text:
User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (Jun-Jul 2004)

Distrust
I have listed the Distrust article on Peer review. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 21:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Central Asia
I notice that you removed the protection from Central Asia - that's good. I also notice that the first thing to happen to it is for Cantus to revert it to his prefered version without comment, which is not good. Do you have any suggestions for how to move forward with this? It is one of the most futile edit wars I have seen, but we need to address it. Thanks, Mark Richards 18:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your reply. I will try to get some meaningful discussion. Could you do me a favour and keep an eye on Central Asia? It seems that if users do revert without comment it may need to be protected again. Thanks, Mark Richards 20:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Mark Richards 20:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you
Michael, your words of kindness while I was on vacation (in addition to the haiku, which was exactly what I needed to see at that time) cannot be adequately repaid by any brief note - but I will write one in any case, in spite of your generous suggestion that none is needed. Please know that they reminded me of all the things I love about this place, and all the reasons I know I will continue to be here long after today's trolls have turned to stone in the sun. I wish you much luck in the current election, and admire greatly how swiftly you have become one of this place's wisest and most rational voices, whose name, when I see it on a talk page, always makes me pause to read your words, regardless of the subject at hand. I wonder if you would be open, at some point later on this year, to a Seattle meet-up? You, I, and Jmabel, at least, are local, and a few others as well, I think -- it could be formally and publically announced, or simply a private arrangement between a small group of us. Just a thought, which occurred to me when I saw you so easily suggesting all the tiny things of home (the Fremont Troll was a nice touch) and recalled that you and I in all likelihood share an area code. I wish you all the best, and thank you once again for your words, which in all circumstances will remind me of Wikipedia's finest accomplishment in my life -- introducing me to intelligent minds from around the world who are interested in discussion, collaboration, and above all, knowledge. Jwrosenzweig 20:16, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot. I have taken your advice, and have done my recent editing almost entirely on date articles and templates for the "selected anniversaries" box on the main page.  I feel quite relaxed, and am pleased to have had your advice. :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Protected pages
Michael, while I agree with the removal of page protection on Zviad Gamsakhurdia et al, which is long overdue in my opinion, please be aware that they will almost certainly come under attack again from the former User:Levzur (who is now editing using anon proxies). User:UninvitedCompany also protected Alarodian languages, Caucasian, Hurrians, Hurro-Urartian languages, Iberian-Caucasian languages, Laz language, Megrelian language, Nino Burjanadze, South Caucasian languages and Svan language for the same reason - you may wish to unprotect them as well. Could I ask you to keep an eye on them? -- ChrisO 17:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * They've all been hit again by Levzur and reprotected by User:Bryan Derksen - sigh... -- ChrisO 07:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Headlines
I wasn't for deleting the Stanley Cup altogether. The expanded news section would have been the ideal location, which I also duly mentioned. I agree that balanced articles should be there. As far as the link you gave me I still haven't figured out who decides the top articles. I strongly feel that only articles of international importance should be on the main page. My main grouse about the Stanley Cup is that it is an intra country event, not an open international tournament. I have nothing against ice hockey. What is also needed is the weeding out of stale news such as the George Tenet article. Last week, on the main page, an article about the inaugaration of a memorial by Bush almost made me reply in the talk page, however, when I attemped to do so, wikipedia went offline, and the article was removed the next day, so replying was futile. Else you might have heard from me a little earlier. Anyways thanks for being a good NPOV person. Nichalp 20:48, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Condolences
Though of course I like and approve of the victors in the election, I admit a real sadness that you are not on the board. Perhaps there will be an additional spot opening up? I remember rumor of that. Anyway, I wanted you to know that your contributions here are very valued, and to offer a word or two of encouragement. It may simply be that, given your relatively brief time here, a lot of the old hands were more comfortable with....well, the old hands. :-) And we had some good candidates to choose from.  Best wishes, and I urge you to run next year! Jwrosenzweig 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Request for AMA assistance
We have received an anonymous request for AMA assistance from an IP address, I have directed that individual to contact me if they wish not to create a Wikipedia account. If you are interested in helping please let me know and if I hear from this individual I will try and put you in contact. See AMA Requests for Assistance. Thank you. — ©   Alex756   03:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fees
Hi Michael. It is not written on your page when you will be back from holidays, so please contact me when it is so :-) Your legal help would be most welcome to work on membership issues and in particular fees. Thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing

WP:RFROAA
(cross-posted to several user talk: pages)

I noticed that you participated in the discussion regarding reorganization of this page. I have written a proposal for a new format and would like any comments, criticisms, or feedback you may have to offer. Thanks, —No-One Jones 14:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dues
Yes, this is what I meant. I started a brainstorming page a week ago, and spent hours on irc discussing the topic last week end. I think I am beginning to see what will be at the same time simple, fair and feasible :-) However, I would like some help, in particular with regards to legal consideration (such as data sharing and rights for privacy... for example, is that mandatory for the real name of the person to be known, if so, how could we organise ourselves so that this information is kept separated from the website). I also need more input from the German people and developers. I'll try to do this in the next few days; I would be happy if you could help :-) http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membership_fees SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello

I have a question : is there a legal minimum in the amount of dues that may be collected in the USA ? If there is, what is it ? Is it legal to have 2 or 3 membership level ? In this case, does tax departement consider the minimum to be the due, and all what is above a donation ? Does that make a difference for the member ? Does that make a difference for the foundation ?

Also, is that legal that members who do not *pay* have rights in an assocation (such as voting rights) ? I ask because in France it is not legal.

Besides : what are the requirements in terms of information which must be given by the member ? Is it required that real name is provided, or may a user be a member without being identified ? (in saying this, I know that it would be required for an american who wants a receipt, but is it necessarily globally a requirement ?). What about other requirements such as adress ?

Thanks :-)

SweetLittleFluffyThing

RRFOAA
Sure - it looks like it is resolved, since G and H have not pushed the issue. Thanks, Mark Richards 06:17, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
Of course! Thank you :) Fredrik | talk 22:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Question [about Zoe]
No, I'm not acquainted with Zoe. The reason why I posted the comment was because I suspect that (from a vandal's perspective) Zoe's departure was extremely encouraging. If vandals discover, from studying the case of Zoe, that by making incredible asses of themselves they can drive away useful contributors, we'll have hell to pay. Zoe's departure will only cause vandals to step up their attack, emboldened by the feeling of power that surely comes with such a sick victory over a sysop.--Ingoolemo 03:25, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

Archived Delete Debates
HI! I noticed you cleared up a lot of the old listings from Votes for deletion/Old over the last couple of days which is brilliant, however you haven't archived any of the discussions at Archived delete debates. These debates need to be stored here in case there is a request that they be undeleted again, or for some other reason related to a user's actions on wikipedia. Do you think you'd be able to go back through what you've deleted since yesterday and store the debates away? Cheers. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * OK my apologies. I've always filed by when the articles were deleted because it's easier to find them when the votes for undeletion debate kicks in.  I'm afraid I don't know what the policy is (or indeed if there is one)... -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 21:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
Thank you both for you edits and the heads up. I believe the changes you made are good ones.

As you may be aware, it is my view that there have been no substantive policy changes in well over a year, except for two initiated by Jimbo:
 * change in the way adminship is granted (now done by vote on wiki rather than by nomination on mailing list)
 * arbitration committee

A few other changes with policy implications, such as the creation of bureaucrats and the category and substitution features, have occured as a result of technical fiat. Minor changes adopted during the last year include minor changes to deletion policy allowing more material to be deleted, the autobiography policy, and rather less tolerance of personal attacks. There have also been mechanical changes to the way certain activities have been handled, such as the changes in how pages are listed for deletion and the WP:RFC process that has replaced the old "problem users" page. None of these are really policy changes, in my view.

Therefore, I don't believe it's entirely accurate to claim that there is any sort of means for formulating policy on an ongoing basis. In the past, consensus among key figures, combined with strong leadership of Jimbo, determined policy. If I were more cynical, I would edit the "How are policies decided?" section to read: "Wikipedia policies are deeply rooted in history and were determined by consensus among key Wikipedians from the projects' inception through the end of 2002. There is no mechanism in place at present for changing these policies, though some have evolved over time where there has been a clear consensus for change."

I'm not that cynical, and that's too strong and doesn't belong there, so I haven't written it there. What you wrote is better, but it represents something of an ideal that we embrace rather than a reality.

Fundamentally, with a project with over 100 active, impassioned participants, it is not possible to make decisions by consensus. In my personal experience, the largest group of people that can engage actively in consensus decisionmaking is six. Larger groups up to about 12 sometimes work if there are six or fewer people actively trying to shape the outcome.

Forgive me if I have pointed this out before.

