text:
Talk:Connecticut Compromise

Introduction
yes there is  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.103.59 (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Every state is permitted to have two Senators. How may this standard be viewed by U.S. Senators. Some may argue that it is fair because there also exists the House of Representatives. Therefore, every states' voice must be heard because on may have a good point for discussion that is worth changing votes over.

 * United States House of Representative undoubtedly. 68.39.174.150 04:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amongst the many principles that remain important to our founding fathers, and remain cherished today, some include freedom of worship, freedom of speech and as mentioned before the principle of equality of persons, all in opposition to the principle of outright majority rule in order to follow the pattern of reducing informality and bias ("Talk:Connecticut Compromise," 2019).

So I would turn the question around this way: Is there no room in our constitution for any principle other than that of "one man, one vote"? Before crying "no!", remember that a number of other principles important to our founders are still cherished today, such as freedom of worship, freedom of speech, and on and on - all in opposition to the principle of outright majority rule. The purpose of such limitations is to protect each of us in those instances when we are not in the favored majority so that our rights may be protected. Our constitution combines a number of vital principles that sometimes are at odds with each other, but all of which contribute to the protection of individual liberty. Equality of persons and equality of states, counterbalanced against one another, produce an effective constraint on legislation.

But why state equality as a constitutional principle? Our federal government was created not in a vacuum but by and with the consent of states that still exist today, not as mere appendages of the federal government but as separate sovereigns of equal standing, the federal government possessing limited delegated powers and the states retaining the rest. To recognize states' equal standing and preserve their residual sovereignty, the principle of state equality must find support in the constitution's distribution of powers, as reflected by the equal membership in the Senate and in other ways.

Measured against the principle of state equality, that every state gets two Senators is not unfair.

 * I hate to disagree with anything so reasonable and well written, but . ..

 * I appreciate the chance at discussion. Thanks for fucking up life and giving me false information. mutha fuckin dick weeds.

 * I fully support the notion of limiting majority rule when it comes to protecting minority rights, as in worship, lifestyle, free expression. Yet, how is it necessary to have an equal suffrage Senate to ensure those rights?

 * I prefer to view the constitution as a toolbox for protecting individual liberty with state equality being one tool only. But ultimately, none of the tools will work against a sustained, widespread majority consensus to the contrary. The tools work at the margins, putting the brakes on the population’s will temporarily. I did not mean to say that state equality is the best tool, but I do think that it successfully serves as a brake on popular action and is therefore useful in preserving minority rights. Since that is also a main purpose of bicameralism, it seems fitting that the Senate apportionment be a repository of the principle.

 * You say the equal suffrage Senate is necessary to give political minorities more of a voice, yet, how can an equal suffrage Senate be justified if only certain political minorities benefit? The Senate – presently with zero blacks or Latinos - certainly cannot be said to be a representative of racial minorities.  Basically, the only group that benefits from the Senate’s apportionment scheme is rural (conservative) whites.  City dwellers get screwed.

 * I did not mean to imply that state equality protects minority interests through representation of those interests. Indeed, the Senate is majoritarian in character: majority of states rather than persons. Instead, the way it protects minority rights is simply by setting two majoritarian houses against one another, rendering legislative action of any sort less likely. A third brake is the president’s veto power, a fourth judicial review and so on. All serve minority rights if not minority interests. In this I would include substantial political minorities of all stripes, however they may be defined.

 * Yes, the states are more than administrative units, but not much more. We have a national economy and culture, and the federal government is an entity of the people, not the states.  Also, does not the preamble to the Constitution read “We the People,” as opposed to “We the States.”  I’d say the overwhelming majority of persons living in the USA think of themselves as “Americans,” as opposed to “Minnesotans,” “Floridians,” etc.

 * I rather suspect that local attachments, even passionate ones, are more important than you suggest. Popular opinion on many divisive domestic policy issues varies substantially from region to region. Thankfully, different states may vary their policies, and citizens choose their state of residence, accordingly: an uptown New Yorker would probably be very unhappy were he transplanted to rural Alabama and vice versa, not least because of the public policies under which he would have to live.

 * A multiplicity of competing viewpoints struggling in the arena of ideas, rather than having one national consensus on everything, enlightens our debate and serves as one more tool to protect liberty.

 * Also, the states are not truly equal. Do California and Rhode Island contribute equally to the Treasury?  If there were a djjjjjjjjjbn cghgtfvbnhvgy jlIpOjkjjgbhfvhjvvhvhghraft, would Idaho and New York contribute equal numbers of troops?  Of course not, equality of the states is a fiction.  By what reason should the metropolitan area of Providence have political equality with half the West Coast?

 * By the reason that, in some spheres of public policy, states are free to pursue their own destinies in accordance with the will of their people without interference from other states. Of course states are unequal in many respects, but their equal political rights are not secured at auction. In several critical matters of right, states are equal with one another, and it is to recognize and preserve that equality that the principle is accorded substantial weight in our constitution.

 * Also, Senate equality creates many public policy problems. Look at farm subsidies.  Look at how cities are drastically underfunded in their homeland security needs.  Wyoming, with very few terrorist targets, get four times the money per person as New York.  How is that fair?  Also, in "Sizing Up the Senate," Frances Lee and Bruce Oppenheimer demonstrate that the Senate almost always wins out in House-Senate funding disputes.

 * I’m not at all sure why the Senate “always wins” since the constitution gives equal power to the House and Senate on spending matters (maybe the House needs more backbone?). Why must public expenditures per state necessarily reflect the state’s population? Complex public policy considerations (as to how best to protect the homeland) should be dispositive. The real problem you seem to describe is that the people of one region are left unprotected by the willful neglect of the rest of the country. If so, it would be a scandal, a shame, an attack on the very idea of “one nation” - but not the fault of state equality in the Senate as such since the same could occur with a body apportioned by population.

 * Further, even partisan control of the Senate depends on inequality. The 49 Democratic Senators represent 20 million more people than the 51 Republican ones.  From 1980 to 1986, the Republicans also only controlled the Senate due to small state domination.  Before the New Deal realignment, the Democrats received an undue benefit from small state Senators.

 * Partisan control is simply a function of membership, which of course depends upon apportionment, which depends on the principle used to apportion. Ergo, if state equality is a suitable principle for apportioning membership, then it is a suitable principle for deciding partisan control.

 * I don’t mind some subsidy for small population states. Perhaps each state could be guaranteed two Senators, and then receive one Senator per 10,000,000 people (so CA would have a total of 5 Senators)  Currently, 50 Senators are elected by 17% of the population, with that percentage falling.  What will you say when half the Senate is elected by 10% of the population?  Dinopup

 * I would not apply the principle of “equality of persons” in judging the fairness of the Senate; “equality of states” is the standard. So long as each of the 50 states has 1/50th of the Senate membership, that principle is fulfilled. --Pgva 08:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The principle of "equality of states" is outdated, a vestige of colonial history. The Constitution was a great step towards the idea of "government of the people" rather than "government of the states" through the establishment of a strong federal government. It would be much more democratic for the legislative branch to fulfill the concept of "We the People" and abolish the Senate, whose only purpose is to check democratic impulses and protect state power by empowering a minority of the population to check the vast majority. The Senate was the bullwark of slavery before the Civil War and of Jim Crow in the last century. --Thucydides411 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cites please
''There was never much dispute that the lower house would have population representation, that states were given equal votes in the upper house was a capitulation to small state demands. [...] Also, none of the major Framers of the Constitution, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, favored equal representation.''

Please provide a citation for this. anthony (see warning) 13:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * This came from "Sizing Up the Senate," chap. 1.

you people r all nerdz. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.17.182 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo?
In point of manners, religions, and other circimstances, which sometimes beget affection between different communities, they were not more assimilated that the other states.l In ponit [???] of the staple productions they were as dissimilar as any three other States in the Union.

Is this a typo? a mistake in the original? anthony (see warning) 12:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

==What are the major components of the Great compromise and who put the thing on the headline and how do you get it off?==

Comment on quoting
This:"bicameral legislature consisting of a lower and upper house." is presented as if it were the terms that the people noted in the sentence had presented it in those terms. Ifit is not i dirwcte qoutical then please be more smartical your welcom it should be rephrased to indicate that the terms/interpretation are those of the topic-editor. Tedickey 10:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement
The word "taxes" links to an off-site advertisement, however there is no text creating such a link in the edit mode. What is going on? Does Wikipedia do this on purpose, or is this complex vandalism? Is it even legal? FlashHawk4 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't see "taxes" linked in the current revision.Tedickey (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging articles
Would it be justified to merge the Virginia Plan article into this one, considering how it (this article) outlines both the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan? Why have two articles that contain the same information? Otherwise, remove the synopsis of the Virginia plan to focus more on the Great Compromise.Ykerzner (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The current split-presentation seems okay to me. Merging the topics would make it harder for the casual reader to focus on the different discussions Tedickey (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving from Philadelphia
Hmm, I just now moved a big block out of the history section of the greatly overgrown United States Constitution and then thought, oh no, I haven't warned the watchers of Connecticut about this. I hope my action will not be taken as taking WP:BOLD to the point of impoliteness, and especially I hope for help in neatening what amounts to a rough merge. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Jim! I can't speak for everyone in the project but I have no problem with the edit. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim, looks like a pretty excellent edit to me. I've always thought this article ought to have more information than it did before given how important of an event it was.  My only concern with your edit is that it isn't sourced with inline citations, but I think that can be fixed without too much trouble.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, on second inspection the merged material fits neatly enough, unlike some of my first drafts of transfers among articles. The defects are mainly original in the material, and should have been already repaired when the text was in its original overcrowded article. Alas, my own editorial talent and inclination run more to arrangement and linkage than citation, and my time will go to finding and fixing other cases of duplicative, unlinked, overlarge or oversmall articles and the like. I'll hope other editors in our assiduous volunteer corps will either tolerate any remaining shortcomings or correct them. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Revisions to "Aftermath" Section
I have deleted the following sentence:

 * Less populous Southern States were allowed to count three-fifths of all non-free, non-Native American people toward population counts and allocations.

