text:
Talk:Zionism/Archive 5

JeMa: I added the info to show how early these other locations were catagorically rejected (sixth zionist conference). the page appeared to imply that Zionism and Zion (the location) are not linked. rather strange idea that the two are not inextracably linked. the page also failed to indicate where that "national homeland" might be. as if Palestine was a consolation prize. OneVoice 20:44, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Changed "30 years of Palestinian-Israeli conflict" to "70 years of Arab-Israeli conflict".

30 years of Palestintian-Israeli conflict indicates that one of the following is true:

 * 1) there have been only 30 years of conflict (which 30 years?)
 * 2) the Palestinians did not exist till prior to 30 years ago
 * 3) the Palestinians existed as a people for no more than 30 years.

30 years would be 1970. Surely, we agree that that conflict has lasted more than 30 years. Palestinians claims that their peoplehood is older than 30 years. "30 years of Palestinian-Israeli conflict" is factually incorrect. "more than 30 years...." would be a significant improvement yet hide the duration, similiarly one could write truthfully: "more than two years....".

The surrounding Arab states have played a significant role in the conflict. One could argue that they have played a larger role in the conflict than the Palestinians. The conflict began in 1948 at the latest. Hence, "more than 50 years of Arab-Israeli conflict". I would argue that the conflict can be reasonably dated from the Arab Revolt of 1936 or from the Massacres of 1929. Hence 70 years. OneVoice 13:13, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Sigh* 1. Israel didn't exist 70 years ago. 2. The article is about Zionism, not about the Israel-Palestine conflict. 3. The Palestinian-Israel conflict in its present form dates from the beginning of the PLO's terrorist campaigns against Israel, in about 1969. This is the relevent point in the context of the article. Please stop trying to stuff the article full of irrelevant (and usually inaccurate) material. Adam 14:12, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, lets take your points one by one.

1. "Israel didn't exist 70 years ago." Correct, Israel was founded in 1948. This page is about Zionism. Zionism preceded the founding of the State of Israel. The conflict began before the founding of the State of Israel. This makes 50 years a minimal number. No one has claimed that the State of Israel preceded 1948. We agree.

2. "The article is about Zionism, not about the Israel-Palestine conflict." Agreed again. The article mentions the Israel-Palestine conflict nonetheless, perhaps it should not? Deleting the clause is fine.

3. "The Palestinian-Israel conflict in its present form dates from the beginning of the PLO's terrorist campaigns against Israel, in about 1969". (Ah, 1969, this explains why is page says 30 years.)  Here is where we disagree. If we are to date the conflict from the onset of terrorism. Terrorist campaigns against Israel began already in the 1950's, which led to conflicts in Gaza and in Jordan (Samua for example: a terrorist attack by Fatah against three Israeli soldiers prompted an Israeli reprisal. A large Israeli force entered the Jordanian-occupied West Bank village of Samua, and encountered a battalion of Jordanian soldiers, leading to a firefight that left 15 Jordanian soldiers dead.). The conflict between the Jewish inhabitants of the area that would become Israel and the Arab inhabitants predates the founding of the State of Israel by at least half a year (since the UN resolution ending the Mandate). One might well argue that the conflict goes back to either the Arab Revolt 1936 and its attacks upon Jewish communities or to the Massacres of 1928. Others would argue that the conflict goes back to the events that resulted in the formation of the first Jewish armed defense organizations (example the Haganah formed in June 1920 . I should have written 80 years rather than 70.

The Arab states have played a major role in the conflict. Currently their role is limited to some limited funding of the PA/PLO, diplomatic support for the PA/PLO, economic boycott is Israel, continuing state of war (except for Egypt and Jordan (others with peace treaties?)), etc.

"30 years of Israel-Palestinian conflict, " does not mention in its present form even assuming that the present form is materially different than the previous form(s).

Hence I argue for a change to "80 years of Arab-Israeli" conflict.

 * More than 50 years after the founding of Israel, and after more than 30 years of Israel-Palestinian conflict, the great majority of Jews in all countries continue to regard themselves as Zionists and to support Israel in all circumstances, although many have misgivings about current Israeli policies. Some liberal or socialist Jews outside Israel still oppose Zionism as a matter of principle.

One could rewrite this as:

 * The great majority of Jews in all countries continue to regard themselves as Zionists and to support Israel. Some Jews have misgivings about current Israeli policies. Some Jews oppose Zionism as a matter of principle.

Liberal or Socialst misses the religious Jews that are opponents of Zionism.

Its not unequivically clear to me the meaning to be conveyed by "More than 50 years after the founding of Israel, and after more than 30 years of Israel-Palestinian conflict....continue to regard themselves as Zionists". Are they Zionists in spite of the passage of time and the conflict or because of it? Not clear to me. OneVoice 15:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Calm, nonpartisan issue - translation in caption
Could we have a translation of that poster in its caption? I would if I spoke Romanian... :) --Spikey 03:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The first line says "Toward a New Life" in Romanian, and the second line says "The Promised Land" in Hungarian.  The fine print says something in both Romanian and Hungarian but I'm not sure what that something is.  I guess "Unique Palestinian talking movie" but it needs someone fluent in one of those languages to say for sure. --Zero 11:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The fine print in Romanian says "The first Palestinian talking movie" --IulianU 09:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Small, minor issue
Made a small correction. The article says the IDF took western Jerusalem in 1967. Uh, no...it was the EASTERN sector. Let's try not to make the compass political?:-) --Penta 04:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socialist Zionism and Labor Zionism
There really should be some mention of Moses Hess, Syrkin and the whole socialist zionist and labor zionist tradition particularly given its influence in the kibbutzim movement, the haganah and the labor party. AndyL 05:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

feel free. Adam 05:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't have time! AndyL 18:58, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"among Jews"
Why the self-contradictory definition? Why not:

"This article examines Zionism as a political movement among Jews, although the term Zionist can be applied to any supporter of Zionism. Some Christians support Zionism for religious reasons: See Christian Zionism.)" - Mustafaa 06:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, the recent addition of "among Jews" makes it even more self-contradictory... Mustafaa 06:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Zionism was founded as a political movement among Jews, and remains so today. Non-Jews can sympathise with and support Zionism, but that does not alter the fact that it is a movement among Jews. Christian Zionism has entirely different motivations, as the article on it shows. Adam 07:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Zionism was founded by Jews but from the beginning there were Zionists who were not Jews and now there are more than ever. The motivations of Zionists vary but there is no clean partition of motivation between Jews and non-Jews. I can't see the logic in your position. --Zero 12:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Zionism was, is and remains a political movement among and for Jews. Go ask the World Zionist Organization or the American Zionist Organization. The latter group's website says: "The American Zionist Movement is a coalition of organizations and individuals devoted to the unity of the Jewish people and eternally connected to our homeland, Israel." That is to say, it is an organization of and for Jews.

There are of course non-Jews who support Zionism (although almost none outside the US these days), but that doesn't alter the truth of the above statement. Non-Jewish support for Zionism takes three forms:
 * the traditional support from the left for the Jews as an oppressed people (now almost entirely lost as the left has shifted its sympathy to the Palestinians) and for Israel as a semi-socialist state (now also lost).
 * newfound support from conservatives (nearly all in the US, though some such as Thatcher elsewhere), which is really support for Israel as a pro-Western state rather than support for Zionism per se, and is also strongly motivated by US domestic politics.
 * "Christian Zionism", which is in fact a form of anti-Semitism since it postulates the conversion of the Jews as a prelude to the second coming of Christ and has in reality nothing to do with Jewish Zionism.

To take an analogy, feminism is a political movement among and for women. Many men support the objectives of feminism, but that doesn't alter the truth of the preceding sentence. Adam 13:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you are wrong about "feminism" too. The fact that most feminists are women is a fact about the feminist movement, not a defining characteristic of the movement.  Male feminists are real feminists, not just sympathetic outsiders.  I think such political movements encompass everyone of like mind, such as for communism, or fascism.  It doesn't make a difference as to who it was that first formed fascist organizations or developed fascist theory; anyone who supports the fascist ideology is a fascist.  Same with Zionist and feminist.  --Zero 14:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. I can see no good reason to deny the label "feminist" to men who support feminism (except possibly bias against men.) Similarly, plenty of North African pan-Arabists have in fact been Berbers - and Wilfrid Blunt, though Christian, was a pan-Islamist. - Mustafaa 21:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and communism are universalist ideologies. Anyone can be a communist if they believe in the doctrines of communism. Zionism is a particularist ideology, a doctrine about the nature and destiny of the Jewish people and its relationship with the land of Israel. It is impossible for anyone who is not Jewish to fully participate in that ideology, no matter how sincerely they may believe its tenets. However, as I said, I think the great majority of non-Jewish support for Zionism is self-serving and not based in genuine philo-Semitism (a point you have not addressed). In any case, none of this alters the objective truth of the original statement, which is that "Zionism is a political movement among Jews." Look at the websites I cited and you will see that this is a simple statement of fact. It may be possible for a non-Jew to join the American Zionist Movement, but the website clearly assumes that all its members are Jews. Adam 00:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism are both particularist in the most obvious way, yet non-Arabs and non-Muslims have advocated both. Nor is the American Zionist Movement's usage proof that "true" Zionism is a movement among Jews only, any more than the existence of Christian Zionism is proof that "true" Zionism is only among Christians. And why does it matter whether non-Jewish Zionists are philo-Semitic or not? Where does it say that Zionists have to be philo-Semitic? - Mustafaa 02:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

"Nor is the American Zionist Movement's usage proof that "true" Zionism is a movement among Jews only." - Yes it is. Adam 02:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't see your reasoning. By the same logic, the Rastafarians' usage of the term "Zion" would prove that that term should be restricted to Jamaicans. - Mustafaa 03:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, note that some of the earliest Zionists mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia article were Christian (eg Hollingsworth.) - Mustafaa 03:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the frist section (after the introduction) reads:

"Zionism has always had both religious and secular aspects, reflecting the dual nature of Jewish identity, as both a religion (Judaism) and as a national or ethnic identity (Jewishness)."

