text:
Sign of the cross

Making the sign of the cross (signum crucis), also known as blessing oneself or crossing oneself, is a ritual blessing made by members of some branches of Christianity. This blessing is made by the tracing of an upright cross or Greek cross across the body with the right hand, often accompanied by spoken or mental recitation of the Trinitarian formula: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

The use of the sign of the cross traces back to early Christianity, with the third-century treatise Apostolic Tradition directing that it be used during the minor exorcism of baptism, during ablutions before praying at fixed prayer times, and in times of temptation.

The movement is the tracing of the shape of a cross in the air or on one's own body, echoing the traditional shape of the cross of the crucifixion of Jesus. Where this is done with fingers joined, there are two principal forms: one—three fingers (to represent the Trinity), right to left—is exclusively used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of the East, Eastern Lutheran Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Byzantine, Assyrian and Chaldean traditions; the other—left to right to middle, other than three fingers—sometimes used in the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism and in Oriental Orthodoxy. The sign of the cross is used in some denominations of Methodism and within some branches of Presbyterianism such as the Church of Scotland and in the PCUSA and some other Reformed Churches. The ritual is rare within other branches of Protestantism.

Many individuals use the expression "cross my heart and hope to die" as an oath, making the sign of the cross, in order to show "truthfulness and sincerity", sworn before God, in both personal and legal situations.

Origins
The sign of the cross was originally made in some parts of the Christian world with the right-hand thumb across the forehead only. In other parts of the early Christian world it was done with the whole hand or with two fingers. Around the year 200 in Carthage (modern Tunisia, Africa), Tertullian wrote: "We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross." Hippolytus of Rome, in his Apostolic Tradition, recommends sealing oneself the forehead in times of temptation, with it being described as the "Sign of the Passion." Vestiges of this early variant of the practice remain: in the Roman Rite of the Mass in the Catholic Church, the celebrant makes this gesture on the Gospel book, on his lips, and on his heart at the proclamation of the Gospel; on Ash Wednesday a cross is traced in ashes on the forehead; chrism is applied, among places on the body, on the forehead for the Holy Mystery of Chrismation in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Gesture
Historically, the sign of the cross was made from the right to the left, as done in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Western Catholics (the Latin Church) have made the motion from left to right, while Eastern Catholics follow the traditional signage of right to left.

In the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic (Eastern Catholics) churches, the tips of the first three fingers (the thumb, index, and middle ones) are brought together, and the last two (the "ring" and little fingers) are pressed against the palm. The first three fingers express one's faith in the Trinity, while the remaining two fingers represent the two natures of Jesus, divine and human.

Motion
The sign of the cross is made by touching the hand sequentially to the forehead, lower chest or stomach, and both shoulders, accompanied by the Trinitarian formula: at the forehead "In the name of the Father" (or In nomine Patris in Latin); at the stomach or heart "and of the Son" (et Filii); across the shoulders "and of the Holy Spirit/Ghost" (et Spiritus Sancti); and finally: "Amen".

There are several interpretations, according to Church Fathers: the forehead symbolizes Heaven; the solar plexus (or top of stomach), the earth; the shoulders, the place and sign of power. It also recalls both the Trinity and the Incarnation. Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) explained: "The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity.[...] This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth".

There are some variations: for example a person may first place the right hand in holy water. After moving the hand from one shoulder to the other, it may be returned to the top of the stomach. It may also be accompanied by the recitation of a prayer (e.g., the Jesus Prayer, or simply "Lord have mercy"). In some Catholic regions, like Spain, Italy and Latin America, it is customary to form a cross with the index finger and thumb and then to kiss one's thumb at the conclusion of the gesture.

Sequence
Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) wrote in his book about the Smaller Sign of the Cross:

"Many have been crucified throughout the world, but by none of these are the devils scared; but when they see even the Sign of the Cross of Christ, who was crucified for us, they shudder. For those men died for their own sins, but Christ for the sins of others; for He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. It is not Peter who says this, for then we might suspect that he was partial to his Teacher; but it is Esaias who says it, who was not indeed present with Him in the flesh, but in the Spirit foresaw His coming in the flesh."

"For others only hear, but we both see and handle. Let none be weary; take your armour against the adversaries in the cause of the Cross itself; set up the faith of the Cross as a trophy against the gainsayers. For when you are going to dispute with unbelievers concerning the Cross of Christ, first make with your hand the sign of Christ's Cross, and the gainsayer will be silenced. Be not ashamed to confess the Cross; for Angels glory in it, saying, We know whom you seek, Jesus the Crucified. Matthew 28:5 Might you not say, O Angel, I know whom you seek, my Master? But, I, he says with boldness, I know the Crucified. For the Cross is a Crown, not a dishonour."

"Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the Cross our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our brow, and on everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we rise up; when we are in the way, and when we are still. Great is that preservative; it is without price, for the sake of the poor; without toil, for the sick; since also its grace is from God. It is the Sign of the faithful, and the dread of devils: for He triumphed over them in it, having made a show of them openly Colossians 2:15; for when they see the Cross they are reminded of the Crucified; they are afraid of Him, who bruised the heads of the dragon. Despise not the Seal, because of the freeness of the gift; out for this the rather honour your Benefactor."

John of Damascus (650–750) stated:

"Moreover we worship even the image of the precious and life-giving Cross, although made of another tree, not honouring the tree (God forbid) but the image as a symbol of Christ. For He said to His disciples, admonishing them, Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven Matthew 24:30, meaning the Cross. And so also the angel of the resurrection said to the woman, You seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified. Mark 16:6 And the Apostle said, We preach Christ crucified. 1 Corinthians 1:23 For there are many Christs and many Jesuses, but one crucified. He does not say speared but crucified. It behooves us, then, to worship the sign of Christ. For wherever the sign may be, there also will He be. But it does not behoove us to worship the material of which the image of the Cross is composed, even though it be gold or precious stones, after it is destroyed, if that should happen. Everything, therefore, that is dedicated to God we worship, conferring the adoration on Him."

Herbert Thurston indicates that at one time both Eastern and Western Christians moved the hand from the right shoulder to the left. German theologian Valentin Thalhofer thought writings quoted in support of this point, such as that of Innocent III, refer to the small cross made upon the forehead or external objects, in which the hand moves naturally from right to left, and not the big cross made from shoulder to shoulder. Andreas Andreopoulos, author of The Sign of the Cross, gives a more detailed description of the development and the symbolism of the placement of the fingers and the direction of the movement.

Catholicism
Within the Roman Catholic Church, the sign of the cross is a sacramental, which the Church defines as "sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments"; that "signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church"; and that "always include a prayer, often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism)." Section 1670 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states, "Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ." Section 1671 of the CCC states: "Among sacramentals blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first. Every blessing praises God and prays for his gifts. In Christ, Christians are blessed by God the Father 'with every spiritual blessing.' This is why the Church imparts blessings by invoking the name of Jesus, usually while making the holy sign of the cross of Christ." Section 2157 of the CCC states: "The Christian begins his day, his prayers, and his activities with the Sign of the Cross: 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.' The baptized person dedicates the day to the glory of God and calls on the Savior's grace which lets him act in the Spirit as a child of the Father. The sign of the cross strengthens us in temptations and difficulties."

John Vianney said a genuinely made Sign of the Cross "makes all hell tremble."

The Catholic Church's Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the priest and the faithful make the Sign of the Cross at the conclusion of the Entrance Chant and the priest or deacon "makes the Sign of the Cross on the book and on his forehead, lips, and breast" when announcing the Gospel text (to which the people acclaim: "Glory to you, O Lord").