This characterization of the Three-Fifths Compromise is inaccurate because, among other things, it suggests that the Southern States were all less populous than the Middle and Eastern (i.e., New England) States, whereas Virginia was the most populous State in the confederacy, and North Carolina's population was larger than those of four of the seven Northern States (counting Del. as a Southern State).

The sentence also, remarkably, employs even more clumsy and indirect language than the Three-Fifths Clause itself. Surely, at this late date, Wikipedia can refer to slaves as slaves. Further, the sentence suggests that there was a category of "non-free, Native American people", 100% of whom would have been counted in the federal ratio of representation.

I also replaced the word "wrangled" with "complicated", in the sentence,

 * This agreement allowed deliberations to continue and thus led to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which further wrangled the issue of popular representation in the House.

although I have no idea what the original writer meant by that sentence, and thus may not have clarified it.

Jdcrutch (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

adjournment or recess
"Therefore, on June 14, when the Convention was ready to consider the report on the Virginia plan, William Paterson of New Jersey requested an adjournment to allow certain delegations more time to prepare a substitute plan." Should that say a recess rather than an adjournment? RJFJR (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

From one to two senators
The article mentions the original draft of the compromise authorizing one senator per state, but never returns to the subject, so it is unclear how that proposal was amended into the final two senators per state form that was written into the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.65.234 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Electoral College
There is no mention of the extension of this compromise into the configuration of the presidential election whereby the number of electors is always at least 3, regardless of state population size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Argenio (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021
Change James Madison to James Madison 137.83.19.148 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Are you referring to the one on the "Compromise" section? If so, it doesn't need to be linked, since it's already linked in the "Background" section: "James Madison and Hamilton were two of the leaders of the proportional...". See MOS:LINKONCE.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 12:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Connecticut Compromise


text:
Wong's Lost and Found Emporium

"Wong's Lost and Found Emporium" is the second segment of the ninth episode of the first season of the television series The Twilight Zone. The segment is based on the short story "Wong's Lost and Found Emporium", by William F. Wu, first published in Amazing Stories in May 1983. It takes place in a mystical shop where ephemeral things such as lost integrity and lost time can be recovered.

Plot
David Wong, a young Asian American, has spent three years looking for a mysterious place called "The Lost and Found Emporium." He tracks it down to a backroom of a San Francisco pawn shop, but cannot find any staff. Browsing, David meets an elderly woman who is looking for lost opportunities. He is not interested in her story, but he sees an orb of light floating behind her. Following the orb, which the woman does not see, he finds a cage with mice that have instructions to rub them until they calm down. Believing this is her chance to win back her lost opportunities, the woman tries to do so but the mice escape and scatter. She breaks down in tears and David leaves her.

David meets an elderly man who came to the emporium by accident. He says he lost the respect of his children. With the help of another orb, David points him to a mirror, which he must look at for no less than five and a half minutes. The man is disgusted by what he sees—a distorted, monstrous image of himself. He smashes the mirror and then realizes he has destroyed his chance. David shakes his head and leaves.

David is confronted by a young woman named Melinda who scolds him for his lack of compassion. David says it is his compassion he is after and explains how he lost it due to racial intolerance, in particular the murder of Vincent Chin. Deducing that visitors to the emporium can see other people's guiding orbs but not their own, Melinda offers to find his compassion if he finds her lost item. David agrees and follows her orb to an old thermos, which releases a stream of vapor. After inhaling the vapor, Melinda receives back her sense of humor. She points David to three flasks, but won't tell him which one contains his compassion.

David smashes the two biggest flasks, regaining his integrity and a childhood memory. The third flask rolls away and is lost. David is unhappy, but decides it is destiny to help other unfortunate souls. Melinda hypothesizes that he gained back some of his compassion with the restoration of his integrity, and volunteers to stay as his assistant. They start by helping the elderly man and woman. Afterwards Melinda puts up a new sign on the entrance: "Wong's Lost and Found Emporium: Under new management".

Production
Alan Brennert wrote the teleplay for the episode based on the short story by William F. Wu. Wu got the idea for the story from a prompt given by Harlan Ellison at the Clarion Writers Workshop: "Where do lost things go?" Seven years after the workshop, the full concept of the story popped into his head as he was lying down for a nap. Writer Michael B. Tonin was responsible for bringing the short story to Brennert's attention.

The production featured a huge number of "lost item" props, with the crew cracking jokes about having cleaned out the CBS property room. Actress Carol Bruce was shocked when she noticed that one of the prop skeletons was a real human skeleton rather than the usual plastic model. Wu, who was present for the filming and was a fan of Bruce's, took the opportunity to chat and have his photo taken with her. Science fiction writer Alison Tellure suggested the idea of a head in a jar which turns out to be alive.

The original short story makes a subtle reference to an earlier short story with a mystic curio shop, "The Chaser" by John Collier, which coincidentally was also developed into a Twilight Zone episode, albeit for the original series rather than the 1985 incarnation. However, this reference was left out of the TV adaptation.

Sequels
A sequel episode titled "Missing Person" was developed for season two of "The Twilight Zone", this time with the teleplay written by William F. Wu himself, but the series was cancelled before it could be filmed. The plot revolved around a person who wakes up to find he is a "lost item" on a shelf in Wong's Lost and Found Emporium and cannot leave until someone comes and "finds" him. Though the TV episode was never produced, the short story version of "Missing Person" was published in Amazing Stories, as was a second sequel story, "Indigo Shade, Alizarin Light". All three Lost and Found Emporium stories were collected in Wu's 2020 book Interlaced Pathways, which was coincidentally dedicated to Alan Brennert.

According to Brennert, in the early 2000s he was in talks to adapt the episode into a Sci-Fi Channel series in which David and Melinda would interact with a different set of guest stars each week, but nothing came of it.

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

title: Wong's Lost and Found Emporium


text:
Talk:Phengodidae

Untitled
"Glowworm" is the uncontroversial common name for this family, so it should be used instead of Phengodidae - I don't understand what possible rationale there could be for using the Latin here. Stan 02:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Glowworm may be uncontroversial as a common name, but it is not unique. I would be content with "glowworm beetle", as long as the note about the lampyridae is prominent enough, but glowworm by itself is too ambiguous.  WormRunner | Talk 03:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm sitting here looking at American Beetles, and the entry just says "The glowworms" with no qualification, no "beetle" etc. We don't have to give "equal time" to multiple meanings if one is unequivocally predominant - we just use the commonest usage directly, and push the minor ones off to disambigs or wherever. I looked at this already when deciding what to do with the article (didn't it occur to you that maybe I did just such an evaluation? I always review name alternatives before doing a move), and non-phengodids as "glowworms" were the exception rather than the rule. Stan 04:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Rhagophthalmids
Crowson (1972) placed Rhagophthalmids in the Phengodidae, but they were removed in 1994 to their own family, by Wittmer & Ohba. O'Keefe incorrectly followed Crowson's classification, which is unfortunately perpetuated in the Tree of Life website (which also includes two misspellings of O'Keefe's). Therefore, the entry in the TOL is NOT an authoritative source.Dyanega 02:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Phengodidae


text:
User:Trevor H.

Trevor H. An avid Wikipedia user and sometime contributor/editor. Starting an article on Wikipedia is undoubtedly an exciting thing to do.

title: User:Trevor H.


text:
Herbert McClintock

Herbert McClintock (1906-1985) was an Australian social realist artist.

Born: 1906, Perth, Australia

Died: 1985 (age 79 years)

Biography
McClintock was born in Perth, Western Australia. He studied at the National Gallery of Victoria Art School from 1925 to 1927 and again in 1930, where he met fellow social realists Noel Counihan and Roy Dalgarno. While a student, McClintock earned a living as a signwriter and advertising artist. He joined the Communist Party of Australia during the depression of the 1930s and did many political cartoons for communist publications. His cartoons were featured in trade union and communist papers throughout his life.

 * Early work described as "constructivist"
 * Mid-1930s working in a surrealist style, under the pseudonym "Max Ebert".
 * Joined the Workers Art Guild
 * Developed interest in Social Realism and chose to work only in this style using his own name.
 * rejected for military service on medical grounds
 * worked in an iron foundry; camouflage artist
 * appointed 1943 as official war artist associated with the Civil Construction Corps.

title: Herbert McClintock


text:
Talk:Kahan Commission

Added Kahan Commission definition
Again, I attempted to be concise and balanced, while avoiding ahistorical reductionism. I welcome educated opinion from all sides. Thanks. El_C

 * To whomever changed the Report of the Kahan Commission section into a default External Links, I changed the title back to its original form. These are not merely external links (though wikipedians are free to add a section with such links, i.e. links which offer a discussion of the event) bellow that. These two links only provide the report submitted by the Kahan Commission. Thanks. El_C

 * Also, with respect to dates, changed-back the revised first paragraph to the British method which I employ throughout the article (all my articles, in fact). I am certain we all agree that an article should remain consistent on that front one way or another. El_C

 * Just FYI, you can always check a page's history to see who's made a particular change. In this case, you would have found out that the changes you mention were made by yours truly :-) That said, they weren't done maliciously or to add to any "ahistorical reductionism". In fact, changing the last section (now entitled "Report of the Kahan Commission") to "External links" was done with some purpose. Links to pages outside of Wikipedia are by definition external links. When an author merely enumerates some external links without providing any supportive information or context, these links are most appropriately placed under an "External links" heading so the user knows that the pages exist outside Wikipedia. If you want to write a paragraph (or a few) about the report of the commission, feel free and by all means please put it underneath a "Report of the Kahan Commission" heading. But a mere list of links belongs in the external links section.

