text:
Talk:Bush family

War Crimes
Should Geogie, Rice , Rummy Rumsfeld , Tenant and Cheney be charged with war crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.167.100 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Bush
Is there a way we can work in Access Hollywood anchor Billy Bush ? His father, Jonathan, is the brother of George H. W. Bush.  Billy's also a notable Bush, but he's not political. Chris N. 22:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shome mishatke, shurely
This article has to be wrong. It says that Richard Bush, who died in 1732, was the father of Timothy Bush, who was born in 1761. There is also a quote from the book "The Faith of George W. Bush" which must refer to Obadiah Bush but seems to refer to Richard Bush. Does anyone know the facts here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.69 (talk • contribs)

 * According to the current (31 October 2005) page, Richard Bush's son Timothy was born in 1735, not 1761. But that would still make it a looooooong pregnancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassbur (talk • contribs)

for a summary of the facts, as currently known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.157.138 (talk • contribs)
 * See "http://www.wargs.com/political/bush.html#TimothyBush"

Successful political dynasty
Added the particular plaudit offered by The Economist. They were referring mainly to 1,000 days in the Presidential Office but they did discuss (and dismiss) the other main contenders, the Kennedys. Not sure if it should be in the title section, however. --MJW 81.154.201.45 13:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did You Know
This article seems like a good contender for Did You Know? because of its connections to the royal family in Great Britain, the Pierces, and the Kerrys. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

How Bush and Kerry are related

 * Bush and Kerry are first cousins, seven times removed.

I seriously doubt that. My first cousin once removed is either the child of my first cousin or the first cousin of my parent. My first cousin twice removed is either the grandchild of my first cousin or the first cousin of my grandparent. In order for Bush and Kerry to be first cousins seven times removed they would have to be seven generations apart from each other, which seems highly unlikely. I suspect they are actually seventh cousins (i.e. Edmund Read and Elizabeth Cooke are the great6-grandparents of both men), or perhaps seventh cousins once removed (i.e. Edmund and Elizabeth are the great6-grandparents of one and either the great5- or the great7-grandparents of the other). Can someone doublecheck this, please? --Angr/comhrá 12:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I was about to make the same comment. Even 7th cousin seems too close, unless there was later intermarriage between the two families than mentioned in this article.  Their common ancestor lived over 3 centuries ago.  There'd be too many generations for them to only be 7th cousins, if that is indeed their most recent common ancestor - Nik42 19:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm double-checking this, but based on the Bush family tree I have, he and Kerry are actually 9th cousins three times removed. (For most people that's a population that tops 10 million. Only notable in that it's a recorded genealogy, which after a few generations most people are lucky to have at all.) --Dhartung | Talk 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article mention that George W. Bush and John Kerry are distant cousins? See the John Kerry article under Trivia. Emperor001 21:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indian ancestors
The article says that the Bushes are the first Presidents descended from Indians, but several of President Coolidge's biographers said the same about him. Does anyone know which is correct? - Coemgenus 01:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Coolidge himself reportedly acknowledged some Indian ancestry. Apart from that, the existence of Mary Hyanno (the Bushes' supposed Indian ancestor) is uncorroborated. And the article's flat assertion that no other U.S. president had any Indian ancestry is both impossible to know and highly unlikely. Squib 00:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page wrote in his Nov. 16, 2005 column that Bill Clinton has publicly claimed Indian ancestry as well, thus edging out George W.:

 * "Later during [a public television panel] show, as if he had been listening to us, Clinton revealed to the world that his own family had 'some Indian blood' on his mother's side. 'Cherokee,' he announced, looking somewhat bemused."

Squib 18:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "The Bush family is sometimes said to have Native American ancestry. Robert Bolling Jr. (a 10th-generation ancestor of George W. Bush) is the son of Robert Bolling and Anne Stith, whom Bolling married after the death of his first wife, Jane Rolfe, a granddaughter of Pocahontas. [2]"

this should be removed, neither robert bolling nor anne stith were indians, so therefore none of the bush family are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.189.246.113 (talk • contribs).
 * I kinda see your point, but it was mentioned in Salon and other places, so it's notable. I reworded a bit so it's clear that we're not just including direct ancestors in this section. Note that other common-ancestor relationships are included in the article. (P.S. Don't insert your comments inside others, and, please sign your comments using two hyphens and four tildes.) --Dhartung | Talk 12:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um no, you can read it so deal with it. The point is that none of the bush family is blood related to native "americans" so it should be removed, ancestry is blood. hypothetically, would you want your fathers original wifes'(aka not your mother) (who later died or was "removed") family mentioned in your family history?

Salon is media, you should never use the media as a source. stick to reputable sources. "whoever controls the media, controls the mind" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.189.246.113 (talk • contribs).
 * I'm sorry, you're removing material which is properly cited according to Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. You may not think much of Salon or "the media", but Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, meaning we derive the content of article from what has been published in books or, yes, "the media". I don't deny that in some cases this is a weakness, but I'd sure be interested in what alternatives you propose. Unsourced edits? --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Connections to the bin Laden family
I see no mention of connections between the bin Laden family and the Bush family here or at George W. Bush. Shouldn't something this important be on this page? It's on the bin Laden family page & or the Carlyle Group. Also how does the Bin Laden Family seem to escape the Forbes list of Billionairs? Cparker 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think any individual in the bin Laden family is a billionaire. Even the Bushes are not billionaires. (Dick Cheney is richer than any of the individual Bushes, I'm pretty sure, and he isn't a billionaire.) As for the bin Laden connections, they apply only to some members of the family, and are best handled on those specific pages. Also, please do not edit comments unless they are yours. --Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Bush problem
I had noticed the date myself and hoped to look into it further. For the time being I've rewritten the Richard/Timothy relationship explanations to conform to the document at wargs.com, which seems pretty reliable (calling a conjecture a conjecture). It's quite possibly a question that will never be resolved, of course.

As for Mans Andersson, it's interesting that there's a Swedish ancestor, but that's less than 1% of the current President's genetic make-up, so it doesn't belong in the intro (why not list all the Irish, German, and whatever else too). Some people view genealogy as a kind of panning for gold (look! a king!), others take a more jaded view like Mark Humphrys. I'm well convinced of the latter, besides, very often the "minor" members of a family have just as interesting stories to tell (I recently beefed up James Smith Bush, for example -- wow). --Dhartung | Talk 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush twins vote
Why does this page link to the Bush-twins vote. I hardly find it relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.64.83 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. It was linkspam we other editors failed to notice. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Estimated net worth?
Anybody know? Amazing how these plutocrats manage to dodge the Forbes lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.60.74 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, to be on Forbes you have to have at least US$1 billion. A recent WaPo article analyzed George W.'s personal wealth at $10-35M (Cheney is well over $100M), and his dad has been pegged previously in the low single-digit millions. Some of the banker siblings like Bucky may well be worth more than Dubya. This would be interesting information to get into the article in some way. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You know that is BS. They have been in the banking and oil business forever and instigated many of the events in history and those trades. You cannot have only a 'few' million and yet be so powerful. The Kennedy's had more money but no real power to back it up - especially after they were murdered. The Bush's must be worth a good trillion dollars, no lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.179.161 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Family history
This page is lacking a summary of the family history. Where does the Bush name originate from? J.J. 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you asking about the meaning of the name "Bush", or are you asking how the family rose to prominence? Regarding the latter, I'm working on several individuals' articles, and I agree an overview is needed, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't be blind. It's old European Nobility . I like Burke's Peerage 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by such a cutesy response, but being listed in Burke's is not the same as being "old European nobility". Certainly not directly. Bush is more closely related to Churchill than to anyone in the British royal family. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of glad you took the burden to mention the cousinship to Churchill too. But - of course - theres a remarkabel connexion with old European nobility too. Both facts I can't find in the article as yet. I like Burke's Peerage 08:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if your argument is as it seems that the name Bush all by itself indicates pedigree, I'm afraid you're reaching. The earliest American Bush, Richard, was some kind of scoundrel and the (bastard?) son Timothy was just a blacksmith, which does not especially suggest a tony background. It's much more interesting to me that they came from such origins rather than with a silver foot spoon and all. --Dhartung | Talk 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * To be born with a silver spoon in the mouth shouldn't bee any problem; but a reptilian bloodline should, you can find the bloodline-thing in the david icke lemma, espcacially here  ;-) I like Burke's Peerage 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fmr. President George Herbert Webster Bush II and Fmr. First Lady Barbara Bush's youngest daughter joined the Central Intelligence Agency so was kept out of the public eye. From PanAm 103 until 9/13/2010, the Family was convinced she was deceased. Katherine George Herbert Webster Bush III was the first female CMO recruit and an Operations Officer from 1995 -- 2010. Katbushiii (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Kat Bush III

