text:
Buddhist councils

Since the death of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, Buddhist monastic communities ("sangha") have periodically convened to settle doctrinal and disciplinary disputes and to revise and correct the contents of the Buddhist canons. These gatherings are often termed Buddhist "councils" (Pāli and Sanskrit: saṅgīti, literally meaning "reciting together" or "joint rehearsal"). Accounts of these councils are recorded in Buddhist texts as having begun immediately following the death of the Buddha and have continued into the modern era. The earliest councils are regarded as real events by every Buddhist tradition. However, the historicity and details of these councils remains a matter of dispute in modern Buddhist studies. This is because various sources belonging to different Buddhist schools contain conflicting accounts of these events and the narratives often serve to bolster the authority and prestige of specific schools.

First Buddhist council
All six of the surviving Vinaya sources of various early Buddhist schools contain accounts, in whole or in part, of the first and second councils. The story of the First Council seems to be a continuation of the story of the Buddha's final days and death told in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta and its equivalents in the Agamas. Based on correlations and continuity between these two texts, Louis Finot concluded that they had originated from a single narrative that was later split between the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka. In most schools, the account of the First Council is located at the end of the Skandhaka section of the Vinaya but before any appendices.

The first Buddhist council is traditionally said to have been held just after Buddha's final nirvana, and presided over by Mahākāśyapa, one of his most senior disciples, at a cave near Rājagṛha (today's Rajgir) with the support of king Ajatashatru. Its objective was to preserve the Buddha's sayings (suttas) and the monastic discipline or rules (Vinaya). The Suttas were recited by Ananda, and the Vinaya was recited by Upali. Even though the Buddha had said that the Sangha could abolish the minor rules after his passing, the council made the unanimous decision to keep all the rules intact. According to Charles Prebish, almost all scholars have questioned the historicity of this first council.

Numerous Vinayas also depict various disagreements in the first council. Various monks disagreed on whether to keep or get rid of some of the minor rules (since the Buddha had told Ananda that this may be done). Some monks even argued all the minor rules should be abolished. Also, numerous early sources state that Mahakasyapa criticized Ananda in various ways. Analayo quotes one passage from a Chinese parallel to the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta (T 1428 at T XXII 966b18), in which Mahākassapa says: "Ānanda is [like] a lay person. I am afraid that, being with covetousness in his mind, he will not recite the discourses completely." Analayo writes there may have been "actual conflict between two contending factions in the monastic community after the Buddha’s decease, with the more ascetically inclined faction emerging as the winning party in the accounts of the first saṅgīti".

According to some traditional accounts, following the Buddha's death, 499 of the Buddha's top arhats were chosen to attend the council. Ananda, then a sotapanna, trained himself until the dawn of day of the council, at which point he attained arahatship and was allowed to join the council.

Regarding the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the third major division of the Tipitaka, modern academic scholarship holds that it was likely composed at a later date because of its contents and differences in language and style. According to Theravada tradition, the Abhidhamma Pitaka, and the ancient Atthakathā (commentary) were also included at the first Buddhist council in the Sutta category, but its literature is different from Sutta because the Abhidhamma Pitaka was authored by Sāriputta.

Alternative groups
The various Vinayas also recount another curious event during this time. The Cullavagga mentions there was an arhat named Purāṇa who stated that he and his followers preferred to remember the Buddha's teachings in the manner he had heard it and so did not rely on the textual collections of the council. This figure is also found in the Aśokāvadāna and the Tibetan Dulvā Vinaya, which depict Purāṇa and another monk, Gavampati which were not present at the council and who worry about what will happen to the Dharma after the death of the Buddha. This account is described in the Chinese versions of the Dharmagupta and Mahīsāsaka Vinayas and in the Vinayamātrika Sūtra. Gavampati is said to have also maintained a set of eight rules regarding food which are retained by the Mahīsāsaka Vinaya.

A similar event is described by Chinese sources like the writings of the Indian scholar Paramartha, Jizang, and the pilgrim Xuanzang. According to these sources, an alternative canon named the Mahasamghikanikaya (Collection of the Great Assembly) was compiled by an Arhat named Baspa and his followers. Xuanzang reports visiting a stupa near Rajgir which marked the site of this alternate council.

Historicity
Several modern scholars doubt whether the entire canon was really recited during the First Council, because the early texts contain different accounts on important subjects such as meditation. It may be, though, that early versions were recited of what is now known as the Vinaya-piṭaka and Sutta-piṭaka. Nevertheless, many scholars, from the late 19th century onward, have considered the historicity of the First Council improbable. Some scholars, such as orientalists Louis de La Vallée-Poussin and D.P. Minayeff, thought there must have been assemblies after the Buddha's death, but considered only the main characters and some events before or after the First Council historical. Other scholars, such as Buddhologist André Bareau and Indologist Hermann Oldenberg, considered it likely that the account of the First Council was written after the Second Council, and based on that of the second, since there were not any major problems to solve after the Buddha's death, or any other need to organize the First Council.

On the other hand, archaeologist Louis Finot, Indologist E. E. Obermiller and to some extent Indologist Nalinaksha Dutt thought the account of the First Council was authentic, because of the correspondences between the Pāli texts and the Sanskrit traditions. Indologist Richard Gombrich meanwhile holds that "large parts of the Pali Canon" do date back to the first council.

Second council
The historical records for the Second Buddhist Council derive primarily from the canonical Vinayas of various schools. It was held 100 years after the parinirvana of Buddha in the Valukarama of Vaiśālī and was patronised by the king Kalashoka. While inevitably disagreeing on points of details, these schools nevertheless agree that the bhikkhus at Vaisali were accepting monetary donations and following other lax practices (which led to a controversy when other monks discovered this). The lax practices are often described as "ten points". The main issue though was accepting money from laypersons. These practices were first noticed by a monk named Yasa Kākandakaputta, who alerted other elders and called out the monks. In response, both the monks of Vaiśālī and Yasa gathered senior members of the Sangha from the region to consult in order to fully settle the issue. This dispute about vinaya, according to traditional sources, resulted in the first schism in the Sangha. But some scholars think that a schism did not occur at this time and instead happened at a later date.

Vinaya dispute
The Cullavagga of the Pali Canon of Theravāda Buddhism holds that the Vaiśālī (Vajjiputtakā) monks practiced ten points (dasa vatthūni) which were against the Vinaya rules.

The orthodox monks refused to agree to these points, and one of their leaders, Yasa Kākandakaputta, publicly condemned the action of the Vajjiputtakas. Yasa then left Kosambī, and, having summoned monks from Pāvā in the west and Avanti in the south, sought Sambhūta Sānavāsi in Ahoganga. On his advice they sought Soreyya-Revata, and together they consulted Sabbakāmi at Vālikārāma. In the Council that followed the Ten Points were declared invalid, and this decision was conveyed to the monks. Soon after was held a recital of the Doctrine in which seven hundred monks took part under the leadership of Soreyya-Revata. The recital lasted eight months. The Vajjiputtakas refused to accept the finding of Revata’s Council and formed a separate sect, the Mahāsanghikas, numbering ten thousand monks, who held a recital of their own. Accordingly, Theravāda Buddhism suggests that Mahāsāṃghikas tried to change the traditional Vinaya by adding the above ten points to it.
 * 1) Storing salt in a horn (singilonakappa).
 * 2) Eating food when the shadow of the sun had passed two fingers' breadth beyond noon (duvangulakappa).
 * 3) Eat once and then go again to the village for alms (gāmantarakappa).
 * 4) Holding of the uposatha separately by monks dwelling in the same district (āvāsakappa).
 * 5) Carrying out an official act when the assembly is incomplete (anumatikappa).
 * 6) Following a practice because it is so done by one's tutor or teacher (ācinnakappa).
 * 7) Eating of sour milk by one who has already had his midday meal (amathitakappa).
 * 8) Use of the strong drink before it has fermented (jalogikappa).
 * 9) Use of blankets which have unstitched hem (nisīdanakappa).
 * 10) Accepting of gold and silver (jātarūparajatakappa).

However, Mahāsāṃghikas hold that the Sthaviras ("Elders") wanted to 'add' more rules to the Vinaya. Vinaya texts associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. The Mahāsāṃghika Prātimokṣa (list of rules) has 67 rules in the śaikṣa-dharma section, while the Theravāda version has 75 rules. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya discusses how the Mahāsāṃghika disagree with the Sthavira 'additions' to the Vinaya (Mahāsāṃghikavinaya, T.1425, p. 493a28-c22.).

The Mahāsāṃghika Śāriputraparipṛcchā contains an account in which an old monk rearranges and augments the traditional Vinaya. As stated in the Śāriputraparipṛcchā:

"He copied and rearranged our Vinaya, developing and augmenting what Kāśyapa had codified and which was called 'Vinaya of the Great Assembly' (Mahāsāṃghavinaya). [...] The king considered that [the doctrines of the two parties represented] were both the work of the Buddha, and since their preferences were not the same, [the monks of the two camps] should not live together. As those who studied the old Vinaya were in the majority, they were called the Mahāsāṃghika; those who studied the new [Vinaya] were in the minority, but they were all Sthaviras; thus they were named Sthavira."

Due to the conflicting claims from both sects, a clear conclusion cannot be reached on whether the Sthaviras' or the Mahāsāṃghikas' Vinaya was the original Vinaya.

