text:
Talk:Lidice massacre

This article is in desperate need of citation
As has been stated under the This is a bad article-heading, this article is making far too many uncited statements that only seem to be there to appeal to the readers' emotions. I especially like the 'semiquoted' parts of supposed orders. Just enough to give the uncritical reader a good idea of how horribly disgusting Nazism was, but there is no citation for it, and it's not really clear if the 'semiquoted' parts are really meant as quotes, or if they're just meant the same way that making quotation marks in the air with your hands is... My english sucks enough to get in the way of my message here. So, to put it simply: THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT CITE ITS SOURCES! 85.224.199.36 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Typo "Licide" in Camus
[Moved by renaming from clueless article Licide to this talk page:] Licide is the name of a village that was wiped out completely by the Nazi's during WWII. A reference to it can be found in Albert Camus' The Rebel in which is told that the vilage was the scene of a massacre followed by its complete destruction and removal in the extreme that the landscape would not even show that there ever was a village at that place.

A reference to a article about this massacre can found at www.iut.u-bordeaux3.fr: " Licide : un massacre nazi en 1942"/ R. Carré ; les prisonniers de guerres allemands sous autorité française/ Philippe Boutté, Elisabeth Briend et Olivier Gilles, janv. fév. 1997, n° 91

Thus it is suggested that Licide was a French village and that the massacre took place in 1942.

A quick internet search didn't turn up any additional information. Does anyone have more information ?

See Lidice regarding the Czech village destroyed during World War II.

Category:World War II crimes [End of contents of moved former article]

A Google English-only search on
 * Licide -lice -"Joseph Licide" -"si licide" -"sib licide"

gets 66 hits in the following categories:
 * mentions of the medication Licide (without mentioning lice)
 * mentions of surname Licide (some as "Licide, Joseph")
 * "licide" as a technical term that, like "siblicide", does not appear in two unabridged ditionaries, but from context has to do with "brood reduction" (by parent or sibling, i think)
 * other chemical hyphenations paralleling "si- licide", like "disi- licide"
 * a few refs that have wording appearing above, maybe copied from WP.

A Google (any lang) on
 * "Licide un massacre nazi "

gets two hits containing "about this massacre can found at ...", as above and presumably derived from WP; the link cited in the former article nevertheless does say, under "Seconde guerre mondiale" (i've reformatted)
 * Gavroche : revue d'histoire populaire
 * Choix d’articles :
 * "J'étais médecin des tsiganes à Auschwitz"/ Lancu Vexler, 1994, n° 74, n° 75-76, n° 77
 * "1914-18, la "mobilisation" des enfants"/ Jean-Louis Pilliat, mars avril 1996, n° 86
 * "(L') Après Nuremberg"/ Jean-Louis Pilliat, sept. oct. 1996, n° 89
 * "Ghetto, shoah, Lituanie"/ Sylvain Boulouque, nov. déc. 1996, n° 90
 * " Licide : un massacre nazi en 1942"/ R. Carré ; les prisonniers de guerres allemands sous autorité française/ Philippe Boutté, Elisabeth Briend et Olivier Gilles, janv. fév. 1997, n° 91
 * "Auschwitz, paradigme de notre temps"/ Jean-Jacques Gandini, sept. oct. 2001, n°119
 * "Témoignage sur les fusillés pour l'exemple"/ Albert Bourzac, sept. oct. 2002, n° 125

There is a Lidice, but no Licide; the missing article Licide further has, if i interpret its what-links-here correctly, no red links waiting for it to appear.

Note that 1942 May 27 is the date of Lidice, and that the Nazis were much better behaved with their neighbors to the west than with the Slavs, and the French town becomes a far-fetched mistake that might be interesting to find the detailed explanation for -- or not. --Jerzy(t) 06:14, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

I didn't know of Licide at the time I wrote the clueless article - I seem to remember hearing about it now, but I didn't know the name. In view of the similarities in the stories, village names and year, I'm convinced it's a simple typo in my copy of Camus's book.

Can this page be safely deleted ?

--Pardus
 * Sorry if i was harsh about "clueless" (even tho i meant the article, not you!).
 * Do you mean this page? No, we'll need it for other discussions, by and by. Nor IMO should it be blanked, but let's make this a section with a horizontal rule at the bottom, since this discussion should need no further contributions, and little attention (despite having some value in illustrating how we figure things out, and in reassuring anyone else who gets led into the same mistaken understanding).
 * Surely you do not mean deleting this talk page's article page.
 * But perhaps you mean the page that started this discussion. IMO, it would definitely be better to keep the redirect it has become, for anyone who consults WP for more info on the place Camus referred to.
 * I speculated that the
 * mistake that might be interesting to find the detailed explanation for -- or not

and IMO the explanation of a typo (or transcription error, by the translator?) is valuable but not interesting enough for mention in the article.
 * --Jerzy (t) 20:04, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I'm reading Camus' "The Rebel" right now and in my edition (1991, p.184-85, though I see there was a recently previous one also in 1984, which possibly contained the typo) the town is definitely named "Lidice" just like the Czech town. Also, Camus makes no mention of which nation the town lies belongs to; perhaps you thought it was French because Camus himself is French? And FYI, despite this one apparent fix, the rest of the book is absolutely replete with typos... Alex8541 (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(comment moved down) It says in Heydrich's bio that 15000 were killed but in this article it says 1300. Which number is it? Bob B.
 * Direct number of deaths was over 1000. These included intelectuals and leaders until then inprisoned, people from Lidice and those involved in atentat and their relatives. Pavel Vozenilek 20:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "The great joy many German war criminals felt during their actions is something they would not remember after the war." sounds strange, more like an opinion than something factual. Is it suitable given Wikipedia's editorial guidelines? -- akuchling 12:39, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I removed it. Pavel Vozenilek 00:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems that "Lidice (Liditz in German) is a village in Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic)" should really refer to "The Czech Republic" primarily, with a reference to "Czechoslovakia" as secondary as "The Czech Republic" is the current and correct name for the country--Igjeff 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"impression" of terror
I removed these sentences which i find quite disturbing:

"Lidice gave the impression to the populations of the Allied countries, that Czechoslovakia was terrorized by Nazi murder and reprisals, while in reality the Reichsprotektorat of Bohemia and Moravia received a relatively benevolent and peaceful treatment by German officials, as Bohemia and Moravia were officially "protected" by Nazi Germany. There happened only marginal persecution of Czechs. Lidice was rather an exception."

If author insists on the background for this massacre then link it to the czech resistance and Reinhard Heydrich article. As for "peaceful treatment" I want remind all that although the czechs were good workers for the "nazi machine of war" they were as any other slavic nation fated to diminish in the bright future of nazi empire. For the "propaganda use" of allied powers i feel there is not much to "propagandize" on such a vicious act of brutal terror.

a movie about Lidice was filmed in Britain soon after the event
The movie mentioned is probably 'The Silent Village' (directed by Humphrey Jennings); I haven't included it, because I'm not completely sure. A comparision is made between Lidice and Cwmgiedd, a village in Wales, and Lidice. It's mentioned in http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice (JoeBlogsDord 23:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Thanks for mentioning this; I popped on here to see if anyone could attribute that film with an actual title rather than a vague description. Hopefully someone can verify this and update the page soon.  Evixir (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added citation. Philip Cross (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand
Eighty-eight Lidice children were transported by bus to Lovosice located in the area of the former textile factory in Gneisenaustreet of Łódź on June 13, 1942.

What Lovosice? Lovosice is a town about 40? km north from Lidice. The sentence does not give any meaning. The fact is that 88 children were transported to Łódź. Łódź has nothing to do with Lovosice since it is a city in today's Poland.

This needs to be corrected or explained as soon as possible. Please, cite it. Thank you. Miraceti 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt citation is required and I am sure that someone shall provide it someday. In the meantime, a bit of clarifications as requested by Miraceti may be fine. I do believe that we should not tamper with the contents as the editors who have added the contents must have read the same sometime somewhere. In fact, many dimensions of Nazi crimes are yet to be documented. --Bhadani (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad article
'''THE PERSON WHO WROTE THIS VITRIOL IS TROLLING. SEE THEIR [|CONTRIBUTIONS]'''. Particularly this 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.5.185 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This article resembles holocaust literature instead of the encyclopedic article it is supposed to be. This is of course understandable considering the source.

"This monstrous spectactle"

"Under constant shouting and verbal abuse, the Lidice women had reached their destination."

"the slightest offense was punishable"

"Some went mad and others were murdered with few surviving."

"The care was minimal. The children were not fed sufficiently and a few babies cared for by the older girls were constantly crying with hunger. The children slept on plain floors and covered themselves with coats if they had any brought from home."

"Adolf Eichmann ordered in late June the order for the massacre of the rest of the children." (Oh, sure. What wouldn't those evil nazis do? After all, the order "bring the rest of the children up in other ways" is just code language for "kill them", right? Guilty until proven innocent, isn't it?)

"On July 1, 1942, the Lidice children were given the chance to write lettercards to their relatives. The few of them that did reach their addresses cannot be read without emotion. A card asking for news of Dad and Mum and for a shard of bread is amongst the most shattering accusations of Nazism." (*sniff*. But where is the encyclopedic format?)

"On July 2, 1942 all of the remaining 81 Lidice children were handed over to the Łódź Gestapo office, who in turn had them transported to the extermination camp at Chelmo 70 kilometres away. It is almost certain they were gassed to death on the very day of their arrival. Out of the 105 Lidice children, 82 died in Chelmno, 6 died in the German Lebensborn orphanages and 17 returned back home."

Let's recap; there were originally 105 children, and 88 of them were transported to Łódź. Nothing is mentioned of the other 17, except that they "returned back home". So, where did they go in the first place? Anyway, 7 of the 88 were taken to be raised in german families, leaving 81. Then, these 81 were "almost certainly gassed to death on the very day of their arrival", leaving the 7 adopted children and 17 "other" children. Then it is claimed that 82 (not 81) died in Chelmno, 6 (not 7) "died in Lebensborn orphanages" (however that happened) and 17 (the mysterious 17) "returned back home", which didn't exist anymore. Sounds confusing.

"All together, about 340 people from Lidice died because of the German reprisal (192 men, 60 women and possibly 88 children). The barbarous crime committed in Lidice shook the entire civilized world." (Yeah, "possibly 88 children". Where is the evidence?)

Earlier in the article it is stated about the women that "Some went mad and others were murdered with few surviving." If we count in the seven women that were killed with the men working in the mine, that means 53 of the 184 women sent to Ravensbrück died, which also means that 131 - over two thirds - survived. It is never told where these 131 women went, but of course that must mean they were "gassed". It's the only logical scenario, right? Like with the children; if only 17 of them were identified after the war, doesn't that imply that the rest were killed? No, it certainly does not.