The sign of the cross is expected at two points in the Mass: the laity sign themselves during the introductory greeting of the service and at the final blessing; optionally, other times during the Mass when the laity often cross themselves are during a blessing with holy water, when concluding the penitential rite, in imitation of the priest before the Gospel reading (small signs on forehead, lips, and heart), and perhaps at other times out of personal devotion.

Eastern Orthodoxy
In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, use of the sign of the cross in worship is far more frequent than in the Western churches. While there are points in liturgy at which almost all worshipers cross themselves, Orthodox faithful have significant freedom to make the sign at other times as well, and many make the sign frequently throughout Divine Liturgy or other church services. During the epiclesis (the invocation of the Holy Spirit as part of the consecration of the Eucharist), the priest makes the sign of the cross over the bread. The early theologian Basil of Caesarea noted the use of the sign of the cross in the rite marking the admission of catechumens.

Old Believers
In the Tsardom of Russia, until the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century, it was customary to make the sign of the cross with two fingers. The enforcement of the three-finger sign (as opposed to the two-finger sign of the "Old Rite"), as well as other Nikonite reforms (which alternated certain previous Russian practices to conform with Greek customs), were among the reasons for the schism with the Old Believers whose congregations continue to use the two-finger sign of the cross (other points of dispute included iconography and iconoclasm, as well as changes in liturgical practices). The Old Believers considered the two-fingered symbol to symbolize the dual nature of Christ as divine and human (the other three fingers in the palm representing the Trinity).

Lutheranism
Among Lutherans the practice was widely retained. For example, Luther's Small Catechism states that it is expected before the morning and evening prayers. The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) states that "The sign of the cross may be made at the Trinitarian Invocation and at the words of the Nicene Creed 'and the life of the world to come. In the present-day, the sign of the cross is customary throughout the Divine Service. Rubrics in contemporary Lutheran worship manuals, including Evangelical Lutheran Worship of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Lutheran Service Book used by LCMS and Lutheran Church–Canada, provide for making the sign of the cross at certain points in the liturgy.  The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, starting with touching the head, touching the chest (heart) and then going from the right shoulder to the left shoulder.

Anglican and Episcopal traditions
The English Reformation reduced the use of the sign of the cross compared to its use in Catholic rites. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer reduced the use of the sign of the cross by clergy during liturgy to five occasions, although an added note ("As touching, kneeling, crossing, holding up of hands, and other gestures; they may be used or left as every man's devotion serveth, without blame") gave more leeway to the faithful to make the sign. The 1552 Book of Common Prayer (revised in 1559) reduced the five set uses to a single usage, during baptism. The form of the sign was touching the head, chest, then both shoulders.

The use of the mandatory sign of the cross during baptism was one of several points of contention between the established Church of England and Puritans, who objected to this sole mandatory sign of the cross, and its connections to the church's Catholic past. Nonconformists refused to use the sign. In addition to its Catholic associations, the sign of the cross was significant in English folk traditions, with the sign believed to have a protective function against evil. Puritans viewed the sign of the cross as superstitious and idolatrous. Use of the sign of the cross during baptism was defended by King James I at the Hampton Court Conference and by the 1604 Code of Canons, and its continued use was one of many factors in the departure of Puritans from the Church of England.

The 1789 Prayer Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America made the sign of the cross during baptism optional, apparently in concession to varying views within the church on the sign's use. The 1892 revision of the Prayer Book, however, made the sign mandatory. The Anglo-Catholic movement saw a resurgence in the use of the sign of the cross within Anglicanism, including by laity and in church architecture and decoration; historically, "high church" Anglicans were more apt to make the sign of the cross than "low church" Anglicans. Objections to the use of the sign of the cross within Anglicanism were largely dropped in the 20th century. In some Anglican traditions, the sign of the cross is made by priests when consecrating the bread and wine of the Eucharist and when giving the priestly blessing at the end of a church service, and is made by congregants when receiving Communion. More recently, some Anglican bishops have adopted the Roman Catholic practice of placing a sign of the cross (+) before their signatures.

Methodism
The sign of the cross can be found in the Methodist liturgy of the United Methodist Church. John Wesley, the principal leader of the early Methodists, in a 1784 revision of The Book of Common Prayer for Methodist use called The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, instructed the presiding minister to make the sign of the cross on the forehead of children just after they have been baptized. (This book was later adopted by Methodists in the United States for their liturgy.) Wesley did not include the sign of the cross in other rites.

By the early 20th century, the use of the sign of the cross had been dropped from American Methodist worship. However, its uses was subsequently restored, and the current United Methodist Church allows the pastor to "trace on the forehead of each newly baptized person the sign of the cross." This usage during baptism is reflected in the current (1992) Book of Worship of the United Methodist Church, and is widely practiced (sometimes with oil). Making of the sign is also common among United Methodists on Ash Wednesday, when it is applied by the elder to the foreheads of the laity as a mark of penitence. In some United Methodist congregations, the worship leader makes the sign of the cross toward congregants (for example, when blessing the congregation at the end of the sermon or service), and individual congregants make the sign on themselves when receiving Holy Communion. The sign is also sometimes made by pastors, with oil, upon the foreheads of those seeking healing. In addition to its use in baptism, some Methodist clergy make the sign at the Communion table and during the Confession of Sin and Pardon at the invocation of Jesus' name.

Whether or not a Methodist uses the sign for private prayer is a personal choice, although the UMC encourages it as a devotional practice, stating: "Many United Methodists have found this restoration powerful and meaningful. The ancient and enduring power of the sign of the cross is available for us to use as United Methodists more abundantly now than ever in our history. And more and more United Methodists are expanding its use beyond those suggested in our official ritual."

Reformed tradition (Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist)
In some Reformed churches, such as the Church of Scotland and Presbyterian Church (USA), the sign of the cross is used on the foreheads during baptism and the Reaffirmation of the Baptismal Covenant. It is also used at times during the Benediction, the minister will make the sign of the cross out toward the congregation while invoking the Trinity.

Armenian Apostolic
It is common practice in the Armenian Apostolic Church to make the sign of the cross when entering or passing a church, during the start of service and at many times during Divine Liturgy. The motion is performed by joining the first three fingers, to symbolize the Holy Trinity, and putting the two other fingers in the palm, then touching one's forehead, below the chest, left side, then right side and finishing with open hand on the chest again with bowing head.

Assyrian Church of the East
The Assyrian Church of the East uniquely holds the sign of the cross as a sacrament in its own right. Another sacrament unique to the church is the Holy Leaven.

title: Sign of the cross


text:
Talk:Mike Church

Questions
Is the "writer et al" famous enough to be mentioned here? Don't mean to be rude, but...

Meelar 02:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

''(this post simulposted with last one; that is, the 02.26 post was written without knowledge of the 02.24 post)

No, this is not self-promotion. This is some DJ in the South I happen to know about, partly because of the name coincidence. He's a shock jock that came under fire on Fark.com, and some other places, a couple of times. a (different) Mike Church 02:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. What I'm questioning is the inclusion of "he should not be confused with the Wikipedia contributor of the same name".  Best wishes, Meelar 02:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I decided that part wasn't appropriate. If someone writes a Mike Church disambig (for the shock jock, fictional detective, travel author, etc.) I'd certainly be worthy of a mention. However, no one is going to confuse me with a 38-year-old DJ, and so there's really no point in having that bit there. Mike Church 02:32, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Hey, if you deserve an article, you ought to write one; that disambig might be useful. I personally have no idea if you do or not.  But if you don't want to, or have better things to do, that's no problem.  Agree that disambig shouldn't go in until you actually have a page. Meelar 02:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd be highly nervous about writing an article on myself (aside from the User page). I do have some accomplishments that are potentially article-worthy, but it's still tricky business.