I disagree with this sentence. The author(s) categorizes the "Jewish identity" into two categories: religious and "national or ethnic." I, however, feel the "jewish identity" to have a poly not dual meaning: religious, national, ethinic, culutral.... National and ethnic need to be seperate categories.

Adam 09:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Please put comments at the end of the talk-page.
 * Please sign your comments, no-one likes talking to anonymous people.
 * Perhaps you can explain what you see as the difference between "national" and "ethnic" in this context. Most people would see them as almost synonymous.
 * This is in any case not an article about Jewish identity. It is an article about Zionism, and the sentence you quote is only there to illustrate a point about Zionism.

"so-called"
Why "so-called" atrocities? They are well documented. I don't see "so-called" everywhere in the Holocaust article. If you are questioning the atroctities, it have to be substantiated. Zw

Protection
This is today's featured article. I'm going to protect it--the last thing we need is an edit war, or a total dispute message, on what's supposed to be our best work. Meelar 06:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * No. I strongly disagree with this. We can handle POV warriors and vandals without resorting to protection. →Raul654 06:16, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, unprotect if you will, but to have on the featured article is quite embarassing. Meelar 06:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I know... we're given the choice between protection or constant vandalism - bad and worse, and I can't really decide which is which. →Raul654 06:40, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is it too late to take this off the main page? Meelar 06:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to. "This article is a POV warrior magnet" is not suffecient reason to remove it. →Raul654 06:53, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I'll unprotect it, figuring someone else can always protect it later...right now I'm going to bed. Tomorrow's featured article ought to be History of the English penny, or something similarly noncontroversial. Meelar 06:59, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this article should remain protected until it moves out of "Featured" status. In fact, as a matter of policy, I think every day's featured article should be protected for the day of its featuring, even if it's about puppies wagging their tails, to keep from showing new readers just how immature some Wikipedians can be. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. All of our featured articles are improved as a result of the time they spend on the main page - I cannot think of a single exception. It's just that this case (and only this case, that I know of) is proving to have a particular difficulty with vandalism, but that does not mean it should not be featured, nor that it should be protected. I know that this article has been cited elsewhere as an an example of a truely NPOV article. ZW's complaints are groundless - one look at his talk page shows you that he is an unapologetic POV warrior. →Raul654 07:12, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

dispute notice
Please reinsert the dispute notice now. It has to be indicated that the current extremist and zionist propagandist version, where all opposition views are removed, is strongly disputed. This is Wikipedia, not us-israel.org. Zw

I removed the notice because this is not a genuine neutrality or accuracy dispute, it is just Zw (a notorious crank) making his regular attempt to insert his illiterate propaganda into this article. If every article under attack from people like Zw had to have a neutrality notice Wikpedia would have no credibility at all. There is always someone who disagrees with every article, but genuine disputes must be distinguished from attacks by cranks. Adam 06:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please refrain from name calling. It says alot more about you than me. This article is not intended to be a defence for a right-wing and extremist political view, but in a neutral way present the views on zionism of both those supporting and of those opposing it. You have deleted all references to the opposing view of zionism, a view which is more common than the supportive, I think, at least outside Israel and the US. Thus, the article is purely zionist propaganda. It is ridiculous to feature such junk, but at least the readers should be aware that this is the result of POV pushers managed to get the page proctected on their version, and that it is a disputed version. Remember also that this encyclopedia is not written only for Ku Klux Klan from Texas or occupied Palestine, but also for Arabs, Europeans and others. People who come across and see this article might be shocked, believe this is just another zionist (or nazi for that sake) propaganda site and decide never to come back. Zw

I think Zw's little rant proves my point very nicely. For the record there is an article Anti-Zionism, most of which I wrote, which describes the various forms of opposition to Zionism. Zw has no right to characterise my personal views about Zionism, about which he knows nothing. Adam 07:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Given your extensive contributions to the Zionism/anti-Zionism articles, and your very strong position in the present dispute, maybe one could ask you to declare what your personal views on Zionism and anti-Zionism are? pir 16:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Revert war
I don't much care who's right, but I don't like revert wars. This page is protected for the time being. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Please reinsert the dispute notice. It is unacceptable to remove the dispute notice from a disputed page. Zw 07:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * There's people that dispute that the Earth is round, but that doesn't justify shoving on the article. You're going to have to come up with something more convincing than "I dispute the article!"

 * If you want to get any sympathy from me, you're going to have to make a good faith effort here on the talk page. Here's a hint, calling a featured article junk and comparing Wikipedia to a propaganda site are generally not components of a productive dicussion. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your comparison is ridiculous and you know it. Even the UN have stated that zionism is racism, so this view is definitely worth a mention, in a neutral way, of course. Also the zionist point of view need to be presented as the zionist point of view, and not the truth. This is simply about NPOV or not NPOV. It is User:Adam Carr who is reverting a bunch of other other people, and it is him who need to talk. I have proposed other wordings to him, which he has rejected. It's up to him, not me. As it has been all the time. In any event, Carr's personal POV version of the article have been disputed before by numerous contributors. Zw 08:12, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The UN resolution is already in the article. Treatment of arabs as lower life forms (donkeys, even) is already in the article. Perpectives of arabs are already in the article. Most of your edits are just plain redundant, regardless of POV/NOPV issues. Please re-read the article. Ronabop 08:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zw is a liar as well as a crank. He knows that the UN has rescinded the resolution he refers to, which is in any case fully discussed at Anti-Zionism. He knows that I have reverted only him, and not "a bunch of people." And he knows that this article has been stable and generally accepted as a fair account of Zionism for months, until he decided to attack it with his propagandistic (and poorly-expressed) edits. Adam 08:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The crank Adam is a liar. Other views on zionism shall not be mentioned because of a UN resolution, which I am fully aware was withdrawn after American pressure, but because this is actually a common view, in the Arab world the dominating view, on zionism. The current introduction is a long tirade of zionist propaganda and POVs presented as the sole and only truth with no opposition. It is completely ridiculous and hair-raising.

As for reversions, from my last edit to your first revert to your old version, there had been 18 edits by a large number of other people, which you all reverted. This is bordering on vandalism. Zw 08:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Zw - Even though we allow anybody to edit we also require that those edits follow the will of those interested in the matter. That means you can add a dispute notice but if you are overruled by a supermajority of interested users, then you are overrulled and must accept the decision. So please vote in the below poll. --mav 10:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Zionist is frequently used by anti-Semitic groups as a euphemism for "Jew." This was also a common practice in the Soviet Union and its satellites, notably Poland, before their collapse in 1991. See Zionist Occupied Government for an example of the current use of the term Zionist in this way."

AFAIK, "euphemism" depicts a nice word for something bad, so I think it's clearly the wrong word here. Eike

Yes I agree. "Synonym" is the correct word. Adam 11:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Poll
Poll started on 13 June and will end on 20 June.

Should there be a dispute notice on this article?

Yes
 * 1) Bk0 17:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Clearly there is a dispute. Writing off opposition as 'cranks' is offensive.

No
 * 1) mav 10:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutrality 05:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this article apologetic to Zionists or otherwise not NPOV?

Yes
 * 1) pir 16:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC). I hesitated for a long time before voting, because I think that for the most part this article is absolutely excellent, very informative, one of the best at Wikipedia, mostly fair and NPOV. However it is not NPOV in the choice of what is omitted, most importantly the question of wether or not, or to what extent, Zionism is racist. Those Zionists who equate Jewish nationality with a particular ethnic group are clearly very close to a racist position - for example it is analogous to the view that a black or Asian person cannot be British or French. I am also struck by how closely Zionist immigration policies (granting all ethnic Jews the right to Israeli nationality and residence, while promoting resettlement of Arabs, with the general aim of creating/preserving a particular Jewish ethnic and cultural identity) mirror for example the immigration policies advocated by modern fascist European parties, like the French Front National or the British National Party ("right of return" e.g. for white Zimbaweans and others "of European stock", "resettlement" of non-white British citizens/residents, with the aim of creating/preserving a particular British ethnic and cultural identity ,). The question of how racist Zionism may or may not be is legitimate and important and needs to be adressed in this article if it is to be NPOV. Referring readers to anti-Zionism is not acceptable because this question is integral to Zionism, like other forms of nationalism (e.g. white nationalism), and because the anti-Zionism article constantly questions the nature of anti-Zionism in the light of anti-Semitism (esp. picture in article).
 * 2) Bk0 17:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I've been watching this debate and it seems clear to me that while this article in its current state isn't explicitly anti-Arab, it does present the sympathetic pro-Zionist view in a much more comprehensive way than the opposing view. The reader isn't presented with even a hint of the massive international controversy over this issue until the fourth section, which many casual readers may not even get to.