So, allegedly "about 340 people died"? That is a tragedy. However, there were much, much, MUCH bigger and more terrible atrocities committed by the Allies, especially by the Soviets but also by others. The widely accepted perspective about WW2 is full of hypocrisy and suppression of unpleasant facts; while the Allied atrocities are downplayed or omitted from all discussion, at the same time there are monuments built, books written and movies made of every single german act of brutality.

I would like to make this article better, but I'm sure my version wouldn't be accepted by some. After all, you need to include the crying babies, touching lettercards, and the term "civilized world" to make the nazis look just that little bit more evil.

Before it was removed, the article also included the passage "The great joy many German war criminals felt during their actions is something they would not remember after the war."

Face it: 90% of the article is based on a single holocaust literature book. I want this article deleted or completely remade.

--Skorpio-88

I agree that the article is of poor quality and unfit for Wikipedia. I looked at this "Talk" page precisely because, on reading the article, I wondered if there had already been a comment on the apparent bias and consequent lack of confidence in its accuracy. As for whether it should be "deleted or completely remade", there are other ways to improve it. For example, those parts which are unsupported by appropriate references could be removed. There may be a place for wailing and gnashing of teeth. This isn't it.Mike Shepherd 13:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * the article might have problems.. but many statements that skorpio88 objects to are simply statements of fact. Decora (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that this article is "propaganda". It is a tool used to support other propaganda. I came to this page looking into what supports the following "current event statement":

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806231065702205-merkel-displaced-germans-czech-reaction/

"Babis pointed to the crimes committed by German forces during the war, listing Czech villages that were wiped off the map during the occupation, as well as indiscriminate killings of those suspected of harboring resistance group members."

This is exactly how they build support for giant fabrications like the "Holohoax". The simplest research reveals the nonsense … but most people don't even do simple research. I personally don't want this article removed. But I would hope a so-called responsible scholar would illustrate its use as a propaganda tool. Such a section would be even better if it revealed, as this "talk" article does, that this nonsense is largely … if not completely … made up. It's "fake news revisionism". WithGLEE (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Request: separate article of Lidice massacre
--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional images available, but need French translation for copyright
Found some great images on the website for Association Republicaine des Anciens Combattants et Victimes de Guerre de la Marne but I don't speak French and cannot determine the copyright. Can anyone assist? I'm thinking specifically of the photos captioned "La destruction de Lidice" and "Les décombres de Lidice" (the latter of which would replace an image already on the Lidice article that will soon be deleted). Evixir (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New section
I have removed the section on Lidice's sister cities, which stated that Lidice has been twinned with the town of Khojaly, or that a street has been named after Khojaly in Lidice. This has been done on the basis of communication I have held with the Mayor of Lidice, Tomas Skala, who was kind enough to sent me the following letter:

So, until we hear some news reported in third-party sources, we should refrain from re-inserting that section. I have sent a new letter to Mr. Skala regarding further clarification on the matter so hopefully we will hear from him soon.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The letter is not about sister cities so your removal seems very strange. Added Czech source for Khojaly. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Hm... That's confusing since I was in communication with Lidice City Administration back in April 2010 and specifically with the department which deals with towns and municipalities, and here is what the person in charge kindly sent me:

 * So, until there is any other information disproving the confirmation above and pieces by quite a few Azerbaijani and Czech news agencies, please do not remove anything. Thank you! Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 13:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

An original newspaper ( for sale on the web ) article about Lidice says that 75% of the women survived. Also the children who were considered Aryan, almost all survived. The other children were untraceable but their deaths were never confirmed. It appears that the story grew with time - it was plenty bad enough without the embellishments.159.105.80.220 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course historical revisionism and neo-Nazis deny the reality of the Lidice massacre and subsequent murders. The people of the Czech Republic do not deny the horrendous war crime that happened in their country. Interesting to note that the deaths were a reality. None of the victims ever returned. That is fact. There was no need to embellish the incident. To claim this is grossly offensive and inaccurate. The dead deserve more respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.185.242 (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 * There is no reason to change anything at this point. The cited text from reliable sources (WP:RS) is the standard used herein for articles. They state the details of the massacre. Otherwise, there are WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems with the "original newspaper" above. Kierzek (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy Edit work done
I have done copy edit work (WP:COPYEDIT) and made edits for concision to the lead (as it should only briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in a concise way - See:LEAD); I have corrected spelling of words; properly linked words; added properly cited text and removed the redundancy to the article. Like many articles it can use more work and cites added. Please don't revert to prior versions; it will only needlessly create more work, put back up errors and give a less polished version for general readers. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
How is Lidice pronounced in English and Czech? (lee dice, lih dice, lee dissy, lih dissy, ...?)--Wikimedes (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 * li-dyi-tse Deiwi (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the Czech village article
Wikipedia policy guidelines require that the article about the geographical location be named after that location, meanwhile the massacre in Lidice could either be a part of its history section or split into a separate article named Lidice massacre.  Poeticbent  talk 18:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing: "All male grownups of the town were shot"
Is this an accurate quotation or translation? "Grownup" is a very childish word, unlike "adult". It really jars in this context. Equinox ◑ 14:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 * , I agree and would change it if it wasn't in a quote; I can't find a copy that I can access directly from the NYT or AP, but https://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/661069 does seem to corroborate this being a correct quotation. Perhaps a matter of translation/mediocre English knowledge by the transmitter? LittlePuppers (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to say "if we can't find it, we shouldn't cite it". Equinox ◑ 04:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the link in my previous post does have an image which contains most of the text of that quote (including "grownups"). A full version of the article I'm sure is available from a variety of sources, just not for free online.  (That is, you could find it online if you pay, or for free if you have access to a library with extensive older archives of NYT.)  See also WP:SOURCEACCESS. LittlePuppers (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lidice massacre


text:
Talk:Anderson

List of people
Some more Andersons who do not yet have articles in Wikipedia:

 * Anderson, Charles, recipient of a Victoria Cross for valour
 * Anderson, Charles, a 19th century convict on Sydney's Goat Island
 * Anderson, Jessica, novelist
 * Anderson, John - Canadian Admiral
 * Anderson, John, country musician
 * Anderson, John, Representative from Maine in the early 19th century
 * Anderson, John, actor
 * Anderson, John D., professor of aerospace engineering and author of several books on aerodynamics and the history of aircraft
 * Anderson, John R., professor of psychology and computer science at Carnegie Mellon University
 * Anderson, Mal, Australian tennis player (forget it, it's just a redirect)
 * Anderson, Reid
 * Anderson, Rod, Canadian writer
 * Anderson, Ruth

|l'KF'l| 23:53, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hey KF, you've really done a great job here with all the Andersons! Alter Ego 17:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Would it be OK if I add Anderson Dennis, monster truck driver to this list?Arenacale 12:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Anderson names
In the interests of avoiding duplication, I think all of the people here should be migrated to List of people by name: Ande, and removed from this disambiguation page, per Disambiguation ("In most cases, do not list names of which Title is a part, unless the persons are very frequently referred to simply by their first or last name (e.g. Galileo, Shakespeare).") The goal is to bring this page more in line with the Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

We can leave a prominent link to the List of people by name, as was done at Smith. Is there enough to be said about the surname to make a separate Anderson (surname) article (in parallel to Smith (surname)), perhaps with redirects from Andersson and Andersen? Let me know what you think. — Catherine\talk 23:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * An excellent idea! Tedernst | talk 23:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Anderson


text:
Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive 2

Open call for discussion

 * "Heterosexualism is a system in which sexual attraction is to (or sexual relations with) persons of the opposite sex (ed. though other may not adhere to this system and this does not necessarily exclude them). [1]  It is an ideology that specifies that arousal from members of the opposite sex is the valid expression of human sexuality (and has the capablility of functioning adequately). (Compare with Heteronormativity.)"

Open call for discussion on the above paragraph. Exploding Boy 08:55, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

To get the discussion going, in my opinion "Heterosexualism does not belong on this page, but rather on the Heteronormativity page. In addition, I dispute the factual accuracy of the definition of heterosexualism.  Comments, please.  Exploding Boy 09:04, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * Heterosexualism belongs here. JDR

 * I'm not very pleased with the reference to Heteronormativity at all, thats why I deleted the paragraph before, along w the fact that I couldn't make alot of sense out of it. I have to admit that a well written, NPOV paragraph discussing the subject would be acceptable, but I wouldn't very much prefer one, I am much more focused on matters of biology and the mechanics of heterosexuality, and other non-soft science/non-controvercial areas. Sam Spade 09:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Just curious as to why you get so upset with heteronormativity Sam, it a sociological and gender studies term to define the social pressures to conform to heterosexual "norms". In short, it is the collective pressure in society to act and behave heterosexual and the position that heterosexuality is the default position in human sexual relations. So I don't really understand where your discomfort in that term comes from. It is demonstrative fact that heterosexuality is the presumptive orientation that almost everyone assumes. Why a clinical term for that phenomenon discomforts you I have yet to understand. Its an honest question and not flame bait (pun noted). Lestatdelc 21:49, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * I concur with your suggestion that it be removed from here. I also have had no contact with the word until here, and I am very well read on issues surrounding non-heterosexuality and gender studies. Given what is the posited definition, I also concur that it is basically saying what heteronormativity is. Lestatdelc 21:49, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've looked it up, and Heterosexualism appears to be a real word, meaning something seemingly compatable w the above paragraph from the article. I have found at least one example of a radical feminist using the word as some sort of catch all slur for stuff she disapproves of. Sam Spade 09:17, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * But it also redirects to this page. I feel it belongs on the heteronormativity page.  User:Reddi has also reverted my redirect to that page on at least one occasion. (previously unsigned) User:Exploding Boy

I agree w him (JDR) about the redirect, I mean, its a synonym for heterosexual and all. Besides, I have no interest in doing anything to bring credit or excess attention towards Heteronormativity, which I see as an offensive soft-science quakery.

Maybe its more of a philosophy, but anyways it's not a good place to link Heterosexualism to. Sam Spade 09:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * For reference, here's the definition of heteronormativity from that article:

[edit]Heteronormativity is a critical concept of traditional norms of      sex, gender identity, gender roles and sexuality, and the social implications of those ideas. It describes a binary organization in       which biology is congruent with gender identity and social and sexual behaviour.