Louisa May Alcott?
Is it worth including her? She is the fourth cousin, 3 and 4 times removed, of the two Presidents, respectively, closer than the related Presidents mentioned.--Chuljin 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. My personal opinion is that notability requires some connection, e.g. similar profession or some kind of interaction. Related Presidents of a President is notable, a cousin he knew personally would be, but there are literally scores of notable individuals connected to the Bush family. This is not, however, notable, as it mainly reflects their extensive New England heritage. Most people do not have their Xth cousins Yth removed fully researched, but because of their notability, the Bush family does. I've placed information about Christie Todd Whitman (in-law) and Tom Kean (cousin) in their respective articles because the family connection is notable in light of their appointments to key positions. Ultimately, although Wikipedia could include such information, we're not an indiscriminate listing of trivia. We could list every relative here with a Wikipedia article, but that wouldn't be very useful to anyone, and it would create a false sense that the Bush family is uniquely blessed with famous relatives, just because we've gone to the trouble to list them all. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand now. I apologize for indiscriminately putting it in before. --Chuljin 01:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all! You've been perfectly polite, and that gets you far on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

White House photo of entire family
The White House took a formal photo of the Bush family the gathered to celebrate George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush's 60th anniversary. Regardless of one's political allegiances, it seems fair to say it is a lovely photo and anyway complete and recent. Should or can it be included here? Minutiaman 19:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)

 * Actually, I'd been looking for some time for a higher-quality version of the one here, from the 2005 inauguration. It's probably the most "complete" one there is. Yours has the same low-resolution problem (although it's funny to see the President showing off his socks, maybe that's why!), but has a few more cousins. This one has most of the President's generation, but not his dad's siblings. Here's another from his dad's library from when he was President, again just the current batch of siblings. And in this one you can't even recognize them! --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the photograph I found because it seems to have everyone in what I call the immediate (first) extended family (meaning the president's mom, dad, brothers, sister, nieces, nephews...), basically everyone alive on the article and then some (those few youngins should be added to it). We don't need second cousins and so forth, and anyway the photo I found lists everyone so readers will actually know who's who. But I don't know how to upload photos so I publicized it here. Minutiaman 20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandals
Does anyone think that semi-protection might be needed on this page? Just rv the work of some vandals, and looking at the history page, I can see that I wasn't the only one who has. Opinions? -- benzo     ♠♠ 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the vandalism meets the policy threshold:
 * A page can be temporarily semi-protected by an administrator in response to serious vandalism, in which the page is getting a large number of vandalism edits from so many different anonymous or newly-created accounts that blocking them individually is not a solution.
 * It happens, we revert, life goes on.--Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Diagram?
We should get a diagram of the Bush family.--Johnston49er 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * A diagram of the family? Or of the family tree? -- 12.116.162.162 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Just added one! RHMI 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the diagram, (and possibly other places) the link to Prescott Bush Jr. looplinks back to the Bush family article. Please, if I've mislead the disscussion please revise it, this is my first discussion article entry Gartral (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed?
Removed a "citation needed" comment about the Economist, on a given date, desribing the Bushes as the most successful political family in US history. The statement itself is surely a citation. Garbled my edit comment though. Oops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmsg (talk • contribs).
 * Unfortunately, that is not a formal citation that meets the standards in WP:CITE, to which all articles should continually aspire (see the References section). I'm reinserting the template. The Economist has recently gone ad-supported, but the quote is not visible via search engines. It may be available on Nexis, though. It may be better to simply replace it with a citable description of a similar nature. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Senate candidacy unimportant?
I think Prescott Bush Jr.'s 1982 senate candidacy merits a mention. The long term fallout probably led to Joe Lieberman's long term senate career as many Bush supporters against Weicker backed Joe in 1988 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.52.14 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
 * It's in the Prescott Bush, Jr. article. I don't see the relevance here, especially as the connection you are making is speculative. -- Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Arnold
George Bush is related to Benedict Arnold through John Lathrop, who has over 80,0000 descendants in America including other presidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbucs24 (talk • contribs)

Garfield connection
I have re-instated le Botelers as one of the Bush - Garfield connections. Yet I have been unable to work out how to reference it. The actual reference is here: http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/a/r/J-H-Garner/FILE/0141page.html. The le Botelers appear in generation 19. Pete 09:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

 * This article disproves the royal descent of Garfield ancestor William Arnold: http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=636371.92.70.77 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The le Boteler connection is not a royal connection, although the le Boteler/Butler family were minor aristocracy. Far from it ... the Butlers produced Wild Bill Hickok as well. It is, however, a clear connection between the Bush and Garfield families.Pete 10:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * But the article shows that the PARENTAGE of Garfield ancestor William Arnold is not known.131.215.108.211 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Other notable relatives section
Can anyone source these, especially the Charlemagne claim? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.79.144 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The charlemagne claim is totally false and why is there a link to a conspiracy website: http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Anzeruthi (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the Bush family descends from King Edward I "Longshanks" of England as they are said to, then they would indeed also descend from Charlemagne, as Edward I was himself a descendant of Charlemagne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.25.158 (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have a (direct, though mixed-gender!) line leading from Rurik to Bush. Verified the first and the last generations, but not sure about the middle.--Alexmagnus (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the mention of his Native American ethnicity?
Who deleted this? When was it deleted? Why was it deleted?Pistolpierre (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * How do yuo know if it was true and it was probably unsourced.Darth Anzeruthi (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pierce/House of Lorraine Connection
Does anyone know where this can be confirmed? I haven't found any other source on the web confirming this connection, and the link that it uses as a reference doesn't provide support. SocraticPrince (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Family tree
Edited family tree to add some names. Also, genealogists usually list women by their birth names, which most of the tree did already, but I fixed the parts that didn't. That gets rid of redundant information (husband's surname) and adds useful information (their middle names, many of which were family names). Added middle names for the men where possible too. Removed several self-referencing wikilinks. Also, the tree doesn't list the offspring of several people (Jonathan, William H.T., Marvin, Dorothy, etc.), so I labeled it a "selective family tree." Ariadne55 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * There is quite a bit more missing from that family tree. I don't have the time to fix it, but here's a link to what seems to be a complete one. Maybe just include this in the footnotes, since it's pretty big.