 * I apologize for absent-mindedly Americanizing the dates as I was turning them into wikilinks. These things happen. However, it is a good idea to turn dates into wikilinks since the Wikipedia software can recognize and render them according to users' preferences -- see the "Date format" tab in Special:Preferences.) --Diberri | Talk 04:53, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

--- What? No, I made no statements regarding malice or reductionism on your part or on anyone's parts. Never have I implied it either. These are just the notices of having written the articles which I impropperly placed in the discussion field of the main article, and moved them here where they belonged once I understood my error (both preceded your earliest revision to this topic).

 * But I do take exception to your use complete sentences revision of the first sentence, and I am reverting it back to the original form. It might not be a complete sentence for an essay, but it is for an ecnyclopedia entry. I formulated it as such for a reason.
 * Please see How to start a page. In particular, it mentions that you should start an article with a complete sentence. Wikipedia is not paper, so there's no need to be excessively concise. --Diberri | Talk 06:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hah. I am not being excessively concise (nor defensive!). I am attempting to avoid run-on sentences in the first paragraph, and I have a particular sequence in mind. You have your style, I have mine and (I would not enforce my style on an article you author unless I find it grossly problematic, which my first sentence is not), the object either way is clarity. I may be new to wikipedia, but I am not new to writing this sort of material. El_C
 * I certainly don't want to force my writing style upon you. Mine is just an opinion based on general observations about Wikipedia's style. My only point is that Wikipedia tends to use complete sentences, and I think that's a good thing overall. --Diberri | Talk 20:56, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed your comment here. Let me reiterate once again: for our purposes here, it is a complete sentence.
 * It is not an appropriate first sentence in a Wikipedia article (and the same thing could be said in a complete sentence with some trivial rewording). Please have a look at other articles to see how they should be started.   — Kate | Talk 05:45, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

 * Appreciate you correcting any typos or spelling errors you might find in the article.

 * Point taken about the links being external (I could just copy&paste the entire report into a wikipedia entry titled as such, but what's the point? ), but I do wish to qualify that these only include the report itself. So if the rule is that these should always be called External Links, and that is the only permitable term, then the qualification will be in the links description, I suppose.
 * Yes, that's the general rule (to place ext. links in an "external links" section). I agree; there's no point in copy/pasting verbatim text into Wikipedia. But a summary of the report and some context would be very nice. Alternatively, you could provide annotations to the list of external links, which is always helpful. --Diberri | Talk 06:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good idea. By all means, feel free. I might have to retrace my steps and make some corrections for other articles I authored.

 * Wikilink away, I guess. I just find that an excess of these is cosmetically distracting and not too pertinent. For now, I will not add these to any articles I author (nor to any articles you author, or any articles for that matter), but I am open to be persuaded otherwise - frankly, I don't quite understand the process or see the value behind it (and since I mostly write oblique articles, that is, African history topics, I stand little chance of being wikilinked -or read- anyway, yay! :p ). El_C
 * You certainly don't have to add them, but I like turning dates into wikilinks because they make users' experience just a bit nicer since they can read the dates in their desired format. See Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for more discussion. --Diberri | Talk 06:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I just like writing the articles, I honestly could not care less about wikilinking dates. If you could summarize the value behind that perhaps I will. For now, sorry, I have no time to read another discussion, as I am writing and reading this in haste (I am reading and writing too many wikidiscussions today as it is, at any rate). Respectfully, one instance of your wikilinking of the dates is breaking the continuity of my original first paragraph (which is always a decisive prargraph). I reverted back again to 16-18 September rather than 16 September—18 September. I find it breaks the flow of the sentence and makes it appear convoluted. I request that you do not revert back to your revision and leave my original 16-18 September (leaving your remaining wikilinking of these dates intact — sure I find the underlined blueness distracting — I do, of course, use wikilinking (in every single that article I have written), but I do try to be selective about it for reasons already stated. As always, I welcome any thoughts you have on anything I said here.El_C
 * If you find them distracting, feel free to leave them out. However, links to dates are nice since those pages contain a list of closeby events which can provide additional context to your article. It's up to you. I must admit, I've made too big a deal out of the date formatting issue. --Diberri | Talk 20:56, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

On Complete Sentences:
I've enjoyed our discussion about wikilinks for dates and using complete sentences in articles. Just so you know, and so you don't simply revert my edits on sight, I'm going to remove the sentence fragment at Kahan Commission and replace it with a complete sentence that gets the same idea across. Hopefully, you'll appreciate that I consulted with other wikipedians at the Village pump before making this decision. The general consensus is that Wikipedia should use complete sentences (where complete sentence is objectively defined). Best wishes, Diberri | Talk 06:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * I already mentioned that your revision is problematic. If you wish to discuss how a fragmant sentence should be objectively defined (in which type of writings, according to which criteria), I am, of course, more than willing to oblige and I invite you to do so. I appreciate that you have consulted with other wikipedians, but I need to see more direct evidence that this first sentence, in fact, constitutes a fragmanet, here, in this article (and that your revision is superior). Please, -cease- your reversions until we discuss this, so as to avoid an edit war. I am reverting it back to the original, and I am hopeful that you would restrain yourself from any further revisions to the opening sentence until further discussion between us (as well as other members of the community) could be facilitated. As it stands, it is my opinion that your revision makes for a convoluted first sentence. Disagree with my opinion? We can discuss that, but to use your own words, please do not edit on sight. As always, I kept your other recent (and quite helpful) additions. El_C
 * It is not an appropriate first sentence in a Wikipedia article (and the same thing could be said in a complete sentence with some trivial rewording). Please have a look at other articles to see how they should be started.   — Kate | Talk 05:45, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to you also, Kate, that is your opinion. I understand that you see your opinion as authoritative, but I elect to take it as an opinion nontheless. Now, wikipedia is a dynamic affair (which is not at all to say that it should be without relatively consistent scholarly, grammatically, etc. standards) not all styles are the same. You see it as an unencyclopedic sentence fragmant, I beg to differ. Now, I am, as always, open to be persauded otherwise, since (both of) you seem to have been reduced to forwarding your case through mere inuendo, you might be able to understand why I am as of yet unpersuaded that (both of) you are correct here. El_C
 * I don't think Kate is trying to assert hers as an authoritative opinion. She is merely restating Wikipedia's generally accepted (though widely unspoken) style guideline to use complete sentences in articles. Moreover, she's directing you to other articles so that you can convince yourself of this style, since it's not really in writing anywhere except for here. As for a definition: I am not a linguist, but it suffices to say that complete sentences must have both a subject and a verb. Your sentence fragment has neither. --Diberri | Talk 08:24, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * El_C, a fragment is a fragment, and they should be avoided in Wikipedia. If you can locate another Wikipedia article that starts like that, feel free to point them out and we can discuss. Meanwhile, check out 9/11_Commission and Warren_Commission for articles with similar flavor to this one that start with complete sentences. Perhaps it's not in the Manual of Style because it is assumed that complete sentences are the goal of any Wikipedia article. 147.8.224.157 08:27, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant - obviously my opinion isn't authorative by itself, but it is representative of Wikipedia in general (see above articles for comparable examples). The current sentence fragment looks like it's meant to be part of the title, or something similar (except it isn't).    — Kate | Talk 08:31, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

 * A fragmant is a fragmant indeed, but one should avoid being condescending, ip. Kate, wikipedia is dynamic, this mean stylistic differences (including those not representative of the totality) could exist and still be encyclopedic. There's standardization and then there is being monolithic.

European Commission

A) 1st sentence: The European Commission (formally the Commission of the European Communities) is the executive of the European Union.

B) 2nd sentence: The Commission is headed by a President (since 1999, Romano Prodi of Italy). Its primary roles are to propose legislation and to carry it out.

With A the function ('executive of the European Union') is added to the name and formal name. In the case of the Kahan Commission, the formal name in itself gives an indication as to its function, the remaining difference is stylistically minor.

Kahan Commission

A) 1st sentence: ''Formally, the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut (וועדת חקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות).

B) 2nd sentence: The Kahan Commission (וועדת כאהן) was established by the Israeli government on 28 September 1982, to investigate the Sabra and Shatila Massacre (16-18 September, 1982).

