text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genital Integrity

Genital Integrity was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP.

IMPORTANT: See Procedural Issues following entries early on 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tally as of 5 Aug
The following is a current tally on votes. For those who have yet to make their vote please add only your name to this list, save the discussion/reasoning for below. I realize that your reasoning is generally found next to your vote, but that encourages debate and the purpose of this list is to make it easyer to weed out the comments from the votes. Note that votes to Delete/Redirect have been placed under redirect; please move your name if you feel another option better suits your views. Also I have made no attempts to weed out sock puppets, moderators are encouraged to be aware of that as well as to check the integrity of this list to guard against any tampering. --Starx 17:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Keep" Votes

 * 1) Ŭalabio
 * 2) Hugh7
 * 3) Acegikmo1
 * 4) DanBlackham
 * 5) Rwinkel
 * 6) User:DanP
 * 7) Hayford Peirce 20:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Sean Curtin
 * 9) Dittaeva
 * 10) User:Michael Glass
 * 11) Modargo 06:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) ScottyBoy900Q 05:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Jao 06:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Radoneme

Redirect" Votes

 * 1) Niteowlneils
 * 2) Elf-friend
 * 3) Joyous
 * 4) Cyrius|✎
 * 5) Rhobite
 * 6) leandros
 * 7) Gregchapman
 * 8) Postdlf 05:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 02:17, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutrality 04:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) SV 18:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Delete and redirect" Votes
Delete
 * 1) Noisy 22:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Clarified my vote 08:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * 1) Denni ☯
 * 2) Ianb
 * 3) Gary D
 * 4) Lucky 6.9
 * 5) Geogre
 * 6) Andrewa
 * 7) Starx
 * 8) Fire Star
 * 9) UtherSRG
 * 10) Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Robert Brookes

Discussion & Votes
Neologism. Denni ☯ 20:13, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
 * a serious subject, but this belongs in Intactivism (where the site is already linked). Delete.--Ianb 20:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * ¿What do you have against leaving children intact? Why do you want to hurt children?  I vote to keep. ¡Keep! Ŭalabio 20:44, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
 * Note: This vote comes from the only editor of the subject article. Niteowlneils 20:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Redirect to Intactivism. Niteowlneils 20:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Serious subject, non-worthy content. Delete content and redirect. Elf-friend 21:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The topic is worthy of inclusion, but this seems too small to warrant its own article. I have heard "genital integrity" used as a sort of slogan, so I recommend Merge/redirect to Intactivism.  Joyous 21:15, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not an article. Delete or redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Denni ☯ is biased against Intactivism:

 * ¿What do you have against Genital Integrity and Intact Day?

 * Nothing, except the high-pitched shrieking of those who believe that having one's foreskin removed is like having one's brain removed. I have seen you before, Walabio, and all I can say is that I hope I never find myself so one-track-minded on an issue as you. While I am neutral in the circumcision debate, I see intact Day as a huge joke (what are you going to do - wave your foreskin about?). Neither of these articles is acceptable for Wikipedia, either because they are (genital integrity) a neologism, and (Intact Day), a singularly unrecognised celebration. Did you not bother to read my comments? Denni ☯ 23:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

The person wanting deletion has a bias against those trying to stop child-abuse, and possibly me personally.

Ŭalabio 23:37, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Just because someone does not in Genital Integrity and support Intactivism does not mean the person opposes child-advocacy. The person may just believe that circumcision is good for health:

Doctor Benjamin Spock, the famous "baby-doctor" heard in medical school the lies supporting circumcision. He did not realize that these lies exist for protecting the circumcision-fee. In early editions of Baby and Child Care, he supported circumcision. He learned the truth:

Doctor Benjamin Spock, the famous "baby-doctor" oppose circumcision in later editions of Baby and Child Care. He wrote:

 * "My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone."

I withdraw my claim that Denni ☯ opposes child-advocacy and apologize for making the claim.

Ŭalabio 12:01, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

 * That is probably the most paranoid comment that I have seen on Wikipedia. Ever. Elf-friend 00:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. --Gary D 23:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. You'd have to be paranoid to make a subject like this your first one.  Not even worth a redirect, IMO.  As it is, there isn't much more than a couple of links and minimum "content."  Almost a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 00:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete: Someone should write about the movement.  It's a real movement.  It's not a group I like much.  However, it's out there. Geogre 01:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Snip. I mean delete. Brother to Intact Day and should be treated the same. Andrewa 09:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. Two International Symposia on Genital Integrity have been held, in 2000 in Sydney, Australia, and in 2002, in Washington DC. Hugh7
 * Note: Hugh7's only contribution to Wikipedia has been the above comment. Could a sysop please look into whether this is a sockpuppet? Elf-friend 11:24, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete, merge anything useful with Intactivism. Rhobite 18:19, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only thing worth salvaging are maybe a link or two, otherwise inactivism has a much more complete and non-POV article on the same subject. --Starx 02:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This topic seems to be sufficiently distinct from intactivism to deserve its own article.  Acegikmo1 03:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Please don't remove this vote as you did my Intact Day vote below, User:Walabio. I am paying attention. Fire Star 04:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Looking at the History, it looks like a simple editconflict. I suggest that a sysops annalize the logs.  It might be because I stopped the load for correcting a typo in the summary.  I await the annalisis of the logs.
 * Ŭalabio 04:24, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

 * I donated 100$ to WikiMedia.Org at the beginning of the year and am willing to prove it. I plan to donate another 100$ at the end of the year.  Just have one of your accountants email me.  I have the checkstub to prove it.
 * Ŭalabio 07:48, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If I donate say $300 this year, maybe that would increase the value of my vote (unchanged, see above)? Actually I'd rather spend the money on a very large medical dictionary to find out what a "circumsiophiliac" is. --Ianb 14:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You can't buy an article. How much you have or haven't donated has no bearing on this subject.  This point is there is just no need for all of this to be spread accross multiple articles.  Were not saying delete everything on the subject, we're saying it would be best if it was all in one article. --Starx 16:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. The topic of Genital Integrity is important on it own and is distinct from Intactivism.  In my opinion the article needs work, but the seeds are there for a good article. -- DanBlackham 14:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Another voter whose only contributions are to articles on the Intactivism/Genital Integrity topic. I really don't know if all of these new users (they just can't be coincidence) are sockpuppets or if Walabio is really actively recruiting some of his fellow activists to register on Wikipedia in order to vote keep (as he basically stated in his "full disclosure"). If this is the case I think we are seeing a whole new phenomenon on Wikipedia and I'm wondering how this should be handled. Elf-friend 19:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not speak on anyone's behalf but my own. As long as my contributions are accurate and have a neutral POV why should it make any difference if I have contributed to one topic or many topics? DanBlackham 02:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Some Kuro5hin expatriates here may remember when hundreds of Somethingawful users joined K5 in order to vote for an anti-SPEWS article. SA was in the midst of its SPEWS listing and one of their users submitted a rant to K5, causing an "invasion" of SA users. It's an interesting problem. If these people have other interests than intactivism, they should be welcomed to Wikipedia. However if their only interest is to make "keep" votes, um.. I don't know. In the real world, you have to be a citizen before you can vote. Rhobite 20:18, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. - UtherSRG 17:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to the much more intact, NPOV and encyclopedic Intactivism. --leandros 09:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect - it reads more like a pamphlet than an encyclopedia article, intactivism seems to cover the concept well enough and in a much more article-like manner. Gregchapman 02:04, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep please. If Wikipedia wants to serve the internet community as a whole, rather than just the people who regularly hang out here, its content should be above the personality dynamics of the editorial process. The fact is that genital integrity does have a large following, a rich meaning and a benign objective. It's true the page needs improvement, but that's what wiki's are all about, continuous improvement. Simply deleting the entry doesn't make the topic go away, it only diminishes the worth of the encycopedia. --Rwinkel 06:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that the above is from a person who has only posted onto this page with no other edits to Wikipedia. RickK 06:18, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Added initial definition and removed redirect. Intactivism is a subset of the greater issue, Genital Integrity. I look forward to seeing what others contribute to the definition concerning this widespread problem. Dan Bollinger, Exec. Dir. Int'l Coalition for Genital Integrity.

 * Keep. Genital Integrity is a broader term than intactivism.  It include raising awareness and having respect for nature's design.  It is not specifically a political term, but applies to an education and health care context.User:DanP

 * Note: Above user (account created on 2 August) has only 6 edits to his name, 3 of which deal with this issue. The three edits that don't were performed well after the three that do. Elf-friend 22:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? That I'm not a real person, or that my feelings don't count?  Contact me if you wish, I'd be happy to explain my sincerity.  The notion of Genital Integrity has been around for many years, thanks to Tim Hammond and ICGI.  Intactivism is for legal/political goals only (hence the root word of "activism").  Genital Integrity is CLEARLY a parent topic including all recognition of the integrity for genitals of all persons, including intersex persons.  It is a broad SOCIAL term, not just POLITICAL as intactivism clearly is.  We do not reclassify "reproduction" as "pro-life" or "pro-choice", that is dishonestly narrowing the scope. DanP 15:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Much against my better judgement, I vote Delete and redirect. The article is PoV and contains a copyright image. I don't see anything worthy of merging. Noisy 22:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Full Disclosure

Since the circumsiophiliacs, to use a medical term, seem to be trying to remove all pages devoted to Genital Integrity, Intactivism, et cetera, by voting in a block for deletion, I informed Intactivists that it might be a good idea to join the debate before we are cast out of Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.

Also, I suggested that Intactivist try to improve and expand Genital Integrity and Intact Day so that WikiPædists who might vote for deletion just because the articles are small and poorly written, might say:

 * "¡Hey! I want to keep this because it is significant and well written."

Since people actively try to improve the articles, I ask that one read the articles one last time on the last day of voting before finalizing your votes.

I also ask that you ask yourselves why to articles, written at different times, both with no controversy, should both be listed by the same user at the same time for deletion. I quote Denni ☯ :

 * ¿What do you have against Genital Integrity and Intact Day?

 * Nothing, except the high-pitched shrieking of those who believe that having one's foreskin removed is like having one's brain removed.
 * Denni ☯ 23:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
 * Denni ☯ 23:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Denni ☯ seems to have an axe to grind.

Compromise

Hugh Young suggests that we should give up Intact Day for Genital Integrity as long as Intact Day remains listed on July 1. Technically, I have no authority to speak for anyone else, but since time is of the essence, I will concede Intact Day, if we can keep Genital Integrity. I suspect that other Intactivists will find this acceptable.