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/thefamily/media/thefamily_family_tree.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.204.212 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"He's his own grandpa"
James Smith Bush is listed and linked twice in the diagram. He is both the Grandfather of Prescott Sheldon Bush and Prescott's sibling. I don't have a proper geneaology to know whether the sibling is correct and named for granddad, or an error (or if the error is in grandfather's name). Currently, the sibling James Smith is linked to the same wikiarticle on the grandfather James Smith Bush, making him his own grandfather, like in the joke. I've deleted the link, but can someone with information verify who is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotTires (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction confusion?
What Vice President? --62.243.82.5 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I moved this comment from the top of the page to here, as new comments go on the bottom of talk pages. That said, I think the anon poster inadvertantly raises a good point. The answer to his question is obviously George H.W. Bush, in refernce to his days as Regan's VP before becoming President himself. But, I can see where the confusion might arise, as the current phrasing of the introduction, by listing "two governors, one Vice President and two Presidents" implies five separate individuals, where in truth there were only three family members to hold those offices, George H.W. and George W. having each held two separate offices at different times. There must be a better way to phrase that to make clear that we're speaking of a smaller number of individuals, but I'm not sure how to go about it without specifying names in the introduction, which I don't think would be appropriate for an overview article like this one. Hopefully another contributor can take a crack at it. oknazevad (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pauline Robinson "Robin" Bush
I don't think that any link to her on the family tree should go to a book that psychoanalyzes her brother. If there isn't a valid connection as to what she has done, then it should be left blank with no link. Quite simply, given the timing of the edits, the link was there simply to give less reason to delete the Bush_on_the_Couch article. However, I am uncomfortable making the change without any sort of discussion. I'll change it eventually if I don't hear a good reason not to, but I'll give it time first. Mentor397 (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This family tree should not be speedy deleted because in the U.S. and its state of Florida there is no blanket copyright on a public figure's genealogical data.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting claim - but one quite unlikely to succeed. Kitty Kelley's book is copyright - and it is clearly the source which you used.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? The book is a reliable source, and can be used as such for this information.. JOJ Hutton  21:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem here is something called "copyright" and use of any substantial amount of copyrighted material is a copyright violation. In the case at hand, the entire tree was pulled from one copyrighted book, and thus is a copyright violation.  Clear? Collect (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * She did not create the family tree. I assume the little sperm and the little eggs did. If she did not create it, she does not own it, therefore she cannot copyright it as if it is a creation of her own accord. JOJ Hutton  21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tabular family trees can be copyrighted. They are not the "sperm" business you suggest , but the result of reasearch. See, for example, Copyright Fundamentals for Genealogy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice link. Did you read it? It proves the point I made earlier that she does not own the work. Some passages read:
 * All that’s protected under copyright is the author’s original expression. The protected material must have been independently created by the author with at least some minimal amount of creativity.  Anything in a work that isn’t the author’s original expression isn’t protected by his copyright.
 * No one can claim originality in a fact. At best, a person may discover a fact.  If he discovers it and documents it, he has not created it.  He has only reported it.  There is no originality.
 * Many genealogy compilations aren’t sufficiently original to be protected by copyright. Since facts can’t be copyrighted, to be eligible for copyright protection, a factual compilation must have some amount of originality in either the selection of the facts, the arrangement of the facts or both.  And, then, the only part of the compilation that’s protected will be that which has originality.
 * Like I said before. She didn't create the family tree (the facts), therefore she does not own (copyright) the facts.-- JOJ Hutton  23:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And thst "expression" has been copied. Cheers - I have had to follow copyright compliance online for thirty years now, and my contracts required me to scrupulously enforce copyright rules.   Collect (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well in your own words, Interesting claim - but one quite unlikely to succeed. Kitty Kelley's book is copyright - but the facts within it are not. Cheers.-- JOJ  Hutton  00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The form of the table is, moreover, not a "fact" and some of the names listed in it are only found in her book AFAICT -- which means there might be a name which is deliberately inaccurate. When asserting that something is a "fact" - when a source has a "copyright trap", the only course is to make sure every name has at least two sources.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two sources. And are you asserting that there is an error in the family tree? What part is deliberately inaccurate? If the Keller book has an error, no one has ever mentioned it before, to my knowledge, so its assumed to be accurate, since its a peer reviewed reliable source. Your attempt a a speedy deletion of the template was denied. You have gained no supporters and have not shown any wikipedia guidelines to back top your claim of copyright violation. Until such time I suggest that you give up your feeble attempt at deleting this information from Wikipedia. A fact is a fact is a fact, and there are no copyrights on facts and the form of the table in the book is not the same used in the article.-- JOJ  Hutton  02:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * HSG initially used one and precisely one copyrighted source. As for naming any "copyright traps", that is one of the reasons for not lifting sections of copyrighted material from any source.  Courts may find copying such to be a copyright violation, and the "it is merely a fact" exclusion fails, but it absolutely runs afoul of Wikipedia's requirement of "verifiability" for such a claim ibce the copyvio has been noted.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is lifting anything from anywhere. WP:V says that all information must be attributed from a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that collects information from secondary sources in order to provide a tertiary source for educational purposes. Courts may find lots of things, but you still haven't said what you think is incorrect in the source. Unless you have a specific example of what is incorrect, then it is assumed to be correct, and an allowable fact under Wikipedia guidelines and policies.-- JOJ Hutton  13:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) I stated one good reason why we should not lift large amounts of material from a single copyrighted work. See WP:CV for the applicable policy. A copyright violation does not require that the information copied by wrong  so that suggestion is "right out." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In point of fact, --the table was not compiled from a single source, which the article history, indeed, the conversations above on this very talkpage, amply verify. (Actually--and feeling as put-upon by dodgy shenanigans ((per my editorial pov, at least)) as did the fictional sergeant schultz: w rgd the chart's familial relationships/dates, I contributed nottthing!--nottthing!-nottthing! (please see the following diff of an arbitrary edit toward the chart's actual creation).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

'Two U.S. Senators'
Who is the other senator? --SchutteGod (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bush family. 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/20090202192430/http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu:8090/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=salem/texts/bios.xml&style=salem/xsl/dynaxml.xsl&chunk.id=b42&clear-stylesheet-cache=yes to http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu:8090/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=salem/texts/bios.xml&style=salem/xsl/dynaxml.xsl&chunk.id=b42&clear-stylesheet-cache=yes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031218082226/http://www.cnn.com:80/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/president.bush/ to http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/president.bush/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Attention needed at Talk:Bush–Davis–Walker family political line
Please see Talk:Bush–Davis–Walker family political line. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Chester Bennington
Chester Bennington claimed to be related to Barbara Bush https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmYQy-vzeBQ&ab_channel=DehCodeParadise 176.59.17.155 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * GWB Lombardi.png

First family?
The article currently says near the top of the lede that "the Bush family was the First Family several times", blah blah blah. This is somewhat misleading: the title of the article, Bush family, refers to the dynastic aspect of even distantly related people named Bush; the term First Family refers to the immediate family who dwell in the White House. Should be reworded to make it more clear; simply saying who was President would be fine without using the term First Family at all. 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bush family


text: File:Bernard Darwin.jpg

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

title: File:Bernard Darwin.jpg


text:
Colonial Life Arena

The Colonial Life Arena is a multi-purpose arena in Columbia, South Carolina, primarily home to the University of South Carolina men's and women's basketball teams. Opened as a replacement for the Carolina Coliseum with the name Carolina Center in 2002, the 18,000-seat arena is also host to various events, including conferences, concerts, and graduation ceremonies. It is the largest arena in the state of South Carolina and the eighth largest campus college arena.

The naming rights were acquired in 2003 by Unum, a Portland, Maine–based insurance company, and it was renamed to the Colonial Center after the Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company, a Unum subsidiary headquartered in Columbia. On July 22, 2008, the USC board approved renaming the building to the Colonial Life Arena as part of the rebranding by Unum (which by then had moved to Chattanooga, Tennessee) of Colonial Life & Accident as Colonial Life.

History and use
The arena first opened on November 22, 2002, with the season opener of the South Carolina women's basketball team. A near sell-out crowd of 17,712 fans saw the 72–58 Gamecocks victory over in-state rival Clemson, with a $1 admission charge, at that time commonly used by the women's basketball team to promote major games. The official grand opening took place December 2, 2002. The men's basketball team defeated Temple 66–47. On January 26, 2010 South Carolina defeated #1 ranked and undefeated Kentucky 68–62 in the arena, one of the biggest wins in South Carolina history.

On January 18, 2021, as part of the university's observance of Martin Luther King Day, the university dedicated a statue of Gamecocks great and 2020 WNBA MVP A'ja Wilson near the arena's main entrance.

Aside from Gamecock basketball, the Colonial Life Arena also hosts the South Carolina High School Basketball Championships each year. The facility is built to also host ice hockey games, and was intended to be the new home of the ECHL's Columbia Inferno. However, due to legal issues with the funding for the facility, the Inferno never played there. The franchise suspended operations in 2008, but after plans for a new arena in neighboring Lexington County fell through, the franchise was finally canceled in 2014.

The Colonial Life Arena was ranked 22nd in the world in ticket sales in 2003. It was also ranked the #1 arena in the Carolinas and was the #2 rated university arena in the world in 2005, based on ticket sales for touring shows.

It is managed by Spectra (formerly Global Spectrum), the facilities management subsidiary of Comcast Spectacor. The NBA's Philadelphia 76ers, then owned by Comcast Spectacor, played an exhibition game in the venue in October 2005.

In 2007, it was home to the Columbia Stingers of the National Indoor Football League. The arena has hosted the Charlotte Bobcats and New York Knicks in the past.

Originally, the venue, like all Comcast-Spectator managed facilities, had its own ticketing policy, and therefore concerts were not controlled by the major ticketing industry firms.

Ticketing was provided by New Era Tickets, and tickets could be purchased through the Arena's website.

Ticketing for events at the arena is now provided through Ticketmaster.

title: Colonial Life Arena


text:
SLEP

SLEP may refer to:

 * Sleeper Either Class with Pantry, British Rail sleeping carriages with 24-beds
 * Secondary Level English Proficiency test
 * Shelf Life Extension Program of the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Defense
 * Service Life Extension Program describes an extension or upgrade of an asset of the government, usually the U.S. military

title: SLEP


text:
User:Eel

i am made out of bullets

title: User:Eel


text:
Dave FM

Dave FM may refer to:

 * CJDV-FM, a radio station in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
 * WZGC, a radio station in Atlanta, Georgia, United States
 * KKDT, a radio station in Burdett, Kansas, United States
 * KITS, a radio station in San Francisco, California, United States

title: Dave FM


text:
Talk:Straight-four engine

Archives of past discussion
Archive 1

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Inline-four engine. The redirect from Straight-four engine will remain to provide consistency with other engines. Rationale: Three things led to my evaluation of consensus here, in order of importance: 1) It has been pretty clearly demonstrated that this is the more common name. 2) Two editors were persuaded to strike their oppose !votes, which indicates the persuasivesness of the arguments. 3) The editors in favor of the move outnumbered the editors opposed to it (this is the least important reason, but still matters to a certain extent). Aervanath (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Straight-four engine → Inline-four engine — Straight-4 engine is rarely, if ever used to describe (an inline) 4-cylinder engine. Article name should be changed to Inline-four engine which is most often used to describe this type of 4-cylinder engine. Vegavairbob (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support (see above) Vegavairbob (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Reformatted for bot. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Straight-six Straight-6 and Straight eight Straight-8 are used to describe these engines because 6- and 8-cylinder engines are also (and usually) offered in V configurations where 4-cylinder engines usually are not. Because of this 4-cylinder engines are not (and don't need to be) referred to as Straight-four engines.Vegavairbob (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 * CommentHowever, a much better name would be Four cylinder engine, or 4-cylinder engine. Almost all four cylinder engines are inline, and unless otherwise specified, they are inline. Straight-four is almost never used, and inline-four hardly ever used. Four cylinder engine already redirects to this article. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment disagree with those comments. V4s were historically very common (Ford probably made a few million of them), and opposed fours are still today very common (Subaru to name one manufacturer).  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose : the other Straight-x engine article use the same format, so why be different? Also, straight-four engines maybe not be referred to as such in the U.S., but they are elsewhere (UK, Australia, NZ (+ probably others, but I don't know any more off-hand)). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Support: I am now convinced. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment The UK does NOT use 'straight' - every single source (from academic text books to car and commercial vehicle sales brochures) in the UK will ALL use 'inline' or 'in-line'.  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose: Both terms are in popular use but we should keep it consistent with the other straight 2/3/... articles. Redirects take care of the other forms and most people won't even notice the difference. And for 199.125.109.19, there are plenty of V4's (Ford) and boxer 4's (Subaru, VW, Porsche) out there. Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose: Highly unnecessary move, seeing as how straight and inline are synonyms.--Flash176 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I can see some justification for the move, in that the normal abbreviation for this configuraion is I4. But the justificaton given seems to be based on guesswork, and not always very good guesses. The names straight-four and straight-six probably came from the famous straight-eight automobile engines of the early and mid twentieth century, which were slightly preceded by the V-8. Other inline automoble engines of the period had relatively little competition from corresponding V configurations, and the inline four is still dominant enough among four cylinder autmomobile engines to often be simply described as a four, with vees and boxers etc being more fully described. On balance, I'd leave it as is. Andrewa (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "in that the normal abbreviation for this configuration is I4.": perhaps in engineering bandbooks that use seriffed type. Here with Wikipedia's usual sans-serif type it looks like "... the normal abbreviation for this configuration is fourteen.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment 'In-line' is used in authoritative text books, and so could not be based on 'guesswork'.  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It's true that in-line is used in some of these, as is straight in others. But this doesn't tell us anything about the validity of the arguments or the truth of their premises. It's perfectly possible to arrive at true conclusions by invalid argument and/or by using false premises, and of course equally possible to arrive at false ones. Both occur above. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Whilst I respect your concerns, I personally cited a formal textbook to prove that in-line was the defacto nomenclature, and OK, you are free to challenge with an opposing point of view. But you have failed to provide any citation.  Can you cite ANY formal textbook (and Haynes manuals/Haynes Publishing are NOT classed as textbook) which supports your claim that straight has any official and formal use?  So I am utterly perplexed on your comment "It's perfectly possible to arrive at true conclusions by invalid argument and/or by using false premises" - are you honestly trying to state that textbooks are somehow 'invalid' or 'false'?  It would be good if you could clarify what you mean, thanks.  Rgds  78.32.143.113 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Formal names are not terribly relevant. This is a general encyclopedia, and the naming conventions here favour common names. Andrewa (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes but Andrewa, not only is inline-four the more common name, but it is apparently the formal one as well. So there goes that argument. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose: "Straight" and "inline" are synonymous, so the issue can be handled with redirects. "Straight-six" and "straight-eight" are more popular because of the poetic nature of the names (alliteration and assonance, respectively), which "straight-four" lacks, but it's still a common name for the configuration. V-4's are rare, but they do exist, as do flat-fours (alliteration, again). If we were starting with a blank article, it might be worthwhile to use "inline-4" (as long as we also used "inline-6" and "inline-8"), but at this point, I don't think it's worthwhile changing it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment. I won't bother voting, but please note that "...to keep it consistent with other Wikipedia pages" is absolutely no reason at all to have an article at a certain title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should go with the most common name as used by secondary sources, not what helps keep our own little filing system tidy. If that's your only reason for opposing, I'd recommend you strike your vote. Incidentally, a Google search of all variations ("inline/straight-4", "inline/straight 4", "inline/straight-four", "inline/straight four") suggests that "inline" is the more common term in each case; whether or not its majority—between 2:1 and 4:1—is sufficient to warrant the move is another argument. --DeLarge (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment. Just had a quick read through WP:COMMONNAME, thought I out to highlight this important first line sentance (and I emboldend the important bit): "Convention: Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article, except where other specific conventions provide otherwise".  So basically, even if it could somehow be proven that straight was the most common in say spoken English, I would have to say that the formal useage of in-line in textbooks complies with the specific conventions.  Just like say the ibuprofen article is NOT called Bruffen or Nurofen.  78.32.143.113 (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The specific conventions referred to here are conventions such as Naming conventions (names and titles). See Naming conventions and Category:Wikipedia naming conventions for these. There doesn't seem to be one covering this case, so the general convention applies. Andrewa (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * As I said above, "not only is inline-four the more common name, but it is apparently the formal one as well. So there goes that argument." OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment. I don't have any strong feelings on this, but shouldn't inline-four engine redirect to straight-four engine (or vice versa if the move were to be made)? I'm kind of surprised that there isn't already a redirect in place. swa  q  20:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment Yes, that redirect was definitely missing. I've just put up redirects from Inline-four engine and Inline-4 engine. That won't resolve or dissolve this present proposal, but it should alleviate whatever dead-end-link effects might have been bothering Vegavairbob. I haven't made up my mind whether I favour the proposed move. I do see and hear both terms in widespread common usage, so I don't think either term can really be considered wrong. My unsystematic survey suggests Rockymtnguy may be correct that people might tend to select one word or the other depending on which number follows it. For instance, people seem to want to say "straight-8" rather than "inline-8" because the former rhymes. I don't think I agree with Vegavairbob that inline is necessarily more suitable or appropriate than straight, but I don't think I agree with DeLarge, either, for WP:GHITS seems to caution us against basing this sort of decision purely on Google hit counts. —Scheinwerfermann

T·C 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC) A long time ago, I made some choice with agrement of several Wikipedians. "Inline" has not exactly the same sense in aviation and automobile. In aviation "inline" is opposed to "radial" thus a "V12 inline engine" makes senses for an airplane. Ericd (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions. In fact, the first line of prose text in WP:GHITS says "...using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is...", and that's all I was doing. You can occasionally get some anomalous results, but as a test of which is the more commonly used term, it's usually a reasonable barometer. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * 'Comment The issue here is not the redirect. The issue is the name of the article. I have not seen a 4 cylinder inline engine referred to as Straight-4 in ANY publications (Road & Track, Car and Driver, Road Test, Motor Trend, or ANY engineering reports in 40 years. It is incorrect. The article should titled inline-four engine with the re-direct for Straight-four. Is this going to be based on opinion or what is widely used? Why should this site use the less common name for any article, including an inline-four engine? If you want to improve the auto articles on this site, start with the proper names of the articles, instead of individual preferences, and if one is found and proven to be widely used, use that one. I haven't read one statement here that states Straight-four is more widely used than inline-4.Vegavairbob (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Careful, Vegavairbob, you appear to be making some errors. The most substantial one is that you are conflating what you remember having personally seen with what is correct. That's not tenable, either in the real world or on Wikipedia. We have had editors in this discussion state they have seen and heard "straight four"; your gainsaying them doesn't make them wrong, doesn't make you right, and doesn't help advance your case. (You needn't believe me on this one; here and here are some reliable sources using straight-4 engine or straight-four engine.) You also seem to be conflating what you don't happen to like with objective incorrectness; that's also problematic. Moreover, please keep in mind that America does not have a monopoly on terminology in English. As at least one other editor has noted, prevalence of straight-4 or inline-4 may well vary by English-speaking region.

 * We have here a discussion about two names that are both about equally defensible, technically and linguistically. That makes it a relatively unimportant battle. Which is not to say your ideas are unimportant or not valued, just that you may want to have a cuppa tea, lower your voice (please; you are veering near to the edge of incivility), and think carefully about whether winning this particular battle will be worth the cost. To get a sense of what a relatively important terminological question looks like, please see here and here (the latter is an example of how a very involved, impassioned editor can change his mind and pursue a third option satisfactory to all parties to end a fruitless tug-o'-war).