The Mahādeva episode and the "five points"
The alternative view of what caused the first schism is found in several Sthavira sources including the Theravada Dipavamsa. According to these sources, some 35 years after the second council, there was another meeting in Pāṭaliputra. This was called to dispute five points held by a figure named Mahādeva. The five points generally see arhats as imperfect and fallible. Sthavira sources claim the schism was caused by Mahādeva, who often depicted as an evil figure (who killed his parents). The "five points" describe an arhat as one still characterized by impurity due to being affected by nocturnal emissions (asucisukhavisaṭṭhi), ignorance (aññāṇa), doubt (kaṅkhā), reaching enlightenment through the guidance of others (paravitāraṇa), and speaking of suffering while in samādhi (vacibheda).

According to the Sthavira accounts, the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) sided with Mahādeva, and a minority of righteous elders (Sthaviras) were opposed to it, thus causing the first schism in the Buddhist community. According to this account, Mahadeva was criticized and opposed by Sthavira elders, and he eventually went on to become the founder of the Mahāsāṃghika school. Mahasamghika sources do not claim Mahadeva as a founder and do not agree with this account. As such, most scholars think that the Mahādeva incident was a later event and that it was not the root cause of the first schism.

Vasumitra's Samayabhedoparacanacakra (a Sarvāstivāda source) claims the dispute in Pātaliputra that led to the first schism was over the five heretical points of Mahādeva which degrades the attainment of arhats. These same points are discussed and condemned in the Theravadin Kathavatthu. The later Sarvāstivāda Mahavibhasa develops this story into against the Mahasanghika founder, Mahādeva. According to this version of events, the king ends up supporting the Mahasanghikas. This version of events emphasizes the purity of the Kasmiri Sarvastivadins, who are portrayed as descended from the arahants who fled the persecution of Mahādeva and, led by Upagupta, established themselves in Kashmir and Gandhara.

The Samayabhedoparacanacakra also records a 'Mahādeva' who seems to be a completely different figure who was the founder of the Caitika sect over 200 years later. Some scholars have concluded that an association of "Mahādeva" with the first schism was a later sectarian interpolation based on much later events. Jan Nattier and Charles Prebish argue that the five points of Mahadeva are unlikely to have been the cause of the first schism and see this event as "emerging in a historical period considerably later than previously supposed and taking his place in the sectarian movement by instigating an internal schism within the already existing Mahāsāṃghika school."

Theravada accounts of a third council

Theravada sources contain narratives of a Third council of the Theravara school which occurred during the reign of Ashoka at Pataliputra, emperor Ashoka's capital.

According to the Theravāda commentaries and chronicles, the Third Buddhist Council was convened by the Mauryan king Ashoka at Pātaliputra (today's Patna), under the leadership of the elder Moggaliputta Tissa. Its objective was to purify the Buddhist movement, particularly from opportunistic factions and heretical non-buddhists (tirthikas) which had only joined because they were attracted by the royal patronage of the sangha. Due to the increased royal support of the sangha, large numbers of faithless, greedy men espousing wrong views tried to join the order improperly and caused many divisions in the sangha. Because of this the third council of one thousand monks were convened, led by Moggaliputtatissa. The emperor himself was in attendance and asked the suspect monks what the Buddha taught. They claimed he taught wrong views such as eternalism, etc., which are condemned in the canonical Brahmajala Sutta. He asked the virtuous monks, and they replied that the Buddha was a "Teacher of Analysis" (Vibhajjavādin), an answer that was confirmed by Moggaliputta Tissa.

The Theravadins say that council proceeded to recite the scriptures, adding to the canon Moggaliputta Tissa's own book, the Kathavatthu, a discussion of various dissenting Buddhist views and the Vibhajjavādin responses to them. Only Theravadin sources mention this text. According to this account, this third council also seems to have led to the split between the Sarvastivada and the Vibhajjavāda schools on the issue of the existence of the three times (i.e. temporal eternalism). This doctrine seems to have been defended by a certain Katyayaniputra, who is seen as the founder of Sarvastivada. But according to K.L. Dhammajoti, the Sarvastivada lineage and the Vibhajyavāda lineage of Moggaliputta were already present during the time of Emperor Aśoka.

The Ashokan missions

Theravada sources mention that another function of this council was to send Buddhist missionaries to various countries in order to spread Buddhism. These reached as far as the Hellenistic kingdoms in the West (in particular the neighboring Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, and possibly even farther according to the inscriptions left on stone pillars by Ashoka). Missionaries were also sent to South India, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia (possibly to neighboring Burma). The fact that the Buddhist sangha was heavily involved in missionary activities across Asia at the time of Ashoka is well supported by the archeological sources, including numerous Indian inscriptions that match the claims of the Theravada sources.

According to the Mahavamsa (XII, 1st paragraph), the council and Ashoka sent the following missionaries to various regions:

 * Elder Majjhantika (Sanskrit: Mahyantika) led the mission to Kashmir and Gandhara
 * Elder Mahadeva led the mission to Mahisamandala (Mysore, Karnataka)
 * Elder Rakkhita led the mission to Vanavasi (Tamil Nadu)
 * The Yona (Greek) elder Dharmaraksita led the mission to Aparantaka ("Western border", consisting of Northern Gujarat, Kathiawar, Kachch and Sindh).
 * Elder Mahadharmaraksita led the mission to Maharattha (Maharashtra)
 * Maharakkhita (Maharaksita Thera) led the mission to the country of the Yona (Greeks), which likely refers to Greco-Bactria and maybe the Seleucid realm
 * Majjhima Thera led the mission to the Himavant area (northern Nepal, the foothills of the Himalayas)
 * Sona Thera and Uttara Thera led missions to Suvannabhumi (somewhere in Southeast Asia, possibly Myanmar or Thailand)
 * The elder Mahinda, along with Utthiya, Ittiya, Sambala and Bhaddasala his disciples went to Lankadipa (Sri Lanka)

Some of these missions were very successful, such as the ones which established Buddhism in Afghanistan, Gandhara and Sri Lanka. Gandharan Buddhism, Greco-Buddhism and Sinhalese Buddhism would continue to be major influential traditions for generations after. Regarding the missions to the Mediterranean Hellenistic kingdoms, they seemed to have been less successful. However, some scholars hold that it is possible some Buddhist communities were established for a limited time in Egyptian Alexandria, and this may have been the origin of the so-called Therapeutae sect mentioned by some ancient sources like Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE). Religious scholar Ullrich R. Kleinhempel argues that the most likely candidate for the religion of the Therapeutae is indeed Buddhism.

The two "fourth councils"
By the time of the Fourth Buddhist Councils, Buddhism had splintered into different schools in different regions of India. Scholars have also questioned the historicity of these councils. David Snellgrove considers the Theravada account of the Third Council and the Sarvastivada account of the Fourth Council "equally tendentious," illustrating the uncertain veracity of much of these histories.

Sinhalese Theravāda
The Southern Theravāda school had a Fourth Buddhist Council in the first century BCE in Sri Lanka at Alu Vihāra (Aloka Leṇa) during the time of King Vattagamani-Abhaya also known as Valagamba. According to K. R. Norman there is a major discrepancy between the sources which cite the death of Valagamba of Anuradhapura as occurring in 77 BCE and his supposed patronization of the effort to commit the Buddhist oral traditions to writing in the period 29 to 17 BCE. Norman writes:"The Dipavamsa states that during the reign of Valagamba (Vattagamani Abhaya) (29–17 BCE) the monks who had previously remembered the Tipitaka and its commentary orally, wrote them down in books, because of the threat posed by famine and war. The Mahavamsa also refers briefly to the writing down of the canon and the commentaries at this time."Valagamba is also associated with patronizing the site of Abhayagiri, building the stupa there and offering it to Kuppikala Mahatissa thero. This seems to have caused a dispute between Abhayagiri and the monks of the Mahavihara monastery (the ancient Theravada lineage).

Whatever the case, the sources state that a council was held at the cave temple of Alu Vihāra in response to Beminitiya Seya. Because at this time the Pali texts were strictly an oral literature maintained in several recensions by dhammabhāṇakas (dharma reciters), the surviving monks recognized the danger of not writing it down so that even if some of the monks whose duty it was to study and remember parts of the Canon for later generations died, the teachings would not be lost.

Kashmiri Sarvāstivāda
Another Fourth Buddhist Council was held by the Sarvastivada tradition in the Kushan empire, and is said to have been convened by the Kushan emperor Kanishka I (c. 158–176), in 78 AD at Kundalvana vihara (Kundalban) in Kashmir. The exact location of the vihara is presumed to be around Harwan, near Srinagar. An alternate theory places its location in the Kuvana monastery in Jalandhar, though this is improbable.

The Fourth Council of Kashmir is not recognized as authoritative for the Theravadins. Reports of this council can be found in scriptures which were kept in the Mahayana tradition. It is said that emperor Kanishka gathered five hundred Bhikkhus in Kashmir, headed by Vasumitra, to systematize the Sarvastivadin canon, which were translated from earlier Prakrit vernacular languages (such as Gandhari) into Sanskrit. It is said that during the council three hundred thousand verses and over nine million statements were compiled, a process which took twelve years to complete. Sarvastivada sources also claim that the encyclopedic Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra ("Great Abhidharma Commentary") dates to the time of Kanishka. This massive text became the central text of the Vaibhāṣika tradition in Kashmir. Although the Sarvastivada are no longer extant as an independent school, its Abhidharma tradition were inherited by the Mahayana tradition. The new Vaibhāṣika texts were not accepted by all Sarvāstivādins. Some "Western masters" from Gandhara and Bactria had divergent views which disagreed with the new orthodoxy. These disagreements from the "Sautrantikas" can be seen in later works, such as the *Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra (成實論), the *Abhidharmahṛdaya (T no. 1550), and the Abhidharmakośakārikā of Vasubandhu.