¿Is this acceptable to you?

Ŭalabio 02:09, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

 * No, but that's a different vote for a different page. RickK 06:21, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Redirect. -Sean Curtin 20:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I wish there was some way to make it clear to everyone trying to promote their agenda, self, company, whatever, how things work on wikipedia, and how things work on votes for deletion.  I love the audacity of someone trying to haggle on here, as if we needed their approval to delete and they had the authority over the articles to finalize a deal.  Authors don't own pages!  The community does, and if the community says it goes, it goes, no matter how much you supposedly donated.  God bless online democracy.  Postdlf 05:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This discussion was deleted from the VfD page without any result. If it's going to be kept, the VfD header needs to be removed. If it's going to be deleted, let's delete if before deleting the discussion from the VfD page. RickK 22:01, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Redirect and merge into a single article. The content of the merged article should initially be about the same as the present content of Intactivism, which is succinct and reasonably neutral. The title of the article can be either Intactivism or Genital Integrity, it doesn't matter. Both are virtually the same thing. Both terms get very roughly couple of thousand Google hits. The content of the present Genital Integrity article is unacceptable promotion of a specific point of view and proponents of this cause should expect very heavy editing of this content, whatever article it appears in. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Dpbsmith - I agree completely. I'm currently merging the two and applying a big cntl-X to the current (fairly loopy) GI article. I've just been surfing some anti-intactivist sites to see if there is anything from an opposing viewpoint there to add into an article, but I haven't found anything of merit. Both camps claim to have the full weight of medical evidence behind them, but neither gives references. Manning 23:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: Genital Integrity vs. Genital integrity, possible source of confusion

Be aware that there are two different articles, whose titles differ only in whether the i in "integrity' is upper or lower case. Genital Integrity, which I think is what this discussion is about, is about a dozen paragraphs long in three sections with a big pink-and-blue NOHARMM logo. Genital integrity began as a redirect to Intactivism. On August 2nd, 12.222.106.253 changed it to "a definition," shown in part below. I'm guessing this was basically the beginning of what became the present Genital Integrity article, and that the authors of that article forgot that the old one was still there. That is, I don't think the old article was left in place with any underhanded intent.

I just changed it to be a redirect to Genital Integrity.

The definition that presently appears in Genital Integrity begins "Genital integrity is the legal and human rights concept that..." This defines a concept without asserting that the concept is true, and I have no problem with it. (Assuming of course that the definition is a correct statement of what the users of the term mean by it). The old article on Genital integrity began:
 * Genital Integrity is the human right to a complete body. Every person in the world is born with this inalienable right. Infants, children and adults shall not be the victims of forced genital excision or scarification...

That is, it asserted the existence of an inalienable right (POV) rather than asserting the existence of a group of people who believe there is such a right (NPOV).

I hope that my action will be generally seen as a simple, uncontroversial correction of a simple oversight. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the explanation and clearing up that point -- I wuz baffled.... Also for the redirect. Hayford Peirce 00:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * If you insist upon merging Genital Integrity (a very important concept) and Intactivism (a movement for protecting children from Genital Mutilation), I suggest that you search this sight for unbiased medical information: The Library of Cirp.Org.  You will find a collection of peer-reviewed medical articles covering over a century published in popular and prestigious Medical Journals.  If you want to know about the concept of Genital Integrity and movement of Intactivism, just read the links Genital Integrity and Intactivism.  If you want to know what the circumcisiophiliacs (which is a medical term for those who call themselves Circumfetishists) think about the concept of Genital Integrity and the movement Intactivism, read this: CircList.Com.  CircList.Com is a den of circumcisiophiliacs.  If you are willing to trust an Intactivist, I would write  Michael Glass.   Michael Glass has infiltrated and studied the circumcisiophiliacs.  His emailaddress is: "Michaell Glass" <mglass @t mira net> I broke up the  emailaddress so that spammers will not spam  Michael Glass.  You can trust  Michael Glass as much or as little as you want.  Hopefully the article will be more coherent and less disjointed than an article about both roses and Calvinism.  Ŭalabio 00:22, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Procedural Issues
Well a complete rewrite has occurred. Hopefully this might result in a page which we can all live with. Intactivism has been redirected to this page, as it is really just the name of the proponent movement (and has been identified as such). Manning 00:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While i am sure Manning is wiser than i abt WP, in more ways than i am wise abt it at all, i'm concerned his understanding of VfD procedures may have gone out of date during his extended sabbatical. This note by me does not constitute my "calling" the result on this VfD (a task i have avoided by plan, and this one would not be my first if i were to start). But i will be surprised and confused if it is not decided that this vote (My impression also is that the strong support for its becoming a redirect to another title, rather than remaining an article title, should be expected to forestall further attempts to maintain that title on any article, but that is IMO no longer a topic for this page.)
 * 1) closed sometime between 20:13, 2004 Aug 6 and  03:00, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC, of course), and
 * 2) mandates that Genital Integrity not be deleted

Unless and until Manning states that he continues to think otherwise, i urge those who are interested in this save their effort, against what i consider the likelihood that nothing added at this point will affect the VfD status of the article in question.

Nevertheless: --Jerzy(t) 05:11, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
 * 1) i've restored the link from before the ToC of VfD to the "August 1" heading that this resides under, which may unhide it for some of our colleagues, and
 * 2) if it's decided there is some justification for keeping/returning this item to active VfD consideration, it should IMO be done by moving it from section "August 1" to the location (at the moment, between  the "August 9" heading and the Vfd Footer) that it would occupy if it were a new nomination being added at that point.  This would avoid its being overlooked by those who, like me, think it is over and done with.
 * No objections, here - seems good. Thanks to whoever removed the photos (didn't check the copyvio on them). Manning 07:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More Discussion & Voting

 * Manning unilaterally deleted and redirected the Intactivism article without a discussion or a vote. That seem to violate the established procedures for deleting articles. DanBlackham 20:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, Manning followed the procedures exactly. He did not actually delete the article.  He merely turned it into a redirect. Anyone may edit any article and add or delete content. That includes turning an article into a redirect. Any subsequent reader can still review the decision by looking in the page history. VfD is only for discussing the deletion of entire pages because it would include the page history. If you would like to contest Manning's decision to edit or redirect, that discussion should occur on the article's Talk page. Rossami 21:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't pay much attention to things do you, sunshine? The Intactivism page has been redirected, not deleted, and it is fully recoverable if needs be. I made the changes because a week of arguing had achieved nothing. Hopefully as we seem to have an article that conforms to 'pedia standards (NPOV, etc) we may not need to do so. Manning 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected regarding deletion of the Intactivism article. However please explain what will happen if there is now a consensus to redirect Genital Integrity.  I thought a vote to redirect meant redirecting Genital Integrity to Intactivism.  However now Intactivism is redirected to Genital Integrity. DanBlackham 06:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * ¿Why merge two articles and put the result up for deletion? This seems unfair and irregular. Ŭalabio 07:29, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Because the merger is a proposed solution. As the article is still being discussed, it seems more unfair to just storm on in, make substantial changes and then say "We're done". It is still here pending consensus that the solution is acceptable. -Manning 07:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * When I pointed out CircList.Com I forgot to mention public verses private faces (I forgot about the public faux ad because I have known the truth for years). CircList.Com does appear to be neutral on the surface.  Under the surface, is circumcision-pornography, and sexual discussions about how seeing a bare glans arouses.  I truly meant to refer you to the discussion for the opinion of circumcisiophiliacs.  This is a gallery of both discussion and links to some nasty stories with children:  Some stories and discussion about circumcisiophilia often involving children on CircList.Com  Michael Glass is the true expert in this field.  I recommend Googling for discussions deep in CircList.Com.  The point is that although CircList.Com, is as far as I can determine, the largest community of circumcisiophiliacs, it is very biased.  Just remember this when writing about what circumcisiophiliacs think about the concept of Genital Integrity, the movement Intactivism, and Intactivists.  The concept of Genital Integrity is that all minors have a right to no medically unnecessary genital modification.  The movement Intactivism is about protecting children from medically unnecessary genital modification.  Intactivists do not care what consenting adults do to their genitals. Ŭalabio 08:44, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

 * Your condemnation of the circlist site seems to be based on the fact that they disagree with you. The intactivist sites I have studied are equally, if not more, biased; one of which (circumstition.com) goes so far as to condemn the AMA and AAP simply because they take no firm stance. Manning 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I personally do not care whether the circumcisiophiliacs agree with me or not. The trouble is that the circumcisiophiliacs encourage parents parents to mutilate their babies with lies like circumcision prevents penile cancer (the American Cancer-Association says otherwise.  Let me use an analogy:  It is okay to talk about eating babies, as Swift did.  It is wrong to encourage people into actually eating babies.  It comes down to free-speech verses real actions.  ¿How is encouraging parents to take the whole baby home more biased than encouraging parents to mutilate the baby for no good reason?  ¿If one lived back in the United States of America in 1860, and one condemned one's church for being neutral about slavery, would one be wrong?  Ŭalabio 01:03, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
 * You seem to be forgetting that many adults choose to get circumcised. You also seem to be under the assumption that all circumcisions are based on some kind of sexual desire.  There are other reasons such as hygiene.  Not everyone in this world agrees with your point of view.  Sites like circlist do not endorse one position over another, they only provide facts.  That is, by the very definition, unbiased. --Starx 05:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * No I do not. What adults decide to do is nether here nor there.  Adults can look after themselves  --  children need protection.  ¿Since most intact adults (less than 10%) choose circumcision, should guardians force babies to endure a painful, mutilating, sensation-reducing procedure procedure, the baby would not elect?  ¿Even if most intact adults choose circumcision, is it right to perform a medically contra-indicated procedure on a nonconsenting minor?  ¿Are you familiar with Candy and Sharon?:  Sharon and Candy are deaf.  Out of spite  --  ¡Oops!  -- I mean, so their children will not feel different, they deafened their children.  ¿Would their children as adults would have voluntarily chosen deafness if they could hear?  No. most Ob/Gyns in the United states of America circumcise out of greed.  Hygiene is a red herring.  Whether people intact or mutilated, they should bathe regularly.  If people cannot bathe, the last thing they need is an open wound.  Circumcision is the leading cause of tetanus in Africa.  I still believe that it is not nice to mutilate babies for no medical reason.  CircList.Com also has circumcisiophilic pornography.  Readthis nice allegory I found on an Intact site for comparison.  Then explain all of the procircumcision-pornography.  11:15, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
 * There is no pornography, you simply call the pictures pornography because you do not like them. If I'm looking for information on circumcision I certainly am going to be interested in what the result looks like, hence the pictures.  Sharon and Candy are a red hearing, deafening your children is not comparable to circumcision.  When you deafen someone you completely destroy a sense that is essential to functioning normally in this world.  Circumcision does not completely destroy a sense.  Also the procedure is not painfull, any even half competent doctor uses anesthetic, and to say that doctors do it out of greed is idiotic, circumcisions are not mandatory in the US, it is the parents decision.  Bathing is certainly not a red herring though, some people don't want to have to wash themselves 2 or 3 times a day to get rid of a smell that doesn't need to be there.  I understand that you think it's mutilation and wrong, that's your point of view.  The point of view of others is that it's not wrong and it's benificial.  So the neutral point of view is to make no judgement on whether it is right or wrong, and simply present facts so that viewers of the site are free to make their own decision on the morality of the subject. --Starx 14:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--	Ŭalabio 03:30, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)	responds point by point to the above comment by Starx on 14:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)	--

 * There is no pornography, you simply call the pictures pornography because you do not like them.

