text:
User talk:Eloquence/Ask the candidate

Feel free to ask me any questions about my candidature for the Wikimedia board here. I have added this page to my watchlist and will check it daily. You can ask questions in English or German.--Eloquence* 03:12, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please also see my detailed campaign platform at User:Eloquence/Platform.

 * Post a new question (please enter a subject line)

Branches
What on earth is a "local Wikimedia branch" as mentioned in your statement? -- Seth Ilys 03:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * A local daughter organization of the Wikimedia Foundation, e.g. a German non-profit foundation, as has been repeatedly requested, to allow these Wikipedias to solicit funds on their own, and to use them for local projects.--Eloquence* 03:23, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * "local projects"? -- Seth Ilys 03:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. For example, advertising the Maori Wikipedia, or creating and distributing a printed WikiReader in a certain language. For such projects, being able to directly and locally solicit funds is very helpful. It is also important for legal representation, press contacts, local meetings, lobbying, and so forth.--Eloquence* 03:34, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Favorite page
Just out of curiosity, and i am asking this to everyone who is standing, i would like to post a question. Could you point me to two or three of your favourite contributions in Wikipedia? Not the whole bunch of them, which I am sure you all have in powers of 10, but that special article you wrote, or made substancial changes to, and makes you happy. Just to see what you've been up to :) Cheers and all the best to you all, MvHG 15:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm fairly happy with Life in the Freezer, which I wrote pretty much from scratch while watching the series. Also, ex-gay, in spite of its controversial subject, was never the center of any edit wars and gives a pretty good overview of that movement, in my opinion.--Eloquence* 21:50, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks! The ex-gay is a very nice one, which i had come across with before. Its nice to see all the different kinds of answers to the question i made. Happy election! MvHG 10:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Voting system
Hi. Due to the concerns of a number of people, we are considering adopting a new system to replace First Past the Post. What is your preference? Please respond to WikiElections AT aol DOT com. This is not an assurance that the system will be changed, but rather an attempt to gauge the will of the electorate. Danny 04:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I have responded my mail (my preferred voting system is approval voting).--Eloquence* 00:45, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

License compatibility issues
As you're probably aware, one of the issues the project has is the wide variation in what can and can't be used under copyright law in different jurisdictions and the differing definitions of free used by contributors to the project. How will you seek to resolve the inevitable tension between those who want a completely free to use public domain Wikipedia, those who want to make full use of all works they are free to use under the copyright law of their jurisdiction, those who want a GFDL only encyclopedia, those who want a copyleft encyclopedia and those who want the best possible encyclopedia and accept all content which doesn't infringe copyright, even if some of it might be hard for all reusers, or a small number of reusers? The most compatible license is public domain, so does that mean that you prefer public domain content over other content? Would you want to strongly favor public domain content to maximise the freedom to reuse the work? How do you believe that increasing or decreasing the acceptability of licensed content will increase or decrease the participation in the project? How do you believe it will increase or decrease the chance of a competing project to fill any gaps in what we accept? Jamesday 06:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * See my response below. I'm a big believer in license compatibility, but one way to resolve this, besides going to PD, would be to release a new and improved version of the FDL in collaboration with the FSF. I would also be in favor of an "I want all my contributions to be in the PD" option during sign-up.--Eloquence*

Questions based on your statement

 * The Wikipedia license requires that all improvements are also open content. Please explain if and why you believe that our license prohibits quotations and other fair use or fair dealing items.
 * I don't believe that. To avoid future misunderstandings, I have modified the text accordingly.--Eloquence*
 * if we get a magazine to use an article we created, and they add a pretty picture, we can plausibly argue that we have a right to use that picture as well. As discussed at Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, it is the view of Richard Stallman, Jimmy Wales and most others with a strong interest in copyright law that an image displayed with an article is an aggregated independent work under clause 7 of the GFDL. As a result, the GFDL would not cause the pretty picture to be usable here. Do you agree or disagree?
 * I am the one who originally proposed the aggregation argument on the mailing list, if I remember correctly. This inspired one of the people who disagreed with me, Marco Krohn, to ask Richard about it. Richard has never explicitly endorsed my interpretation; he has merely stated that he feels the FDL does not apply to fair use images. My argument rests on the images being separately stored and dynamically included by the client (not the server). The actual wikisource only contains the text [[Image:Foo.jpg]], which is not an image but a link. That link is converted by the server into an  tag, which can be resolved by a modern web browser during viewing by fetching the image and the page separately. Furthermore, an image can be included in this way on several pages. All this is not the case with the magazine article, where the two clearly belong together, which is why I do not believe this interpretation to be applicable.
 * I have, in a couple of instances, managed to get sites to comply with our license. Please say which sites, why they weren't complying with our license and whether you believe they were complying with the GFDL.
 * Most notably, which had no license information whatsoever and claimed its own copyright instead. I also take some credit for getting McFly into compliance as I repeatedly bugged Anthony about it and am the one who brought the issue up on the mailing list. But no, I do not want to have a discussion with you about whether or not the whole work or individual pages are under the FDL, or whether Anthony's combination argument is correct. :-) Suffice it to say that I think the current solution is more acceptable than what he originally did, that is, to have no license information on individual articles.
 * the only project which I can think of that in my opinion already is a failure is the September 11 wiki. Why do you believe that this project has failed to meet the goals for which it was created, which appear to have originally been a place to dump tributes to September 11th victims which en didn't want? Do you believe that it should be a more comprehensive resource for all knowledge about the September 11th attacks? If yes, should that include only GFDL items or is the use of fair use and restrictively licensed works to achieve that goal acceptable? What do you believe would make it a success?
 * Sep11 hardly is even a complete resource for tributes alone, nor has the community taken an active role in maintaining or promoting it. As you say, all it ever was is a place to dump articles from another wiki, and I find that to be a weak raison d'être. A more comprehensive "Wikimorial" approach may work, but that needs to be discussed and planned properly.
 * When a corporation like Corbis threatens us with a lawsuit for hosting an image that is clearly in the public domain (but they claim to have "reproduction rights" because it was digitized by them), we will have to decide whether we want to fight a precedent lawsuit. What grounds do you believe Corbis might have for such an act? The Communications Decency Act protects the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation. The OCILLA also does and makes their only effective remedy a takedown notice which we know to be invalid and which the uploader could reply to with a valid counter-notification. Do you believe that the precedent in Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, US SDNY (1999), which held that a photograph of a public domain work is not original, will not apply? Do you believe that the Foundation should fund the defence of the uploader?
 * I believe that Corbis - in cases of PD images - rests on a weak legal basis, and they know that. They may at some point attempt to solidify that basis through a high profile lawsuit. I think we have a fair chance of winning that lawsuit, based on the precedent you cite; however, similar precedents do not exist in all countries, and that may be a problem when daughter organizations are set up. I think the Foundation should make a decision on whether or not to fund the defense of the uploader in any such case, depending on the precise context (if the uploader was a vandal who insisted on adding an image which we think is too ambiguous then we should of course not defend them).
 * Do you believe that all Wikimedia-hosted projects must be free as defined by the FSF or Open Source as defined by the OSF? Is a public domain or primarily public domain project compatible with the goals of the Foundation? Should a history of the Foundation refuse to use any non-GFDL works, even if it makes an incomplete history, perhaps because those prortayed negatively refuse permission to use their works or are unable to grant such permission because they aren't the primary copyright holder?
 * That should be enough for a start.:) Jamesday 07:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * We should be as free as reasonably possible, that's why I created Fair use. I believe we should not use fair use just because we can, but only if we find no open content replacement. I don't want to discourage producers of open content who may feel "Well, we already have a fair use image, so why should I bother to create an open content photo of this or that celebrity?" So all realistic options should be explored before we resort to fair use. I'm strongly against licenses which prohibit commercial use, but I can accept, in a few exceptional cases (such as artistic works), licenses which prohibit derivative works. I am of two hearts with regard to copyleft / non-copyleft licenses. I admire the copyleft idea and use it for my software. For text I think it creates many problems and still haven't seen a single case where we have benefitted from it. I think at one point we may have to hold a community wide vote on which license we want to use for this or that new project; for example, using the FDL for a Wikinews spin-off could seriously impact its potential world-wide impact. We do, however, have to maintain good relations with the FSF, as they effectively hold control over the future of our only current license, the FDL, and can release a new version of it that solves some of its many problems.--Eloquence* 09:43, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Please stand for both positions!
Hi Eloquence

I would like to ask you to reconsider standing for only one of the two available board positions, but rather to stand for both. Both you and Anthere address my concerns, and I would hate to see only one of you on the Board! Greenman 00:39, 22 May 2004 (SAST)

 * Hi Greenman, thank you for your feedback and for your support. Given that a lot of my concerns are related to the allocation and use of funds, I believe a candidacy as Contributing Member Representative is the most appropriate choice for the time being. I also don't want to directly compete with Angela, who I think would make an excellent Volunteer Member Representative. However, please do keep in mind that this election will use approval voting, so you may very well vote for both me and Florence.--Eloquence* 22:58, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Edit wars--ennobling of a trustee?
Why are you carrying on edit wars in Homosexuality_and_morality and Gay disease?