 * One semi-famous thing I've done (Ambition (card game)) already has an article. However, writing articles about oneself and one's own accomplishments is really tricky business. At any rate, if anyone else saw fit to write an article about me, s/he'd probably be accused of being a sock puppet. Mike Church 02:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Second paragraph is a little rude, I'm going to clean it up slightly if it's alright with people (actually I've just erased it completly as there really wasn't much there to be saved). Jefffire 11:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I notice a npov flag has been put up. I was wondering if it was ready to be removed yet as the more POV sentances have been removed. Jefffire 16:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Inventer of Ambition?
We are going to need some references on the claim that he invented Ambition, otherwise the paragraph will just have to be removed. I'm going to wait a couple of days then change it. Jefffire 15:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Negative material removed
I've removed some material from this page because of lack of reliable sources per Biographies of living persons.--Nonpareility 18:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-write
This article is going to be re-written. It is pitiful, and not neutral. --SirAndrew1 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Church. 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/20100607001422/http://www.xmradio.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=XM%2FChannel%2FChannelProgramList&chid=1104779630456&c=Channel to http://www.xmradio.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=XM%2FChannel%2FChannelProgramList&chid=1104779630456&c=Channel
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526025034/http://www.xmradio.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=XM%2FChannel%2FChannelProgramList&chid=1239034459809&c=Channel to http://www.xmradio.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=XM%2FChannel%2FChannelProgramList&chid=1239034459809&c=Channel

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) 08:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Mike Church


text:
Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp

Płaszów or Kraków-Płaszów was a Nazi concentration camp operated by the SS in Płaszów, a southern suburb of Kraków, in the General Governorate of German-occupied Poland. Most of the prisoners were Polish Jews who were targeted for destruction by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. Many prisoners died because of executions, forced labor, and the poor conditions in the camp. The camp was evacuated in January 1945, before the Red Army's liberation of the area on 20 January.

History

Originally intended as a forced labour camp, the Płaszów concentration camp was constructed on the grounds of two former Jewish cemeteries (including the New Jewish Cemetery). It was populated with prisoners during the liquidation of the Kraków Ghetto, which took place on 13–14 March 1943 with the first deportations of the Barrackenbau Jews from the Ghetto beginning 28 October 1942. In 1943 the camp was expanded and integrated into the Nazi concentration camp system as a main camp.

Structure and function
The Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp was divided into multiple sections. There was a separate area for camp personnel, work facilities, male prisoners, female prisoners, and a further subdivision between Jews and non-Jews. Although separated, men and women still managed to have contact with one another. There was also a private barracks for the camp's Jewish police and their families. While the primary function of the camp was forced labor, the camp was also the site of mass murder of inmates as well as prisoners brought in from the outside. The main targets were the elderly and the sick. There were no gas chambers or crematoria, so mass murder was carried out by shootings.

Personnel
Under Arnold Büscher, the camp's second commandant, prisoners did not experience any shootings or hangings. However, by 1943, the camp was notorious for its terrors. Amon Göth, an SS commandant from Vienna, was the camp commandant at this point. He was sadistic in his treatment and killing of prisoners. "Witnesses say he would never start his breakfast without shooting at least one person." On Göth's first day as camp commandant, he killed two Jewish policemen and made every camp inmate watch. On 13 March 1943, he oversaw the liquidation of the nearby Kraków Ghetto, forcing those Jewish inhabitants deemed capable of work into the KL Plaszow camp. Those who were declared unfit for work were either sent to Auschwitz or shot on the spot. People were told to leave their children behind and that they would be cared for. In reality, they were all put in an orphanage and killed. Others snuck their children into the camp. If a prisoner tried to escape the camp, Göth shot 10 prisoners as a punishment. Göth would also release his Great Danes on prisoners if he did not like their expressions. He oversaw a staff that was mostly non-German. It consisted of 206 Ukrainian SS personnel from the Trawniki, 600 Germans of the SS-Totenkopfverbände (1943–1944), and a few SS women, including Gertrud Heise, Luise Danz and Alice Orlowski.

The female guards treated the prisoners as brutally as the men: "When we were loaded on the train in Płaszów, an SS woman hit me on the head. They were so vicious and brutal and sadistic, more than men. I think because some of them were women and you expect kindness, it was shocking. But of course, some were fat and big and ugly."

Jewish police were recruited by the camp personnel. They were provided with double rations of thick soup, as opposed to the standard watery soup, and a full loaf of uncontaminated bread. However, the benefits came with cost of having to whip inmates with the whips that the Nazis provided.

On 13 September 1944, Göth was relieved of his position and charged by the SS with theft of Jewish property (which belonged to the state, according to Nazi legislation), failure to provide adequate food to the prisoners under his charge, violation of concentration camp regulations regarding the treatment and punishment of prisoners, and allowing unauthorised access to camp personnel records by prisoners and non-commissioned officers. Camp administration was assumed by SS-Obersturmführer Arnold Büscher. He improved the inmates' diets by allowing eggs, sugar and powdered milk.

Life in the camp

The camp was an Arbeitslager ("labour camp"), supplying forced labour to several armament factories and to a stone quarry. Most of the prisoners were Polish Jews. There were also high numbers of women and children compared with other camps. A large degree of the Hungarian prisoners were women. The death rate in the camp was very high. Many prisoners died of typhus, starvation, and from executions. Because the work facilities were designed for men, the women had a lower chance of survival. Płaszów camp became particularly infamous for both the individual and the mass shootings carried out at Hujowa Górka: a large hill close to the camp commonly used for executions. Some 8,000 deaths took place outside the camp's fences, with prisoners trucked in three to four times weekly. The covered lorries from Kraków would arrive in the morning. The condemned were walked into a trench of the Hujowa Górka hillside, ordered to strip down and stand naked, and then were finally shot. Their bodies were then covered with dirt, layer upon layer. During these mass shootings, all other inmates were forced to watch. In early 1944, all corpses were exhumed and burned on a pyre to obliterate the evidence of the mass murder. Witnesses later testified that 17 truckloads of human ashes were removed from the burning site and scattered over the area.

Although food was scarce, inmates that possessed any number of zlotys could buy extra food. A food for food trading system also developed. For example, two portions of soup was equal to a half loaf of bread.

When Göth received notice of a new shipment of inmates, he would set up deportations for Auschwitz. On 14 May 1944 Göth ordered all children to be sent to the "kindergarten". This turned out only to be a precursor to deportation to Auschwitz on 15 May where the children were all gassed.

Göth entrusted documents pertaining to the mass killings and executions to a high ranking female member of the SS, Kommandoführerin Alice Orlowski. She held these documents in her possession until the end of the war, then allegedly destroyed them. Orlowski was known for her whippings, especially of young women across their eyes. At roll call she would walk through the lines of women and whip them.

Outside aid
Prisoners could also rely on outside help to some degree. The Jüdische Unterstützungsstelle, a support group that the Germans tolerated, would provide the inmates with food and medical assistance. The Zehnerschaft was a group of women that also supported the inmates. The Polish Welfare Organization sent food to Polish prisoners and some of them shared with the Jewish inmates. There were also individuals such as Stanislaw Dobrowolski, the head of the Kraków branch of the Council for Aid to Jews (Żegota), and Tadeusz Pankiewicz, a famous pharmacist, also aided the prisoners.

Punishments
Göth and the other camp personnel punished inmates for a variety of actions. Any action perceived as sabotage, such as smuggling items into the camp, disobeying orders, or carrying an extra piece of food in one's clothes was an offense punishable by death. Prisoners were warned that if they tried to escape, every member of their family and even innocent strangers would be killed. In terms of methods for killing, death by hanging was a favored method of Göth's. For a standard punishment, twenty-five lashings were dealt to the guilty inmate's buttocks.