Fifth Burmese Council (1871)
Another Buddhist Council, this time presided by Theravada monks, took place in Mandalay, Burma, in 1871 in the reign of King Mindon. In the Burmese tradition, it is commonly known as the "Fifth Council". The chief objective of this meeting was to recite all the teachings of the Buddha and examine them in minute detail to see if any of them had been altered, distorted or dropped.

It was presided over by three Elders, the Venerable Mahathera Jagarabhivamsa, the Venerable Narindabhidhaja, and the Venerable Mahathera Sumangalasami in the company of some two thousand four hundred monks (2,400). Their joint Dhamma recitation lasted for five months. It was also the work of this council to approve the entire Tripitaka inscribed for posterity on seven hundred and twenty-nine marble slabs in the Burmese script before its recitation. This monumental task was done by the monks and many skilled craftsmen who upon completion of each slab had them housed in beautiful miniature 'pitaka' pagodas on a special site in the grounds of King Mindon's Kuthodaw Pagoda at the foot of Mandalay Hill where it and the so-called 'largest book in the world', stands to this day. This council is not generally recognized outside Burma.

Sixth Burmese Council (1954)
The Sixth Council was called at Kaba Aye in Yangon (formerly Rangoon) in 1954, 83 years after the fifth one was held in Mandalay. It was sponsored by the Burmese Government led by the then Prime Minister, the Honourable U Nu. He authorized the construction of the Maha Passana Guha, the "great cave", an artificial cave very much like India's Sattapanni Cave where the first Buddhist Council had been held. Upon its completion The Council met on 17 May 1954.

As in the case of the preceding councils, its first objective was to affirm and preserve the genuine Dhamma and Vinaya. However it was unique insofar as the monks who took part in it came from eight countries. These two thousand five hundred learned Theravada monks came from Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, India, and Nepal. Germany can only be counted as the nationality of the only two western monks in attendance: Venerable Nyanatiloka Mahathera and Venerable Nyanaponika Thera. They both were invited from Sri Lanka. The late Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw was appointed the noble task of asking the required questions about the Dhamma of the Venerable Bhadanta Vicittasarabhivamsa who answered all of them learnedly and satisfactorily. By the time this council met, all the participating countries had had the Pali Tripiṭaka rendered into their native scripts, with the exception of India.

The traditional recitation of the Buddhist Scriptures took two years, and the Tripiṭaka and its allied literature in all the scripts were painstakingly examined and their differences noted down and the necessary corrections made and all the versions were then collated. It was found that there was not much difference in the content of any of the texts. Finally, after the council had officially approved them, all of the books of the Tipitaka and their commentaries were prepared for printing on modern presses and published in the Burmese script. This notable achievement was made possible through the dedicated efforts of the two thousand five hundred monks and numerous lay people. Their work came to an end on the evening of Vesak, 24 May 1956, exactly two and a half millennia after Buddha's Parinibbana, according to the traditional Theravada dating.

Theravada Councils in the Thai tradition
The Thai Theravada tradition has a different way of counting the history of Buddhist councils and names many other councils besides the ones listed above. A common Thai historical source for the early councils is the Saṅgītiyavaṁsa (c. 1789) by Somdet Wannarat, abbot of Wat Pho.

The first three councils are the traditional councils in India (1. Rājagaha, 2. Vesālī, 3. Patāliputta).

The fourth council is seen by the Thai tradition of Buddhist history as having taken place under the reign of King Devānampiyatissa (247–207 BCE), when Buddhism was first brought to Sri Lanka. It was supposed to have been held under the presidency of the Venerable Ariṭṭha, the first pupil of the Elder Mahinda. This is not usually counted as a council in other traditions, but the Samantapāsādikā does mention a recital at this time.

The fifth council is that of King Vattagāmanī Abhaya, when the Pali Canon was first put into writing in Sri Lanka in the first century BCE at Āluvihāra under the presidency of Mahātthera Rakkhita.

The sixth council, according to the Saṅgītiyavaṁsa, comprises the activities of the Pāli translation of the Sinhalese commentaries, a project that was led by Ācariya Buddhaghosa and involved numerous bhikkhus of the Sri Lankan Mahavihara tradition.

The seventh council is believed to have taken place during the time of the Sri Lankan king Parākkamabāhu I and presided over by Kassapa Thera in 1176. During this council the Atthavaṇṇanā was written, which explains the Pāli translation by Buddhaghosa of the original Sinhalese commentaries. Parākkamabāhu also unified the Sri Lankan sangha into one single Theravada community.

Councils held in Thailand
From this point onwards, the Thai tradition focuses on councils held in Thailand which were patronized by the Thai monarchy.

The first of these was held in the Mahābodhārāma at Chiang Mai, which was attended by several monks. The Mahāthera Dhammadinnā of Tālavana Mahāvihāra (Wat Pā Tān) presided over the council, which was patronized by the King of Lan Na, Tilokaraj (r. 1441–1487). During this council, the orthography of the Thai Pali Canon was corrected and it was rendered into the Lan Na script. This council was held in 1477 CE.

A second Thai council was held in Bangkok from November 13, 1788, to April 10, 1789, under the aegis of King Rāma I and his brother. It was attended by 250 monks and scholars. A new edition of the Pali Canon was published, the Tipitaka Chabab Tongyai.

The third Thai council was held in 1878 during the reign of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V). During this council, the Thai script was used to make copies of the Pali Canon (instead of a modified Khmer script) and the canon was published in modern book form for the first time.

The next Thai council was held in Bangkok during the reign of Rama VII (1925–1935). This council saw a new edition of the Pali Canon published in the Thai script which was distributed throughout the country.

title: Buddhist councils


text:
99 Luftballons

"99 Luftballons" (Neunundneunzig Luftballons, "99 balloons") is a song by the West German band Nena from their 1983 self-titled album. An English-language version titled "99 Red Balloons", with lyrics by Kevin McAlea, was also released by Nena on the album 99 Luftballons in 1984 after widespread success of the original in Europe and Japan. The English version is not a direct translation of the German original and contains lyrics with a somewhat different meaning. In the US, the English-language version did not chart, while the German-language recording became Nena's only US hit.

Lyrics
While at a June 1982 concert by The Rolling Stones in West Berlin, Nena's guitarist Carlo Karges noticed that balloons were being released. He watched them move toward the horizon, shifting and changing shapes like strange spacecraft (referred to in the German lyrics as a "UFO"). He thought about what might happen if they floated over the Berlin Wall to East Berlin.

Also cited by the band was a 1973 newspaper article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal about five high school students who played a prank to simulate a UFO by launching 99 (one was lost from the original 100) aluminized Mylar balloons attached with ribbons to a traffic flare. The red flame from the flare reflected by the balloons gave the appearance of a large pulsating red object floating over Red Rock Canyon outside the Las Vegas Valley in Nevada.

A direct translation of the title is sometimes given as "Ninety-Nine Air Balloons", but the song became known in English as "Ninety-Nine Red Balloons". The title "99 Red Balloons" almost scans correctly with the syllables falling in the right places within the rhythm of the first line of lyrics, although Neunundneunzig (99) has one syllable more than "ninety-nine".

The lyrics of the original German version tell a story: 99 balloons are mistaken for UFOs, causing a military general to send pilots to investigate. Finding nothing but balloons, the pilots put on a large show of firepower. The display of force worries the nations along the borders and the defense ministers on each side encourage conflict to grab power for themselves. In the end, a cataclysmic war results from the otherwise harmless flight of balloons and causes devastation on all sides without a victor, as indicated in the denouement of the song: "99 Jahre Krieg ließen keinen Platz für Sieger," which means "99 years of war left no room for victors." The anti-war song finishes with the singer walking through the devastated ruins of the world and finding a single balloon. The description of what happens in the final line of the piece is the same in German and English: "'Denk' an dich und lass' ihn fliegen," or "Think of you and let it go."

English version and other re-recordings
The English version retains the spirit of the original narrative, but many of the lyrics are translated poetically rather than being directly translated: red helium balloons are casually released by the civilian singer (narrator) with her unnamed friend into the sky and are mistakenly registered by a faulty early warning system as enemy contacts, resulting in panic and eventually nuclear war, with the end of the song near-identical to the end of the original German version.

From the outset Nena (the lead singer) and other members of the band expressed disapproval of the English version of the song, "99 Red Balloons". In March 1984, the band's keyboardist and song co-writer Uwe Fahrenkrog Petersen said, "We made a mistake there. I think the song loses something in translation and even sounds silly." In another interview that month, the band, including Nena herself, were quoted as being "not completely satisfied" with the English version since it was "too blatant" for a group not wishing to be seen as a protest band.

Two re-recordings of the original German version of the song have been released by Nena the singer: a modern ballad version, which was included on Nena feat. Nena (2002), and a 2009 retro version, which originally aired as an animated video on the European Arte channel (as part of a special called "Summer of the '80s") and included some portions in French (specifically, the second part of the first verse and the entire final verse). Nena later formally released this rendition on her 2010 Best of Nena compilation; however the French text was omitted and replaced with the original German lyrics.

Live recordings of the song are included on all seven of Nena's live albums, dating from 1995 to 2018.