No
 * 1) mav 10:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should Zw's edits be restored after the article is unprotected?

Yes

No
 * 1) mav 10:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) pir 16:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) Zw's edits are too POV and unbalanced
 * 3) Bk0 17:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) Both Zw and Adam should refrain from editing after the page is unprotected.

Matters of historical truth and falsehood cannot be determined by majority vote. If Zw's edits are restored I will delete them, regardless of polls. Adam 11:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Supermajority, not majority. This poll is designed to show everybody where everybody else stands as far as this dispute is concerned so that it can be resolved. It is not a referendum on the truth - whatever that is. Note the use of the word "article" instead of value judgements on the topic. --mav 11:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we are having a "dispute" over content. We (or I anyway) are dealing with a crank and a pest. The best way to do that is to revert his edits until he goes away, not conduct polls. Adam 13:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From the Village Pump
The main page of Wikipedia displays an article about Zionism with a link to an article about Kingdom of Israel. The article about the Kingdom of Israel is based too much on Old Testament lore taken at face-value. For one thing, archaeology has shown that Jerusalem did not exist as a city in the period circa 1000 B.C. when Solomon was suppsoed to have ruled there, so the reference to Solomon as a king of Israel is pure fantasy. The story of Solomon is actually based on a king Sulayman who ruled in Arabia Felix.

I am especially sensitive to the inclusion of this kind of myth because I just read an argument about whether the dubious information about the Merovingians from Holy Blood, Holy Grail should even be mentioned in the article about them. Clearly, the myth about the ancient Kingdom of Israel has to be mentioned, because the myth is a powerful influence in Zionism, but at the same time the dubiousness of the Biblical account of the Kingdom of Israel should be discussed as well. Indeed, if fact is to be emphasized more than myth here as in the case of the Merovingians, the entry on the Kingdom of Israel should contain a high proportion of debunking. User:64.12.116.134--

 * You might care to look at The Bible and history, which points out that your statement "archaeology has shown" is probably a bit tentative. Of course there is discussion whether the Bible is historical, and whether the Jews can support it to advance claims on

the present Israel. An authority like William Albright has been quoted to say that archaeology supports the bible rather than disproving it.

 * For one thing, the myth of the Kingdom of Israel surely motivated the Zionists, whether it was true or not. JFW | T@lk  11:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)--

I was not quibbling with the article about Zionism but with the article about the Kingdom of Israel referenced therein. Solomon and David, the most famous putative kings of the mythical Kingdom of Israel, are supposed to have ruled at Jerusalem circa 1000 BC. Archaeology has indeed shown that there was no city on the site of Jerusalem at that time. This fact was punlished in Biblical Archaeology Review in the 1990s. It is not tentative at all.

To counter my specific point you cite a vague, general statement by evangelical Methodist archaeologist William Albright, who died in 1971 at a ripe old age. A great deal of work in Near-Eastern archaeology has been done since 1971, so a vague, general statement on the subject from a biased party who died 33 years ago is hardly worth consideration. The article on the Bible and History that you link confines itself to decribing various views of the question without mentioning specific archaeological evidence, so it is not relevant either.

We know nothing of a "Kingdom of Israel," only the Kingdom of Judea that was ruled by Roman clients like Herod the Great. The Biblical claim that there was a Kingdom of Israel ruled by David and Solomon is demonstrably false. In the period when those kings were supposed to be ruling at Jerusalem, there was an Egyptian temple on the site and very little else, and the historical Sulayman is known to have been a king somewhere else.

You are agreeing with me when you say that the mythical Kingdom of Israel should be mentioned in an article about Zionism, but one ought not to pretend or imply that this mythical Kingdom is historical. In particular one ought not to invoke the name of Solomon.

-- Simply saying that 'we know nothing of a "Kingdom of Israel"' is an argument from silence. It does nothing to discredit the existing accounts in the biblical literature.

In the 1990's people may have claimed that there were no ruins from the 10th century BC in Jerusalem, but that situation has changed. Perhaps they were just looking in the wrong place? Eilat Mazar, an Israeli archaeologist, discovered ruins of a huge public building dating from the 10th century B.C. which she believes to be the remains of King David's palace. That was reported in the New York Times last year, King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says. A .pdf file with photos and an interview is available here: Did I Find King David's Palace?

Statement
I take note of my previous calls on Adam Carr to refrain from name calling, and strongly deplore his continued personal attacks. I condemn his failure to cooperate with other contributors and his acts to silence, hide and obscure opposition to zionism from the article in question, as well as his refusal to accept that he do not own the article. I declare it imperative that dissenting views on zionism are also mentioned in the introduction, including the view that zionism is a form of racism and Jewish nationalism, and that the word "controversial" before "political movement" is re-added. Zw 22:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * You have a wordy way of saying "I hate the Jews". Why not just say it outright? Its not like we don't understand what you are really saying. RK 22:34, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * You didn't get it, right? The article is discussing Zionism, not Judaism. Just like Nazism is discussing Nazism, not christianity. If I say that nazism is a form of racism, do I have a wordy way of saying "I hate the Germans"? Is the UN, Amnesty International and others hating the Jews as well? Don't make yourself ridiculous. Zw 22:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * But, seriously, this is Nazipedia ;-) Zw 23:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Possibly amongst other things, it should also be mentioned somewhere in the article that some people consider zionism to be oppressive to women, which the international women's conference in Mexico City in 1975 decided. Zw 01:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to cite [RK]: "It is a total violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people, in a limited number of situations. Palestinian viewpoints that Anthere and Mirv disagree with, even if they are majority views, are censored and deleted."

I have to most sincerest agree with him. In this article, not only Palestinian, but roughly the views of most of the world outside Israel and the US are censored and deleted.

Another [RK] quote: "Stop the censorship, and stop the explicit and outrageous violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy."

Zw 01:29, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User ZW must be banned IMMEDIATELY
User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want to have to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to post personal information about any Wikipedia users, whether it is correct or incorrect, especially in the context of a flame war. I already have received a death threat from EntmootsOfTrolls (verified by other members of the Wiki-En discussion list); I also received what many interpreted as a threat from John Goode, aka Mr. Natural Health, who explicitly stated that he knew I was Jewish, lived in NY, and that he was a Nazi who also lived in NY. The threat was clear. I am not willing to allow more such threats to be made. Wikipedia must not allow death threats, nor must it ever allow private personal information to be put online. Wikipedia Sysops must purge this article's records so that such personal information is permanently removed. RK 00:25, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's absurd. There's no need to be ridiculously dramatic, I've seen no personal information posted here. If you have proof of illegal death threats, present them to the relevant authorities. Otherwise stop diverting attention away from the real issues here and lets figure out a way to get this article NPOV. --Bk0 01:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Firstly, sysops can not remove individual revisions from page history. Secondly, you've used your name on the Wikipedia mailing list, so he wasn't telling people anything that you hadn't told the Wikipedia community yourself. Angela. 02:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More discussions

 * --Clearly this article has been hijacked by people absolutely intent upon preserving their POV while slandering anybody that dares mention that this article is biased. Adam's behaviour on this page has been shameful and it seems obvious that he isn't interested in rational, productive discussion. This article needs to have the antizionist perspective mentioned in as neutral a way as is possible and no amount of name-calling will change that. --Bk0 08:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree to an extent. He has been reverting good material from the Anti-Zionist page as well, which is annoying because I've tried to carefully balance the discussion from both extremes, only to see my edits lost because he disagrees with edits that came before mine. If only he took the care to remove what he specifically disagreed with an why, it would be so much better. Instead, he's just cut off everything, simply calling it propaganda. Either way, I think his outstanding abilitly to contribute to the wikipedia might be better served with him taking time-off from these articles for a while. MShonle 09:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * The purpose of an encyclopaedia article on Zionism (or anything else), is to describe it and to give its history. An encyclopaedia article consists of statements of fact. The statement "Zionism is a political movement among Jews" is a statement of fact. The statement "Zionism is a form of racism," is an opinion, and cannot appear in an encyclopaedia article.
 * The statement "Professor X says that Zionism is a form of racism" is, however, a statement of fact, and therefore can appear. The question then is whether it should appear in this article.
 * I removed all critical commentary about Zionism from this article and transferred it (in a re-written form) to Anti-Zionism because (a) this article was getting too long, and (b) that material was causing endless arguments here. If Zw takes the trouble to read Anti-Zionism he will find that all his favourite anti-Zionist slogans are reported there.
 * Both this article and Anti-Zionism have been worked on by many people, representing various points of view but sharing a common view on how to write an encyclopaedia article. This is why both articles have been fairly settled for some months and are acceptable to most people whatever their opinions about Zionism.
 * Zw seeks to disrupt this because (a) he has no understanding of how to write an encyclopaedia article and (b) he is an anti-Zionist obsessive. I remain undecided about whether he is also an anti-Semite, as suggested above by K.
 * I deleted the word "controversial" because it is a meaningless cliche. All political are movements are controversial. Adam 02:43, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * --Wrong. Universal suffrage cannot be reasonably described as "controversial". Civil rights are no longer particularly controversial. The right to not be burned at the stake is no longer controversial. At any given time, certain political issues are controversial while others are not. Zionism is controversial. --Bk0 08:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Universal suffrage is indeed controversial in certain countries and cultures; Saudi Arabia comes to mind. So too with civil rights; China would be a good example.  The bottom line is that Adam is right, all political movements are controversial. Jayjg 16:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