You continually claim that there is a larger connection between homosexuality and pedophilia than there is between heterosexuality and pedophilia, despite the fact that you have been invited to peruse academic studies denying this.

I would oppose nominating you to any position based on your actions at these articles.

 * 1) I have never edited gay disease. 2) I have not been involved in any edit war ever since a rule against reverting a single page more than three times has been instituted. 3) See Talk:Homosexuality and morality for my arguments on the matter.--Eloquence*

democratic decision-making
I like your campaign platform a lot, especially things such as the recognition that Wikipedia does not exist in a political vacuum but should lobby for better laws in copyright, software patents, censorship etc. However, one tricky issue where I couldn't find any concrete proposals in your platform is democratic control of Wikipedia. (what follows is a bit of a copy-paste of question I asked Angela). As Wikipedia grows, in terms of contributors, readers, articles amd generally in importance, more decisions will have to be taken regarding the general direction of the project. The most critical decisions will probably be those that relate to funding and licensing. In my opnion there is a very real danger that these decisions will be made by a small elite such as the Board and/or the most comitted/active Wikipedians. While I do not question in any way the integrity of the people belonging to such an elite, I think this turn of events would be highly detrimental to Wikipedia. After all, it is the contributors that make Wikipedia what it is - even the most committed Wikipedians would never be able to deal with half million+ articles - and if these contibutors feel that they don't have enough say in decision making and that decisions are imposed on them, they will turn away from the project. Also, a democratic decision making process, even though it tends to take more time, leads to better decisions in my experience.

I can see two slightly different approaches: representative democracy, where contributors elect representatives which then take the decisions about the long-term direction. In this case it is extremely important that those representatives are accountable to contributors, that they can be deselected if they take decisions that don't reflect the interests of contributors, that the time they serve is not too long. The alternative approach, which I would very much prefer, is the one of direct democracy. The board, elected representatives or even just any Wikipedian would propose competing plans regarding e.g. funding, licensing, etc, and then contributors would directly vote on these proposals. In my opinion the direct route of decision taking is not only technically and humanly possible (if Wikipedia shows anything it is how very different people can collaborate productively) but far preferable, because it is consensus-based and deals with the real issues rather than the more personal stuff. Also, it could be a way to make Wikipedia less depedent on outside funding, because I am sure that if contributors are more deeply involved in decision taking, they are also much more willing to contribute financially - maybe one could even have a system where Wikipedia voters pay a voluntary Wikipedia tax. Also, if it's possible to hold this election for two representatives for the board, it's possible to have similar votes in the decision-making process.

In your campaign platform you talk about the need for "Democracy and openness" and propose a constitution. While I wholeheartedly agree with what you say, I don't think it goes far enough. For example, although I check and edit Wikipedia almost daily, I haven't got the slightest idea why and how this election came about, nor even when it will end, if these representatives are accountable to us and how long their mandate is. I'm sure that the process was open enough for me to be able to find out, and maybe I just missed a few things, but I don't think that's enough: this kind of decision-making should be right in the middle of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians should be able to be involved not just in theory but in practice. Also, do you envisage the constitution you propose to be voted on by all Wikipedians? Who would be involved in putting together this constitution - people appointed by the Board, or democratically elected Wikipedia representatives ? I wonder if you have any concrete plans on how to democratically control the amazing Wikipedia project. pir 12:13, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I have concrete plans. This is a good example of what I mean in my platform when I say that it's important to understand all the issues -- legal, technical, social, economic, political -- to a reasonable extent.

 * Let me address the problem of hearing about important issues first. Right now, many important discussions take place on the mailing lists. I love mailing lists and use them a lot, but one of the key concepts of wiki is lowering barriers to entry and not requiring things like subscriptions. Now, I do not propose that we eliminate the mailing lists right away because discussions on a wiki, right now, are rather cumbersome. There is no reply button, automatic paging, thread notification, automatic signing, sorting etc. So first I would like to see some changes made to the software to facilitate discussions on the wikis. Then we could integrate what are currently separate mailing lists into the project, as topical discussion pages. This would go a long way in making important debates more accessible.

 * Another technical change is that right now, we have no built-in voting system other than page editing itself. This makes it rather cumbersome to set up polls on important issues. We should change that, but we also need to remember - and here's a social issue - that wiki is built on consensus and compromise-seeking. So we should not allow people to start polls willy-nilly; in fact there should be a mandatory consensus-seeking phase, wide support for starting the poll, and defined thresholds for decisions of different magnitude (e.g. banning a user should be more difficult than changing a word in an intro).

 * I absolutely agree with you about direct democracy and believe strongly in it. However, direct democracy fails when people are uninformed. So it is essential that everyone who votes gets a summary of the different points of view on an issue (this should be supported by software, e.g. in the form of a standard template associated with voting pages), and we should strive to build a strong community sense that as a voter, you have the responsibility to read and understand what you are voting on.

 * This doesn't mean that I do not define the role of the board as a leadership role. I do, probably more so than other candidates. The board, in my view, should communicate ideas from the user base, but it should also take the initiative in promoting specific goals and values which they consider to be of importance. This should not so much be done through top down decisions, but by making specific proposals, building consensus on them and voting if necessary. In my vision, representative democracy and direct democracy are combined so that each can compensate for the other's shortcomings. I want an enlightened board of trustees which promotes a general direction for the project, and a broad, informed user base which improves upon these suggestions, submits their own proposals and makes the final decisions. The authority of the board would mostly rest in the trust that people have in the individual board members.--Eloquence* 00:25, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eloquence/Ask the candidate


text:
Jenny Jump State Forest

Jenny Jump State Forest is a state park in the U.S. state of New Jersey operated by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Division of Parks and Forestry. It is located in northern Warren County in the northwestern section of New Jersey, on the 1112 ft high, 6 mi long Jenny Jump Mountain ridge.

The park has extensive hiking trails on the mountainside, featuring large glacial boulders and outcroppings from the Wisconsin glaciation approximately 21,000 years ago.

It is said that the park was named after a girl named Jenny, who jumped to her death on Jenny Jump Mountain, while being chased by a Native American.

Environment
The park's forests are part of the Northeastern coastal forests ecoregion.

Facilities
The park grounds include the Greenwood Observatory, built by the United Astronomy Clubs of New Jersey (UACNJ) in 1995. The observatory is open for public stargazing on Saturday nights April through October. There are several other observatories located at Jenny Jump, including the Brady which houses a 178MM Refractor and a solar observatory. The area is used by many amateur astro photographers as Jenny Jump has some of the darkest skies in New Jersey.

The park has camping facilities April to October, and shelters available all year long.

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

title: Jenny Jump State Forest


text:
Edinburgh Mathematical Society

The Edinburgh Mathematical Society is a mathematical society for academics in Scotland.

History
The Society was founded in 1883 by a group of Edinburgh school teachers and academics, on the initiative of Alexander Yule Fraser FRSE and Andrew Jeffrey Gunion Barclay FRSE, both maths teachers at George Watson's College, and Cargill Gilston Knott, the assistant of Peter Guthrie Tait, professor of physics at the University of Edinburgh. The first president, elected at first meeting on 2 February 1883, was J.S. Mackay, the head mathematics master at the Edinburgh Academy.

The Society was founded at a time when mathematics societies were being created around the world, but it was unusual in being founded by school teachers rather than university lecturers. This was because, due to the very small number of mathematical academic positions in Scotland at the time, many skilled mathematics graduates chose to become schoolteachers instead. The fifty five founding members contained teachers, ministers and students, as well as a number of academics from the University of Cambridge. The proportion of teachers remained high compared to other mathematical societies, and by 1926 university members made up only one-third of the total members. However, the dominance of teachers in the numbers of the society declined towards the 1930s, and between 1930 and 1935 no papers were presented in the Proceedings by teachers. This was due to an increase in the number of academic positions available and the new requirement for teachers to undergo an additional year of vocational training.