El_C

 * Yes, but to keep some semblance of consistency, and to prevent Wikipedia becoming a mess of articles formatted in completely different ways, we have certain standards and guidelines for how certain things should be done (hence the existence of the Manual of Style; relevant quote: One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit.).  — Kate | Talk 08:48, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

 * Kate, again with all respect, if you wish to persuade me you need to employ substance, not polemics. Now, I have cited the European Commission example, but you are continuing to resort to rhetoric (i.e 'semblance of consistency') and to quote the Manual of Style in a manner (i.e. 'if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use') that could be interperted either way (i.e. One way is often as good as another). No one is going to do it the same all the time, compare the EC with the FCC, etc., for example. The object is clarity and comprehensibility of prose, narrative, etc. Imagine if one set out to correct all entries that s/he view as mere stylistic exceptions, it would be a tragic waste of a wikipedia contributor's energy. El_C

 * El_C, I don't think anyone here has been intentionally rude. In fact, your articles and contributions have been great, as they fill in content here which is badly needed. We're simply saying that there are certain style guidelines we stick to so that Wikipedia can provide a good usability and look-and-feel. One of the goals eventually is to make a 1.0, printed or CD-ROM version of the Wikipedia, and part of that effort will be making articles consistent in style. So we feel it's better to start now than to let it go, and have to hunt it down later. Hope you can see the benefit in that. Cheers. Fuzheado | Talk 09:30, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discourtesy in virtue of action, not words. While I do genuinely appreciate the kind words, I am not pleased with this latest development. It was my understanding, sir, that one should not revert back something which is disputed while a discussion remains ongoing and unresolved. [B]etter to start now than to let it go, you say. Who said you are to let it go? But instead of contributing to the discussion, you choose to break the rules and unilaterally edit under the guise of a royal we. Then we recieve your comments as some sort of a concluded (from above) afterthought. You have neglected to address the concrete example I provided with respect to the European Commission, and this was (or rather, became) central to my argument. The sad thing is that it is quite plausible that I would have ended agreeing with your position. But I am not going to engage in edit wars. So, you people win. A dubious victory won by violating wikipedia rules under the pretext of trying to uphold them. So long. El_C

Pre-Arbitration Committee:
No, I changed my mind. I am not going to give in to bullying. Why should I continue to waste my words if my concerns are not being addressed by someone who persists in editing items in dispute? I will issue a request for the Arbitration Committee to intervene, unless Fuzheado is to cease from seemingly engaging in an edit war prior to consensus being reached on the contested passage. It would read:

---User:Fuzheado---

I requested for a discussion to be facilitated so as to avoid a looming edit war on a disputed passage (grammar, not content) in the Kahan Commission article, but User:Fuzheado continues to revert and to revise, and seems inclined on only joining the discussion after making editorial changes which he then announces as foregone conclusion to the afroementioned dispute. El_C

 * I suspect the arbcom's response would be "try mediation". Prior to that, would you agree to a poll on which version of the lead sentence(s) should be used?   — Kate | Talk 15:48, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

 * El_C, I'm glad you've decided to stay and not leave in anger. However, please try to be more calm about this. Arbitration, et al. is engaged when the three revert rule has been violated and when there has been bad faith. "Fuzheado continues to revert and revise?" How can that be? I have made only one real edit to this article (two consecutive edits which I consider together). You'll also see all the comments here are in the spirit of being constructive and cooperative. You won't get the attention of any arbitration or mediation committee on that, I can guarantee. Meanwhile, please see your talk page. Please see how Wikipedia works and try to take in what the community hath built through positive collaboration. Fuzheado | Talk 17:32, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please read closely.
It is more accurate to say that I am frustrated and dissapointed. How many experts in the English language do you think it will take to change my mind? Really, not many. But I was trying to arrive at a consensus with respect to the stylistic form of the article's opening sentence through a dialogue that is reciprocal. [As an aside, you will notice that I reverted your quotes back to italics, that was in fact my first choice, but I found italics give it a better look; trivial stuff though.]

But not a single person has yet to address my European Commission example. I don't see why we would need a poll, or mediation, not to mention arbitration (which I only really stated as such to stop further arbitrary revisions to a contested article), if people just engage in dialogue. It just dosen't seem like a two-way thing here. If people refrain from condecsending demanour and speak to me as a human being, without obliquely sending me to the Manual of Style, without the pedgogic lectures, etc., then they might find that I am not that difficult of a person. The discussion is already underway, and useful things have been said, it is unfortunate though that it needed to consist of such an adversarial tone.

That Village Pump thread should only serve as a notice, it is too distracting having the same conversation in two diffrent pages. I am going to paste with abandonment from there -to- here. All further comments on the Kahan Commission article should be directed here, at Talk:Kahan_Commission. I think that makes sense.

Let us deal first with the Commission's formal name. In the Village Pump discussion, Niteowlneils wrote:

''[M]y doubting of whether that is a formal name is largely due to the usage at www.mfa.gov.il, (which at the moment times out) (which I believe is one of the sources you provide in the article) ... [T]hus my preference for 'also known as' [as opposed to formally known as]

 * Yes, it indeed often times out which -is- why I cited also next to it the same report hosted by www.caabu.org (why would I list two sources for the same identical report? ).

 * And, the one in print (with an introduction by Abba Eban) is from 1983, so it is unlikely to have been influenced by the IMoFA's website (www.mfa.gov.il). In Weldon library, UWO (one the largest libraries in Ontario, Canada), it lists it in their databse as (quoting, from English) :

" Va‘adat ha-hakirah la-hakirat ha-eru‘im be-mahanot ha-pelitim be-Berut. Din ve-heshbon ha-Va adah la-hakirat ha-eru im be-mahanot ha-pelitim be-Beirut. English. " (וועדת החקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות i.e.)

This translates into: the commission of inquiry into the events at the refugee camps in Beirut. Obviously, it is not a literal translation (which would read ...the investigation into the events in..., which would make no sense and is simply bad translation). Of course, feel free to call the IMoFA to clarify, but for now it is safe to assume that this is indeed the formal title of the Commission - with the informal one named after the Commission chairperson, which is a common practice (i.e. The Warren Commission -known officially as The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy) - of course, we acknowledge that people search for the official TPCotAoPK title/description far less than they do WC, but an encylopedia must have both. As for their respective order, I adress that bellow.

Derrick Coetzee writes:

Also, it makes vicious overuse of capitalization.

 * Perhaps ecessive. But vicious, now that is a excessive. What I attempted to accomplish was to highlight the words that matter most: Commission - Inquiry - Events - Refugee - Camps - Beirut (there are no capitalizations in Hebrew, so it is somewhat at the translator's discretion), and if it is the consensus that it is incorrect, then it is changed accordingly.

Derrick Coetzee also writes:

[I]t tells me nothing about said Commission

 * With all due respect, the name the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, is quite descriptive in and of itself.

Derrick Coetzee also wrote:

I'd say rewrite anything this person wrote from scratch, and tell me if they keep reverting it.

 * I took offence to that, but s/he explained it was in jest. I do appreciate the clarification and I retract my hitherto statements (though I admit that I remain unamused).

Back to Niteowlneils, who writes:

[T]he uncommon name shouldn't lead anyway (2700 hits to 190).

 * The reader already most likely came across the article by searching the common (informal, shorter, etc.) name. Wikipedia dosen't need to be exactly like Britanica et al. (though it is a seminal basis), there's flexibility and then there's inconsistency. The reader sees a title which reads: Kahan Commission and now s/he either sees Kahan Commission again followed by the formal name in the opening sentence, or the formal name followed by the informal one. Why is one way so superior to the other? The en.wikipedia is in simple english, but it isn't simple.wikipedia, and we are likely assured that the reader will figure it out either way. One could say formality precedes commonality or vice versa, it makes little difference, as baffling as it may appear, my argument to retain this order is based exactly on that (stylistic freedom).

Finally, Niteowlneils writes:

[I]t is not complete enough for the first sentence of an article.

 * If this ends up being the consensus here, then it is changed as such. Already last night, I left in (supplanted) the comma and abandoned the period as it became obvious I'm in the overwhelming minority with regards to that (sole person, in fact).

My main charge, and the principal reason I am no longer inclined on seeing this dispute taken to its logical conclusion, is that many here (I'll leave it as that) wish to have their word (and even unilaterally impose their will) without getting entirely involved. They are too impatient to read and respond to contrasting views. It is not equitable treatment. I placed a lot of thought into the manner in which the article was written, and I do not think I am asking too much of people who wish to change certain areas in it which I object to, to deal with my objection(s). I am always open to persuasion, logical, science, etc., it should work both ways. El_C

Some responses, though I think we're finding middle ground.

 * 1) Your European Commission point. I'm not sure what the point was. That article starts out with a proper English sentence, which is what I (and others) have expressed as desirable.

 * 1) It has indeed been a "two way street" here, with copious dialogue and explanation of views. I've complimented your work, we've discussed things, and I've made really only one edit to this article.

 * 1) Your characterizing things as "obliquely sending me to the Manual of Style" and providing "pedgogic lectures" is unfair. You say you are "always open to persuasion, logical, science, etc." However, when someone tries to explain something and says "See X for more information" you quickly find it offensive. Meanwhile, blatantly inaccurate statements like "Fuzheado is engaging in an edit war," I have let pass without comment. A bit thicker skin is required on Wikipedia.

 * 1) If you think this is acrimonious, you would be appalled to see a real edit war on Wikipedia. :) On the Richter scale of "edit wars" this one rates less than a 2.0. For 6.0 or higher, see Gdansk, Fox News or John Kerry.

Fuzheado | Talk 02:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) --
 * Thanks for your reply.

 * 1) I suppose what I meant to illustrate by the EC example is that a sentence of introduction could be brief. My own is a sentence fragment (and that also a sentence fragment, is it not? Linguo must conserve battery power). That seems clear now. I suppose what I meant was for it to serve as a sort of quasisubtitle. If this isn't a legitimate practice in wikipedia then obviously I stand corrected.

