text:
Talk:Marfa lights

Untitled
For those who may be interested, I am the person who has been adding to this stub page over the past several days. My first two additions are labeled 209.179.32.9, and 209.179.251.74. My user account name is edh. I am Edson C. Hendricks, I live in San Diego, California, USA, and my telephone number is USA 858-273-1194. August 6, 2004

contradiction
This page contradicts the main Marfa, Texas page. The marfa lights section on that page is weasly and total crap. I deleted an outright lie about "no investigations have offered any explanation of the lights" (see experiment cited in this article) and in fact the section doesn't even suggest that the lights could be anything so "mundane" as headlights, really POV stuff... I'm sure someone will revert it and put the weaslyness back in so could someone help me out? That page does not cite the experiment, directly contradicting this article and being very deceptive, and it states the "since the 1800s" thing as fact, and is just terribly weasly and not good.

What's wrong with using fact?
Since my last edit of Marfa Lights, someone changed the following

 * Suggestions have been made of even earlier written reports, but their actual existence has never been confirmed.

to the following which looks like it came straight out of the consipracy theory factbook

 * Claims have been made for even earlier written accounts, but the actual existence of these is not yet confirmed.

Why remove a fact, and replace it with a weasely inference?

Also, why does someone feel compelled to change

 * Suggestions have also been made that these are myths designed to attract tourist business to this remote west Texas area, pointing out that it wasn't until July 1957 that the first article about the Marfa Lights, by Paul Moran, "The Mystery of the Texas Ghost Light," appeared in [[Coronet Magazine]].

to

 * They suggest that this is a myth designed to attract tourist business to the remote west Texas area, and that because no written report dating back to the nineteenth century has been produced, it follows that verbal accounts attributed to that era can be discounted. One early description of the Marfa Lights was published in Coronet Magazine in 1957 (see references).

More weaselling. It IS NOT TRUE that because no 19th century written report exists it necessarily follows that verbal accounts can be discounted. Where are sources for saying skeptics have ever advocated this? Also, do you think that as these lights are sometimes visible for several hours anyone would discount them because there was never a 19th century written report? (Source for SEVERAL HOURS -- Wikipedia.)

+++++++++ Hello you should know that it says the same thing on the main Marfa Texas page, that people have been seeing it since the 1800s or whatever. Might want to change that in fact the whole Marfa Ligts section of the Marfa, Texas page is crap and could be rewritten +++++++++++++++ 66.245.139.17 22:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, why say  One early description of the Marfa Lights was published in Coronet Magazine in 1957? Why deliberately remove the FACT that the very earliest written description of the lights never happened UNTIL 1957? That it was the first written description was precisely the point the context of the paragraph was stating. Hey, I try to be as tolerant as possible here on wiki, but some of the deliberate obfuscation in some articles is very disappointing. That's why I've amended the paragraph.Moriori 04:06, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I have received email from a user and because it is about content of this wiki article, I think it is better discussed here. He says he was pointing out that skeptics had mistakenly claimed, widely, that there was no "written" account (not "published", but "written") of the Marfa Lights before1983. He said it is important to illustrate where the skeptics make mistakes. I must point out that the article refers to the FIRST known written publication re the lights in 1957, so 1983 is irrelevant now.  However, despite the lights sometimes being on show and available for study for several hours, no-one hasever published definitive evidence for them being anything other than natural phenomena, so everyone who has identified them as paranormal etc are mistaken. If it is important we must refer to a historic mistake by some skeptics (which this article clearly gives the lie to), then it is also important that we must also refer to the mistakes made by all those people who claim to have identifed the lights as being paranormal. Imagine how many that could be. Moriori 01:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Facts must be true
I am the "someone" referenced in the above comments. I have been investigating the Marfa Lights for the past thirteen years, and am widely recognized within the scientific community as a competent expert on all aspects of this subject. I am the featured scientific speaker at the 2004 Marfa Lights Festival in Marfa, Texas, two weeks from now. I supplied nearly all of the original text in the article as it stands; but if I must waste time replying to insults such as this, I will supply no more.

 * That is your perogative, but I (Moriori) need to comment on your statements to straighten a few things out.. You can be the most competent expert in the world if you like, but that doesn't permit you to insist on removing a fact and deliberately replace it with unsubstantiated inference.

I regret that the comments above employ the derogative terms "weasely," "weaseling" and "obfuscation to characterize my cautious and qualified language.

I fail to see how changing "never been confirmed" to "not yet confirmed" is worth any comment at all.

 * Yet you did it deliberately! You removed an uncomplicated fact and replaced it with something that makes an unsupported inference to slant an article. "Never been confirmed" infers nothing but the fact. "Not yet confirmed'" infers it hasn't but will be, and that is exactly what you intended. You say so yourself.

I made the change to suggest that in my view there is good reason to suspect that earlier written accounts actually do exist,

 * Precisely. You replaced a fact with a suggestion of something for which there is no evidence.

and that since it has become a question, I plan to see whether I can identify some of these explicitly.

 * Fine. If you can produce evidence of any previous written accounts, (your "good reason to suspect" is not evidence), then of course, Wikipedia should include it. I'd post the info myself, but until then, Wikipedia should stick to fact..

Several years ago the Texas Department of Transportation opened a fine, newly enlarged Marfa Lights roadside viewing area with a visitor center. The structure bears a conspicuous bronze plaque reading as follows:

"IN APPRECIATION -- This Marfa Mystery Lights Viewing Area was made possible by a generous donation of property from Clayton and Modesta Williams. Their gift honors O.W. Williams who first wrote of the mysterious lights in the 1880's."

Clayton Williams is a prominent rancher and businessman in west Texas, who was the Republican candidate for governor of Texas in 1990. O. W. Williams, who was Clayton Williams' grandfather, wrote a great many articles in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Clayton and Modesta Williams must have approved the text of the plaque quoted above, and both were present at the dedication of the new visitor center. One would assume that Clayton Williams would know what his grandfather wrote, and that he would not permit inaccurate claims about that to appear publicly next to his name.

Indeed, it certainly is not true that if no nineteenth century written report exists, it necessarily follows that verbal accounts can be discounted. I didn't make that up, a skeptic did.

 * Huh. Are you truly a competent expert? I never said you made it up. I said the statement was not true (and qualified why), and also asked you for evidence that skeptics suggested so. You haven't produced that evidence. Also, you said they (skeptics), but now say skeptic. Which is it?

Several years ago I was contacted by a well-known professional astronomer who hosts a popular astronomy web site. He was trying to put together a treatment of the Marfa Lights, and he had some questions for me about the matter.

First, he informed me that he was unaware of any written records of the phenomenon prior to 1985. I replied that I had on my desk right at that moment a published account dated 1976. He then replied suggesting that he didn't think there would be any written accounts before 1970.

Here is a direct excerpt from my email to him at about this point:

"Now to review briefly the bidding, your prior horizon for Marfa Lights written records was 1985. Then I offered one from 1976, and you moved your threshold back to 1970.  OK, fine, I just picked up my telephone and called the Marfa City Municipal Library, 432-729-4631, I reached 'Esther' and related your inquiry to her.  While I remained on the phone she pulled out her ML scrapbook and offered me an article from the San Angelo Standard Times dated January 14, 1965, and then Paul Moran, 'The Mystery of the Texas Ghost Light,' Coronet Magazine, July 1957, p. 57 (or maybe p. 37, her copy was obscured).  She assured me either you or I could examine her material any time we like, and she even offered to make copies and mail them to either of us.  I said no need.  Good enough, or would you prefer another, earlier threshold now?  I'm sure even earlier written records are out there somewhere, I'm confident this story is real."

