and in particular the "troika" of young Russian researchers, Vygotsky, Leont'ev and Luria. Vygotsky founded cultural-historical psychology, a field that became the basis for modern AT; Leont'ev, one of the principal founders of activity theory, both developed and reacted against Vygotsky's work. Leont'ev's formulation of general activity theory is currently a strong influence in post-Soviet developments in AT, which have largely been in social-scientific, organizational, and writing-studies rather than psychological research and organization.

The second major line of development within activity theory involves Russian scientists, such as P. K. Anokhin and Nikolai Bernstein, more directly concerned with the neurophysiological basis of activity; its foundation is associated with the Soviet philosopher of psychology Sergei Rubinstein. This work was subsequently developed by researchers such as Pushkin, Zinchenko & Gordeeva, Ponomarenko, Zarakovsky and others, and is currently most well-known through the work on systemic-structural activity theory being carried out by G. Z. Bedny and his associates, including a focus on the application of this theory as well as other related theories.

Finally, in the Western world, discussions and use of AT are primarily framed within the Scandinavian activity theory strand, developed by Yrjö Engeström.

Russian
After Vygotsky's early death, Leont'ev became the leader of the research group nowadays known as the Kharkov School of Psychology and extended Vygotsky's research framework in significantly new ways. Leont'ev first examined the psychology of animals, looking at the different degrees to which animals can be said to have mental processes. He concluded that Pavlov's reflexionism was not a sufficient explanation of animal behaviour and that animals have an active relation to reality, which he called "activity". In particular, the behaviour of higher primates such as chimpanzees could only be explained by the ape's formation of multi-phase plans using tools.

Leont'ev then progressed to humans and pointed out that people engage in "actions" that do not in themselves satisfy a need, but contribute towards the eventual satisfaction of a need. Often, these actions only make sense in a social context of a shared work activity. This led him to a distinction between "activities", which satisfy a need, and the "actions" that constitute the activities. Leont'ev also argued that the activity in which a person is involved is reflected in their mental activity, that is (as he puts it) material reality is "presented" to consciousness, but only in its vital meaning or significance.

Activity theory also influenced the development of organizational-activity game as developed by Georgy Shchedrovitsky.

Scandinavian
AT remained virtually unknown outside the Soviet Union until the mid-1980s, when it was picked up by Scandinavian researchers. The first international conference on activity theory was not held until 1986. The earliest non-Soviet paper cited by Nardi is a 1987 paper by Yrjö Engeström: "Learning by expanding". This resulted in a reformulation of AT. Kuutti notes that the term "activity theory" "can be used in two senses: referring to the original Soviet tradition or referring to the international, multi-voiced community applying the original ideas and developing them further."

The Scandinavian AT school of thought seeks to integrate and develop concepts from Vygotsky's Cultural-historical psychology and Leont'ev's activity theory with Western intellectual developments such as Cognitive Science, American Pragmatism, Constructivism, and Actor-Network Theory. It is known as Scandinavian activity theory. Work in the systems-structural theory of activity is also being carried on by researchers in the US and UK.

Some of the changes are a systematisation of Leont'ev's work. Although Leont'ev's exposition is clear and well structured, it is not as well-structured as the formulation by Yrjö Engeström. Kaptelinin remarks that Engeström "proposed a scheme of activity different from that by Leont'ev; it contains three interacting entities—the individual, the object and the community—instead of the two components—the individual and the object—in Leont'ev's original scheme."

Some changes were introduced, apparently by importing notions from human–computer interaction theory. For instance, the notion of rules, which is not found in Leont'ev, was introduced. Also, the notion of collective subject was introduced in the 1970s and 1980s (Leont'ev refers to "joint labour activity", but only has individuals, not groups, as activity subjects).

Theory
The goal of activity theory is understanding the mental capabilities of a single individual. However, it rejects the isolated individuals as insufficient unit of analysis, analyzing the cultural and technical aspects of human actions.

Activity theory is most often used to describe actions in a socio-technical system through six related elements (Bryant et al. as defined by Leonti'ev 1981 and redefined in Engeström 1987) of a conceptual system expanded by more nuanced theories:
 * Object-orientedness – the objective of the activity system. Object refers to the objectiveness of the reality; items are considered objective according to natural sciences but also have social and cultural properties.
 * Subject or internalization – actors engaged in the activities; the traditional notion of mental processes
 * Community or externalization – social context; all actors involved in the activity system
 * Tools or tool mediation – the artifacts (or concepts) used by actors in the system (both material and abstract artifacts). Tools influence actor-structure interactions, they change with accumulating experience. In addition to physical shape, the knowledge also evolves. Tools are influenced by culture, and their use is a way for the accumulation and transmission of social knowledge. Tools influence both the agents and the structure.
 * Division of labor – social strata, hierarchical structure of activity, the division of activities among actors in the system
 * Rules – conventions, guidelines and rules regulating activities in the system

Activity theory helps explain how social artifacts and social organization mediate social action (Bryant et al.).

