text:
Talk:Falkland Islands

Malvinas
An islander has requested here that he Spanish translation of the Falklands be used (Islas Falkland) in the lead, not the alternative name, Malvinas. This has come up before but perhaps it is worth raising again. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I saw in that thread, the government of the islands rejects the term "Malvinas" because it's a POV term that they do not endorse. Neutral point of view is in fact the whole reason we use both names the way we do. Cambalachero (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it not be neutral to acknowledge the alternative Spanish name? Having both Spanish names introduced e.g:
 * > The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːklənd, ˈfɔːl-, ˈfɒl-/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas, also known as Islas Falkland) are an archipelago...
 * seems like a fair compromise. I don't think it would be wise to continue to completely omit the alternative Spanish name, strictly from a utilitarian and informational standpoint, as there are early signs that some Spanish-language media are using the term.
 * Links to instances to back this up (because I couldn't figure out how to cite in Talk pages, sorry):
 * (https://es.mercopress.com/falklands-malvinas, https://elpais.com/internacional/2021-11-06/tras-el-rastro-de-la-huella-indigena-en-las-islas-malvinas.html, https://news.un.org/es/story/2016/06/1359521, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfqK2j9dOBM, https://elcomercio.pe/mundo/actualidad/fotos-habitantes-islas-malvinas-sacan-luz-su-patriotismo-referendo-noticia-1548182/), (The BBC, which of course as a British institution has a certain perspective, chooses to use both terms in Spanish media)
 * I can appreciate that this small selection of cherry-picked, curated links is inadequate to demonstrate widespread usage. However, I think the more important conclusion to draw from this, is the current extent to which Islas Falkland is used is remarkable. Since it is being used, it would follow that it ought to be described, or at least mentioned.
 * I also think it's potentially worth considering the Spanish version of this article. While it doesn't introduce the alternate name in the opening preamble as I'm suggesting, it does actually use the term Islas Falkland multiple times throughout. If both Spanish and English Wikipedia are aiming for a neutral perspective, parity with the Spanish version in regards to the alternate term seems sensible.
 * @Roger 8 Roger   Titfortat-skag (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Roger 8 Roger   Titfortat-skag (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 * The usage of "Islas Falkland" in Spanish is rare and not worth mentioning in this article. Perhaps a note at best at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Also, "Malvinas" is not a pov term. Scotland is called "Escocia" in Spanish; that's not a pov term either.--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 01:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem IMO is the misuse of the translation term. Malvinas is an alternative name for the islands, not a translation. There are English sources that use Malvinas just as there are Spanish sources using Falklands. Each language has a heavy preference for one which gives the impression that one is the translation of the other, which it isn't. I think the lead should say something like: "The Falkland Islands, also sometimes know as the Malvinas, (Sp=Las Malvinas), are..." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Spanish is a regulated language by Real Academia Espanola and the translation is officially Islas Malvinas. Islas Falkland is also used and used extensively in South America especially Chile, so much so that Argentina has pressed its Mercosur partners to stamp out the use of the term.  It also used to be regularly used in Argentina until the 1930s.  For those interested, there is a paper by the Argentine academic Carlos Escude who looked at the use of the Argentine education system by it's government to reinforce certain national myths and stereotypes.  In that he notes before Alfredo Palacios had Isles Malouines by Paul Groussac translated into Spanish and integrated into the curriculum 30% of Argentine text books used the term Islas Falkland.  This reflects the close ties between the islands and sheep farming in Patagonia going back to the 19th Century, when islanders were enticed to assist in the establishment of farming in Patagonia.  Summarising Islas Malvinas is the official Spanish translation, whereas Islas Falkland is used in the Spanish vernacular particularly from South America and those countries with ties to the Falklands, principally Chile and Uruguay.

 * Malvinas is not an English language term, its principally used in minority groups such as Irish nationalism or certain extreme left wing circles with an anti-UK agenda. Per WP:FRINGE it would not be appropriate to use it.   The use of Malvinas in English has definite POV connotations, which often reflects an Argentine attitude of intolerance and refusal to recognise the existence of the islanders.  So I do understand why the islanders may have made such a request.

 * I am not going to advocate adding Islas Falkland. Although you can show the English use of Malvinas is definitively WP:FRINGE, whereas Islas Falkland has both historic and modern usage in vernacular Spanish, I am nontheless mindful that any discussion to look at this objectively has failed with a poisonous discussion in which advocates of Argentine claim push loudly that neutral POV means we have to give equal value to the English usage of Malvinas.  As such I am suggesting we let sleeping dogs lie and take no action with this request.