At this point he replied saying he was now convinced that this whole idea was wrong in the first place, and so we should forget it. He didn't say explicitly, but he implied that this whole angle had come to him from a very well-known skeptic with whom he'd been communicating, whom he identified by name. I checked this skeptic's web site, and indeed, there were the claims, that written accounts of the Marfa Lights first appeared around 1988 when the original Marfa Lights Viewing Area was established, which was when the local business allegedly began to attempt to build the myth to attract tourism. This web site is no longer to be found, or at least, I can't find it.

However, descendants of this skeptic-generated myth persist. Where is the source? See, for example, http://www.watchingyou.com/marfa.html, which includes:

"One question you may be asking yourself: 'The lights have been reported since the 1800's. This means the Lights can't be from cars.  Right?' Perhaps.  But perhaps not.  This particular story has been passed on by those who deny the mundane reality of the Lights.  Are there indeed written accounts of the lights, written in the 1800's, that describe these Lights?  If so, cite them -- not second-hand references.  (Note as of March 2003: In the 6 years this site has been up, no one has been able to furnish these references.) And if people did indeed report mysterious, unexplained lights, were scientists brought in to decide that the lights were unexplainable?"

It is not a "fact" that the very earliest written description of the Marfa Lights "never happened until 1957."

 * You have misquoted. Your "never happened until 1957" does not appear in the article. The correct quote is  "it wasn't until July 1957.....". And to give the paragraph balance the very next sentence refers to suggested, earlier, unconfirmed, reports. Also, based on all available evidence, it is indeed a fact that 1957 is the earliest date. It doesn't mean it will always be a fact (because someone might find evidence) but it is a fact right now.

The facts are as I report here, and I strongly suspect that the early Coronet Magazine account gained attention due simply to my telephone call that day to the Marfa public library. It certainly doesn't mean that there is no earlier reference. It may mean nothing more than that no earlier account has yet been cited on the Internet where it's easy to find.

 * The information you report here lacks one very important component --evidence to refute 1957.

The claims from the skeptics generally deny "written" accounts. I used "published," which is accurate and stronger. If it is published, it is obviously written.

 * Small point, but not so. I have heard/seen people on radio/tv discuss unknown phenomena. Their comments have gone into my knowledge base as surely as written information I have read.

"Paranormal" does not exclude natural phenomena. It means, according to the American Heritage dictionary, "Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation." The strong evidence is that mundane explanations for the Marfa Lights, while adequate in very many cases, cannot account for a fairly small fraction of the reported observations, plenty of which I've seen for myself. Nonetheless, my assumption is that this is indeed some very strange and elusive natural phenomenon, yet to be understood and explained.

So in my view, the Wikipedia entry for Marfa Lights is no longer as accurate as I wrote it, and I'm not going to try to fix it any more. Also, if I do find an earlier explicit written reference, I don't plan to cite it for Wikipedia unless some "tolerant" contributor asks me specifically and politely to do so, and I won't be back to this page to look for that. These will be my final words on the subject in this forum. Edson C. Hendricks, August 15, 2004

 * Well, that's a pity, but it's your decision. I am going to amend the article slightly to include the word "known". I can't put it in the bit attributed to skeptics, but will manage somehow, I hope. Moriori 02:39, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Facts must be true -- clean copy
For those who may want to read my original remarks above without the rude and impertinent interpositions, here follows a clean copy:

I am the "someone" referenced in the above comments. I have been investigating the Marfa Lights for the past thirteen years, and am widely recognized within the scientific community as a competent expert on all aspects of this subject. I am the featured scientific speaker at the 2004 Marfa Lights Festival in Marfa, Texas, two weeks from now. I supplied nearly all of the original text in the article as it stands; but if I must waste time replying to insults such as this, I will supply no more.

I regret that the comments above employ the derogative terms "weasely," "weaseling" and "obfuscation to characterize my cautious and qualified language. I fail to see how changing "never been confirmed" to "not yet confirmed" is worth any comment at all.  I made the change to suggest that in my view there is good reason to suspect that earlier written accounts actually do exist, and that since it has become a question, I plan to see whether I can identify some of these explicitly.

Several years ago the Texas Department of Transportation opened a fine, newly enlarged Marfa Lights roadside viewing area with a visitor center. The structure bears a conspicuous bronze plaque reading as follows:

"IN APPRECIATION -- This Marfa Mystery Lights Viewing Area was made possible by a generous donation of property from Clayton and Modesta Williams. Their gift honors O.W. Williams who first wrote of the mysterious lights in the 1880's."

Clayton Williams is a prominent rancher and businessman in west Texas, who was the Republican candidate for governor of Texas in 1990. O. W. Williams, who was Clayton Williams' grandfather, wrote a great many articles in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Clayton and Modesta Williams must have approved the text of the plaque quoted above, and both were present at the dedication of the new visitor center. One would assume that Clayton Williams would know what his grandfather wrote, and that he would not permit inaccurate claims about that to appear publicly next to his name.

Indeed, it certainly is not true that if no nineteenth century written report exists, it necessarily follows that verbal accounts can be discounted. I didn't make that up, a skeptic did.

Several years ago I was contacted by a well-known professional astronomer who hosts a popular astronomy web site. He was trying to put together a treatment of the Marfa Lights, and he had some questions for me about the matter.

First, he informed me that he was unaware of any written records of the phenomenon prior to 1985. I replied that I had on my desk right at that moment a published account dated 1976. He then replied suggesting that he didn't think there would be any written accounts before 1970.

Here is a direct excerpt from my email to him at about this point:

"Now to review briefly the bidding, your prior horizon for Marfa Lights written records was 1985. Then I offered one from 1976, and you moved your threshold back to 1970.  OK, fine, I just picked up my telephone and called the Marfa City Municipal Library, 432-729-4631, I reached 'Esther' and related your inquiry to her.  While I remained on the phone she pulled out her ML scrapbook and offered me an article from the San Angelo Standard Times dated January 14, 1965, and then Paul Moran, 'The Mystery of the Texas Ghost Light,' Coronet Magazine, July 1957, p. 57 (or maybe p. 37, her copy was obscured).  She assured me either you or I could examine her material any time we like, and she even offered to make copies and mail them to either of us.  I said no need.  Good enough, or would you prefer another, earlier threshold now?  I'm sure even earlier written records are out there somewhere, I'm confident this story is real."

At this point he replied saying he was now convinced that this whole idea was wrong in the first place, and so we should forget it. He didn't say explicitly, but he implied that this whole angle had come to him from a very well-known skeptic with whom he'd been communicating, whom he identified by name. I checked this skeptic's web site, and indeed, there were the claims, that written accounts of the Marfa Lights first appeared around 1988 when the original Marfa Lights Viewing Area was established, which was when the local business allegedly began to attempt to build the myth to attract tourism. This web site is no longer to be found, or at least, I can't find it.

However, descendants of this skeptic-generated myth persist. Where is the source? See, for example, http://www.watchingyou.com/marfa.html, which includes:

"One question you may be asking yourself: 'The lights have been reported since the 1800's. This means the Lights can't be from cars.  Right?' Perhaps.  But perhaps not.  This particular story has been passed on by those who deny the mundane reality of the Lights.  Are there indeed written accounts of the lights, written in the 1800's, that describe these Lights?  If so, cite them -- not second-hand references.  (Note as of March 2003: In the 6 years this site has been up, no one has been able to furnish these references.) And if people did indeed report mysterious, unexplained lights, were scientists brought in to decide that the lights were unexplainable?"

It is not a "fact" that the very earliest written description of the Marfa Lights "never happened until 1957." The facts are as I report here, and I strongly suspect that the early Coronet Magazine account gained attention due simply to my telephone call that day to the Marfa public library. It certainly doesn't mean that there is no earlier reference. It may mean nothing more than that no earlier account has yet been cited on the Internet where it's easy to find.