However, "Zionism is a political movement among Jews holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland" and "Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel" are not facts, but zionist POVs. When you insist on including zionist POVs in the introduction, dissenting point of views have also to be mentioned, given that zionism is an extremely controversial issue. Also, it should be done in a neutral way (se below). It's done in this way in every other article related to controversial issues. Both nazism and anti-zionism are critical articles, neither of them are written solely from the nazi- og anti-zionist POV. Also, while some stuff can be dealt with in the anti-zionism article, the zionism article itself should present an outline of what zionism is, and adress the major controversy and various viewpoints. It would be silly to move all criticism of nazism to anti-nazism, wouldn't it? I feel you are trying to hide the criticism. I note also that the link to your anti-zionism article is placed only at the bottom of the zionism article right after "Zionist Occupation Government" and such obscurities.

This was my last version:

"Zionism is a controversial political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) according to the zionists themselves holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focussed on the establishment of a Jewish homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there. However, it has also been connected with Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people.

''Zionism is often considered a form of Jewish nationalism. Some people, particularly in the Arab world and increasingly in Europe, also see it as racism. This is rejected by the zionists.''"

I tried to avoid any POVs, from any sides. I've also already made it clear that I would agree to a different wording than "atrocities" (although they are facts), for example "the much criticized Israeli policies in regard to the Palestinian people" (note: "much criticized" (by both the UN, a large number of governments and human rights organisations) is a fact, not a POV). As for "Jewish nationalism", I cannot imagine that anyone would dispute this. Kofi Annan recently stated that zionism is a legitimate form of nationalism. But, "is often considered" does not mean the same as "is". Zw 03:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * "Atrocities" is as much a matter of opinion as anything else, and certainly not NPOV. In any event, the initial definition should be kept at straightforward as possible, and simply explain what Zionism is. It should not be loaded down with all the political baggage that comes later in the article, in particular all of its alleged faults.. Jayjg 17:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Atrocities are, by definition, atrocious. That's a clear subjective term if there ever was one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:30, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Too narrow

 * "Some liberal or socialist Jews outside Israel, as well as some Orthodox Jewish communities, still oppose Zionism as a matter of principle."

I don't agree with the above wording. I've met Jews from Israel who oppose Zionism as a matter of principle. Further, it is more than just liberals or socialist Jews who oppose Zionism. I think it would be less POV if it became:

 * "Ethnic, Reformed, Conservative, as well as some Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism as a matter of principle."

While it's true that some liberal or socialist Jews feel that way, it's a much wider community than just that that holds such a belief. To only tell of one side is to not tell the Whole Truth. MShonle 07:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * While the community that holds such beliefs is wide, it is also extremely shallow; the vast majority of Jews of all stripes and persuasions are still Zionist. Jayjg 16:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the term
When did this term first appear? Isn't it much older than the political movement that the article describes? I've learned a lot from the article, but I have these vague memories of "Zionist" being applied to Jewish rebels in the first few centuries, umm, "A.D.", and I was expecting an explanation here. Nathan 18:46, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * The term "Zionism" was coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal Self Emancipation in 1890 and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, or Zion. The First Zionist Congress led by Theodore Herzl adopted this idea as the Basel Program in 1897. ,

 * In his 1969 book Beware! Zionism, leading Soviet Zionologist Yuri Ivanov defines it as the "ideology of loosely linked organizations and political practice of Jewish bourgeoisie, fused with monopolistic spheres in the USA. Zionism sets off militant chauvinism and anti-communism."  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you! Reading that forced me to think back harder, and I now remember that the term my high school teacher was talking about was not not "zionist" but "zealot." Perhaps you can work your info into the article when it's unprotected, as it's always useful to know when a term (especially a controversial one) was coined. Nathan 10:15, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * The Ivanov's def went to Anti-Zionism, but the original one definitely belongs here.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 17:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've added part of Humus sapiens's text to the article. Nathan 14:15, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Page protection
What issues are currently under dispute at this article? What steps are being taken to resolve them? If there are no currently active disputes, when will the article be unprotected? Adam 22:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Given that things have calmed down, I'm going to unprotect the page. But should that situation change... -- Cyrius|✎ 23:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Palestine = Kingdom of Israel?
What empirical evidence is there that the territory of Palestine is definitively the site of the historical kingdom of Israel? Other than the highly suspicious "holy" books it seems to me that there is a lot more legend and religious opinion than scientific fact in this regard. This should be mentioned, yet my edits are continuously reverted. --Bk0 17:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Because archeological materials recovered in the area do not support your thesis.

Please ignore Bk0's anti-Semitic Bible conspiracy theories. The entry on Bible conspiracy theories explains where he comes from, and it isn't anyplace historically respectable. (Note that there is currently an edit war on that article. Zero and Mustafa find the info their inconvinent, so they keep deleting it all. Sadly, Zero censors significant amounts of verified information from many article, solely for the "sin" of presenting viewpoints he does not agree with. He has done this here, and on articles like Israeli West Bank barrier, and Israel Shahak. RK 04:40, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Land of Israel
The early Zionists and many later ones use this term extensively. It also avoids issues of boundaries imposed by Britain. The boundaries of the Land of Israel changed over time.

title: Talk:Zionism/Archive 5


text:
Marcus Junius Silanus (consul 46)

Marcus Junius Silanus (AD 14–54) was a Roman senator.

Biography
He was the eldest son of Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus and Aemilia Lepida. His mother was the great-granddaughter of the emperor Augustus. As a member of the imperial family, Silanus could therefore be considered a possible candidate for the succession. Silanus was born the same year his great-great-grandfather, Augustus, died.

Although he was honoured with a consulship by the Emperor Claudius in 46, and served as proconsular governor of Asia, Silanus did not survive the death of that Emperor. Although Tacitus exonerates Nero of Silanus' death, the 'first crime of the new principate,' the historian casts Agrippina, Nero's mother, as the architect of the murder, on the grounds that she feared that Silanus would avenge his brother's death, of which she was the perpetrator. As with Claudius, poison was the means to Silanus' end; the epitomator of Dio Cassius' Roman History tells us that Agrippina sent Silanus the same poison which she gave her late husband; and Tacitus informs us that the lethal drug was administered by a Roman of the Equestrian class named Publius Celerius, with the aid of a freedman named Helius. The pair committed the crime openly, and the Province of Asia eventually prosecuted Celerius for this deed; moreover, according to Tacitus, Nero saw to it that the prosecution was delayed to such an extent that Celerius died of old age.

Silanus' son, Lucius Junius Silanus Torquatus, whom Tacitus calls a young man of moderation (modesta iuventa), was considered a threat on similar grounds as his father had been, and informers soon invented a conspiracy implicating him and his aunt Junia Lepida on charges of magic rites and incest. Upon being exiled to Bari, he was set upon by a centurion and some guards. Young Silanus, however, did not open his veins, when invited to do so; he went down fighting with his fists, and Tacitus notes that the centurion was forced to run him through with his sword; his fatal wound, according to the historian, was in front.

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

title: Marcus Junius Silanus (consul 46)


text:
User talk:Veritass~enwiki

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text
 * IRC channel
 * Mailing lists
 * Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 05:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Epirus
Why did you remove the map from Epirus? And why are you editing your User page from an anonymous address? RickK

If you vandalize Epirus again, you will be blocked from editing. You can't just completely replace an entire article that has already been through the Wikipedia standardization process with one of your own that contains nothing but a block of text. You can't just delete a map and the links to Wikipedias in other languages. You can't just completely replace an article without discussing on the Talk page why you are replacing it. RickK 06:33, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Veritass, some of the material you presented at my Talk page is very interesting, and I will make some changes to Epirus as a result of reading it. But the edits you are making to the article are simply vandalism and will not be allowed. You will not make any friends at Wikipedia or win any arguments by this kind of conduct. All you will do is give Albanians a bad name, which would be a pity. Adam 06:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Veritass. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Veritass~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Veritass~enwiki


text: User talk:203.10.76.38

title: User talk:203.10.76.38


text: User talk:80.61.206.31

title: User talk:80.61.206.31


text:
User:Ocon/projects

Pages to work on: Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor - the spelling is terrible!

title: User:Ocon/projects


text:
ICube

iCube can refer to:

 * International Consortium of Universities for the Study of Biodiversity and the Environment (iCUBE)
 * Power Mac G4 Cube, a small form factor Macintosh personal computer from Apple Inc.
 * iCube Corporation, see Valups, a Korean company
 * iCube-1, a miniaturised satellite

title: ICube


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Polish names for German cities