 * PS The original Spanish name for the islands was Islas Maluinas, reflecting the French name of Isles Malouines, I understand this was corrupted to Malvinas. # WCM email

 * "Malvinas" does not receive an equal treatment to that of "Falklands". It is only used once in the lead of specific articles, to get it out of the way, and then the articles use just "Falklands" from then on, unless the article discusses the naming itself or it's talking about some other Argentine thing that uses the name (such as the Malvinas Argentinas Partido). And it is fine that way, and I don't see a need to make changes. In any case, "Islas Falklands" is not really a translation, it's just the same name and the only thing that is translated is the type of geographic feature, so it is pointless to mention it. Any place with "Island" in the name gets that part translated in Spanish, such as "Manhattan Island" = "Isla de Manhattan". Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 * The Escude information is interesting, nonetheless. Perhaps we could include a line about it in the etymology section?--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 16:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Islas Malvinas is a translation of Falkland Islands, if we use the word "translation" according to its ordinary plain English meaning. People overcomplicate this massively.  It's really pretty simple.

 * If I translate a word from English into Spanish, I do not assert that the two words are used in precisely the same way. If I translate a word from English into Spanish, I do not assert that the two words are etymologically related.  If the word "translation" implied either of those things, the concept would be useless because the result would be that a huge number of really basic words would be entirely untranslatable.

 * As per WCM, the use of Malvinas as an English word is WP:FRINGE and so your proposal would give it vastly too much weight. I would strongly suspect that using Islas Falkland as a Spanish term in the first sentence would also give that term significantly too much weight.  I would note that the current text is the conclusion of a dispute that nearly ended up at Arbcom.  I would note that, since then, the text has been remarkably stable - with little significant dispute for probably 15 years.  I see value in retaining a tried and tested solution and little benefit to the encyclopedia in litigating it further. 21:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

 * I would suggest the text should read "Spanish: Islas Malvinas or less frequently Islas Falkland." It might be difficult to source a pronunciation though. Neutral as to whether Malvinas should appear as an alternative English name, with some qualification. It would depend what the sources say on the matter.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 * If anything, I consider that titling this article by the island's British name and adding only as a side-note, it's Spanish alternative, is already biased towards the a British perspective. The Spanish name should be included in the title of the article.  Please amend!IqbalHamid (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there is an unbiased fact: it is the British who held the effective sovereignty right now (they live there and use the land and sea as they see fit). Right or wrong, that's just the way things are. It makes sense that the article uses the name they use for it. Or should we rename the article Argentina as "Argentina/Wallmapu", too? Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IqbalHamid, it isn't a matter of bias. The title should be the name commonly used by English speakers. That will be Falklands not Malvinas, as sources will verify. There is a not insignificant percentage of English sources that use Malvinas or Falklands/Malvinas, and that is what this debate is about - how great that number is. Another angle on which name to use is around the local variant of English, and should that take precedence. Personally. For a title I do not think so. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Roger 8 Roger, I consider your logic to be non-sequitur (it does not follow). Your stated reasoning does not justify your conclusion: While Falklands may indeed be the name commonly used by English speakers, you need to consider that English is accepted as de-facto universal language of our world.  As such, this article will be read by people around the globe, not just the Anglophone nations, UK and USA.  Language itself is irrelevant because there are political sensitivities involved here.  Therefore, for the sake of true neutrality, the title of this page should include the 'Malvinas' identity recognised by Argentina.  Argentina still makes a claim to the islands.  Also, in light of the announcement made by China recently where they are supporting Argentina's claim, so as not to alienate half the people of the world (the Chinese, Argentinians and I imagine also including the Russians, Indians, Africans and Portuguese (that's most of the international community if you think about it)), the title of this page should be, for the sake of peace and neutrality: 'Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)'. IqbalHamid (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the number of English speakers in the world or the popularity of the language; it's about the relevant language edition of Wikipedia. In this case, we're talking about en.wikipedia.org. For the this edition, WP:COMMONNAME is understood in the context of spoken English (i.e., "...as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:COMMONNAME is very clear on the matter. While another name may be more common in other languages, we are supposed to use the native English name. I don't think we are at the point yet where non-native usage is considered to be as correct as native usage.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IqbalHamid, the question to consider is how great a usage Malvinas gets in English sources. It does get some (the UN uses a form of dual name, and several academic texts also use a dual name. A few PC people will also use it. IMO that is enough to warrant mention in the first sentence as an alternative name or as the Spanish name because the Falklands are very much relevant to Argentina, but not in the title. BTW, I know what non sequitur means, even without a hyphen. :) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Noting that I don't understand why this topic was revived two months after discussion finished.

 * It's not so much "a few PC people". Most English-language sources that use Malvinas as an English word are from the Argentine government.  The rest are people actively trying to signal support for the Argentine claim.  When these are from English-speaking countries, they are near exclusively on the outer fringes of the far left trying to make a point.  This is nowhere even close to our standard for a significant English-language name.

 * However, as a Spanish-language name, Islas Malvinas probably does meet the standard, and it's generally beneficial to include it.