The claims from the skeptics generally deny "written" accounts. I used "published," which is accurate and stronger. If it is published, it is obviously written.

"Paranormal" does not exclude natural phenomena. It means, according to the American Heritage dictionary, "Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation." The strong evidence is that mundane explanations for the Marfa Lights, while adequate in very many cases, cannot account for a fairly small fraction of the reported observations, plenty of which I've seen for myself. Nonetheless, my assumption is that this is indeed some very strange and elusive natural phenomenon, yet to be understood and explained.

So in my view, the Wikipedia entry for Marfa Lights is no longer as accurate as I wrote it, and I'm not going to try to fix it any more. Also, if I do find an earlier explicit written reference, I don't plan to cite it for Wikipedia unless some "tolerant" contributor asks me specifically and politely to do so, and I won't be back to this page to look for that. These will be my final words on the subject in this forum. Edson C. Hendricks, August 15, 2004

Question
This might be a insignificant question to some people, but I'm wondering. Since the phenomenon is commonly known as the "Marfa Lights" why isn't this page there? Wikipedia allows plurals if they are appropriate to the subject. In my opinion the redirect should be heading the other way around. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 15:24, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. "Marfa Light" sounds awkward. –Floorsheim 21:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Qualities of the Marfa lights
It is my belief that the 2004 study was purposefully looking for a mundane explanation, because the kinds of lights that they reported did not share qualities with many past events, including the 1973 reports of Pat Kenney and Elwood Wright, where they claimed to see unidentified sources of light at a distance distance of less than one hundred feet, with no attachment to any cars. Likewise, more than enough publications and sources (including but not limited to the San Antonio Standard [May 13, 1976] and Marfa, Texas, Finds a Flickering Flame in Mystery Lights, Wall Street Journal (March 21, 1984)])have stated that the Marfa lights are not at all a recent phenomenon, going back to the time of the Apache who once lived in the region. Aside from this, however, wrangling over the Marfa lights is somewhat foolish, because it is merely one "luminary" among several locations to report similar phenomena (including Wales, Yakima, and Hessdalen). --Chr.K. 02:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * What's wrong with "purposefully looking for a mundane explanation"? No wonder that some people don't have a natural explanation if they think one should avoid looking for one!
 * People stating something does not make it true, by the way. And of course "wrangling over the Marfa lights" is not foolish at all because if you want to find an explanation you have to start somewhere. --Hob Gadling 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Car Headlights Theory
I don't understand how the UT Dallas team concluded that these Marfa Lights were car headlights. I just saw the Marfa Lights this week and while I am sure there is a natural explanation for these lights, I don't agree with the car headlights theory. I am naturally a skeptic and don't go for the conspiracy theories but there are some things that I don't see mentioned on this page.

Question - If the Marfa Lights are car headlights then why are tail lights from cars never seen? I never once saw a set of tail lights. Question - If the Marfa Lights are car headlights then why do the lights sometimes travel in one direction and then reverse their direction with quite a bit of speed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozzer30 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Mozzer30 06:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. I saw the Marfa lights on December 31st, 2000. From what I saw during the day, from my vantage point, Highway 67 is NOT visible. I would also ask the skeptics: how exactly do cars float? The lights I saw (yellow and green, with one or two red ones) appeared sometimes to be a hundred feet off the ground.

I lived in Presidio County in the early 1980's and I know that references to the Marfa lights were common in local and regional newspapers at that time and had been for years, and local people said they had heard of them for as long as they could remember. As for Hwy. 67 being visible from the viewing site, a very long stretch of it on Todd Hill south of Marfa is visible but you would have to know where to look during the daytime and use binoculars. Vehicle taillights are not visible for any great distance at night but I know from personal observation in the deserted Big Bend country that headlights can be seen from 30 miles away. An account of an early cowboy is often referred to as evidence that the lights were already around in the nineteenth century. I don't know when this was first written down--he is likely the ancestor Clayton Williams referred to. Supposedly he was riding west through Paisano Pass, having just arrived in the area, and saw some lights on the flats and thought they might be Indian campfires (this was in the early 1880's soon after the last Apaches had been driven out). When he arrived in the Marfa area people told him that other people had seen lights in the area. If if thought they were campfires obviously they weren't the kind of moving lights people report now.70.233.134.212 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC) For the benefit of anyone who doubts vehicle lights can be seen at such distances, on any clear night you can sit at the parking lot of the visitor's center at Big Bend NP (milepost zero) and see with the naked eye southbound vehicles from the time they emerge from Persimmon Gap at about milepost 28, or you can go a couple of miles towards Rio Grande Village and see vehicles in Mexico, on one of the only two roads, that are many miles the other side of Boquillas or San Vicente, and those villages are themselves fifteen and twenty miles away. You only see those coming towards the river, of course, and only when the lights point directly at you. A person doesn't realize until there is only one light to be seen anywhere within a whole vast area how far it can be seen and what tricks it can play. I have seen an ordinary flashlight from at least eight miles away, and a car will cast a light on a cliff or hillside ten miles away from it, while being itself completely invisible from the viewer. Every vehicle that comes from Presidio at night on Highway 67 is visible for several minutes from the Highway 90 viewing site and appears to be floating in the air, and there is no telling what its headlights are reflecting off at great distances from it. I don't know if this is the whole explanation of the Marfa lights, but it is all I saw the only time I ever visited the viewing site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.143.190 (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC) How can you say how far off the ground the lights are if you can't pinpoint their location? And of course car lights seen from a distance flicker, shift and go out as they travel over undulating terrain and behind hills and through curves.

Fata Morgana (mirage)?
The latest Skeptoid podcast covered the Marfa lights... the podcast said that the 2004 SPS study concluded that the car lights were distorted due to a Fata Morgana mirage...  I can't find any mention of this in the SPS report though...    If anyone can find a reliable source for this, it would be good to add. --Interiot 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC) ]

article sucks
Goes without saying that this article is cleverly, weasle-ishly POV.

several months ago I mentioned and linked to the study done on the Marfa Lights here in the discussion page of this article. Someone deleted my comments (and the link) from this page. I don't care enough to get into a war about it, but I think that's seriously lame. Why is the study mentioned but not linked in this article? Would it kill to have that link there instead of say, the skepdic link which isn't of much use? Link to the study, why not?? That's my question.

And as for the person who asked "why can't tail lights be seen when headlights can be seen and verified as per the study?" My guess would be common sense. Tail lights are not as bright as headlights. I'm not mechanic but I'm pretty sure headlights are bigger brighter bulbs, plus, the plastic covering over headlights is clear, making the light brighter. The plastic covering over tail lights is red, dimming the light somewhat.

I just can't believe someone completely deleted my comments and my link to the study on this page. And that the study won't be linked on the marfa article page.

I'm showing bias, yes. The Marfa lights are just headlights. This article is full of crap and doesn't even link the study that tears all conspiracy theories apart, why? Because the article instead needs a bunch of crap links that don't do much (scientifically) to challenge the idea of a supernatural thingy causing the marfa lights?

Said experiment may not be perfect (though it does cover almost everything) but it's certainly worth linking IMO not just glossing over like in the article and I still think it's bull that REGARDLESS of the validity of the study, my comments were deleted from this discussion page.

friggin wikipedia you wonder why no one trusts this site....

 * The Marfa lights are NOT headlights. Anyone who has actually seen them knows that. The "valid" research you talk about is most likely nothing more than a group of people trying to put an explanation on something that just isn't yet explainable. I've seen the Marfa lights and I know a headlight when I see it. The Marfa lights aren't headlights. Headlights aren't green, red, and blue. Headlights don't hover dozens of feet off the ground, change directions, or simply fizzle out of existence.