This is the English Wikipedia. Besides that, this article seems to have been created in order to keep stirring up the Polish/German nationalist wars which continue to plague the English Wikipedia. RickK 05:11, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Foreign languages and translations seems to be slowly creeping up through out the English WP a word or two add a time. --Buster 05:35, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. User is clearly not interested in discussing the matter, as they've twice deleted the VFD notice.--gadfium 05:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: the title is not strictly correct because it contains the names of German regions and a couple of Austrian cities as well. Ianb 05:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Maybe nice to have in the Polish edition.) --Palapala 10:12, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
 * Delete. This belongs in the Polish Wikipedia, not here. - Kenwarren 13:15, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Information about variations of names of months, cities, countries, regions, personal names (e.g. Jacob, Iago, James) as they appear in various languages and in various eras are quite accetable here. I would vote keep for a list of Polish names of world cities (where the name differed from the standard English one). I would vote keep for a list of German names of world cities (where the name differed from the standard English one). I would vote keep on a table of major (and even minor) world cities in seven or more major languages. Not this. Jallan 17:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. But add them to List of European cities with alternative names first. bbx 01:12, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 17:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text: Category:Lieutenant Governors of Minnesota


text:
The Sandkings

"The Sandkings" is a 1995 Canadian-American television film based on the 1979 novella Sandkings by George R. R. Martin, and the first episode of the revived 1960s science-fiction television series The Outer Limits. It premiered on 26 March 1995 on Showtime and features three generations of the Bridges acting family: Beau, his father Lloyd, and son Dylan. Kim Coates and Helen Shaver also star.

The episode garnered five Gemini Award nominations. One of these was in the category of Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Dramatic Program or Mini-Series for Beau Bridges' leading role as Simon Kress, which also garnered nominations for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series and the CableACE Award for Best Actor in a Dramatic Series.

Plot
Dr. Simon Kress' (Beau Bridges) research for the government on Martian life is aborted because one of his specimens escaped his lab and almost made it to the surface. However, Kress does not agree with the abandonment of the project and decides to continue his experiments in his barn. He steals sand containing Martian eggs from his lab and creates a makeshift incubator to hatch more of the Martian lifeforms, which are dubbed "sandkings." Kress' obsession with the project causes his relationship with his wife Cathy (Helen Shaver) to break down. The family dog, Cowboy, is eaten by sandkings after stepping into their territory, having been awoken by their digging.

The sandkings evolve into two distinct groups, a white group and a red group, and they settle on opposite sides of their glass enclosure. Kress comes to believe that he is a god to his sandkings when the white group builds a sand structure that resembles his face. He smashes the sand structure of the red group who did not do the same, one of them getting loose and stinging him. He kills his former supervisor Dave Stockley (Kim Coates) by tossing him into the enclosure, where the sandkings then devour him. Later, he finds himself in the basement with the red sandkings, who have made a nest with the face of Stockley. He breaks a gas pipe to cause an explosion in an attempt to kill all of the sandkings. In the ending of the episode, a colony of sandkings is shown surviving in the wilderness.

Aftermath
The Sandkings thrived after their escape from Kress' home laboratory. Fragments from the episode are included in the final episode of season one, "The Voice of Reason". There, clips from "The Sandkings" are used to support an argument that the Earth is undergoing a number of different alien invasions. Later in the episode, two alien conspirators acknowledge, in private conversation, that the Sandkings could become a serious problem in about thirty years, assuming that they could survive in a methane-based atmosphere, which the aliens intended to gradually transform from the Earth's human-friendly one.

In the sixth-season episode "Final Appeal", we discover that the Sandkings plague has been eradicated, which took "the better part of a decade" to complete.

Differences from the original story

 * The action of the original story Sandkings by George R. R. Martin takes place in the distant future on a faraway planet colonized by humans.
 * The original story does not specify the planet of Sandkings' origin.
 * Simon Kress is possessed by neither scientific interest nor desire to receive the Nobel Prize but simple cruelty (there is a difference between cruelty and aggression), the application of which influences the sandkings.
 * There are no Maws that act to control the Sandkings.
 * No betting takes place, even though that is a fairly major plot point in the original story.
 * The faces don't change based on the SandKing's perception of their "God".
 * There are only 2 groups, not 4.
 * There is no psionics explaining any of the characters' action.
 * There are two murders instead of at least ten.
 * There is no real elaboration about the Sandkings.
 * Most of the horror elements have been removed; the original story was mostly science fiction with a small bit of horror.
 * All of the actions taken to destroy the SandKings are changed.
 * The protagonist is a family man, as opposed to a wealthy bachelor in the novelette.
 * Without the Maws and their increasing size and intelligence as well as their psionic ability, there is no way to examine the idea of superintelligence or evolution.
 * In the original story, at least one alien is involved in importing the Sandkings; in this retelling, humans bring the Kings back themselves.
 * The episode examines the themes of hubris and ecological catastrophe rather than the responsibility of a parent ("God") to a child and how that child will "grow up".

Awards and nominations

 * In 1995, for the role of Simon Kress, actor Beau Bridges was nominated for an Emmy Award in the category "Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series".
 * In 1996, The Outer Limits TV-series was nominated for some Gemini Awards, including Beau Bridges receiving a nomination in the category "Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Dramatic Program or Mini-Series", and the episode "SandKings" was nominated in the category "Best TV Movie or Mini-Series" and "Best Sound in a Dramatic Program or Series". Also, for this episode, Joseph L. Scanlan was nominated for "Best Direction in a Dramatic Program or Mini-Series", and Peter Outerbridge was nominated for Best Performance by an "Actor in a Leading Role in a Dramatic Program or Mini-Series".
 * Beau Bridges was nominated for the CableACE Award for Best Actor in a Dramatic Series.

title: The Sandkings


text:
Talk:Kartuzy County

Commas?
Is there a reason that no commas are used in the number formatting in this article? I didn't want to just go changing those, if it is some sort of cultural thing that I'm not aware of... Commodorepants 04:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kartuzy County is a county in the Pomeranian Voivodship, whose capital is Kartuzy.

This makes is sound like Kartuzy is the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship. If that's not the case, a better way to phrase this would be

Kartuzy County, whose capital is Kartuzy, is a county in the Pomeranian Voivodship of Poland.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Kartuzy County. 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/20080505094648/http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_655_PLK_HTML.htm to http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_655_PLK_HTML.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kartuzy County


text:
Video game censorship

In video games, censorship are efforts by an authority to limit access, censor content, or regulate video games or specific video games due to the nature of their content. Some countries will do this to protect younger audiences from inappropriate content using rating systems such as the ESRB rating system. Others will do this to censor any negative outlook on a nation's government.

Overview
Support for video game regulation has at times been linked to moral panic. Even so, governments have enacted, or have tried to enact, legislation that regulates distribution of video games through censorship based on content rating systems or banning. In 2005, David Gauntlett claimed that grant funding, news headlines, and professional prestige more commonly go to authors who, in good faith, promote anti-media beliefs. Tom Grimes, James A. Anderson, and Lori Bergen reiterated these claims in a 2008 book examining sociological effects on the production of media effects research.

Voluntary regulation
Voluntary rating systems adopted by the video game industry, such as the ESRB rating system in the United States and Canada (established in 1994), and the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) rating system in Europe (established in 2003), are aimed at informing parents about the types of games their children are playing (or are asking to play). Some ratings of controversial games indicate they are not targeted at young children ("Mature" (M) or "Adults Only" (AO) in the US, or 15 or 18 in the UK). The packaging warns such games should not be sold to children. In the US, ESRB ratings are not legally binding, but many retailers take it upon themselves to refuse the sale of these games to minors. In the United Kingdom (UK), the BBFC ratings are legally binding. UK retailers also enforce the PEGI ratings, which are not legally binding.

Canada
The Ontario Film Review Board and the British Columbia Film Classification Office respectively prohibited the sale of Manhunt and Soldier of Fortune to customers under the age of 18, notwithstanding their ESRB "Mature" ratings, by legally classifying them as films and giving them a "Restricted" rating. Ontario, as well as several other provinces, have since adopted laws that allow the ESRB ratings system to be enforceable by law, primarily by making it unlawful for retailers to sell "Mature" or "Adults Only" rated games to customers who are not appropriately-aged.

China
Video game consoles were banned in Mainland China in June 2000. This ban was finally lifted in January 2014. However, the Chinese would still police video games which would be "hostile to China or not in conformity with the outlook of China's government". Reported by Bloomberg, metaphorically speaking, Cai Wu, head of China's Ministry of Culture, said "We want to open the window a crack to get some fresh air, but we still need a screen to block the flies and mosquitoes.".

Several video games have been banned in China due to unfavorable views on war, history, and government. In 2004, Hearts of Iron was banned as the Ministry of Culture deemed the games portrayal of World War II to be distorted. In 2013, the Chinese Ministry banned Battlefield 4 as they claimed it misrepresented China and was an attempt to "smears China's image".

Display of blood in Chinese game industry is strictly limited, if not banned. Before 2019, blood in many games cannot be red. The new ban prohibits the presence of any blood.

In addition, chat in Chinese video games is subject to similar or even wider restrictions as elsewhere on the Chinese Internet. For example, the chat in the English-language version of Genshin Impact censors not only swear words but also words such as Taiwan, Tibet, Hong, Kong, Falun Gong, Stalin, Hitler and Putin. A study of about 200 Chinese games found out that over 180,000 words have been subject to blacklisting.