Reception
American and Australian audiences preferred the original German version, which became a very successful non-English-language song, topping charts in both countries, reaching No.1 on the Cash Box chart, Kent Music Report, and No.2 on the Billboard Hot 100, behind "Jump" by Van Halen. It was certified Gold by the RIAA. The later-released English translation, "99 Red Balloons", topped the charts in the UK, Canada and Ireland.

In his 2010 book Music: What Happened?, critic and musician Scott Miller declared that the song possesses "one of the best hooks of the eighties" and listed it among his top song picks for 1984. Nonetheless, he cautioned: "It must be admitted that this song suffers from an embarrassingly out-of-place disco funk interlude, and the word Kriegsminister."

Music video
The promotional video, which was originally made for the Dutch music programme TopPop and broadcast on 13 March 1983, was shot in a Dutch military training camp, the band performing the song on a stage in front of a backdrop of fires and explosions provided by the Dutch Army. Towards the end of the video, the band are seen taking cover and abandoning the stage, which was unplanned and genuine since they believed the explosive blasts were getting out of control.

VH1 Classic, an American cable television station, ran a charity event for Hurricane Katrina relief in 2006. Viewers who made donations were allowed to choose which music videos the station would play. One viewer donated $35,000 for the right to program an entire hour and requested continuous play of "99 Luftballons" and "99 Red Balloons" videos. The station broadcast the videos as requested on 26 March 2006.

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

title: 99 Luftballons


text:
Ethel Remey

Ethel Remey (February 22, 1895 - February 28, 1979 ) was an American actress. She was sometimes credited as Ethel Everett.

Her most famous role was her portrayal of Alma Miller, mother of Lisa Miller (Eileen Fulton) on the soap opera As the World Turns. She played the role from 1963 to 1977.

title: Ethel Remey


text:
Sophie Calle

Sophie Calle (born 9 October 1953) is a French writer, photographer, installation artist, and conceptual artist. Calle's work is distinguished by its use of arbitrary sets of constraints, and evokes the French literary movement known as Oulipo. Her work frequently depicts human vulnerability, and examines identity and intimacy. She is recognized for her detective-like tendency to follow strangers and investigate their private lives. Her photographic work often includes panels of text of her own writing.

Since 2005, Calle has taught as a professor of film and photography at European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland. She has lectured at the University of California, San Diego in the Visual Arts Department. She has also taught at Mills College in Oakland, California.

Exhibitions of Calle's work took place at the Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris; Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia; Musée d'Art et d'Histoire du Judaïsme, Paris; Paula Cooper Gallery, New York; Palais des Beaux-Arts, Brussels, Belgium; Videobrasil, SESC Pompeia, São Paulo, Brazil; Museum of Modern Art of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil; Whitechapel Gallery, London; and the De Pont Museum of Contemporary Art, Tilburg, Netherlands. She represented France at the Venice Biennale in 2007.

In 2017 she was shortlisted for the Deutsche Börse Photography Prize for her publication My All (Actes Sud, 2016). In 2019 she was the recipient of the Royal Photographic Society's Centenary Medal and Honorary Fellowship.

1979–1981
In Suite Venitienne (1979), Calle followed a man she met at a party in Paris to Venice, where she disguised herself and followed him around the city, photographing him. Calle's surveillance of the man, who she identifies only as Henri B., includes black and white photographs accompanied by text.

Calle's first artistic work was The Sleepers (Les Dormeurs), a project in which she invited passers-by to occupy her bed. Some were friends, or friends of friends, and some were strangers to her. She served them food and photographed them every hour.

In order to execute her project The Hotel (1981), she was hired as a chambermaid at a hotel in Venice where she was able to explore the writings and objects of the hotel guests. Insight into her process and its resulting aesthetic can be gained through her account of this project: "I spent one year to find the hotel, I spent three months going through the text and writing it, I spent three months going through the photographs, and I spent one day deciding it would be this size and this frame...it's the last thought in the process."

Mid- and late 1980s
One of Calle's first projects to generate public controversy was Address Book (1983). The French daily newspaper Libération invited her to publish a series of 28 articles. Having recently found an address book on the street (which she photocopied and returned to its owner), she decided to call some of the telephone numbers in the book and speak with the people about its owner. To the transcripts of these conversations, Calle added photographs of the man's favorite activities, creating a portrait of a man she never met, by way of his acquaintances. The articles were published, but upon discovering them, the owner of the address book, a documentary filmmaker named Pierre Baudry, threatened to sue the artist for invasion of privacy. As Calle reports, the owner discovered a nude photograph of her, and demanded the newspaper publish it, in retaliation for what he perceived to be an unwelcome intrusion into his private life.

Another of Calle's noteworthy projects is titled The Blind (1986), for which she interviewed blind people, and asked them to define beauty. Their responses were accompanied by her photographic interpretation of their ideas of beauty, and portraits of the interviewees.

Calle has created elaborate display cases of birthday presents given to her throughout her life; this process was detailed by Grégoire Bouillier in his memoir The Mystery Guest: An Account (2006). According to Bouillier, the premise of his story was that "A woman who has left a man without saying why calls him years later and asks him to be the 'mystery guest' at a birthday party thrown by the artist Sophie Calle. And by the end of this fashionable—and utterly humiliating—party, the narrator figures out the secret of their breakup."

1990s
In 1996, Calle asked Israelis and Palestinians from Jerusalem to take her to public places that became part of their private sphere, exploring how one's personal story can create an intimacy with a place. Inspired by the eruv, the Jewish law that permits to turn a public space into a private area by surrounding it with wires, making it possible to carry objects during the Sabbath, the Erouv de Jérusalem is exposed at Paris's Musée d'Art et d'Histoire du Judaïsme.

The same year, Calle released a film titled No Sex Last Night which she created in collaboration with American photographer Gregory Shephard. The film documents their road trip across America, which ends in a wedding chapel in Las Vegas. Rather than following the genre conventions of a road trip or a romance, the film is designed to document the result of a man and woman who barely knew each other, embarking on an intimate journey together.

Calle asked writer and filmmaker Paul Auster to "invent a fictive character which I would attempt to resemble" and served as the model for the character Maria in Auster's 1992 novel Leviathan. This mingling of fact and fiction so intrigued Calle that she created the works of art created by the fictional character, which included a series of color-coordinated meals. These works are documented in her publication Double Game (1999).

Auster later challenged Calle to create and maintain a public amenity in New York City. The artist's response was to augment a telephone booth on the corner of Greenwich and Harrison Streets in Manhattan with a note pad, a bottle of water, a pack of cigarettes, flowers, cash, and sundry other items. Every day, Calle cleaned the booth and restocked the items, until the telephone company removed and discarded them. This project is documented in The Gotham Handbook (1998).

In 1999 Calle exhibited the installation "Appointment" especially conceived for the Freud Museum in London, working with the ideas of her private desires. In Room with a View (2002), Calle spent the night in a bed installed at the top of the Eiffel Tower. She invited people to come to her and read her bedtime stories in order to keep her awake through the night. The same year, Calle had her first one-woman show, a retrospective, at the Musée National d'Art Moderne at Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris.

2000s
"Douleur Exquise" (exquisite pain) was commissioned in 2003. She reluctantly chose to spend three months in Japan, deciding to make the journey take a month by taking the train through Moscow and through Siberia, then through Beijing, then to Hong Kong. She was supposed to meet her lover in New Delhi, but he didn't turn up, instead sending her a telegram which said he was in an accident and couldn't come. She found out that he only had an infected finger, a felon, and that he had actually found another woman. She took a photograph every day until the day they were supposed to meet in New Delhi, and wrote about how much she looked forward to meeting him. The second half of the book was all about the pain of the heartbreak. She would write about the horrible memory of the conversation where she realized he was breaking up with her on one page, and ask people to tell her their worst memory, which was placed on the right. Over the days, her story became shorter and shorter as her pain dissipated over the time. The juxtaposition of everyone's terrible memories also played down the pain of a simple breakup.

Calle's text Exquisite Pain was adapted into a performance in 2004 by Forced Entertainment, a theatrical company based in Sheffield, England.

At the 2007 Venice Biennale, Calle showed her piece Take Care of Yourself, named after the last line of the email her ex sent her. Calle asked friends, acquaintances, and recommended women of all ages—including a parrot and a hand puppet—to interpret the break-up e-mail and presented the results in the French pavilion. Calle explains the piece as follows: "I received an email telling me it was over. I didn't know how to respond.  It was almost as if it hadn't been meant for me.  It ended with the words, 'take care of yourself.' And so I did.  I asked 107 women, chosen for their profession or skills, to interpret this letter.  To analyze it, comment on it, dance it, sing it.  Exhaust it.  Understand it for me.  Answer for me.  It was a way of taking the time to break up.  A way of taking care of myself." Jessica Lott, winner of the Frieze Writer's Prize for her review of the piece, described it thus: "Take Care of Yourself is a break-up letter (Calle's) then-boyfriend (Grégoire Bouillier, dubbed ‘X’) sent her via e-mail. Calle took the e-mail, and the paralyzing confusion that accompanies the mind's failure to comprehend heartbreak, and distributed it to 107 women of various professions, skills and talents to help her understand it – to interpret, analyze, examine and perform it to gain perspective on her perplexing situation. Calle insists that she did not need the other women's sentiments for herself, but to ensure that the piece was well-rounded. The result of this seemingly obsessive, schoolyard exercise is paradoxically one of the most expansive and telling pieces of art on women and contemporary feminism to pass through (the major art centres) in recent years". At her gallery shows, Calle frequently supplies suggestion forms on which visitors are encouraged to furnish ideas for her art, while she sits beside them with an uninterested expression.