And if you think the article sucks, stop whining and change it to something that doesn't suck.

my point exactly. this article doesn't really suck, it just needs a little more factual information. Has anybody stopped to consider that the lights seen might actually be lights?

point and case. Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

nightorbs.net
What exactly is all that nightorbs website advertising doing in the article? Seems rather PoVish to me anyway.84.57.160.189 (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

About www.nightorbs.net: When I try to go to this site my Avast antivirus immediately warns me that this page contains the trojan horse JS:Agent-BA [Trj]. Make sure your AV software is fully up to date before going there. I suspect the threat level isn't very high, but it's better safe than sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.47.232 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Immigrant flashlights?
Considering the location, why haven't any skeptics considered the possibility that the lights are flashlights held by illegal migrants? 173.12.172.149 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed
This article is of terribly poor quality. It makes many claims without providing a single reference. For example, from just the first paragraph: 'Reports often describe...' - which reports? 'Colors are usually described as white, yellow, orange or red, but green and blue are sometimes reported' - by who? 'The balls are said to hover...' - by who? 'They often appear in pairs or groups, according to reports...' - which reports? 'Their sizes are typically said...' - by who?

I have added the neccessary tags, but suggest that unless these claims can be substantiated the article be rewritten describing the lights as a natural phenomenon - fata morgana mirages of Highway 67 traffic lights. The dissenting point of view should be the as yet unsubstantiated paranormal claims or rejections of the scientific, natural explanations.

If anyone disagrees with this proposal I am interested to hear your reasons. Didacticus albus (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Uhm. When you say "Natural" phenomena, you mean "automobile headlights", as opposed to the alternate (crazy) explanation that it's something that just happens on its own in nature? That's ... more than a little confusing.
 * Assuming I'm understanding you, I'm not sure I agree. The notability of the phenomena comes from its ridiculous paranormal claims. It's important to make the reader understand that. It seems appropriate to describe it as an alleged paranormal phenomena and then describe it's debunking.  You wouldn't open the Loch Ness Monster article with a description of boat wakes and floating logs. APL (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think they are "Fata Morgana" projections of headlights? Highway 67 is visible by line of sight for a long distance from the viewing site. This is a plain fact that anyone who wants to take the trouble can verify by scanning Todd Hill from the site during daylight hours, or traveling north from Presidio on the highway during hours of darkness. Depending on density of traffic one will see a regular stream of headlights on display on the highway between Alpine and Marfa. Why can people not understand that this works both ways? 162.72.39.96 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I apologise, I guess I wasn't very clear. I take issue at how the article is framed. The article makes the claim that the lights are unexplained, and that the explanations given for the observed phenomena are insufficient, and implies that it is supernatural or paranormal in some way. The 'Criticism' section contains 'arguments' against this position. I believe that the Marfa Lights should be represented as a natural phenomenon for which there is an explanation, as described in the studies which have been done, and the 'criticsm' section should be replaced with an 'alternate explanations' or 'paranormal claims' section, detailing the positions of those disagreeing with the scientific explanations (providing those opinions can be properly referenced). I'm not suggesting the article be devoid of information about the paranormal claims, nor of descriptions from eyewitnesses (again, as long as they can be adequately referenced). The cultural significance of the Marfa Lights phenomenon is an important subject too, and its importance to the town of Marfa is also notable. Didacticus albus (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I think I agree with you. I certainly don't like how the lead describes them as "Unexplained". However, some care should be taken that the topic is still introduced as an alleged paranormal phenomena. Again, the article on the loch ness monster doesn't start by talking about boat wakes and floating logs, it opens by talking about the lore and mythology of the monster, which is the heart of the matter. The origins of the myth are secondary. I think this article should be approached the same way.
 * I made a very quick stab at it, but it's still not very good. The summary should probably include a little more of why these are interesting to anyone. APL (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Important Part of the Story Missing
I just watched the Unsolved Mysteries episode and proceeded to Google the subject, arriving here on Wiki. I read the article, including the section about the Unsolved Mysteries episode. What it fails to include is the formal scientific investigation that was conducted into the phenomenon. The investigators, from a local observatory and university, included a professor of chemistry, a geologist and an astronomer. They focused on the areas away from the highway and watched for air traffic, determining that neither were the cause for the light that they later observed, fading in and out. They were certain that it did not come from a man-made source and was a natural occurrence. They suggested that it was possibly refractive starlight or luminous gasses produced by earthquakes, but they were certain that it was a natural phenomenon occurring in the atmosphere which is not yet explained by science. http://unsolvedmysteries.wikia.com/wiki/Marfa_Lights

I am going to add this to the article, as the fourth paragraph in that section, as it is of great importance to the subject. The article shares skeptics' views, explaining away the activity as car lights, etc. This is what gives great importance to this investigation, as it is disproves the skeptics' arguments against the phenomenon being a natural one. Neurolanis (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I think Unsolved Mysteries is now being given far too much undue weight in the article. That section needs to be trimmed.
 * The show is not intended to be educational or scientific. It's light entertainment. The segment with the scientists is exactly as real as the "product comparisons" in a late night infomercial. They're people, who may or may not really be "scientists", who are paid to show up and say something entertaining. They might not have actually been handed a script, but I promise you that they understood what they were supposed to say before they even went to check out the lights. (There's nothing dishonest about that. "Unsolved Mysteries" is entertainment. They bend the truth to put on a good show.) APL (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 * You promise me, huh? Care to provide me with evidence to support this claim? Wikipedia itself describes the show thusly: a documentary format profiling real-life mysteries and featured reenactments of unsolved crimes, missing persons, conspiracy theories and unexplained paranormal phenomena (alien abductions, ghosts, UFOs, and "secret history" theories). It sounds to me that you are actually going against how Wikipedia describes the show. I think that it is fair to show both sides of the story, not just one (as would be expected of any mainstream news or information source.) It sounds to me as if you feel that the article should only reflect one side. Neurolanis (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that bolded text.
 * Unsolved Mysteries is documentary format. And it does "profile" those things.
 * How does that contradict what I said? APL (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Because it is a "documentary format profiling real-life mysteries," not a "mocumentary" or a "documentary-style series loosely based on actual events," etc. This description gives the show integrity, which your previous statement attempts to scrap. You know better than this. Both sides should be reflected fairly in the article. Wikipedia should be bias-free. Neurolanis (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Marfa lights in the 1800s
The Unsolved Mysteries episode had stated that the lights had been first reported in the late 1800s. before there were automobiles. While I'm not claiming they're UFOs or anything, they have been seen for a very long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.110.225 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsolved Mysteries is entertainment.
 * Besides, even if someone found a real reference to the lights from that time period (Which, as far as I'm aware, nobody has.) it wouldn't really contradict the theory that the things are basically mirages. Camp-fires and even lanterns could easily provide the light needed to cause the illusion. APL (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I imagine they do represent a natural atmospheric phenomenon of some sort, but campfires, normal lanterns, and car headlights do not appear to be good hypotheses.

First, the lights occur outside the boundaries of the highway. The earth's curvature, reflection, and refraction can cause some unusual effects, but bending a headlight perpendicular from its line of travel and causing it to rapidly grow and shrink (the oscillation is a few Hertz in the videos I've seen) is exceedingly unlikely.

Second, no ordinary lantern at the presumed distance (tens of miles, near the highway) could create a light of its apparent magnitude and size.

Such identification is further problematic because people attempting to trace the lights by walking towards their apparent origin report no apparent change in size or parallax; assuming they are not lying, then the source of the lights is very large, very bright, and very far away, and is approximately a point source (as we do not see much if any dispersion).

More importantly, any genuine explanation ought to give us some prediction or criteria by which to judge its accuracy. If car headlights are responsible, what will never be observed? What should always be observed? Under what atmospheric conditions would we predict, ahead of time, that the lights will occur?