 * Princeton University WordNet defines heterosexualism as synonymous with heterosexuality. If we accept that definition then the sentence in dispute is factually incorrect.  By way of comparison, the same source defines heterosexism as "Discrimination or prejudice against lesbians or gay men by heterosexual people."  Exploding Boy 09:40, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you are missing the point, heterosexualism IS NOT Heteronormativity. Also, that citations is baised, IMO (other sources do not give that POV'ed defintion). JDR

 * I am actually quite surprised to see this word listed in so many online dictionaries as it is almost entirely absent from most gender studies and literature on homosexuality and bisexuality. Lestatdelc 21:56, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Right. It appears to be a bit of a fusion between the two, and similar enough to heteronormativity to be fairly contrasted with it. It is not however synonymous with heteronormativity and should not link to it, and how to fairly contrast the two... maybe we should just forget about the ambiguous 'heterosexualism', and focus rather on contrasting heterosexism and Heteronormativity (assuming some one feels it needs doine enough to do it, clearly it won't be me ;) Sam Spade 10:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The issue is (at least) threefold: (1) what definition of "heterosexualism" are we going to use? (2) based on (1), should heterosexualism (a) be discussed in this article and (b) redirect to this page, and (3) how much detail do we need? If we accept the definition given just above, then all we need to do is add " (also heterosexualism) " to the top of the article and we can get rid of that paragraph completely.  Exploding Boy 17:27, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * (1) This has been determined by the extensive previous edits to the article that you don't agree with nor respect.
 * (2) heterosexualism should be discussed in this article and SHOULD be redirect to this page.
 * (3) If additional detail is needed, a seperate article could be used [though the info here should be left (just duplicated and expanded in an "more extensive" article).
 * JDR 16:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * However several of the online dictionaries also indicate that heterosexualism is a POV that heterosexuality is the only true orientation. This would make it a dogmatic example of heteronormativity made into an ethos or dogma. Heterosexuality is in and of itself NPOV and simply is. How it is viewed and constructed within societal mores and norms can certainly lead to a state of heteronormativity (as is the case in our society) and thus lead a person to embrace "heteorsexualism" as defined by several of the definitions in online dictionaries. Lestatdelc 22:01, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * Several definitions do not imply this ... and nor does heterosexualism ultimately mean this [that is a case more of "heteronormativity"; eg., misapplied term to heterosexualism ]. JDR

 * See the new WikiProject Sexology.Hyacinth 23:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok. I'm completely new to this conversation, and perhaps this idea has already be beaten to a pulp... Why not start a new page on heterosexualism that discusses its various meanings, perhaps contrasting its meaning to other similar/realated words. Of course, appropriate links would lead in each direction. -Rholton 19:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd be for a seperate article, as long as the information about summary of heterosexualism (much like it is now) is left here too. JDR 16:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds fine, but we have to be very careful with these poorly defined ideosyncratic terms, where the relibale sources make no comment at all, amd the editors are pushing an agenda. Just look at the shambles heteronormativity is in. Sam Spade 20:07, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Too true, there are people in edit wars on that topic who are "out to stop horror shows" and "defend normalcy" by pushing their agenda... wonder who that could be (and of course the almost comical irony given what heteronormativity is) Sam...? Lestatdelc 23:43, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

User:Reddi (JDR) wrote: "I'd be for a seperate article, as long as the information about summary of heterosexualism (much like it is now) is left here too." That this is inappropriate for inclusion on this page is the whole point of this discussion. Exploding Boy 16:43, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Exploding Boy, but that is the point ... others have edited this page and it was been REPEATEDLY left here ... you are the only one that continually cannot accept that this need to be here .... JDR

Yes, some others have chosen to leave it in, others (I am not the only one) have not. Plus, the fact that they left it in doesn't necessarily mean they agreed with it, as the discussion here shows.

 * If they disagreed, they probably would have removed it or changed it drastically, which they did not. And it seem, from the cvarious comment on the entire page, that the info should be left here. JDR

And once again, would you please put your new comments at the bottom of the page so that people can actually find them rather than hiding them (for whatever reason) further up in the discussion. Exploding Boy 16:51, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * I will respond under the part I am talking about. Your accusation that I am "hiding" something [on of the many that in the past you hafve made] is baseless. JDR [PS., it's what a "threaded" format is (incrementing the discussion)).

Unrelated comments moved to Reddi/JDR's talk page

Based on the following sources (including user Reddi/JDR's own source from the article), I move to alter the sentence as follows: "Heterosexualism is synonymous with heterosexuality." (note: I would have altered it myself but the page is still protected)

Sources:

 * [[[Hyperdictionary.com] (Reddi/JDR's original source)
 * Princeton Wordnet (retrieved via www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com
 * [The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sexual Practices]
 * [Freedictionary.com]
 * [Ansme.com]
 * www.beetfoundation.com/words/h/alt.heterosexualism.html Best Foundation.com
 * www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/english/he/heterosexualism Websters.com
 * [Realdictionary.com]
 * [Reliant Knowledge.com]
 * And as used in an essay at [The Language Teacher] entitled Teaching Sexuality in the Classroom by Darren McDonald of Daito Bunka University.

Exploding Boy 00:48, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * I could agree with that (after having looked it up). Though it is odd that it appears almost nowehere in most of the literature on gender studies and found almost exclusively in online dictionaries. Lestatdelc 00:54, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree it is very strange. I've never heard it or seen it used before, and I don't know who uses this word.  Still, since the page was protected pending clearing this up, I suggest we come to a consensus and get the page unprotected, change the definition and move on.  202.234.194.194 01:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Exploding Boy - not logged in)

Does anyone else care to comment on this before I ask for the protection to be removed? Exploding Boy 01:43, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have much of an opinion. I would rather have all of it deleted, and no mention of heterosexualism, or heteronormativity, or whatever of any kind, since they strike me as BS, but maybe thats just me ;) Sam Spade 03:13, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WAIT!