In 2009/2010, a major retrospective exhibition of her work, including Take Care of Yourself, The Sleepers, Address Book and others, was held opened at the Whitechapel Gallery in London. In 2010 another major exhibition opened in Denmark at the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art.

2010s
In 2011 her work True Stories was installed at the historic 1850 House at the Pontalba Building at Jackson Square in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana as part of the Prospect 2 Contemporary Art Festival. The house, an historic museum that is managed as part of the Louisiana State Museum, is furnished with historic furniture as it was in the mid-19th century. The artist inserted her own, personal historical objects and ephemera, with short, narrative explanatory text, into the scenes, affecting the notion that she had occupied the house shortly before the viewers' arrival.

In 2012, Calle's The Address Book was published for the first time in its entirety. In 2015, Suite Vénitienne was redesigned and republished.

In 2014, Calle’s work Rachel, Monique was displayed at the Episcopal Church of Heavenly Rest in New York City. It involved video Calle took of her mother, Monique Sindler, on her deathbed, as well as excerpts of her diary, read by actress Kim Cattrall. Calle took her mother’s portrait and jewelry and buried them at the North Pole. Portraits of her doing so were also on exhibition.

In 2017, Calle was commissioned to create a public artwork for Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, Here Lie the Secrets of the Visitors of Green-Wood Cemetery. The piece will remain in the cemetery for 25 years.

Critical analysis
Christine Macel described Calle's work as a rejection of the Poststructuralist notion of the "death of the author" by working as a "first-person artist" who incorporates her life into her works and, in a way, redefines the idea of the author.

Angelique Chrisafis, writing in The Guardian, called her "the Marcel Duchamp of emotional dirty laundry". She was among the names in Blake Gopnik's 2011 list "The 10 Most Important Artists of Today", with Gopnik arguing, "It is the unartiness of Calle's work—its refusal to fit any of the standard pigeonholes, or over anyone's sofa—that makes it deserve space in museums."

Books
Significant contributions by other authors are noted.
 * Suite Vénitienne. Paris: Editions de l'Etoile, 1983. ISBN 9782866420055.
 * Suite Vénitienne [English translation]. Seattle: Bay Press, 1988. ISBN 9780941920094.
 * Suite Vénitienne [English translation]. Los Angeles: Siglio, 2015 ISBN 9781938221095.
 * L'Hôtel. Paris: Editions de l'Etoile, 1984. ISBN 9782866420154.
 * La Fille du Docteur. New York: Thea Westreich, 1991..
 * Des Histoires Vraies. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 1994. ISBN 9782742703425.
 * True Stories [English translation and revision, 1st edition]. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2013. ISBN 9782330023416.
 * Die Entfernung. Dresden: Verl. der Kunst, 1996..
 * The Detachment [English translation]. G+B Arts International and Arndt & Partner Gallery, 1996..
 * L'Erouv de Jérusalem. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 1996. ISBN 9782742709649.
 * Doubles-Jeux. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 1998. Seven volumes:
 * I. De l'Obéissance. ISBN 9782742718641.
 * II. Le Rituel d'Anniversaire. ISBN 9782742718658.
 * III. Les Panoplies: La Garde-Robe; Le Strip-Tease. ISBN 9782742718634.
 * IV. À Suivre: Préambule; Suite Vénitienne; La Filature. ISBN 9782742718672.
 * V. L'Hôtel. ISBN 9782742718689.
 * VI. Le Carnet d'Adresses. ISBN 9782742718696.
 * VII. Gotham Handbook: New York Mode d'Emploi (with Paul Auster). ISBN 9782742718702.
 * Double Game [English translation and revision of Doubles-Jeux]. With Paul Auster. London: Violette, 1999. ISBN 9781900828062.
 * Double Game, second edition. London: Violette, 2007. ISBN 9781900828284.
 * Souvenirs de Berlin-Est. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 1999. ISBN 9782742726028.
 * Disparitions. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2000. ISBN 9782742728039.
 * Detachment [English translation]. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2013. ISBN 9782330019808.
 * Les Dormeurs. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2000. ISBN 9782742730384.
 * Fantômes. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2000. ISBN 9782742728022.
 * Ghosts [English translation]. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2013. ISBN 9782330020149.
 * L'Absence [set with Souvenirs de Berlin-Est, Disparitions, and Fantômes]. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2000. ISBN 9782742728015.
 * M'as-Tu Vue. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou and Xavier Barral, 2003. ISBN 9782844262202.
 * Did You See Me? [English translation]. Munich and London: Prestel, 2004. ISBN 9783791330358.
 * Douleur Exquise. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2003. ISBN 9782742745135.
 * Exquisite Pain [English translation]. London: Thames & Hudson, 2004. ISBN 9780500511985.
 * Appointment with Sigmund Freud. London: Thames & Hudson; London: Violette, 2005. ISBN 9780500511992.
 * En Finir. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2005. With Fabio Balducci. ISBN 9782742751778.
 * Take Care of Yourself = Prenez Soin de Vous. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2007. ISBN 9782742768356.
 * True Stories: Hasselblad Award 2010. Göttingen, Germany: Steidl, 2010. ISBN 9783869301563.
 * Blind. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2011. ISBN 9782330000585.
 * The Address Book. Los Angeles: Siglio, 2012. ISBN 9780979956294.
 * Rachel, Monique... Paris: Xavier Barral, 2012. ISBN 9782915173789.
 * Voir la Mer. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2013. ISBN 9782330016166.
 * My All. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2016. ISBN 9782330053697.
 * Ainsi de Suite.  Paris: Xavier Barral, 2016. ISBN 9782365110464.
 * And So Forth [English translation]. Munich: Prestel, 2016. ISBN 9783791382043.
 * Parce Que. Paris: Xavier Barral, 2018. ISBN 9782365112079.
 * Que Faites-Vous de Vos Morts? Arles, France: Actes Sud, 2019. ISBN 9782330113643.
 * The Hotel Catskill, NY: Siglio, 2021. ISBN 9781938221293.

Audio releases

 * Samba de Monalisa. Tetine vs Sophie Calle. (CD, Sulfur Records, 2002)
 * Souris Calle (Triple LP, 2018). Produced for an exhibition at Galerie Perrotin. 38 tracks by different artist about Calle's cat of 18 years. Artists include Laurie Anderson, Bono, Michael Stipe, Jean-Michel Jarre, Pharrell Williams, Jarvis Cocker.

Awards

 * 2010: Hasselblad Award
 * 2017: Shortlisted for the Deutsche Börse Photography Prize for My All (Actes Sud, 2016).
 * 2019: Centenary Medal, Royal Photographic Society

title: Sophie Calle


text:
Talk:Ramón Valdés

-- Stomach or lung cancer? The article and the box display different data.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ramón Valdés. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210001051/http://www.chavodel8.com/donramon/ to http://www.chavodel8.com/donramon/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202025822/http://www.chavodel8.com/actores/ramon-valdes.php to http://www.chavodel8.com/actores/ramon-valdes.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221050351/http://www.chavodel8.com/actores/ramon-valdes-cine.php to http://www.chavodel8.com/actores/ramon-valdes-cine.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Grafitti de Ramón Valdés como Don Ramón.jpg

title: Talk:Ramón Valdés


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiverse

Re Wikiverse (There is an interim tally at or near the bottom of the page.)