I'm not dogmatic about falsificationism, and I am sympathetic to the exasperation with people shouting ghosts! UFOs! without any evidence for such claims, but explanations that do not explain should not be offered as a scientific answer. "We don't know what those are," is a perfectly valid answer, even if it is frustratingly true that people will twist that into "Ghostly phenomena science has no explanation for!". — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilfredOwens (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One group of scientists apparently took measurements and concluded that nothing unusual was going on and the likely explanation was public misidentification of natural phenomena. All other reports of the lights magnitude, size, behavior, frequency, mysteriousness, etc. are anecdotal, i.e. hearsay. I think where most people go wrong is in mistakenly treating those hearsay claims as if they were hard data to be analyzed. Anyhow, editor speculation is WP:OR as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we merely report what WP:RS and WP:FRIND sources say, and tend to favor academic sources over popular ones. Welcome to Wikipedia BTW ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Original research and essay-like structure
Recent revisions have fundamentally changed the article, resulting in an essay-like structure, containing what appears to be original research (most particularly in the 'Explanations' section). This will clearly need rectification. Please note that this is also being discussed at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Astronomical? carlights? Foolish science claims
Nobody citing spiritual connection, foo-fighters or different views. What a lame explanation. When science tries to play God it fails in plain view. --81.37.41.177 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * are you serious? what a lame fringe theory. if you have a problem with the article, edit it, it is not locked. see if you get reverted --84.60.141.136 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Section about spectroscopic analysis changed to reflect source
I edited the section, so that it actually reflects the study it is citing, as I think that the fact that the study in question mentions to not have observed any Marfa lights is significant. The way it was phrased before implied that the study did observe what is known as Marfa Lights, but attributed them to cars or other light sources, which was not the case at all. In fact the study even refers to another observation that caught 40 incidents of Marfa Lights on video, so contrary to the implications of the earlier version of the section, the cited study and it's authors in no way dispute the existence of the Marfa Lights or the fact that they are not car lights. Please make sure your contributions are accurately reflecting the source if and when editing this section further (and hopefully people could just do that in general...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.87.119 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 * The text, as it is, is very clearly referring to "a number of lights that "could have been mistaken for lights of unknown origin"". No modification/interpretation is needed. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Marfa lights in pop culture
The country singer Miranda Lambert mentions the Marfa Lights in her song “In his Arms”, from the album “Palomino”, and also on the album “The Marfa Tapes” with Jack Ingram and Jon Randall. 2003:F9:8F04:AF6E:30DC:B4E3:C3AD:AB8B (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

How to describe
I've rewritten the lead to use reliable sources: the latest source I could find was in 2017 and said they were partially understood (most could be attributed to car lights, but some were confusing), so I've described them as "not-fully-understood". This seems to be the kind of change argued about on the talk page, so I'm starting a section here if anyone disagrees. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Marfa lights


text:
Talk:Harshad Mehta

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SwayamBhatia. Peer reviewers: Shawnhua8888, Jgoldfiner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

 * I googled some random sentences and they were taken directly taken from : http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2002/01/01/stories/2002010102180100.htm . Please rewrite in your own words, use multiple sources, etc. Mattingly23 02:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Let us join hands to write an encyclopedic article, please avoid writing like gossip columnists - I have re-edited recently place unsubstantiated information about this person. Thanks. --Bhadani 08:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I just fail to understand the style of circumlocutory used by the latest editor (incidentally anonymous) in adding contents. One should be clear of one’s objective and in case he/she has sources to substantiate his latest edits, he/she is most welcome to share the same for the benefit of the community and the general user. Introduction of such blatant point of view so stealthily is not encyclopedic. Please come forward, and substantiate. Thanks. --Bhadani 12:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Latest additions to the section "The end" is without authentic source. Requesting for sources. Thanks. --Bhadani 14:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

technical issue
can some one please adjsut the table of contents. I am getting a technical error and unable to do it. --avnp* 07:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amul Harshad Mehta.jpg
Image:Amul Harshad Mehta.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other fair use media (owner naveen janwaal ), consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was Harshad Mehta arrested???? Anyone can buy any share at any rate and can sell at any rate bearing all the losses??? And if Banks gave him loans then its mistake of Banks... Why he alone suffered???Manu bhayana (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Using incorrect English phrases in in-appropriate contexts
The usage of the word 'glory' is completely misplaced in the sentence 'at the peak of his glory, ...'. You use the word 'glory' with a positive connotation hence highly inappropriate to describe the extravagant lifestyle of a criminal who siphoned off money from the market and hence the society basically.

Now imagine this - Kasab in all his glory, massacred hundreds of innocent civilians. That's an example of out of context usage of a word. So I am taking off the word 'glory' in fact the whole phrase 'at the peak of his glory' and replace it with 'at the height of his criminal career, before it became public, '. Please explain any objections here - Dragon warrior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.180.62 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

CleanedUp and Updated
The article Harshad Mehta has been cleaned up, and standardized with Infobox, profile update, and further references. It still requires possible cleanup for the section Harshad Mehta Salman 08:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsujata (talk • contribs)

Proposing a new section for the significance of the 1992 scam on India's Stock Market
I propose to right a scholarly research based section on the changes that emerged after the 1992 stock market collapse23:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)23:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)SwayamBhatia (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Introducing a new page for the 1992 scam
The page will discuss only the 1992 scam with a linkage to this page for more details.SwayamBhatia (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/article28950012.ece. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 11:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Harshad mehta
Harshad is good business man He is good topper in share bajar in comepany Son of mahakal (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2023
Manotosh33 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC) The education of harshad mehta is writen in wrong he have did his schooling from gujrat not bhilai.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
he studied till 4th standard in paneli moti pay center school Tanmay bharai (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tollens (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Harshad Mehta


text: Country codes: A

title: Country codes: A


text:
Mesembria (disambiguation)

Mesembria, modern Nesebar, is an ancient Greek city in Thrace, on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria.

Mesembria or Messembria or Mesambria may also refer to:

 * Mesembria (Zone), the ancient Greek polis of Zone, on the Aegean coast of Western Thrace, Greece, whose archaeological remains were formerly identified as "Mesembria"
 * Mesambria (Aegean Sea), another ancient Greek settlement on the Aegean coast of Western Thrace (exact location unknown)
 * Mesimvria, Evros, a modern Greek village near Mesembria–Zone.

title: Mesembria (disambiguation)


text: User talk:81.136.128.104

title: User talk:81.136.128.104


text:
Xinerama

Xinerama is an extension to the X Window System that enables X applications and window managers to use two or more physical displays as one large virtual display.

Developed under the name PanoramiX by Madeline T. Asmus of the Digital Equipment Corporation's Unix X Server Engineering Group, the software was contributed to The Open Group for X11 Release 6.4 (X11R6.4) and renamed Xinerama. It was then incorporated into the XFree86 4.0 release in 1998 and the Solaris 7 11/99 release. According to X Server project lead Rob Lembree, the name was inspired by the Cinerama widescreen theatre process. "We were frustrated by having big Alpha machines with multiple displays, and being unable to move applications from one to another. It was developed as much out of frustration as out of competitive advantage." Xinerama advantages include the ability to only maximize windows to the dimensions of the active physical display, and to allow new pop-up windows on the active physical display.

General theory of operation
When Xinerama is enabled in the X server, multiple X screens can be unified into a single workspace. This unified work area allows windows to be transferred across X screens.

XINERAMA extension
The Xinerama extension provides clients with information about the layout of viewports within the unified workspace. Its information regarding offset and size information allows clients to make intelligent decisions about window placement, window maximization and other user interaction events.

Use in non-XINERAMA environments
The X server's client/server architecture allows the server to expose Xinerama information to the client regardless of whether the Xinerama infrastructure is active. RandR and NVidia's twinview utilize this feature to provide window managers and clients with information about the output layout relative to the framebuffer.