 * ¿Did you read the stories on CircList.Com?

 * If I'm looking for information on circumcision I certainly am going to be interested in what the result looks like, hence the pictures.

 * I have nothing against seeing pictures. ¿Do you want to see pictures of the end result of circumcision?  ¡Here!

 * Sharon and Candy are a red hearing, deafening your children is not comparable to circumcision.

 * ¿How is it not the same?

 * When you deafen someone you completely destroy a sense that is essential to functioning normally in this world.

 * That is what voice-trainers tell parents when trying to convince them to castrate the preteen sopranos with the golden voices.

 * Circumcision does not completely destroy a sense.

 * It just severely damages a sense.

 * Also the procedure is not painfull,

 * ¿Who told you that? This is one of the most idiotic statemes, which, I have ever read.

 * any even half competent doctor uses anesthetic,

 * Most doctors do [not.] ¿What about afterwards?  for at least a week, usually a fortnight, sometimes for three weeks, the glans, frænar remnant, the remnant of the inner mucosa of the præpuce, and the futurecircumcision-scar is one big open wound.  Movement hurts.  Pressure hurts.  Air hurts.  Water hurts.  Urine hurts.  Fæces hurt.

 * and to say that doctors do it out of greed is idiotic,

 * The circumcision-industry is about 200-million-US$-a-year industry in the United States of America. After scaring the parents into mutilating with their lies, the doctors charge about 200US$.  Why do not you read what Weasel Wiswell said back in 1987, when circumcisions in the United states of America only cost 125US$.

 * circumcisions are not mandatory in the US, it is the parents decision.

 * Parents should not consent to medically unnecessary sexual mutilation. Besides, the parents defer to the greedy lying Ob/Gyns.

 * Bathing is certainly not a red herring though,

 * Yes it is.

 * some people don't want to have to wash themselves 2 or 3 times a day to get rid of a smell that doesn't need to be there.

 * ¡That is your problem! ¡You wash your genitals too much!:

 * If you took a 5-10 minute shower, every hour, on the hour, your skin would crack and breed. If you never showered, you get sick  --  and very smelly too.  "Moderation in all things"  When you take your daily 5-10-minute shower, just take 5-10 seconds to clean your genitals.

 * The genitals of women are harder to clean than the genitals of men. If it comes down to circumcision for hygiene, it makes more sense to circumcise women.  Genitals require no more special attention or effort for cleaning than ears.

 * I understand that you think it's mutilation and wrong,

 * It is mutilation:

Mutilation
 * "an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part"

 * that's your point of view.

 * Circumcision is compliant with the definition of mutilation; so therefore, circumcision is mutilation.

 * The point of view of others is that it's not wrong and it's benificial.

 * Ethically, medically unnecessary circumcision is wrong in that it violates the rights of the child to not be abused and mutilated. Circumcision is not beneficial; no national medical organization on Earth recommends it.

 * So the neutral point of view is to make no judgement on whether it is right or wrong, and simply present facts so that viewers of the site are free to make their own decision on the morality of the subject. --Starx 14:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * ¿Could not we present to the readers an ethical analysis showing that sinse circumcision is both abuse and mutilation, it is wrong.

 * Ŭalabio 03:30, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

I'm not going to try and make sense of any of that. Please understand that community wiki pages need to be kept at least passably neat so that it's possible for people to make sense of what they are reading. --Starx 00:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The word Intactivism deserves inclusion only if it is correctly defined. What has been proposed here does not do that. From some of the fanatical ranting (above) one must assume that there is a significant psychosexual motivation behind this "intactivism" and as such Wikipedia should be careful not to allow itself to become a vehicle to further the aims of this fantical group. - Robert Brookes

 * Intactivism is a movement for leaving children with intact genitals unless medical condition mandates intervention (less than one percent of children medically need genital surgery, which is less than the number of children needing teeth with cavities filled). Intactivists believe in the concept of Genital Integrity: Genital Integrity is the believe that one should leave the genitals of children alone except for repairing medical problems.  An Intactivist is a member of the movement for Intactivism believing in Genital Integrity.  Intactivists oppose Human Genital Mutilation (HGM).  I hope that this answers your questions.  The circucisiophiliacs are the fanatics.  The circumcisiophiliacs want to bare the glandes of all boys so that the boys will look perpetually sexually aroused.  many circumcisiophiliacs believe that what is good for boys is also good for girls  (societies mutilating the genitals of girls are a subset of societies mutilating boys).  Intactivistically yours	Ŭalabio 01:03, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Have Changed My Vote
 * I've just looked at the latest version of this article and find it far different from what it was originally. It now seems NPOV to me.  I also did a little rewriting, mostly to smooth out the style a little.  I have just changed my vote here from delete to keep.  But I will change that to redirect if that seems to be the general intent of this voting. Hayford Peirce 20:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks Hayford for the mods - the changes were good.

 * I forgot to mention this, but the exact phrase "Genital Integrity" gets 2350 hits on Google.Com. Ŭalabio 01:51, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

 * God, this vfd page is fucking unreadable. Now that the page has been rewritten, my vote is to keep at the name genital integrity (lowercase) provided that the many repetitive external links are removed and the POV gets further toned down. -Sean Curtin 06:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect - unnecessary split
There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of redirect and delete. A redirect here, for all intents and purposes is a deletion of this article. Its material is not the issue. If it is, then we need better terms than delete and redirect. Perhaps more specific titles are needed. PS: Anyone who comes out with an argument of "Why do you want to hurt children?" is a living sign of a badly formed and insincere (ignoratio elenchi) argument. -SV 18:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete says that the topic is nonsense and doesn't deserve inclusion into the encyclopedia. Redirect says that the content may be worthy but it should be (or already is) contained in a more appropriate article.  With delete everything is just gone.  Whereas with redirect content is merged with other articles before the page is wiped. --Starx 21:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where they are coming from?
Elf-friend asked: "I really don't know if all of these new users (they just can't be coincidence) are sockpuppets or if Walabio is really actively recruiting some of his fellow activists to register on Wikipedia in order to vote keep".

The answer is yes, here is the evidence:

> -Original Message- > From: Å¬alabio [mailto:Walabio@MacOSX.COM] > Sent: 04 August 2004 05:55 > To: restore-list@eskimo.com > Subject: [RL] Re: Circumciophiliacs at Encyclopædia WikiPedia .Org take no > prisoners

For the record, I asked people on intact-l and restore-digest, last year to help me on EncyclopÃ¦dia WikiPedia.Org. I started all of the Pro-Intactivism/Genital-Integrity-articles on EncyclopÃ¦dia.Org. I tried to expose Circumfetishism on EncyclopÃ¦dia WikiPedia.Org. If anyone wants to help, please do. I am all alone. It is so much work. I have to fight the Circumcisiophiliacs alone. An account on EncyclopÃ¦dia WikiPedia.Org is free. You need not just work on our articles; look what else I created:

HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/PangÃ¦a_Ultima

Â¡PangÃ¦a Ultima! Â¡Will be come soon! Â¡In just 250 million more years!

My article about Pannotia is even better:

HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/Pannotia

I believe that we should keep the article.

Michael Glass

Keep. I've looked at the current Genital Integrity article, and I really don't think it should be deleted. From looking at the history of the article, the original version did deserve deletion -- but people took the time to fix it, and the new article is drastically different from the original. As it stands, the article looks to me like a good, NPOV article about a mildly notable topic. I also do not find redirect necessary, since that seems to have already been done (Intactivism redirects to Genital Integrity already). (And since that's already been done, what do the Redirect votes mean?)

While I find Walabio's paranoid antics on this page quite distasteful, especially his ad hominem attacks on polite people who honestly think that this page should be deleted, the article as it currently stands deserves to be in Wikipedia. However, I don't think Walabio should be allowed to edit it, because he clearly cannot stay NPOV about this issue. The article is only good now because somebody other than him took care of it. On a final note, I removed the last thing I could see that was wrong with the article, namely the excessive number of external links. Modargo 06:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dislike User:Walabio's methods in defending this article (and horribly failing to assume good faith), but seeing how it looks at the moment, and also that Intactivism is redirected to it, I see no reason to delete it. It could become a very interesting article. Move it to Genital integrity, though. -- Jao 06:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Administrative Action
Apologies to anyone inconvenienced or upset by the temporary disappearance of this page. As i'm not sure that i did anything that encouraged it, this is an apology in behalf of the whole administrator (or sysop) "corps". This discussion may move, but when it does it will be much more polite and orderly than that! --Jerzy(t) 22:35, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Rossami deleted this off the VfD page, claiming it's on the Old discussions page. Well, it still has a VfD heading, there has been no decision made (though the 7 days have LONG passed), and there's no link to the Old discussions from the main VfD page, so I think this needs to stay as long as the header is still on the page. RickK 23:50, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

ATTN: Administrators Your admin colleague Jerzy(t) would be grateful for your attention to the implications of existing policy that are in the first stages of being addressed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. They are relevant here, even if i turn out to be wrong in speculating that those implications underly the actions (which i questioned elsewhere on this subpage) of a recently reactivated admin.