 * Also, please, for the nth time in as many months, as you have been repeatedly asked by numerous editors on your talk page and elsewhere, make all your edits in one go rather than making an edit, then editing your edit, then editing your edit of your edit in a series of little tweaks. As has been explained to you numerous times, your endless series of little tweaks is disruptive because it creates edit conflicts and makes it difficult for others to contribute to the discussion. As I type this, I am on attempt number six to contribute to the discussion; faced each time with an edit conflict caused by your changing your comments one word or punctuation mark at a time. Please stop it. Thanks (again) for trying to edit coöperatively. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment I have not seen Straight-4 or Straight-four used to describe an inline -4 engine in 40 years of publications and engineering reports. In the 70's when a V4 was available in Europe it might have been used then (in Europe) but its never been used in America to describe an inline-4 engine.Isn't that where the Straight 6 and Straight 8 designations came from? Even the 1962 Chevy II 153 cubic-inch 4-cylinder engine was referred to as an inline-4.Vegavairbob (talk)

 * Comment Let's pick a world-wide Auto publication, Road & Track. They have never used Straight-4 to describe an inline-4 engine. If you want to know which is "correct" you would have to use the leading auto publications as setting the example instead of an opinion of a few of the editors here, including me. I'm saying its correct only because they use it. Who do you want to go by. Don't take my word for it. Pick up a copy of Road and Track and look at their annual specifications pages issue for world-wide cars from ANY year. They use inline-4.Vegavairbob (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Please remember, we work by consensus here, number one. Consensus does not require unanimity, and sometimes the consensus goes against our personal opinions and preferences. Number two, Road & Track is an American publication. It's probably sold worldwide, but that does not make a worldwide publication, nor does it make it authoritative with respect to this particular snippet of English usage. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Road & Track may be sold worldwide but it is based in the USA and uses USA terminology. I have personally read and heard both terms in common use (Australia tends to get both American and British terms because we get publications from both). This argument really comes down to a coin toss over which is more technically correct. In which case consistency with the other articles becomes the tie-breaker. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Unfortunatly, Scheinwerfermann, you seem to have done a little 'fishing' - referring to your Google books search. Basically, what I am trying to say - if you wish to find a 'minority' point of view, then if you keep looking long and hard enough, you will eventually find something to support it.  Whilst I don't have a problem with that approach per-se, in this particular issue, it is actually unhelpful on two grounds.  Firstly, you did not include a similar Google books search to look for 'inline four', 'inline 4', 'in-line four' - etc, for comparision.  Secondly, from the books thrown up in your quoted Google books search, in the face of it, the overwhealming majority seem to be North American publications - and so do not represent a worldwide view.  Therefore, the 'weight' of their value as evidence should be appropriately lowered.  Thanks for reading.  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Which one is more widely used? I'll give you one guess. No one here has shown current name of article is correct, more widely used, or preferred by car authorities ie. Road & Track and auto companies engineering reports. Personal preferences are illogical for this site. So be it. A lot of the auto related material on this site leaves a lot to be desired. I'm trying to help, but sometimes maybe things are better just left alone. It's easier.Vegavairbob (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Both terms are technically and linguistically sound, no apparent advantage either way. Redirects do an adequate job of ensuring coverage without confusion. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Neutral. I no longer have a strong objection to the proposed move, but neither do I see particularly compelling reason to endorse it. It does appear that inline (no hyphen) may be more common, but this remains a rather inconsequential debate, for both terms are apparently correct. The Society of Automotive Engineers (website, paid subscription required to search full archives but quick/limited search is free) considers straight four/straight 4 equivalent to inline four/inline 4, and accepts either term without preference in technical papers and books they produce, edit, and publish. It has been demonstrated that both terms are technically and linguistically sound and are in use. Relative popularity appears to vary by region, so ENGVAR suggests to me we should probably stay with the present title in the absence of compelling reason to change. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Vegavairbob, inline four is by far the most used, but the reason for using "straight-four" is only for consistency with the other straight-x articles. Using the Olympics as an analogy, most people use the terms "Sydney 2000 Olympic Games" and "Beijing 2008 Olympic Games" as opposed to "2000 Summer Olympics" and "2008 Summer Olympics" titles used here only for consistency. I guess the only way the change is going to happen based on current responses is to rename every other article to inline-x. And by using a quick Google test and Naming conventions (common names), you may have a chance:

 * "straight-four": 44,300 results v. "inline-four": 292,000 results
 * "straight-6": 228,000 results v. "inline-6": 327,000 results
 * "straight-8": 127,000 results v. "inline-8": 821,000 results

 * "straight-4": 235,000 results v. "inline-4": 716,000 results
 * "straight-six": 163,000 results v. "inline-six": 138,000
 * "straight-eight": 82,900 results v. "inline-eight": 1,810 results (this is the only anomaly) . OSX (talk • contributions) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Support it's an inline-4 and a straight-6. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Support - with hyphenation of in-line - Looking at a formal academic textbook (officially approved by all UK colleges and Universities) - Hiller's Fundamentals of Motor Vehicle Technology (how do you 'reference' a printed textbook ???), page 47, 2nd column clearly states: "In-line The cylinders are arranged in a single row, side by side, and parallel to one another. They may be vertical, horizontal or inclined at any convenient angle. In-line engines usually have four or six cylinders but five- and three-cylinder engines are used, with a few eight-cylinder in-line engines produced in the past."  It goes on to describe Vee and Opposed engine configurations too.  From what I can gather, describing an engine as a straight-whatever is simply slang language, perpetuated through 'fan sites', forums, blogs, and the likes - and has never had any official meaning in automotive technology nomenclature.  Rgds  78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment Somebody finally came up with something. Thank you for this research. You made my day. I was getting frustrated trying to prove "Straight" is not the proper title for the article. Straight-four engine would redirect to Inline-four engine. Let's get the title change done please.Vegavairbob (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, it's not very good research. From what I can gather, describing an engine as a straight-whatever is simply slang language, perpetuated through 'fan sites', forums, blogs, and the likes - and has never had any official meaning in automotive technology nomenclature. It's a bit of a jump to say that whatever is not used in official and technological literature is slang, but even so it's not true... the term straight eight has a long history as the normal way to distinguish single-bank engines from vee engines, particularly in luxury and racing cars, such as the Leyland Eight or Duesenberg J. Sales literature is quite official, and is where the term straight eight was popularised. I'm guessng that the term inline was originally used to distinguish single-bank aero engines from radials and rotaries. Both terms have a history, and both are in current usage. In Australia, inline four is particularly used to describe motorcycle engines. Andrewa (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Huh, well if a University approved textbook is "not very good research", then do please state what IS????? !!! OK, me describing straight as 'slang' may appear a little insensitive or whatever, but you have still FAILED to cite any authoritive sources to prove that straight is used today as a formal description.  I accept your point on the Leyland and Duesenberg - but there use of the term straight was 80 to 90 years ago!!! - and just like today in the 21stC, 99.9% of men no longer doff their cap to a pretty lady, straight has NO formal useage in automotive technology.  Things evolve, and just because there was some minority historical use of a straight eight (but NOT four or six cylinders), that, in my humble opinion, bears absolutely NO justification for its continued use in a supposedly dynamic enclyclopaedia that is Wikipedia!  But I do thank you for the motorcycle issue - all motorcyles use the term inline or in-line.  Rgds  78.32.143.113 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment The titles of the three engines do not have to match. Straight Eight is not being considered for a change now or in the future. Straight Four is is in question here.
 * There is little likelihood of straight eight engines being renamed inlne even if the term straight were to be abandoned for all other purposes, as the design is one of great historical significance, winning many races and powering many flagship vehicles, but is now out of use (fifty years or so, not ninety) and of mainly historical interest. Those interested in these classic engines tend to use the terminology of the period, as in any similar field. Andrewa (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The purpose of this move proposal is to determine whether inline or straight is the most widely used name overall. Even if straight-8 is more common than inline-8, the ubiquity of inline-4 / 6 is enough to displace its popularity considering it is no longer used, and a very rare configuration even when it was. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

term, which seems to be inline-4 per google research...we should not use straight-4 if the only reason to use it is consistency with other straight-x engines   --Typ932 T·C 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support/Comment Because Im not native english speaker its slightly hard to say something... but I would use the most common

 * Comment I totally agree with that and I couldn't have said it better.Vegavairbob (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Support The most common one seems like the one to use. Abce2 | Free Lemonade  Only 25 cents!  18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Support I also agree the common one should be used & it also follows WP:COMMONNAME. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』¤ 01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment: I have striked my oppose vote above, but I am reluctant to switch to an immediate support without some explanation. Here in Australia, "straight-six" and "inline-six" are both widely used (as opposed to "straight-four" which is used a lot less). I know this by the reading of auto magazines and web sites over the years and by the Google test ("straight-six" OR "straight-6": 13,900 results (Austr. only); "inline-six" OR "inline-6": 10,400 results (Austr. only)). What I need to know is whether or not "inline-six" is used as much as, or more than "straight-six" internationally. I know the Google test above shows that "inline-six" is more common, but Google may not be accurately representative. Could any other editors from countries outside of Australia confirm the results of the test below? If yes, then I'll change to support for the renaming of ALL straight-x articles to inline-x. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for striking out your original vote. But can I ask what/how Australian textbooks officially use?  Just because a word is widely used (weather that be inline, straight or whatever), it doesn't make it an 'offical' or 'formal' word.  The Aussie term Ute springs to mind - Ute may be exceedingly widely used in Australia, but that doesn't make it formal nomenclature.  Rgds  78.32.143.113 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The policy] here is to prefer widely used terms to [[WP:official names|official names in any case. Andrewa (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Hey, I can be a broken record as well (this is like the 5th time you've rephrased that): "not only is inline-four the more common name, but it is apparently the formal one as well. So there goes that argument."