Common color depth
Xinerama requires that all of the physical screens have the same bit depth. For example, an 8-bit screen cannot be combined with a 16-bit screen.

Hardware rendering
In some implementations, OpenGL direct-rendering only works on one screen. Windows that should show 3D graphics on other screens tend to appear black, a problem most commonly seen with 3D screen savers. The Solaris SPARC OpenGL implementation and ATI and nVidia proprietary Linux drivers support hardware-accelerated rendering of all screens in Xinerama mode.

Static configuration
Physical screens cannot be added or removed dynamically, and there is no way to change the resolution of a screen. This is particularly difficult for mobile computer users, who may use an external physical display in addition to the computer's built-in screen, but only at certain locations. It is recommended that RandR or ATI's or nVidia's single GPU method be used in these cases. Xinerama's lack of support for adding or removing screens causes several problems:

 * Windows may be drawn to a screen that is not connected to the computer. The user is required to drag these windows to the main screen, but is unable to see them.
 * Video signals sent to disconnected displays use unnecessary power and may reduce battery life.
 * It becomes difficult to use a device in multiple locations, where available external screens are likely to be configured differently.

These problems are related to Xinerama's implementation rather than its design, and can be corrected with further development.

Window manager support
Some window managers and desktop environments have limited awareness of the separate physical screens in Xinerama, so that the desktop is simply stretched over the physical screens instead of arranged as a single large desktop. The window manager may place a new window on an unexpected screen, which can be confusing and annoying. Xinerama nevertheless offers the advantage that windows can be moved between screens.

Dead space
The physical displays do not need to be the same resolution, and the virtual display area is not necessarily rectangular if the component physical displays are not the same size. Some window managers assume a rectangular display area, and enforce this by creating excess "dead space" at the edges of a display. The window manager needs awareness of Xinerama to avoid placing new windows in this dead space.

Resource
Asmus, Madeline T. (December 1995) "The PanoramiX Extension" THE X RESOURCE 16: A Practical Journal of the X Window System. pp. 59–73 ISBN 1-56592-166-6.

title: Xinerama


text:
Andrei Konchalovsky

Andrei Sergeyevich Konchalovsky OZO (Андрей Сергеевич Кончаловский; born 20 August 1937) is a Russian filmmaker. He has worked in Soviet, Hollywood, and contemporary Russian cinema. He is a laureate of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", a National Order of the Legion of Honour, an Officer of the Order of Arts and Letters, a Cavalier of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic and a People's Artist of the RSFSR. He is the son of writer Sergey Mikhalkov, and the brother of filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov.

Konchalovsky's work has encompassed theatrical motion pictures, telefilms, documentaries, and stage productions. His film credits include Uncle Vanya (1970), Siberiade (1979), Maria's Lovers (1984), Runaway Train (1985), Tango & Cash (1989), House of Fools (2002), The Postman's White Nights (2014), Paradise (2016), and Dear Comrades! (2020). He also directed the 1997 miniseries adaptation of the ancient Greek narrative The Odyssey. Earlier in his career, he was a collaborator of Andrei Tarkovsky. His films have won numerous accolades, including the Cannes Grand Prix Spécial du Jury, a FIPRESCI Award, two Silver Lions, three Golden Eagle Awards, and a Primetime Emmy Award.

Early life and ancestry
Konchalovsky was born Andrei Sergeyevich Mikhalkov in Moscow, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, into an old aristocratic Mikhalkov family,  with centuries-old artistic and aristocratic heritage tracing their roots to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (in 2009 he testified that a great-grandfather resided in Lithuania). His father was writer Sergey Mikhalkov, and his mother was poet Natalia Konchalovskaya. His brother is filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov. He is frequently referred to as Andron, but as he stated several times, Andron was just a diminutive used by his grandfather and never was his official name; he prefers the name Andrei.

Career
He studied for ten years at the Moscow Conservatory, preparing for a pianist's career. In 1960, however, he met Andrei Tarkovsky and co-scripted his movie Andrei Rublev (1966).

Career
His first full-length feature, The First Teacher (1964), was favourably received in the Soviet Union and screened by numerous film festivals abroad. His second film, Asya Klyachina's Story (1967), was suppressed by Soviet authorities. When issued twenty years later, it was acclaimed as his masterpiece. Thereupon, Konchalovsky filmed adaptations of Ivan Turgenev's A Nest of Gentle Folk (1969) and Chekhov's Uncle Vanya (1970), with Innokenty Smoktunovsky in the title role.

In 1979 he was a member of the jury at the 11th Moscow International Film Festival. His epic Siberiade upon its 1979 release was favourably received at Cannes and made possible his move to the United States in 1980.

His most popular Hollywood releases are Maria's Lovers (1984), Runaway Train (1985), based on a script by Japanese director Akira Kurosawa (who had written it as an adaptation of Dostoevsky's "House of the Dead" ), and Tango & Cash (1989), starring Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell. In 1985, Ned Tanen wanted to hire Konchalovsky to direct The Godfather Part III, but the other executives at Paramount Pictures concluded the film could not be made without Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo's involvement. In the 1990s, Konchalovsky returned to Russia, although he occasionally produced historical films for U.S. television, such as his adaption of The Odyssey (1997) and the award-winning remake, The Lion in Winter (2003). In a 2023 SAG-AFTRA Foundation interview, Emily Blunt stated that she auditioned for a role in the latter film, and said of Konchalovsky that "he was vile... he was really horrible," and that he was "really cruel during the audition and loved taking me down a peg or two." Blunt claimed that he promoted a "very misogynistic sort of vibe, and I was a shell of my former self by the time I came out."

Konchalovsky's full-length feature, House of Fools (2003), with a cameo role by Bryan Adams as himself, set in a Chechen psychiatric asylum during the war, won him a Silver Lion at the Venice Film Festival.

In 2010, Konchalovsky released a longtime passion project of his, The Nutcracker in 3D, a musical adaptation of Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky's ballet. A musical film, it mixed live action and 3D animation, and starred Elle Fanning, John Turturro, Nathan Lane, and Richard E. Grant. The film was scored with music from the ballet, with additional lyrics by Tim Rice. The film was universally panned by critics and audiences.

In the same year, Konchalovsky also featured in Hitler in Hollywood, a bio-doc about Micheline Presle which evolves into a thrilling investigation of the long hidden truth behind European cinema. This mockumentary thriller uncovers Hollywood's unsuspected plot against the European motion picture industry. The film won the FIPRESCI Prize at the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival and was nominated for a Crystal Globe award in July 2010.

In 2012, Konchalovsky wrote, directed and produced The Battle for Ukraine, which provided an in depth analysis of how Ukraine to this day struggles to escape from the close embrace of its former big brother, Russia. This extensive study lasted for almost three years and involved an array of Ukrainian, Russian and American historians, politicians and journalists, as well as the ex-President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski, the ex-President of Slovakia Rudolf Schuster, the ex-President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze, the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, the ex-Prime Minister of Russia Viktor Chernomyrdin, and the businessman Boris Berezovsky.

2013 saw Konchalovsky co-produce a story previously untold on film. Film-maker Margy Kinmonth invited Charles III, at the time the Prince of Wales, to make a journey through history to celebrate the artistic gene in his family and reveal an extraordinary treasure trove of work by royal hands past and present, many of whom were accomplished artists. Set against the spectacular landscapes of the Royal Estates and containing insights into works by members of the British royal family down the centuries and The Prince of Wales's own watercolours, Royal Paintbox explores a colourful palette of intimate family memory and observation.

His film The Postman's White Nights won the Silver Lion at the 71st Venice International Film Festival. The script is centered around the true story of Aleksey Tryaptisyn, a real life Russian Post officer based in a remote Russian Far North village surrounding Lake Kenozero.