Separately but similarly relevant, the event i refer to elsewhere in this section is discussed in some detail at Votes for undeletion, and i suggest that points made there provide context for contemplated admin action here. --Jerzy(t) 03:56, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Why is this still here?
There is no need for this vote anymore. Consensus, at the time, was highly in favor of a merge/redirect. A user took it upon himself to merge the article resulting in the current version of Genital Integrity. Since then the votes in favor of keep have increased signifigantly. That indicates to me that the present form of the article is acceptable. Those who voted redirect got their wish, those who voted keep still have a Genital Integrity article and thus should be happy. There aren't enough votes in the delete columb to indicate a consensus over the other two groups. It's time to delist and archive the debate. --Starx 13:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Isn't this funny

It seems that over runs of dates are allowed so that single issue groups can rally the faithful from the far corners of the internet. What is the point of voting or setting target dates? Or does this indicate that fanatics will get their way as they will just wear everyone else down and into submission. Wkipedia should get its act together!

--- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:The Miracle Worker

Discussion
Just have to make the general comment that this article is a total mess and needs a top down rewrite. Why is all this stuff about the trains used in the film (which version?) in the intro paragraph? Why is there nothing about the 1962 movie? This thing is terrible.23 Oct 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.45.66 (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The William Gibson who wRote "The Miracle Worker" is not the same Gibson who writes science fiction. Gibson the playwright was born ca. 1915. Dgorsline 22:32, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding film
The film shows Ann Sullivan spending a total of two weeks with Helen Keller. At the end of these two weeks, Helen and Ann are at the well filling a water pitcher and Helen spontaneously spells the word "water" into Ann's hand. Since closed-captioning did not exist when this film was released, deaf people were not aware that Helen Keller spoke, else they would have questioned how a person deaf and blind from the age of six months would even be aware of the existence of speech, much less being able to produce it spontaneously. It is believed that the idiom "It doesn't hold water" came into the lexicon of American Sign Language when deaf people discovered that the most dramatic moment in the film was based on an impossibility. At no time in the film did Ann Sullivan attempt to teach Helen Keller to speak. The idea that Helen would speak was devised by what film writers call a "set-up". The set-up occurs when Keller's parents are discussing the idea of hiring a teacher for Helen. The mother says, "I swear Helen tried to say "water" when she was six months old." "Water" was the precise "Miracle" that Ann Sullivan worked. It was false.

To know the true life story of Helen Keller is to understand that she was an exceptionally talented person. One must also understand that no line of dialogue in film is accidently rendered. For this final scene to made believable, the afore-mentioned set-up had to occur. The writer also had the public's prior knowledge of Keller's life to give this moment in the film a measure of believability; a opportunity to suspend the viewer's disbelief that a seven-year-old child (Helen's age in the film. Patty Duke was 16) who was naturally unaware that such a thing as speech existed might spontaneously produce speech. It's no trivial point.

While it is indisputable that Sullivan did eventually teach Keller to speak, it staggers the imagination that the hopes and dreams of American parents with deaf children of the 1960s up to the present would be hinged to this moment in a film that could not have happened in real life. It certainly effected the lives of deaf people whose parents began to compare them to Keller in their frustration to get their deaf children to "be like Helen Keller" and speak. As deaf people well know, even the most gifted among them take years to be able to utter a comprehensible syllable and a lifetime of speech therapy to maintain the ability. To have a falsehood held over one's head as an example is a shattering experience that endures for life. So few people know the realities associated with learing to speak and this particular depiction, because of the widespread dramatic appeal of the film, should bear at least a cavat to its impact on the lives of real deaf people. For this reason, it is fair to point out to fans of this film (of which I, a deaf person, am one) that a serious controversy is associated with it. I'll try to be as balanced as possible and I hope other will assist me with any relevant comments.

 * Feel free to point out the controversy, but Wiki isn't the place for essays. --66.91.248.69 06:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Utter nonsense. The entire film shows Helen unable to comprehend "water" no matter what until the "miracle" at the pump. She and Sullivan even go wading in a creek and fall down in the *water* and the two of them sit waist-deep in water while Sullivan spells W-A-T-E-R into Helen's hand and Helen doesn't get it. So if "water" is the one word Helen kept, why didn't she say "wa-wa" when she was waist deep in it?  She may have babbled it over and over but by the time she supposedly said it at age seven she didn't know what she was saying. Why?  Because it was clearly the intention of the film to depict Helen as mute.  Even in the long fight scene, when emotions would have virtually compelled her to, at least, scream or vocalize she was silent.  True. The voicing of "wa-wa" did enhance the drama, but it was contrived to do so.  The arc of the film was founded on a dramatic reversal: going from ignorance to knowledge.  If Helen had been running around babbling "wa-wa" during the film as she did in real life, there wouldn't have been any miracle for hearing audiences.  The reaction would have been more like, "Oh. She's been saying wa-wa throughout the film but she didn't know it meant "water" but now she finally gets it. Big deal."  No. The miracle was that she spoke after being depicted as not having the slightest idea what speech was. Then suddenly, she not only speaks, she also knows the exact word to speak. The writer increased the dramatic effect more so by limiting the time Sullivan had to resolve the problem Helen had. Remember, Helen's father was on his way out to the well to fire Sullivan. Before that, Sullivan was limited to two weeks to make progress and she made none.  So when time was UP, an unjust firing seconds away, what does Helen do to resolve the entire arc of the film?  She speaks for the first time.   Baloney  Ray Foster 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * What? Only five paragraphs and fully two-thirds of the text of this entire article are dedicated to "The Great Wah-wah Controversy"? Surely, an issue of this magnitude, one that has perplexed all of mankind, should be expanded to at least ten paragraphs!  Minus the sarcasm, this triviality seems a major controversy to no one that I'm aware of, other than the OP, and is given far too much weight in this article.  151.213.40.147 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Paul
 * Agree with the above comment. The entire section would be somewhat acceptable if the supposed controversy were reliably sourced and not written as some sort of rant that sounds like one person trying to convince the reader that a ton of people complained about the "wah wah" scene. What does "many people" mean anyway? Is "many" three people or 3,000? Although the play and film are based on a true story, it is still an element of fiction - it's going to have unbelievable and truth stretching moments because it is suppose to be dramatic and entertaining. I don't think people need to be told that biographical films made by Hollywood routinely take artistic license with people's lives. I even Googled "The Miracle Worker + Controversy" and came up with nothing except a Blogspot post that appears to be a copy/pasted post from this article. If there were an actual controversy, and not a sole person's complaint/mini-rant, I think finding other works dealing with this would be super easy. As such, I have removed the section. If someone wants to re-add it, it needs to be completely rewritten and properly sourced. There's no reason an entire dubious section should be left uncited in an article for at least two years.  Pinkadelica ♣  08:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actors and Actresses.
Does Wikipedia have every actor and actress listed? --Relaxation 19:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My edits
Everything in this article was repeated twice, so I streamlined it by removing the redundant data. I am going to create a separate article for the play, and will include the Tony Award template there, where it belongs. I removed the Arthur Penn template which belongs in the film article. I also removed the list of characters because it wasn't clear who they were or in which incarnations they appeared. MovieMadness (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement is written by someone who clearly knows nothing about deaf people
"when even the most gifted deaf child realistically takes years to utter a comprehensible syllable and a lifetime of speech therapy to maintain the ability"

I'm sorry, but that is completely and utterly false. My brother is hearing impaired and went to a hearing impaired school- I never learned sign language, and successfully interacted with him verbally from a very young age (he's only 3 years older than me). It really does depend on the individual, so that statement is far too ambiguous and misleading. Plenty of hearing impaired children learn to speak from an early age, presuming they actually get hearing aids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.113.250 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a re-write. If I may, I would like to add a few notes on the production that might help anyone trying to do research on the movie... my grammer school art teacher Miss Fisher's two twin brothers appeared in the movie. They were young black boys. They were selected because they were twins, only one appeared in the film at a time.

The movies was partially filmed in Monmouth County on a farm near Cotton Ridge in Middletown. I believe the farm was owned by a family named Bulmer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.113.78 (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:The Miracle Worker


text:
Toki

Toki may refer to:

People

 * The Toki clan, a Japanese samurai clan
 * Luke Toki (born 1986), Australian television personality
 * Tatsuo Toki (斎 辰雄), Japanese decathlete
 * Tōki Susumu (闘牙 進), Japanese sumo wrestler
 * Palnatoki, a legendary Danish hero and chieftain
 * Toki (also spelled Toqui), the title of a selected leader of the Mapuche (indigenous Chilean people) during a time of war
 * Valmaine Toki, New Zealand barrister and solicitor
 * Toki, son of Wigod of Wallingford, English soldier in the service of William the Conqueror

Places

 * Toki, Gifu, a city in Gifu prefecture, Japan
 * Toki, Subcarpathian Voivodeship, in south-east Poland
 * Toki, Masovian Voivodeship, in east-central Poland

Public institutions

 * TOKİ, Turkey's government-run public housing authority

Fictional characters

 * Kamen Rider Tōki, a fictional character in Kamen Rider Hibiki
 * Princess Toki, a character in Naruto
 * Toki, the second of the four brothers of Hokuto Shinken in Fist of the North Star
 * Toki, a character from Hayao Miyazaki's 1997 animated film Mononoke Hime
 * Toki Fujiwara, a character in the anime Code:Breaker
 * Toki Wartooth, the rhythm guitarist of the metal band Dethklok in Metalocalypse

Other

 * Toki (train), the name of a train service in Japan
 * Toki (video game), an arcade game, originally in Japan, featuring an eponymous enchanted ape as the main character
 * Toki, the Japanese name of the Crested ibis
 * Toki, shamans in the ancient Ryukyu Islands of Japan
 * Toki, a brand of Japanese whisky produced by Beam Suntory
 * Toki, a variety of Japanese apple
 * Toki, the word for speech/language, and for hello in Toki Pona, a language created in 2001
 * Toki, a company founded by Rob Monster creating servers to be distributed to Africa and Asia
 * Toki, a prehistoric Māori adze
 * Toki (also known as kallapush), a typical female headdress from Tajikistan

title: Toki


text:
Charles Huband

Charles R. Huband (February 23, 1932–June 14, 2023) was a Manitoba politician, who subsequently became a judge. He was the leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party between 1975 and 1978.

Huband attended the University of Manitoba in the 1950s, earning his Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Manitoba in 1955.