UninvitedCompany 17:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad you approve of my contribution. I would certainly concede that what I wrote is an expression of an ideal as much as of reality. In my view, policy is by its very nature focused on the ideal - it is normative and says what should happen. The reality is that "policies" of all kinds are violated all the time, everywhere. This often happens because people find conflicts between policy objectives and their practical applications. A typical way people deal with conflicts between policy and reality is by creating more policy, to clarify or improve existing policy.

Policy and consensus are words that we use frequently in this project, but nowhere are they concretely defined. For that matter, it may not be possible or desirable to define them too precisely, because this limits our ability to use them. And of course there's the ultimately circular problem of getting a consensus as to what they mean (I found the discussion of what is consensus for promoting admins an entertaining example of this).

Your discussion relies on what I would say is a fairly narrow definition of policy. When I made my changes, I had a broader definition of policy in mind (for example, I recently discussed with User:Francs2000 the "policy" on how to archive debates from VfD, which is what inspired my edit). This is not to say that I disagree with you about the definition of policy; I think both definitions can be useful, depending on the circumstances.

Also, I agree that some changes have been incremental, and as much due to changes in the culture of the community as shifts in policy. The two are difficult to separate, and identifying policy becomes more of a challenge. At this level, I think the chore of codifying policy in writing can be beneficial, because written policy has more potential for self-reinforcement than existing practice does alone.

Finally, I'm not prepared to say consensus is impossible at any level, but this depends again on what definition of consensus we want to use. For example, it is often stated that consensus does not equal unanimity, and frequently a "consensus" includes those who may have objections but do not consider their objections so strong as to override the wishes of the community. I agree that adding more active participants to the process of directly making decisions makes this more challenging. But in the group dynamics of an open community, people will ultimately self-select in terms of where they participate in decisionmaking and where they simply add to the "silent consensus" of those who accept and implement policy decisions made by others.

Forgive me for explicitly employing so much definitional ambiguity in this discussion, but I rely on your intellectual capacity to deal with the fuzziness and understand me nevertheless. --Michael Snow 19:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it is important to differentiate between creating policy and implementing it. "Deletion debates are to be archived" is policy; the mechanics of how this is done, how often, where, by whom, is implementation. They do not lend themselves to the same procedures, since implementation is rarely divisive and changes often without concern, sometimes just depending on who takes out the trash on any given day. Wikipedia as a community is very good at implementing, since it is a foundation belief here that one must be willing to either accept another contributors' work or amend it. Implementation of policy lends itself well to this, and I can think of a couple of occasions where others have improved my archiving of debates when I was less thorough in providing backlinks and so forth than others thought appropriate.

Your comment on culture shift is insightful, and as I stay with the project over time, I am amazed at the contributor turnover and its effects. A consequence of this is that ForgiveAndForget is implemented through constant departures. Anyone who is willing to wait around for six months will find his sins forgiven simply because only a handful of people will remain who remember them. Another consequence is that divisive debates where there is really no right answer, like some of the geographic naming conventions, occur cyclically, about every 12-18 months, as newcomers arrive and become senior while remaining unaware of the previous acrimony and its resolution.

Not sure I'm with you on consensus. In a sufficiently large group, *someone* will have strong opposition to any policy decision that really matters, and it becomes impossible even for a talented facilitator to craft a compromise that will have consensus support. The "bike shed" paradox where the simplest and least important choices are the hardest for groups applies here -- look at the difficulty we've had picking colors for the main page. In that case, consensus was the first casualty and the layout changes have been approved, each time, by a fairly slim majority vote. The trouble, of course, is that anyone can have a strong opinion on color, and they are different for each individual depending on the associations they have developed with certain colors and color combinations over time. Some people have graphic or artistic training, which gives them a more powerful vocabulary but one that is largely unpersuasive to drive-by voters.

With something like the main page, there has been enough of a consensus that something has to be done that a consensus develops to take a vote and abide by it. If you take a group of twelve people and tell them that they all get free pizza but only if they can all agree on the kind of topping, they'll agree, because they understand that the alternative is no pizza at all, and they'll end up agreeing to take a vote and live with the outcome. On the other hand, if the question is structured otherwise, say they get a taco salad if they can't agree on which pizza, then someone will always hold out against the consensus. The larger the group, the more compelling the issue must be before consensus will be possible. I offer my maximum of six for general policy discussions based on my own experience.

That's the dynamics, and we have people at Wikipedia who passionately hold fringe positions on various policy issues. They will not participate in a consensus on any policy discussions for these reasons. The AC is one example, in that much of its behavior can be explained by the fact that some members of it are essentially opposed to all bans. In like fashion we have people who oppose essentially all deletions of articles, who foil any sort of attempt at forming carefully articulated policy in this area. Hence we deal with deletion on a case by case basis and the results are inconsistent.

UninvitedCompany 21:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay, a distinction between creating and implementing policy does have value, but I would submit that it's a sliding scale. Using the Main Page as an example again - at a fundamental level, I think we have a design policy that the Main Page should be a gateway to the rest of the encyclopedia. The issues you mention about layout and colors are implementation questions, but in this case controversial due to their visibility. Somewhere in between are questions about additional goals people have for the Main Page - should we aim to look more professional? more artistic? more like other encyclopedia websites? more like a news site? more like a printed encyclopedia (i.e. focused on table of contents and index)? more like a community site?

All of these are partially policy questions themselves, and partially competing approaches toward implementing the fundamental policy. It might be simpler if we could set a clear policy, but given the diversity of viewpoints this is unlikely. Instead, the primary operative force is inertia, which is occasionally overcome when an amorphous alliance of users pushes a major overhaul through, each with different and perhaps contradictory expectations of being able to accomplish their policy goal under the new version. The situation serves to illustrate the idea of Wikipedia as an experiment in anarchy (the metaphor is not always apt, but it can be an interesting paradigm).

Your observation that the community as a whole is better at implementing than creating policy sounds accurate to me - I would offer the development of the category system, and complaints about its lack of overall structure, as a case in point.

I'll agree with you that compromise is not always possible, but I won't go so far as to say the same about consensus. If someone continually and consistently remains a lone wolf in opposing some policy, eventually a consensus will develop that they are obstructing the consensus. At this point, they get marginalized and to some extent their opposition is no longer considered. In the end, at least in open communities, this individual is left with a choice: either submit to the will of the community, or leave it. The latter may be expressed as a right to fork or a right to leave.

For larger groups, the problem is not just the increased likelihood that one or more members will strongly oppose a policy. Another complication is that the more the policy matters, the more reluctant the group may be to enforce the policy when these holdouts still exist (e.g., the long delay in blocking JRR Trollkien when some people remained uncertain whether this was an account operated by Craig Hubley). Naturally, for those who have long been ready to implement the policy, this can be frustrating. When the moment of marginalizing the opposition comes, the "consensus" group will typically engage in considerable exercises to justify this.

In the end, I think the concept of consensus is, as I also said earlier about policy, focused more on the world of ideals than reality. Consensus is in some respects paradoxical; it requires a level of active attention from multiple people to develop, but this same attention also works to defeat it. The debate also depends on one's orientation to time, and whether one focuses on the immediate present or looks toward the future. Consensus is a goal we work toward, and if you want to take an existentialist approach, one that perhaps we will never reach. But the process moves on - sometimes we move closer, and we may also take steps backward.

As a result, I see things as transition phases, and sometimes find consensus both everywhere and nowhere. The Arbitration Committee is in one such transition phase and will eventually, if it continues to operate, presumably shift from Jimbo's appointments to community-elected members. According to the community's views on the relevant issues, this may well produce a cultural shift in the committee.

I don't see any real disagreements between us here, just different approaches to looking at things. I hope I've understood you as well as you've understood me. --Michael Snow 00:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of what you said. The situation with categories is certainly a good case study for many of these issues, as you point out.

With rare exception, I don't believe that there are Wikipedians who fight consensus in all matters. Nor do I suggest that a single malcontent is sufficient to damage a sense of consensus in a larger group. We all have our pet issues. I am an outlier on certain issues myself as you are probably aware, as are nearly all longstanding members. As in all large groups, there is a problem with people showing up at a debate and providing input (voting) based on a surface analysis. Many do not invest the time or energy to really understand the issues and do not show the willingness to compromise necessary to achieve a real consensus. To work, consensus depends on a great deal of willingness to change ones' mind -- a personality trait just as rare and precious here as it is in real life.

Regarding JRR, I believe the chief problem was that the matter was perceived (probably accurately) as a tarbaby and few became involved because they did not wish to get stuck. Part of the culture is that WPedians in good standing are loathe to revert each other, and bans have always been controversial, so it was quite some time before anyone was willing to conclude matters. Perhaps part of this is the absence of a distinction between implementation and policy, though even if this was so I don't see it as part of a larger pattern.