 * 1) Fair enough. I suppose it could be seen in the context of the experience I was having with other articles that day. So point taken. You have to appreciate though, that your edit followed my appeal, it is right there in the article's revision history:

''Please cease reverting the 1st sentence (as it risks turning into an edit war - I have no wish to participate in these) - as I said earlier, this should be up for discussion prior to any addit edits.

 * So, then, you showed up and edited the exact same thing that was the subject of discussion. So I took it to mean an edit war. You could see why, I hope. I am glad to learn this isn't the case, but at the time it did not seem this way. I have been giving you unduely hard time for that in my 'read closely' comments above, not because I think you engaged in an edit war (it's clear to me now that you didn't), but it did not seem to me that you really regreted doing so (in an already somewhat tense situation, that is). I would like to put all that behind us. As for me getting impatient with the referals, well, I just wanted a concrete explanation of why people thought my opening sentence was unfeasable and it appeared to me the suggestion was to just follow the party line. Reading those other references, they simply did not help me realize the flaws alluded to.

 * 1) Luckily for me, I write about non-controversial topics, like this one. Hah! Which incidentally, could use quite a bit of expansion, one that likely falls beyond the scope of my familiarity with the subject (i.e. relationship of Barak to Zamir and charges of conflict of interest, or how some the right in Israel today views the "leftist" Kahan Commission. Really fascinating stuff). So I do wholeheartedly invite and hope for more contributions. Copyediting (heh, looks like I really need it), sure, but most of all expansion. More details about the Kahan Commission event (the interviews, for example, and, significantly, lack thereof) and more insights about how it is viewed in the present by Israeli and Palestinian and others accross their own respective boards (whitewash, treachary, etc.). But, yes, not too acrimonious, I hope, though it did get a bit intense at times. As said, it my hope we could put this behind us and channel our energies instead at improving the content and form of the article. I think (hope) my diatribe above provided some substance along with all the whining.

So now, we attempt to reach consensus. Let us begin with the opening sentence as it currently (comma) stands. Do you like it? Do you dislike it? If it is the latter, how do you envision it being. So please, provide (generic) your prefered opening sentence for the article bellow (and second sentence if you feel it is pertinent). And from there, we could move on to the remaining portions of the article if anyone sees anything in its form (or content) that they find to be problematic. One item at a time. It should not take us long to find common ground. El_C

Opening Sentence
Hit me with it. El_C

 * No hitting necessary. :) The lead is fine. I would have liked the colloquial name first, for readability's sake, such as with Columbia_University, but that's a point that can be settled on later.

 * As for the European Commission, the lead sentence is not a fragment: "The European Commission (formally the Commission of the European Communities) is the executive of the European Union." It has a subject and verb.

 * I'm glad we have come a preliminary agreement on the first sentence. Fuzheado | Talk 07:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer something along the lines of:

 * The Kahan Commission, formally the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, was established ...

Also, I find the Hebrew names a little distracting. If they're useful and necessary, then of course leave them in; otherwise, I'd suggest we remove them and simply provide interwiki links to he:. --Diberri | Talk 17:59, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * I also prefer Diberri's version, as mentioned above, because it comes right to the point quickly, and then provides details on the formal name afterwards. I'd like to see the Hebrew stay on this page, since I'm an advocate of putting in significant translations, but I do agree that it is hard to read, having to jump past all the Hebrew letters. Fuzheado | Talk 03:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Fuzheado, the Hebrew parts are the Commission's formal and informal names. I do not object to these being omitted, or for suggestions on how to better place these in the article.

 * I approve of the changes you proposed for the opening sentence, Diberri. Feel free to apply these as stated above. El_C

It looks like User:Taxman beat me to it. I'm happy that we reached a consensus. --Diberri | Talk 19:33, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, RE: Hebrew
User:Taxman, the sentence depicting the formal name of the Commission in Hebrew is (technically) tricky to combine. When it resided along one line (as was in the original), this was'nt a problem (thus, never noticed by me), but with it overlapping two lines, it makes very strange inversions. The result is that the revision you made reads very oddly (and incorrectly) in Hebrew. For the benfit of English readers, these are as follows:

וועדת כאהן == 'Kahan Commission.'

וועדת חקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות = 'Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut.'

Your revision of the Hebrew, in Egnlish reads:

וועדת כאהן וועדת + חקירה לחקירת האירועים במחנות הפליטים בביירות = "(Commission Kahan Commission), (ission into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut)"

It is totally flawed, as I am sure you will acknowledge, and I am reverting back to it displaying the informal name in Hebrew parenthasized immediately following the English one, and nothing for the formal one for now. Any thoughts? El_C
 * Oh dear, sorry, I guess I did not pay careful attention to the Hebrew parts, not knowing what they meant of course. As to the presentation of the material, I would recommend the formal name of the commission in English and Hebrew simply be moved to another sentence. The formal name of the commission is not critical to what it is, and thus does not need to be in the first sentance I don't think.  Moving both to the second sentence would solve both the readability and the completeness issues. - Taxman 18:22, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I preassumed that you were fluent in Hebrew, otherwise I would have given you a hard time for tinkering with Hebrew sentences. ;) At any rate, I am inclined to leave the opening paragraph as it is now; unless the whole inversion issue somehow becomes technically explicable (and I have spent 5 minutes on it, until deciding I have better things to do with my time, i.e. I failed), after all, the fomral name in Hebrew isn't that essential to the article. As always, I am open to suggestions, but please, I am requesting that any revisions be outlined here prior to making any actual edits so that we can discuss/refine/etc. these. El_C

 * Hmmm. Are you suggesting that we discuss all changes before making them to the article? That idea goes against the be bold mantra. IMO, discussion is only necessary if editors can reasonably expect their changes to be controversial. Otherwise, I say edit away. --Diberri | Talk 17:15, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The 'reasonably expect to be controversial' is a pretty good standard until people are really causing trouble, like pushing POV or something.  Otherwise there is way too much talk and way oo little editing and added material.  For ex., this article has way too long a talk page, for way to short an article. - Taxman 17:23, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Nevertheless, that is my request, which you are free to ignore. El_C

title: Talk:Kahan Commission


text:
User talk:65.49.77.82

Proposed deletion of Mobileer

The article Mobileer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Unsourced, no indication of importance, no reliable sources that I can find that are about the article subject."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wes sideman (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:65.49.77.82


text:
Talk:Tantō

Swords and Knives
I am not making all sword categories into knife categories. Not all swords are knives, but some are ;) Drhaggis 03:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tanto / Wakizashi
I have found no evidence, nor does it make much sense, that wakizashi were sometimes replaced by tanto, or that they were prefered because of their shorter length. For one, Samurai, at least of certian time periods, were never without their wakizashi, much like an officer and his handgun. As for the length issue, matching a tanto against a katana, yari, or other weapon would be suicide, and if length were the issue, it would be the katana that would be swapped out, not the shorter wakizashi. As such, I've removed that section of the article.

 * It's a controversial point, but it does seem that Wakizashi were not in general use in the period where the Tachi was more common than the Katana (i.e. before circa 1400). As I understand it, The Wakizashi came to replace (or sometimes supplement) the Tanto, at around the same time that the Katana began to replace the Tachi (i.e. from circa 1400). However, high ranking Samurai still employed the Tachi as a symbol of status and as far as I know also employed the Tanto. See the Katana Wikipedia entry for more discussion. The Tanto, much like the Wakizashi, would have been a weapon of last resort, for very close fighting, much like the Roman Pugio.--M.J.Stanham 15:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * There are different sticks with different names such as the quarterstaff and the bo. the Japanese wanna call it whatever the heck they want so let them be. I'm erasing the 'disputed saying' sentence until resolved --70.68.43.50 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment
Not a very long article, but it includes just about all I might expect one could say about the subject. In fact, I was surprised at the inclusion of mentions of the history of the development of the style. The article has pictures, a nice see also section, and a link to WikiCommons. It does need a bit of clean-up, though, just grammatically and stylistically (a few unpaired quote marks, things like that). If there were any major improvements to be made, I'd suggest splitting the history section from the technical descriptions, and just expanding in general (assuming there is anything further worth saying). LordAmeth 11:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Single Edged
The article claims that tantos are two-bladed; however at least those used in Aikido are single-bladed.

No it doesn't. It says they are almost always singled edged and occasionally double edged.--M.J.Stanham 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont understand
Could someone explain the certain parts of the blade that are mentioned. For instance what is the sori? I am writting for another language and would like to know. 89.142.10.127 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes. Terminology might get a bit confusing... but to answer your question, sori is a measure of how much the blade curves at its deepest point, as measured using a perpendicular line drawn from the two ends of the visible blade. See here. CABAL 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you that image really helped.89.142.27.249 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Different names for tanto and daggers in Japan
Somewhere, I think a Japanese language book, said that there were several words for dagger, each with its own connotation. Does this list exist anywhere? I think it should probably be attached somewhere in the weapons of Japan tree, or the language page. FMPhoenixHawk (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional Tanto photo
I've added a photo of my own to wikimedia. It's a pretty standard photo, of which this article already has one, but I'll leave it up to whomever to decide if it should be included in the article or elsewhere: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tanto.jpg RealmRPGer (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...is that a Practical Plus tanto from CAS Hanwei? CABAL (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It sure is. RealmRPGer (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ripping Off Tourists
"Many fan tantō were forged during the 19th and 20th centuries to rip off tourists." The tone of this is judgmental rather than neutral. There is nothing intrinsicly dishonest about making things for export or for tourists.