 * I'll reiterate my previous point. It is more common for Spanish speakers to refer to Falklands than for English-speakers to refer to Malvinas.  But neither is common enough to be worth mentioning in the lead.  The current text is the long-term stable solution to a dispute that nearly ended up at Arbcom.  I see no reason to change it.  Kahastok talk 17:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Re why the topic was "revived", a discussion on a talkpage has no time limit. Users can give their input at any time, and two months is not an unreasonable amount of time to consider a question to be open. The above discussion actually seemed to lean towards consensus that inclusion of "Islas Falkland" might be justified, but the fear that it might lead to "Malvinas" appearing as an English term should stop this from happening. My suggestion here would be to possibly leave the lead as it is and add a naming section after etymology, based on sources discussing the various English and Spanish names used for the islands. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my comments did not justify adding "Islas Falkland", I in fact opposed it. See various discussions and if anything new can be brought forward, I might be persuaded to change my mind.  However, bitter experience suggest this is a can of worms best left unopened. WCM email 08:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'UN' does not use a dual term at all, instead it refers to the Islands as Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Using the name in that way as a leading globally recognised body will be indeed draw many followers in masses. The name 'Malvinas' is made up, also a non-political term, used politically by some. It is offensive in its connotations to those who recognise the islands as being 'British' and being mutual should recognise that. I would also like it known that the term 'Malvinas' regardless of its origins should be respected as
 * such, and used accordingly in a non-political way by any Spanish' speaking country. In terms of the 'UN' given the minor dispute over sovereignty, for me personally they should lead by recognising all points of view and mutually/neutralise the matter by amending what they show to the rest of the world to reflect both terms as follows 'Falkland Islands/Malvinas until such times that other matters arise from this discussion. All said and done, respecting the human rights of the Islanders is key to making any harmonious progress, and as things currently stand they, and the islands are first and foremost British, and we the rest of the world should be led to accept that without malice, anger, upset and pettiness. 2A02:C7F:687A:DB00:75C4:A72A:8B88:6D0B (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually it does, the UN uses Islas Malvinas (Falkland) in Spanish, Falkland Islands (Malvinas) in English. I see no compelling reason to change the status quo noting that the malice, anger, upset and pettiness is very much one sided. WCM email 15:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing petty about inventing a name whose sole purpose is to claim illegal ownership over the islands. 78.148.151.43 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is true, but we let the Argentines do it as it makes them feel better about themselves, even when the rest of the world knows differently. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

When and where was "Malvinas" first used? Anyone know? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Early 19th Century, around 1767 when the Spanish took over Port St Louis, renaming it Puerto Soledad, the Spanish used the name Islas Maluinas, a more or less direct transliteration of Isles Malouines the French name. Due to the difficulty of pronouncing that by Spanish speakers, it was corrupted to Islas Malvinas at the turn of the 19th Century and that is the name recognised by the Real Academia Espanola who regulates the Spanish language.  You will find the names Maluinas and Malvinas used interchangeably, with the earlier Spanish name being Sansón y de los Patos although strictly speaking whether that was the Falklands is debatable.  Islas Falkland was also in common use in South America right up to the 1930s even in Argentina.  In the 1930s, the Argentines expunged Islas Falkland from their textbooks and ensured the curriculum only used Islas Malvinas, they've since put pressure on Mercosur partners to stop using Islas Falkland, though if you go to the South of Chile they continue to use it.  WCM email 13:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2022
Can someone explain WP policy on endonyms vs. exonyms? The endonym in Spanish is Islas Falkland. Inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, and official documents, refer to themselves as Falkland Islands, or Islas Falkland in Spanish. Per Taiwan, Sami people, Romani people, this seems to be the end of the discussion. It doesn't seem relevant what usage the PRC attempts to enforce, nor does it seem relevant what usage Argentina attempts to enforce. In each of these articles, claims by outside groups are noted later on in the lede, but the official and self-name is the determining factor.

If it is common in Chile to refer to the Islands as Islas Falkland, then shouldn't we include that? 19:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Please sign you comments. I questioned this a long time ago but it stays as is and on reflection I think that is best even if not quite right. A [rime consideration is the name used in a sizable number of sources. Islas Malvinas is very often used so to omit it would be wrong to be making a point to give an opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes, but the corresponding articles note that the term is offensive and rejected by the people. We should do the same here. DenverCoder9 (talk) DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 * It doesn't matter if it's offensive, or even if it's wrong. It matters what it secondary sources use. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary of European settlements

 * The top section very briefly discusses that the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Nevertheless, the mention of a date begins with the year 1833, which is the year the British took over the islands for the second to last time. I say it is arbitrary to start at the year 1833; this was not the first European settlement, and it wasn't even the first British settlement. Including a concise summary that starts with the very first European settlement (French one in 1764) is a more neutral POV than the previous version. Themidget17 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw this from the dispute resolution noticeboard. It seems like the current consensus is contrary to Themidget17's proposal, primarily because 1. this is an article on the current Falkland Islands, which indeed begin in 1833, and 2. the details before the current establishment are nebulous.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 23:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * The established version is ''Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans.
 * At various times, the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands.
 * Themidget17 wants this version: Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. The islands were first settled by the French in 1764, then by the British a year later. The French agreed to leave the islands in 1766 after pressure from the Spanish, who settled East Falkland the next year. British forces retired from the islands in 1776; their colony was destroyed by the Spanish in 1780. The islands remained under Spanish control until their forces withdrew in 1811. In 1820, the flag of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata was planted by David Jewett under orders from the Buenos Aires government. The British returned to the islands in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. In April 1982, Argentine military forces invaded the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War. In a 2013 sovereignty referendum, almost all Falklanders voted in favour of remaining a UK overseas territory. The territory's sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the UK.