Hope for the prisoners
While prisoners' daily lives were dominated by fear and starvation, there were some outlets for hope of survival. Rumors involving the Russian advancement that would lead to the camp's liberation always circulated. Oskar Schindler, a member of the Nazi Party who saved the 1,200 Schindlerjuden, was also a key figure. While prisoners always feared a transport to Auschwitz, one that was always sought after was a transport to Brünnlitz labor camp in Czechoslovakia. This is where Oskar Schindler's enamel factory was located. Schindler was known for being compassionate towards Jews. He never hit anyone, was always kind, and smiled frequently around the workers. Having relatives and friends that worked for Schindler gave one a better chance at being put on the list for transport.

Hiding the evidence
During July and August 1944, a number of transports of prisoners left KL Płaszow for Auschwitz, Stutthof, Flossenburg, Mauthausen, and other camps. In January 1945, the last of the remaining inmates and camp staff left the camp on a death march to Auschwitz. Several female SS guards were part of the group that accompanied them. Many of those who survived the march were killed upon arrival. When the Nazis realized the Soviets were approaching Kraków, they completely dismantled the camp, leaving only an empty field. All bodies that had been previously buried in various mass graves were exhumed and burned on site. On 20 January 1945, the Red Army arrived and found only a patch of barren land.

Aftermath
Most numbers of inmates and killings rely on estimation, as the prisoner card index was destroyed during the camp's destruction. Few postwar trials centered on crimes committed at the Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp; one exception was Göth's trial and subsequent death sentence. West German prosecutors took until the late 1950s to investigate these crimes.

Commemoration
The area which held the camp now consists of sparsely wooded hills and fields, with one large memorial to all the victims and two smaller monuments (one to the Jewish victims generally, and another to the Hungarian Jewish victims) at one perimeter of where the camp once stood. The Jewish cemetery, where the Nazis removed all but one of the tombstones, stands on the side of the hill at the eastern end of the camp, near the Grey house. Amon Göth's villa remains there. Another small monument, located near the opposite end of the site, stands in memory of the first execution of (non-Jewish) Polish prisoners in 1939.

A version of the camp is featured in the movie Schindler's List (1993), about the life of Oskar Schindler. As the Płaszów area is now a nature preserve and modern high-rise apartments were visible from the site, the director Steven Spielberg replicated the camp in the nearby Liban Quarry, which also served as a labor camp during the war.

Each year, it is the finishing point of the March of Remembrance taking part in mid-March to manifest the respect to the victims of the Holocaust.

title: Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp


text:
Talk:Main Page/Archive 18

Switch
I propose that we swap the DYK module and the news module. We've been staring at Condi Rice for days now, DYK, by nature, stays pretty fresh. The requirements of the current events policy mean few events qualify--the layout could be reversed as events like 11-M warrant. jengod 01:37, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree - it also looks nicer better, IMO. --mav 06:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Poor Condi. If she's reading Wikipedia on a regular basis she'll be very sad.--Eloquence*

 * She will get over it. --mav

Since the featured article and In the news tend to take up more space than Did you know and Selected anniversaries, I think it creates good visual balance to have them sort of diagonally opposite each other. However, I find no explicit requirement that one of the Did you know items have an associated image. If we're going to put that section up top, I think we should make that a rule. --Michael Snow 16:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like having In the News at the top right -- whenever I open the front page to Wikipedia, I appreciate seeing what my fellow editors feel are the top stories. But I admit I see Jengod's point about needing new photos there to keep it fresh. -- llywrch 18:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Argh. Don't do this. Or maybe do this, but don't switch it back. I don't want to train my reflexes for clicking on current events every other week again. -- till we *) 18:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep the news at the top. It just makes sense.  We just need to make sure it is current and of global importance, something like Madrid Suspect Hunt Ends in Blast; 4 Dead.  The Korean train has had its time in the limelight. Brooklyn Nellie (Nricardo) 02:04, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * For the record, I liked it better the other way. Anniversaries and Current Events are next to each other now, and it just doesn't look good to me. I prefer them placed diagonally from one another. Kingturtle 18:04, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Definitely move the news back to the top. Just be more active about changing the pictures. Ezra Wax

 * I prefer the news at the bottom. News is not the main item on our menu, it should just be a byline.  We're an encyclopedia, not a Slashdot/CNN RDF feed. silsor 19:19, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Nowadays, I sometimes go to Wikipedia to catch the latest big headlines, and having news at the bottom is really annoying. I strongly ask that news be moved back to the top. --Lowellian 01:29, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * I prefered the news at the bottom. New articles should be more of a feature than the news. Angela. 01:49, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that the DYK and Anniversaries should be switched. DYK is an article related section and would look better under featured articles, while Anniversaries would go better with news. Kirk 09:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I just looked at this option and it doesn't really work as things are now. Featured is really wide, and DYK (as it exists currently) is dwarfed by it. jengod 13:48, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * I really like the DYK at the top; it makes it us seem more like an encyclopedia and less like a news site. -- Seth Ilys 13:21, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question about logging in
When I'm logged out, Joshua A. Norton is still the featured article. Why is this? - Woodrow 02:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Because the anon cache had not been purged when you did so. See the top of this page. --mav 04:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why the Sudden Change of Featured Article?
Just now some fountain pen or something was the featured article. Now it's the platypus. What's going on? --203.106.8.141 14:32, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the main page? Do I have to be some special somebody? --Eponymous

 * To the above questions - the featured article is still Fountain Pen. Platypus was yesterday. Your browser is probably using an old cached copy. Hit shift-F5 to force it to load a fresh copy. To the 'Eponymous' question about not being able to edit the main page - it's one of about a dozen pages that are permanently protected from editing, simply to prevent rampant vandalism. →Raul654 17:09, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Poll: in the news or did you know
I feel that Wikipedia is not a news report nor a Slashdot/CNN RDF feed. The version of the main page with the reversed layout is here. silsor 07:43, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

"In the news" on top
 * 1) →Raul654 06:49, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Eloquence* 07:50, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) (changed my mind after it was live for a while - having them next to anniversaries confuses my brain's timekeeping functionality)
 * 3) 172 07:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Brooklyn Nellie (Nricardo) 10:45, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) "Did you know" seems like pretty trivial stuff.  C'mon, pokemon?  I'm not saying we become CNN, but Wikipedia should be seen as encyclopedic and current.  If it's in the global news, then it likely deserves an article.  Today's news is tomorrow's history.
 * 5) People often want to use an encyclopedia to see the background to the news: this is a good way to drive traffic to articles of current interest. -- The Anome 10:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Elf | Talk 15:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) With mixed feelings. I agree w/silsor's comment but also w/ wanting to being seen as current.  However, along with that, I've thought for a while that the heading should be "Behind the news" or "Background for the news"; "In the news" feels like we'll click a link and read the news, which isn't so.
 * 7) Agree with the Anome.  R ADICAL B ENDER  ★  15:30, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Having seen it both ways, I prefer the news at the top, where I can see it in my browser when I open the page. -- llywrch 17:45, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Agreeing with Llywrch, but first of all: decide and then don't change the main page layout for the next time -- till we *) 21:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) To repeat what I said earlier, nowadays, I sometimes go to Wikipedia to catch the latest big headlines, and having news at the bottom is really annoying. --Lowellian 22:01, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Bensaccount 22:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Danny 22:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Artistically, it needs to be there. Historic anniversaries and ITN should be diagnolly opposed. Kingturtle 01:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Nice to be able to cross ref news instantly, which is unique to wikipediaDominick 10:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Dori | Talk 18:15, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Arwel 23:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) +sj+ 00:48, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC) Behind the news might be a good title. Agree that this is not a news feed site.  (on the other hand, once you realize you can improve the news as you read it, this starts to replaces other news feed sites as the first and last to visit...)