Information systems
The application of activity theory to information systems derives from the work of Bonnie Nardi and Kari Kuutti. Kuutti's work is addressed below. Nardi's approach is, briefly, as follows: Nardi (p. 6) described activity theory as "...a powerful and clarifying descriptive tool rather than a strongly predictive theory. The object of activity theory is to understand the unity of consciousness and activity...Activity theorists argue that consciousness is not a set of discrete disembodied cognitive acts (decision making, classification, remembering), and certainly it is not the brain; rather, consciousness is located in everyday practice: you are what you do." Nardi (p. 5) also argued that "activity theory proposes a strong notion of mediation—all human experience is shaped by the tools and sign systems we use." Nardi (p. 6) explained that "a basic tenet of activity theory is that a notion of consciousness is central to a depiction of activity. Vygotsky described consciousness as a phenomenon that unifies attention, intention, memory, reasoning, and speech..." and (p. 7) "Activity theory, with its emphasis on the importance of motive and consciousness—which belongs only to humans—sees people and things as fundamentally different. People are not reduced to 'nodes' or 'agents' in a system; 'information processing' is not seen as something to be modelled in the same way for people and machines."

In a later work, Nardi et al. in comparing activity theory with cognitive science, argue that "activity theory is above all a social theory of consciousness" and therefore "... activity theory wants to define consciousness, that is, all the mental functioning including remembering, deciding, classifying, generalising, abstracting and so forth, as a product of our social interactions with other people and of our use of tools." For Activity Theorists "consciousness" seems to refer to any mental functioning, whereas most other approaches to psychology distinguish conscious from unconscious functions.

Over the last 15 years the use and exploration of activity theory in information systems has grown. One stream of research has focused on technology mediated change and the implementation of technologies and how they disrupt, change and improve organisational work activity. In these studies, activity systems are used to understand emergent contradictions in the work activity, which are temporarily resolved using information systems (tools) and/or arising from the introduction of information systems. Information science studies use a similar approach to activity theory in order to understand information behaviour "in context".

In the field of Information and communications technology (ICT) and development (a field of study within information systems), activity theory has also been used to inform development of IT systems and to frame the study of ICT in development settings.

In addition, Etengoff & Daiute have conducted recent work exploring how social media interfaces can be productively used to mediate conflicts. Their work has illustrated this perspective with analyses of online interactions between gay men and their religious family members and Sunni-Muslim emerging adults' efforts to maintain a positive ethnic identity via online religious forums in post 9/11 contexts.

Human–computer interaction
The rise of the personal computer challenged the focus in traditional systems developments on mainframe systems for automation of existing work routines. It furthermore brought forth a need to focus on how to work on materials and objects through the computer. In the search of theoretical and methodical perspectives suited to deal with issues of flexibility and more advanced mediation between the human being, material and outcomes through the interface, it seemed promising to turn to the still rather young HCI research tradition that had emerged primarily in the US (for further discussion see Bannon & Bødker, 1991).

Specifically the cognitive science-based theories lacked means of addressing a number of issues that came out of the empirical projects (see Bannon & Bødker, 1991): 1. Many of the early advanced user interfaces assumed that the users were the designers themselves, and accordingly built on an assumption of a generic user, without concern for qualifications, work environment, division of work, etc. 2.In particular the role of the artifact as it stands between the user and her materials, objects and outcomes was ill understood. 3. In validating findings and designs there was a heavy focus on novice users whereas everyday use by experienced users and concerns for the development of expertise were hardly addressed. 4.Detailed task analysis and the idealized models created through task analysis failed to capture the complexity and contingency of real-life action. 5.From the point of view of complex work settings, it was striking how most HCI focused on one user – one computer in contrast to the ever-ongoing cooperation and coordination of real work situations (this problem later lead to the development of CSCW). 6.Users were mainly seen as objects of study.

Because of these shortcomings, it was necessary to move outside cognitive science-based HCI to find or develop the necessary theoretical platform. European psychology had taken different paths than had American with much inspiration from dialectical materialism (Hydén 1981, Engeström, 1987). Philosophers such as Heidegger and Wittgenstein came to play an important role, primarily through discussions of the limitations of AI (Winograd & Flores 1986, Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986). Suchman (1987) with a similar focus introduced ethnomethodology into the discussions, and Ehn (1988) based his treatise of design of computer artifacts on Marx, Heidegger and Wittgenstein. The development of the activity theoretical angle was primarily carried out by Bødker (1991, 1996) and by Kuutti (Bannon & Kuutti, 1993, Kuutti, 1991, 1996), both with strong inspiration from Scandinavian activity theory groups in psychology. Bannon (1990, 1991) and Grudin (1990a and b) made significant contributions to the furthering of the approach by making it available to the HCI audience. The work of Kaptelinin (1996) has been important to connect to the earlier development of activity theory in Russia. Nardi produced the, hitherto, most applicable collection of activity theoretical HCI literature (Nardi, 1996).

Systemic-structural activity theory (SSAT)
At the end of the 1990s, a group of Russian and American activity theorists working in the systems-cybernetic tradition of Bernshtein and Anokhin began to publish English-language articles and books dealing with topics in human factors and ergonomics and, latterly, human–computer interaction. Under the rubric of systemic-structural activity theory (SSAT), this work represents a modern synthesis within activity theory which brings together the cultural-historical and systems-structural strands of the tradition (as well as other work within Soviet psychology such as the Psychology of Set) with findings and methods from Western human factors/ergonomics and cognitive psychology.