Germany
The German Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) in § 86 outlaws the dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations, § 86a the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations, § 130 Volksverhetzung (agitation of the people), and § 130a instructions for crimes. In the official lists, these four sections are always bundled, so any game that contains swastika flags and/or any depiction of Adolf Hitler is listed alongside racist propaganda pieces.

§ 131 outlaws representation of excessive violence in media "which describe cruel or otherwise inhuman acts of violence against human or humanoid beings in a manner which expresses a glorification or rendering harmless of such acts of violence or which represents the cruel or inhuman aspects of the event in a manner which injures human dignity."

One notable example of censorship in Germany is that of Call of Duty: WWII. In the German version of the game, swastika symbols are removed and replaced with Iron Crosses. Another censored video game in Germany was Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus, where Hitler's famous mustache was digitally removed and swastikas were replaced with triangular symbols.

On August 9, 2018, USK announced that the German government will relax this Section § 86a restriction on video games, as long as the imagery included falls within the "social adequacy" allowance. USK will still evaluate how this imagery is used and reject games they believe fail to meet the social adequacy allowance. In November 2019, several sequels from Wolfenstein series became uncensored in Germany.

Japan
The Japanese versions are known for removing or heavily modifying anything and all related to sex and nudity in the game out of fear and concern for the "morality" of its citizens. In general, censorship in Japan aims to reduce gore and extreme violence in the localized versions of games.

Japan's game regulatory system is CERO for home video games and EOCS, JCRC for pornographic games.

South Korea
"Indecent" websites, such as those offering unrated games, any kind of pornography, and gambling, are also blocked. Attempts to access these sites are automatically redirected to the warning page showing "This site is legally blocked by the government regulations." Search engines are required to verify age for some keywords deemed "inappropriate" for minors.

Mexico
Mexico voluntarily adopted the ESRB rating system for rating video games.

United States and territories
The United States, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands all voluntarily comply with the ESRB rating system.

History
The first major controversy over video games in the United States was in the early 1990s, when games such as Mortal Kombat and Night Trap released, which were known for scenes that would be considered too violent or too sexual for kids. The issue regarding video games eventually made it into the United States Congress. After a proposal to have a government commission to establish video game ratings, the Interactive Digital Software Association was established by major video game corporations and presented the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) to the Congress, which was approved and would become the standard of video game ratings.

Jack Thompson has criticized "violent video games", claiming that playing violent video games leads to teenagers replicating those behaviors in the real world. He often represented victims or parents of victims in cases regarding shootings, usually blaming the actions on the perpetrator having played violent video games. Thompson also supported a campaign that tried to stop the release of Bully.

In 2013, the Entertainment Software Association, the lobbying group for the video games industry, had enlisted over 500,000 members to the "Video Game Voters Network," a "grassroots" lobbying group to mobilize gamers to act against public policy that may negatively impact the gaming industry. The VGV was launched in 2006 by the ESA, and uses social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to inform members of allies and opponents. In 2013, the ESA spent over US$3.9 Million on lobbying, including but not limited to against VVG legislation. This included opposing a bipartisan federal bill that would direct the National Academy of Sciences to study the effects of all forms of violent media. Such bills themselves had come under criticisms from some scholars for pressuring scientists to find specific outcomes rather than studying the issues neutrally

US government legislation
The regulation of video games have been historically supported by politicians such as Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, who have pushed legislation for regulating video games.

No video game console manufacturer has allowed any game marked AO to be published in North America; however, the PC gaming service Steam has allowed AO titles such as Hatred to be published on its platform. No major retailers are willing to sell AO-rated games, although the immensely popular PlayStation 2 game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was briefly rated AO after the presence of the Hot Coffee add-on became evident. The add-on was later removed, with the game's rating returning to M. In the 109th Congress and 110th Congress, the Video Games Enforcement Act was introduced to the US House of Representatives. The act required an identification check for the purchase of M and AO rated games. The bill and others like it did not succeed because of likely First Amendment violations. Although no law mandates identification checking for games with adult content, a 2008 survey by the Federal Trade Commission showed that video game retailers have voluntarily increased ID verification for M- and AO-rated games, and sales of those games to underage potential buyers decreased from 83% in 2000 to 20% in 2008. A further survey in April 2011, found that video game retailers continued to enforce the ratings by allowing only 13% of underage teenage shoppers to buy M-rated video games, a statistically significant decrease from the 20% purchase rate in 2009.

On 7 January 2009, Joe Baca, representative of California's 43rd District, introduced H.R. 231, the Video game health labelling act. This bill called for a label to be placed in a "clear and conspicuous location on the packaging" on all video games with an ESRB rating of T (Teen) or higher stating, "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." The proposed legislation was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. On 24 January 2011, Joe Baca reintroduced the Video game health labelling act as H.R. 400 of the 112th Congress. The bill was once again passed onto the subcommittee.

On 27 June 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. Video games were protected speech under the First Amendment. The case centered on a California law that sought to restrict sales of violent video games to minors. The video game industry, led by the Entertainment Merchants Association and the Entertainment Software Association, successfully obtained an injunction on the bill, believing that the definition of violence as stated in the California law was too vague and would not treat video games as protected speech. This opinion was upheld in lower courts, and supported by the Supreme Court's decision. The majority of the justices did not consider the studies brought to their attention as convincing evidence of harm, and stated that they could not create a new class of restricted speech that was not applied to other forms of media. However, Justice Breyer's minority decision found the evidence more convincing.

Deana Pollard Sacks, Brad Bushman, and Craig A. Anderson objected to the ruling, claiming that the thirteen experts who authored the Statement on Video Game Violence on the Brown side were considerably more academically merited, and had on average authored over 28 times as many peer-reviewed journal articles about aggression/violence based on original empirical research as the signatories supporting the EMA, whereas the over 100 signatories supporting Brown had on average authored over 14 times as many. Richard Hall, Ryan Hall, and Terri Day replied: "It is not surprising that Anderson and Bushman found their own qualifications and the qualifications of those who agree with them to be superior to the qualifications of those who disagree with them", and claimed that they might have used methodology which have undercounted contributions of some scholars. On 3 April 2013, Dianne Feinstein, a Californian senator and Democrat, spoke in San Francisco to a group of 500 constituents about gun violence. She said video games have "a very negative role for young people, and the industry ought to take note of that" and that Congress might have to step in if the video games industry did not cease to glorify guns.

title: Video game censorship


text:
User:Veritass~enwiki

Hello. I am Veritass. My principle is simple: Provide arguments and references. "To provide arguments means to follow Christ"says a writer. He is right; the argument does not know tricks and offense, because it is constantly permeated by the light of reason. Then let us refer to them for every thing.

title: User:Veritass~enwiki


text:
Russet-throated puffbird

The russet-throated puffbird (Hypnelus ruficollis) is a species of near-passerine bird in the family Bucconidae, the puffbirds, nunlets, and nunbirds. It is found in Colombia and Venezuela.

Taxonomy and systematics
The taxonomy of the russet-throated puffbird is complicated. BirdLife International's Handbook of the Birds of the World (HBW) assigns three subspecies, the nominate H. r. ruficolis, H. r. decolor, and H. r. coloratus. The International Ornithological Committee (IOC) adds H. r. striaticollis. Like HBW, the Clements taxonomy does not recognize striaticollis; both include it within decolor. But Clements adds H. r. bicinctus and H. r. stoicus, which the other two systems assign to the two-banded puffbird (H. bicinctus). The South American Classification Committee of the American Ornithological Society (SACC) recognizes that treating H. bicinctus as a species might be valid but has not received a formal proposal for the split.

Description
The russet-throated puffbird is 20 to 22 cm long and weighs 41 to 57 g. The adult of the nominate subspecies has a dark brown crown with pale brown spots, a reddish spot just over the bill, a white patch around the eye and on the cheek, and a black patch below and behind the white one. The nape has a narrow buffy or white collar. The upperparts are dull brown with grayish mottling while the closed wing is dull brown with buffy "scales". The tail is long and dark brown with thin pale edges to the feathers. The chin is white and the throat and upper breast rich rufous. Under them are a thin white and a wide black band across the chest. The rest of the underparts are reddish buff with black bars or spots on the flanks. The bill is black, the eye yellow to white, and the feet black or dull green.

H. r. decolor is paler above than the nominate, its lower breast and belly are whiter, and there is less dark barring on the flanks. H. r. coloratus compared to the nominate has blacker cheeks, a deeper orange throat, and underparts that are a richer orange-buff.

Distribution and habitat
The four subspecies of russet-throated puffbird recognized by the IOC are distributed thus:

 * H. r. decolor, extreme northeastern Colombia into western Venezuela
 * H. r. ruficollis, northern Colombia and western Venezuela
 * H. r. striaticollis, northwestern Venezuela's Zulia and Falcón states
 * H. r. coloratus, western Venezuela south of Lake Maracaibo

The species inhabits a variety of open to semi-open landscapes including the interior and edges of open deciduous forest, treed savanna, dense secondary forest, and arid scrub with scattered trees. In elevation it has been recorded up to 700 m in Venezuela and as high as about 1300 m in Colombia. It is thought to be a year-round resident throughout its range.