Anyway, the point of all this is that we really do need some sort of effective means of policymaking in place due to the growth. Governance questions have been asked for a good while, and answers to them are overdue, IMO. The nature of wiki and the nature of the project and the great people do not exempt us from the same group dynamics that have led to the decline of so many similar projects (Shirky again), and just because we have an open, wiki-based editing model for the articles does not mean that we must (or should) have an anarchistic, community-consensus model for governance. History has shown that such models do not scale.

UninvitedCompany 01:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Encouraging people to invest the effort necessary to produce consensus is indeed challenging. Willingness to change one's mind is also valuable (except in those who are too willing), and I would even settle for having more people who are willing to learn and consider other perspectives. Truly willing, not just for the sake of a he-said-she-said form of NPOV. That kind of person is normally capable of the difficult operation of recognizing a consensus, even though he or she personally disagrees, and supporting that consensus until an appropriate opportunity arrives to renew the challenge. Unfortunately, many people don't know when to move on, so we have to try and get them to accept arbitrary rules like the 3-revert limit instead.

The tarbaby analysis is also a good explanation of the JRR Trollkien situation. On that score, I appreciate your willingness to get involved and tackle the problem.

We have had some movement toward better-developed governance, such as the arbitration and mediation processes, plus the Board of Trustees. At the same time, there is considerable resistance to being governed. This should not be too surprising, given the independent-minded bent of the community. The organs of governance will need to prove their worth in order to survive and have their authority accepted.

I would not advocate using community consensus as an actual form of governance, where governance is necessary. Anarchy is not capable of governing. However, as a fundamental matter of policy, I think whatever governance we use must commit itself to respecting community consensus, seeking it out, and using it as a resource for further policy decisions. Based on the attitudes of Jimbo and the elected Trustees, I am cautiously optimistic that we can keep the positive aspects of our group dynamics and still develop a good system of governance. --Michael Snow 03:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

gedday, interesting debate. Mind if I join you? I agree completely with UC on consensus (now with its own page at consensus). I think we are pretending that if everybody agrees to exclude the final recalcitrants, that the subgroup have formed a consensus. I would describe that as an overwhelming majority!!

May I reframe the debate a little? I think we’d all agree that consensus:
 * 1) has sociological advantages and its achievement helps to create a sense of community and "comfort" in belonging
 * 2) gets harder as more people become involved and
 * 3) leads to the best outcome, especially if groupthink is avoided.

But consensus costs. The practical questions in my mind are:
 * 1) how much effort should be given to trying to achieve consensus before falling back onto crude old democracy?
 * 2) how do you know you’ve reached that point?

Oh, but I really came here because I’m interested in policy development (test link.. is it red?). Erich 06:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's an assumption built into the first of your two questions that I'm not sure everyone shares. It should be two questions: How much effort should be given to trying to achieve consensus before you give up, and what system do you fall back on if consensus isn't achieved? Democracy is one alternative, and of course many people here support democratic ideals. But even democracy has different forms that can be debated, not to mention implementation problems.

I don't want to represent anybody's position for them, but I think you would find some people prefer a different alternative in the absence of consensus - a policymaking body that would be small enough to use consensus decision-making within itself, when true consensus isn't practical to achieve among the entire community. This body might of course be elected and/or have its decisions subject to democratic approval by the community. For one proposal, see User:Hcheney/Govern. --Michael Snow 15:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dispute
Hi, welcome back. It's not certain what the status of my conflict with 172 is; we did communicate privately, though not much - my fault since I've been on a vacation of my own (although not a "cold turkey" one) and have fallen behind on correspondence. But hopefully we'll stay out of each other's way rather than risk a new conflict, although time alone will tell.

By the way, while I'm here, I'll note that I had a chance to review your work at User:Michael Snow/Arbitration and am quite impressed by the amount of effort you must have put into that document. I can only guess your motives (172 seems to have unflatteringly) but it seems you have a degree of willingness to work hard at resolution which perhaps neither of us possessed.

I also noted 172 cited to you my conflict with User:Kevehs, so to respond: This old conflict (which peaked around November, and thus is a bit foggy) was because "Kev" was pushing a certain anarchist POV, and for a while I was the only one standing in his way. If some of his charges sound similar to 172's, it is because he tracks my conflicts like a hunting dog. For instance, see this recent incoherent rant on Talk:Anarchism. It is likely he simply lifts accusations and language from the RfC pages (e.g., the risible "witch hunt"), which he has also visited. Nevertheless, due to the aforementioned fogginess, I approached his recent reappearance on Anarcho-capitalism with cautious good will, but you can see how that went.

On an unrelated note, I am dismayed by the overwhelming support for the bureaucratship of the monstrous User:Danny (with your support I note - you for some reason seem unbothered by outbursts of incivility). It is becoming clear how meaningless the "rules" of this Wiki are; maybe it is just becoming cliquish. Anyway, without rules, it really will be about who fights the longest. As you've seen, I'm willing to do this, but it's sad that this is what it's come to. VV 20:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * My own feeling on the dispute pages is that the dispute should be delisted - on the grounds that it is inactive - but not deleted; the history in question should be kept and might become important later. Just IMHO.  Note there have, as you've probably noted, been past interbellum periods, although the incentive for us to avoid conflict may be stronger now than it was then.

 * The editing tactic I've settled on through experience is "tit-for-tat", that is, treat users as they treat me, be polite and restrained with the polite and restrained, and ruthless with the ruthless. This may not be the most noble stance, but it's not a gross one.  Of course, I remain constrained by personal values; I'm never (e.g.) going to call someone a bitch, a fuck, or a dildo.  But nor will I make commitments I'll feel need to break.  Also, 172's harmoniousness will be proven to me through actions not words.

 * What is a personal attack is a fine line. Perhaps I should have called Danny abusive rather than monstrous - but I've been accused of attacking for what seems less even than that (e.g., on Talk:Augusto Pinochet).  However, I do not consider Danny's outburst to be isolated; while I can't document this offhand, I recall being unsurprised by his attack at the time, it seeming wholly in character.  His rewrite (born I suspect more out of good politics than recognition of error) was not glorious either; his contention that 172 showed "considerable restraint" is downright comical; how many reverts were there on Pinochet?  (To stave off a would-be reply, I'm by no means claiming to have shown restraint myself; both of us were reverting at full throttle.)  The signatories to this were thus unsurprisingly drawn heavily from those who put ideology above behavioral standards (the exceptions were disappointing, but informative - I am now clear about Heph where before I was ambiguous).

 * But my issue was less that Danny became a bureaucrat than that no one seemed to care one iota about his treatment of others. This could be because my detractors have succeeded in marginalizing me or damning me as a troll or worse (God forbid, "right-wing"), this could be apathy or ignorance, but all told it was disappointing.  (Curiously, the issue was raised vis-a-vis Mirv, but to little effect.)  Of course, this makes me want less to "work within the system", so to speak.

 * I can't blame you for wanting to have no part of the Kevehs/anarchism dispute (I am also less involved now, as it has attracted a large number of editors now who seem to be hashing things out alright). I merely wanted to contextualize the familiarness of Kev's accusations.

 * Thanks again for all the time you've put into this. Sorry this reply was so long; I tried to be as brief as possible, but you raised many good points. VV 22:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172
my reasoning had 0% to do w how 172 and VV got along. 172 has been abusive to me personally, and to those around me, and behaved badly generally. I hardly know VV. If their getting along, thats great, but what confidence do I have of 172 not continueing to do what he has always done (check out his history). Sam [Spade] 04:01, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Your right, my complaint will be lost in the shuffle. Prob for the best, I've decided 172 is a worthwhile editor despite his negative aspects. Hopefully he learns and grows from these hassles. As far as the larouche thing, the fact I have no POV (and basically no previous knowledge of the man) helps a bit. See ya round, Sam [Spade] 04:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Hello, Michael! Just a quick note to let you know how much I appreciated your vote in my favour in last week's sysop poll. Wikipedia is a project to which I've given my heart and soul, and have a great vision for its future. I'm so glad to be a part of it, and your vote meant a lot to me. David Cannon 10:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent nomination to become an administrator. I really appreciate it. blankfaze | •• | •• 14:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Troll feeding
I presume you want more than a rhetorical answer to that question. I feel that as a senior admin he should be setting a better example. As I said to UC, the options I see for him on the user page issue are:

1. Do nothing, unless the users compromises the content or makes personal attacks etc. The annoying user page stays the way it is, hardly anyone sees it. It falls to obscurity.

2. Enter into an edit war over the contents, blanking it, arguing with the user over it, stirring up a hornets nest in areas with at best unclear (I think the policy is clear, and this is in breach, but whatever) policy. Probably at some stage the user will respond by blanking Heph's page (something that seems a frequent occurance). By choosing this fight, Heph is encouraging trolling. Bans and blocks are not effective, they are easy to circumvent. A cursory glance at Heph's userpage history shows this. By choosing to fight this in this way, he has already lost, since he is giving oxygen to a fight he can't 'win'.