The development of SSAT has been specifically oriented toward the analysis and design of the basic elements of human work activity: tasks, tools, methods, objects and results, and the skills, experience and abilities of involved subjects. SSAT has developed techniques for both the qualitative and quantitative description of work activity. Its design-oriented analyses specifically focus on the interrelationship between the structure and self-regulation of work activity and the configuration of its material components.

An explanation
This section presents a short introduction to activity theory, and some brief comments on human creativity in activity theory and the implications of activity theory for tacit knowledge and learning.

Activities
Activity theory begins with the notion of activity. An activity is seen as a system of human "doing" whereby a subject works on an object in order to obtain a desired outcome. In order to do this, the subject employs tools, which may be external (e.g. an axe, a computer) or internal (e.g. a plan). As an illustration, an activity might be the operation of an automated call centre. As we shall see later, many subjects may be involved in the activity and each subject may have one or more motives (e.g. improved supply management, career advancement or gaining control over a vital organisational power source). A simple example of an activity within a call centre might be a telephone operator (subject) who is modifying a customer's billing record (object) so that the billing data is correct (outcome) using a graphical front end to a database (tool).

Kuutti formulates activity theory in terms of the structure of an activity. "An activity is a form of doing directed to an object, and activities are distinguished from each other according to their objects. Transforming the object into an outcome motivates the existence of an activity. An object can be a material thing, but it can also be less tangible."

Kuutti then adds a third term, the tool, which 'mediates' between the activity and the object. "The tool is at the same time both enabling and limiting: it empowers the subject in the transformation process with the historically collected experience and skill 'crystallised' to it, but it also restricts the interaction to be from the perspective of that particular tool or instrument; other potential features of an object remain invisible to the subject...".

As Verenikina remarks, tools are "social objects with certain modes of operation developed socially in the course of labour and are only possible because they correspond to the objectives of a practical action."

Levels
An activity is modelled as a three-level hierarchy. Kuutti schematises processes in activity theory as a three-level system.

Verenikina paraphrases Leont'ev as explaining that "the non-coincidence of action and operations... appears in actions with tools, that is, material objects which are crystallised operations, not actions nor goals. If a person is confronted with a specific goal of, say, dismantling a machine, then they must make use of a variety of operations; it makes no difference how the individual operations were learned because the formulation of the operation proceeds differently to the formulation of the goal that initiated the action."

The levels of activity are also characterised by their purposes: "Activities are oriented to motives, that is, the objects that are impelling by themselves. Each motive is an object, material or ideal, that satisfies a need. Actions are the processes functionally subordinated to activities; they are directed at specific conscious goals... Actions are realised through operations that are determined by the actual conditions of activity."

Engeström developed an extended model of an activity, which adds another component, community ("those who share the same object"), and then adds rules to mediate between subject and community, and the division of labour to mediate between object and community.

Kuutti asserts that "These three classes should be understood broadly. A tool can be anything used in the transformation process, including both material tools and tools for thinking. Rules cover both explicit and implicit norms, conventions, and social relations within a community. Division of labour refers to the explicit and implicit organisation of the community as related to the transformation process of the object into the outcome."

Activity theory therefore includes the notion that an activity is carried out within a social context, or specifically in a community. The way in which the activity fits into the context is thus established by two resulting concepts:
 * rules: these are both explicit and implicit and define how subjects must fit into the community;
 * division of labour: this describes how the object of the activity relates to the community.

The internal plane of action
Activity theory provides a number of useful concepts that can be used to address the lack of expression for 'soft' factors which are inadequately represented by most process modelling frameworks. One such concept is the internal plane of action. Activity theory recognises that each activity takes place in two planes: the external plane and the internal plane. The external plane represents the objective components of the action while the internal plane represents the subjective components of the action. Kaptelinin defines the internal plane of actions as "[...] a concept developed in activity theory that refers to the human ability to perform manipulations with an internal representation of external objects before starting actions with these objects in reality."

The concepts of motives, goals and conditions discussed above also contribute to the modelling of soft factors. One principle of activity theory is that many activities have multiple motivation ('polymotivation'). For instance, a programmer in writing a program may address goals aligned towards multiple motives such as increasing his or her annual bonus, obtaining relevant career experience and contributing to organisational objectives.

Activity theory further argues that subjects are grouped into communities, with rules mediating between subject and community and a division of labour mediating between object and community. A subject may be part of several communities and a community, itself, may be part of other communities.

Human creativity
Human creativity plays an important role in activity theory, that "human beings... are essentially creative beings" in "the creative, non-predictable character". Tikhomirov also analyses the importance of creative activity, contrasting it to routine activity, and notes the important shift brought about by computerisation in the balance towards creative activity.

Karl Marx, a sociological theorist, argued that humans are unique compared to other species in that humans create everything they need to survive. According to Marx, this is described as species-being. Marx believed we find our true identity in what we produce in our personal labor.

Learning and tacit knowledge
Activity theory has an interesting approach to the difficult problems of learning and, in particular, tacit knowledge. Learning has been a favourite subject of management theorists, but it has often been presented in an abstract way separated from the work processes to which the learning should apply. Activity theory provides a potential corrective to this tendency. For instance, Engeström's review of Nonaka's work on knowledge creation suggests enhancements based on activity theory, in particular suggesting that the organisational learning process includes preliminary stages of goal and problem formation not found in Nonaka. Lompscher, rather than seeing learning as transmission, sees the formation of learning goals and the student's understanding of which things they need to acquire as the key to the formation of the learning activity.