The term 'ripped off' suggests that prices are being set too high, but surely that is for the buyer to decide.

If you mean that they are being passed of as antiques then you should say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction's reference to western tanto knives is misleading
The introduction states that the Japanese tanto blade design has been brought to the west in the form of tactical knives, but this is misleading, bordering on incorrect. There are indeed "tanto point" knives, but the design is almost unrecognizable to that of a Japanese tanto. The knives in this image have what are called "tanto" points:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BM970.jpg

Note the high point and the second primary grind, which is flat; that element is the core of the western tanto, and is not in common with the Japanese tanto. The western tanto is designed specifically to strengthen the point, for piercing/stabbing, which makes it unsuitable for slicing/slashing. There may be a similarity in design philosophy for creating a stabbing weapon, but it is not visibly apparent.

I will attempt to modify the language, though I'm not sure how to do it most appropriately, without sounding condescending (there are few benefits of a western tanto point, and are generally used for their aesthetic appeal). The most correct thing to say would be that the name has been co-opted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autrui (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tantō


text:
Subseven

Subseven (styled as sub7even) is a Christian rock band formed in 1999 in Weatherford, Oklahoma. They played for four years as an independent in the Midwest, where they released one album and one EP and gained a large local fan base. In 2003, they signed a record deal with Flicker Records and soon after released Subseven: the EP. One year later they released their final album, Free to Conquer.

The band's members included Wesley Fite, Clint McManaman, Reed Corbin, Caleb Wilkerson and Jake Sullivan before their breakup in December 2005. Ever since their breakup in 2005, the band members engaged in other musical activities, including bands and solo projects. In November 2007, their bass guitarist, Reed Corbin, died from a heart attack at the age of 33.

In 2015, the band announced that they would be reuniting.

Members

 * Current members
 * Wesley Fite – vocals, guitar (1999–2005, 2015–present)
 * Clint McManaman – drums (1999–2005, 2015–present)
 * Caleb Wilkerson – guitar (2003-2005, 2015–present)
 * Jake Sullivan – guitar (2003-2005, 2015–present)
 * Shaun Brown – bass (2005, 2015–present)

 * Former members
 * Reed Corbin – bass (1999–2005; died 2007)
 * Smokey Emerson – guitar (1999–2003)
 * Evan Crowley – guitar (2005)

Music videos

 * "Emotion" - Filmed in January 2004
 * "Free to Conquer" - Filmed summer of 2005
 * "Hold On" - Filmed December 2005

After the video shoot of "Hold On" at the Green Door, the band announced that they would be breaking up, and played a farewell show to the audience that showed up to be in the video.

title: Subseven


text:
Causal contact

Two entities are in causal contact if there may be an event that has affected both in a causal way. Every object of mass in space, for instance, exerts a field force on all other objects of mass, according to Newton's law of universal gravitation. Because this force exerted by one object affects the motion of the other, it can be said that these two objects are in causal contact.

The only objects not in causal contact are those for which there is no event in the history of the universe that could have sent a beam of light to both. For example, if the universe were not expanding and had existed for 10 billion years, anything more than 20 billion light-years away from the earth would not be in causal contact with it. Anything less than 20 billion light-years away would because an event occurring 10 billion years in the past that was 10 billion light-years away from both the earth and the object under question could have affected both.

A good illustration of this principle is the light cone, which is constructed as follows. Taking as event $$p$$ a flash of light (light pulse) at time $$t_0$$, all events that can be reached by this pulse from $$p$$ form the future light cone of $$p$$, whilst those events that can send a light pulse to $$p$$ form the past light cone of $$p$$.

Given an event $$E$$, the light cone classifies all events in spacetime into 5 distinct categories:

 * Events on the future light cone of $$E$$.
 * Events on the past light cone of $$E$$.
 * Events inside the future light cone of $$E$$ are those affected by the beam of light emitted at $$E$$.
 * Events inside the past light cone of $$E$$ are those that can emit a beam of light and affect what is happening at $$E$$.
 * All other events are in the (absolute) elsewhere of $$E$$ and are those that will never affect and can never be affected by $$E$$.

See the causal structure of Minkowski spacetime for a more detailed discussion.

title: Causal contact


text:
Talk:Isulan

Well. Indeed of its exquisite beauty, Isulan is one of the major tourist destination in Mindanao. It lies as the heart of Sultan Kudarat. It is a tranquil town, wherein people enjoy there routines without any intervention. totoo yan taga dyan ako eh!!!

Although the seat of the provincial govemernment is located int the Municipality of Isulan. The provincial official topic/ article shall be removed. It is place in the Sultan Kudarat Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonvallite (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Trivia
The dome is is located in the Isulan. It will me moved and transfer to the Sultan Kudarat. The reason is the property is own by the Sultan Kudarat and not Isula. Same also in the mobile hospital. Trivia is ambiguous and misleading.

Bonvallite (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isulan, Sultan Kudarat. 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/20120413163013/http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/default.asp to http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/default.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004104825/http://census.gov.ph/ to http://www.census.gov.ph/

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) 19:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Capitol-single.jpg

title: Talk:Isulan


text:
Roderick Maclean

Roderick Edward Maclean (c. 1854 – 8 June 1921) was a Scotsman who attempted to assassinate Queen Victoria on 2 March 1882, at Windsor, England, with a pistol. This was the last of eight attempts by separate people to kill or assault Victoria over a period of four decades. Maclean's motive was purportedly a curt reply to some poetry that he had mailed to the Queen.

"The attempted murder followed the arrival of the Royal train, conveying the Queen, Princess Beatrice and the Court from Windsor. Queen Victoria had just walked across the platform of Windsor station to a carriage in waiting when Maclean, who was standing at the entrance of the station yard among a number of spectators, deliberately fired a revolver at her. The shot missed, and Maclean was seized by Chief Superintendent Hayes, of the Borough Police, and the weapon wrenched from his grasp by someone in the crowd. – Birmingham Daily Gazette, 1921"

Other accounts state that the revolver was a toy and that his aim was disrupted by an Eton schoolboy:

"The weapon was a mere toy, and the life of the beloved monarch was not seriously endangered. A number of Eton boys were round the station at the time, and one of them rushed forward and struck Maclean with his umbrella, disconcerting his aim — which was unlikely enough, in any case, to have been accurate. The boy in question, Gordon Chesney Wilson, was called to the Castle by her Majesty and thanked for his promptitude. He was the son of Sir Samuel Wilson, the Australian wool magnate, who introduced salmon into the Australian rivers and afterwards sat in Parliament for a short time for Portsmouth. Gordon Wilson married Lady Sarah Spencer-Churchill, a sister of Lord Randolph and Lady Wimborne. He was killed in the early days of the war. The wretched lunatic, therefore, survived all the other chief actors in his poor little drama, paying dearly for his brief notoriety. He had, however, the distinction of undergoing trial for high treason. – Lichfield Mercury, 1921"

At his trial, Dr. Charles Vernon Hitchins testified that MacLean had been certified insane in June 1880, two years before the attempted assassination, and he had been sent to Somerset Lunatic Asylum. He was living at 14 Wadham Street in Weston-super-Mare. Dr. Hitchins stated that Maclean was complaining of headaches and believed that all the people in England are against him, and he felt he must injure someone because they are conspiring to deceive him. He had also sent letters to his sister in 1880, Caroline Maclean, stating that, "If I cannot commit a murder one way, I will another way, and all can add is, if there is more difficulty, there may be more victims." Multiple doctors also testified that Maclean was insane and "did not believe he was capable of appreciating the nature or quality of any act which he might commit."

Tried for high treason on 20 April, Maclean was found "not guilty, but insane" by a jury after five minutes' deliberation, overseen by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, and he lived out his remaining days in Broadmoor Asylum. The verdict prompted the Queen to ask for a change in English law so that those implicated in cases with similar outcomes would be considered as "guilty, but insane"; this led to the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883.

A poem was later written about Maclean's attempt on the Queen's life by William Topaz McGonagall.

title: Roderick Maclean


text:
Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaft

In East Germany, a Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaft (LPG) (English: 'Agricultural Production Cooperative') was a large, collectivised farm in East Germany, corresponding to the Soviet kolkhoz.

In the agriculture of East Germany, the collectivisation of private and state-owned agricultural land was the progression of a policy of food security (at the expense of large scale bourgeois farmers). It began in the years of Soviet occupation (1945–48) as part of the need to govern resources in the Soviet Sector. Beginning with the forced expropriation of all land holdings in excess of 100 ha, land was redistributed in small packets of around 5 to 7 ha to incoming landless refugees driven off formerly German-held territories to the east. These Neubauern (new farmers) were given limited ownership rights to the land, meaning that they kept it as long as they worked it. In the early 1950s, remaining farmers with largish holdings (60 to 80 ha) were effectively driven out of business through means such as denying access to pooled machinery and by setting production targets that rose exponentially with amount of land owned to levels that were impossible to meet.