In 2016, Paradise directed by him won the Silver Lion at the 73rd Venice International Film Festival. It was selected as the Russian entry for the Best International Feature Film at the 89th Academy Awards.

In 2020, Konchalovsky directed Dear Comrades!, a historical drama about the Novocherkassk massacre. The film won the Special Jury Prize at the 77th Venice International Film Festival. Anthony Lane, writing for The New Yorker, called the film Konchalovsky's "masterpiece."

Political views
In 2012, Konchalovsky was one of 103 public figures to sign a petition in support of the band Pussy Riot during their 2012 trial.

Konchalovsky endorsed Sergey Sobyanin of United Russia in the 2013 Moscow mayoral election.

In the run-up to the Russian presidential election in 2024, Konchalovsky supported Vladimir Putin's candidacy, describing him as "an extraordinary leader, the most courageous and wise person".

Personal life
Konchalovsky has been married five times. His first wife was Irina Kandat. His second wife was Russian actress Natalya Arinbasarova, with whom he has one son: Russian film director Egor, born 15 January 1966. His third wife was Viviane Godet, with whom he has a daughter, Alexandra Mikhalkova, born 6 October 1971. His fourth wife was Irina Ivanova, with whom he has two daughters: Nathalia and Elena. His fifth wife is Russian actress Julia Vysotskaya; they have been married since 1998 and have two children: Maria (1999) and Petr (2003).

In October 2013, Konchalovsky and daughter Maria were involved in a vehicular collision in the south of France. Konchalovsky lost control of a rented Mercedes and swerved into oncoming traffic, where he crashed into another car. Maria suffered a traumatic brain injury and was placed into an induced coma. By 2018, Maria's condition had improved, and she returned to Russia with her parents.

Honours

 * 2018 Cavalier of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic (Italy)
 * 2018 Russian Ludvic Nobel award (Russia)
 * 2017 Award of the Government of the Russian Federation in Culture for his theater work (Russia)
 * 2017 The Bridge Award by the Bernhard Wicki Foundation (Germany)
 * 2017 The title of Professor of Moscow State University (Russia)
 * 2017 'Person of the Year' award by Federation Of Jewish Communities in Russia (Russia)
 * 2017 The Federico Fellini Prize 'For a special contribution to the development of the cinema' (Italy)
 * 2017 The European Medal of Tolerance (ECTR), 'For his cultural achievements focused on preserving the tragic memory of the past including his film 'Paradise' (Brussels)
 * 2016 'Baltic Star International Award' for Developing and Consolidating Humanitarian Relations in Countries of the Baltic Region (Russia)
 * 2016 Rivista del Cinematografo Award, Vatican (Italy)
 * 2016 The Robert Bresson Prize, Vatican (Italy)
 * 2015 The Moscow Times Awards 'Person of the Year' (Russia)
 * 2012 Award 'For Contribution to Enlightenment', Kazan International Festival of Muslim Films (Russia)
 * 2012 International Award of Chingiz Aitmatov, 'For Studio adaptation of a novel' for the movie 'The First Teacher', 1965,
 * 2011 National Order of the Legion of Honour (Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur) (France)
 * 2011 The title of Honorary Doctor of the University (National University of Theatre Arts and Cinema (UNATC)
 * 2011 Honorary award 'Doctor Honorius Causa' for the contribution to cinema (Romania)
 * 2011 Award 'For the contribution to cinema', International Film Festival of Andrei Tarkovsky 'Zerkalo' (Russia)
 * 2010 Honorary Award to outstanding citizen of the city of Tuscany (Italy)
 * 2010 Commemorative Medal '150th anniversary of Anton Chekhov', award 'For the contribution to the theatrical art' (Russia)
 * 2008 'Gold Star' special award for the contribution to development of the world cinema (Marrakech International Film Festival, Morocco)
 * 2006 Russian Film Directors Guild Award for citizenship, integrity and contribution to cinema (Russia)
 * 2005 Officer of the Order of Arts and Letters (France)
 * 2003 Order 'Danaker' (Republic of Kyrgyzstan)
 * 2002 The title of 'Honorary Professor of Cinematography' for outstanding contribution to the art, culture and cinema, VGIK (Russia)
 * 2002 Academician of the National Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Russia)
 * 1997 Special Silver St. George for his contribution to world cinema, 20th Moscow International Film Festival (Russia), 1997
 * 1997 Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" 4th class (Russia)
 * 1997 Medal 'In Commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of Moscow' (Russia)
 * 1980 People's Artist of the RSFSR (USSR)
 * 1974 Honored Artist of the RSFSR (USSR)
 * 1972 State Prize of the Kazakh SSR (USSR)

Film
Executive producer
 * The Last Station (2009)

Plays

 * Eugene Onegin. A play performed at La Scala, Italy, in 1985.
 * The Queen of Spades. A play performed at La Scala, Italy, in 1990.
 * Miss Julie. A play performed at the Malaya Bronnaya Theatre, Moscow, in 2005.
 * King Lear. A play performed at Na Woli, Warsaw, in 2006.
 * The Seagull. A play performed at the Odeon Theatre, Paris, in 1987, and at the Mossovet Theatre, Moscow, in 2004. Toured Italy in 2007.
 * Uncle Vanya. A play performed at the Mossovet Theatre, Moscow, since 2009. Toured Italy in 2009, the Baltics in 2009 and Israel in 2010.
 * Three Sisters. A play performed at the Mossovet Theatre, Moscow, since 2012.
 * La Bisbetica Domata. A play performed at the San Ferdinando Theater, Naples, 2013.
 * Edip di Colone. A play performed at Teatro Olimpico, Vicenza, 2014.
 * The Cherry Orchard. A play performed at the Mossovet Theatre, Moscow, since 2016.
 * Edip di Colone. A play performed at the Tovstonogov Bolshoi Drama Theater, Saint-Petersburg, since 2017.

Operas

 * War and Peace. An opera staged at the Mariinsky Theatre, St. Petersburg, in 2000, and at the Metropolitan Opera, New York, in 2002 and 2009.
 * Un ballo in maschera. An opera staged at the Teatro Regio, Italy, in 2001, and at the Mariinsky Theatre, St. Petersburg, in 2001.
 * Boris Godunov. An opera staged at the Teatro Regio, Turin, Italy, in 2010.
 * Our Ancient Capital. A musical event held to commemorate Moscow's 850th anniversary on Red Square in 1997.
 * Celebrating 300 Years of St. Petersburg A show held in St. Petersburg, in 2003.

title: Andrei Konchalovsky


text:
User talk:62.215.3.51

Proposed deletion of The English School, Kuwait

The article The English School, Kuwait has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL."