 * I think we run into problems when we go back before 1833 because exactly what happened isn't clear, leading to opinions. I think you might have a point about meantioning 1764 but what was already there isn't misleading in any way and 1764 can easily be first mentioned in history. Why not start with a date when the islands were first discovered trodden on by people?Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The blow by blow is far too long for the lead. CMD (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 * What happened before 1833 is as clear as what happened around 1833. The events before and after the year 1833 are discussed in similar veins in the history section, with no reservations regarding the verifiability of the events prior to 1833. In my eyes it's still arbitrary to start at 1833, 69 years after the first European settlement. If I at any point thought it misleading and not just arbitrary to start at 1833, it's because this leaves out three relevant developments: the first European settlement in 1764, the British retirement from the islands in 1776, and the attempt by the United Provinces to colonise them in 1820 (which was the Argentine government's very "justification" for their invasion in 1982). I think it's equally valid to summarise this section using no dates at all, or a succession of dates which includes at least these three distinct and historically relevant events (although Spain's undisputed rule over the islands during 1776-1811 is arguably just as important, albeit irrelevant to the current sovereignty dispute). It's not NPOV to bring up dates that start at 1833: either start by the beginning or do not mention dates. Since CMD found my earlier one too lengthy a revision, I propose the following version, which would take the established version:
 * Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. At various times, the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands.

 * and make it into:

 * Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. The islands were first settled by the French in 1764, then by the British a year later. The French turned their colony over to the Spanish in 1766. The British retired from the islands in 1776; they remained under Spanish control until their forces withdrew in 1811. In 1820, the islands were claimed by David Jewett at the behest of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. The British returned to the islands in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands.Themidget17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is still far too much detail for a lead, which is meant to be a very very short summary. I'm not understanding how including the 1833 date is somehow misleading, it's very clearly preceded in the current text by other events, but if you think it works better without the date, then propose that. CMD (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The text is plain wrong. The British didn't leave in 1776, they withdrew the garrison in 1774 as part of a general retrenchment related to the War of Independence in America.  But the British remained in the islands concentrating as the British did on commerce; namely fishing, sealing and whaling.  It seems to me this is an attempt to introduce the false narrative that the British were absent for 59 years.  Plus the claim that Jewett acted on behalf of the United Provinces is controversial, we know he certainly claimed to be doing so but there is much to suggest this was a ruse to claim exclusive salvage rights over L'Uranie. I prefer the current lede as neutral and a simple summary, the expansion isn't needed IMHO. WCM email 07:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an article by Peter Calvert in which, I think, he claims that France never handed over its sovereignty to Spain in 1766. All the French did was withdraw, acknowledging a prior claim by Spain. Some money was given to the French in goodwill for their costs, not to buy the French claim. Therefore, the question is simply, was the basis for the earlier Spanish claim valid? If not, the first people to claim and confirm that claim by settlement, and not withdraw that claim, were the British in 1767. So the French didn't 'turn their colony over to the Spanish', they just left and the Spanish moved in. This might not be exactly correct but I think it is close. The point is there is a risk in stating something that might look to be obviously factual because on closer examination it will become less obvious. I have never been keen on the phrase 'reassert its sovereignty' but nothing else is better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The French did not relinquish sovereignty, France and Spain were joined in the Pacte de Famille, with France agreeing to remove Bougainville's Acadians and allowing the Spanish to take over Port St Louis. France continued to harbour a desire for a base in the South Atlantic and petitioned the British to return to Port St Louis during the negotiations for the Treaty of Amiens in 1801.  Another reason for why the less is more approach taken with the current lede is appropriate, it avoids all these details and nuances, which get bogged down in nationalist disputes. WCM email 11:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a two-line segment and making it into four lines, CMD. In other words, I'm adding a grand total of two lines to the lede. If that's "far too much detail for a lead" then I don't know what sort of improvement to this lede wouldn't be. On the other hand, WCM and Roger 8 Roger bring up items like "the British didn't leave in 1776" or "France never handed over its sovereignty to Spain in 1766", that deviate from the established version of this article. Those perspectives are not canonical. What I did with the lede was simply take what is on the History section of this established version and make it into a summary that includes all major events instead of starting arbitrarily at 1833. How does that not make the lede objectively more informative than before? I keep thinking it reads curt without these changes. Themidget17 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you considered Themidget17 that 1833 is not arbitrary? Working backwards from now, that is when the current established situation began, so it makes perfect sense to use that as the starting point, much the same as 1066 is sometimes treated as the starting point for the current England/UK system, or 1776 in the USA. If we don't do that we can go backwards in a exponential curve to an unknown point in the past. If you use 1764 as the start it gives an impression that the current UK settlement is somehow shared with others which it isn't. What happened before 1833 fits well in the history section. Anyway, the muddied history before 1833 is referred to in the established lead, at a level I think is appropriate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Allow me to unpack a few things here, Roger 8 Roger:
 * -"1833 is when the current established situation began". That's debatable. The first European settlement was in 1764. "Established situation" could mean European colonisation to some people. On the other hand, if one takes the meaning of "established situation" as continuous British sovereignty, then the current situation started in 1982, not 1833. If one takes the meaning to be simply British sovereignty, uninterrupted or not, then the current situation started in 1765, and was interrupted twice, during 1776-1833 and in 1982.
 * -"If we don't do that we can go backwards in a exponential curve to an unknown point in the past". I don't see how that would make it an unknown point in the past. The islands don't have a native population, which helps make the history before the European settlements nebulous, but the point at which they were first settled is a definite point in the past.
 * -"If you use 1764 as the start it gives an impression that the current UK settlement is somehow shared with others which it isn't". Firstly, there isn't anything in my proposed version of the lede that makes it seem like sovereignty over the islands is currently shared. It's a concise, linear sequence of events. Secondly, my counter-interpretation to "starting at 1764 raises a POV issue" is that the present lede makes the current situation seem more "natural", because non-British settlements prior to 1833 are crammed into a passing mention. If somebody was trying to write this lede from a British-friendly POV, it would make the most sense to start precisely at 1833. Such a starting event gives a first impression of the Argentine invasion as dumbfounding and historically baseless; it implies that the historical standing of European settlements prior to 1833 is below that of the British colony that formed in 1833. I agree with your calling the history "muddied", but I disagree that because it's muddied it ought to be written about in a terse maner.
 * At the end of the day, a NPOV is only as neutral as the people who agree to call it neutral. If you check out the Spanish language version of this article, the NPOV over there reads very different from this article's NPOV. Neither version is fully neutral, but the change I'm proposing here would make this version a tad more neutral in my honest opinion. Themidget17 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I will assume good faith that you are not the proverbial xxxxx your post implies. This is a talk page, not the article, so don't treat it as such by nit-picking at every word written when the meaning is totally clear. You would do well to swat up on what sovereignty means, especially during a war. UK sovereignty was not lost in 1982; although unlikely it is possible humans lived on the islands before 1765; a better alternative to 1833 for the established situation would be 1840, not earlier; who says there isn't a native population? Those living there now might have something to say about that? I never said the pre-1833 detail should be left in the history section because the facts are muddied. The lead is a summary of key facts in the article: it refers to pre-1833 European settlement and that, IMO, is all that is required. The detail is in the body. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that by native population, the user you replied to is talking about indigenous people of the Falklands 2800:560:20:1F88:9967:D820:7DE7:7D19 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes User:2800:560:20:1F88:9967:D820:7DE7:7D19, so am I. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I did not mean to flare any tempers, Roger 8 Roger, I'm only trying to articulate a perspective on things. As regards the question of a native population, a British defence expert has stated there weren't humans on the islands prior to the European settlements, while others have suggested South American natives may have visited the islands intermittently without establishing a permanente presence. Modern-day Kelpers are, naturally, native to the islands, but by talking about a native population earlier I was talking about pre-European inhabitants, like the Ona or Tehuelche peoples of Patagonia for instance. Now when I said I agreed with you that the history is "muddied", I meant prior to European settlements, not prior to 1833. 1833 is still arbitrary. We know very convincingly when the French settled the islands, when the British first did, when the Spanish left, etc., and these events seem glossed over in the lede. The lede would read more neutral if it were made informative about these events. Themidget17 (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was more concerned about my morning coffee getting cold while I wrote my reply. This is what is there now: At various times, the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. There is disagreement about each of the pre-1833 settlements. I don't mean the actual dates of landing and leaving but about the detail surrounding those dates and interpretations of what those detail mean both to each party involved and in terms of international law, past and present. That is why it is muddied. If we give any more information in the lead than what is already there we risk giving an opinion on that muddied detail, which can best be dealt with in the article below. I am not adamantly opposed to tweaking the lead a bit but I think your suggest is too much. I don't think 1833 is arbitrary. It is the start of the current situation there, one that has lasted considerably longer than the pre-1833 settlements. If it is changed, I think there might be room for mentioning 1764 as the first settlement date but that is all, no elaboration. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was more concerned about the heat death of the universe while I wrote my reply. You point out there's disagreement about what earlier settlements meant in terms of international law, and that is why my proposed change doesn't involve an interpretation of what those events meant, but rather a mention of the relevant ones. As I was saying in an earlier comment, by not giving more information about pre-1833 events we are "giving an opinion on that muddied detail", the opinion that those events are historically less relevant than what came after 1833, the opinion that earlier settlements are somehow inferior or even–god forbid–illegitimate. The POV emerges just as much from what's stated as from what isn't, and a NPOV isn't always the most concise one possible. Themidget17 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some other editors could give an opinion on this? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 * The pre-Vernet settlements are less relevant to this article than the Vernet settlement, because the settlements on the islands today all directly descend from the Vernet settlement. The current text does acknowledge prior settlers, including Argentine settlers (i.e. the Vernet settlement as it existed before 1833).  But the lead isn't the place for a fully-detailed blow-by-blow account of the history of the islands.