 * heterosexism: an argument that male-female sexuality is the only correct, natural, proper, or moral mode of sexual activity. Also known as heterosexualism.
 * From The Dictionary of Psychology by Raymond J. Corsini, ISBN 1583913289, emphasis added. Hyacinth 18:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess I take back the above :S Sam Spade 18:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I created a disambiguation page Heterosexualism, which states "Heterosexualism is used synonymously with both Heterosexism (Corsini, 2002) and Heterosexuality. Compare with heteronormativity." Hyacinth 18:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you've done rather well, any other opinions before we place links/references within the article proper? Sam Spade 18:41, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we finally put this thing to rest? Exploding Boy 01:14, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Based on the consensus reached here, I have changed the paragraph in question as follows:

Heterosexualism is a term that is used synonymously with both "heterosexism" and "heterosexuality" (cf. "heteronormativity").

 * Exploding Boy 08:59, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary Link
The bulk of the Urban Dictionary link was concerned with the childfree movement, which has no particular link to the gay community - many people in the childfree movement are straight, and simply uninterested in having children, or believing that having children is a poor decision with the world being what it is. The citation, therefore, is not germaine to the article. (Though, to my surprise, we have no article on the childfree moment. Huh.) Snowspinner 06:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Prevalence of heterosexuality
Discussion moved to: Prevalence of heterosexuality. Hyacinth 03:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've been told that having a heading w no text other than See: Prevalence of heterosexuality. (or whatever) is bad style. Was I misinformed? It certainly looks odd, and is far from common. Is any separate article worthy of a subheading? Why was this made into a separate page anyhow? Sam [Spade] 05:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Hyacinth 05:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Apologies to User:Raul654, but the link is listed in ==See also==. It wouldn't be a horrible idea for someone to provide a short summary around the link, thus deserving of a header. Hyacinth 05:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That's what I tried to say but I have now had 3 edit conflicts! →Raul654 05:15, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

That section was moved to its own article because of the length of the discussion and the controversy surrounding the issue. That way this page may simply summarize what that page says, while that page may take the abuse and endless amounts of text produced by conflicts. Hyacinth 02:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gay-related topic?
Actually, I would consider masculinity a feminist topic, since so much of feminism is concerned with the prevalance of masculinity... similarly, I think that heterosexuality is tremendously important to any discussion of gayness... after all, it's really the norm which terms like "gay" are defined in opposition to. Snowspinner 05:29, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heterosexuality/Archive 2


text:
Talk:Heterosexuality/to do

 * Write a brief summary of Prevalence of heterosexuality that links to that article.
 * done? -Trick 00:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heterosexuality/to do


text:
Talk:Death Cab for Cutie

Contradictions
The paragraph that begins "In November, 2004 Death Cab for Cutie signed a 'long-term worldwide deal' with Atlantic Records..." seems to contradict itself. It should be rewritten or corrected. --anon
 * How so? — The Storm Surfer 30 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)

Summary of changes I made on 16 August 2004

 * "Nick Harmer" changed to "Nicholas Harmer" and made a link. He is credited as Nicholas on 'Airplanes' and 'Photo'.
 * Maybe "LP" should be a link?
 * "Forbidden Love EP" changed to "The Forbidden Love E.P." and made a link. The cover says "the death cab for cutie forbidden love e.p." but "death cab for cutie" and "e.p." are in white while "the" and "forbidden love" are in black.  I guess maybe the title should be "The Forbidden Love"... who knows?

 * It's labeled as Forbidden Love [EP] on Gracenote CDDB, which is generally considered to be the deciding factor on these things.

Why did Meeler posted this in copyright problems if he had posted it?- Anon. Needed to revert it back.

 * The text seemed essentially lifted from the Allmusic profile; the phrasing and wording were largely the same in early versions. Thus, it could be a copyright violation; see Copyrights. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 09:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Changes for post indie Death Cab
"In November, 2004 Death Cab for Cutie signed a 'long-term worldwide deal' with Atlantic Records, leaving their long-time label Barsuk Records and the rank of indie record labels. Gibbard stated on the official website that nothing would change except that 'Next to the picture of Barsuk holding a 7', there will be the letter 'A' on both the spine and back of our upcoming albums.'"One significant change was that their latest album Plans was only sold through sites that use some form of DRM. When they were with barsuk all of their albums were sold throught sites like emusic and audiolunchbox (which offer mp3s). This was the first of their albums not to be offered in this format.

When I went back to look it seems that their entire discography has been pulled from both of those sites. This was not the case as late as the launch of Plans. Makes me wonder if atlantic now has distro rights on all of their music (as this fits with the plans release). Or has barsuk changed their online distro policy also. Regardless I think the fact that Plans was not sold online in a non DRMed format significant enough to be mensioned after that part of the the article because obviously it is not just a 'A' printed on their album. -- eSavior

I emailed Barsuk records about why the discography was pulled from audiolunchbox and Van Riker said that Barsuk never distributed on emusic and as for audiolunchbox "Audio Lunchbox changed to a subscription service from a simple download service which is why we are no longer up with them." So the answer to second paragraph in my original Changes for post indie Death Cab was that Barsuk has not changed their online distro policy but that audiolunchbox has changed its service format which is now at odds with their policy. I emailed Mr. Riker back asking if Barsuk still distributed its music under a unencumbered format and I am now waiting on his responce. -- eSavior, 26 September 2006

Mr. Riker informs with that they will soon be selling through http://insound.com which offers music in mpeg layer 3 format.