Feeding
The russet-throated puffbird still-hunts from a perch up to 8 m above ground. It sallies to capture prey on the ground, in vegetation, or on branches or trunks. Its diet is mostly insects but also includes small vertebrates like lizards and some fruits.

Breeding
The russet-throated puffbird has been documented breeding in May in Colombia and in August and September in Venezuela. It usually excavates a burrow in an arboreal termitarium and occasionally uses the oven-shaped nest of pale-legged hornero (Furnarius leucopus). The clutch size is three eggs.

Vocalization
The russet-throated puffbird's song is "repeated rhythmic 'woduk' notes in crescendo for up to 20 seconds, then diminishing". It is usually sung at dawn and often by both members of a pair. They also make a "seeeeep" call.

Status
The IUCN has assessed the russet-throated puffbird as being of Least Concern. It has a large range, and though its population size has not been determined it is believed to be stable. It occurs in at least one protected area in each of Colombia and Venezuela.

title: Russet-throated puffbird


text:
Two-banded puffbird

The two-banded puffbird (Hypnelus bicinctus) is a species of near-passerine bird in the family Bucconidae, the puffbirds, nunlets, and nunbirds. It is found in Colombia and Venezuela.

Taxonomy and systematics
The taxonomy of the two-banded puffbird is unsettled. The International Ornithological Committee (IOC) and BirdLife International's Handbook of the Birds of the World (HBW) consider it a species. They assign two subspecies, the nominate H. b. bicinctus and H. b. stoicus. However, the Clements taxonomy treats the two as subspecies of the russet-throated puffbird (H. ruficollis). The South American Classification Committee of the American Ornithological Society (SACC) recognizes that treating H. bicinctus as a species might be valid but has not received a formal proposal for the split.

Description
The adult of the nominate subspecies of two-banded puffbird has a dark brown crown with pale brown spots, a buffy patch from the bill to the eye, a whitish patch on the cheek, and a black patch below and behind the white one. The nape has a narrow whitish collar. The upperparts are dull brown with whitish mottling while the closed wing is dull brown with whitish scallops. The tail is long and dark brown with thin pale edges to the feathers. The chin is whitish and the throat and upper breast reddish buff. Under them are two black bands across the chest. The rest of the belly is reddish buff with black spots on its upper edge and the flanks are whitish with large black spots. H. b. stoicus is similar but slightly browner and paler above, has a less dramatically marked face, and has buff tips to the feathers of the upper breastband.

Distribution and habitat
The nominate subspecies of two-banded puffbird is found in the llanos of northeastern Colombia and into northern Venezuela almost to Lake Maracaibo on the west, east to near the Guyana border, and south slightly into Amazonas and Bolívar states. H. b. stoicus is found only on Margarita Island off the central Venezuelan coast. On the mainland it inhabits open and near open landscapes including the llanos savanna, thickets, abandoned farms, and the edges of deciduous woodland. It occurs almost exclusively below 500 m of elevation. On Margarita it inhabits bushland and woods from plains into the foothills. No seasonal movements have been documented, though its habitat undergoes seasonal changes. It sometimes is common in an area and then vacates it for several years.

Feeding
The two-banded puffbird still-hunts from a high open perch or a lower shaded one. It sallies to capture its prey; its diet has not been fully documented but is known to include insects.

Breeding
The two-banded puffbird's breeding season appears to include May and June, though details are lacking. It excavates a burrow in an arboreal termitarium. Its clutch size has not been determined, but that of its former conspecific russet-throated puffbird is three eggs.

Vocalization
The two-banded puffbird's song is "a rhythmic repeated 'tak-ta-tóoo'" and its call "a croaking note, surpisingly loud" that is sometimes given in flight.

Status
The IUCN has assessed the two-banded puffbird as being of Least Concern. It has a large range, and though its population size has not been determined it is believed to be stable. It is generally common throughout its mainland range, and "human land uses do not appear to pose any immediate threats." Its status on Margarita Island isn't known.

title: Two-banded puffbird


text:
Talk:The Sandkings

Country
What country is this shown in?

Deletion debate results
Results of deletion debate: Votes for deletion/The Sandkings. Consensus to keep. DJ Clayworth 21:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Differences from the short story
There are a number of differences between the show and the short story this episode is based on. Should they be listed? BethEnd 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I feel so 76.172.230.213 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sand Kings.jpg
Image:Sand Kings.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 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 04:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Sandkings


text:
That Girl

That Girl is an American TV series sitcom that ran on ABC from September 8, 1966, to March 19, 1971. It starred Marlo Thomas as the title character, Ann Marie, an aspiring (but only sporadically employed) actress who moves from her hometown of Brewster, New York, to try to make it big in New York City. Ann has to take a number of offbeat temp jobs to support herself in between her various auditions and bit parts.

It was one of the first sitcoms to focus on an unmarried woman who was not a domestic or living with her parents, a forerunner of The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

Ted Bessell played her boyfriend Donald Hollinger, a writer for Newsview Magazine. Lew Parker and Rosemary DeCamp played Lew Marie and Helen Marie, her concerned parents. Bernie Kopell and Ruth Buzzi played Ann and Donald's friends. That Girl was developed by writers Bill Persky and Sam Denoff, who had served as head writers on The Dick Van Dyke Show (which Thomas' father, Danny Thomas, co-produced) earlier in the 1960s.

Premise

The show reflected the changing roles of American women in feminist-era America. Thomas' goofy charm, together with Bessell's dry wit, made That Girl a solid performer on the ABC Television Network, although the series never made the top thirty during its entire five-year run.

At the end of the 1969–1970 season, That Girl was still doing moderately well in the ratings, but after four years Thomas had grown tired of the series and wanted to move on. ABC convinced her to do one more year. In the beginning of the fifth season, Don and Ann became engaged, but they never actually married. The decision to leave the couple engaged at the end of the run was largely the idea of Thomas. She did not want to send a message to young women that marriage was the ultimate goal for them, and she worried that it would have undercut the somewhat feminist message of the show.

Intro
Every episode started with a small cold open; the dialogue would always turn to Ann, as one of the characters would make an assertive reference to her as "that girl"; the camera would freeze frame on a surprised Ann. This was followed by the opening credits and theme music (written by Earle Hagen). During the first four seasons, the theme song was instrumental only; in the fifth and final season, lyrics (written by Denoff) were added.

Production notes
According to Marlo Thomas, she was approached by ABC executive Edgar Scherick, who saw her in a screen test for a failed pilot, but still wanted to feature her in a project. Scherick gave Thomas several scripts to read, none of which she liked, as they all focused on a woman who was either a traditional girlfriend, wife or secretary to someone else; Thomas wanted a show in which the main character was a young, modern woman focused on her dreams and aspirations.

Although never officially credited as such (Persky and Denoff were the series' creators and official executive producers), Thomas was also a de facto executive producer of the series through her Daisy Productions, which she formed specifically for the series; it was credited on-screen as the production company. She originally wanted to name the sitcom Miss Independence, the nickname given to her by her parents.

Manhattan exterior shots were filmed in several days. Initially, the apartment was located off the East River on the Upper East Side, in the former East End Hotel (originally known as the Junior League Hotel for Working Women) at 78th Street and the FDR Drive, as seen in several first season episodes, including "What's in a Name" where Ann can be seen exiting a taxicab. In the episode entitled "That Señorita", Ann lists her address as 627 East 54th Street. In the second season - with a new exterior - in the episode "Nothing to Be Afreud of but Freud Himself", Donald gives out her address as 344 West 78th Street, Apartment D. Ann's acting school was modeled after the Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre on East 54th Street between First and Second Avenues. That Girl was filmed at Desilu-Cahuenga Studios (for many years called Ren-Mar Studios and now called Red Studios Hollywood), located at 846 North Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood.

Characters

 * Ann Marie (Marlo Thomas), a beautiful young would-be actress from Brewster, New York, who moves to New York City in order to seek stardom, often tries to balance temporary jobs and auditions with having a boyfriend.
 * Donald Hollinger (Ted Bessell), writer for NewsView magazine, who becomes Ann's boyfriend after meeting her working in the lobby of the building where he works.
 * Lew Marie (Harold Gould pilot only; Lew Parker), Ann's father and the owner of the La Parisienne restaurant in Brewster, New York.
 * Helen Marie (Penny Santon pilot only; Rosemary DeCamp), Ann's mother.
 * Dr. Leon Bessemer (Dabney Coleman), a neighbor of Ann and an obstetrician.
 * Judy Bessemer (Bonnie Scott), Leon's wife and Ann's neighbor, the first person Ann meets as she moves into her new apartment.
 * Jerry Bauman (Bernie Kopell), a fellow employee of Donald's at NewsView magazine. After the first season, Jerry and Ruth lived next door to Ann in Apt. C.
 * Margie Bauman (Arlene Golonka), Jerry's wife in the episode "Rain, Snow and Rice" in the first season.
 * Ruth Bauman (Carol Ann Daniels), Jerry's wife in the episode "There's Nothing to be Afreud of But Freud Himself" in the second season.
 * Ruth Bauman (Alice Borden), Jerry's wife beginning in the episode "Write is Wrong" in the fourth season.
 * Margie "Pete" Peterson (Ruth Buzzi), a friend of Ann.
 * Harvey Peck (Ronnie Schell), one of Ann's agents at the Gilliam and Norris Theatrical Agency.
 * George Lester (George Carlin), another one of Ann's agents in a single episode.
 * Mildred Hollinger (Mabel Albertson), Donald's mother.
 * Bert Hollinger (George Cisar, later Frank Faylen), Donald's father.
 * Jules Benedict (Billy De Wolfe), head of the Benedict Workshop of the Dramatic Arts.
 * Marcy (Reva Rose), friend of Ann's who appears in four episodes in season 5.