 * This is supposed to be an article on the Falkland Islands, not on the dispute, nor even on the history of the islands. The article (and hence the lead) should concentrate on what is important to understand the Falkland Islands, which is not necessarily the same as what is important to understand the dispute or what is important to the history of the islands. Kahastok talk 17:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree with Kahastok that "the lead isn't the place for a fully-detailed blow-by-blow account" like I agree with CMD who raised identical concerns. But like I said before, that's not the sort of lede I'm proposing.
 * I don't disagree that pre-Vernet settlements may in some fashion be less relevant, the thing is, are pre-Vernet events that much less relevant so as to be omitted from the lede? You are raising valid but tangential arguments about how earlier settlements weren't as relevant, about how the lede shouldn't be extensive, about how the point of this article isn't the history. I have expressed agreement with these and as a result revised my proposal to a shorter version. But the point I'm raising here is about NPOV: the lede doesn't appear neutral so long as it omits an arbitrary selection of historical events. Themidget17 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * The lede is neutral, you're alleging a neutrality issue when none exists. The lede is supposed to summarise the article and it does, albeit arguably giving too much attention to prior settlements that have no lasting influence on the islands.  This is also a featured article, which has already gone through significant scrutiny by the community and was worked on by a multi-national group of editors. You're welcome to try and convince the WP:NPOVNB there is an issue but I fear you'll be disappointed. WCM email 08:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * WCM, the fact that this is a featured article should make it a more pressing matter to improve upon it! Featured articles fulfill a set of criteria that renders them more encyclopedic than the other articles, now does that make them perfect? Ought such articles to become calcified by virtue of being featured? Another suggestion from the guidelines is MOS:LEADREL, where the weights assigned to events in the lede and the body should be similar. This is not the case with this article as it stands. We could diminish the History section by making the discussion of pre-1833 events less detailed, or we could augment the lede by adding an appropriately concise mention of them. I honestly don't understand where this kerfuffle is coming from. Themidget17 (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * The History section devotes a paragraph to each of the following periods: 1764-1771, 1774-1811, 1820-1831, and 1832-1844. The lede devotes a seven-line paragraph to the history, two lines of which cover pre-1833 events; the remainder concerns itself with the British settlement, the war, and the referendum. Yes the lede summarises the History section alright, but in what manner? Is this summary adequate, is the threshold that low? Like you said, this is a featured article. How does a referendum from 10 years ago merit a mention more detailed than that of the earliest settlements combined? Themidget17 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * You imply that the history section has four paragraphs. It has ten - including two long paragraphs devoted to the period 1845-1945, which you don't seem nearly so keen to expand upon.

 * MOS:LEADREL does not mean that we have to count the number of words and make sure that they are in precise proportion with the article. If it did then it would be impossible to write a coherent lead.

 * MOS:LEADREL means the weight given to points in the lead and the article should be the same, i.e. that the lead should summarise the article. This one does.  This is unlike the article History of the Falkland Islands, an article explicitly discussing the history of the islands, whose lead reads as though nothing of significance happened after 1833. Kahastok talk 20:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * You raise a valid concern about the 1845-1945 period, Kahastok. I propose the following revision:

 * Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. The islands were first settled by the French in 1764, then by the British a year later. The French turned their colony over to the Spanish in 1766. The British retired from the islands in 1776; they remained under Spanish control until their forces withdrew in 1811. In 1820, the islands were claimed by David Jewett at the behest of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. The British returned to the islands in 1833; economic activity began to thrive around 1851 with the advent of wool farming. The islands played a role during World War I and during World War II. In April 1982, Argentine military forces invaded the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War. In a 2013 sovereignty referendum, almost all Falklanders voted in favour of remaining a UK overseas territory. The territory's sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the UK.