Any serious advice you have on this would be welcome. Thanks, Mark Richards 18:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your comments. I do think about it quite a lot, and I think the vicious cycle thing that you pointed out is pretty interesting. I guess my principle in getting involved is to try to reduce the number of harmful actions (vandalism, banning, trolling) by lowering the heat. Ok, the heat is between Heph and I right now, but we can both handle that, I mean the heat between sysops and non-sysops, which I see as a crucial point of friction right now, and the cause of much vandalism and trolling. I actually believe much of it arises from frustration at what people see as unaccountable admin action. Since there is no legitimate route to express that, it comes out as vandalism and trolling.
 * You're right, Heph and I need to find a more productive way to deal with our disagreements, do you have any ideas? Do you agree with the vicious cycle analysis? Mark Richards 21:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, you might be right technically, but in the past Heph has never responded to requests to explain what he is doing except with insults. He has not responded to the question on the talk page about the protection either. There are two sides to that, and there has to be some willingness from both sides to use dispute resolution. I honestly don't believe that Heph thinks he should have to explain or resolve anything. The fact that he is who he is is enough to justify it.
 * I am not suggesting that anyone be demoted, simply that established policy be followed, and, if it is insufficient for the task, the community craft policy that is appropriate. I feel that the burden of explanation should be on the person acting outside of policy, not on those trying to hold them accountable to what the community has decided.
 * With regard to unblocking policy, it certainly advises that it should be discussed beforehand, but if honest attempts to discuss it have been met with repeated rebutal, I don't think there is much alternative but to act according to ones conscience. Mark Richards 23:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You have, from what I've seen, only discussed the matter with Hephaestos directly before acting. I too wish he would be less dismissive of your concerns. But that's why my suggestion was to involve other people. They would be able to bring pressure to bear if correction is needed, or give you someone else's perspective on why it is not. Hephaestos already has voices around him that support his actions, which is probably why he's not inclined to explain himself very much. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have that. --Michael Snow 23:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For sure we have the usual suspects weighing in with go get em, who cares about policy if you're fighting the good fight. There is definately a vocal minority who are very outspoken and aggressive about that. I disagree that there are no voices supporting my actions. There is a considerable climate of fear around speaking out against Heph, I have had a couple of emails from people who are supportive, but do not wish to say so on the web site. There is a definate need to be seen to be 'tough on trolls' even at the expense on what the community has agreed on.

I have raised the issue with other people in several places, with significant agreement, here, here, and here.

Also, see the poll about 'obvious trolling' []. While there is a majority in support of the motion, most of those have conditions that would cripple the poll and not support Heph's actions, while at least 1/3 are actively opposed. Hardly a clear concensus. The community is obviously divided on the issue, and the last thing that is needed is for one person to press on boldly with their agenda in the face of hugely divided opinion. Mark Richards 00:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well for sure, I was simply saying that I do not feel that it is a one-man crusade. If I felt so, I would probably shut up and get over it. Mark Richards 01:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee
I am not proposing dissolving the arbitration committee because I don't want an arbitration committee. If the arbitration committee were dissolved, I think the community would be forced to replace it, and hopefully it would be replaced with a more effective and positive force. I have a couple of policy proposals I am hammering out at User:Hcheney/Govern, if you would be interested in looking at them. --H. C HENEY 02:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * My proposal incorporates the progressive era concepts of reformed state and local government with European style parlimentarianism. Consolidating power consolidates responisblity, allowing for voters to "fire" a poorly performing policy apparatus in one clean sweep (since the members serve for short concurrent terms). Assuming the method of election is either STV or cumulative voting, we will have a very representative body, probably including a troll or troll-cheerleader. If the community makes the fatal mistake of using approval voting, disapproval voting, or a variation of first past the post, we will have a very bland homogeneous committee. Since the committee should need a 2/3 majority to pass any resolution, almost all resolutions that pass would have broad based community support or there would be a ballot box coup in short order.

 * Furthermore, I don't think the "judicial branch" should be directly elected... I can imagine the campaign promises "If elected I will vote to hard-ban User:X"... not very pragmatic or just. Since it would be fundamentally undemocratic to let Jimbo appoint AC members forever, they need to be appoint from somewhere - why not by an elected body?

 * Being an observer of history, I realize that the consensus based and ineffective Articles of Confederation could not be reformed from within. What was needed then, and is needed now, was a complete reestablishment of authority. However, considering the views of the community, I doubt that we will move away from consensus decision making, which is why I suggested that the resolution be voted on twice... before and after the community comments on the resolution. An astoute elected Wikipedian would never vote for a resolution that lacks a community consensus. --H. C HENEY 05:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

24
Thanks for the clarification - I'm still not clear how people know, given that I can't see anything that this user has actually done (ie threats, personal attacks, vandalism etc). It appears to be based entirely on some material posted on the userpage, which is apparently similar to some material that this other user(s?) wrote. I would like to wait until the user does something questionable, or make clear what text is banned before the fact. Mark Richards 22:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality admin poll
Hello, I didn't see the fuss about my vote until just now. Since it's closed now I have responded here and here. pir 11:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Belated thanks for helping to scrap the arbitration matter. 172 06:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Principles of Definition
How come you deleted the entire article? Was there a vote? I have noticed that many people do not know how to define and I find it interesting that you, a public school teacher, would delete information that many people do not know about. That info you deleted might be able to teach someone to do a job better. Don't you think that the principles of definition is important for many people to learn about?WHEELER 15:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the welcome and advice. I have indeed tossed my hat into the ring -- would you mind terribly looking over my statement and giving me some thoughts? I wrote it in some haste (I can't figure out when the deadline is for filing), and if I have the opportunity to tweak it a little, I think I will. If you notice any phrases that seem really obscure or confused, I'd appreciate knowing. :-) Thanks for the encouragement to run -- I hope you will consider it also, although certainly there are a number of qualified candidates already, as you have a level head, a wise approach to disputes, and the right perspective, I think. Jwrosenzweig 20:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice, thank you! I did like the phrase on literary merits, as you noted, but have made it more clear, given the intended purpose.  And now I think I'll sit back and let the chips fall where they may.  I'm not desperate for the role, but given the encouragement of many others, and my own natural inclinations, I hope to win, just to see how it goes.  Who knows, after 6 months I may find it's not for me. :-)  Anyhow, we shall see what we shall see.  Thanks again for your advice. Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks
Many many thanks for your point out my error on Arbitration Committee - oops! :-) I've fixed it now.

Thanks again.

James F. (talk) 23:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

adminship stuff
Yes, I think it would be a bad idea to nominate me in the midst of the current events... it would look like a counter-nomination, which would leave a bad taste in my mouth, let alone what other people might think.

I don't have any particularly strong desire to become an administrator on Wikipedia. I've noticed the occasional benefit in being able to revert abuse faster or delete pages (usually to facilitate renaming), but it's nothing particularly fancy, and nothing I can't get a friendly person in #wikipedia to tend to when necessary. I'll continue with my moderate temperament and levelheadedness with or without administrator rights. These traits don't need to be restricted to admins, in fact it would be best if they weren't :)

Thanks for your kind words in any event, it's a nice thing to have people notice you. --Shallot 20:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I have to say that I completely understand what you're saying. I just want to avoid any sort of controversy regarding me being an admin or not. If you can make it happen without stirring any trouble, that's good. If not, it's still good. :) --Shallot 20:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You asked after Perl - here's the Wikipedia Maori list of admins for you to explore from. (You could also reach it from his English Userpage.) We don't need many admins over there for the current amount of contribution! Robin Patterson 20:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My gender confusion
D'oh! :-) Thanks for catching it -- I shouldn't have trusted my assumption about "Kim".  You'd think the nominator would take a little more care... ah well, I grin sheepishly.  Nice nomination of DropDeadGorgias, by the way -- don't know how I missed that he/she/they was/were not an admin. :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, saved my life there! Kim Bruning 21:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It's all very sound and I'll try to take each point into consideration. 172 19:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Harding University

Harding University is a Christian private university with its main campus in Searcy, Arkansas. It is the largest private university in Arkansas. Established in 1924, the institution offers undergraduate, graduate, and pre-professional programs. The university also includes the Harding School of Theology, located in Memphis, Tennessee, which was formerly known as Harding Graduate School of Religion. Harding is one of several institutions of higher learning associated with the Churches of Christ.

Foundation
Harding College was founded in Morrilton, Arkansas, in April 1924 after the merging of two separate colleges: Arkansas Christian College of Morrilton, Arkansas, and Harper College of Harper, Kansas. It was named after James A. Harding, a minister and educator associated with Churches of Christ.

After Galloway Female College merged with Hendrix College in 1933, Harding College purchased Galloway's Searcy, Arkansas campus for a fraction of its estimated value and moved there in 1934.