We don't need articles about Wikipedia mirrors. Especially not about those who do spamming. The editing history of that article already switched between a rant against Wikiverse and a very praising version. andy 20:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * [Not a vote (anon)] [Restatement of confusing attempt to vote:] Keep Don't delete : form your own opinion and edit the article if you think it's too praising to to reflect the facts.
 * Andy also seems to be confusing legitimate link notification emails with spamming. How is a non-profit Wikipedia mirror useful if nobody knows about it? I thought spammers were criminals who hijacked PCs, stole bandwidth and flooded our inboxes with a tidal wave of emails with fake headers trying to sell us herbal penis enlargement pills!
 * Per and , User:81.218.221.77 closed essentially the above 2-'graph contrib with "[Katz]" before removing that and making minor formatting changes approximately 1 minute later. --Jerzy(t) 22:52, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
 * Unauthorized emails are spam, regardless of good will or not. But that is not the topic here, the topic is if Wikiverse is important enough to be worth an article in a encyclopedia, and that it is IMHO not. andy 20:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote. I swear that I could set a clock to the number of times an anonymous poster arguing to keep an article accused someone here of elitism for wanting to delete it.  Please stop calling people names, User:81.218.221.77; it's not bolstering your case, and neither are your rhetorical questions and sarcasm.  --Ardonik 04:14, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
 * delete non-notable. maybe worth mentioning at Forks and mirrors. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * [ not clear enough to be a vote - Duh, already voted [blush].] Yes. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Simple: Wikipedia is not a web directory. Current rule of: Top 1000 of Alexa is notable, everything else must have strong arguments to be notable. And how do you know none of the other mirrors is viable? andy 21:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Google search: exact phrase "www.wikiverse.org." Result: 8 hits, 5 listed, one from Wikipedia, two from Wikiverse, one from a link exchange site, one real one. "Find pages that link to the page www.wikiverse.org" Results: "Your search - link:www.wikiverse.org - did not match any documents." Apparently nobody links to it, despite invitations to do so. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Del It never ceases to amaze me how people think that, somehow, by offending other people it increases the likelihood that they will get their article kept. Delete.  Oh, and you did know that votes by anonymous users are not counted, right?  RickK 22:02, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, list it on Mirrors and forks but it's far from significant enough for an encyclopedia article. —Stormie 01:06, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * [Comment?] Agreed. -Sean Curtin 01:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a web guide. A merge and redirect to Mirrors and forks would be fine.  Let controversies associated with this particular service be summarized, hopefully by a new, NPOV, and disinterested hand if it has to be there at all. Geogre 03:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. Not notable. --Jerzy(t) 04:06, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 10:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete.. Twice if possible, once for not understanding Wikipedia principles. --Ianb 15:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spammer resorts to personal insults - news at 11. Rhobite 21:34, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * [Not a vote: Anon] [Restatement of confusing attempt to vote:] Keep. Do not delete For people (like me), who receive spam mail from wikiverse, it is very valuable to look up the "wikiverse" entry in wikipedia to find out whether it is a respectable mirror, or just a spammer and hijacker.
 * a) Which category would you judge it to be in, based on the present content of the Wikiverse article?
 * b) Unsigned votes don't count, but in weighing your opinion it would be helpful to me if you'd identify yourself in some way. If you run a website with which Wikiverse has requested a link exchange, perhaps you'd care to identify that site. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep [, as restatement of confusing vote] Do not delete I agree that it's useful to look up who they are, having just received their spam myself. Why is it spam? Because _they_ didn't create the link, they just inherited it, but they pretend they created it and imply that linking back is a requirement to maintain it. (If they had created the link it would be arguably a legitimate link exchange request.) They also have a spurious domain registration, claiming their city is Daganbanga (not found by Google anywhere), their state is Not Applicable, and their zip is 90210 (as in the TV show). Looks like they plan to first establish a presence, then sell advertising or whatever. They also are setting up subdomains for -- in this instance -- an artist in the form of "artistname.wikiverse.org" -- perhaps in a mild way a real service (but are they selling this?), plus they include a search for current press mention of the artist (small added value). So: is there a "scams" section this might be filed under appropriately? WytCld 15:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, in response to WytCld, I'm one of the programmers who helped create Wikiverse. We never expected Wikipedia to be so hostile to what we were doing, and I'm still not sure I understand why. I'd like to set a few things straight.
 * The first link exchange emails Katz sent were inaccurate in their wording (saying that we added a link), but that was fixed as soon as we noticed people were confused.
 * The domain registration was not fully accurate to for privacy reasons. The registrar has a privacy option, but the gal who registered the domain figured it would easier to just put in some bogus details. That has been fixed since.
 * We don't understand why the Wikipedia community is so hostile to Wikiverse. It's the nicest Wikipedia mirror out there. It's non-profit, it has a clean interface, it has an integrated newsfeed.
 * At this point I don't think there's anything I can say which will convince you we are not the sinister evil spammers you make us out to be. However, for those of you who are not yet biased by baseless accusations I'd like to say: there is no conspiracy, clever scamming or otherwise going on, just a humble little mirror of Wikipedia made some people who love it enough to donate resources to make sure it's always available in one form or another. (Wikipedia is under such a huge load it has been down on numerous occasions)
 * Why do you hate Wikiverse so much? --Tomco 15:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Speaking for myself and nobody else... I' don't hate Wikiverse. But based on my own observations, I don't think it's notable enough to be worth an article of its own. A brief mention in an article on Wikipedia mirrors is sufficient. The spam controversy should be mentioned briefly, because there is controversy about it. My own vote remains delete. If and when Wikiverse becomes important, I'd have no objection to an article.
 * By the way, Tomco, as a registered user, you are allowed to vote, which I don't think you've actually done yet. On a new line at the bottom, at the start of the line type an asterisk, then your vote (keep or delete, presumably the former), then sign with four tildes. Perfect formatting is not important, just make it easy for a sysop to spot your vote and determine your intention. VfD is an exercise in forming and determining rough consensus, not parliamentary procedure, so don't worry to much about the exact count and please don't create "sockpuppets" (registering as multiple users to inflate a vote), as Wikipedians really do hate that. Votes can be changed for as long as the discussion proceeds, by the way). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't judge the site as, at least for the last 15 minutes, it's been down. Niteowlneils 19:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep. (I change my vote. See my note below about "shame on me".) Apparently there is sufficient controversy about this new mirror to justify a Wikipedian dialog. It appears to be something more than just a mirror and may bear watching, or perhaps I should say, policing; and the Wikipedia entry is an excellent place for that. I will say that the message I received from Wikiverse, and which ultimately led me here, could in no way be considered spam. It concerned the Glosa language, and proposed an exchange between one of my Glosa pages and the Glosa entry in Wikiverse. Very precise, very relevant. Of the many link exchange requests I've received, I've only accepted one; this may make two. (Unless somebody else here, with no Glosa pages, and not even an interest in auxiliary languages, received the same proposal? Yeah, that could be spam.) The only questionable aspect of the proposal: Linking back to us will also help maintain your link with us in the future.. If Wikiverse is truly a mirror, then I see no way that an exchange could help maintain the link. (WytCld makes some interesting points above. And I too was intrigued by Wikiverse's use of subdomains for every Wikipedian page; an odd technique. Maybe I will wait a bit before linking. See what I mean? Even this VFD dialog about Wikiverse has been useful for me, already!) Ailanto 15:50, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
 * I don't want to say this in a way that is unfair to Ailanto, especially since i'll be surprised if they turn out to be a sockpuppet. But, at the cost of singling them out for attention, i'm pointing out that their 3 or 4 editing sessions, with 6 edits, concern
 * the cryptic user page,
 * favoring retention in the successful VfD and unsuccessful undelete discussions on Ceqli language, and
 * this one.
 * It may be that they just need to request attribution of their anon edits. But they certainly are an unusual and contrarian editor here, and since i noticed the above, i'm drawing attention to that: FWIW, even tho i expect it's worth nothing. --Jerzy(t) 22:52, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Jerzy! I appreciate the gentle manner in which you raised your concerns. True, I haven't done much work in this Wiki yet. (And may not for some time; I've gotten myself involved in too many things lately! And Wikipediawise, I'd like to focus on the Esperanto and Ido sister sites.) As for my user page, I was influenced by the Ceqli discussion, in which self-promotion was oft cited as a major no-no. I assume that user pages are a special case since they would seem to be inherently self-promotional; mine is about me, after all... unless of course I am simply misunderstanding the purpose of user pages. I proudly accept the label unusual... and contrarian too, though in these cases I think that it would only mean that I'm in the minority, hehe. Ailanto 14:21, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
 * Y're welcome, Ail': the comment was specifically meant to be consistent w/ yr taking pride in it; i like to think such attitudes abt such qualities are characteristic of WP, as when my reservation abt being odd elicited "Odd is good" during voting on my adminship. --Jerzy(t) 18:24, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
 * ... Hehe! Suddenly it became clear to me! Linking back to us will also help maintain your link with us in the future. "Your link with us" doesn't refer to the link from them to me; it refers to a "link" between us. If I create a link to them, there will still be a link between us even if their link to me disappears. Hehehe. Ailanto 20:13, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
 * Hmm, which would ensure you had a way to find them to say "Wha'happened??" when they cut off your traffic. Or they may just mean "when we decide whether to continue linking to you, we'll factor in whether you're sending us traffic." (Which difficulty communicating may be a sign of their being not odd, contrarian or unusual, but just fly-by-night, incompetant, confused, likely to fold, and -- dare i say? -- non-notable.) --Jerzy(t) 19:02, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Thanks for sticking up for us (in a sense). Your view reflects the crushing non-wikipedia majority. Your point regarding that line in the email is valid, and I've sent an email to Katz regarding that. I'd like you and everyone else to keep watch over wikiverse for as long you it takes you to become convinced there is no cloak and dagger conspiracy going on. --Tomco 15:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The email Wikiverse sent me was to "Webmaster@ " (with a CC to another username at that domain). There is no LAN associated with that domain name, and no email accounts. Email to made-up user names is clearly an unsolicited electronic message, which, in my mind (and according to m-w.com), is spam. Yes, it is better targetted than most spam--it linked to an article I editted some time ago (even tho' it's a topic I don't really care about)--but it's still spam. Ailanto, et al, using separate domain names for every article just gives them more google presence. Note that the vast majority of the hits for wikiverse are .wikiverse.org. Niteowlneils 18:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. After reading numerous (many good) arguments on both sides of the aisle, I put it to my own test of keeping Wikipedia reputable: Is it encyclopedic content? No. As valid as some arguments are, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a list of warnings, subliminal advertisements, or whatever else this could be used for. It's not encyclopedic, borders on breaking several rules and, in my opinion, is not notable. So I say delete. Skyler 21:40, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete from the main article space. Spam is an encyclopedic topic.  Individual spammers generally are not. If this is spam (obviously still a disputed point), this doesn't make the cut. Might deserve a mention in a more general article about scams involving Wikipedia or in a Meta article. Rossami 16:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete (see my vote in the comment of 16 Aug 2004 below) (I change my vote after reading Ailanto opinion below and re-reading Geogre post of 03:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC). A redirect to Mirrors and forks should be enough) Keep. [, clarifying confusing vote] Do not delete. Yesterday I was searching for something in Google and Google pointed me a page in Wikiverse. I was curious: "What is this Wikiverse and what is its relationship with Wikipedia?". The best place to find out is in Wikipedia. It would be frustating if Wikipedia did not at least mention what Wikiverse is. Akira - Cleber Akira Nakandakare 15:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * [Too vague to be a vote] That's a reasonable argument. And its why we have Mirrors and forks - so that these (non-)relationships can be explained. There is no need for an encyclopedia article on it yet though - too far from the big time. Pcb21| Pete 19:06, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, shame on me. Your comment that "(non-)relationships can be explained prompted me to finally visit Mirrors and forks and see that it contains lively discussions about those mirrors and forks, not just a list of mirrors and forks which I guess is what I was assuming. That satisfies my concern except for one thing: If I Search for Wikiverse, only the Wikiverse page shows up, not the mirrors/forks page. So, if the Wikiverse page is deleted, and I come here to find out if there's a relationship between Wikipedia and Wikiverse (which is exactly how I ended up here!) and I search for Wikiverse, will I be led to mirrors/forks? Redirect, search results, something? If yes, then I'll definitely change my vote, for deletion. (I probably will anyway. Just hope I don't lose my contrarian status, hehe.) Ailanto
 * Delete This has all been blown way out of proportion. I'd like to point out the only reason the wikiverse article exists is because someone who had felt deceived by the link exchange request created an article that was little more than a rant against wikiverse explaining that we were spamming scumbags who deserved "to die frightened and alone", trying to explain Wikiverse's point of view in the article (biasing it the other way), and the subsequent Vfd flamewar created much more heat then light and the impression something significant was going on in contrary to the facts
 * We decided to create a non-profit mirror of Wikipedia that was decent, clean and useful.
 * We made a few mistakes in the way we promoted the mirror that caused a member of the Wikipedia community to become upset and feel they had been deceived and cheated. He wrote the first article.
 * My response to this article, combined with a mis-understanding of Wikipedia culture eventually created a huge backlash that magnified Wikiverse into something significant and sinister that outraged the Wikipedia community.
 * For Wikipedians, the closest thing to deleting Wikiverse is to delete the article about Wikiverse.
 * It would be convenient for Wikiverse to have an article in Wikipedia about itself, where we can have a dialog with Wikipedia and introduce the site.
 * But I agree logically that if every minor website created an encyclopedia article about itself in Wikipedia, Wikipedia wouldn't really by an encyclopedia anymore.