UK singles chart history
I checked Everyhit.com and there is no mention of the band ever having a UK top 40 hit. can someone sort this out please?

I second this.

Link Added
I just added a link to Ben Gibbard's MOG page, which shows all the music he listens to and has blog posts about a couple of his favorite artists. He just joined MOG and plans to be posting there regularly, so I figured the link would be useful to Death Cab fans. Questions about this, drop me a line... JessMOG, 11 November 2006

Brothers On a Hotel Bed
Never been a single

title: Talk:Death Cab for Cutie


text:
Leyland Hundred

The Leyland Hundred (also known as Leylandshire) is a historic subdivision of the English county of Lancashire. It covered the parishes of Brindle, Chorley, Croston, Eccleston, Hoole, Leyland, Penwortham, Rufford, Standish and Tarleton.

In the Domesday Book the area was recorded as 'Lailand' Hundred, with Chorley Parish in Warmundestrou Hundred and Eccleston Parish in Duddeston Hundred, all included in the returns for Cheshire. However, it cannot be said clearly to have been part of Cheshire.

title: Leyland Hundred


text:
Talk:Cycling at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Untitled
Someone should probably check this (I can't since my internet is misbehaving right now), but I'm reasonably certain that the women's road race champion should be listed as Sarah rather than Sara. BigHaz 09:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

She is listed by the IOC as competing under the name Sara without a H. Scraggy4 10:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Google News gives 185 results for "Sara Carrigan" and three for "Sarah Carrigan". The IOC and the Australian media are referring to her as Sara. Average Earthman 10:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Roger that, the Australian media are certainly calling her Sara across the board. Comment withdrawn. BigHaz 22:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should this article be split?
I was looking at this page and noticed that it is quite long and will soon get a lot longer. I think the article needs to be split up. The question is how. I could think of 2 ways to split it. Either take the competitor lists for each event out of the main article and have a seperate article for each, similiar to the swimming article, or just split the article into 3, road, track and mountain and keep each pretty much in the same format as at the moment. Thoughs... Steven jones 04:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that splitting into three would be sufficient using the same style as we have done when splitting the Swimming, Volleyball and Athletics. Any volunteers to do this???Scraggy4 09:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I would also suggest a Road/Track/Mountain if a split was to be done. -- Chuq 03:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is ridiculously long. However, as cycling is seen by the IOC as an individual sport for administration purposes, I would prefer to keep it as it is. However;
 * Would removing national flags reduce the page's kilobyte count?
 * Would it be better to change formatted tables listing classification in a race be better done as shown below to reduce kilobyte count?
 * 1st - Bradley Wiggins (GB)
 * 2nd - Brad McGee (AUS)
 * Could the long events not just have their General claasification list removed to a separate page (i'm thinking of the road mountain biking events.)

Or am i missing the point and is it actuall the number of rows in the page which needs to be decreased? A.K.A.47 17:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * How about moving some of these tables and data to wikisource? BrokenSegue 04:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation
If you check this section of the official website, you will see that when you place the arrow over the [[media:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|pictogram]], the text says that they are property of the ATHOC (ATHens Organizing Committee). Is there any cause for this to be considered fair use? As a matter of fact, there are quite a few articles on olympic events displaying the respective pictograms, it would appear that all of them will have to be removed. Redux 05:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still needed
Men's team sprint - Earl Andrew 17:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * RE removed comment: This is not only a reminder to everyone as a reminder to me. It's a list of what needs to be completed. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 22:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry - I removed it because it came out wrong - I was just a bit annoyed because the page had being playing some very weird tricks on me while making all the sub pages. A.K.A.47 16:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I did finish up the page :) -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to what is still needed, to my mind the page is finished now it is below 32kb, so unless there are any doping investigations apart from tyler's, well then that, as they say, is that - well done everyone.A.K.A.47 20:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Women's Point Race
So, it looks like they are going to give the Columbian the bronze in the points race. Should we change the page now or wait until next week when the IOC meets to ratify the decision? Sreed1234 21:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cycling at the 2004 Summer Olympics. 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/20060622162855/http://www.la84foundation.org/5va/reports_frmst.htm to http://www.la84foundation.org/5va/reports_frmst.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


text:
Amounderness Hundred

The Amounderness Hundred is one of the six subdivisions of the historic county of Lancashire in North West England, but the name is older than the system of hundreds first recorded in the 13th century and might best be described as the name of a Norse wapentake. In the Domesday Book of 1086, it was used for some territories north of the River Ribble included together with parts of Yorkshire. The area eventually became part of Lancashire, sitting geographically between the Rivers Lune and Ribble, in the strip of coast between the Irish Sea and Bowland Forest.

Etymology and history
In the 19th century, the name was considered to have been first recorded in 705, as Hacmunderness. The Domesday Book in 1086 spells it Agemundrenessa.

There are two suggested etymologies for Amounderness. The traditional 19th-century reading was that the name derived from ac (oak) and mund (protection), "a ness or promontory sheltered by oaks". This was given currency by Porter.