 * To answer your question 78.32.143.113, the usage of "straight-6" in Australia is probably attributable to the Ford straight-6 engine as fitted to the Ford Falcon since 1960. This term is no more widely used, but they are both used (only in Australia though) about equally. H O W E V E R . . ., globally, this seems not to be the case (I spent some time yesterday reading various publications). OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * For which "ute" is not, and 78.32.143.113 was never suggesting the title be renamed. Andrewa do you actually know much about these engines? Considering that all your comments seem to be a rephrase of "WP:official names says...", it appears you do not. Unless you can present some evidence in favour of retaining the current name, I suggest you stick to what you know. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment The discussion is over Straight-4 vs Inline-4 NOT the variable writings of a 6 cylinder engine with the pistons in a straight/inline array. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』¤ 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose - Inline 4 seems to only be used commonly in America to represent a 4 cylinder engine, the rest of the world uses straight-four. Redirects deal with the people who search for inline 4 and both terms are factually correct and commonly used, therefore the move would be redundant. Matty (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * That is completely incorrect. If you are going to make sweeping statements like that, you are going to have to back it up. Using Google and a UK-restricted search: "straight-four" (3,030); "straight-4" (7,300); "in-line-four" OR "inline-four" (8,550) and "in-line-4" OR "inline-4" (9,200). The evidence speaks for itself, but to your argument's benignity Google is not always right). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Hey, at least my argument is a little stronger than "This isn't what I want, change it.". I'm merely saying that i've never heard of a four cylinder engine being called an inline 4 outside of American publications, and that both of the terms are interchangeable and will always be and therefore moving the article is redundant. I don't care about this article's name enough to google search how many times the name comes up in each country, i'm just letting my voice be heard. Matty (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Please point to where I said, "This isn't what I want, change it." I never said that. If you have "never heard of a four cylinder engine being called an inline 4 outside of American publications" then I suggest to take a look at the evidence:, , , , , , , , . Is that not evidence enough? Every major Australian publication and the UK publications that I know. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I should have made it clear that I wasn't referring to you in that statement. I guess that it is mentioned outside of the US but the fact of the matter is that, well, it doesn't matter. Both titles are correct, and both are commonly used. Therefore the move is redundant and is not going to improve anything. Matty (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Changing the name will not improve anything. Both terms seem equally obscure as this is the most common type of a 4-cyl engine nowadays, commonly referred to as simply "4-cylinder engine" or I4. Moreover, the whole article is written in a way that consistently refers to this engine as straight-4, so changing the title will require some re-writing. I would recommend keeping it as is and leaving the rest to redirects. CFHerbert (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be happy to re-write it, correctly. That's why I proposed the change.Vegavairbob (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like it's not already correct. Matty (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing
Please note Canvassing.

The following campaign appears to violate the guideline, in that it openly seeks votes in a certain direction.

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abce2&diff=299509412&oldid=299424177
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DeLarge&diff=299566249&oldid=297720559
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Typ932&diff=299560365&oldid=299558038
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_J._Leivick&diff=prev&oldid=299561400
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quadell&diff=prev&oldid=299561785
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swaq&diff=299564809&oldid=299375658
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:78.32.143.113&diff=299507239&oldid=299463565
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A78.32.143.113&diff=299566949&oldid=299509472

The contributor in question is relatively new, and possibly doesn't know that this is frowned upon. I have left a note on their talk page. Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I only contacted editors to check out the discussion and vote! Didn't know I couldn't ask others to participate. It is posted in the WikiAutos page. Thank you Andrewa. Vegavairbob (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspected as much. The problem is, we have better things to do with our time than to conduct such campaigns. If it weren't for this guideline, I suppose I could now conduct a similar campaign to solicit oppose votes. As it is, we now just have to ask the closing admin to try to sort out whether the survey has been influenced by your canvassing, and how much if so. Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Only one editor has voted as a result of my messages. Half of them are editors I contacted after they posted comments and didn't vote but sounded in favor so I wasn't trying to change anyone's opinion. I dought it had any influence and I'm sure the remaining editors on that list won't vote at this point.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The closing admin will take into account this and will more than likely invalidate any votes made by people you have canvassed, even if they would have found the discussion and voted support by themselves. You're only hurting your cause. Matty (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I had voted here BEFORE Vegavairbob messaged me on my talk page, as the timestamps here and on my talk page will show - I'm just leaving this comment here to make the Admins job a little easier. Thanks.  78.32.143.113 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Vegavairbob, it is not canvassing if you just say something like, "I noticed you commented but didn't vote, your vote would be appreciated" and don't single out people who you think will vote the way you want. However, on my talk page you said: "I need your vote, please Support."  This is trying to get me to vote a particular way, which is against Canvassing.  swa  q  16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I suppose I should also mention that decisions are made based on consensus, not on the number of votes. I read a few of your other posts on talk pages and it looks like you expected that having a larger number of votes automatically would make your viewpoint win.  This is not how it works.  While it can help, generally the decision will be made based on the strength of the arguments as opposed to the raw number of votes.  See also: Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  swa  q  16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The other thing to avoid so as not to be accused of canvassing is selectively notifying people who are likely to support you, and not those who are likely to oppose. And it's difficult to prove this either way, but the benefit of the doubt generally goes against anyone who posts similar messages to a list of users. Much better to use other means, such as wikiproject talk pages and the village pump, if you want to broaden the discussion base.

 * My personal solution is to keep reminding myself "If we can't get consensus either way, then it doesn't really matter which way we go". It's not a principle that everyone can live with all the time, but it works well if you can. Andrewa (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks to the editors here for their help. Can we get back to the title of the article? I made a mistake. Sorry for the sorting out that will be needed. Of the editors I asked to support my change, only one of the editors posted to the page (Support).  Again I apologise for the improper Canvessing. ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to title discussion

 * Comment Comments made that Straight-four is used in Europe, but to what extent? in 2009? Only inline-four is used in the US as per my comment about all US printed publications (in the past 40 years) and engineering reports. The more common name is inline-four, and the more common name should be used for the title of the article as to not mislead the reader. Anyone believe Straight-four is more common? And I'm not asking about six or eight cylinder engines, past or present. The article title in question is Straight-four. I have only seen it here so I guess its not too common. And the Straight Six article title (although used probably as often as Inline-six) is next for a change. Straight-Eight gets left alone of course-it started this mess of sometimes naming the Six (and here, the Four) with its "Straight" title, incorrectly, for convenience.Vegavairbob (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Europe vs. U.S. is not relevant; English is spoken worldwide, and the English-language Wikipedia is a global project. I am looking into this further and may change my vote; please stay tuned. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I knew he could save the day.Vegavairbob (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment So, wait a minute. "straight" and "inline" are equally-used for sixes, yet you want to go and change it next because you think it's "incorrect." Such a statement makes it quite difficult to think that the purpose of this request was any more than personal preference. --Sable232 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment I said "Straight" has been adopted for convenience on the four and the six (from the Straight-eight) and yes it is used on the six probably as often as Inline-six and that doesn't mean in publications. Inline is still how the six is described in print. But it has been suggested that "Straight" is slang (explains why is isn't used in publications) which makes it unsuitable for this site regardless that is is used more often on the six than on the four. The issue here though is as we go down the line, on the four, Straight-four is used only rarely and incorrectly. Inline-four and Inline-six are proper for this site, aren't used for convenience, and in the four's case, Inline-four is certainly the more common one than Straight-four.Vegavairbob (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment ONLY IN AUSTRALIA Sable232, only in Australia... And only because of the Ford straight-6 engine fitted to the Ford Falcon. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * No, not just in Australia, and not just Ford even here. See http://www.hotsixes.com/ for example Forum and informnation site for straight and V6 engines..., or do a search on holden straight six or commodore straight six. I actually have more of a problem with the arguments being used than with the move itself; The move has something to recommend it although on balance I'd leave it as is. But most of the supporting arguments quite simply ignore the facts, and seem to boil down to a desire to have Wikipedia adopt the terminology preferred by some US-based enthusiasts. No great damage if we do in this case, but it's a bad precedent and further similar move proposals can be expected, first six cylinder and then maybe even eight. The idea of having the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost engine described as inline rather than straight is a little bizarre. Andrewa (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WHY
How could this be changed back to Straight four without a discussion?(Vegavairbob (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

Very bad and rusty photo at the beginning of the article, should be changed
I have seen the very bad looking photo of the ford-inline-four with cylinder-head removed at the beginning of the article. Then i looked at the wiki-articles for other engine-configurations like inline-6, V6, V8, or V12 and they have all very nice engine-photos. So why has the article for the inline-4, which is one of the most often used engine-configurations on the planet, such a bad picture? I think it is time to change this rusty looking picture.