Of particular importance to the study of learning in organisations is the problem of tacit knowledge, which according to Nonaka, "is highly personal and hard to formalise, making it difficult to communicate to others or to share with others." Leont'ev's concept of operation provides an important insight into this problem. In addition, the key idea of internalisation was originally introduced by Vygotsky as "the internal reconstruction of an external operation." Internalisation has subsequently become a key term of the theory of tacit knowledge and has been defined as "a process of embodying explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge." Internalisation has been described by Engeström as the "key psychological mechanism" discovered by Vygotsky and is further discussed by Verenikina.

title: Activity theory


text:
User:Monarchist

Lives-in the Czech republik.

title: User:Monarchist


text:
User:Martin Swift

=Hi ...= Was reluctant to edit pages anonymously, so I decided to sign on.

title: User:Martin Swift


text:
Antonio Maceo Airport

Antonio Maceo Airport is an international airport located in Santiago, Cuba.

Overview
The airport has a drawing of Che Guevara on one of its outside walls. Pope John Paul II flew to this airport during his last visit to Cuba, flying a round trip between here and José Martí International Airport in Havana. Likewise, Pope Benedict XVI, during the second papal visit to Cuba, flew here for Mass and other activities, from his visit to León and Guanajuato in Mexico, before moving on to Havana.

The airport is basically a turbo-prop centre. Nevertheless, jet aircraft also fly to this airport. Most commercial flights into SCU were, at one point, domestic, but there are about twenty international flights each week; while these international flights were at one point done mostly by domestic airlines, the international routes have nevertheless awakened the interest of some foreign airlines that have opened flights into this airport and might open more flights in the future.

Santiago de Cuba Base
The airport was home to the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces:

 * 35th Transport Regiment - Antonov An-2 and Antonov An-26 transports
 * 36th Helicopter Regiment - Mil Mi-8 and Mil Mi-24

The helipads are now part of the executive jet terminal on the north end of the airport.

Accidents and incidents

 * On 13 June 1929, a Fokker F.10A (NC9700) of Pan Am crashed on takeoff for Havana at 08:00, killing 2 of the 5 occupants. This was Cuba's first fatal airliner crash.
 * On 10 April 1959, a Douglas DC-3 (registration unknown) of Compagnie Haitienne de Transports Aériens (COHATA) was hijacked on a passenger flight from Les Cayes to Port-au-Prince by 6 rebels who killed the captain and forced the co-pilot to fly to Cuba, the plane was then was landed in Santiago.
 * On 2 October 1959, a Viscount of Cubana de Aviación was hijacked on a flight from Havana to Antonio Maceo Airport, Santiago de Cuba by three men demanding to be taken to the United States. The aircraft landed at the Miami International Airport.
 * On 27 March 1962, an Ilyushin Il-14 (CU-T819) on Cubana de Aviacion Flight 853 to Havana crashed into the sea during initial climb at 20:00, 1.6 km (1 mile) from here, killing all 22 occupants.
 * On 23 March 1990, an Antonov An-26 (CU-T1436) on Cubana de Aviacion Flight 7406 overran the runway after aborting takeoff, killing 4 passengers of the 46 occupants.
 * On 24 October 1990, a Yakovlev Yak-40S2 (CU-T1202) on Cubana de Aviacion Flight 2886 from Camaguey crashed into mountainous terrain at 01:58 4 km (2.5 miles) east of the runway at 94 m (308 feet) on approach, killing 11 of the 31 occupants. The crew attempted the landing visually in instrument-only weather conditions.
 * On 11 July 1997, an Antonov An-24RV (CU-T1262) on Cubana de Aviacion Flight 787 to Havana crashed at 21:56 due to loss of control during the initial climb 5 km (3.1 miles) off the airport over the sea, killing all 44 occupants.
 * On 4 November 2010, Aero Caribbean Flight 883, an ATR 72-212, crashed in the centre of the country with 68 people on board. The aircraft was flying from Santiago de Cuba to Havana when it went down. 28 foreigners were reported to be among the passengers. There were no survivors.

title: Antonio Maceo Airport


text:
Israel Shamir

Israel Shamir (Russian: Исраэль Шамир, ; born 1947 or 1948), also known by the names Robert David, Vassili Krasevsky, Jöran Jermas and Adam Ermash, is a Swedish writer and journalist, known for his ties to WikiLeaks and for promoting antisemitism and Holocaust denial. His son Johannes Wahlström is a spokesperson for WikiLeaks in Sweden.

Shamir has published or self-published a number of his books; his book Flowers of Galilee (2004) was banned for a time in France over allegations it was inciting racial hatred and antisemitism.

Background and personal life
Shamir says that he was born in a Jewish family in Russia, and converted to Orthodox Christianity. By his own account, his birth name was Izrail Schmerler. Shamir says that he was born in Novosibirsk, Siberia, in 1947, although the Shorter Jewish Encyclopedia says that a man called Schmerler was born in 1948. Shamir says that he "studied mathematics and law at Novosibirsk University". He also says he moved to Israel in 1969. He claimed to have served in the Israeli Paratroopers Brigade and fought in the Yom Kippur War. He also claimed to have worked for the BBC and to have translated the works of Shai Agnon from Hebrew into Russian. Norman Finkelstein told Tablet that Shamir is a "maniac" who "has invented his entire personal history. Nothing he says about himself is true".