The Edinburgh Mathematical Society is now mainly for academics.

Activity
The Society organises and funds meetings and other research events throughout Scotland. There are normally eight meetings a year, at which talks are presented by mathematicians.

Every four years it awards the Sir Edmund Whittaker Memorial Prize to an outstanding mathematician with a Scottish connection. The Society is a corporate member of the European Mathematical Society, and in 2008 it became a member of the Council for the Mathematical Sciences.

Journals
The society releases an academic journal, the Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, published by Cambridge University Press (ISSN 0013–0915.) The Proceedings were first published in 1884, and are issued three times a year, covering a range of pure and applied mathematics subjects.

Between 1909 and 1961, the Society also published the Edinburgh Mathematical Notes, on the suggestion of George Alexander Gibson, a professor at the University of Glasgow, who wished to remove the more elementary or pedagogical articles from the Proceedings.

title: Edinburgh Mathematical Society


text:
Tampa Bay Bandits

The Tampa Bay Bandits were a professional American football team in the United States Football League (USFL) which was based in Tampa, Florida. The Bandits were a charter member of the USFL and was the only franchise to have the same principal owner (John F. Bassett), head coach (Steve Spurrier), and home field (Tampa Stadium) during the league's three seasons of play (1983–1985). The Bandits were one of the most successful teams in the short-lived spring football league both on the field and at the ticket booth. Spurrier's "Bandit Ball" offense led them to three winning seasons and two playoff appearances, and their exciting brand of play combined with innovative local marketing helped the Bandits lead the league in attendance. However, the franchise folded along with the rest of the USFL when the league suspended play after the 1985 season.

Prominent alumni from the Bandits include future NFL Pro Bowlers Nate Newton and Gary Anderson and coach Steve Spurrier, who spent 25 years coaching college football after his successful first stint as a head coach with the Bandits and was enshrined in the College Football Hall of Fame.

Origins
The Tampa Bay Bandits' primary founder was Canadian businessman John F. Bassett, who was still in litigation against the NFL over his previous Memphis Southmen franchise from the World Football League in the mid-1970s. Bassett was initially skeptical about getting into another football venture. However, he soon warmed up to the USFL after discovering that he was nowhere as well off as the other owners. While he had been by far the richest owner in the WFL, he realized that he would be one of the poorest owners in the USFL. Believing that the USFL was on far stronger financial ground than the WFL ever had been, he agreed to sign on. Bassett had a part-time home in the Tampa Bay Area, and when the USFL announced its twelve charter franchises in May 1982, Bassett was introduced as the majority owner of the as-yet unnamed team in Tampa along with Miami attorney Steve Arky.

Establishment in Tampa
After it was decided that the franchise would play in Tampa, several minority owners bought stakes, among them Hollywood star Burt Reynolds, a former college football player at Florida State who was one of the most popular motion picture actors in the world. The team was soon dubbed the "Bandits", and although it was widely assumed that the name referenced Reynolds' role in the hit Smokey and the Bandit movies, Bassett said that the mascot had been chosen before Reynolds joined the ownership group and instead came from the name of Bassett's daughter's German Shepherd. Reynolds was prominently involved in the Bandits' early marketing campaigns, and the cover of the team's first media guide featured a photo of the actor wearing a Bandits jacket and trucker hat.

Also building interest was the hiring of Steve Spurrier as head coach and offensive coordinator in November 1982. Spurrier was well known in the area as a Heisman Trophy-winning college star for the University of Florida Gators and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' first starting quarterback, and had most recently spent three seasons as a record-setting offensive coordinator at Duke University before accepting his first head coaching job with the Bandits. Though Bassett had also considered several established coaches with NFL experience, he chose Spurrier due to his deep connections to the state of Florida and his reputation as an innovative young offensive coach; Spurrier was 37 when hired, making him the youngest head coach in professional football at the time. At Spurrier's introductory press conference, Bassett joked that he knew that he'd found the right coach when he discovered that the Spurrier family also had a dog named Bandit.

Bandit Ball
The Bandits began play in 1983 in Tampa Stadium, and were immediately more successful than the area's NFL franchise, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, with whom they shared a home field (though the Bucs played in the fall and early winter while the Bandits played in the spring and early summer). The Bandits narrowly missed the playoffs in their first season and made the postseason the next two years. Spurrier's aggressive offense was usually one of the best in the league; Bandits players are among the USFL career leaders in touchdown passes (John Reaves, 4th), touchdown receptions (Eric Truvillion, 2nd), and rushing touchdowns (Gary Anderson, 3rd). However, an average defense and Bassett's insistence on adhering to the USFL's original financial plan while other franchises spent millions on free agent signings kept the team from serious championship contention.

The Bandits were also successful off the field. They drew the highest average attendance over the three-year history of the USFL, coming in second in attendance in 1983 and leading the league in that category in 1984 and 1985 with over 40,000 fans per game. Also, their memorabilia outsold that of the Buccaneers in the Tampa Bay area. A fan-friendly atmosphere (including a theme song, "Bandit Ball", penned and sung by Reynolds' friend Jerry Reed ) was one factor, and the Bucs' futility during the period (they went 10–38 from 1983 to 1985—the start of a 12-year stretch of 10-loss seasons) also helped the Bandits' success. Another key factor in the Bandits' success was the fact that there was no Major League Baseball team in Tampa at the time (the Tampa Bay Devil Rays would not debut for another decade), meaning that unlike other USFL teams, they did not have to compete with a baseball team for spectators. Due to broad local support, the Bandits were one of a very few USFL teams with a stable home and steady finances - they were the only franchise to have the same coach, owner, and home city throughout the league's three-year existence. Due to these factors, the Bandits are considered one of the few USFL teams that had the potential to be a viable venture had the league been better run. The Philadelphia Stars played Tampa Bay at Wembley Stadium in an exhibition game on July 21, 1984.

1983 schedule and results
Sources

1984 season
In week three of the 1984 season, the Bandits faced their inter-state rivals, the Jacksonville Bulls for the first time. Jacksonville was 1-1, after soundly defeating the Washington Federals and nearly beating the New Jersey Generals. Jacksonville, led by former Jets and Broncos quarterback Matt Robinson, raced out to a 12–0 lead. The Bandits stormed back to take a 25–18 lead. The Bulls came back to tie the game, but the Bandits won when Zenon Andrusyshyn kicked a field goal to give Tampa Bay a 28–25 lead.

When the season was over, quarterback John Reaves was the leading passer on the squad. Running backs Greg Boone and Gary Anderson ran for 1,009 and 1,008 yards respectively. Eric Truvillion lead the receivers with 1,044 yards on 70 catches and nine touchdowns.

1984 schedule and results
Sources

1985 schedule and results
Sources

The end of the Bandits and of the USFL
Bandits' majority owner John Bassett was a strong proponent of the "Dixon Plan", which was a plan formulated by the USFL's founding owners that sought to build a sustainable league with budgetary restraint and a commitment to spring football. However, to gain a competitive advantage and draw attention to their teams, some owners attempted to sign more high-profile players to free agent contracts, sometimes engaging in bidding wars against more financially powerful NFL teams. This led to USFL teams losing substantial amounts of money, causing much instability throughout the league. The Bandits did not overspend on player contracts, keeping the franchise stable but making it difficult to compete with the USFL's higher-spending teams, despite making a very good account of themselves on the field.

In April 1985, the USFL (led by New Jersey Generals owner Donald Trump ) voted 12–2 to switch to a fall schedule for 1986, hoping to compete directly with the NFL and possibly force the more established league to accept a merger. Bassett, who had registered one of the two "nay" votes, immediately declared his intention to pull the Bandits out of the USFL and organize a new spring football league.

However, by mid-1985, the Bandits' ownership group was in disarray. Bassett was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, and staffers suspected that his illness was impairing his judgment. At the same time, co-owner Steve Arky's wealth was raided by the Securities and Exchange Commission on fraud charges, triggering the savings and loan crisis; Arky committed suicide not long after. The team began signing mediocre players, most infamously defensive back Bret Clark, to large contracts, and plans for a new spring football league were abandoned. The size of the contracts, particularly Clark's contract, along with Bassett's bizarre proposal for his spin-off league to be a multi-sport league, led Spurrier and other team officials to question whether Bassett was acting or thinking rationally. As his condition worsened, Bassett decided to sell the team. He died in May 1986. Before his death, he unsuccessfully tried to merge the Bandits organization with the Orlando Renegades (whose owner Donald Dizney had previously held a stake in the Bandits, but rejected the merger out of loyalty to Orlando) and Jacksonville Bulls (whose owner Fred Bullard expressed interest, but only if the Bandits owners stayed on as investors in the merged team).