"Did you know" on top
 * 1) silsor 06:48, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Angela
 * 3) Mark 06:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) mav 07:26, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Wikipedia is not a news report, thus we should not emphasize that too much - a link to current events is already in the sidebar of every page.
 * 5) Krik - on top by default, but there should be some preferences for this kind of thing. Kirk 10:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)~
 * 6) Seth Ilys 11:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Michael Snow 16:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) I don't feel strongly, but this is my preference. Also, I think we should make it a requirement that one of the "Did you know" items have an associated image.
 * 8) jengod 18:25, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) what snow said. specifically the top one if ask me
 * 9) Bevo 18:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Itai - Partially symbolically, because it is the errors of the past that brought about the mayhem of the present, and partly for convenience's sake, as I find it much less disconcerting to read about people already dead than about those in the process of being killed.
 * 11) Frazzydee 21:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC): It was a tough decision. I agree with Kirk though- there should be a preference for this.

Corsican wikipedia and Yiddish Wikipedia
Moved to MediaWiki talk:Wikipedialang.

Main Page intro text
Two things I'd like:
 * to link "many languages" directly to the "other languages" achor at the bottom of the page.
 * to add an extra sentence at the top: "or visit one of our sister projects," and perhaps to add a fourth tiny link along the rhs., to draw more attention to those projects. [1]

[1] When I first came to wikipedia, it was many weeks before I realized wikibooks or wikiquote existed, and then only via VfD comments like "transwiki to wikiquote". when I came to take a look about a year ago, I had no time for WP, but would have had some for wikibooks (I was working on a couple books then, and in that mindset).

Thoughts? I'll wait a day before implementing the first idea, but it seems the right thing to do. The second is more drastic; I'll wait for feedback. +sj+ 13:44, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

The first change I support - for as long as wikipedia.org redirects to en, special attention to such matters is required. Could you provide an example text for the second change? (Nicely done, I have no objection, but it's important to provide a solid first paragraph.) -- Itai 14:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. More text means more likely people will skip over it. It's important that only the most important text be there. The projects are already listed, and I don't think we can do more to advertize them. There is a ton of info on wikipedia, and it is likely that you won't be aware of it without spending some significant amount of time here. That's an inevitability IMO. Dori | Talk 14:58, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * Current text:

 * Proposed change:

 * I want to keep the word "building" in the intro, and I prefer "in the English version" to "in English alone". As for the "Sister Projects" link, I can see the point, but I oppose unless we get rid of one of the other links. We have to avoid cluttering the intro space. I would fully support ditching the table-free Main Page link, that can certainly be linked elsewhere.--Eloquence* 17:33, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Very well. Implemented, with these amendments.

protest against software-patents
the german wikipedia has made an red box with a protest against software-patents in europe on there main page. i think this is a very importaint thing for our digital rights and free sofware. more information about this topic:. thanks for reading this --marti7D3
 * Full ACK! This website and most software will be illegal in Europe if software patents see the light of day in the EU! -- 195.158.147.135 09:49, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Elaboration on Sister Projects
More to come,+sj+ 23:53, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)
 * They're already at the bottom of the page; no loss to the scroll-averse to add some detail.
 * If adding detail, it may be worth giving them their own section (rather than sharing the yellow-backed section with the other-lang versions of WP, which is rather confusing).
 * A short 2-sentence para for each, including basic stats and a description, would be appropriate. A ~1k thumbnail logo might be appropriate for a major project like wikibooks.

Cutting down on size of the main page
Right now the Main Page is ~100k. Can we cut that down? It apparently gets >1M hits a month, so that's a significant chunk of bw, even if caching helps relieve server load. Thoughts: ... +sj+
 * avoid having title tags that just repeat the full URL of external links
 * replace the classes "internal" and "external" with one- or two-letter class names. considering how often they're used throughout WP, that should also provide a quick 1% drop in server traffic.
 * reorganize things so that you don't have to have every href start with "/wiki/" (again, general WP-wide benefit).

 * I'm not sure I'm following your argument, Sj. I just did a "Save Page" on the Main page, & the resulting file was a few bytes short of 14K; perhaps a bit bloated in comparison with Google's Main Page, but better than some graphics-intense pages I've visited. Even adding the two pictures (each a shade under 4KB), I can't make the Main Page come anywhere near 100KB. Are we talking about the same page: http://en.wikipedia.org ? -- llywrch 17:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Interesting. for me it's 44k of html, 18k of main-page images (4 pics, not two!), 7k of javascript and [12k for the logo & 4k of css] (the latter two, at least, would probably be cached on the user's machine).  Saving as "html only" instead of saving the whole page cuts it down to 36k (using Win/IE6) -- odd, eh?  36k of html is still quite a lot.+sj+ 20:46, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

 * Taking another look at what I did, I see I missed two images, & forgot about the logo -- adding them brings the total to 34K. However, I see no trace of javascript in what my browser sees. (Mozilla 1.0; an old version, yes, but I haven't seen a need to upgrade.) Could the javascript be something that IE6 adds? It wouldn't be the first time MS has bloated HTML code for reasons no one understands. (And I'm not gratuitously bashing a Microsoft product; I just know from experience MS software produces bloated HTML code.) -- llywrch 21:18, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I just saved with Netscape 7.0 and got 124k, including 10k in 2 .js files and 70k in images. (jpg:4 png:1 ico:1) Looking at those javascript files, it appears they are added by user preferences. --ssd 21:08, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cutting down on size of RC
You know it's annoying. you're chasing down vicious villian VIII and suddenly, RC won't load. on the third reload, it takes 20 seconds to respond. Thoughts:
 * [disclaimer: I don't know css!] find a way to stick the  associated w/ the image on every line, into a class description. (done on test)
 * use some form of spacing (transp gifs?) other than " " -- at 6B each and up to 6 per line, they make up ~5% of the content of the RC source I just looked at. (done on test)
 * As above for Main, reorg/rename so that you don't have to start every edit/rev/hist link with the string "/w/wiki.phtml?title" (soon fixed by gzipping before sending? not quite.)
 * rename the standard RC img ref so it's shorter than "/upload/Arr_.png" (soon fixed by gzipping before sending)
 * ... +sj+ 00:12, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

Browse by Topic update
I'd like to make BbT look like this, using a div style="float:right". Are there usability reasons not to do this? General objections? +sj+ 01:32, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

 Browse Wikipedia by topic

 * I really can't see any benefit to it. It just looks asymmetrical and confusing.--Eloquence* 17:30, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Did you mean the odd way it was rendering before? I don't know why the first line was munged like that. The reason, in any case, is to separate the meta-notions of other categorizations from thd default topical one... and to better use the vertical space on the screen.  +sj+ 18:25, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * Looking again, after a few days, I agree. I'd love to find some way to make it symmtric... perhaps making the list of schemes long enough that it  can be its own narrow table cell? Or finding a clever way to highlight a horizontal list, perhaps with alternating beckground colors for each item.  +sj+ 23:11, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Main Page overall layout
Final thought on the main page: it deserves to break the standard article format. The "title", "Main Page", both conveys little information (it is obviously a special page) and takes up 5+ square inches of very prominent screen real estate. This page should be rendered specially, and that space should be used to direct visitors to other major entry points for the site. +sj+ 21:01, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

Specific ideas:
 * Direct users colorfully and concisely with a string of ultra-low-weight icons, or colored table cells containing links (perhaps with mouseover color a la Yahoo!).
 * extract information like "About Wikipedia", "Copyright and Free Use", "Ongoing Projects", "In the Media", &c. and link those pages from here.
 * Removing prominent "Main Page" links, since already on the main page, from sidebars/top/bottom. Replacing them with other useful link(s).
 * Refactor sidebar links, so that  is in the top section, then , and finally.
 * Note that an "about WP / Contact WP" link is made primary in the sidebar; it is a real gap in the current layout, and makes if feel, to me, most unprofessional. I want to be able to see the front matter of this 'pedia -- when and where and who and how, under what auspices, etc.  Is that so much to ask?
 * Note that Delete/Protect are now only close to 'move', not to more common links like 'discuss'. Note also that discuss is just under edit; that a new 'popular pages' link is added in place of 'watchlist' for non-logged in users.