--Tomco 00:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. The site may be useful, the article isn't. A couple of clarifications. 1. Ailanto: The reason your search for Wikiverse fails is that Mirrors and forks isn't in the main namespace; if you click the "Wikipedia" check-box on the search results page and re-search, it'll come up. That certainly is a bit confusing, but that's a general issue about our interface, not a reason to keep the article. 2. Tomco: Thank you for finally acknowledging in a less sarcastic manner some of the specific issues others have raised, though it's really not productive to raise straw men like "cloak-and-dagger conspiracy" that obscure those specific issues. I'm still not convinced that you get the particular ways in which you "misunderstood Wikipedia culture" (which are clearly spelled out in the help pages - basically, don't engage in edit wars on subjects you're affiliated with [you could easily have voted to delete the original anti-Wikiverse article yourself], and don't delete others' comments; it's not rocket science). Your assertion that "the closest thing to deleting Wikiverse is to delete the article about Wikiverse", though, is just ridiculous. I might as well say that if someone posts a pointless article about me, deleting it is "the closest thing to murdering me". I think it's safe to say that Wikipedia users do not mistake non-listing for nonexistence, and know that articles are not written in order to "introduce" a site or to "have a dialogue".  —Hob←Talk 15:54, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

(Vote above this 'graph if you change the tally accordingly, or below if you don't.) Votes above: DEL 14, KEEP 1  (unless someone changed their vote but didn't strike thru the old one). No one has yet double checked me. --Jerzy(t) 19:02, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

 * Redirect so that visitors to Wikipedia who seek information about Wikiverse can be sure of reaching the appropriate passage on Mirrors and forks. Jerzy, you seem to be counting "delete and redirect" as a simple "delete", so I'm not sure how you want my vote to be reflected in your tally.  Do any of the "delete" voters actively object to a redirect? JamesMLane 01:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Please, redirect instead of just deleting. Akira - Cleber Akira Nakandakare 03:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

can i point out that the wikiverse google co-op is NOT AFFILIATED with wikiverse.org. I dont understand the comments about abusive messages.
 * Hangon


text: User talk:81.218.221.77

title: User talk:81.218.221.77


text:
Samodiva (folklore)

The samodiva (самодива; plural: samodivi, самодиви), samovila (самовила; plural: samovili, самовили) or vila (вила; plural: vili, вили), are woodland fairies or nymphs found in South and West Slavic folklore.

Etymology
One of the hypotheses of the etymology of the word samovila is that it comes from the Indo-European root *ṷēi-, meaning "follow," "chase," or "blow," for "vila." The component "samo" has a function to highlight.

The origin of "diva" is uncertain. The main hypothesis is that there are traces of deiṷos ‘God’.

Appearance
Samodivas are commonly depicted as ethereal maidens with long, loose hair, and in some cases, wings. They are typically dressed in free-flowing, feathered white gowns, which give them the power of flight. Samodivas are often described as having blonde or red hair, tall, slender women with pale, glowing skin and fiery eyes.

Sometimes, they are described as having a veil which could hold all their power. If they get deprived of their veil, they lose all their power.

Habitat
According to Bulgarian folklore, Samodivas can live inside trees or abandoned shacks or dark caves, or near rivers, ponds and wells. Mountains linked to the Samodivas include Vitosha, Belasitsa, Pirin, Rila, the Rhodopes, the Balkan Mountains in Bulgaria and Rudina mountains. However, mountain Pirin is their traditional favorite. Samodivas enter the human world during the spring, staying until autumn. During the winter, they live in the mythical village of Zmejkovo.

In Bulgarian folklore, they are associated with places related to water - wells, rivers, lakes. Thus, there are landmarks in Bulgaria that have the word "samodiva" or "samovila" in them. An example of that are the Samodivski Lakes in the Pirin Mountain. Specifically, they live under large old trees, in abandoned sheds or in dark caves that are near water sources.

In Macedonian folklore they are also said to inhabit trees like oak, willows and that they live in a far off village called Patelevo.

Place in folklore
Samodivas have the power to bring about drought, burn a farmer's crops, or make cattle die of high fever.

Bulgarian folklore
In Bulgarian folklore, Samodivas occur as the personified form of nature. They are protectors of nature and are often juxtaposed with the ways humans live their lives.

They are knowledgeable about herbs and plants, so they are associated with many plants with medicinal qualities. Some plants that are commonly associated with samodivas are Euonymus alatus, Gentiana Alba, and other herbs. There are many local beliefs about those plants and their qualities that are associated with the samodivas. For example, there is a belief that Еuonymus Alatus should be picked only on the eve of Ascension Day because the samodivas are more friendly and their healing powers are stronger.

Another important aspect of the figure of the Samodivas is their love for singing and dancing. They often engage in competitions with each other and with humans, and whoever wins gets to keep the loser for themselves. An example of this is the plot of Dimo the Caval player and Gyurgya Samodiva where the samodiva loses the musical battle and Dimo takes her to his village.

In certain parts of Bulgaria, samodivas are said to be related to various inexplicable natural events like chronic illnesses and whirlwinds. An exаmple of this is the folk song Samodiva Kidnaps a Musician This is a remnant from pre-Christian belief systems on the Balkans, similarly to the Ancient Greek mythology's explanation of Nereids  dancing in the winds.

Macedonian folklore
In Macedonian folklore, Samovilas are often seen that they have the ability to hurt people or to heal them. There is a way to kill a Samovila, and that is by making her prick herself on thorn bushes and evaporates. It is also known that they could enter the hearts of men and stay there for 5 years. Their goal was to join with the man's soul and after go to heaven together. They usually gave the man magical powers and knowledge of healing plants. In North Macedonia, there are tales speaking of Samovilski Weddings, and if a random person was found walking by, they would offer him wine and in return he would give a golden coin to the bride. The wedding would then last all night until dawn.

It is also known that they can be seen by dogs with four eyes and mixed Samovilski children.

Their voices were hypnotic and could drive a man to go crazy. The Macedonian people feared of calling them by their name Vili, so sometimes they would speak of them as Mayki, Yudi, They.

Balkan mythology holds that Samodivas were the daughters of Lamia. This, combined with their mostly nocturnal nature, leads to them being considered negative, or at best neutral in their nature.

Much like the Vila in Slavic folklore, a Samodiva's power is believed to come mostly from her long (usually blond) hair. A Samodiva would sometimes give a small portion of it to her lover to strengthen her control over him via its magical effects. However, if her hair is damaged in some way, she will either disappear entirely or be stripped of her powers and beauty.

History
In Bulgaria, the current understanding of Samodivas currently stems from collections of folk tales and folk songs. Many of those were compiled in the 19th century, as part of the Revival efforts of Bulgarian intellectuals. The secondary literature on the topic of Samodiva is very limited. The folklore that has been collected and stored reflects only a fraction of the complex understanding that the character of the Samodiva entails, since the folktales have gone through numerous sieves, both during the writing stages of the folklore collections, and later on, as a result of the regime and ideology shifts of the Balkan Peninsula (See People's Republic of Bulgaria, Yugoslavia).

Earliest written evidence of Samodivas dates back to the 13th century, where they presumably developed from Balkan traditions and myths. Researchers have also found influences from other Slavic folklore. It is widely believed that the image of the Samodiva and their behavior is actually based on ancient Thracian legends, especially those connected to the Cult of Orpheus, which included songs and dances performed by fire-priestesses.