In August 1985, minority owner Lee Scarfone, a local architect, agreed to purchase Bassett's and Arky's stakes and field a team in the USFL for the fall 1986 season, with Tony Cunningham coming on as an additional partner. In March 1986, Bret Clark took the Bandits to arbitration for $159,980 in back pay owed under his contract. He won the case on May 29, but the Bandits did not have any funds available to pay the judgement, as Scarfone and Cunningham had gone into considerable debt to buy the team and had already depleted most of their assets. On August 4, a federal judge placed a lien on the franchise and ordered that the franchise's remaining assets - including everything from weight-lifting equipment to office furniture to memorabilia from the team store - be confiscated to pay off the debt, all but ending any realistic chance of the Bandits returning to the field. With the USFL failing to win the necessary money from its antitrust lawsuit to continue operating, and suddenly without one of its most financially successful franchises, the league suspended operations the same day, never returning to play.

Prominent Tampa Bay Bandits

 * Gary Anderson
 * Jim Fitzpatrick
 * Lex Luger
 * Nate Newton
 * Chuck Pitcock
 * John Reaves
 * Ron Simmons
 * Steve Spurrier, head coach

Single-season leaders
Rushing Yards: 1206 (1985), Gary Anderson

Receiving Yards: 1146 (1983), Danny Buggs

Passing Yards: 4183 (1985), John Reaves

Season-by-season results
!Totals || 35 || 21 || 0
 * 1983 || 11 || 7 || 0 || 3rd Central || --
 * 1984 || 14 || 4 || 0 || 2nd EC Southern || Lost Quarterfinal (Birmingham)
 * 1985 || 10 || 8 || 0 || 5th EC || Lost Quarterfinal (Oakland)
 * 1984 || 14 || 4 || 0 || 2nd EC Southern || Lost Quarterfinal (Birmingham)
 * 1985 || 10 || 8 || 0 || 5th EC || Lost Quarterfinal (Oakland)
 * 1985 || 10 || 8 || 0 || 5th EC || Lost Quarterfinal (Oakland)
 * colspan="2"| (including playoffs)

Proposed revivals

 * In February 2014, the A-11 Football League (A11FL) announced its intention to revive the Tampa Bay Bandits name and logos as one of the eight charter franchises for a new spring league. The A11FL also announced plans to feature the revived Bandits in a "showcase game" to be held at Tampa's Raymond James Stadium in May 2014. However, these plans did not come to fruition, as the A11FL never took the field. The showcase game was cancelled in March 2014, and the league went on permanent "hiatus" in July 2014.

 * The Spring League acquired the trademarks of the Bandits in 2021 as part of a planned relaunch of the USFL and included a Bandits squad in its 2022 USFL season. The 2022 Bandits are based in Tampa Bay in name only, as the entire league plays all of its games in Birmingham, Alabama.

title: Tampa Bay Bandits


text:
Talk:University of Pittsburgh

Accurate to call University of Pittsburgh public state-reheated?
The University of Pressure isn't exactly a public or private university. It's hybrid. It's a state-related higher education institution of Pennsylvania so it's privately run with designated state support. Murielgh (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Lol on my own typos. Autocorrect on mobile Murielgh (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, 100% correct. It is inaccurate for the article to describe the University of Pittsburgh as a public university, because it is not a public university and it never has been. It is a state-related university, and that is the actual legal status of the institution. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit neatly into the binary world of some editors, thus they have forced the article to contain misleading information.  CrazyPaco (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That description conforms with sources such as the U.S. Department of Education and the American Council on Education. You're welcome to try to convince those scholars and experts to change their minds and their published documents and we'll then follow suit. ElKevbo (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * State-related is the actual legal designation. Period. That is not changed by the US Department of Education or anyone else that has only binary buckets to place universities into their database. Those entities also are not wikipedia editors so it is not anyone's responsibility to convince them of anything. It continues to be unfortunate that you prefer unnecessary standardization over accuracy. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