Behind the news?
I didn't understand what "behind the news" meant until I saw the discussion on this page. How about changing it to "topics in the news" or "topical articles" or something like that? Arvindn 17:31, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Could you explain what you find difficult to understand about "Behind the news"? I personally prefer this phrase to "In the news"; regarding Mav's argument below that this is wrong, I disagree, as the headline "Featured article" does not mean that the text below it is the featured article. We provide background information about news items, so "Behind the nwes" seems like the most reasonable headline to me.--Eloquence* 17:37, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't like it either. It is also wrong - news summaries are below the heading while the background is in the bolded articles. Besides, nothing was mentioned at the coordination page for that seciton (which is still named In the news section on the Main Page). So I changed it back. --mav 22:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I brought up the possible change again at that location. Elf | Talk 04:22, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

American centric news
Why does the front page of Wikipedia contain daily American-centric news? Nichalp 19:44, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Because its mostly the American editors who add events? (If it were truly American-centric, you might have seen events like the snowstorm in the Eastern United States, while Oregon had record high temperates over the weekend.) I see that you hail from Bombay, India; please add any significant events you know of from your corner of the world to the Current Events page. -- llywrch 21:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Main page displaying differently under different browsers
I just noticed that under Mozilla 1.6 the top margin of the text (e.g. the gap between "Featured articles" and the box) is quite big. While under Internet Explorer 6.0 the titles are much closer to the top of the box. Yet the left and right hand margins appear to be normal for both browsers. -- Popsracer 11:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Online Demonstration against software patents
It's the first time that I write sth. here, thus please be patient with me.

I want to make you aware of a problem that might break the neck of Wikipedia.org as well as uncountable other projects: Software Patents. The Commission and the Council of Ministers are covertly pushing for unlimited patentability of software, heavily lobbied by multinationals and patent lawyers. They are ignoring the democratically voted decision of the European Parliament from 24 september 2003, which has the support of more than 300.000 citizens, 2.000.000 SMEs, dozens of economists and scientists.

Thus, there is right now an online demonstration as well as a physical demo in Brussels, 2004-April-14 (tomorrow). Please join!
 * I sincerely doubt we'll close the website - however, we'd be happy to put it on our ITN section on the main page. →Raul654 12:52, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to close it. Nearly noone really closed his site. You can just put either a different first page with a link to the real one or put at least a banner onto it, please.

 * Please see Jimbo's response to a request like this last August. Users can, however, add the message to their own user pages if they want to. See Tim Starling's user page for example. Angela. 18:20, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * I've written a draft of ITN for tomorrow that includes the above. It's NPOV, so I don't think Jimbo would have any objections. →Raul654 18:29, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

ERROR: There is an error on the main page. Passover does not begin today, it ends today. I would fix this myself but the page is protected. Thanks.

 * The United States bombed Libya in retaliation for Libyan sponsorship of terrorism against U.S. citizens.

That's not neutral. Make it alleged instead. -- Dissident 16:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not alleged when they admit it (as they did in the Lockerbie incident). →Raul654 16:41, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Lockerbie was after the bombing, which was actually a retaliation for the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing and there is the suspicion that Gadhafi is simply admitting to acts just to start with a clean sheet. -- Dissident 18:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "featured article" today is Labour Economics, but there is no link to it. The words "Labour economics" at the start of the article should be fixed on the main page (but not in the article itself) to link to the appropriate article. Andrew Levine 07:14, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Borders
When I swtiched from IE to firefox I noticed that the borders on the front page changed colour. I see that we don't specify a colour in the css, perhaps we should? I prefer the light grey that IE used, personally. What do you think? fabiform | talk 03:51, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

style="border:1px solid #ffa9a9;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;" style="border:1px solid #9598ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;" style="border:1px solid #ababab;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;" style="border:1px solid #ffc68c;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"
 * I would prefer the border colors to be darker shades of the background colors, as they were before the page got redesigned. If no one minds, I can edit it that way. Mockup. Fredrik 23:58, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comments? Fredrik 18:00, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, please! I agree that same-color borders are distinctly nicer.  +sj+ 19:59, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Er, rather, someone with administrator privileges can edit it that way. Change the "style" attributes for the cells to the following, in respective order:
 * - Fredrik 21:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Done. (new colors for the 4th and NEW 5th sections)  thanks for the impetus! +sj+ 22:26, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Too much space for featured arts/news
Can we try a way to see the list of topics higher up on the page? Rigth now there's way too much space dedicated to news and the featured article. Also who cares about anniversaries/ did you know/ ... they belong to the front page but underneath the topics list. If anything, make the searchbox more visible. 192.245.119.190

 * A better idea would be to remove the index from the Main Page and add a link to Browse by topic in the sidebar. This would work real well with the new default skin being developed at http://test.wikipedia.org/. --mav 07:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally, if I want information on a subject, I don't browse by topic -- I just search for it. However, News and Features change quite often, so when I open my browser I'm eager to see the difference. I wouldn't mind seeing "Browse by Topic" in the sidebar, since it seems more useful to have it always at hand, if you actually do use it. ~ FriedMilk 00:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

typos in main page links
pages linked from the main page should be carefully screened for errors, if possible. typographical errors are common. Badanedwa 20:53, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia in other languages
Please add Maori - http://mi.wikipedia.org/
 * Done. →Raul654 23:10, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * The criteria for main-page listing are under discussion; please see MediaWiki talk:Wikipedialang for more.

Titanium Article
There is something in the link on the Main Page to the article on Titanium that locks up my Browser while retrieving JPG and GIF files. K7jeb 03:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well it is in the timeline of April, 2004
I think in the deaths (April 6, 2004) I think you should add Marjorie Pay Hinckley, Wife of President Gordon B. Hinckley, Passes Away on April 6, 2004. Just because so many people know her. I would be very happy if you did so. I'm sure other people would agree with me. I mean if you can put a long time caddy on it. I think it would be nice if you put a prophets wife in the timeline.

-Thanks

Sister projects links are broken
The "sister projects" links are broken. The anchor's title is "#Wikimedia_sister_projects" and the links point to "#Sister_Projects" and "#Sister_projects", both wrong. Fredrik 21:30, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Gosh, you're fast! Fixed by the time I read this.  I also updated the color of the 'by topic' section, for the benefit of your upcoming border-coloring update.  +sj+ 21:59, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Recent boldness
+sj+ 21:59, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * Intro text has been updated; it's shorter and more informative, without removing wording El likes.
 * Sister projects are now prominently linked; two new links on the main wikipedia page should translate to a measurable bump in traffic for meta, wiktionary, etc.
 * Sister projects are now their own section; one line per project.
 * 9-11 link removed as per request on project-discussion page -- since some want a Wikimemorial link instead, and since the main page of sept11.wikipedia.org discussed its contended status in its opening paragraphs...
 * anyone who wants is welcome to re-add the link (the table wikification is there, in an html comment).
 * Browse by topic now has an extra link (in the intro text) and a less-depressing background color. Still looking for a good way to highlight the 'browse by other schemas' section -- browsing the LOC/DDS schemas and the global timeline really bring home wikipedia's depth and breadth.
 * Sister projects now have their own section/background color
 * Sections are now bordered with a darker shade of their background, not with black. per Fredrik's suggestion above.