I searched in the net for a better picture and these are my recommendations:

Number 1:

photo found at: http://www.lancerregister.com/showthread.php?t=240719

detailed photo-address: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/APT/Evo%20Bits/EvoBlockBuilt001.jpg

With a subtitle like: "Mitsubishi Evo VII inline-four without cylinder-head and accessories"

Number 2:

photo found at: http://www.ssgti.net/specs.htm

detailed photo-address: http://www.ssgti.net/other/eng2.jpg

With a subtitle like: "Suzuki inline-four cutaway"

Number 3 (which is a nicer type of the original photo):

photo found at: http://themgclub.org/showthread.php?t=233461

detailed photo-address: http://gallery.mg-rover.org/data/3409/mgtf_head_1.jpg

With a subtitle like: "MG TF135 inline-four with cylinder-head removed"

I would be very happy if the rusty original photo would be removed. Unfortunately i don't know how to change a picture in a wiki-article, but i spared you some time by looking for a nicer picture.

i wish you a very long and lucky life Kerl23BRB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.85.246 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with you in general. But wikipedia is not allowed to copy pictures from webpages. The author must give permission for the picture to be used on WP.  Stepho   (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I have send all three photo-owners a email with asking for the permission to use this photo

in wikipedia. If they agree, is a copy of there email-answer at this discussion place enough, to use the photos? Kerl23brb, 02:15, 16.01.2011  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.226.207 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Ah, now I'm getting out of my depth. Offhand, I'd say that adding the images (assuming permission is given by the original authors) with a statement saying that the original author (insert real name) has given permission to use it. Publishing of their email address is not advised. But read through the various WP image help articles to get better knowledge than I have.  Stepho   (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Displacement and notable examples
I think the Displacement section can be shortened significantly. There's currently a rather long list of engines there, whereas I think it would be more to the point to say: generally speaking up to 2.4 in cars, and much larger in diesel engines. And maybe citing one or two exceptions to the rule. And as for the notable examples, why are they notable? According to whom? I think the article would be better with less examples, a bit more facts and to try to stick mostly to the theory side of it, such as the excellent Balance and smoothness section. Vince (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Agreed. This "list" adds nothing, it's not formatted to be recognisable as a list and it's a spam magnet.
 * I suggest significant pruning (probably best done by starting from scratch). I'd suggest these as entries:
 * Smallest inline four we can find
 * Smallest "production" or "practical" engine (Honda racing motorbikes of the '60s?)
 * Smallest production car
 * Typical motorbike
 * Typical car (this is likely to be the range of 850cc-3l) Maybe list the two extremes with named examples, but there's no value in listing commonplace cars in the middle.
 * Ferrari F2 cars of the 1950s (a rare return to the four-cylinder)
 * Largest motorbike
 * Stationary diesel engines
 * Largest inline four we can find
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 * JFDI! --Biker Biker (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 * How about something like this for the Displacement section: "This inline engine configuration is the most common in cars with a displacement up to 2.4 L. The usual "practical" limit of the displacement of inline-four engines in a car is around 2.7 L. However, Porsche used a 3.0 L four in its 944 S2 and 968 sports cars. Early vehicles also tended to have engines with larger displacements to develop horsepower and torque. The Model A Ford was built with a 3.3 L inline-four engine. Inline-four diesel engines, which are lower revving than gasoline engines, often exceed 3.0 L. Larger still inline-four engines are used in industrial applications, with displacements well in excess of a thousand liters.[11] Displacement can also be very small, as found in kei cars sold in Japan, such as the Subaru EN series; engines that started out at 550 cc and are currently at 660 cc."

Basically, shorten it, less examples. A modern classic example, a vintage example, rule of thumb for diesels, and industrial engines. And finally, they can also be very small. Regarding Andy's list, a lot of those can already be found on the list of automotive superlatives. And regarding the Notable list, I don't see the point of such a list and it seems more like a list of engines owned by people here who wish to sing their engine's praises and list them here. What do you guys think of dropping the Notables completely? Vince (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Representative" is better than "Notables", just because it looks like a list that's soon bounded and complete. "Notables" is a spam magnet, as everyone likes to think their own car is notable and there's no reachable condition for "this list is now full". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Practical limit?
The article says the usual "practical" limit of the displacement of inline-four engines in a car is around 2.7 L.   But then it goes on to mention quite a few I4s that are bigger than 2.7L -- including the De Dietrich 17 L engine. (That must have been a monster!)

The overall effect is to make the reader severely question the idea of a 2.7 L practical limit. The article should either provide a better explanation of this "practical limit" -- how the 2.7 L figure is arrived at, and the disadvantages of exceeding this limit -- or stop mentioning this "limit" altogether. 75.163.129.243 (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? It's a practical limit. The De Dietrich is impractical. Impractical doesn't mean "impossible", it just means that there is no rational case where such an engine would be constructed, for the typical scope implied by the context of the article.
 * That context is a "modern" engine for "cars" with modern fuels. The limits on building it are mainly in balancing the piston linear velocity (keeping it low enough for the piston ring seals to work) against the output rpm (needs to be within a reasonable geartrain of the wheel's rotational speed) and the geometrical factors of the combustion chamber size (diameter and stroke being comparable) along with a high rpm (i.e. cycle repeat time) for efficiency of more burn cycles/cylinder.
 * Bore and stroke have to remain comparable or combustion geometry suffers. The rpm is the same for current production "domestic" or "performance" engines, according to the sophistication of the ignition and porting systems available (big end bearing speed is no longer the limit, getting the mixture in and out is). The maximum stroke (for a given rpm) is limited, or the piston rings fail. This all gives a single maximum capacity for a cylinder in a petrol-engined "car" with a conventional transmission. Four of those is about 2.7l.
 * The De Dietrich ran extremely slowly, so its extra-long stroke was below the even lower piston ring speed limits of the day. Its fuel chemistry was crude, so combustion was slow and so rpm (cycles / second) also had to be, and the long stroke of such engines wasn't yet a limit on flame propagation.
 * Modern large ship Diesels are closer to using the Diesel cycle than the Otto cycle (NB - most diesel engines after 1920 use the Otto cycle, not the Diesel cycle). This means they can run far more slowly (combustion cycles / cylinder / second) and still run efficiently. They can also use long strokes in proportion to their bore. So the cylinder limit on a Diesel-like Diesel is much greater than a car's petrol engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 * ...and where is any of this documented? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Inline-four engine. 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/20110714024640/http://www.man-engines.com/datapool/mediapool/800/D0834_LKW_dt.pdf to http://www.man-engines.com/datapool/mediapool/800/D0834_LKW_dt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523132506/http://www.mantruckandbus.com/en/Products_and_solutions/MAN_Lkw/TGL/TGL.jsp to http://www.mantruckandbus.com/en/Products_and_solutions/MAN_Lkw/TGL/TGL.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827160415/http://www.vario-mobil.com/welcome%20to%20variomobil.html to http://www.vario-mobil.com/welcome%20to%20variomobil.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224200033/http://www.isuzucv.com/engines/4h_index.html to http://www.isuzucv.com/engines/4h_index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126070600/http://isuzutruck.co.uk/downloads/specsheets/fseries/f110.210%20easyshift.pdf to http://www.isuzutruck.co.uk/downloads/specsheets/fseries/f110.210%20easyshift.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214123029/http://www.hino-global.com/pdf/catalog/Hino_500S_Catalog_LR.pdf to http://www.hino-global.com/pdf/catalog/Hino_500S_Catalog_LR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113071629/http://www.scribd.com/doc/17851931/HINO-Series-Catalog to http://www.scribd.com/doc/17851931/HINO-Series-Catalog
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110216161504/http://hino.com.au/Upload/specifications/ranger_pro/FC-SEHi-Grade/Ranger%20Pro%205%20DUMP%20Models.pdf to http://www.hino.com.au/Upload/specifications/ranger_pro/FC-SEHi-Grade/Ranger%20Pro%205%20DUMP%20Models.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218012654/http://kubota.com/product/M100X/M100X.aspx to http://www.kubota.com/product/M100X/M100X.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218025743/http://kubota.com/F/AboutKubota/prl80.cfm to http://www.kubota.com/f/aboutkubota/prl80.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707214433/http://www.bavaria-mallorca.com/power-boats-sport~28-104__en.html to http://www.bavaria-mallorca.com/power-boats-sport~28-104__en.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) 05:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inline-four engine. 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/20130606081539/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.de/TechnicalSpecification.aspx?PMID=100&BTID=2674&VID1=5138&VID2=0&LangType=1031 to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.de/TechnicalSpecification.aspx?PMID=100&BTID=2674&VID1=5138&VID2=0&LangType=1031