Searchlight describes him as a "Swedish anti-semite", and says that he was registered in Sweden in 1984 and gained Swedish citizenship in 1992. Shamir says he left Sweden for Russia and then Israel in 1993, before returning in 1998, saying that he had remarried in Israel in July 1994. However, others argue that Swedish files show that he was married in Sweden. He was known as Jöran Jermas from 2001 to 2005, before changing his name to Adam Ermash, although continuing to use Israel Shamir as a pen name.

Career
Shamir says that he went to Russia and wrote about the political changes in the country until 1993, for newspapers including Pravda and the extreme nationalist Zavtra.

The French edition of Shamir's Flowers of Galilee was originally co-published in October 2003 by Éditions Blanche and Éditions Balland. It was withdrawn from sale at the end of October after Balland's director had his attention drawn to the content of the book, which he considered anti-semitic. The book was republished in 2004 by the French Islamist Éditions Al-Qalam company, which led to a civil case brought by the Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme (LICRA), with the publisher sentenced to three months in prison (suspended) and a 10,000-euro fine, and the banning of the book. The ban was overturned on appeal, and the fine reduced.

In 2005, Shamir was featured as a speaker in the "Zionism As the Biggest Threat to Modern Civilization" conference co-chaired by David Duke in Ukraine, and sponsored by the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management which has been associated with antisemitic discourse in Eastern Europe.

Allegations of antisemitism and Holocaust denial
According to the scholar of antisemitism, Shamir borrows from neo-Nazi terminology when describing an alleged "Zionist" conspiracy to bring about the Iraq War. Bachner has said that Shamir's writing would have been of little interest had they been published only on his website, however, Flowers of Galilee was issued by a respected publisher and promoted by parts of the left in Sweden. The book was recommended by former Swedish MP and promoted by The Palestine Solidarity Association in Sweden which also engaged Shamir as speaker. In Cabbala of Power, Shamir writes: "The Jewish 'plan' is no secret; there is no need to re-read The Protocols or to ask Jews what they want."

Henrik Bachner, described Shamir's online outlet as "a multilingual website in which Jewish conspiracies are brought forward as an explanation for both historical and contemporary world events". Stephen Pollard reported in The Times in 2005 that it included such statements as "Jews asked God to kill, destroy, humiliate, exterminate, defame, starve, impale Christians, to usher in Divine Vengeance and to cover God’s mantle with blood of goyim." The Anti-Defamation League reported in 2006 that Shamir had written on his website of "accumulating evidence of Israeli Connection" for 9/11 and wrote of the United States and Israel creating the attacks to carry out anti-Muslim policies. He had expressed his belief in the "blood libel" on his website.

In 2004, Searchlight wrote about his connections to antisemitic publications and groups, and the campaign Hope not Hate has listed Shamir as a "notable Holocaust denier," citing the "rabid Holocaust denial material" on his website. At an event at the British Houses of Parliament in 2005, Shamir claimed "Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media" and said US foreign policy in the Middle East was a "fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy".

In 2006, discussing the upcoming Iranian International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, Deutsche Welle wrote that the Iranian government "said it intended to invite academics such as German neo-Nazi [lawyer] Horst Mahler and the Israeli journalist and Christian convert Israel Shamir, both of whom are Holocaust deniers."

In December 2010, Shamir's connection with WikiLeaks brought him more public attention. Katha Pollitt, writing in The Nation in December 2010, described Shamir's web site: "I spent a few hours on www.israelshamir.net and learned that: 'the Jews' foisted capitalism, advertising and consumerism on harmonious and modest Christian Europe; were behind Stalin's famine in Ukraine; control the banks, the media and many governments; and that 'Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is.' There are numerous guest articles by Holocaust deniers, aka 'historical revisionists.'"

In early 2011, David Leigh and Luke Harding, writing in The Guardian, described Shamir as being "notorious for Holocaust denial and publishing a string of antisemitic articles." The Jerusalem Post called him "an avowed Holocaust-denier" who said of the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust that it "proved that the Holocaust dogma is a basic tenet in the great world-embracing brainwashing machine of mass media". Shamir denied the accusation of Holocaust denial in an article for CounterPunch, writing that his family "lost too many of its sons and daughters for me to deny the facts of Jewish tragedy" but that he denies "the morbid cult of Holocaust". In his 2011 Tablet interview, Shamir referred to "perceptions during the war" of Auschwitz as a "quite awful deportation camp" whereas "after the war, different perception came. And that was a perception of mass annihilation, and mass murder, and all that." Asked which "perception" was true, Shamir said he had no interest in the subject. When asked if the concentration camps were used for mass murder, he responded by saying he had "no knowledge about it at all" and rejected "the idea that it is important."

Association with WikiLeaks
Shamir is a vocal backer of the WikiLeaks organization and has described his relation with WikiLeaks as being "a freelancer who was 'accredited' to WikiLeaks". According to The Guardian, he invoiced WikiLeaks for €2,000 for "journalism". Shamir's son Johannes Wahlström is a spokesperson for WikiLeaks in Sweden.