Prominent Samodivas in folklore

 * Vila - Some folk tales describe Vila Samodiva as the Samodiva maiden who leads the others in their dances. She is described as the active participant of the contact between the protagonist of folktales and the mystical world, serving as a guide or giving the hero a task to test his valour and resolve.In one folk tale, Vila found Krali Marko as an infant and brought him up as a foster mother. As Marko grew on Samodiva milk, he acquired supernatural powers.The character of the Vila is attested in South Slavic fairy tales collected by Friedrich Salomon Krauss.

 * Vida - Some stories say that she is the sister of Krali Marko, some stories describe her as a destructive force of nature. In Krali Marko and Vida Samovila, he encounters her and kills her in conflict. In another tale, she is responsible for the water shortage in the region because she locked up the twelve springs.
 * Gyurgya - One of Gyurgya's appearances in Bulgarian Folklore is when she is enticed by a shepherd and ends up becoming his wife.

Appearances in other literature

 * In the 19th century, Bulgarian poet and revolutionary Hristo Botev mentioned Samodivas in a poem praising the late Voivoda Hadzhi Dimitar. The Samodivas provide comfort to the dying man in the last moments of his life, symbolizing bravery. They also appear to symbolize the union between him and the land he sacrificed himself to protect. Still, the Samodivas and the reaction of Hadzhi Dimitar to their presence is connected to the mischievous and seductive role they often play in mythology.
 * Elin Pelin - Samodiva

Samodiva as supernatural wife
A Bulgarian folk song (The Samodiva married against her will) features a Samodiva: three girls, not related to each other, doff their magical garments to bathe, but are seen by a shepherd that takes their clothing. Each girl separately try to plead and convince the youth to return the clothing. He does so - but only to the first two; the third maiden he chose to wed after she revealed she was an only child. After the wedding, the village insists she dances for the amusement of everyone else, but the samodiva says she cannot dance without her garment. Once her husband delivers her the clothing, she flies away.

In the fairy tale The Youth and the Vila, the youngest son, who is considered a fool by his two elder brothers, manages to pluck the golden hairs of a vila who has been eating the silver pears of his father's garden. He later takes her back to his father's house.

In a second tale, The Vila in the Golden Castle, a father asks his three sons to guard his flower garden at night, because swans have been eating the flowers (in reality, the vilas were). The vila returns home to the golden castle, which prompts the youth to seek her. There, an old vila, the girl's mother, sets tasks for him to perform.

title: Samodiva (folklore)


text:
Category:Airlines of Mexico

See also: List of airlines and List of defunct airlines

title: Category:Airlines of Mexico


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREE BAPTIST CYCLOPAEDIA

Chunk of badly OCR'd primary text. TwoOneTwo 20:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This page is now listed at Possible copyright violations. Please take further discussion there. --Slowking Man 21:32, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Tareq Ayyoub

Tareq Ayyoub (طارق أيوب, also Romanized Tareq Ayoub, Tariq Ayoub, Tarek Ayoub, Tarik Ayub, 1968 - 8 April 2003) was an Arab television reporter of Palestinian nationality, employed by Al Jazeera, and previously by Fox News. Ayyoub was killed in 2003 when two missiles, fired from by an American ground-attack aircraft, struck the Baghdad headquarters of the Al Jazeera Satellite Channel during the 2003 US-led Invasion of Iraq. The Al Jazeera station was clearly marked as a media centre, and the US military had been informed of its location in February.

Biography
Born in Kuwait in 1968, Ayyoub received his Masters in English from Calicut University. Beginning in 1998, he covered the domestic and international politics of Jordan for the English-language Jordan Times.

Death
On the morning of 8 April 2003, Ayyoub, along with his second cameraman, an Iraqi named Zuheir, was covering a pitched battle between the American and Iraqi troops from the roof of Al-Jazeera's Baghdad office. At approximately 7:45 a.m., an American A-10 Warthog ground-attack aircraft turned toward Al-Jazeera's office and began to descend upon it. Maher Abdullah, the station's Baghdad correspondent,  witnessed the A-10's attack run and gave the following description, "The plane was flying so low that those of us downstairs thought it would land – that's how close it was. We actually heard the rocket being launched. It was a direct hit – the missile actually exploded against our electrical generator, and Tareq died almost at once, Zuheir was injured."

Context
On the same day, the Abu Dhabi satellite station was hit by 'Army Fire' in a different section of Baghdad, and an American tank fired shells at Palestine Hotel, killing journalists Taras Protsyuk of Reuters and Jose Couso of the Spanish television station, Telecinco.

Reaction
The United States claimed later that day that the death had been an accident, and that hostile fire had been seen originating from the Al Jazeera headquarters.

title: Tareq Ayyoub


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Baptist Cyclopedia

Free Baptist Cyclopedia 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 the page was listed on Copyright problems, then deleted as a copyvio.

Source text. No value. TwoOneTwo 20:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * A complete mess, non-notable, delete maybe transwiki to wikisource. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * This page has been listed at Possible copyright violations. Please take further discussion there. --Slowking Man 21:33, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

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.
 * Delete, if a delete vote is even still appropriate in light of copyvio. The anon's contributions otherwise have been off the general point of Wikipedia, but not malicious.  In this case, the "free" is "free will," but the "cyclopedia" seems tied entirely to a single congregation.  Were it to be an encyclopedia of all Free Will Baptist theology, it would be borderline.  At less than that, it's a delete for notability and web guide. Geogre 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * A delete vote is no longer appropriate in light moving discussion to copyvio. (But if it is not deleted as copyvio, whoever removes its entry there should bring it back here with a fresh nomination under the date that it is brought back.) --Jerzy(t) 03:53, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)


text:
Driver and Mechanic Badge

The Driver and Mechanic Badge is a military special skill badge of the United States Army which was first created in July 1942. The badge is awarded to drivers, mechanics, and special equipment operators to denote the attainment of a high degree of skill in the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. The badge was originally referred to as the “Motor Vehicle Badge” and adopted its current title of Driver and Mechanic Badge during the Korean War.

The Driver and Mechanic Badge is awarded to soldiers who have received training and have met specific qualification standards to operate or repair military motor vehicles. For example, the Driver and Mechanic Badge for wheeled vehicles requires successful completion of military vehicle operations and maintenance training and be assigned duties and responsibilities as a driver or assistant driver of government vehicles for a minimum of 12 consecutive months or have driven at least 8,000 miles with no vehicle accidents or traffic violations before one can be awarded the badge.

The badge is issued with a number of metal bars, suspended beneath the decoration, which denote the qualification received. The current bars which are issued to the Driver and Mechanic Badge are as follows:
 * DRIVER - A (for amphibious vehicles)
 * DRIVER - M (for motorcycles)
 * DRIVER - T (for tracked vehicles)
 * DRIVER - W (for wheeled vehicles)
 * MECHANIC (for automotive or allied vehicles)
 * OPERATOR - S (for special mechanical equipment)

From November 1962 to January 1966, the U.S. Army awarded this badge to Army aviation mechanics and crew chiefs. To distinguish them from other Driver and Mechanic Badges, aviation mechanics had a two-bladed propeller bar that hung suspended beneath the badge, just like the driver bars. Crew chiefs hung two metal bars from the badge, one with "Crew Chief" embossed on a bar followed by the propeller bar. The Driver and Mechanic Badge-Aviation Mechanic and Driver and Mechanic Badge-Crew Chief were replaced by the Army Aircrewman Badge, now known as the Army Aviation Badge.

The Driver and Mechanic Badge is a permanently awarded skill badge and is worn suspended beneath a service member’s standard decorations and to the wearer's right of any Weapons Qualification Badges.

title: Driver and Mechanic Badge


text: Category:Cellists

title: Category:Cellists


text:
Steven Frank (biologist)

Steven A. Frank (born 1957) is a professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine. His areas of expertise are evolutionary genetics, host-parasite interactions and social evolution. He earned a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 1987.

Frank was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1995, and received prizes from the Society for the Study of Evolution in 1988 and the American Society of Naturalists in 1986.

title: Steven Frank (biologist)


text:
User:T Garth

Please leave comments on my talk page. Thanks.

I am a Wiki neophyte whose primary contribution to date has been helping lengthen the list of "Important persons who were born or lived in Detroit" to almost unmanageable proportions. This is because I, too, was born in Detroit (but don't yet qualify for inclusion in Wikidom). Like many other native Detroiters, however, I'm quick to point out prideful claims related to my hometown (which I expand to include its suburbs) because Detroit often gets such a bad rap in the national and international media, e.g. "Murder City".

Also like many native Detroiters whose creative ambitions transcend automotive design, I left town: First, for corporate life in New York City (northern New Jersey, actually). Then for urban refugee status in northern Michigan (Traverse City and Leelanau County, specifically). At present, I live in the Chicago suburb of Brookfield. Consequently, I have been making Wiki contributions to articles related to those places, as well.

A "sense of place" is important to my nature. I like real cities and real towns with real neighborhoods; real countryside and real wilderness--places on a pedestrian scale where one can easily explore and interact with people and things. I deplore the alienating landscape of automobile-dominated sprawl with its big-box shopping centers, cul-de-sac subdivisions, fast food cuisine and its culture of consumption. But it's unlikely I'll dive into articles on urban planning, new urbanism, smart growth, or historic preservation because it's hard for me to maintain a NPOV on those topics.

Beyond that, my interests are wide and varied, so for me the world of Wiki is an ideal diversion.

title: User:T Garth