Huband was a member of the Metropolitan Council of Winnipeg from 1964 until 1968 (in which year he served as its Vice Chair). He supported the amalgamation of the city with its suburban neighbourhoods, which was accomplished in the early 1970s by New Democratic Party Premier Edward Schreyer.

Huband first attempted to run for the provincial legislature in 1966, but lost the Liberal nomination in Wolseley to Julius Koteles. He later alleged that Koteles signed up several "instant members" to win the nomination.

Huband ran in the upscale riding of River Heights in the 1973 provincial election, and lost to Progressive Conservative leader Sidney Spivak.

Huband was elected leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party on February 22, 1975, defeating his lone opponent Lloyd Henderson by 381 votes to 87. The party had only four seats in the 57-member legislature at the time, and was in need of renewal. Huband represented a more centrist direction in the party, which had long been considered very right-wing for its time. Under the rural populism of Robert Bend and the libertarianism of Israel Asper, the party's electoral fortunes had progressively declined. In a province that had become increasingly polarized between the Tories and NDP, the Liberals were finding it increasingly difficult to present themselves as an alternative.

Huband declared himself a candidate when the central Winnipeg seat of Crescentwood became vacant in early 1975, after the one-vote victory of NDP MLA Harvey Patterson in the 1973 election was overturned. Huband was narrowly defeated by Tory incumbent Warren Steen. He again lost to Steen in the general election of 1977, as the Manitoba Liberals fell to only one seat (that of Lloyd Axworthy).

Huband resigned as party leader in 1978, and later became a Manitoba Court of Appeal judge. In the mid-1990s, he ruled that the Canadian Wheat Board could not be sued by producers. This decision was given in response to a challenge initiated by the right-wing group Farmers For Justice.

In 1996, Huband's years of service to the legal profession were recognized by the Manitoba Bar Association, which presented him with its Distinguished Service Award.

In 2007, Huband retired from the Manitoba Court of Appeal and resumed private practice, joining the firm of Taylor McCaffrey LLP.

Huband was an active member of the United Church of Canada and in June 2014 he was elected to the governing council of the Manitoba Historical Society.

Huband tried to return to politics when he won the Liberal nomination in the riding of Portage la Prairie during the 2019 provincial election, and finished a distant third.

title: Charles Huband


text: Category:Fur languages

title: Category:Fur languages


text: Category:Nilo-Saharan languages

title: Category:Nilo-Saharan languages


text:
No. 3 Squadron RAF

Number 3 Squadron, also known as No. 3 (Fighter) Squadron, of the Royal Air Force operates the Eurofighter Typhoon FGR.4 from RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire, since reforming on 1 April 2006. It was first formed on 13 May 1912 as one of the first squadrons of the Royal Flying Corps – being the first to fly heavier than air aircraft.

Foundation and First World War
No. 3 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps, was formed at Larkhill on 13 May 1912 by the renaming of No. 2 (Aeroplane) Company of the Air Battalion Royal Engineers, under the command of Major Robert Brooke-Popham. Being already equipped with aeroplanes and manned by pilots and air mechanics, No. 2 (Aeroplane) Company was thus the first British, Empire or Commonwealth independent military unit to operate heavier-than-air flying machines, hence the 3 Squadron motto Tertius primus erit, meaning "The third shall be the first". On 5 July 1912, two members of the squadron, Captain Eustace Loraine and Staff Sergeant Wilson were killed in an aircraft crash, making them the first RFC fatalities. In 1913, No 3 Squadron deployed to Halton in Buckinghamshire to support the land manoeuvres of the Household Division. A temporary airfield was set up on what later became RAF Halton's Maitland Parade Square. During the exercise, No 3 Squadron flew a number of reconnaissance sorties and staged the first confrontation between an airship and an aeroplane.

As well as training and reconnaissance duties, the squadron spent much of its time carrying out experimental work and working out tactics, including how to direct artillery fire from the air. In late 1913, the squadron carried out trials in the use of machine guns from aircraft, which eventually resulted in the selection of the Lewis gun for use by the RFC and from early in 1914 carried out trials in airborne photography, helping to develop the cameras that would be used by the RFC in the First World War. Other trials included the first night flights carried by the RFC. The squadron was sent to France on the outbreak of the Great War, arriving at Amiens on 13 August 1914, carrying out its first reconnaissance mission, piloted by Captain Philip Joubert de la Ferté on 19 August. The squadron initially operated primarily in the reconnaissance role using a variety of aircraft types. In December 1914, the squadron started to receive Morane-Saulnier L parasol-wing aircraft, and was almost solely equipped with the Morane Parasol by April 1915. It started to replace its Morane-Saulnier L with the improved Morane-Saulnier LA, which had ailerons instead of the wing warping of the earlier aircraft, in September 1915, and all its Parasols were Type LAs by December 1915. In 1916 it supplemented its Parasols with a flight of four Morane-Saulnier BB biplanes, and from the middle of 1916 replaced its Morane-Saulnier LAs with Morane-Saulnier P parasols.

The English ace James McCudden served as a mechanic and occasional observer with 3 Squadron in the early part of the war, leaving the squadron in January 1916 for flying training. Cecil Lewis, author of Sagittarius Rising joined the squadron in May 1915 and flew Morane Parasols with the squadron during the Somme offensive. Later in October 1917, with the introduction of Sopwith Camels, a fighter/scout role was taken on, with 59 enemy aircraft being claimed by the end of the war. The squadron disbanded on 27 October 1919.

There were nine flying aces among its ranks, including Douglas John Bell, George R. Riley, Will Hubbard, Adrian Franklyn, Hazel LeRoy Wallace, Lloyd Hamilton, David Hughes, Neil Smuts and William H Maxted.

Interwar
It reformed in India on 1 April 1920 as a fighter squadron equipped with Sopwith Snipes, being disbanded again 30 September 1921. It was immediately reformed the next day at RAF Leuchars, Scotland, as a naval observation squadron equipped with the Airco DH.9A, receiving the Westland Walrus and Avro Bison before being disbanded to form two independent flights on 1 April 1923.

It reformed as a fighter squadron with Snipes a year later on 1 April 1924, operating a succession of different types, based in the UK, including the Gloster Gladiator. The only highlight of these years was the 1935 deployment to the Sudan during the Italian invasion of Abyssinia.

Second World War
At the start of the Second World War No 3 Squadron was posted as part of Fighter Command to RAF Station Biggin Hill equipped with the Hawker Hurricane. It briefly deployed to France in support of the British Expeditionary Force following the German attack on the West in 1940, being forced to withdraw after 10 days, having claimed 60 German aircraft for the loss of 21 of its own. On 21 July 1940 "B" flight was detached to form the nucleus of the newly formed No. 232 Squadron. Once back up to strength, No. 3 Squadron was used as air defence for the Royal Naval base at Scapa Flow, remaining in Scotland until April? 1941, based at the RAF Station at Wick in Northern Scotland. In June 1941 No 3 Squadron moved from Martlesham Heath to RAF Stapleford Tawney operating four-cannon Hurricane IIs in 'Rhubarb' attacks on defended ground targets and shipping in northern France and Belgium.

The squadron then co-operated with "Turbinlite" searchlight equipped Douglas Havocs in the night fighter role.

In February 1943 it re-equipped with the Hawker Typhoon for fighter-bomber and anti-shipping strikes. It re-equipped in March 1944 with the new Hawker Tempest fighter, operating over the Normandy beach-head and against German V1 flying bombs, claiming 288 V-1s shot down.

It then deployed across the Channel, flying as part of the 2 TAF fighting through the low countries and into Germany. Amongst its pilots was F/L Pierre Clostermann, who flew with 3 Squadron from March 1945 until the end of the war in Europe.

Post-War
The squadron moved onto jets with the De Havilland Vampire during 1948, in Germany, where it had remained after moving there in the latter stages of the war. Sabres and Hunters replaced the Vampires during the 1950s, followed by Gloster Javelins and then a conversion onto Canberra bombers. Most of its time with Canberras was spent at RAF Geilenkirchen moving to RAF Laarbruch in January 1968.

No. 3 (Fighter) Squadron's association with the Hawker Siddeley Harrier began in the early 1970s with the Harrier GR1 at RAF Wildenrath where it reformed from Canberras to Harriers and they joined 4 & 20 Squadron equipped with Harrier GR1's who were already operational at RAF Wildenrath. The squadron received the later GR3 and GR5 model Harriers successively at RAF Gütersloh, finally receiving the GR7 and relocating to RAF Laarbruch in the 1992. In 1999, with the drawdown of the RAF in Germany, the squadron moved back to the UK along with its sister squadron No. IV (AC) Squadron. The two squadrons operated at RAF Cottesmore, being joined by the other Harrier operator, No. 1 (F) Squadron, in summer 2000.

As part of Joint Force Harrier, 3 Squadron operated alongside the Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers, and was capable of deployment from the Royal Navy aircraft carriers. Operations included Operation Allied Force over Kosovo in 1999, Operation Palliser over Sierra Leone in 2000 and Operation Telic over Iraq in 2003. In August 2004, it was announced that 6 Harriers would be deployed to Afghanistan in support of NATO forces.

Eurofighter Typhoon (2006–present)
After the Harrier GR7s had been passed to the Fleet Air Arm to be used by the recommissioned No. 800 Naval Air Squadron, No. 3 Squadron moved to RAF Coningsby where it re-equipped with the Eurofighter Typhoon on 1 April 2006 and became the first operational front line RAF Typhoon squadron in July 2007. The squadron began to take over Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) responsibilities from the Panavia Tornado F.3 on 29 June 2007.

In March 2011, No. 3 (F) Squadron deployed to Southern Italy to take part in Operation Ellamy over Libya in support of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

In May 2012, four aircraft were deployed to RAF Northolt in an air defence role covering the duration of the Olympic Games, the first time RAF fighters had been stationed at the base since the Second World War.

Between April and August 2017, four Eurofighter Typhoons of the squadron were deployed to the Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, Romania as part of Operation Biloxi. During this deployment, the squadron fighters flew on over 280 training sorties and one sortie in response to Russian Air Force activity over the Black Sea.

During March 2018, six Typhoons from No. 3 Squadron deployed to Andravida Air Base in Greece for Exercise Iniochos 18. It was the first time that RAF Typhoons had participated in the annual NATO exercise.

On 3 September 2019, No. 3 (F) Squadron deployed to Oman for two weeks to participate in Exercise Magic Carpet.