Episodes
Five complete seasons of That Girl aired, with the series finale airing on March 19, 1971. Over the five seasons, a total of 136 episodes aired. Thomas' sister Terre, her brother Tony, and father Danny Thomas all appeared in a 1969 episode called "My Sister's Keeper".

Pilot
The only episode never shown during the series' original network run was the pilot produced in 1965. The major differences were evident in its opening credits. Bessell's character was Don Blue Sky, Ann's talent agent who was part Cherokee, and Harold Gould and Penny Santon played her parents. By the time the series aired on ABC, Thomas and Bessell were the only actors to receive top billing.

The pilot episode centered on Ann's attempt to adopt a stage name based on her agent's suggestion. After her use of "Marie Brewster" (the names of her family and hometown combined) was met with disapproval from her parents, she decided to not make the change in the end. This storyline and numerous scenes were recycled into the 11th episode of Season 1 titled "What's in a Name?" from November 17, 1966.

The pilot was included in the 5-disc set of That Girl: Season One, which was released by Shout! Factory in 2006. It has since been added to the series' broadcast syndication package; it led off a New Year's Day marathon on MeTV at the start of 2012.

Syndication and home media
ABC aired reruns of the show on its daytime schedule from June 1969 to March 1972. Reruns have aired on TV Land from the network's launch in 1996 to 1998. On January 1, 2012, That Girl reruns returned to national television on MeTV with episodes shown on weekday mornings and Sunday afternoons until September 1, 2013. On September 1, 2014, the show returned to MeTV. The series is distributed by CBS Television Distribution. Beginning January 2, 2020, the show currently airs on Antenna TV. As of 2020, the series is available on Tubi and Amazon Prime.

Shout! Factory has released all five seasons on DVD in Region 1. Each release contains extensive bonus features including episodic promos, featurettes, commentary tracks and the original pilot episode.

In Region 4, Madman Entertainment has released all five seasons on DVD in Australia/New Zealand. On April 21, 2010, Madman released That Girl: The Complete Series, a 21-disc box set that features all 136 episodes, as well as extensive bonus features.

Novel

 * Paul W. Fairman, That Girl, New York: Popular Library, 1971. 125 pp.
 * Newly engaged Ann travels to Maine to take the role of Cathy in a production of Wuthering Heights but finds herself embroiled in a real-life gothic.

Spin-offs
In 1973, Rankin/Bass produced That Girl in Wonderland, an animated television special in which Marlo Thomas reprised the role of Ann. It aired as an episode of The ABC Saturday Superstar Movie on January 13, 1973. The special also featured the voices of Patricia Bright, Dick Hehmeyer, Rhoda Mann, and Ted Schwartz.

Popular culture
The series' theme song and opening visuals have been parodied in pop culture several times. They appeared as a series of T-shirts, then as a Saturday Night Live skit featuring Danitra Vance in an African American remake "That Black Girl", and as a sequence on episodes of Animaniacs, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Clarissa Explains It All, Arthur, Friends and Roseanne.

The 2011 advertising campaign for the launch of Fox's sitcom New Girl featured posters of that sitcom's star, Zooey Deschanel, in the make-up, pose and graphic look of Marlo Thomas from the original That Girl series.

title: That Girl


text:
Geheimrat

Geheimrat was the title of the highest advising officials at the imperial, royal or princely courts of the Holy Roman Empire, who jointly formed the Geheimer Rat reporting to the ruler. The term remained in use during subsequent monarchic reigns in German-speaking areas of Europe until the end of the First World War. At its origin the literal meaning of the word in German was 'trusted advisor' - the word "geheim" (secret) implying that such an advisor could be trusted with the Monarch's secrets (similar to "secretary" in English being linguistically related to "secret"). The English-language equivalent is Privy Councillor.

The office contributing to the state's politics and legislation had its roots in the age of absolutism from the 17th century onward, when a governmental administration by a dependent bureaucracy was established similar to the French Conseil du Roi. A precursor was the Reichshofrat, a judicial body established by Emperor Maximilian I of Habsburg. In Austria, the professional title of Hofrat (also Hofrath, Court Councillor) has remained in use as an official title for deserved civil servants up to today.

With the Empire's dissolution and the rise of Constitutionalism in the aftermath of the French Revolution, the office of a Geheimrat became an honorific title conferred by the German states upon high officials, accompanied by the address Exzellenz. During that period related titles no longer affiliated with an office arose, like Kommerzienrat, an award for outstanding contributions in the field of commerce and industry, or Geheimer Medizinalrat, an award for outstanding contributions to medicine. The term is also used in combination with the word Ecke – Geheimratsecken, colloquially describing male pattern baldness at the 'edges' of the forehead (i.e. the upper 'corners' of the face).

In the Republic of Austria the title was officially abolished in 1919. In Germany, the title largely disappeared after the fall of the German Empire in 1918, when the various princely states of Germany were replaced by the constituent states of the Weimar Republic, although Geheimräte continued to be appointed by the Free State of Bavaria. However, many honorees continued to use it, and the title Geheimrat, its abbreviation Geh. Rat and related abbreviations (Geh. Med.-Rat, Geh. Ober-Med.-Rat and even Geh. Hofrat) appear in captions until the 1930s, such as used by the German Federal Archives.

title: Geheimrat


text:
Alweg

Alweg was a transportation company based in Germany known for pioneering straddle-beam monorails.

History
Alweg was founded by Swedish industrial magnate Dr. Axel Lennart Wenner-Gren in January 1953 as Alweg-Forschung, GmbH (Alweg Research Corporation), based in Fühlingen, a suburb of Cologne, Germany. The company was an outgrowth of the Verkehrsbahn-Studiengesellschaft (Transit Railway Study Group), which had already presented its first monorail designs and prototypes in the previous year. The Alweg name is an acronym derived from Dr. Wenner-Gren's full name.

Alweg is best remembered for their role in building the original Disneyland Monorail System at Disneyland, which opened in 1959, and the Seattle Center Monorail, which opened for the 1962 Century 21 Exposition. Both systems remain operational, with the Seattle Center Monorail still using the original Alweg trains which have traveled over one million miles. A third system, built in Turin for the Italia 61 exposition remained unused a few months after the exposition closed and was destroyed by a fire in the late 1970s, most probably set by vandals. The remnants of the system were scrapped in 1981, with the north station repurposed as an office building.

In 1963, Alweg put forward a proposal to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for a monorail system that would be designed, built, operated and maintained within Los Angeles County, California by Alweg. Alweg promised to take all financial risk for the construction with the cost of the system to be recovered through fares collected. The supervisors voted down the proposal, mostly due to political pressures from Standard Oil of California and General Motors, which were strong advocates for automobile dependency. This move was greatly resented by famed author Ray Bradbury who supported the monorail project and resented the later move to build a subway in Los Angeles.

Alweg's technology was licensed in 1960 by Hitachi Monorail, which continues to construct monorails based on Alweg technology around the world. What was for decades the world's busiest monorail line, the Tokyo Monorail, was completed in 1964 by what was then the Hitachi-Alweg division of Hitachi, and today's busiest monorail system, Chongqing Rail Transit, is also based on Alweg and Hitachi technology.

After Alweg ran into financial difficulties, Alweg's German operations were taken over by Krupp. Krupp wound up all Alweg operations by 1964.

In the 1960s there was a plan to build an Alweg monorail in the High Tatras in Slovakia.

title: Alweg


text:
Talk:Alweg

LA rejection
The musings of whoever wrote the transportation chapter for the 2013 ASCE publication don’t seem like particularly reliable evidence for why the LA proposal was rejected. It doesn’t identify which “Standard Oil Company,” for instance, and sound like a hazy conflation with the GM streetcar conspiracy.

By contrast, all the newspaper accounts of the time make clear the problems MTA had identified with the monorail proposal and with Alweg’s financing scheme. Auto advocates are never mentioned; in fact, everyone involved seems interested in bringing a modern mass transit system to LA.

Ray Bradbury's musings half a century later seem pretty peripheral to such a brief article.

Dennis McClendon (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
The ALWEG Archives are hopelessly disorganized: can anybody figure out eg.
 * if the company's name was "ALWEG" or "Alweg"
 * what the name comes from
 * when Alweg Europe ceased operations
 * when Wegematic was founded and dissolved
 * when Hitachi-Alweg became just Hitachi

...? Jpatokal 05:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The [LA] City Council rejected the proposal in favor of transit at all."

The above appears to be a typo, but I'm not certain what the intent was.--Jkiang 00:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alweg