 * I waited several minutes for the problem to fix itself before I posted :P Anyway, I think a slightly darker green would look nicer for that box - #90e090 for example. Fredrik 22:36, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Another suggestion: I think the green clashes with the blue and red a bit. It might look better if the yellow and green were switched. Fredrik 23:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Interesting... you're probably right. I'll wait a day or so for other feedback.  I like having green for the topics - rather soothing - but just want to come back to it before figuring out how I feel.  any other admin is welcome to switch the Topic/other-langs colors around.  Trying a darker green now.  +sj+ 23:26, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

 * Good changes overall. A couple of issues about the intro text:
 * We don't want too many links in the intro text. Its distracting and counterproductive. I suggest unlinking 2001 and number-of-articles.
 * I don't like bolding the word browse. What's the need for using color for the number-of-articles link? Again, distracting. Arvindn 12:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I prefer the grey borders to black or coloured borders, they're distracting IMO. fabiform | talk 02:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I think Eloquence's change made them less appealing. Fredrik 07:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Testimonial from anon.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A wikipedia is an encylopedia whom anybody may edit at night or the day.

It is 'free' as a prisoner wants to be free. A prisoner endures in prison. He has no freedom to act as he wishes. But Wikipedia is free, not like in prison, it may edited any time at all.

It is perhaps also 'free' as in costing nothing... but that is only by chance. The telephone company can make you pay when you connect to the internet to edit wikipedia; it can make you pay much during the day, and maybe less at night. But you are free to choose a different telephone company.

Wikipedia is good because it is free.

There are wikipedias in many tongues. This wikipedia here is in english. But some wikipedias are in many other tongues. Tongues of a great many people, such as spanish and chinese, and tongues of only a few people. And even strange tongues such as esperanto are popular with many pages.

Editing wikipedia is also very easy. Each page has an 'edit' button. It is necessary only to press the button 'edit', and write new things, and press the button 'save'.

If you are not sure of your writing, only press 'discuss'. This makes you write in another 'discuss' page. People with good writing will write in the article page a good version of what you say.

The only bad thing in wikipedia is, no spell checker. You have to copy to Word and spell check and copy back to Wikipedia. Then you change and do it again. And again. And again... it is slow. There should be a 'spell' button when editing pages.

Thank you; translate this into good writing. Bless you.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Webby Awards
-> Wikipedia talk:Webby Awards

Today's featured article on James Bulger
I'm concerned about today's featured article for the following reasons. It is an extremely hurtful subject for the Bulger family and while it is a matter of public record and belongs in the Wikipedia for that reason, it's also a matter of relatively recent private grief and therefore inherently hurtful. We need to show sensitivity in an area like this. I don't think that it should have been made a featured article without asking the Bulger family how they felt about that. Did anyone do that ?

Many newspapers have used it (and continue to use it) as a sales boosting technique, trampling on the Bulger family's feeling without any thought for them, and I would hate people to think that Wikipedia is using it in the same manner. Subjects of this sort need more care than the average choice for Featured Article and even at this late stage, I would prefer that it was withdrawn until permission has been given for such a prominent use by the victim's family. -- 198.5.187.24 (aka User:Derek Ross) 14:21, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * You won't believe this for a moment I sat in a state of shock. I was absolutely numb to all sensations except the horror, grief and pain that struck me after reading the first two lines. Maybe I am a weak hearted guy but if my suggestion was worth anything please replace the featured article. AY 21:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, AY. You're not weak-hearted. Many people, including me, felt the same way at the time it happened (and whenever the subject comes up again). It was a horrifying incident. I think the subject is even less suitable for the main page featured article than the Shock site article unless featured with the full consent of the family. Whoever chose this article showed extremely poor judgement. -- Derek Ross 22:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi, I'm sorry you both found this choice of featured article distressing. We often link to distressing articles from the main page (in the new section) and several other featured articles on the main page have tackled unpleasant subjects.  As far as I know, there's no policy to avoid linking to these articles once they have passed through the Featured article candidates process.  fabiform | talk 02:28, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fabiform, I'm sorry that have you missed the point. It doesn't matter particularly whether I or others find the article distressing or unpleasant. What does matter is whether or not Wikipedia is seen as being prepared to take advantage of sensational events without regard to the feelings of the victims. Whatever your opinion as to the pleasantness or unpleasantness of previous featured articles, none of them could be seen as being callous and personally hurtful. This is the first one that I am aware of that could be seen that way.

I'm not looking for policy on the matter, merely the common courtesy that would make whoever chooses the next such Feature ask themselves "I wonder whether the mother of that child would be delighted to see us use this to encourage people to read the Wikipedia" and the sensitivity to answer with "Perhaps not, I'll choose something else". -- Derek Ross 03:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Derek. I didn't miss the point you were making.  I think this article (which I've contributed to) is a good one; it deals with a sensitive subject carefully and doesn't sensationalise it.  We link to articles on murders and killings from the front page in the news section.  We link to our articles on less recent atrocities in the anniversaries section.  All of these links are "adverts" for the contents of Wikipedia.  I cannot claim to know what Denise Bulger would think of our featuring an article about her son's murder.  The article does however link to her website which campaigned for longer sentences for the killers (who served 8 years in the end), so perhaps she would be just as likely to thank us for highlighting what she sees as an injustice? fabiform | talk 03:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Granted that the article is good, granted that it's not particularly sensational, granted that Mrs Bulger might well thank us for the article being featured, I still say that we shouldn't assume that she will. I think that in this type of case it would be courteous to ask. It's rather a different situation from recent news for which there is justification owing to its immediacy and widespread publication and different also from anniversary links which form a lower-key, more anonymous group. The Main Page Feature is the most prominent article on Wikipedia for the time that it is featured and I think that special care should be taken over choosing it, including contacting interested parties for their opinions where appropriate. We might still decide to run it in the face of adverse opinion but we should have a good reason for doing so. -- Derek Ross 04:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's feasible to ask, or even desirable. We just featured this article for 24 hours on the front page, and I doubt James's mother happened to see it.  Contacting her and asking her permission would perhaps cause her distress.  And just think of the logistics... why are we just concentrating on James's mother's feelings?  What about his other family members, and what about the family members of the murderers? What kind of precedent would we be setting?  Would we have to ask all the relatives of the Madrid bombings victims if we wanted to feature that article (many people supported that article being granted featured status)?

 * At what point in time does something change from being so recent that it's news and jusifiable, to no longer being news but too recent to talk about casually, and then to long enough ago that it's justifiable? The boys were released from detentiontwo years ago, is that recent enough to be news?  The murder took place eleven years ago, is that long enough ago that we can talk about it dispassionatly now, or at least without being accused of feeding off it somehow?  Just points to consider.  fabiform | talk 04:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protecting featured articles
Could I suggest that as a matter of policy, articles which are placed on the main page as featured articles should be protected from editing while they are there? Main page articles are inevitably subjected to the kind of casual vandalism now afflicting Greek art, which I wrote and thus feel protective of. Perhaps a copy of the article could be put at the main page while the real article is still available for editing elsewhere. Adam 14:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * An alternate solution would be an option that a change (or perhaps only a change by an anonymous user) to an article would require approbation by an administrator. This could be implemented with the existing system by duplicating an article, protecting the main one, leaving a message on the main one that users edit the secondary article since the article is target for vandalism, having administrators copy over any valid changes done to the copy. Fredrik 15:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * as i noted above, featured articles have plenty of typographical errors. this would prevent their removal.