The current view is that the area is named after Agmundr, a Norse warlord, vassal of Eowils, Halfdan and Ingwaer, co-kings of Jorvik, all four of whom died at the Battle of Tettenhall near Wednesfield and Wolverhampton in August 910; Partington's early 20th-century description of "Amounder ... the first Viking who settled in the Fylde country" now being considered more fanciful than historically accurate. It was usual for the name of hundreds to refer to a "moot-stow" or meeting place and the element "-ness" (ON, promontory) suggests the Over-Wyre as one distinct possibility. There is some evidence to suggest the line of the Wyre/Calder rivers may have marked a north–south sub-division of the hundred in the early 10th century.

In The Place-names of Lancashire, Eilert Ekwall supports an early 10th-century coinage citing A[g]hemundesnes and the late 11th-century Agmundrenesse. The etymology of Agmundr is Old West Scandinavian agi- ("awe, terror") or possibly the German *ag- ("point, weapon point"), with -mundr, from Old West Scandinavian *-munduR ("protection"). The name appears in Old Swedish as Aghmund and in Old West Norse as Ogmundr. While the formal title of the warrior was almost certainly Agmundrholdr, his familiar or lall-name would have been Mundi.

Victorian commentators, such as Porter, often cited a 7th-century grant made at Ripon by Ecgfrith of Northumbria and Æthelwine as proof that Amounderness existed before the 10th century. In fact, the grant itself has not survived, its only source being an early 8th-century hagiography of the Northumbrian bishop Wilfrid – Vita Sancti Wilfrithi – by Stephen of Ripon (also known was Eddius Stephanus). There is no reference to Amounderness in this text, merely to lands "iuxta Rippel" (next to the Ribble). The historical misattribution may be due to the 16th-century antiquarian John Leland who cites Hasmundesham (possibly Amounderness) in his Collectanea, originally published in 1632, but does so without proper supporting evidence.

Amounderness was granted to Wulfstan I, Archbishop of York in June 934 by Æthelstan, King of England. Once thought a spoil of battle, the area had in fact been purchased by Aethelstan in 926. According to the grant, the extent of Amounderness was much greater than its present-day counterpart being the land "from the sea along the Cocker to the source of that river, from that source straight to another spring which is called in Saxon, Dunshop, thus down the riverlet to the Hodder, in the same direction to the Ribble and thus along that river through the middle of the channel to the sea". It is unclear from this description whether Dunshop refers to the westerly tributary of the river (i.e. the Brennand) or the easterly (i.e.. the Whitendale) but this distinction would have significant territorial implications.

Less precisely, Ekwall describes the eastern boundary of Amounderness as "being formed by the fells on the Yorkshire border". This places the boundary within the modern-day Forest of Bowland where Dunsop Bridge sits close to the eastern mouth of the Trough of Bowland that straddles the traditional Lancashire-Yorkshire border. After the Norman conquest of England, this eastern portion of Amounderness became part of the Lordship of Bowland. However, Thorn argues that "it was only along the river Hodder on the western and south-western edges of the Forest of Bowland that the division between Amounderness and Craven corresponded in any way to the later boundary between Lancashire and Yorkshire". Indeed, he even suggests that Amounderness may have been a "subdivision of Craven" which he describes as "stretching from the Irish Sea over the Pennines to touch the Yorkshire wapentakes of Burghshire and 'Skyrack'" ... the area around the headwaters of the rivers Aire and Wharfe and upper Ribblesdale".

In the 10th century, Amounderness would have been strategically important in terms of the Dublin-York axis. Its strategic importance is mirrored on the east coast by Holderness in the East Riding of Yorkshire. By the 12th century, Amounderness and Bowland had become two distinct and separate Lordships, each centred on its own seigneurial, later royal forest.

Geography
The hundred of Amounderness corresponds to today's administrative districts of Fylde, Wyre, Preston and part of Ribble Valley (north of the River Ribble and within the historic boundaries of Lancashire). It included Bispham, Blackpool, Broughton-in-Amounderness, Chipping, Cockerham, Garstang, Kirkham, Knott End-on-Sea, Mitton, Pilling, Preesall, Poulton-le-Fylde, Preston, and Ribchester.

The name is preserved in the present-day Amounderness Way, which is part of the A585 road that runs between Mains Lane in Thornton and Dock Street in Fleetwood.

Amounderness in popular culture
In his 1858 novel Mervyn Clitheroe, William Harrison Ainsworth portrays the minor character of the Earl of Amounderness whose "sylvan domains ... at Dunton Park ... boasted much noble timber". Ainsworth's protagonist Mervyn Clitheroe shoots a buck "in the domains of Lord Amounderness."

Amounderness registration district
Amounderness was also the name of a registration district for births, deaths and marriages from 1 April 1935 to 31 March 1974. Previously, since 1837, its parishes were part of Preston Registration District. It consisted of Preston Rural District, Fulwood Urban District and Longridge Urban District, covering an area surrounding (but excluding) Preston that was much smaller than the hundred, including areas south of the Ribble that were outside the hundred. It comprised the civil parishes of Barton, Broughton, Cuerdale, Farington, Fulwood, Goosnargh, Grimsargh, Haighton, Hutton, Lea, Little Hoole, Longton, Much Hoole, Penwortham, Samlesbury, Walton-le-Dale, Whittingham and Woodplumpton (all of which were transferred to Preston and South Ribble registration district in 1974), and Alston, Dilworth, Dutton, Hothersall and Ribchester (which were transferred to Ribble Valley registration district).

title: Amounderness Hundred