New Chancellor Incoming!
Joan Gabel, current president of University of Minnesota, has been announced as the 19th Chancellor of Pitt on 3 April 2023. She will begin in July 2023. Several sources: 130.49.235.177 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Update: Joan Gabel has officially taken over as Chancellor on 17 July 2023.
 * 73.79.165.96 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Lists of GLOs
@User:Jax MN: lists of Greek institutions are better placed on list pages, since their content relevance for an encyclopedia is marginal. Also, there is not enough reliable documentation about them. Most Wikipedia editors agree that rote listings of Greek institutions are not helpful if there is no sourcing from outside the college's or university's homepage or the fraternity's own circle. If you can prove that one or more of the Greek houses is significant, then pls do so, but for the most part, individual houses fall under WP:UNDUE. That is, they are not significant enough for an encyclopdia. Here is an example of the lists, which are more appropriate. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello . I agree that separate list pages or articles with lists are preferable.  Those of us on the F&S Project simply have not yet gotten to them all.  Our practice therefore has been to list the organizations that are present without significant other editorial content on the college or university article.  Certainly, with perhaps 30% of collegians and alumni regularly participating in them for 100+ years, they merit a brief mention -- at least to the degree we mention the college radio station, or a set of buildings that are LEEDS-certified, or a subsection noting controversaries or protests.  I believe this meets the requirement of BALANCE. To your comment on specific significant buildings, yes, we sometimes note these but they are an offshoot.  Relatively few are on the historic register of their states or on the national list.  The bigger picture here is that all these chapters are normally listed in solid secondary sources, including the Baird's Manual, Banta's Greek Exchange, and/or numerous published histories.  I agree that it is preferable to hatnote a main article or list of the institution's fraternity system (including honor and professional organizations), as is often done for a college's athletic program. Jax MN (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no rush to post information, so pls wait before publishing sub-par content. The problem with laundry lists of GLOs is that often the individual contents are inaccurate, badly-sourced, and don't stand up to closer examination. Also, the mere existence of a GLO on campus certainly does not make it notable. We have discussed these issues before and there is widespread consensus among editors about deleting laundry lists of frats and sororities. You will not find them on other university pages, but you will find good list articles which give all the information a reader could desire. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked for a third opinion WP:3O since the discussion has come to a standstill. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Melchior2006: I wanted to respond to your suggestion that a list article is the best place for GLO content. Most of those list articles are old and do not reflect current thought within Wikipedia. Around half of these articles have already been deleted after an AfD because the majority of the secondary sources do not provide extensive coverage of Greek life on that specific campus and, therefore, do not prove the notability of the data set. As a similar example, the current provost might be mentioned in a university article, but the individual may not meet notability for a stand-alone article; nor does this mean that a list of former provosts meets notability for a list article. Think of it this way--if the content has no value as part of the university's details, it is unlikely to meet notability as a stand-alone child article. If it has value as a child article, it would also have value (in some form) to the parent university article. Even if there is a stand-alone list article about campus fraternities and sororities, MOS specifies an introductory section about the topic to go along with the main article link. Meaning, there would still need to be a summary of the imporatnce of Greek life on campus in the university (parent) article. (I sometimes get my hand-slapped for creating alumni list articles without providing a paragraph or two to go with the main article link, so can assure you this is the WP:UNI standard). Hope this helps in your future edits. Rublamb (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am providing a requested third opinion. A few observations:
 * The contested information was restored without adding sourcing, which should not have been done per WP:PROVEIT, which is policy.
 * WP:UNDUE has been cited in the discussion above, but without sourcing or discussion of sourcing it is unclear how the weight of viewpoints ...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources has been assessed.
 * The above two bullet points refer to policy/guideline issues. Moving to stylistic assessment, the table looks blocky to me and strikes me as too much coverage for this aspect. I see that many other university articles, when they mention Greek orgs at all, do so my stating the number of organizations on campus rather than listing out every one. That seems like a better approach here as well, and is what I suggest. VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An excellent point. I have added three references to support the claim that these groups are present and have been present for, in some cases, 150+ years.  I also added a short introductory paragraph in the style common for other school articles, noting the number of chapters, the pioneers on the campus, and a call out noting a similar tenure for the professional, service and honor societies. A later editor or one of us on the F&S Project will certainly use these references and the campus portal listings to develop a subordinate page that may be hatlinked.  At that time, our practice would be to remove the table from the main article.  Jax MN (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thx to VQuakr. Since the two bullet points are clear, I will soon remove the table with unsourced names, it should never have been restored in the first place. Also, I find it strange that Jax MN is not responding to the most important argument: "strikes me as too much coverage for this aspect." Why open the comment with "excellent point" when you ignore the main point? Seems disingenuous somehow. There seems to be consensus among editors on this, since almost no university pages on Wikipedia list GLOs in detail. And even if Jax MN did note the founding dates of very few of the GLOs, does that really make them significant? We need references from outside the GLO bubble in order to ascertain Wiki-relevance here. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mel, I'm catching up on some notifications as real life intrudes. I indeed responded to your argument that there is too much coverage for GLOs, by explaining in the intro paragraph to the table the many decades of campus participation in these groups, some of which have existed for 150 years.  Each of the chapters in the table are listed on the references provided.  (And we haven't yet gotten to listing the various professional, honor and service chapters.) At various points, a review of yearbooks will show that Pitt (that's the nickname of the university here in the US) often had over 50% of students participating, either in the general (~social) organizations or in the honor, service or professional chapters.  These groups, Greek Letter Organizations (GLOs), are far more common and popular here than you give them credit for, and I fully oppose your statement that there is consensus among editors about this.
 * Further, you added a paragraph about a couple of hazing incidents. While those events happened, our practice is to cite these against the specific chapter name on the list of chapters, or when notorious, to promote the item, and note it in a "Local misconduct" section of the article about the national fraternity or sorority.  Candidly, I think you have a distorted view about these, as an outsider to American colleges.  In fairness, these two hazing incidents are a couple of transitory events that are outliers to the experiences of some 150,000 students over the many years.  Say there was a paragraph about the campus bus service, and in 2017 a student was hit by a drunk bus driver.  --Would that incident merit a paragraph?  Or, given the truth that thousands of students ride the busses each day, wouldn't that incident fairly be described as an outlier, and not merit inclusion in the summary?  To do so would show unfair balance, and may indicate the writer is attempting to harm the general good impression of the campus bus service. This is a hypothetical, but I sense your efforts to remove the table and promote these adjudicated hazing incidents shows a bias.  Your valued efforts to remove puffery is unwarranted in this case.  Greeks, as we call them in our shorthand in this country, are broadly popular, and generate an enormous amount of media notification, even without seeking it.  Finally, I remind you that I added several references from searchable archive sites which you may review, along with the citation of a blue-chip reference book on the subject.  Every one of these chapters in the table is listed in those references.  Deletion of the table is reverted. I captured one of the two hazing citations you found, and have appended it against the chapter name in the table, giving it proper weight in the article. The other was 30 years old, and is no longer current enough for this summary article. Jax MN (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To me is seems like there is consensus that the in-prose table listing a bunch of GLOs is not warranted in this article, the subject of which is a University and not these GLOs. I suggest either removing the table or holding a RfC to get broader input. As a reminder re Each of the chapters in the table are listed on the references provided., verifiability is an insufficient standard to guarantee inclusion of given content per WP:VNOT. Regardless, the table should not have been restored without consensus to do so, which you currently clearly lack. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * VQuakr, the table was deleted without any real consensus. I reverted.  Lists of Greek chapters are prevalent features of US collegiate Wikipedia articles.  These organizations are notable, broadly-popular campus features with decade-long or even century-long histories. I provided the necessary citations and an intro paragraph, responding to Melchior's concern.  Removing them, without similarly removing vast troves of other content is arbitrary and shows bias.  Jax MN (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Has this kind of content ever been the subject of an explicit RfC or other large discussion among a diverse group of editors? ElKevbo (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know of no previous RfC, but I would certainly welcome one. Jax MN is edit warring (again) and has been disingenuous in several discussions. The table should be deleted. Since he devotes a lot of time to writing about GLOs, he knows very well that they are not listed on most Wiki pages about major universities. Go ahead and make a list, that would cover all bases. The news coverage of students killed during hazing is certainly of perennial significance for this article, it should certainly not be deleted without first attaining consensus on talk. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon, Melchior. We will have to disagree on your characterizations.  I am a serious editor and do not participate in edit warring.  Nor have I been disingenuous.  You have, on the occasions where we have crossed paths, offered ad hoc edits regarding these GLOs, without process or consistency.  You have your areas of interest, and I would leave them to your capable hands.  I have mine, and am very experienced with both GLOs and with American colleges and universities. As a Project participant, I follow our guidelines to ensure consistency.  Contrary to your opinion, many summary collegiate articles note the presence of GLOs, and list them.  Some of these use a hatnote linking to an article with more information.  GLOs (social, honor, professional, or service) are typically popular with a plurality or even a majority of the student body, and are worthy of inclusion; far more than some transitory or niche subjects listed in some of these articles.  Jax MN (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There appears to be consensus to omit the table that lists dozens of GLOs by name. The subject of this article is the University, not GLOs. While I'm sure there are some other university articles that sport a similar table, there are by no means ubiquitous or a standard. You don't get special dispensation to ignore other editors because you're a "Project participant". VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We're probably at the stage where we need an RfC on this. Project participants have added and policed numerous such lists as sections of student life subheadings.  I don't agree at all that there is consensus to omit these.  Jax MN (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But you've been asked to produce any result of centralized discussion that might indicate that this project's alleged "policing" (yikes!) has consensus and have provided none. So what these project participants have done isn't relevant to our discussion. I don't agree at all that there is consensus to omit these. Your agreement isn't necessary for a consensus to exist: it does. Feel free to start a RfC if you want to see if the present consensus changes with more participation; the onus is on you to do so. VQuakr (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo: I think that is the real issue here. Can we start a discussion on WP:Uni's TalkPage? Lacking WP Uni guidelines, we have one editor who regularly deletes GLO content and others who have added it, believing that to be the norm. It appears all parties are making good faith edits but could use better guidance.
 * I have often seen a long list of GLO reduced to "This college has fraternities and sororities". To all involved: there is a middle ground. For example, US News & World Report's review of colleges cites the number of students who belong to a GLO, which is great content for the article and can also inform the level of detail that is appropriate for the specific article. Not all universities are the same. Some have zero GLOs and some have a really high percentage of students who belong to a GLO. I once came across a college where 90% of its students belonged to a fratarnity or sorority. If national and international fraternities and sororities were established at the college or university, that too is relevant information. This infomation is reliably found in secondary sources and, often, in the university's online archives. With regards to presentation, MOS would suggest that text is better than a table or list. Meaning, a great solution for this article is curreted content in text format (with sources). Again, there is something in between these two extremes. Rublamb (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed that percent of student body membership in Greek orgs would be a good thing to include. A prose list of dozens of orgs has the same issue as a table: it doesn't convey meaningful information about the subject. VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Rublamb's middle ground is a great idea. Intelligent writing about GLOs which are relevant to the school in some authentic way is completely in order. The only problem is researching and writing it. I find that few editors want to do so; they prefer to use laundry lists with no sourcing or only internal sourcing. But let's not forget: GLOs should also be covered when they make bad headlines, that often reflects larger issues. My only question is: since your "middle ground" approach really does require rare levels of engagement, what do we do with the tables and boring prose lists? The reasonable thing it to delete them. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Melchior2006: Unless the article is otherwise perfect and well-sourced throughout, I would leave the GLO list but tag it as unsourced (already addressed in this instance) and for a copy edit (with a notation to shorten the list to text). WP UNI editors regularly use tags instead of deleting content, including tagging for academic boosterism or no references. I suspect WP: Fraternities and Sororities (or WP: UNI) would be willing to create and host a work list when editors like you could post the names of articles that need updates to the Greek life sections. First, it would be helpful for WP: UNI to settle on guidelines. Rublamb (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm here because of the notice of the discussion posted at WP:UNI.
 * It seems to me, having read over the comments so far, that there are a couple of separate issues:
 * 1) Is a list of GLOs WP:UNDUE
 * 2) Inclusion of unsourced information
 * These two overlap because the lists of GLOs included in university articles are often unsourced.
 * On the first of these, there don't seem to be particularly definitive arguments. The argument for having them in there isn't great, but this is down deep in the body of a large article. For a small article with little other information, including a big list of GLOs is likely to be UNDUE, but this argument is much weaker in an article the size of Pitt's. Rublamb's "middle ground" seems a very good way forward – we want articles that give an encyclopedic overview of the role of GLOs at a university, not just a list of GLOs, where possible. Getting towards this should be the aim.
 * On the second, the Wikipedia policy on WP:UNSOURCED information is quite clear: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." If a list of GLOs is not well sourced, then any editor who objects to it may simply remove it. This isn't always the best approach to building the encyclopedia, of course, and there is no obligation to remove it, except in the unlikely circumstance that WP:BLP applies. In most cases, the information is likely to be accurate and it may be better to WP:PRESERVE the information rather than removing it. As Rublamb said, and as is also said in WP:UNSOURCED, the best course is going to depend on the overall state of the article. If it's a well-referenced GA or FA, the tolerance for unsourced information is going to be lower than if it's an article that has unreferenced sections lying around already. Here, the general list of citations given at the top of the list makes it better sourced than the 'housing' section.
 * In terms of general guidance, I would therefore propose:
 * Where possible, and certainly for institutional articles that are GA and FA candidates, lists of GLOs should be replaced by text describing the role and importance of GLOs in student life at the institution. This should include the overall proportion of students in GLOs and historically important GLOs on campus, particularly national or international GLOs that were founded at an institution, but will not normally include a comprehensive list of all GLOs that are present.
 * Inclusion of a section on GLOs should be WP:DUE, with regard to the overall size of the article and the importance of GLOs at the institution. This is particularly important if the section is simply a list of GLOs, which can take up a lot of space in a small article, giving undue weight to the importance of GLOs.
 * Inclusion of information on GLOs (including lists) should follow standard Wikipedia policy on sourcing. WP:UNSOURCED information may be challenged and removed, but it is often more helpful to WP:PRESERVE the information, either tagging it as unsourced or finding suitable citations and add them.
 * Robminchin (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Students killed during fraternity hazing
I added a paragraph about victims of fraternity hazing and Jax MN deleted it, claiming that it was not relevant because it happened in 1996. I suggest that such an extreme event goes into a university's history regardless of long ago it happened. It is an indicator of campus culture in 1991, the excesses of fraternities, administrative prevention-incompetence, and so on. I certainly think the deleted material should be put back in. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That section is sourced to The Eagle, the student newspaper at American, which is not a great source. For this reason, I don't think it should be included in the article. An argument against it that it was a long time ago was also given, but that is not a good argument per WP:RECENTISM. A short paragraph ending with "soon following in 1918" is plenty of coverage of this aspect of the university; the large table and the additional prose should be excised. VQuakr (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the recentism and necessary deletions. As for the 1996 incident, I now have sourcing from Chronicle of Higher Ed (they say victim "had to be placed on a kidney-dialysis machine last week after he was beaten severely in what city police said was a fraternity hazing incident" -- there is no report of his death). Then we have the incident in a book published (2nd edition) by SUNY Press. This is pretty major coverage. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this info is better placed in the articles about the fraternity, Hazing in Greek letter organizations, and Hazing deaths. Links can be provided via the See Also section. As covered in a recent discussion about whether or not to include Gaza protests in university articles, sometimes events that get high-level coverage are not as important with time. As editors, we sometimes have to decide as to value to current readers. I would only consider this 28-year-old incident for this article if it resulted in significant university policy changes, such as the removal of all GLOs from campus OR the end of residential GLOs. Why? Because students (sadly) die on campus every year, hazing is historically common and not unique to Pitt (not to diminish this victim's suffering), and this incidient was not the result of something the university did. Furthermore, if there are only going to be one or two sentences about fraternities and sororities in this aticle, citing this one hazing incident falls under UNDUE. Rublamb (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thx for the good suggestion; I will add the info the hazing articles. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked around and was surprised that there is no list of hazing incidents if they stop short of death. I guess it is hard to prove, to the last degree, what is the difference between hazing injuries and alcohol-induced injuries or just plain old assault. Do you know of any such lists of "incidents" (not deaths)? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably the latter, although I see no reason why there isn't a list or section for major hazing incidents (those with national coverage) as part of Hazing in Greek letter organizations. I don't know the history of these articles; Hazing deaths may have been a spin-off that became focused on actual deaths.
 * If relevant, fraternities/sorority articles have a misconduct/controversies section that details major incidents, such as those with widespread or national coverage and those that resulted in death, changes to college policies,  permanent closure of the chapter, and convictions of members. If the chapter was closed (temporarily or permanently), regardless of the severity of the hazing incident, this information is included in the chapter list via an efn. As I understand it, WP: Fraternities and Sororities developed this practice as an attempt to find encyclopedic balance. Hazing incidents often receive significant news coverage (meaning a source for Wikipedia), while there is little coverage of a group's good behavior (meaning no sources). As a fictional example, including a paragraph on a non-lethal hazing incident that happened 30 years ago at one of 125+ chapters of an organization that is more than 75 years old could be UNDUE. However, if it is one of dozens of incidents reported over ten years, it starts to look like systemic culture and could be encyclopedic. In general, single incidents can be interpreted as the bad behavior of lone individuals and not, therefore, a part of the GLO's culture. Although current events might have relevance to the article for a short time. Like a lot of university controversies, we have to look at the relevance of historic events to the overall institutional history. While this tragic event is a blip in the university's story, it looks like this incident should be part of the GLO's article. Rublamb (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:University of Pittsburgh