In a 2010 Sveriges Radio interview with WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson, Hrafnsson stated that Israel Shamir "is associated with" WikiLeaks, as are "a lot of journalists that are working with us all around the world" who "have different roles in working on [the] project". In an article by Andrew Brown published in The Guardian during December 2010 Hrafnsson was quoted as saying Shamir was WikiLeaks representative in Russia. By February 2011, former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg said WikiLeaks' ties to Shamir were among the reasons he quit the organization. He described Shamir as a "famous Holocaust denier and anti-Semite." By May 2011, a statement had appeared on the WikiLeaks website that Shamir had "never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so." James Ball wrote in 2013 he was aware the organization's later denial of its connections to Shamir were untrue because Julian Assange had instructed him to give Shamir 90,000 US cables.

According to the Associated Press, leaked documents from WikiLeaks include an unsigned letter from Julian Assange authorising Israel Shamir to seek a Russian visa on his behalf in 2010. WikiLeaks said Assange never applied for the visa or wrote the letter. According to the New York Times, Russia issued Assange the visa in January 2011. Israel Shamir was the original source for some conspiracy theories about Swedish allegations against Assange.

Diplomatic cables
In an article published by the CounterPunch website in December 2010, Shamir praised the Belarus president, Alexander Lukashenko and said WikiLeaks had exposed America's "agents" in the country. Shamir has been reported to have passed "sensitive cables" to the Lukashenko government. He is believed to have visited Belarus in December 2010 and to have given Vladimir Makei, then Lukashenko's chief of staff, unpublished and unredacted US diplomatic cables.

Former WikiLeaks staff member James Ball wrote in The Sunday Times that Index on Censorship contacted him less than a fortnight after Shamir left WikiLeaks headquarters (then in Norfolk) with a photograph of Shamir leaving the Belarus interior ministry. According to Ball, soon afterwards Lukashenko announced a Belarusian WikiLeaks would be released to show opposition leaders in the country were on the American payroll and thus effectively grounds for their arrest. Index on Censorship later expressed concern that such a development could physically endanger Lukashenko's political opponents. WikiLeaks responded that "We have no further reports on this 'rumour/issue'", although another WikiLeaks representative called Shamir's alleged leaks "obviously unapproved."

Russian Reporter claimed it had "privileged access" to the 2010 United States diplomatic cables leak via Shamir. Soviet Belarus, a state-run newspaper began publishing what it claimed were WikiLeaks cables given to Lukashenko by Shamir in January 2011. A request from Shamir, according to Ball, was for all cables relating to "the Jews"; it was refused. Elsewhere, Shamir claimed to have received "thousands of cables about the Jews." Ball said that a Russian reporter wrote WikiLeaks saying that Shamir was answering requests for access to cables about Russia with requests for money, saying they couldn't look through the cables themselves.

Yulia Latynina, writing in The Moscow Times, alleged that Shamir concocted a cable which allegedly quoted European Union diplomats' plans to walk out of the Durban II speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for publication in the pro-Putin Russian Reporter in December 2010. Shamir has denied this accusation, though he has described Ahmadinejad as being a "brave and charismatic leader" on his website.

In 2011, Shamir posted unredacted copies of diplomatic cables dealing with former Soviet states that hinted at the names of State Department sources that The Guardian and WikiLeaks had redacted. When asked why he published the unredacted cables, possibly putting the sources at risk, Shamir said "Handing confidential and secret information to everybody is the thing of Wikileaks. That’s what it is about. Your question is like asking police why they catch thieves. That is what they are for."

title: Israel Shamir


text:
Talk:Outline of transgender topics/Archive 1

Removed from main talk page on 1.May 2004, since those debates seem to be finished. -- AlexR 09:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Trans* and Drag*
I've removed
 * Direction Female-to-Male: Transman and [ Drag King ]
 * Direction Male-to-Female: Transwoman and [ Drag Queen ]

since, going by Kimiko's comment on Talk:Transsexual about the terms "transman" and "transwoman" being used for transsexual people, the link to drag isn't quite appropriate. This probably wasn't intentional, but perhaps needs more clarification as to transgendered people who partake in drag, which I'm guessing was the intent. Dysprosia 09:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was a good reason to do that, which is why I'll most likely resore it. The reason are Drag Kings, who differ from Transmen often (but of course not always) only by name, or not much more. Therefore, those two belong next to each other. And if I put these two next to each other, there is no reason not to put Transwomen and Drag Queens next to each other; everything else would be discriminating. Since its two different articles in both cases, people are supposed (and probably will; a list is not that informative) check the articles and see the differences. And please note that transman is not just a word for female-to-male transsexuals, but for all transgendered people of the female-to-male direction, therefore including per definition all drag kings who consider themselfes transgender. Same of course for transwomen.

Also, this is a list, and comments are, unless they are very short, inappropriate. How about a "Please see both articles for differences?" -- AlexR 12:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) P.S. And you obviously misunderstood Kimiko's statement as well, which described the use in the Netherlands only, too.

 * Well, I guess I did. But I have seen it's use elsewhere, in the same specific manner. Apologies. Dysprosia 10:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with the way this paragraph is put - "* Direction Female-to-Male: Transman and [ Drag King ]

 * Direction Male-to-Female: Transwoman and [ Drag Queen"

What's wrong with putting it in this form?