Cold War
Harding University first advocated pacifism and political disengagement, in line with its own founding influences like James A. Harding and David Lipscomb as well as with wider trends in many other evangelical Christian movements during late 19th- and early 20th-century America. This trajectory shifted during the Cold War, however. Harding became involved in the production of a series of animated cartoons extolling the virtues of free-market capitalism. This series, including "Make Mine Freedom" (1948) as well as "Meet King Joe" (1949), were all produced by John Sutherland Productions as part of a concerted campaign to fight against the threats of communism at the beginning of the Cold War using popular media. Funding came from Alfred P. Sloan, the major figure at General Motors Corporation. The animations contrast mainstream American values with the values of Soviet communism. The initiative represented a central concern of Harding president George S. Benson, who believed that fighting socialism was a moral imperative.

National Education Program
Early in his career, President Benson established the National Education Program to advocate the principles of belief in God, the constitution, and free enterprise, within an "Americanism" program. The NEP coordinated speaking engagements and produced and distributed reprints of Benson's speeches and newspaper columns, short films by a former Walt Disney employee, and other media. This program attracted many donations to Harding, including from Boeing and Gulf Oil. The NEP was initially part of the school's education department, and later the history department, where it was intertwined with the American Studies Program. Clifton Ganus Jr. and James D. Bales were also heavily involved.

NEP materials were used nationwide by groups such as the U.S. armed forces, public schools, colleges and universities, chapters of the American Legion, and local chambers of commerce. Some uses became controversial: Some companies required their employees to attend NEP-sponsored seminars and enclosed copies of Benson's lectures with their paychecks in hopes of addressing perceived restlessness. The Fulbright Memorandum of June 1961 raised concerns about use of NEP materials in the military. The NEP was charged with being a "Radical Right" organization in the 1964 book Danger on the Right, which Bales responded to in his 1965 book Americanism under Fire. The close relationship between Harding and the NEP delayed the college's accreditation until 1954 when the school incorporated it as a separate entity, although Benson, Ganus, and Bales continued their involvement and the NEP board was nearly identical to the college's. In the 1970s, the program dwindled in notoriety and moved to Oklahoma Christian College. The American Studies Institute continues as a legacy of this program.

Segregation
During segregation in the United States, the school remained racially segregated for most of the tenure of president George S. Benson, who defended Harding's delay in integrating. Benson believed Black people were inferior because they fell under the Curse of Ham. In 1957, student body president Bill Floyd circulated a "statement of attitude" that Harding was ready to integrate, and it was signed by over 75% of the students, faculty, and staff of the college. In response Benson made an address entitled titled "Harding College and the Colored Problem", in which he put down the idea of integration as youthful idealism, and insisted that students should defer to the judgment of older people with more experience, such as the Harding board of trustees. He went further, stating that Black people were far better off in the US than in other countries, and that integration would result in destruction of property, the spread of venereal diseases, and increased pregnancies. He also stated that mixed marriages would lead to broken homes and a rise in crime. Benson maintained that mixing of the races was against the divine order. In 1953, Norman Adamson became the first black person accepted to Harding. However, when administrators learned he was black he was denied admission.

In 1963, three black students were admitted to the Searcy campus, making Harding the second private institution in Arkansas to admit black people. In a 2012 article, it was suggested that this decision was motivated by expectation that the coming Civil Rights Act would require "Harding to desegregate to continue receiving federal funds", but contemporary sources make no mention of this as a consideration: The Gazette applauded Harding's "voluntary action" as an "example" for other Arkansas church-related colleges and deserving an "ovation...for the grace with which they have undertaken this social change". The Bison proclaimed "Benson's leadership in the movement for equal opportunity makes us proud, even boastful; it makes us happy, even ecstatic", though at least one scholar viewed that statement "dubiously".

By 1969 Harding had only 20 black students out of a student body of over 2,000. While President Clifton L. Ganus, Jr, stated that he did not "see any Biblical injunction against it", he discouraged interracial relationships. Under his leadership, the Harding administration allowed students to enter into interracial relationships, but made it policy to caution them against it and informed their parents in writing. The policy of allowing such relationships was the focus of much anger from the families of some white students. In 1969, three black students who protested racism at the university were expelled. In 1969, Ganus attempted to placate students by promising to hire 'Negro' teachers, but this never transpired.

Since the Civil Rights Era
In 1980, Richard King became the first African-American faculty member. In the fall of 2019, white students constituted 81 percent of the student body, 4.7% were black students, and 3.8% were Hispanic/Latino.

Botham Jean and the Benson Auditorium
In 2020, a former graduate organized a petition drive to rename the Benson auditorium because of Benson's racist views. The petition also asked that the auditorium carry the name of Botham Jean instead, a recent Black alumnus who had been murdered in his own apartment by a white Dallas police officer who alleged she had confused their apartments and mistaken the 26-year-old for a burglar.

Upon review, but against the wishes of the Black Student Association, the university, under the leadership of Bruce McLarty, defended Benson and chose to retain the name. However, President McLarty recognized the university had no buildings or landmarks on campus that recognized Black Alumni and promised some sort of memorial to Botham Jean within a year.

Facing this controversy and a 23% decline in enrollment over 5 years, the board dismissed McLarty, with former president David Burks resuming control. Dr. Michael D. Williams became president June 2022.

Searcy
The Searcy campus comprises 48 buildings located on 350 acre near the center of Searcy. The campus lies roughly between Race Avenue and Beebe-Capps Expressway and includes several other minor thoroughfares, the campus of Harding Academy, Harding Place (a retirement community), and portions of surrounding neighborhoods.

The campus includes the George S. Benson Auditorium, which sits facing the McInteer Bible and World Missions Center. Brackett Library, the American Studies Building (Education and English departments), the David B. Burks American Heritage Building (hotel and offices), Pattie Cobb Hall, and the Administration Building frame a grassy central commons area upon which can be found several paths, a fountain, and a bell tower made out of bricks from the institution that once stood there: Galloway Female College.

Recent additions have included several dormitories; expansions of the cafeteria, student center, art department, and the David B. Burks American Heritage Building. The McInteer Bible and World Missions Center, was built in a project that included closing a road and creating a pedestrian mall.

After competing in the Ganus Athletic Center from 1976 until 2006, Harding's volleyball and basketball teams moved back to the Rhodes-Reaves Field House. The field house is a round-topped airplane hangar built for France in WWII, and purchased as war surplus by George S. Benson. It was reconstructed on campus in 1947. In 2007 it was retrofitted to accentuate the already deafening acoustics of the facility, working to the advantage of the home teams and earning Harding the title of "Best Road Trip Destination in College Basketball." The campus also has intramural sports facilities, including an indoor facility built for the Harding Bison football team in 2019.

Noteworthy buildings
The Dean L.C. Sears House, named for the first dean of Harding University, was a historic house registered in the National Register of Historic Places. Also on the registry is Pattie Cobb Hall.

The Reynolds Center was created through and named for philanthropist Donald W. Reynolds.

Satellite campuses and campuses abroad
The university maintains satellite campuses in Arkansas, one in North Little Rock and a second in Rogers.

Harding maintains permanent campuses in Florence and Athens. Study abroad semester programs are also provided in Brisbane, London, Paris, Arequipa (Peru), and Kalomo (Zambia).

Organization
Structurally, the university comprises nine separate colleges: the College of Allied Health, the College of Arts & Humanities, the College of Bible & Ministry, the Paul R. Carter College of Business Administration, the Cannon-Clary College of Education, the Carr College of Nursing, the College of Pharmacy, the College of Sciences, and the Honors College. Each college then has its own subdivisions of departments or other sections. The university also has a School of Theology in Memphis. Between these nine colleges, the university provides ninety-seven majors, ten undergraduate degrees, fourteen pre-professional programs, and twenty-one graduate and professional degrees.

American Studies Institute
In 1953, Harding established the School of American Studies as an extension of President Benson's National Education Program in order to teach and train students in the founding principles of the United States Constitution. Rebranded the American Studies Institute (ASI), the center supplements students' academic training and promotes "a complete understanding of the institutions, values, and ideas of liberty and democracy." In doing so, the ASI exhibits a generally conservative political stance, focused on going "back to the fundamental values that made this country great."

Distinctions and rankings
Harding supports a chapter of Kappa Omicron Nu, a national honor society for colleges and universities with a strong humanities program. The university was distinguished through the National Historic Chemical Landmarks program of the American Chemical Society for its contribution to the history of chemistry, which came for its William-Miles History of Chemistry Collection, established in 1992.

Harding University was listed among the Top Twenty Schools nationwide by the Wall Street Journal and Times Higher Education under two different categories in 2017: student engagement and student inspiration. Harding consistently ranks in the Top 50 for Best Regional Universities in the South according to the U.S. News & World Report. In 2020, it ranked #349 among national universities overall. It was also rated at B by the American rankings and review company Niche.

Harding is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. Specific colleges and programs have received further accreditation by specialized agencies as well.