Aircraft operated

 * Sopwith Camel (September 1917 – February 1919)
 * Sopwith Snipe (April 1920 – October 1921; April 1924 – October 1925)
 * Airco DH.9A (October 1921 – October 1922)
 * Westland Walrus (January 1922 – April 1923)
 * Hawker Woodcock II (July 1925 – September 1928)
 * Gloster Gamecock I (August 1928 – July 1929)
 * Bristol Bulldog II (May 1929 – December 1932)
 * Bristol Bulldog IIA (February 1931 – January 1932; December 1932 – June 1937)
 * Gloster Gladiator I (March 1937 – March 1939; July 1938 – July 1939)
 * Hawker Hurricane I (March–July 1938; July 1939 – April 1941)
 * Hawker Hurricane IIA/IIB (April – November 1941)
 * Hawker Hurricane IIC (April 1941 – May 1943)
 * Hawker Typhoon IB (February 1943 – April 1944)
 * Hawker Tempest V (February 1944 – April 1948)
 * de Havilland Vampire F.1 (April 1948 – May 1949)
 * de Havilland Vampire FB.5 (May 1949 – May 1953)
 * Canadair Sabre F.2/F.4 (May 1953 – June 1956)
 * Hawker Hunter F.4 (May 1956 – June 1957)
 * Gloster Javelin FAW.4 (January 1959 – December 1960)
 * English Electric Canberra B(I).8 (January 1961 – January 1972)
 * Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR.1A/T.2 (January 1972 – March 1977)
 * Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR.3 (December 1973 - January 1990)
 * Hawker Siddeley Harrier T.4 (March 1977 – May 1989)
 * BAe Harrier GR.5/T.4 (May 1989 – February 1992)
 * BAe Harrier GR.7/T.10 (February 1992 – 31 March 2006)
 * BAE Harrier GR.7A (2004 – 31 March 2006)
 * Eurofighter Typhoon F.2 (1 April 2006 – July 2008)
 * Eurofighter Typhoon FGR.4/T.3 (3 June 2011 – present)

Battle honours
The battle honours awarded to No. 3 Squadron. Those marked with an asterisk (*) may be emblazoned on the squadron standard.

 * Western Front 1914–1918*
 * Mons*
 * Neuve Chapelle
 * Loos
 * Somme 1916
 * Cambrai
 * Somme 1918*
 * Hindenburg Line
 * France and Low Countries 1940*
 * Battle of Britain 1940*
 * Home Defence 1940–1945
 * Fortress Europe 1942–1944
 * Channel and North Sea 1943–1945
 * Normandy 1944*
 * Arnhem*
 * Rhine
 * France and Germany 1944–1945*
 * Iraq 2003*
 * Libya 2011

title: No. 3 Squadron RAF


text:
Seto

Seto may refer to:

Places

 * Seto, Aichi, production place of Japanese pottery and venue of Expo 2005
 * Seto, Ehime, facing the Seto Inland Sea
 * Seto, Okayama, adjacent to Okayama, in Okayama Prefecture
 * Seto Inland Sea of Japan
 * Setomaa (Seto land), region in Estonia and Russia

People and fictional characters

 * Situ (surname), a Chinese surname (司徒), romanised from Cantonese as Seto or Szeto
 * Robert M. M. Seto (born 1936), American federal judge and law professor
 * Michael C. Seto (born 1967), Canadian psychologist and sex researcher
 * Andy Seto (born 1969), Hong Kong comic artist
 * Carwai Seto (born 1973), Canadian swimmer
 * A Japanese surname (瀬戸)
 * Masato Seto (born 1953), Japanese photographer
 * Asaka Seto (born 1976), Japanese actress
 * Rocky Seto (born 1976), American football coach
 * Haruki Seto (born 1978), Japanese football player
 * Saori Seto (born 1983), Japanese voice actress
 * Taiki Seto (born 1983), Japanese Go player
 * Kōji Seto (born 1988), Japanese actor and singer
 * Takayuki Seto (born 1986), Japanese footballer
 * Asami Seto (born 1993), Japanese voice actress
 * Daiya Seto (born 1994), Japanese swimmer
 * Toshiki Seto (born 1995), Japanese actor
 * Yutaka Seto, fictional character in Battle Royale
 * Ichitaka Seto, fictional character in I"s
 * A given name or nickname
 * Devin Setoguchi (born 1987), Canadian professional hockey player nicknamed "Seto"
 * Seto Kaiba, main character from the Japanese manga and anime series Yu-Gi-Oh!
 * Seto Kamiki, character from the Japanese anime Tenchi Muyo!
 * Seto, the father of Red XIII in the video game Final Fantasy VII

Other uses

 * Setos, an ethnic group in south-eastern Estonia and north-western Russia
 * Seto language, the language spoken by the Setos
 * My Bride Is a Mermaid, a manga and anime series
 * Seto (train), a former train service in Japan
 * Sunrise Seto, a train service in Japan
 * Great Seto Bridge, also Seto Ōhashi, a series of double deck bridges connecting Japanese islands Honshū and Shikoku.
 * szeto

title: Seto


text: User talk:63.164.207.180

title: User talk:63.164.207.180


text:
Ambulocetus

Ambulocetus (Latin ambulare "to walk" + cetus "whale") is a genus of early amphibious cetacean from the Kuldana Formation in Pakistan, roughly 48 or 47 million years ago during the Early Eocene (Lutetian). It contains one species, Ambulocetus natans (Latin natans "swimming"), known solely from a near-complete skeleton. Ambulocetus is among the best-studied of Eocene cetaceans, and serves as an instrumental find in the study of cetacean evolution and their transition from land to sea, as it was the first cetacean discovered to preserve a suite of adaptations consistent with an amphibious lifestyle. Ambulocetus is classified in the group Archaeoceti—the ancient forerunners of modern cetaceans whose members span the transition from land to sea—and in the family Ambulocetidae, which includes Himalayacetus and Gandakasia (also from the Eocene of the Indian subcontinent).

Ambulocetus had a narrow, streamlined body, and a long, broad snout, with eyes positioned at the very top of its head. Because of these features, it is hypothesised to have behaved much like a crocodile, waiting near the water's surface to ambush large mammals, using its powerful jaws to clamp onto and drown or thrash prey. Additionally, its ears possessed similar traits to modern cetaceans, which are specialised for hearing and detecting certain frequencies underwater, although it is unclear if Ambulocetus also used these specialised ears for hearing underwater. They may have instead been utilised for bone conduction on land, or perhaps served no function for early cetaceans.

It is thought to have swum much like a modern river otter, tucking in its forelimbs while alternating its hind limbs for propulsion, as well as undulating the torso and tail. It may have had webbed feet, and unlike its modern relatives, lacked a tail fluke. On land, Ambulocetus may have walked much like a sea lion.

Ambulocetus inhabited the Indian subcontinent during the Eocene. The area had a hot climate with tropical rainforests and coastal mangroves, and Ambulocetus may have predominantly inhabited brackish areas such as river mouths. It lived alongside requiem sharks, catfish and various other fishes, turtles, crocodiles, the amphibious hoofed mammal Anthracobune, and the fellow cetaceans Gandakasia, Attockicetus, Nalacetus, and Pakicetus.

Discovery
In December 1991, Pakistani palaeontologist Mohammad Arif and Dutch–American palaeontologist Hans Thewissen were jointly funded by Howard University and the Geological Survey of Pakistan to recover land mammal fossils in the Kala Chitta Hills of Punjab, Pakistan. On 3 January 1992, they recovered a small, thick rib fragment. Later in the field season, while surveying the upper Kuldana Formation, Thewissen discovered a femur (thigh bone) and proximal portion of the tibia (upper portion of the shin) which clearly belonged to a mammal. An hour later, Arif discovered the rest of the skeleton, and the two began excavation the next day. At first, Thewissen speculated the fossils belonged to an anthracobunid (a large semi-aquatic mammal), until he found the teeth near the end of the field season, which were characteristically cetacean (living cetaceans are whales, dolphins, and porpoises). Thewissen, at the time, could not afford to excavate and store everything, so he took the skull with him to the United States, while Arif kept the rest in two crates which used to hold oranges. In October 1992, Thewissen presented his research of the skull to a vertebrate palaeontology convention in Toronto, Canada. The next year, American palaeontologist Philip D. Gingerich paid for the rest of the skeleton to be shipped to the United States. In 1994, the formal description of the remains was published by Thewissen, mammal palaeontologist Sayed Taseer Hussain, and Arif. They identified the remains as clearly belonging to an amphibious cetacean, and so they named it Ambulocetus natans. The genus name comes from Latin ambulare "to walk" and cetus "whale", and the species name natans "swimming".

The Kuldana Formation is constrained to sometime during the Lutetian stage of the Early Eocene, and the remains may date to 48–47 million years ago. The holotype specimen, HGSP 18507, is a partial skeleton initially discovered preserving an incomplete skull (missing the snout), some elements of the vertebral column and ribs, as well as portions of the fore- and hind-limb. Other specimens initially found were HGSP 18473 (a second premolar), HGSP 18497 (a third premolar), HGSP 18472 (a tail vertebra), and HGSP 18476 (lower portion of a femur). The holotype was found in a silt and mudstone bed over a 1.8 m2 area. Further excavation recovered most of the holotype's skeleton—most notably the hip, sacrum, and most of ribcage and thoracolumbar series (the spine excluding the neck, sacrum, and tail). These left the holotype about 80% complete by 2002, making it the most completely known cetacean from the time period. In 2009, some more elements of the holotype's jawbone were identified from a then-recently prepared matrix block.

Though it was known that cetaceans descended from land mammals before the discovery of Ambulocetus, the only evidence of this in the fossil record was the 52-million-year-old (fully terrestrial) Pakicetus and the Paleocene mesonychians (as there was a hypothesised link between cetaceans and mesonychians). The limbs of more aquatic Eocene cetaceans did not preserve very well. Ambulocetus demonstrated that cetaceans swam by flexing the spine up and down (undulation) before they had evolved the tail fluke, forelimb propulsion evolved relatively late, and that cetaceans went through an otter-like phase with spinal undulation and hindlimb propulsion. These had already been hypothesised to have occurred in the earliest aquatic cetaceans, but were impossible to test without more complete remains. The describers noted that, "Ambulocetus represents a critical intermediate between land mammals and marine cetaceans."