Alongside these coercive actions of expropriation, old and new farmers with smaller land holdings were increasingly encouraged to pool resources in a legally constituted cooperative form, the LPG, in which initially just land but later animals and machinery were shared and worked together. These were not "state-owned" farms (although a few of these did exist) - land, except as mentioned above, remained legally in private ownership and the LPG, although often dominated by communist party cadres, was a distinct legal entity operating independently as far as was feasible within the constraints of a planned economy. However, from the early 1960s, pressure mounted on remaining independent farmers to join the LPGs and for existing LPGs to merge in more fully collectivised forms. This process, and a drive to increased industrialisation, led in the 1970s to the separation of crop and animal production and the merging of each across villages to form much larger cooperative units in which, for example, one LPG for crop production with perhaps 3000 ha of land would supply feed to two LPGs working in animal production.

Following German reunification in 1990, the LPG was no longer a legal form of business and regulations were introduced governing their dissolution and the restructuring of enterprises into other legal forms. Some former LPG members, typically those with a strong family background in independent farming, reclaimed their land and started again as independent farmers building up to a viable farm size through renting. In most cases, however, former members or their children settled for some level of compensation in return for surrendering their membership rights to a smaller core group of former managers who then took over the business in the new form of a limited company (GmbH). This settlement and compensation process was at times fought over and at times accepted with resignation depending often on the amount of wealth to be distributed and on the degree of trust by the general membership and village population in the ability of managers to carry on the enterprise as successful employers. In some cases, an eingetragene Genossenschaft, a form of cooperative farming, persisted as allowed under existing German law. While East Elbia (which covered both most of former East Germany and formerly German territories east of the Oder Neisse line which were lost due to World War II) had had more latifundia than western and southern Germany even before the creation of LPGs, one lasting effect of their former existence is that average farm size is larger in each of the New States of Germany than in each of the former Western German states even in the 21st century.


text:
Talk:Custom

practice handed down from the past

Headline text
How about moving the definition to Wiktionary and let only the references to Custom (law), Custom (motorcycle) and so on ? Ukuk 03:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I greatly shortened the definition and linked to norm (sociology). That would seem to solve this problem. — Nowhither 15:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Customary (liturgy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Custom


text:
Winterfilm Collective

The Winterfilm Collective (listed as Winterfilm, Inc. in the credits to the film Winter Soldier) consisted of Fred Aronow (cinematographer), Nancy Baker (editor), Joe Bangert (member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War), Rhetta Barron (editor), Robert Fiore (cinematographer), David Gillis (cinematographer), David Grubin, Jeff Holstein (cinematographer), Barbara Jarvis (editor), Algis "Al" Kaupas (sound mixer), Barbara Kopple, Mark Lenix (another VVAW member), Michael Lesser (cinematographer), Nancy Miller (sound mixer), Lee Osborne (sound mixer), Lucy Massie Phenix (editor), Roger Phenix (sound mixer), Benay Rubenstein (editor), Rusty Sachs (VVAW member), and Michael Weill (editor).

The collective produced and directed the 1972 documentary Winter Soldier about the 1971 Winter Soldier Hearings in Detroit as well as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) anti-war protest and march in Washington, DC, where VVAW members denounced the Vietnam War and threw their medals away.

The collective also helped fund the restoration of Shirley Clarke's documentary Portrait of Jason.

title: Winterfilm Collective


text:
Marvel Super Heroes

Marvel Super Heroes may refer to:

 * Marvel Super-Heroes (comics), several Marvel Comics publications
 * Marvel Super Heroes (video game), a 1995 arcade game
 * Marvel Super Heroes: War of the Gems, a 1996 platform game
 * Marvel Super Heroes (role-playing game), a 1984 role-playing game
 * Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game, a 1998 role-playing game
 * The Marvel Super Heroes, a 1960s animated television series
 * The Mighty World of Marvel, a 1972 UK comics series which was renamed Marvel Superheroes from 1979 to 1983
 * Lego Marvel Super Heroes, a 2013 video game based on the Lego franchise

title: Marvel Super Heroes


text:
Fair Trade Commission

Fair Trade Commission may refer to:

 * Fair Trade Commission (Taiwan), a government agency of the Republic of China
 * Fair Trade Commission (Japan)
 * Fair Trade Commission (South Korea)
 * Fair Trading Commission, a government agency of Barbados

title: Fair Trade Commission


text:
Many, Many Monkeys

"Many, Many Monkeys" is an episode of the television series The Twilight Zone, first broadcast in 1989. The episode was written in 1964 for the final season of the original The Twilight Zone series by producer William Froug, but though CBS bought the script, they chose not to use it. Froug believed that they found it "too grotesque." It remained shelved for more than twenty years until it was made as an episode in the third and final season of the 1980s Twilight Zone revival. The episode is a medical drama centering on an epidemic which causes people to go blind.

Plot
Shortly after entering a hospital emergency room, Mrs. Reed goes blind from cataracts. While Nurse Claire Hendricks is visiting her hospital room, Mrs. Reed tells her that they are two of a kind. Uninterested in her cryptic remarks, Claire leaves. Mr. Reed is brought to the hospital, having been abandoned by Mrs. Reed after he started going blind.

The spontaneous cataract development proves to be an epidemic. Claire, despite her incredible workload, visits with Mrs. Reed again. Mrs. Reed again says they are alike and claims the blindness is divine retribution on a human race that has become indifferent to suffering, like monkeys—see no evil, speak no evil, etc.

A report surfaces that an explosion at a biological research laboratory released several unstable forms of bacteria into the atmosphere just hours before the outbreak. Claire tells Dr. Peterson that she is nonetheless now convinced that Mrs. Reed is right, and she feels that she herself has become unfeeling towards her patients and to her own husband. Dr. Peterson argues that she has only maintained the professional distance necessary to do her job, but she is unconvinced. After talking to him, Claire succumbs to blindness.

A surgery is developed to remove the cataracts. Dr. Peterson asks Mrs. Reed to visit Claire and cheer her. Though she has not yet had the surgery, Mrs. Reed is hopeful and convinced that the discovery of the bacteria proves she was wrong. However, Claire argues that the presence of a scientific explanation for the epidemic does not mean it is not divine retribution, and that if they treat themselves with surgery, the same affliction will strike them down in another form. Concerned, Mrs. Reed asks Dr. Peterson if Claire will have the surgery. He says "An operation isn't the answer in her case.", as Claire's eyes are clear and her blindness is psychosomatic.

title: Many, Many Monkeys


text:
Academic Games

Academic Games is a competition in the U.S. in which players win by out-thinking each other in mathematics, language arts, and social studies. Formal tournaments are organized by local leagues, and on a national level by the Academic Games Leagues of America (AGLOA). Member leagues in eight states hold a national tournament every year, in which players in four divisions compete in eight different games covering math, English, and history. Some turn-based games require a kit consisting of a board and playing cubes, while other games have a central reader announcing questions or clues and each player answering individually.

History
Before the existence of AGLOA, tournaments were held by the National Academic Games Project founded by the creator of many of the games. The earliest tournaments, in the late 1960s, were held on or near the campus of Nova High School in Davie, Florida. Nova was the beta test site for the game "Propaganda" and others. Many AGLOA leaders were involved with NAGP. The new league was created partially because of personal conflict with Robert W. Allen. Allen later sued the AGLOA for copyright, trademark, and tradename infringement.

Academic Games Leagues of America was founded in 1991 to encourage the use of Academic Games as an educational tool and as a scholar competition. Many of the games used in tournaments, however, were created as early as in the 1960s and 1970s. Most of the games played at tournaments are available from Wff 'N Proof Learning Games. Brother Neal Golden of New Orleans is the current board president of AGLOA; Rod Beard of West Bloomfield, MI is the current vice-president. Other board members represent Academic Games leagues in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Divisions
Academic Games players compete with other players in their own age group. These are the four age divisions in the league.
 * 1) Minor - Grades 3-4 (Michigan Only)
 * 2) Elementary – Grades 5-6 (Michigan) or 6 and under (States other than Michigan)
 * 3) Middle – Grades 7–8
 * 4) Junior – Grades 9–10
 * 5) Senior – Grades 11–12

However, there is no restriction against playing one of your players in a higher division. Several teams have won national championships in the senior division, even though half their players belonged, agewise, in the junior division.

Games become more challenging as a player progresses through the divisions. There are often two variations of the games: basic and adventurous. Basic games have no variations or special demands players can make on game solutions. Adventurous games have a series of variation possibilities that may apply and increase in difficulty as players age.

Games Played
Eight games are played in official AGLOA tournaments. Some local leagues also play other games such as On-Words (a simplified version of LinguiSHTIK).

Math Games
Two math games, Equations and On-Sets are played at AGLOA tournaments.

Equations
Equations is a mathematics game created in 1965 for 2–3 players. The game uses a playing mat with Forbidden, Permitted, and Required sections and 24 cubes, each labeled with numbers and mathematical operations. At the beginning of each "shake", one player uses up to six cubes to set a "goal." All players must use the remaining cubes to devise a solution that equals the goal or win by challenging an impossible board + goal situation.

Gameplay can become more complicated through the use of "variations" called on the game. Applicable variations differ by the player's age division. The game progresses with each player moving one cube on their turn, or alternatively challenging that they can create a solution with the cubes in play, that a solution was possible on the last turn and the player before had missed it, or challenging that it is impossible to create a solution with the cubes available. When a player calls a challenge, it is called against the player who most recently completed their move.

In a three player game, the indifferent player may choose who he sides with in the case of a challenge. A player who correctly challenges another player wins the game. The loser of a game gains two points, The winner six, and the sider (if he sided with the winner) gains four or two (if he sided with the loser). Equations games become more intricate with the use of factorials, vulgar fractions, and even logarithms, in the Senior division.