 * however, vandalism causes worse harm to the image and usefulness of wikipedia, and so adam carr's suggestion may be best. in any case, copyediting is needed prior to inclusion in the "featured articles" list; locking for the duration would likely combine well with such a policy. Badanedwa 18:31, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it seems that vandalism has increased much more than usual, with this new layout. I remember one of the article a couple of weeks after the new layout, it was just facing constant vandalism, I believe that we should implment what Adam was talking about. --Saint-Paddy 01:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I strongly oppose protection of these pages. The featured articles should be not only a demonstration of our best work, but a demonstration of Wikipedia's openness to editing. Locking them down through fear of vandalism overlooks two inportant points; firstly that Wikipedia is supposed to be editable by anyone, and secondly, that it is extremely easy to revert vandalism. Angela. 08:43, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

SimpleWiki
Can we get SimpleWiki added as a link at the bottom of the main page? I'm sure we can attract a few more writers if people were aware of it. Denni 18:56, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

 * Sure, just edit Template:Wikipedialang. Angela.

22 April ¿2000? featured Explosions on Guadalajara, Mexico. Due to gasoline leak on sewer system.

Please fix "hugarian"
In the languages block: Hugarian → Hu n garian. Thanks. --grin ✎ 06:45, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)

 * Done, it's from Template:Wikipedialang, and is not protected. fabiform | talk 07:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"behind" the news
The Main Page "In the news" summary of the Ryongchon disaster indicates that it was a collision while current news reports refute this. In my view this is an indication of the folly of trying to include breaking/developing news stories in Wikipedia, and especially on the main page. Jgm 20:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Killing 54"???? This is absurdly precise. The latest I've heard, on the radio just now is that the Red Cross on the ground estimate "many hundreds of dead". And the BBC are reporting without qualification that the explosion was caused by electric power lines falling onto goods wagons loaded with dynamite. The thing as it stands is simply wrong, and makes Wikipedia look foolish. Please somebody fix it, or else remove it. GrahamN 22:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

cyprus referendum
Shouldn't the Turkish vote also be mentioned? It was 65% in favor of Annan plan. Ato

 * Probably not here, in the very brief "headline" format this page uses. There's plenty of space for figures in the referendum article when the results are published and, in any case, the "story" (in journalistic terms) here is the rejection by the Greek side. –Hajor 20:19, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who's that in the news?
Moved to MediaWiki talk:In the news

Wrong fact in selected anniversaries
1909 - Sultan of Turkey Abdul Hamid II was overthrown by his brother Murat V.

False. He was replaced by Mehmet V. Murat V was his brother and was deposed in 1876.

The reason why Wikipedia is slow?
On the main page it current says:

''Recent press coverage (notably in Newsweek and Salon.com, and about our Webby Award nominations) has Wikipedia's servers suffering a bit of a Slashdot effect. Wikipedia may be loading slowly until the buzz wears off--please accept our apologies, and enjoy your visit! Thanks.''

Is this correct, I thought that any current slow down has more to to with the Squid server Browne being offline. Looking at the stats shows that Coronelli is serving twice as many requests as it normally does, but only because it is serving all the requests Browne would normally. Based on the total number of requests there does not seem to have been recent sudden increase in usage. Or is the message on the main page just way of putting a nice spin on the server problems. -- Popsracer 01:06, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think the press coverage is the cause of the problem, so I removed it. Press releases should stay at Press coverage and speculation about server issues at Hardware status. Angela. 01:21, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Pops, I put that note up there. I just assumed that was why (assume, ASS, U, ME, I know), but there is a shameless spin component. I think it's bad jujubees for newbies to come b/c Newsweek sent 'em and have them find that the site is SLOOOOWWW. Also, it's a nice change to brag. :) jengod 01:24, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is (probably) currently being slashdotted - they have a link on their front page stub to Model view controller at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/27/1429237. Wiki's all a bit unusably slow :( --Tagishsimon 20:42, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Nah, slashdot isn't big enough to take on WP anymore... even the 200,000 article ABOUT WP didn't really affect the servers. As others have said, hardware issues have been the problem. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:07, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too concerned about what visitors think, if they're here due to publicity. I've visited several other Webby-nominated sites, and the story's the same everywhere. Lesson: if you get nominated, borrow a couple of extra servers... Denni 22:13, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)

Darfur
The Western Sudan genocide in Darfur should be "in the news" on the main page. We shouldn't be silent, when thousands of people die! 82.83.23.254 21:28, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It's policy not to put something on the 'In the News' (ITN) unless there is an article on it, or the relavant article has been updated. →Raul654 21:49, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * But Darfur exists an it is up-to-date, isn't it? 82.83.23.254 21:55, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * There's one sentence By the spring of 2004, several thousand people had been killed and hundreds of thousands more had been driven from their homes, causing a major humanitarian crisis in the region.  - that doesn't sound like breaking news to me. →Raul654 21:59, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's right. But we don't talk about breaking news, but current news. And of course Sudan is in the news!? Austrias new president isn't a breaking news, too. But it is worth to mention. 82.83.23.254 22:38, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I just went to google news and there are multiple stories on it, so it does appear that it's worth featuring. But as I said, the article itself is not in not in good enough shape to feature. →Raul654 02:50, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unforunately english is not my mother language. Perhaps someone else could improve the Darfur article to put it into the "in the news" section? 82.83.23.254 06:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IE 6.0 problem?
The main page seems to want to DL as a file, that can't be displayed. To see it at all I have to point at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page

instead of

http://www.wikipedia.org

Am I screwed up on my end or wikipedia's end? Dominick 13:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Works here. Fredrik 13:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Main Page/Archive 18


text:
Eirug Wyn

Eirug Wyn (11 December 1950 – 25 April 2004) was a Welsh satirical novelist who wrote in the Welsh language. He was born Eirug Price Wynne, in Llanbrynmair in Mid Wales, and educated at Brynrefail School and Trinity College, Carmarthen. He subsequently made his home in Y Groeslon in North Wales.

At the age of 17 he appeared in court accused of not placing an L-plate on the back of his car, as was required in the United Kingdom for anyone learning to drive. Instead, he had placed a similar plate bearing the letter "D", for dysgwr, the Welsh equivalent. The eventual outcome of this case was to make D-plates a legally recognised equivalent to L-plates throughout Wales.

He wrote 15 books in the twelve years before his death, and won several prizes for his work at Eisteddfodau, including the prose medal in 1998 and 2000 and the Daniel Owen medal for novelists in 1994 and 2002. He also ran a bookshop, Siop y Pentan, in Caernarfon; wrote a column for the Western Mail; and edited Lol!, a satirical magazine.

He died of myeloma on 25 April 2004, at the age of 53.

Works

 * Y Drych Tywyll a Storïau Eraill (Y Lolfa, 1992)
 * Smôc Gron Bach (Y Lolfa, 1994) – Gwobr Goffa Daniel Owen 1994
 * Lara (Y Lolfa, 1995)
 * United!, Cyfres y Dolffin (Cwmni Iaith, 1996)
 * Elvis: Diwrnod i'r Brenin (Y Lolfa, 1996)
 * I Ble'r Aeth Haul y Bore? (Y Lolfa, 1997)
 * Blodyn Tatws (Y Lolfa, 1998) – Cyfrol y Fedal Ryddiaeth 1998
 * Hogia'r Milgi (Y Lolfa, 1999)
 * Tri Mochyn Bach (Y Lolfa, 2000) – Cyfrol y Fedal Ryddiaeth 2000
 * I Dir Neb (Y Lolfa, 2001)
 * Bitsh! (Y Lolfa, 2002) – Gwobr Goffa Daniel Owen 2002
 * Powdwr Rhech! (Y Lolfa, 2002)
 * Y Dyn yn y Cefn heb Fwstásh (Y Lolfa, 2004) ISBN 0-86243-735-0)

title: Eirug Wyn