Classification
Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales). Neoceti are descended from the ancient Archaeoceti, whose members span the transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic. Archaeoceti are thus paraphyletic (it is a non-natural group which does not comprise both a common ancestor and all of its descendants). Ambulocetus was an archaeocete. By the time Ambulocetus was discovered, archaeocetes were classified into the families Protocetidae (which included what are now the terrestrial Pakicetidae, and the rest were amphibious), Remingtonocetidae (amphibious), Basilosauridae (aquatic), and Dorudontidae (aquatic, now a subfamily of Basilosauridae). The earliest cetaceans were thought to be the mesonychians, proposed before any firm early cetacean fossils were identified. In the original description, Ambulocetus was preliminarily placed into Protocetidae, until the further description of the holotype prompted Thewissen and colleagues to move it into its own family Ambulocetidae in 1996. At the same time, they also erected the family Pakicetidae. They also proposed that some members of Pakicetidae, Protocetidae, and Ambulocetidae were the other two archaeocete families' ancestors. They suggested that mesonychians gave rise to pakicetids, which gave rise to ambulocetids, which gave rise to both protocetids and remingtonocetids.

Though middle-to-late-Eocene archaeocetes are also known from North America, Europe, and Africa, most of these are found only on the Indian subcontinent. Therefore, it is thought cetaceans originally evolved in that region. Based on molecular data, cetaceans are most closely allied with hippos (Whippomorpha), and they split approximately 54.9 million years ago. They are all placed in the order Cetartiodactyla alongside terrestrial even-toed ungulates (hoofed mammals). This puts mesonychians as a distant relative of cetaceans rather than an ancestor, and their somewhat similar morphology was possibly a result of convergent evolution. The oldest known cetacean is the ambulocetid Himalayacetus identified in 1998 and dated to 52.5 million years ago (predating the terrestrial pakicetids), though the exact dating of Himalayacetus and Pakicetus is debated. Ambulocetidae also includes Gandakasia. Himalayacetus and Gandakasia are known only from partial jaw fragments. Ambulocetidae are endemic to the Indian subcontinent, and span the early to middle Eocene.

Size
Upon description, Thewissen and colleagues suggested the holotype specimen may have weighed the same as a male South American sea lion — about 300 kg — based on the size of the vertebrae, ribs, and limbs. They also estimated a length of roughly 300 cm. For comparison, the holotype of Pakicetus attocki may have been 140 cm long. In 1996, they estimated weight of Ambulocetus, using the cross-sections of the long bones, as 141–235 kg. Alternatively, they estimated about 250 kg by using the length of the second upper and lower molars compared to trends between this length and ungulate body mass. They obtained the same result comparing the skull size to those of similarly sized carnivores. In 1998, based on vertebral size, Gingerich estimated a body mass of 720 kg, similar to modern cetaceans. In 2013, Thewissen suggested that this may be an unreliable mass determinant as the vertebrae are unusually robust in Ambulocetus.

Skull
Like other archaeocetes which preserve this element, the base of the skull has an undulating contour, probably related to the shape of the nasal canal (and its passage to the throat) and the narrow infraorbital region (the area below the eyes). The base of the skull is wide compared to other archaeocetes, more like that of modern cetaceans. The narrow infraorbital space, made of primarily the pterygoid processes, also occurs in Remingtonocetus and Pakicetus. The pterygoids connect as far back as the middle ear, much farther than other archaeocetes including the more ancient Pakicetus. Most modern cetaceans have a falcate (sickle-shaped) process which juts out prominently halfway between the hypoglossal canal and the ear; Ambulocetus has a similar process continuous of the pterygoid, but it runs alongside and behind the hypoglossal canal. Like many other archaeocetes, the pterygoids, sphenoids, and palatines form a wall lining the bottom of the nasal canal, which causes the palate to extend all the way to the ear. Like other cetaceans, Ambulocetus lacks the postglenoid foramen, which usually is one of the main passageways for veins into the skull in placental mammals. The ectotympanic bone which supports the eardrum is similar to that of Pakicetus, about as long as wide, whereas later archaeocetes have more elongate ectotympanics. The ectotympanics of all archaeocetes, nonetheless, are much different than those of terrestrial mammals. The ectotympanics of all cetaceans, including Ambulocetus, possess an involucrum (thickened lump of bone) at the medial lip. Unlike Pakicetus, but like later archaeocetes, the tympanic made close contact with the jaw. Like later archaeocetes, Ambulocetus seems to have possessed an air sinus in the pterygoids. It may have also had paranasal sinuses. The parietal bones on the braincase sides are more perpendicular than in Remingtonocetus, which makes the cheeks appear less flared. Like Remingtonocetus, Ambulocetus appears to have had a small brain.

The snout was quite broad, but the end of the holotype's snout is missing, so it is unclear how long it would have been. The snouts of Basilosaurus and Rodhocetus are short and make up about half the skull's length. Remingtonocetid snouts are quite narrow, which was clearly not the case for Ambulocetus. The mandibular symphysis of most mammals is restricted to the midline of the jaw, but extends much farther in archaeocetes; in Ambulocetus, it reaches the back end of the first premolar. Snout robustness and symphysis length suggest reinforcement of the jaw to withstand a strong bite force. Similarly, the strongest biting muscle in Ambulocetus seems to have been the temporalis muscle involved in biting down. Like other cetaceans, there are embrasure pits (a depression between the teeth), preserving the tooth positions for the fourth premolar, the first molar, and the third molar. Unlike later archaeocetes, the molars' roots do not extend to the cheek bones, and the third molar is not as nosewards as in remingtonocetids. The coronoid process of the mandible (where the lower jaw connects with the skull) in Ambulocetus is steep. In contrast, it is low and slopes gently down in basilosaurids and later cetaceans. The mandibular foramen opens below the coronoid process, and is around midway between terrestrial mammals and toothed whales in size. Like other cetaceans, the body of the hyoid bone (the basihyoid bone) is about as long as wide. Unlike other archaeocetes, the eyes are quite large and are placed near the top of the head facing upwards.

Unlike modern toothed whales which only have one kind of tooth (homodont), archaeocetes are heterodont. Judging by tooth root size, the lower canine was larger than the incisors. The teeth are more robust than those of Rodhocetus and Basilosaurus. The premolars were double rooted, whereas most archaeocetes have single-rooted first premolars. The enamel of the lower premolars is crenulated (has scalloped edges). The fourth premolar is a high triangular shape. Like other ancient cetaceans, and most pronouncedly in ambulocetids, the lower molars are shorter than the back premolars. The lower premolars are larger than those of Pakicetus and are separated by wider gaps (diastemata). The molars had distinct trigonid and talonid cusps (these cusps are lost in basilosaurids), and the upper molars were trituberculate like ancient archaeocetes and ancient placental mammals, meaning they had a large protocone, distinct paracone and metacone, and no accessory cusps. Later archaeocetes developed accessory cusps.

Ribs and vertebrae
The holotype preserved seven neck vertebrae, which are rather long at 3 cm. The 16 preserved thoracic vertebrae have thick spinous and transverse processes (which jut upwards and obliquely from the centrum, the vertebral body), with deep depressions on both sides at the tail-end of each centrum which may have supported strong longissimus muscles which flex the spine. The thoracic vertebrae become longer and wider tailwards and are tallest mid-series. In front-view (anterior aspect), the centra go from heart-shaped to kidney-shaped by T8 (the eighth thoracic vertebra). The pedicals (between the centrum and a transverse process) feature deep grooves. The spinous processes project tailwards from T1–T9, straight up at T10, headwards from T11 to T12, and the rest project straight up. The spinous processes progressively increase in length and width from T11–T16. T10 seems to have been at the level of the thoracic diaphragm. T1–T12 and T14 have capitular facets on the top margin of both the frontward and tailward side to join with the ribs. T15 and T16 have capitular facets on the headward side and lack transverse processes. T11–T15 have accessory anapophyses which jut straight up from the top border between the centrum and the transverse processes; and in T16, these are small, originate near the pedicles, and project tailwards. The width between articular processes (two masses of bone which jut out of each centrum to connect with the next centrum) continually increases through the thoracolumbar series. In life, it is possible it had up to 17 thoracic vertebrae.

The holotype preserves 26 ribs, though it is thought to have had 32 total in life. The cortical bone (the outermost layer) is thickest at the neck of the rib (between the joint and the costal cartilage), at max 1 mm, and was filled with spongy bone. That is, unlike many other aquatic mammals, the ribs did not exhibit osteosclerosis. They did exhibit pachyostosis, and were made thicker and heavier with additional layers of lamellar bone. The ribs' shape indicates Ambulocetus had a narrow and heart-shaped thorax looking at it head-on. Ribs are thickest at the T8–T10 level. Ribs are broadest at the sternum, which suggests strong sternocostal joints. The ribs have a slight S-curve in side view, with the rib heads angled headwards, and the sternocostal joints angled tailwards. The holotype preserves a central and a tailward sternum bone which are both exceedingly thick, about 27 mm on the outer margins and decreasing towards the centre. The central sternum bone is longer and wider than the tailward one.

The eight preserved lumbar vertebrae at the lower back are much longer than the thoracic, and the centra and transverse processes, from L1–L7, continually increase in length and height. The short transverse processes on L8 are probably due to its proximity to the ilium on the hip. The undersides are concave. The spinous processes are long and tall, and project headward from L1–L5, and straight-up from L6–L8. The spinous processes are bulbous on the tailward side to support epaxial muscles. The vertebral laminae are excavated headward to support the interspinous ligaments which connect the spinous processes. The vertebrae are about as robust as those of modern pinniped such as sow leopard seals and bull walruses. The postzygapophyses (the surface where the vertebrae join with each other) is flat rather than revolute, which would have made the series more flexible than that of terrestrial relatives.

For the four preserved sacral vertebrae (at the sacrum, between the pelvic bones), the transverse processes of S1 are smaller than those of L8. There is a robust sacroiliac joint with the hip. For the spinous processes, those of S1–S3 are fused. Metapophyses jut straight up from each lamina near the joint, progressively getting smaller with each vertebra.

Only five of the tail (caudal) vertebrae are preserved: a possible C1 or C2, a possible C3, a possible C4, a possible C7, and a possible C8. The more headward tail vertebrae have thick transverse processes, whereas those of the middle tail vertebrae are longer than broad. The C3 has a narrow spinous process and is mostly columnar, but the tailward side is broader. The C4 is more columnar. The C7 and C8 are columnar and taper off tailward, and the neural canal where the central nervous system runs through is still present. In life, Ambulocetus possibly had upwards of 20 tail vertebrae like some mesonychians. If correct, then Ambulocetus would have had a lot fewer and a lot longer tail vertebrae than modern cetaceans.