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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:62.215.3.51


text: User talk:64.157.250.172

title: User talk:64.157.250.172


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Teene

Not notable. Even tho' according to the article, "Terry Teene wrote and performed the song Pussy Galore for the James Bond thriller Octopussy...and literally hundreds of other songs...Though Terry Teene has recorded more songs than Madonna...", neither IMDB nor allmusic.com know anyone named "terry teene", "terry knutsen", "terence knutsen", or "terry knutson". allmusic credits other artists for the song "Pussy Galore meets Bond". One google hit for "ToBo the clown"--a username in a public message forum. Of the 21 displayed hits for Clownzo (most are for "Interdimensional Clownz, by T. L. Winslow. Explore the parallel dimension of Clownzo..."--unrelated) the only ones about this guy are VfD (#1 hit--his name was mentioned in the Glenn Nolastname discussion), and some 1992 articles about his being 'convicted on six counts related to his messy house and property'. ""Curse of the Hearse" only gets 114 hits, #1 of which is on a website titled "SCBD The Chart of the Flops", which makes me think it's not very notable. This article seems to border on vandalfiction (or whatever the common term is), altho', in fairness, I have to mention that the contributor has also added a great deal of interesting info that appears to be accurate in some previously under-covered areas such as boomerangs and people associated with the Grateful Dead. Regardless, one little-heard of single, and some minor convictions, I don't think add up to notablity. Niteowlneils 02:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless the author or someone else can verify the statement that "Terry Teene wrote and performed the song Pussy Galore for the James Bond thriller Octopussy". If it can't be verified, the article is unreliable and should be deleted. To the best of my recollection, Pussy Galore is a character in Goldfinger, not Octopussy. I don't recall any song about Pussy Galore in Goldfinger. No song by that title is listed on Amazon's track listing for the Octopussy soundtrack. Google searches on "Terry Teene" "Pussy Galore" and "Terry Teene" "Octopussy" yield no hits. By comparison, ''"Shirley Bassey" Goldfinger" by comparison yields 13,800 hits. Something's wrong here. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete: A very compelling VfD nomination with a striking indictment of the article. It seems pretty much like a spoof. Geogre 04:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've also blanked the page. Having obvious hoaxes freely visible doesn't do much for our credibility. Ambi 13:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Beware. This article has several linking to it, and User:Pedant has made many changes to those articles.  These changes may also be false information. Clown, Stage name, Ronald McDonald, Dr. Demento, Glenn, Clownzo, George Voorhees.  It's not good to have blank articles lying about, so I'm making it a redirect to Hoax until we delete it.    — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 14:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. After Chameleon's post, I've been doing a bit of digging, and I'm beginning to suspect this guy might be one of the more clever vandals we've seen. He's added this, and George Voorhees (which I've speedy deleted as another, worse, hoax). Yet he's also made a mix of obviously bad and obviously good contributions, on top of this clear vandalism. Ambi 14:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment That's two articles you've deleted unilaterally there Ambi. How on Earth am I supposed to make a decision if I can't see the supposed problem?  Bad, bad Ambi.  Let Vfd do its work. The Steve 19:08, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

People have tried to substantiate the articles? How? Using google? The very nature of these folk is that they are somewhat obscure...

ever seen a photograph of Bozo the Clown out of his makeup? NO! you have not, because Bozo, being a syndicated character, does not exist without his makeup. Whatdoes Bozo mean? Can you find that out on the net? Not until it's put there.

Why is "monicker" the preferred clown spelling of moniker?

How do you confirm that?

What is the code of non-infringement?... well pretty much what it sounds like, but what does that mean to a clown?

Why is a clown alley an alley? What is the significance, in terms of status, of being 'on the door' of the alley - to a clown?

Who goes first in the clown car?

the answers to all of these questions arealmost universally known (and important) to clowns, yet almost unavailable to the layman. The answers might not be on the net, but there are answers, and they are verifiable and they areof significance culturally, worldwide, as EVERY culture has some version of the 'clown'

Say YOU were writing an article on the subject, where would you research it? Not on the net, yet in any country of the world there are experts available who could quickly accurately and unambiguously answer those questions, I am one of those people.I can referyou to other, if necessary. Want to substantiate who was the first live and first tv, ronald mcdonald?

not on the net, and not from mcdonalds, they are very secretive about it, as they have been involved in messy lawsuits about it... including one with george Voorhees that even he can't discuss, but which resultedin an injuntion preventing him from using the character or likeness. It's public record though,someoneableenough to go to the court housecould buy a copy for 6 dollars once they knew the titleof the case... I don't so I didn't mention it,,,

but you can contact willard scott, he will tell you he was the first television ronald mcdonald this can be verified from an archived copy of the mcdonalds website, which I posted alink to, which Icould find if you hadn't deletedit.

and from the 3 ads themselves, which I will happily post if I can get permission. or can email to you if you are interested.

You can note that on the first ad, A child states,"you really are ronald mcdonald!"

Ronald is already a known character before the ad! the first ad!

How? digging further, you find a picture of "Ronald Mcdonald (George Voorhees)entertains his fans at the Grand Opening of a localMcDonald's restaurant"

Why isn't this on mcdonald's site? they have a corporate interest in ronald, and want a younger clown with a more clean cut appearance, the original 2 versions ronald were a little bit 'old' and a little bit 'icky' looking by TV advertising standards of today.

I've seen the costume, saw the newspaper clipping, this is not original research it is a compilation, the willard scott material, at one time, was on the net but apparently you can barely even say McDonald's without cease and desist orders from on high, no matter where you are hosted, so maybe it's not there.

but really? is the wikipedia supposed to be a repository of information of encyclopedic nature? or only things that anyone can find on the web? if the latter is the case, why a wiki at all?

and I have seenshort-lived websites with the geo.voorhees stuff,but I personally haveseen the costume and interviewed both terry teene(who has nevereven tasted beer, he's so moral) and george, additionally there were hundreds of unavailable witnesses.

if it has to be verifiable on the net,then delete Art Carbecause you won'tfind Guitcycle, Eelvisa, or Nevada Car on the net... you won't get a quote from the owner of any of these cars...

What is the World Record longest time in the Fast Catch event in boomeranging? Not on the net,it would take good research just to find that one at all...unless you hadadozen eyewitnesses who all would eagerly tell you the drama a man with two throwing sticks can create in one minute,eightpoint nine seconds, in an event that is supposed to be over in well under 20 seconds. Find that on google.And yetthatrecord has heldandwilllikely hold a long time. 12 years so far.

If its a matterof it being false, well, actually it's true, everything I posted, except one glaring error (goldfinger was the movie, not octopussy, the one Terry Teene wrote pussy galore for (wasn't in the movie,but it's on vinyl)(personally, I'd be quite happy not to see that on wikipedia, I was just transcribing stuff wholesale from my notes. Actually I'd be happy if I never see that word again unless there are are mammals of the species felis involved)

if it is a matter of not being notable, well,it IS, you noted it...

if it is a matter of it not being written well or bad POV, well wiki up, it's open source, my new friend,

if it's just unwelcome material, tell me why, other than 'hoax' 'vandal', patently untrue. You can quite trust that if there is anything untrue in an article I touched, it's likely becauseI haven't read that far. "Like I am still mostly just past the first paragraph of Sovereignty

if it needs to wait until it comes out in my book it will be too late, I won't live that long, and I don't think too many people are left that can tell some of these stories ... should they be lost to history?

 * The burden of substantiation is on people who contribute material. Many contributors, including myself, don't always substantiate things as well as we should, but when challenged it is the contributor's job to answer the challenge by supplying verifiable information. When an article gives the impression of being fishy, some VfD participants will perform some quick checks, including Googling, as a form of "due diligence" to make sure we don't delete material that is easily verifiable. If the consensus of the discussants, based on our own knowledge and a little rough-and-ready due-diligence research, is that it still looks wrong, out it goes—unless someone—the contributor or someone else—presents information that changes our mind. If you look at VfD discussions, you will see that changes in opinion as the discussion progresses are very common. The reason for the long discussion is to give time for anyone interested to bring evidence to light.
 * If you wish to prevent the article from being deleted, what you must do is to create a rough consensus among the participants in this discussion. It's very unlikely that you can do this by attacking judgements that have already been made based on the information at hand. The most likely way to change peoples' minds to introduce new, verifiable information.
 * There's nothing wrong with deleting articles that are accurate but insufficiently. The articles can always be recreated when someone takes the trouble to substantiate them. There's no rush at all on putting things into Wikipedia; we're not trying to scoop anybody.
 * And we are not a channel for first publication of anything. If you have wonderful material that exists only as oral history, it is not Wikipedia's job to preserve it. You must find some other way of preserving it. Then, in a few years, when we can read books about it, see that people are talking about it on Usenet, etc. if someone then writes an article about it, there will be a basis for accepting it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text: User talk:216.220.26.151

title: User talk:216.220.26.151