text:
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures

The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures is an action-adventure game developed and published by Nintendo for the GameCube. It is the eleventh installment in The Legend of Zelda series. It was released in 2004 in Japan on March 18, and in North America on June 7. In 2005, the game was released in Europe on January 7, and in Australia on April 7. The Game Boy Advance handheld game console can be used as a controller when using the GameCube – Game Boy Advance link cable bundled with the game in North America and Europe.

Similar to its predecessor Four Swords in its gameplay and presentation, the game takes Link and his three clones created by the magic "Four Sword" on an adventure to restore peace to Hyrule after learning that an evil counterpart of himself, Shadow Link, has been created. Four Swords Adventures was considered the 48th-best game made for a Nintendo system by Nintendo Power, and received an aggregated 86 out of 100 from Metacritic. It was the third best-selling game of June 2004 in North America, with 155,000 units, and has since sold 250,000 copies; it has sold 127,000 units in Japan.

Gameplay
The main mode of Four Swords Adventures is "Hyrulean Adventure", an episodic cooperative multiplayer adaptation of conventional The Legend of Zelda gameplay. "Shadow Battle" is a competitive multiplayer battle mode. "Navi Trackers", present only in the Japanese version of the game, is a multiplayer stamp rally race.

Hyrulean Adventure
Hyrulean Adventure is the main campaign of Four Swords Adventures, and can be played by one to four players. It consists of eight worlds, each with three stages and a boss battle. The graphics are similar to that of the previously released Four Swords for the Game Boy Advance (GBA), but the maps are static rather than randomly generated, the top-down view is taken from A Link to the Past, and gameplay includes effects from The Wind Waker. The graphics include enhanced atmospheric effects such as cloud shadows that slowly move across the ground, heat shimmer, dust storms, and fog. Music is based on that of A Link to the Past, but is rearranged in places.

In Hyrulean Adventure, most of the same mechanics as Four Swords are used. The multiplayer version requires each player to have a GBA, which is used as a controller and to which the action transfers when that player's character goes off the main screen, but the single-player game may be played with either a GameCube controller or a GBA. There are always four Link characters (differentiated by colors: green, red, blue and purple) in play, regardless of the number of people playing; "extra" Links are attached to those directly controlled and positioned around the controlling character. Normally, the extra Links follow the player, but players can separate an individual Link and control him independently, or put the four Links into formations. These techniques are required to solve puzzles and defeat enemies. Players are encouraged to work together to gather enough Force Gems to empower the Four Sword, and failing to do so by the time the boss is defeated or the dark barrier is reached results in having to go back to the beginning of the stage to collect more. However, once the requisite gems are collected, players are automatically transported to the dark barrier and therefore do not have to repeat the entire stage.

Players can play minigames in multiplayer mode at Tingle's Tower, which appears in every world, to gain extra multiplayer lives. These eight games are earned by playing though certain stages in multiplayer mode. The minigames include horse racing, hammer tag, monster hunting and five others.