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) 02:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2020
Inline-four engine → Straight-four engine – Move back. The decision was poorly made and every other article is straight-"n" engine. Consistency is necessary. 2A02:C7D:3FB0:300:9C8E:97FC:DAC6:DCDF (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, cannot understand this comment -- IP, can you please register for an account In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Move - This article is the odd-man-out: Straight-twin engine, Straight-three engine, Inline-four engine, Straight-five engine, Straight-six engine, Straight-seven engine, Straight-eight engine, Straight-nine engine, Straight-12 engine, Straight-14 engine  Stepho  talk 08:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Move Agree with Stepho. Inline-four and straight-six engine are often referred to in the same article, leading casual readers to a false impression that they are unrelated layouts. 1292simon (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Always performing a power stroke or not?
The first sentence of the Design section states that "A four-stroke straight-four engine always has a cylinder on its power stroke". However, the Pulsations in power delivery section states that "four-cylinder engines have gaps in the power delivery, since each cylinder completes its power stroke before the next piston starts a new power stroke". This apparent contradiction should be corrected. I think there is a subtle difference in the definition of just when the "power stroke" begins and ends, but someone more technical than me should probably reword something. Lithopsian (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

name
Change the name to inline-four instead of straight-four, it is both more common and sounds bettter. 165.166.91.66 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Both forms are common. We used to have a mix of straight/inline 3/4/5/6/7/8 but in Oct 2020 we settled on "straight" for consistency. See Category:Straight_engines. For the last few years there have been bots aligning all articles to "straight". We are not changing back on a whim.  Stepho  talk 20:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Straight-four engine


text: Category:Electronics companies

title: Category:Electronics companies


text:
Talk:Terran Federation–Bugs conflict

Help
Help me out here.

 * What is this article about? It seems that nothing relevent links here and the article doesn't explain what work of fiction this is from. If this doesn't improve, I will suggest this article be deleted. If this has some importance or relevence to something else, please explain or make it evident in the article. -- Infrogmation 00:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * This is from "Starship Troopers". It is suppose to be about the conflict between Earth and the Bugs from "Starship Troopers". Help me out!

 * Okay then! We have a Starship Troopers article, so that should be linked to towards the start of the article (I've put that in). Try to make the subject of articles clear enough so someone coming across them by random can figure out what sort of thing they're talking about. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Should we include the (little and useless) info from Starship Troopers 2?-B-101

Fair use rationale for Image:Roughnecks battle.jpg
Image:Roughnecks battle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StarshipTroopers(SkinnieBattle).jpg
Image:StarshipTroopers(SkinnieBattle).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Terran Federation–Bugs conflict


text:
Nuka

Nuka may refer to:

Places

 * Nuka Island, an island in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, United States
 * Nuka, Kiribati, a settlement on Beru atoll
 * Nuka Formation, a geologic formation in Alaska

People

 * Nuka (beat maker) (born 2000/2001), New Caledonian beat maker and music producer
 * Anushka Manchanda (born 1984), musical artist known as Kiss Nuka
 * Nuka Taipari (died 1863), New Zealand tribal leader, warrior and tohunga

Fictional characters

 * Nuka (The Lion King), a character from the 1998 Disney direct-to-video animated film The Lion King II: Simba's Pride
 * A character in Astro Boy, see List of Astro Boy (1980 TV series) episodes

Other

 * The Japanese word for rice bran

title: Nuka


text:
Dossie Easton

Dorothy "Dossie" Easton (born February 26, 1944), who has also written under the name Scarlet Woman, is an American author and family therapist based in San Francisco, California.

Education and career
Easton is a non-fiction author and poet. She has been a plenary or keynote speaker at many conferences, including conferences of the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT), the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, and the University of Hamburg.

Easton has given presentations at many colleges and universities, including University of California, Santa Cruz; Bryn Mawr College; University of California, Berkeley; Mills College; Pomona College; and San Francisco State University.

Her B.A. is from New College of California, 1975; MA in Education and Counseling from University of San Francisco, 1989; Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, 1991, USF. Her bachelor's thesis was titled Sex is Nice and Pleasure is Good for You. She worked at the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic Psych Annex in 1968 as a psychedelic crisis guide, and she worked with San Francisco Sex Information for several years, beginning in 1972. She had a radio show on sexuality on KPOO San Francisco from 1973 to 1975 called "Get in Touch", as Mandy Jenkins. She has worked in battered women's centers and mental health clinics in Santa Cruz, Sunnyvale, and San Francisco.

She was a member of the first board of directors of the Society of Janus in 1974, and is a life member. She is an inductee of the Society of Janus Hall of Fame. She also is or has been a member of other well-known BDSM organizations such as The Outcasts, Exiles, and Black Leather Wings, a radical faerie group.

In 1969, Easton made the decision never to enter into a monogamous relationship again. Her books have been cited as fundamental to the polyamory movement.

Dossie Easton has been a dedicated provider of authentic, compassionate, and respectful psychotherapy and relationship counseling for individuals exploring non-traditional lifestyles since 1962. In a 2023 talk on love, sex, polyamory, and kink, Easton said that ‘those people who live in a world of limitations and fears are missing out on so much that is possible’. The statement emphasizes the idea that there is so much more to life than what can be perceived within the confines of fear and self-imposed limitations. It encourages individuals to challenge their fears and embrace a mindset that embraces possibilities and personal expansion.

Personal life
Easton is polyamorous and lives in West Marin, California.

Nonfiction books

 * Easton, Dossie and Janet W. Hardy, Radical Ecstasy: S/M Journeys to Transcendence. San Francisco: Greenery Press, 2004.
 * Easton, Dossie and Janet W. Hardy, The New Topping Book. San Francisco: Greenery Press, 2003. ISBN 1-890159-36-0.
 * Easton, Dossie and Janet W. Hardy, The New Bottoming Book. San Francisco: Greenery Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890159-35-2.
 * Easton, Dossie and Catherine A. Liszt. When Someone You Love Is Kinky. San Francisco: Greenery Press, 2000. ISBN 1-890159-23-9.
 * Easton, Dossie and Catherine A. Liszt. The Ethical Slut. A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities. San Francisco: Greenery Press, 1997. ISBN 1-890159-01-8. ISBN 978-1-890159-01-6..
 * Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy. The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Adventures. Second edition. Celestial Arts, 2009. ISBN 1-587613-37-9. ISBN 978-1-587613-37-1
 * Janet W. Hardy and Dossie Easton. The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Freedoms in Sex and Love. Third Edition. Ten Speed Press, 2017. ISBN 978-0-399-57966-0.

Poetry

 * Poems under the name Scarlet Woman and Dossie Easton in works edited by Patrick Califia, Joan Nestle (The Persistent Desire), Leslea Newman (The Femme Mystique)
 * Scarlet Woman. "Roll Me Over and Make Me a Rose" and "Dress Shirt". The Persistent Desire: A Femme-Butch Reader. Ed. Joan Nestle. Boston: Alyson Publications, 1992. pp 351–352
 * Scarlet Woman. "Hold Me Down So I Can Fly." The Second Coming: A Leatherdyke Reader. Ed. Pat Califia and Robin Sweeney. Boston: Alyson Publications, 1996. pp 101–103
 * Scarlet Woman. "For DAVID & JERRY & CYNTHIA & MARK & now CHRISTOPHER too..." Coming to Power. Ed. by members of Samois, a lesbian/feminist BDSM organization. Boston: Alyson Publications, 1981
 * Scarlet Woman: poems. Chapbook. 20pp. 1995

Articles

 * "Shadowplay:SM Journeys to Our Selves" in Safe, Sane and Consensual, eds. Meg Barker and Darren Langdridge, UK 2007.
 * "Making Friends with Jealousy" in Understanding Non-Monogamies, eds. Meg Barker and Darren Langdridge, Routledge, 2010.
 * "Cultural Competence with BDSM Clients" in Counseling Ideologies, Queer Challenges to Heteronormativity, ed. Lyndsey Moon, Ashgate Publishing, United Kingdom, 2010.
 * "Sex and Relationships: Reflections on Living Outside the Box" in Families - Beyond the Nuclear Ideal, eds. Daniela Cutas and Sarah Chan, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2012.

title: Dossie Easton