 * Transman
 * Transwoman
 * Drag king
 * Drag queen

In its current form, I think it is both objectionable and somewhat inaccurate. I've read the above, but to my knowledge, drag queen and drag king aren't exactly synonymous with "direction: male-to-female" or vice versa. In any case, it's an unnecessary phrase to have there. Ambivalenthysteria 05:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree. Drag king/queen belong together under Drag and Transman/woman belong together under Transgender/Transsexual. Sorry AlexR, it seems you are outvoted here :o) -- Kimiko 10:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, but even if there is two of you, you are still wrong. I have explained already that Drag Kings are much more than just Drag, and you are discriminating against them and take away their identity by putting them there. OK, if you insist, then only the Drag Kings will be listed next to the transmen. I will never understand that distance-o-mania some transwomen show. And Ambivalenthysteria - if you are not convinced, try a reality check, but don't discriminate against Drag Kings by claiming every Drag King does drag only. It is simply not true, whether you like it or not. -- AlexR 12:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm certainly not claiming that there are no transmen who are drag kings. I'm sure there are...I think I know a couple. I'm simply stating that they're not one and the same (nor extremely similar), and thus should not be listed in that fashion.

 * And the way they are now is pretty odd, as well. It looks strange to have drag queen under drag, and drag king somewhere else. Ambivalenthysteria 13:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I know it looks strange now, that was the reason I put Drag Queen next to transwoman, too, and suggested putting something like "Check articles for differences" or something behind it. BTW, transman are not drag kings, and most transgender drag kings don't identify as transmen, but as Drag Kings. The difference between transgender Drag Kings (which are probably a mayority among them) and transmen is very very slight, mostly the difference is what they call themselves. Drag Kings don't identify as "man" or "male", which is why most I know reject "transman". Then again, many transmen identify as transmen because they don't want to identify as plain "man" or "male" either. So those two belong next to each other, because the differences are often very slight indeed. Of course, it's no problem, either, to find a Drag King and a transmen who have next to nothing in common, but that would be people from the extrem end of both spectrums. In the middle, the line is very blury. I know enough people of both groups to be very certain there, and I did check that it is very much the same in other countries, too. -- AlexR 14:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ambivalenthysteria that it looks silly to put drag king next to transman and not under drag. But I concede that I don't know enough about this whole drag subject to have a valid opinion so I'll stay out of this debate. -- Kimiko 00:03, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I know it looks silly, and I have at various times asked Drag Kings whether there is not a better name for "Drag King", at least for the transgender ones. They have never come up with one, though, and if that is how they call themselves and/or identify, then we have to respect that. The Scandinavians tend towards "female transvestites", but that has been refused by others even more emphatically than "transmen", because most to not identify as female, and that means they are not cross-dressing, from their point of view, either. So what can the Wikipeda do? It is descriptive, not prescriptive. And we can't put it under "Drag" because it is a lot more than Drag. And if the choice is between elegance and accuracy, as in this case, then I'll always opt for accuracy, even if I certainly would not mind if it were elegant, too. Although I am not 100% certain that removing Drag Queen from Transwomen is always that correct, either, but I think I'll wait for some input from Drag Queens for changing that again; I know that most transwomen reject the connection. -- AlexR 11:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I am 100% certain. I know I'm not the only one that finds the connection highly offensive. Ambivalenthysteria 04:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you a transman or a drag king? - Montréalais 04:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I was replying to Alex's statement of "I am not 100% certain that removing Drag Queen from Transwomen is always that correct, either". Ambivalenthysteria 09:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Ambivalenthysteria, I do believe you that you are 100% certain that you find the connection offensive; lots of transwomen do. (And that is not exactly the first time I stumble onto that debate, either.) I am not 100% certain, though, that it is a correct thing to do - if a significant number of Drag Queens turn up and say that it is not a "drag" thing to them, but a "transgender" thing, then "Drag Queen" does not belong under "Drag". However, since there is, in my experience, absolutely nothing to be gained from having that I am more transwhatever than thou! debate again, and since we certainly have more important things to do in the Wikipeda, I am perfectly willing to leave "Drag Queen" under Drag until we get significant more information on the subject; I think neither of us has all that much information on Drag Queens and really can make an informed statement about exactly how "transgender" Drag Queens are. So I suggest we leave that as it is and move on; there are two more issues I'd like to hear another opinion about before I start editing anyway, see below. -- AlexR 17:38, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. But I'm inclined to wonder that if drag queens and drag kings don't feel that they fit under drag, whether the drag article is the one that needs fixing. Ambivalenthysteria 07:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem is that the word "Drag King" is probably not very accurate, as far as I can tell, drag indeed means, at least currently, something like "over-dressed". And both Drag and Drag queen and Drag king already saw several edits about the precise meaning. However, as long as these are the words people use for themseves, and as long as there is no generally agreed upon and more accurate word that could replace whatever is inaccurate, we have to stick with things as they are. As I said, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, so there is not much we can do here. -- AlexR 13:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that transwomen are offended by being grouped with drag queens so much because they are trying to distance themselves from the image that the public has of transsexuals, which is formed mostly by trans* of the Jerry Springer variety. The dynamics in the MtF direction (whatever their exact identification) are much different and much less divisive. -- Kimiko 23:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A place to talk about these meta-matters:
I am not sure that this discussion page is the best place to talk about such things that concern several of the related articles. I don't mind doing it here, but I did want to ask whether somebody feels there is a need for a Project:Transgender or something similar. Mind you, I am not particularly hot for one, but the debates in Heteronormativity with a member of WikiProject Critical Theory and the generally spreading number of projects made me want to have some comments on these matter. -- AlexR 17:38, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me.