Shadow Battle
In Shadow Battle, two or more players battle each other until only one is left standing. Each player uses a different-colored Link character and wields various tools to attack the other Links. Initially, there are five stages which players can choose as the battle's arena. Five bonus maps are unlocked upon completion of Hyrulean Adventure (these "dark stages" are almost the same as the first five maps, but portals to the dark world appear and the player has limited vision). In each stage, items randomly appear, and are usually similar to the items in Hyrulean Adventure. There are many special objects in each stage, which can be used to the player's advantage. There is a time limit; when it reaches zero, the game is tied.

Navi Trackers
Navi Trackers (formerly planned as a stand-alone game titled Tetra's Trackers) is a game only present in the Japanese version of Four Swords Adventures (Four Swords +). Multiple players use a combination of the television screen and Game Boy Advances to search for members of Tetra's pirate crew to gain as many stamps as possible within a given time limit. Action takes place on the Game Boy Advance used by each player, with the television screen showing a basic map and Tetra narrating the action. A single-player mode is available, which allows players to either collect alone or compete against Tingle.

Setting
The game takes place centuries after Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess, within the events of the "Child Timeline", and chronologically is the final game in this timeline prior to Breath of the Wild. The game features a separate incarnation of the Dark Lord Ganondorf/The Dark Beast Ganon to the one whose backstory is shown in Ocarina of Time, something which is unique to Four Swords Adventures.

Story
The game begins with the land of Hyrule in a state of fear because of strange happenings that have occurred recently. On a stormy night, Princess Zelda and the shrine maidens fear that the reason for these events is that Vaati's seal is weakening. She summons Link and brings him to the castle so he can protect her and the other maidens while they open the portal to the Four Sword Sanctuary. When they do, however, Shadow Link appears, who kidnaps the maidens of the Shrines and seals them inside their crystals. Link pulls the Four Sword out of its Pedestal, splitting into three clones of himself to destroy his doppelgänger. However, the seal that imprisoned Vaati breaks and releases him from his prison once again, wreaking havoc on the once peaceful kingdom of Hyrule.

As Link and his clones wander the overworld of Hyrule Field on their quest to restore peace to Hyrule, they learn that the creation of Link's evil counterpart and the release of Vaati is only a small part in a larger plot to conquer the kingdom of Hyrule. Things complicate as the dimension of the Dark World appears and people are being abducted throughout Hyrule. The four Links learn that the knights of Hyrule have mysteriously disappeared and evil versions of them have been creating havoc, allowing Hyrule castle to be taken over and monsters to appear throughout the land. The four Links agree that they will defeat Vaati, and rescue Zelda to restore peace to Hyrule.

It is revealed that the true villain is Ganon, who obtained his powers after stealing a powerful trident containing dark energy that was previously hidden away within a pyramid, and used it to seize control over substantial portions of Hyrule. In order to further his plans and distract Link from interfering in his bid for further power, Ganon stole the dark mirror and used it to create Shadow Link, who was eventually sent to kidnap the shrine maidens and trick Link into releasing Vaati. Furthermore, he uses the Dark Mirror to abduct people and turn them into his minions.

The four Links save the shrine maidens, retrieve the Dark Mirror and stop Shadow Link from respawning once and for all. The four heroes head forth to the Palace of Winds and defeat Vaati, leading them into their final battle with Ganon. Trying to stop him from plunging the world into chaos, the four Links use the Power of the Shrine Maidens, including Zelda, to defeat Ganon, striking through him. After defeating Ganon, the four Links firmly seal him inside the Four Sword. Peace returns to Hyrule and the people celebrate as all traces of evil that plagued Hyrule are vanquished. With Ganon defeated and sealed inside, Link returns the Four Sword back to its resting pedestal and the four Links become one again, while the Maidens of the Shrine use their powers and create a barrier around the Four Sword.

Development
At E3 2003, Nintendo showcased two Zelda games which would make use of the Game Boy Advance connectivity, Four Swords and Tetra's Trackers. In December of the same year, both games were expected to be together in a single disc, Four Swords +, along with a third, Shadow Battle. Four Swords Adventures was released in Japan with "Hyrule Adventure", "Shadow Battle", and "Navi's Trackers" as three individual games bundled together. In June 2004, however, "Hyrule Adventures" and "Navi's Trackers" were scheduled to be sold as two separate titles in the United States, while the retail status of "Shadow Battle" was still unknown. This decision was later changed to bundle "Hyrule Adventure" with "Shadow Battle", and to not release "Navi's Trackers" in the United States.

Despite the fact that translations for the PAL version were finished in October, the game was not released in Europe until early January 2005. A possible reason for this is so that the game did not compete with The Minish Cap for sales, which in turn was released pre-Christmas in Europe because, unlike North America, it would not cannibalize Nintendo DS sales.

Early on the development of Navi Trackers, it was decided that it would include a speech navigation system that talks and advises the player during mini-games. Players type in their name and the system calls players by their name during the game in order to notify them of their turn.

Reception
In 2006, Nintendo Power rated Four Swords Adventures the 48th best game made on a Nintendo system. It received a score of 86 out of 100 based on 55 aggregated reviews from Metacritic, and an average score of 85% based on 67 reviews from GameRankings.

GameSpot praised the game's connectivity feature with the Game Boy Advance, claiming that this is "a truly compelling reason to invest in a GameCube-to-GBA link cable" and that "using the Game Boy Advance as a controller has an appreciable impact on the experience". They praised the story and said, noting that the differences between the original Four Swords and Adventures is a more persistent narrative. The game was applauded, with critic remarking that Adventures improved on the original Four Swords' visuals, making the Wind Waker-derived visual style more reminiscent of the cel-shaded adventure of Link. The audio was noted, with a review remarking that the sound design for Four Swords Adventures is familiar to anyone who has played any The Legend of Zelda game, including The Wind Waker. GameSpot later named it the best GameCube game of June 2004.

Four Swords Adventures also received criticism. Game Revolution's review about the game was particularly critical of the graphics, calling it an odd mix of cheap 2D SNES sprites and nice GameCube particle effects, believing that it created an inconsistent feel. They also criticized the requirement of the link cable, saying that the required use of the GBA for multiplayer limits the play potential.

Four Swords Adventures was the third best-selling game of June 2004 in North America with 155,000 units, and has since sold 250,000 copies, becoming a part of the Player's Choice line. The game also sold 127,000 units in Japan. Producer Eiji Aonuma felt the game's sales were disappointing due to each player needing a Game Boy Advance and a Link Cable, which made it difficult to convince consumers that they needed to play the game.


text:
Talk:Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale

my source for the ground accelleration doesnt separate the 5 and 6 upper and lower levels, so I have estimated with a geometric mean Zeimusu

 * Why does japan have their own scale? How come they developed it from the beginning? Moberg (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