Athletics
Harding has competed in the NCAA at the Division II level since 1997, beginning in the Lone Star Conference moving in 2000 to the Gulf South Conference and then moving to the newly formed Great American Conference (GAC) in 2011. Men's sports include Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Cross Country, Football, Golf, Tennis, and Track and Field. Women's sports include Basketball, Cheerleading, Cross Country, Golf, Soccer, Softball, Tennis, Track and Field, and Volleyball.

The facilities for the sporting events are: First Security Stadium, Ganus Activities Complex, Stevens Soccer Complex, Jerry Moore Field (baseball), Berry Family Grandstand (softball), Harding Tennis Complex, and the Rhodes-Reaves Field House. On October 19, 2019, the new indoor football facility was dedicated in honor of longtime football head coach Ronnie Huckeba. The Huckeba Field House is the largest indoor practice facility in NCAA Division II and one of the largest in the country for any level. Harding won the Division II national championship in football in 2023.

Music
Harding has long cultivated a strong tradition of vocal performance. One student group featured as the spokespeople of Pepsi. Another provided vocals for Dolly Parton's album For God and Country.

Spring Sing
Spring Sing is an annual musical production held during Easter Weekend, featuring performances by the social clubs. It is widely attended by current and prospective students, alumni, and Searcy residents. An estimated 12,000 people attended the show each year. Each year, an overall theme is selected, and each club develops music and choreographed routines for the show. Rehearsals begin as early as January. Spring Sing also typically features two hosts, two hostesses, and a general song and choreography ensemble, with these roles chosen by audition. The ensemble performs to music played by the University Jazz Band. Each club act is judged and, according to their performance, awarded a certain sum of money. The clubs then donate this money to charities of their choice.

Student-run media
The Department of Communications runs the state radio station KVHU.

Alongside publications of the university itself, such as the alumni newsletter Harding Magazine and the yearbook The Petit Jean, students produce their own periodical during the academic year called The Bison. This student-run publication is printed in nine issues per semester and made available through its multimedia website The Link.

In 2011 a group of LGBTQ students at Harding, known as "HU Queer Press" produced a Zine called "State of the Gay," whose website was blocked by the university. A statement from university officials at the time said that "university administrators felt that having this website available on campus goes against [our] mission and policies." President David Burks called the publication ""offensive and degrading."   As a result of this decision by the administration, the controversy received attention from national newspapers like The New York Times, The New Yorker, and online platforms like Jezebel (website), and The Huffington Post.

In 2018, HU Queer Press 2.0 was launched, with members producing a zine titled "Hear Queer Voices" aiming to "foster a relationship between Harding University and the queer community." In April 2022, HU Queer Press 3.0 was announced, with members releasing a zine titled "Look Around," requesting "that Harding University fully acknowledge, affirm, and protect its LGBT students."

Social Clubs
The university sponsors student-led "social clubs" that serve a similar social networking function to the Greek system, as Harding prohibits formation of local chapters of national social fraternities and sororities. (One exception is Delta Phi, a chapter of Pi Sigma Epsilon). Currently there are 14 women's social clubs and 15 men's social clubs at Harding.

Most of these organizations have adopted Greek letter names that are similar to national fraternity and sorority names. Social clubs are open to all academically eligible students and serve as some of the university's most visible student-led organizations. The clubs are a prominent part of student life with slightly more than half of all undergraduate students participating as social club members.

The social club induction process begins when clubs host "receptions" in the fall to recruit new members. The membership process culminates in Club Week, when each prospective member bonds with the other members of the club through a series of scheduled activities throughout the week. Once a student is accepted into the club, they attend biweekly meetings and can participate in club-sponsored sports, service projects, and Spring Sing.

Hazing controversy
Harding's social clubs have been involved in hazing controversies over the years. As a result, some have been forced to disband, including the Seminoles (2010), Kappa Sigma Kappa (2005), Mohicans (1981), and most recently Pi Kappa Epsilon (2015).

Religious conduct and policies
Students at Harding University are expected to maintain the highest standards of Christian morality, integrity, orderliness and personal honor. Harding reserves the right to refuse admittance or dismiss any student whose lifestyle is not consistent with the Christian principles that Harding represents.

Employment
The Faculty Handbook, with narrow exceptions, requires Churches of Christ membership of all faculty members. All faculty members must affirm as part of an annual evaluation that he or she is a member in good standing of a Church of Christ and attends services weekly.

Chapel and Bible classes
The university specifies that daily chapel service be held with attendance mandatory for undergraduate students. Chapel programs are "designed to stimulate intellectual, religious, social or aesthetic development," in accordance with the university's mission of combining " faith, learning and living." Excessive absences from daily chapel service may result in disciplinary action.

Harding requires each student enrolled in nine or more hours to regularly attend one Bible class that meets at least three hours a week each semester. Attendance is mandatory, and nonattendance may result in suspension from the university. The university requires students and faculty to dress professionally when attending class, chapel, lyceum, and American Studies programs.

Alcohol and substance use
The consumption, possession or storage of alcoholic beverages of any kind is prohibited at Harding University. This prohibition includes on-campus or off-campus locations. Violation of this policy will result in suspension from the university. White County, Arkansas, where Harding is located, is a Dry county. The use of nicotine in any form is not permitted at any time, including use of electronic cigarettes or vaporizers. Harding also forbids the use, possession, distribution, or sale of drugs or drug-related paraphernalia.

Student living
Single undergraduate students, under the age of 22, are required to live on campus, with limited exceptions. Visiting in the residence of a single member of the opposite sex, even though others are present, without permission from a student life dean, is prohibited. Staying overnight in a residence, motel, hotel, or any such arrangement with a member of the opposite sex, without permission from a student life dean, will result in suspension, although explicit sexual immorality may not have been observed.

Students are not to visit "inappropriate" places of entertainment such as dance clubs or bars. Students are not allowed to participate in suggestive or social dancing.

All-campus curfew is from 12:00 a.m. until 5 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m. until 5 a.m. Friday and Saturday. No activity may take place on campus during all-campus curfew.

Sex and gender
Harding explicitly regulates sexual relationships among students and staff. The university explicitly prohibits premarital, extramarital, and homosexual sex.

According to the university's student handbook: "Harding University holds to the biblical principle that God instituted marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman and that gender identity is given by God and revealed in one's birth sex. Students are prohibited from being married to or dating a person of the same sex. Neither may students engage in behavior suggesting a romantic relationship with a person of the same sex. The University further holds to the biblical principle that sexual relationships outside the context of marriage are unacceptable to God and immoral. Sexual immorality in any form will result in suspension from the University." Harding also forbids the "unwelcome or inappropriate emphasizing of sexual identity."

In 2017, it was granted an exception to Title IX, which allows for legal discrimination against LGBTQ+ students on religious grounds. Harding has been listed among the "Absolute Worst Campuses for LGBTQ Youth" in the US by Campus Pride.

Notable faculty, current and former

 * Carl Allison, football and baseball coach
 * Stanley Jennings Carpenter, Medical Entomologist, U.S. Army Colonel
 * James W. Carr, professor of business and member of the National Security Education Board
 * James Burton Coffman, preacher, author
 * James Dickey, basketball coach. Played and coached at Harding.
 * Ronnie Huckeba, football coach
 * Paul Fiser, football coach
 * Jack P. Lewis, theologian
 * John Robert McRay, biblical scholar
 * Michael A. O'Donnell, psychologist
 * Thomas H. Olbricht, biblical scholar
 * Carroll D. Osburn, theologian and noted biblical scholar
 * John Prock, football coach
 * Cheri Yecke, educator and civil servant in the Bush administration

Presidents

 * J.N. Armstrong (1924–1936)
 * George S. Benson (1936–1965)
 * Clifton L. Ganus Jr. (1965–1987)
 * David Burks (1987–2013)
 * Bruce McLarty (2013–2020)
 * David Burks (2020-2022)
 * Mike Williams (2022–present)

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

title: Harding University


text:
User talk:Polynova

'''Note: My user name has changed. Please use my new talk page instead: User talk:D Monack.'''

Unspecified source for Image:ReaganBldg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ReaganBldg.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MMM-DVD.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MMM-DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:DinerDVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DinerDVD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Polynova! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Todd Stottlemyre -

Italo Calvino/Italian Folktales listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Italo Calvino/Italian Folktales. Since you had some involvement with the Italo Calvino/Italian Folktales redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Interior Department listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Interior Department. Since you had some involvement with the Interior Department redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Polynova


text:
Lifesaving Medal

The Gold Lifesaving Medal and Silver Lifesaving Medal are U.S. decorations issued by the United States Coast Guard. The awards were established by Act of Congress, 20 June 1874; later authorized by. These decorations are two of the oldest medals in the United States and were originally established at the Department of Treasury as Lifesaving Medals First and Second Class. The Department of the Treasury initially gave the award, but today the United States Coast Guard awards it through the Department of Homeland Security. They are not classified as military decorations, and may be awarded to any person.