 * This change would append four lines instead of the two I proposed earlier. If anybody would suggest a more concise phrasing that'd be appreciated. I am also going to log a dispute resolution request given all the friction we've been having. Themidget17 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Themidget17, that paragraph is not at the preferred standard, both in style and fact. Every sentence is questionable. For example, what does 'turn over to the Spanish' actually mean? Unless there is a suggestion to amend what is currently there without extending it further I think this discussion should be ended because it is going nowhere.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * You could very well revise the mention of Port St. Louis's takeover by the Spanish if you find it's ambiguous, or else propose another sequence entirely. I don't think it's fair for me at this point to entertain an argument such as "every sentence is questionable". At every turn, you and fellow editors have done nothing but bash my every proposal. Themidget17 (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No WP:CONSENSUS is very much against you, because you allege a neutrality issue when none exists, proposing a text that introduces neutrality issues. A number of editors have patiently explained their issue with your content proposal, you continually present the same content albeit rehashed and the issues remain. This being a featured article, people are concerned to maintain article quality.  I've suggested a route by which you could obtain a 3rd opinion, instead you forum shop to DR prematurely.  This is a behavioural issue, a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. WCM email 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A third opinion has already been summoned by Roger 8 Roger, WCM. Plus, my concern is both about NPOV and MOS:LEADREL, as I outlined in my DR request, so the NPOV board might be insufficient for the challenge. I am disappointed in seeing my actions interpreted as "forum-shopping" after after having acted in good faith. Themidget17 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a reply to your summary of the dispute on the DRN, WCM. You allege that there isn't a POV issue and I want to restate why I think that there is. The History section of this article is rich and balanced. There is significant treatment of the activity on the islands prior to 1833; the section is fairly detailed for 1764-1982. The lede, on the other hand, glosses over all pre-British-settlement events and highlights the war and the referendum. This is a British-friendly lede rather than a neutral one about the Falkland islands. Yes the islands are part of British sovereignty, but the article is about them, not about how and why they belong to the British, as there's an article devoted to that dispute. The lede appears to emphasise events that are reassuring of British sovereignty, while the History section is more informative and neutral. Themidget17 (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is like saying the United States article emphasizes American sovereignty but instead it should be more neutral and present both the possibility of American and British sovereignty. When the people living there unanimously vote to remain British, it becomes a fact and there is no need to prevent a "British-friendly" lede.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 15:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a poor comparison. The islands aren't a country. The US isn't subject to a sovereignty dispute. I could go on. Themidget17 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is beginning to look like an intentional time wasting joke. What about the established lead is not neutral? Nothing! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Port Egmont
This article says founded in 1766, the Port Egmont article says 1765. I'm adding to the John Perceval, 2nd Earl of Egmont article. Help!? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipeida is a not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends on your definition of founded. Argentine nationalists have a habit of slipping it to 1766, which is when Captain McBride arrived to formally set up the colony. It was founded by Byron in 1765 who laid the ground work, then slipped away.  Similarly the French settlement is backdated to 1764 when Bougainville laid the ground work, not 1765 when he came back with colonists.  Its a bit of a double standard, should be 1765 and 1764 for both. WCM email 08:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous people
The discussion at Talk:Indigenous peoples got me thinking. Are the current residents the indigenous people? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * UNESCO would classify the islanders as indigenous, having existed for 9-10 generations in the islands. Bit off-topic and violating WP:FORUM to discuss though and since I'm not aware of any source making such a claim it would be WP:OR to put in the article.  Plus I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from here in Scotland. WCM email 11:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In everyday usage, when talking about indigenous people" in the Americas we usually mean those who lived in the continent before the Europeans came, and that's it. Indigenous groups that displaced other indigenous groups before that (such as the Mapuches) are still called indigenous, for that matter. Cambalachero (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevance would be I did think of adding it to the article, but I too could see the likely result. I had thought if the UN definition is clearlt met that would be source enough. I had wondered if 200 years was long enough. And I wondered about the earlier settlements that preceded 1833 that were ended in differing circumstances. Could they be described as the indigenous people? Anyway, if I did add something, certainly without a good RSS I would testing the ground, ie giving an opinion, so I will let it be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

New line in subject "History": President-elect Milei of Argentina stating that Argentina has a "Non Negotiable" claim on the Falkland Islands (stated "Malvines")
The title says it all. Sources from about 24 hours ago or earlier have stated that Milei had stated this claim on the campaign trail, with one of the sources saying that he said if I recall correctly: "military conflict is not an option."

He also supposedly compared it to British Hong Kong to China.

Perhaps this is worthy of a small reference in this article? If this is Milei's position on the issue, it could be subject to some notable change in the future.

Thanks for reading and Thank you in advance for adding. 2601:601:A400:D4A0:1005:5852:C084:2ACC (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Not really of any relevance to the Falkland Islands, so I would suggest not. If it makes a material change then maybe, till then, no. WCM email 14:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 * So far it's just things said to the press. Milei has not taken office yet and does not manage Argentina's international relations yet. We should wait and see, first for him to become president, and then what things does he actually do. Have in mind that he will receive a country with a devastated economy (inflation is over 100%, and that's not a typo!), so don't be surprised if he has other priorities than the Falklands conflict for a time. Cambalachero (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 * It might be worth a sentence in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, which mentions quite a few statements from the leaders of Argentina and the UK about the dispute, but I don't think it belongs in this article.  Hut 8.5  18:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I would recommend caution there, too. Keep in mind that Milei is in the minority in both houses of Congress, has no governors from his party, and his party is almost deprived of a political structure. His only strength is his popularity, but popularity may be fleeting, especially when the country is in an economic crisis of this scale. The claim over the Falklands remains popular among Argentine people, and even if Milei does not agree with it he may opt not making changes to the current international policy, to avoid the decline in his popularity that it may cause. Cambalachero (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * hey its the same anon guy that posted this here.
 * thank you all again for your suggestions and answers, I'll be sure to keep them in mind regarding Argentina, their new president, and the Falklands. :)
 * Indeed the whole subject in the future may be subject to change (as well as concern if; if the conflict possibly grows), but we shall soon see. 2601:601:A400:D4A0:E45D:217A:579:5260 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Falkland Islands


text:
Tripartite classification of authority

Max Weber distinguished three ideal types of legitimate political leadership, domination and authority. He wrote about these three types of domination in both his essay "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule", which was published in his masterwork Economy and Society (see Weber 1922/1978:215-216), and in his classic speech "Politics as a Vocation" (see Weber 1919/2015:137-138).
 * 1) charismatic authority (character, heroism, leadership, religious),
 * 2) traditional authority (patriarchs, patrimonialism, feudalism) and
 * 3) rational-legal authority (modern law and state, bureaucracy).