On-Sets
On-Sets is a board and cube game that teaches basic logic and set theory. This game also uses a deck of 16 cards that is used to make the "Universe". Each card contains a different combination of colored dots. The cubes contain numbers, colors and logic operators.

Players learn logic concepts such as union, intersection, empty set, complement and learn to use restrictions such as subset. Variations can also be used in On-Sets games. A player wins by using the cubes in resources to create a logical statement which equals the goal set using the numeral cubes. Challenges and multiplayer games work in a similar way to Equations game.

WFF 'N Proof
WFF 'N Proof is a board and cube game that was created by Professor Layman Allen in 1961 to teach the basics of symbolic logic. It is played with 28 cubes that contain various letters, such as p, q, C, N, A, K, E, s, r, o, and i. The game board contains a forbidden section, a permitted section, and a required section. To win the game, you have to write a proof, using the cubes to create "WFFs" (Well-Formed Formulas). This game was now adopted by AGLOA in 2013, however the game was dropped from the tournament after 2018.

LinguiSHTIK
LinguiSHTIK is a technical game that teaches language arts and linguistics. The game has a playing mat and 23 cubes which are imprinted with the 26 letters of the alphabet.

A player has to create a word using the letters available, and the word must be used in a sentence that matches the Demands called. A demand specifies something about the sentence or word, such as number of clauses, part of speech, number of letters, etc. Challenges in LinguiSHTIK work similarly as in the other cube games with the exception of a forceout, which is called when moving any cube would result in a Challenge Win. Some concepts taught in LinguiSHTIK include sentence patterns, clauses, grammar, and verbs.

The game has elements similar to the popular word game Scrabble but adds a different element of play through grammatical demands and the shared letter pool.

Propaganda
In Propaganda, clues are read to all players by a central reader. Each player must decide, from a list, which persuasion technique that clue used, if any. There are several different sections of Propaganda techniques; the reader also specifies which section the persuasion technique is listed in.

Different leagues have different scoring methods, but the official AGLOA scoring involves a "bold" and "cautious" wager method. If you wager "bold", then you receive four points for a correct answer or lose two points for an incorrect answer. If you wager "cautious," then you receive two points for a correct answer; however, you lose nothing for an incorrect answer. A round consists of nine questions, so the highest score possible per round is 36 points, while the lowest is -18 points.

Most Propaganda clues involve statements that are likely to be heard in advertising or politics. There are six different Propaganda sections, but only four specific sections are used in each season. Sections A, B, D, and E are being used for the 2016–2017 season, and B, C, D, and F will be used for the 2017–2018 season. For 2018–2019, the sections will be A, C, D, and E. For 2019–2020, the sections will be A, B, C, and F. For 2020–2021, the sections will be B, C, D, and E. Here are all the Propaganda techniques, listed by section.

Propaganda Techniques
More complete definitions of the individual techniques can be found on agloa.org.

Presidents
A reader announces three clues about a particular U.S. President. Each player must individually write down which President the clue describes. Players who answer correctly on the earliest clue get more points than players that answer after more clues are given. The first clue is worth 6 points, the second is worth 4 points, and the third is worth 2 points. The 6 point clue is the hardest clue, while the 4 point and 2 point clues get progressively easier.

In the Elementary and Middle divisions, only a portion of presidents are used per season. For those divisions, ranges switch between presidents 1–17, 16-33, and 28–46 every year. In Junior and Senior divisions, however, two ranges of presidents are used every season. During a tournament, players are assisted by a gazetteer which has each president's name, birth date, birthplace, and other basic information.

World Events
This event was part of the national tournament through 2016, after which its two rounds, Current Events and Theme, were each made an independent game.

This game was originally known as “World Card.”

Current Events
This event concerns events from the past year, both foreign and domestic. It consists of a Wager Round, in which the players choose how many points they wish to wager, and a Lightning Round, in which the point values for each question are determined before the round.

In the Wager Round, players may wager two, four, or six points after being given a broad category (such as “international politics” or “arts and entertainment”). The player need not have any points to wager; thus, negative scores are possible. After the wager is made, the question is asked and the players answer. A correct answer earns as many points as were wagered, while an incorrect answer loses half that many.

In the Lightning Round, the questions are assigned point values (two, four, or six, with six questions of each value) by a panel of judges before the game starts. The questions are asked rapidly, and a correct answer earns its value; however, unlike the Wager Round, there is no penalty for answering incorrectly.

Theme
This event is very similar to its sister game, Current Events, which was once also a round of World Events. It is played and scored in the same fashion, with a Wager Round followed by a Lightning Round. The only notable difference is that this game concerns historical facts related to a theme chosen at the national tournament two years prior. Examples of past themes include the 1970s, the history of NASA, the Mesoamerican civilizations (Aztecs, Incas, Mayas), World War I, and the American Civil War.

The theme of the 2017–2018 season was Greek and Roman Mythology, which was chosen by vote at the 2015–2016 tournament. The theme of the 2018–2019 season was “50 Women Who Changed the World,” which included Rosa Parks, Sacagawea, and Jane Addams The theme of the 2019 - 2020 season is "The Supreme Court: Now and Then".

Terminology
A spectator at an Academic Games tournament will hear a lot of jargon being thrown around that he or she may not be familiar with. Here are some of the most common AG-related words and their meanings.

 * Challenge Win or Now – A player calls Challenge Win when he can create a solution using the cubes in play, and optionally one more cube from resources. It can also be called C-A-flub or A-flub in classic version.
 * Challenge Impossible or Never – Challenge Impossible is called when a player believes it is impossible to create a solution, because of a previous player's move. The player it was called against must try to create a solution, and show that there was a correct solution possible. In classic version, it is called a P-flub.
 * Demand – A LinguiSHTIK demand can be called by stating the name of the demand and placing a green or black cube in the "Demands" section of the playing mat. The word and sentence in a player's solution must meet all demands called in that shake.
 * Force Out – In the case that a game is not finished within the time limit, or that no possible moves can be made that would not create a "Now" or "Never" situation, the game goes into a force out. During a force out, players are given two minutes to create a solution. Players with a correct solution earn a 4, and the ones with an incorrect solution receive a 2, or the minimum possible for that round.
 * Goal – Equations, On-Sets, and WFF 'N Proof require the first player to use cubes from resources to set a goal. This is what players try to achieve a solution to throughout the shake.
 * Resources – Resources are the cubes that are rolled at the beginning of each shake.
 * Shake – One match of a cube game is called a shake. A shake can last anywhere from a few minutes to an hour depending on the cubes rolled and the players involved.
 * Solution – A player uses the cubes in resources to create a solution that equals the goal. A solution must be written on paper. After a solution is presented, other players check that solution.
 * Stall – As a courtesy, players say the word "stall" before flipping the one-minute timer during their opponents turn. Most actions in the games have a time limit, ranging from 15 seconds to three minutes. Surpassing the time limit usually carries a small penalty of one point.
 * Universe – At the beginning of an On-Sets shake, one player randomly lays out between six and fourteen unique cards containing colored dots. This collection of cards is called the universe.
 * Variation – In Equations and On-Sets, players can call a total of three variations that affect that shake, or six in the Senior division. Variations are intended to make the game more interesting and more challenging for experienced players. Some examples of variations are "wilds" where one cube can represent another cube, "upside down", where an upside down number is interpreted as the number's additive inverse, etc.

National tournaments

 * 2024: Atlanta, Georgia
 * 2023: Orlando, Florida
 * 2022: Knoxville, Tennessee
 * 2021: Wheeling, West Virginia (Not attended)
 * 2020: Atlanta, Georgia (Not attended)
 * 2019: Orlando, Florida
 * 2018: Knoxville, Tennessee
 * 2017: Wheeling, West Virginia
 * 2016: Atlanta, Georgia
 * 2015: Orlando, Florida
 * 2014: Knoxville, Tennessee
 * 2013: Charlotte, North Carolina
 * 2012: Wheeling, West Virginia
 * 2011: Kissimmee, Florida
 * 2010: Cincinnati, Ohio
 * 2009: Knoxville, Tennessee
 * 2008: Kissimmee, Florida
 * 2007: Wheeling, West Virginia
 * 2006: Charlotte, North Carolina
 * 2005: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
 * 2004: Orlando, Florida
 * 2003: Wheeling, West Virginia
 * 2002: Charlotte, North Carolina
 * 2001: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
 * 2000: Orlando, Florida
 * 1999: Wheeling, West Virginia

title: Academic Games


text:
Platonic

Plato's influence on Western culture was so profound that several different concepts are linked by being called Platonic or Platonist, for accepting some assumptions of Platonism, but which do not imply acceptance of that philosophy as a whole. It may also refer to:

 * Platonic love, a relationship that is not sexual in nature
 * Platonic forms, or the theory of forms, Plato's model of existence
 * Platonic idealism
 * Platonic solid, any of the five convex regular polyhedra
 * Platonic crystal, a periodic structure designed to guide wave energy through thin plates
 * Platonism, the philosophy of Plato (Classical period)
 * Middle Platonism, a later philosophy derived from that of Plato (1st century BC to 3rd century AD)
 * Neoplatonism, a philosophic school of Late Antiquity deriving from Plato (starting in the 3rd century AD)
 * Platonism in the Renaissance
 * Platonic (TV series), American comedy streaming television series by Francesca Delbanco and Nicholas Stoller (2023)

title: Platonic