 * Or maybe we could just start policing the various T* talk pages a little more and move anything of a general nature to a central talk page like this one?
 * -- Kimiko 23:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * That is another option, of course; and if it works, and no other reasons for a project come up, a perfectly sufficient one. I have also been thinking about something like a mailing list (practically just a list of adresses, I'd say, not a full-fledged list), used only to alert those of us who usually keep an eye on these articles, in case we have another case of vandalism or trolling; like Heteronormativity just experiences; I myself did not catch that one when it began for days. It is only a matter of time until these articles get the same problem; after all, the Sam Spades of these worlds are still out there to to "defend society against horrors". We'd have to be a bit selective about who gets on it, though, I think. -- AlexR 01:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I think both of these are a potentially good idea. Do we need a WikiProject? I don't know whether that would be necessary, as I think most of the necessarily articles already exist. But if we're talking about vandalism/POV garbage, then a mailing list could be a good idea. Ambivalenthysteria 07:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Why won't the usual functionality of the watchlist suffice? Dysprosia 07:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I'd prefer to keep this within the standard Wikipedia framework of talk pages or at most project pages. The subject matter doesn't merit a mailing list IMHO.

 * If you're getting tired of edit wars, take a step back and examine your own motives again. It takes at least two POVs to keep up an edit war. -- Kimiko 08:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I did not mean a full-fledged mailing list, rather an alert system so that even those people who might not check their watchlist daily would get informed it something goes on; the transgender artcles, which fill 90% of my watchlist, were often rather quite for months. (I am more active on the German Wikipedia.) Anyway, if most people feel there's no need for one, then there is probably not; such an alert list would not be of much use if it hadn't at least a few participants. As for edit wars, excuse me, but all it takes is one vandal or troll to start one, and one person (or several) who try to keep the article NPOV and/or factually accurate ot whatever. If for example somebody would start to throw every biblical reference to transsexualism, whether accurate or not, into the article, along with a section on how well reparation therapy would work; and maybe a few insults into the bargain, like the aforementined "defending society against horrors", would you really feel that you had to examine you own motives before trying to stop that and keep the article NPOV? I somehow don't think so. -- AlexR 13:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Vandals only make a few edits before they leave again. They can easily be dealt with by reverting an article to a previous version. Those who are intent on doing damage won't stop at an obscure topic like T* and will be caught by the admins pretty quickly.
 * Trolls are best dealt with by not feeding them. If someone only reverts your edits to make you angry, just ignore them for a while and they will go away to bother someone else.
 * If someone is really interested in a topic they will want to learn about other points of view, just like you do. The very fact that you both keep editing the article to reflect your own POV, NPOV though you may think it is, shows that it really isn't completely neutral. If you're not willing to work towards a compromise maybe you should look for a forum that allows ownership of articles.
 * Of course, this doesn't mean that your POV isn't better than theirs. It's obvious that it is, if only they would see the light the way you have seen it.
 * Then again, as you have said yourself, Wikipedia is not about telling people what to think/believe but about telling them about what people think/believe.
 * What horrors are you defending society against? -- Kimiko 23:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, Kimiko, but what you say is not only extremely naive, but also is becoming personally insulting. Have a look at the history of Heteronormativity, those trolls did not go away, and obviously have no intention of learing about any other point of view, either. And many attempts at compromises have been rejected by them, too; they don't want compromises. Which is, especially with Sam Spade, old news, btw, just as it is old news that he does not give up. And it was not me who "wanted to defend society against these horrors", either, which should have been obvious from what I wrote. The horrors Sam Spade wants to defend society against is, among others, you and me. (And he won't care very much about the differences between us, either.) LGBT people. Everything that is not WASP probably as well, judging from the history of his edits in other articles. Should people like him really run wild on the transgender articles? Those people do not go away if we ignore them, and I doubt that they would consider vandalising transgender topics as being below their dignity, either. So sorry, we absolutely disagree there, and I would appreciate very much if you would, in the future, refrain from insulting me. -- AlexR 00:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


text:
Pacific campaign

Pacific campaign or Pacific campaigns, usually refers to the Pacific War (1941–1945): campaigns involving Allied and Axis forces, in the Pacific and Asia during World War II.

Within the context of World War II, "Pacific campaigns" include:

 * Pacific Ocean theater of World War II: the naval and island campaigns in the Central Pacific, North Pacific and South Central Pacific, and;
 * South West Pacific theater of World War II: the campaigns in and around the Philippines, New Guinea, Australia, most of the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and the British colonies in Borneo.

Pacific theater of operations is a generic term, in US military history, for all campaigns in the Pacific during World War II.

Pacific campaign may also refer to the following campaigns in other wars:

 * Pacific Coast campaign (Mexican–American War) (1846–1848) United States Navy operations during the Mexican–American War
 * Pacific campaign (Spanish–American War), between the United States and Spain during the Spanish–American War of 1898
 * Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I (1914–1918), between the Allies and the German Empire

title: Pacific campaign