History
A British Sea Gallantry Medal for saving life was authorized in 1854. Twenty years later in the United States the Gold and Silver Lifesaving Medals were first authorized in an Act (18 Stat 125, 43rd Congress) that furthered the United States Life-Saving Service. The Secretary of the Treasury was directed, among other provisions of the act, to create "medals of honor", to be distinguished as life-saving medals of the first and second class, and bestow them upon any persons who endanger their own lives in saving, or endeavoring to save lives from perils of the sea, within the United States, or upon any American vessel.

The Lifesaving Medals have had multiple designs in their history.

 * The original LS-5 design in 1874 was "non-portable" and could not be worn by the recipient, but rather displayed much like a trophy. It contained 11 oz of gold.
 * In 1877, the diameter was reduced from 76 mm to 50 mm, while the gold content was dropped to 3 oz to create the LS-7 design.
 * In 1882 the design was changed again so that the medal was suspended from a two inch wide ribbon. The ribbon was red for the Gold Lifesaving Medal and light blue for the Silver Lifesaving medal.
 * Finally on 4 August 1949 the medals and ribbons were reduced in size so that they were more proportionate to medals awarded by the U.S. Armed Forces. The ribbons were also redesigned to have multiple colors.

The laws governing the awarding of medal were amended over the years, and is currently awarded by the US Coast Guard. The Commandant of the Coast Guard makes the final determination in authorizing the award, but the Lifesaving Medals are not military awards, per se, and instead are "Federal Agency personal decorations" of the Department of Homeland Security and as such may be awarded to not only military members, but also civilians.

"The Gold Lifesaving Medal or the Silver Lifesaving Medal may be awarded to any person who rescues or endeavors to rescue any other person from drowning, shipwreck, or other perils of the water. The rescue or attempted rescue must either take place in waters within the U.S. or subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or one or the other of the parties must be a citizen of the U.S. or from a vessel or aircraft owned or operated by citizens of the U.S."

The Lifesaving Medal is issued in two grades, being gold and silver. "The Gold Lifesaving Medal may be awarded to an individual who performed a rescue or attempted rescue at the risk of his or her own life, and demonstrates extreme and heroic daring. The Silver Lifesaving Medal may be awarded to an individual who performed a rescue or attempted rescue where the circumstances do not sufficiently distinguish the individual to deserve the medal of gold, but demonstrate such extraordinary effort as to merit recognition. If neither the Gold nor Silver Lifesaving Medal is appropriate, then a Certificate of Valor or an appropriate Coast Guard Public Service Award may be considered."

Until the mid-20th century, the Lifesaving Medal was often bestowed upon members of the military; however in recent times the decoration has become somewhat rare. This is due primarily to the creation of a variety of additional military decorations that supplant the Lifesaving Medal. The United States Navy often issues the Navy and Marine Corps Medal, instead of the Lifesaving Medal, for sea rescues involving risk of life. "Military personnel serving on active duty would normally not be recommended for Gold and Silver Lifesaving Medals; however, military personnel may be recommended for a Lifesaving Medal if the act of heroism was performed while the individual was in a leave or liberty status. In all other circumstances, a military award should be considered." While the Lifesaving Medals may be proffered to, and accepted by, DoD personnel, the Medals are no longer authorized for wear on U.S. military uniforms of the DoD Services (Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, Space Force). Such awards may become part of service records, and used for other purposes, however.

The US Coast Guard, while an armed force and military service at all times, normally is part of the Department of Homeland Security. As such, awards of the DHS may be bestowed directly upon civilians, including US Coast Guard civilian employees and contractors, while recommendations for award of the Lifesaving Medals to US military members will be coordinated with the servicemembers' parent Service; this provides not only notification to the relevant military commanders that their servicemember(s) were involved in a lifesaving event, but allows the opportunity for that commander to award a Service decoration such as the Soldier's Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Medal, Airman's Medal, or Coast Guard Medal, instead of the DHS-awarded Lifesaving Medals. Within the Coast Guard, as a non-DoD agency, the gold medal's precedence for wear is immediately following the Coast Guard Medal, while the silver medal's precedence for wear is immediately following the Air Medal. However, the appropriate precedence for display—but not wear—of the Lifesaving Medals in other Services is among the category of "Federal Agency personal decorations," directly below the Prisoner of War Medal.

The Lifesaving Medal is unusual among U.S. medals because it is actually struck from the eponymous precious metal, silver or gold.

Multiple awards of the Lifesaving Medal are denoted by award stars on the decoration's ribbon and a gold clasp, inscribed with the recipient's name, is worn on the actual medal.

Since 1874, more than 600 Gold Lifesaving Medals and more than 1,900 Silver Lifesaving Medals have been awarded.

Gold Medal

 * MSgt Rodney Buentello, USMC (Retired), sacrificed his life rescuing two teens from the Medina River in Texas on June 8, 2016. Medal posthumously Awarded, August 1, 2017.
 * William Babb, for the 1885 rescue of the American schooner A.C. Maxwell.
 * Lieutenant Luke Christopher, USCG (posthumously) for the rescue of Seaman John Barrina from the SS Charles G. Black on 5 December 1936. Christopher was stationed at Coast Guard Air Station Cape May. While airlifting Barrina to the hospital, one of the pontoons on the Douglas RD-2 Dolphin named Adhara caught a stray fishing net and crashed at sea. Christopher survived the initial crash but succumbed to his wounds shortly after.
 * Benjamin Dailey, keeper of the Cape Hatteras Lifeboat Station, led the rescue of the crew of the Ephraim Williams.
 * Daniel Miller, for saving lives from the wreck of the steamship H.C. Akeley on Nov. 13, 1883 in Lake Michigan, near Grand Haven, Michigan. Miller was the first mate of The Driver when the rescue took place.
 * Richard Etheridge, Benjamin Bowser, Dorman Pugh, Theodore Meekins, Lewis Wescott, Stanley Wise, and William Irving of the Pea Island Life-Saving Station, for rescue of the crew from the E.S. Newman on 11 October 1896. Awarded gold medals posthumously on 5 March 1996.
 * George Freeth, a swimming instructor, lifeguard, and surfer who rescued seven fishermen off Venice Beach during a winter storm in December 1908.
 * Vice Admiral Harry G. Hamlet, U.S. Coast Guard – While in command of USS Marietta in the Bay of Biscay on 28 April 1919, rescued a crew of 47 persons from the sinking USS James
 * Sergeant Marcus Hanna (lighthouse keeper) – Only person to receive both the Medal of Honor and the Gold Lifesaving Medal.
 * Joshua James, USLSS – Legendary lifesaver.
 * Jonas Johns - Native American who rescued the 14-man crew of the schooner Lily Grace wrecked near Gray's Harbor, Washington in January 1887 and a year later rescued 3 more sailors. Medal awarded on 9 December 1889.
 * James Larsin, fisherman and Wisconsin state legislator.
 * Ida Lewis, lighthouse keeper and first female recipient.
 * Surfman Isaac Mayo, USLSS
 * Chief Warrant Officer John Allen Midgett Jr., USCG
 * Surfman Rasmus Midgett, USLSS
 * Captain Henry C. Mustin, USN - Naval aviation pioneer.
 * Commander Glenn L. Rollins, USCG - Led effort to rescue 18 sailors stranded in Alaska in 1938.
 * Augustus Butler Rowland (1903–1972), Aviation Machinists Mate First Class, presented by President Calvin Coolidge, for saving a shipmate in the crash of an F-5-L "flying boat" seaplane near Pensacola, Florida on Jan 21, 1925.
 * Sheppard Shreaves, civilian diver who rescued Torpedoman 2nd Class Henry Breault, who later received the Medal of Honor, during the salvage of the submarine USS O-5
 * Lenny Skutnik - Federal employee who rescued a passenger of Air Florida Flight 90 at the risk of his own life.
 * Arland D. Williams, Jr. - Passenger on ill fated Air Florida Flight 90.
 * Boatswain's Mate First Class Bernard C. Webber, USCG; EN3 Andrew Fitzgerald, USCG; SN Richard Livesey, USCG; and SN Irving Maske, USCG, all stationed at Coast Guard Station Chatham, Massachusetts, for the rescue of 32 crewmen of the T2 tanker SS Pendleton on 18 February 1952. This rescue is depicted in the 2016 movie The Finest Hours.
 * Rear Admiral Lucien Young, USN, veteran of the Spanish–American War. Received for actions while an Ensign on 12 June 1878.