JSA <--> Seismic scale Conversion
It is possible someone can update that chart to include the Equivalent Seismic scale numbers? I'd do it but I can not find the information. Mkrupnic (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that the JMA scale is one for measuring the damage, not necessarily the actual power of an earthquake, unlike the seismic scales. I believe that a good analogue would be the Fujita scale used to rank tornados in comparison to the actual ind-speed inside the tornado itself. There is a distinct difference between a JMA 7 that has a richter scale of 8 and a JMA 7 that has a richter scale of 9. Anyone? Jtodsen (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * If you go to the JMA Website, and look at daily records of earthquakes, you will see that while it is likely that a stronger earthquake, will have more intense results over a wider area, there is no direct correlation between the two types of scale. One deals with the actual intensity of the earthquake, the other deals with its consequences in areas where it has been felt. To bring the problem home further, there are (as here) situations where the intensity of shaking is stronger at some stations further away from the epicentre of the earthquake. In this case, when you zoom in, while close to the epicentre, you are finding stations recording 2s and 3s, further away there are three stations recording 4s. There are too many factors involved to make any direct correlation easy. You see something similar, here. Kuitan (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Official term?
Is "Shindo" the ACTUAL, OFFICIAL name used for the scale in English? Because in Japanese it's used as a generic term for magnitude or intensity, in fact the JMA　page linked to as a source seems to translate 震度 directly into "intensity". And if you look at the Japanese wiki page for 震度, it contains the JMA　scale, the Mercalli scale, MSK scale, EMS scale, Rossi-Forel scale, all of them using 震度. All signs seem to point to "intensity" as a measure in the JMA scale, with no special "shindo" term necessary in English. Identity0 (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.179.64.8 (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 * On their English language site, the Japanese Meteorological Association when measuring seismic intensity talk of JMA Seismic Intensity. They have produced a PDF download in English that is available on their website . Kuitan (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 * 震度 shindo as, used by the JMA to qualify the local shaking of earthquakes (it has other technical meanings, too), means (seismic) intensity; so No, it is not the (or even an) official English term. As Kuitan says, in its own English documents, the JMA uses “JMA Seismic Intensity” and “seismic intensity” interchangably; so I see no reason to overburden English readers with the Japanese term. Mentioning it once should be enough to satisfy readers who want to know what it’s called in Japanese. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://geoinfo.usc.edu/gees/Reports/Report3/japan/KOBE.HTML
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320043410/http://www.mri-jma.go.jp/Publish/Papers/DATA/21to25_jp.html to http://www.mri-jma.go.jp/Publish/Papers/DATA/21to25_jp.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109071714/http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/intens_st/index.html to http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/intens_st/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504170142/http://www.hinet.bosai.go.jp/about_earthquake/part1.htm to http://www.hinet.bosai.go.jp/about_earthquake/part1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422193241/http://www.e-pisco.jp/equake/shindo/old/oldshindo2.html to http://www.e-pisco.jp/equake/shindo/old/oldshindo2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618003454/http://wwweprc.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/CSS/shindo.html to http://wwweprc.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/CSS/shindo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917040715/http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/kishou/know/shindo/keisoku.html to http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/kishou/know/shindo/keisoku.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705212101/http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/kyoshin/kaisetsu/comp.htm to http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/kyoshin/kaisetsu/comp.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Proper noun
I have capitalized Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) Seismic Intensity Scale as the full, in the first paragraph because it is a proper noun. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 * No comment on the proper noun, but I do have a question for you. What did my edit summary say? Dawnseeker2000  15:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 * OK, gotcha. I hadn’t realized the significance of the WP:BOLDAVOID reference. Mea culpa, so I will go back and fix that. Thanks! Jim_Lockhart (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Evidence that this is a proper noun: http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/inttable.html Jim_Lockhart (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Heavy copyedit, but article's wikitable based on poor translation
I have done a fairly heavy copyedit of the whole article, especially with regard to potentially confusing wording (e.g., earthquakes are not assigned an intensity; each gets assigned several).

However, I more or less gave up on the table—especially after discovering that the JMA provides a viable English version of it at http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/inttable.html. I think the wikitable should be removed in favor of a direct link to the JMA's page, but I'm not sure whether that would be a breach of Wikipedia procedure or etiquette; please advise.

Also, I think the article's title should be revised to Japan Meteorological Agency Seismic Intensity Scale (note capitalization: if the JMA's English website is anything to go by, this is the scale’s official name, making it a proper noun); but I don’t know how to make this change myself. Please advise. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Rationale for edits (reversion) of 21 January 2019

 * The name Japan Meteorological Agency Seismic Intensity Scale (shortform: JMA Seismic Intensity Scale) is obviously a proper noun and should be capitalized like one; cf: http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/earthquake.html and http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/inttable.html
 * An earthquake does not "have an" intensity, each quake has several of them, as my rewording of the prose makes clear.
 * 震度 (shindo), the Japanese term, is a term of art; it maps to "seismic intensity" (not "shake intensity") in English.
 * Other changes I’ve made in the past few days are explained in my previous postings to this page, above.
 * I think the rationale for the rest of my edits ought to be self-evident. Most are for clarity and readability. If they are substantively mistaken, I will be glad to see the mistakes clarified and corrected.

Thanks, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Saying that an earthquake has "several" levels of shaking is incorrect, as that implies discrete and distinct levels of shaking, whereas the shaking actually varies over a range. Discreteness comes from the scale, which (like all seismic intensity scales) is arranged into categories. The intensity of shaking by which an earthquake is characterized is that of its epicentral intensity, or $I0$. Note that this is not, as the text states, a quantification of "how much ground-surface shaking takes place at measurement sites distributed throughout an affected area." (Emphasis in the original.) $I0$ is the maximum intensity of shaking, and applies at (generally) only the epicenter. It is to be expected that a maximal intensity of shaking implies all lesser intensities.

 * The areal extent of shaking, seen as either the total "felt area" of the quake, or as isoseismal maps of the extent of various levels of shaking, depend on observations across, and even beyond, the affected area. But the Shindo scale/number does NOT quantify any of that. It is simply a categorization of shaking intensity at a specific location.

 * As to "measurement sites": JMA does have sites equipped with strong-motion accelerometers, which can measure the velocity and/or acceleration of ground shaking. (And indeed, I see you have just added content about that.) However, the Shindo scale is not based on those. Like all intensity scales, the Shindo is based on perciptible or observed effects, not any kind of instrumentally measured phenomenon. The measurements JMA takes with the instruments are expressed in terms of Shindo, just like the USGS "Did You Feel It?" results are expressed in equivalent Modified Mercalli scale categories. But the concept and formulation of the Shindo scale is non-instrumental.

 * I don't know on what basis you "map" shindo to seismic intensity. For sure, as "seismic" it is distinguished from other intensity scales, such as for wind speeds, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. But I yet have to see any cases where that was not clear from the context. The more common problem (ask any seismologist that has worked with the public) is the frequent confusion between intensity of seismic shaking versus intensity of seismic rupture. Qualifying "intensity" with "seismic" clarifies nothing, adds no information. "Intensity" needs to be qualified with "shaking", as that is how seismologists restrict the term, a usage not generally well known.

 * Enough for today. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, a little more. First: There is material about the Shindo scale in the scientific literature. Look for Bormann and Saul 2009, Musson 2012 (Ch. 12, "Intensity and Intensity scales" in NMSOP-2), Katasumta 1996, and Doi 2012; full citations at Seismic magnitude scales.

 * Second: the bit in the article that "Japan experiences some 400[5] earthquakes daily" (besides being unverifiable) is bullshit, lacking some stated criterion of how far down the scale one goes. That needs qualification, and with a more accessible source. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but I've read the material on the JMA's website, and several of your comments above are wrong, including the one to the effect the JMA seismic intensities are not based on instrument reading: they are, with each category mapped to specific ranges of acceleration. I map shindo to seimic intensity on the basis of two things: my 35 years as a Japanese-to-English translator (including material on seismic issues for the AE&C industry), and the JMA's own characterization of the terms; “map” is a lingustic term of art, fwiw. But I'm not going to fight with you. I wanted first to improve the article well enough so that it was at least readable, then move on to correcting the numerous mistakes it’s riddled with. I'm not going to bother looking at what changes you made, since I imagive you've merely just reverted everything again rather than made any constructive changes.

 * I can see that my input is not welcome here and that trying to improve this article will be futile, so I’m out of here. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 * And I have read the technical descriptions (in English) of the JMA system. Please note that I did not say that "JMA seismic intensities are not based on instrument reading". What I said is that "the Shindo scale is not based on those." What you seem to have missed is the distinction between "JMA seismic intensities" and "Shindo scale". Which I explained, but apparently you didn't bother to read, so I wonder why I should invest any more time in you.

 * You are also incorrect in what you imagine, but we can continue that discussion on my Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit of 22 January
The content and rationale for my edits tpday ought to be self-evident. For the time being, I worked from Japanese sources (including the Japanese Wikipedia article) because I haven’t been able to track down English ones.

In the course of today’s session, I noticed that a lot of the source-reference links are dead or outdated. I’ll try to rectify them over the coming weeks.

Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Utilities column descriptions not properly ascending from Shind 3 to 9?
The entries in the Utilities column don't seem properly sequenced to me, but I'm no expert on this scale: 3. Unaffected  4. Interruptions (esp. electricity)  ''5. Automatic valves cut residential gas. Some water supply interruptions. Blackouts.  6. Gas pipes and water mains are damaged. (Gas service and/or water service are interrupted in some regions.) '' ''7. Gas pipes and/or water mains will be damaged. Gas, water and electricity are interrupted.  8. Occasionally, gas and water mains are damaged. (Electrical service is interrupted. Occasionally, gas and water service are interrupted  over a large area.) '' ''9. Electrical, gas and water service are interrupted. '' For example, the "Occasionally" at beginning of Shindo 8 makes it sound less severe than 6 and 7, though the parenthetical statements at the end of 8 suggest to me that it's meant to apply to how widespread the outage is likely to be. — soupvector (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)