Limbs and girdles
Unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus had functional legs which could support the animal's bodyweight on land. The holotype has a robust radius and ulna (the forearm bones). The forearm measures 17 cm in length. The head of the radius is somewhat triangular, which probably means the forearm was locked in a semi-pronated position (the palms were orientated towards the ground). The olecranon, which formed part of the elbow joint, makes up about a third of the ulna's length and is inclined tailwards, which would have allowed the triceps to more forcefully flex the elbow. The wrist bones indicate a strong flexor carpi ulnaris muscle for wrist flexion. The hand had five widely spaced digits. The first metacarpal (which is in the thumb) is 5.2 cm long, the second 7.6 cm, the third 10.5 cm, the fourth 10.2 cm, and the fifth 6.39 cm. Like modern beaked whales, the thumb is short and slender.

The ilium of the hip of Ambulocetus, like remingtonocetids, features deep depressions to support the rectus femoris and the gluteal muscles. Unlike terrestrial mammals and protocetids, the ischium is expanded dorsolaterally (from left to right, and upwards), which would have increased lever arm for thigh and leg retractor muscles when extended, such as while swimming. This would have also increased the surface area of the gemelli muscles (hip rotators which stabilise the hip) and the tail muscles. The widening of the ischium may have also given Ambulocetus a more streamlined and hydrodynamic body. Ambulocetus had a pubic symphysis connecting the two pubic bones at the base of the pelvis together, which indicates the animal could support its own weight on land. The modern cetacean pubis bone lacks this and only functions to anchor abdominal and urogenital muscles.

The leg proportions of Ambulocetus are similar to otters and seals, and American mammalogist Alfred Brazier Howell predicted similar proportions for a transitional cetacean in 1930. The femur measures 29 cm, a length similar to the presumably cursorial (capable of running) mesonychian Pachyaena. Archaeocete femora are generally much shorter. The femoral head is spherical and, at maximum, has a width of 3.86 cm, similar to Indocetus but much larger than mesonychians and Rodhocetus. The trochanteric fossa, supporting the lateral rotator group at the hip, is quite deep, but other than this, the femur does not seem to have supported particularly strong extensor or flexor muscles. The femoral condyles of Ambulocetus are quite long compared to those of other archaeocetes and mesonychians, suggesting the knee was capable of hyperflexion (bending). The tibia is overall similar to those of mesonychians. The feet are huge, probably longer than the femur. The toes are also relatively long, with the fourth digit measuring 17 cm in length. The fifth digit is slightly shorter and much less robust than the fourth. The phalanges of the toes are short, and end with a convex hoof. Like seals, the phalanges of both the hands and feet are flattened, which may have streamlined them to allow for webbed feet.

Diet
The robustness of the cheek teeth, as well as the cusp arrangement, suggests they were involved in crushing, and the fact that both the premolars and molars were involved in crushing indicates Ambulocetus required a large area for crushing, such as when biting into large prey items. Similarly, the broad and powerful snout makes it unlikely it was pursuing small, quick prey items (which would have required a narrow snout like dolphins or gharials). The snout was also long, which may have precluded the ability to crush bone because it would have had reduced structural integrity at the tip. The anatomy of the cheek teeth resembles those of Mesozoic marine reptiles which fed on armoured fish, large fish, reptiles, and ammonites, and the teeth may have been used to grip onto prey firmly. Therefore, Thewissen suggested Ambulocetus was most likely an ambush predator, the jaw adapted to handle struggling prey. The unusually deep pterygoids potentially functioned to dissipate force while the prey was struggling.

The eyes of Ambulocetus were placed on the top of the head, similar to crocodiles and other animals that prefer to keep most of their body submerged with the eyes peeking out of the water. The nasal canal has bony walls extending into the throat, much like in crocodiles where they keep the nasal airways open while the animal is killing prey either by drowning it or thrashing it around. Pieces of prey are subsequently torn off by forceful, thrashing head and body motions, the feet anchoring the crocodile in place. Thewissen believed Ambulocetus used a similar feeding tactic, though Ambulocetus was probably capable of chewing, unlike crocodiles. Ambulocetus may have attacked large mammals which approached the water's edge, and semi-aquatic mammals including early (possibly herbivorous) sirenians (now manatees and the dugong) and the probably amphibious anthracobunids. These two seem to have been rather common on the coasts of the Indian subcontinent, which could mean they were regular prey items. Since Ambulocetus was found in marine deposits (where animals would not come to drink), it is possible it hunted in river deltas which were recorded in the Kuldana Formation. Ambulocetus probably went after fish and reptiles when given the opportunity, though it may not have had the agility to commonly catch them.

Locomotion
Thewissen hypothesised that Ambulocetus was a drag-powered swimmer, and used its huge feet as its primary propulsion mechanism, much like modern river otters including the giant otter, and species in the genera Lontra and Lutra. Based on the length of the known tail vertebrae, Ambulocetus may have had an inflexible tail, which would have made the tail an inefficient primary propulsion mechanism due to poorer lever arm (modern cetaceans have relatively short tail vertebrae). Ambulocetus therefore likely did not have a tail fluke. Nonetheless, drag powered swimmers still have powerful tails for producing lift, and the tails of river otters are 125% the size of the thoracolumbar series. So, using river otters as a model, Ambulocetus was a pelvic paddler—swimming with alternating beats of the hindlimbs (without engaging the forelimbs)—and also undulated (moved up and down) its tail while swimming. Like the sea otter, pelvic paddling may have been done at the surface to move at slow or moderate speeds. At higher speeds fully submerged, undulation of the spine would have become more prominent, though the feet still would have acted as the primary propulsion mechanism.

Based on the pelvis and robust forelimbs, Thewissen believed Ambulocetus was capable of venturing onto land, and was more efficient at doing this than remingtonocetids and protocetids (it is unclear if the latter two were capable of bearing weight on the limbs). Ambulocetus possibly used a sprawling gait on land, similar to modern sea lions. In 2016, Japanese biologists Konami Ando and Shin‐ichi Fujiwara performed a statistical test of ribcage strength among terrestrial, semi-aquatic, and fully aquatic mammals, and found that Ambulocetus clustered with fully aquatic mammals, because they assigned a very high rib density on par with fully aquatic sirenians which use their heavy, osteosclerotic ribs as ballast. They then concluded Ambulocetus could not walk on land, but cautioned the study was limited by a lack of information on the exact density of the bone, the location of the centre of mass, and the reliance of false ribs for thoracic support.

Hearing
Modern cetaceans have highly specialised ear bones to hear underwater as well as to detect certain frequency ranges. Unlike most other mammals, cetacean ear bones are comparatively thick, and so preserve more reliably in the fossil record. Modern cetaceans have air sinuses surrounding the ear bones (peritympanic sinuses), which acoustically isolate the ear by reflecting sound moving through the head and interrupting both bony and fleshy connections of the ear to the skull. Like later archaeocetes, Ambulocetus had at least one such sinus between the tympanic bone and the skull base. The evolution of these sinuses also seems to have caused some restructuring of the skull base due to the development of bony walls surrounding the sinuses. The ectotympanic of all cetaceans, including Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, has a bony growth (involucrum) on the medial lip speculated to aid in the detection of low-frequency sounds. All cetaceans also have a vertical crest ("sigmoid process") right in front of the ear canal, which is speculated to be related to the increasing size of the malleus bone in the middle ear.

As for the outer ear, terrestrial mammals channel sound in via an ear canal, but those of modern cetaceans are either narrowed or completely plugged, the sound being picked up (at least for toothed whales) by a fat pad in the lower jaw running to the ectotympanic bone. The mandibular foramen size can determine the size of the fat pad, and that of Ambulocetus is larger than that of Pakicetus and terrestrial mammals, but is smaller than later archaeocetes and toothed whales. Nonetheless, a lot of the change to the external auditory apparatus occurred between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. These early archaeocetes may have developed such an external ear to either: better hear underwater; facilitate bone conduction of vibrations on dry land as some low-lying terrestrial creatures do (namely turtles and subterranean mole rats); or it was non-functional, and the malleus and jawbone (which are connected in the embryo stage of mammals) happened to stop separating.

Palaeoecology
During the Eocene, the Indian subcontinent was an island just beginning its collision with Asia which would eventually lead to the uprising of the Himalayas. The Eocene had a greenhouse climate (no permanent ice sheets at the poles) as opposed to the icehouse climate of today, so, in general, areas were much warmer. The abundance of Eocene brown coal deposits preserving tropical biota on the Indian subcontinent indicates the proliferation of tropical rainforests in a hot climate. Mangroves seem to have commonly grown along the subcontinent's western margin in the Early Eocene but decreased nearing the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum (a warming trend). The waters off the western coast seem to have featured upwelling and low oxygen.

The holotype was identified in the upper level of the Kuldana Formation at Locality 9209, which features green mud and silt as well as a bed of marine shells, including marine snails (such as Turritella) and bivalves. It was likely a coastal area. A redbed underlies this layer, followed by grey, green, and purple freshwater mud, silts, sandstones, and limestone. These beds alternate with showing marine deposits. The holotype was found in green mud. Near Locality 9209, the formation begins with 10 m of grey and green mud, silt, and sandstone, containing two bivalve beds. The first often stretches only one shell, whereas the second stretches 50 cm down, and the formation terminates with a 1 m bed before transitioning to the younger Kohat Formation. The holotype was found a few decimeters above the second bed.

The area may have formed in a shallow sea off the shores of a coastal swamp or forest. The only other vertebrate remains found at the 9209 locality was a (now lost) reptile scute. Other localities of the upper level of the formation have yielded remains of requiem sharks, the fish Stephanodus, catfish, turtles, crocodiles, and the anthracobunid Anthracobune pinfoldi. Other archaeocetes from the formation are: the ambulocetid Gandakasia, the remingtonocetid Attockicetus, and the pakicetids Nalacetus, Pakicetus calcis, and P. chittas. Stable carbon and oxygen isotope analysis indicates Ambulocetus inhabited brackish waters (part fresh and part salt water), possibly at a river mouth.

title: Ambulocetus


text:
Category:Saharan languages

The Saharan languages are a subgroup of the Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in the southeastern Sahara. (They do not include all the languages of the Sahara.)

title: Category:Saharan languages