Silver Medal

 * Captain Richard L. Burke, USCG, Coast Guard aviation pioneer.
 * Rear Admiral Richard Evelyn Byrd, USN – Organized, led and flew on first flights over the North Pole and South Pole.
 * Floyd William Carlson, Chief Test Pilot, Bell Aircraft Corporation, rescued two fishermen marooned on crumbling ice two miles out in Lake Erie in March 1945. This was the first time a helicopter was used for rescue purposes.
 * George D. Cobb, Assistant Keeper of the Oakland Harbor lighthouse, for saving two men whose sailboat capsized on 26 December 1896.
 * Major General Byron F. Johnson, USMC - Rescued a man from drowning near San Diego in 1929.
 * Vice Admiral Charles E. Larkin, USCG
 * Mary McCann, a 14 year old Irish girl who rescued survivors of the PS General Slocum disaster in 1904.
 * Rear Admiral William A. Moffett, USN - Medal of Honor recipient.
 * Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN – Commander of the Pacific Fleet during World War II. For rescuing a drowning sailor.
 * General George S. Patton, USA – Commander of Third United States Army.
 * Major General Robert L. Spragins.
 * Vice Admiral Joseph K. Taussig, Jr., USN.
 * Colonel Frank Tompkins, career Army officer and recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross.
 * Master Henry F. Page, age ten. Rescued another boy in Shenevus, New York on 8 August 1887.
 * Miss Marie D. Parsons, age ten. She rescued a man and his seven-year-old daughter on 7 July 1883 in Gardiners Bay off Long Island, New York.
 * Emlen Tunnell, National Football League Hall of Fame member (who played for New York Giants and Green Bay Packers American Football Teams) posthumously awarded, in 2011, for heroic actions saving two fellow members of the Coast Guard during World War 2
 * Bobby Brown- third baseman, baseball executive and cardiologist
 * Jennifer A. Williamson - USCG Boatswain’s Mate Second Class - 23 May 2021

Other awardees

 * Lucien M. Clemons, 19 June 1876.
 * Hubbard M. Celmons, 19 June 1876.
 * A.J. Celmons, 19 June 1876.
 * Volunteer crews of the Liverpool and New Brighton lifeboats following wrecking of the Ellen Southard near Liverpool, England, 1877
 * J. Schuyler Crosby, 8 June 1877.
 * Carl Fosburg, 8 June 1877.
 * Philip C. Bleil, New York City Police Department, 4 January 1878.
 * Seaman Antoine Williams, USN, 13 March 1879.
 * John H. Rapp, 4 March 1882. (Also awarded silver medal.)
 * Cabin Steward Fuji Hachitaro, USN, 5 November 1889.
 * Captain Cameron Kirkconnell, 2008
 * John Lightbourn, 16 September 1919
 * CM2 Thomas T. O'Brien (USN), 14 January 1990, McMurdo Station, Antarctica
 * EO1 Brian Demelo (USN), 14 January 1990, McMurdo Station, Antarctica
 * BM1 Reece Raxter, Silver Lifesaving Medal (awarded 24 Jun 2022)
 * Capt. William Taft Tippett, Ridge, MD, the Silver Lifesaving Medal, authorized by act of Congress, awarded 23 December 1938.

title: Lifesaving Medal


text:
Muhammed Faris

Muhammed Ahmed Faris (محمد أحمد فارس, Muḥammad ʾAḥmad Fāris; 26 May 1951 – 19 April 2024) was a Syrian military aviator and astronaut. He was the first Syrian and the second Arab in space.

Career
Born in Aleppo, Syria, he was a pilot in the Syrian Air Force with the rank of colonel. He specialized in navigation when he was selected to participate in the Intercosmos spaceflight program on 30 September 1985.

Faris flew as Research Cosmonaut in the Interkosmos program on Soyuz TM-3 to the Mir space station in July 1987, spending 7 days, 23 hours, and 5 minutes in space. He returned to Earth aboard Soyuz TM-2.

Faris is credited with carrying the first recorded Earth dirt into space, which was a vial carrying soil from Damascus.

Faris was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union on 30 July 1987; he was also awarded the Order of Lenin.

After his spaceflight, Faris returned to the Syrian Air Force and lived in Aleppo.

Syrian civil war
On 4 August 2012, during the Syrian civil war, Faris defected from Bashar al-Assad's regime and joined the armed opposition.

On 13 September 2012, he had an exclusive interview with Al Aan TV and covered many topics regarding the ongoing civil war in Syria. Faris was also part of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, an anti-Assad grouping.

In a March 2016 interview as a Syrian refugee in Turkey, Faris stated regarding the ongoing civil war: "I tell Europe if you don't want refugees, then you should help us get rid of this regime," adding "I am very sorry about the Russian interference, which has stood on the side of dictator Bashar Assad, and has begun to kill the Syrian people with their planes".

In September 2017, Faris was appointed Defense Minister of the Syrian Interim Government, a self-appointed opposition grouping.

Personal life and death
Faris had five children: four boys and one girl. He fled with his family to Turkey in 2012 and obtained Turkish citizenship in 2020.

After a heart attack in March 2024, he was admitted to Sanko Hospital in the Turkish province of Gaziantep. He died on 19 April 2024 at the age of 72.

title: Muhammed Faris


text:
Talk:Sutherland

Origin of name
My understanding is that the name "Sutherland" comes from it being the land to the South from the Vikings point of view. Anyone have a reference confirming this? Jake 20:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "Nevermind!"? You spotted a bit of missing information, checked it validity and inserted it into the wikipedia. Good on you, I say! --Colin Angus Mackay 21:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems entirely feasible that "Suðrland" actually means sheepland as sauðr means sheep in Old Norse. There are placenames which include the word Souter as being derived from sheep in ON. It would seem more appropriate as a lot of the land in northern Sutherland is only suitable for upland farming with sheep and the Norse had a habit of naming things after what was useful to them. As I understand it, there is actually no references in the Norse sagas that Sutherland means southernland or land to the south, that just seems to be a modern interpretation.92.2.67.218 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Possible, but you would need to provide a reliable source for this. Ben   Mac  Dui  07:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation?
Can we make this a disambiguation page? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, why not. The only headache will be fixing the many pages which already point here. What do you think would be the best name for the existing page to be moved to? — PMcM 21:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sutherland (disambiguation) now exists. Laurel Bush 15:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Cataibh and Gallaibh
Am I right in thinking Gallaibh means land of the foreigner or Norse, while the Cat element of Cataibh is represented as Cait in Caithness? Laurel Bush 09:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC).
 * Gallaibh does mean "land of the foreigner/norse/non-Gaelic speakers" much as the Hebrides are the "isles of the foreigners/norse/non-Gaelic speakers". 132.185.240.121 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Area committee area?
Sutherland is an area-committee area? Not as shown in the map. The committee area is a collection of Highland Council wards and the Tongue and Farr ward includes the village of Reay, which is in the taditional county of Caithness. Laurel Bush 14:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

Committee area seems to be a somewhat emphemeral concept, unlikely to survive long in its current form. I understand these committee areas have no legislative definition and are purely Highland Council inventions, defined in terms of lists of wards. The council can not control the development of ward boundaries and the relevant Boundaries Commision is not constrained to respect committee area boundaries. Boundaries are expected to change dramatically in 2007 (to create new multi-member wards). Therefore committee areas are likely then to have quite different shapes, and perhaps also different names. Laurel Bush 16:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

Name of the peninsula?
Is there a name used to properly designate the peninsula that is composed of Caithness and Sutherland, collectively (≈ north-eastern Highlands region)? //Big Adamsky 11:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Far North appears frequently in The Caithness Courier and The John O'Groat Journal, but that term appears to have no official status. Also, it seems sometimes to mean Caithness and Sutherland and sometimes Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. (See Caithness and Sutherland (UK Parliament constituency), Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (UK Parliament constituency) and Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Scottish Parliament constituency). Collectively, Caithness and Sutherland may represent a Norse/Norwegian perception of the Pictish Kingdom of Cait/Cat. Laurel Bush 12:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

No. It is a bit debateable if it is really a peninsula: far too broad at the "base". Better ask a geographer. The only designation that I am aware of is North-west highlands (see Category:Mountains and hills of the Northwest Highlands), which is used in geology and geography to designate all parts of the mainland north and west of the Great Glen fault, ie from Morvern and Ardnamurchan up to Caithness.--Mais oui! 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reay Country
I note the footnote reference to Reay Country. Dont quite understand it. I believe there was a time when the parish of Reay straddled the boundary between the counties of Caithness and Sutherland, but it never extended far into Sutherland, not much beyond Strath Halladale, and it became a purely Caithness parish under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889. Laurel Bush 11:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC).

Pop?
Reference to all these legal instruments is wonderful, but what is the population of Sutherland? πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  12:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Donald Sutherland?
Why does a search for Donald Sutherland redirect here? I don't know how to fix that, so if someone could... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stone11375 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Cline, Sutherland, Scotland
I am looking for information about a place called "Cline" in this county. Anyone have any ideas? // BL \\ (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * You're probably looking for Clyne. Lianachan (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sutherland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110418021411/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7647046783946085652 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7647046783946085652

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sutherland