These three types are ideal types and rarely appear in their pure form.

According to Weber, authority is power accepted as legitimate by those subjected to it. These three forms of authority are said to appear in an "hierarchical development order". States progress from charismatic authority, to traditional authority, and finally reach the state of rational-legal authority which is characteristic of a modern liberal democracy.

Charismatic authority
Charismatic authority grows out of the personal charm or the strength of an individual personality. It was described by Weber in a lecture as "the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace (charisma)"; he distinguished it from the other forms of authority by stating "Men do not obey him [the charismatic ruler] by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him." Thus the actual power or capabilities of the leader are irrelevant, as long as the followers believe that such power exists. Thus, according to Weber, it is particularly difficult for charismatic leaders to maintain their authority because the followers must continue to legitimize the authority of the leader. Officials consist of those who have shown personal devotion to the ruler, and of those who possess their own charisma.

Charismatic authority is different from legal-rational and traditional power insofar as it does not develop from established tradition but rather from the belief the followers have in the leader.

According to Weber, once the leader loses his charisma or dies, systems based on charismatic authority tend to transform into traditional or legal-rational systems.

Traditional authority
In systems based around traditional authority, legitimacy comes from tradition or custom, even the nominal personal ruler(s) being subject to it; Weber described it as "the authority of the eternal yesterday" and identified it as the source of authority for monarchies. In this type of domination, the traditional rights of a powerful individual or group are accepted by the subordinate, or at least not challenged. The dominant individual could be a clan leader, eldest, the head of a family, a patriarchal figure or dominant elite. Officials consist either of personal retainers (in a patrimonial regime) or of personal loyal allies, such as vassals or tributary lords (in a feudal regime). Their prerogatives are usually similar to those of the ruler above them, just reduced in scale, and they too are often selected based on inheritance. Historically this has been the most common type of government.

According to Weber, inequalities are created and preserved by traditional authority. Should this authority not be challenged, the dominant leader or group will stay in power. For Weber, traditional power blocked the development of rational-legal authority.

Rational-legal authority
Legal authority, also known as rational-legal authority, is based on a system of rules that is applied administratively and judicially in accordance with known principles. The persons who administer those rules are appointed or elected by legal procedures. Superiors are also subject to rules that limit their powers, separate their private lives from official duties and require written documentation. It is the authority that demands obedience to the office rather than the officeholder; once a leader leaves office, their rational-legal authority is lost. Weber identified "rationally-created rules" as the central feature of this form of authority. Modern democracies contain many examples of legal-rational regimes. There are different ways in which legal authority can develop. Many societies have developed a system of laws and regulations and there exist many different principles of legality. With the development of a legal-rational system, the political system is likely to be rationalized similarly. Constitutions, written documents, established offices and regular elections are often associated with modern legal-rational political systems. These in the past have tended to develop in opposition to earlier traditional systems such as monarchies, where the set of rules are not well developed. As these systems develop in a rational manner, authority takes on a legal-rational form. Those who govern have the legitimate legal right to do so and those subordinated accept the legality of the rulers.

Albeit rational-legal authority may be challenged by those subordinated, it is unlikely to result in a quick change in the nature of the system. Such power struggles, according to Weber, are mostly political struggles and may be based on nationalism or ethnicity.

The classification of authority in the context of history
Weber also notes that legal domination is the most advanced, and that societies evolve from having mostly traditional and charismatic authorities to mostly rational and legal ones, because the instability of charismatic authority inevitably forces it to "routinize" into a more structured form of authority. Likewise he notes that in a pure type of traditional rule, sufficient resistance to a master can lead to a "traditional revolution". Thus he alludes to an inevitable move towards a rational-legal structure of authority, utilizing a bureaucratic structure. This ties to his broader concept of rationalization by suggesting the inevitability of a move in this direction. Thus this theory can be sometimes viewed as part of the social evolutionism theory.

In traditional authority, the legitimacy of the authority comes from tradition, in charismatic authority from the personality and leadership qualities of the individual (charisma), and in legal (or rational-legal) authority from powers that are bureaucratically and legally attached to certain positions. A classic example of these three types may be found in religion: priests (traditional), Jesus (charismatic), and the Roman Catholic Church (legal-rational). Weber also conceived of these three types within his three primary modes of conflict: traditional authority within status groups, charismatic authority within class, and legal-rational authority within party organizations.

In his view every historical relation between rulers and ruled contained elements that can be analyzed on the basis of the above distinction.

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

title: Tripartite classification of authority


text:
Talk:Wave theory of light

relation beyween path difference and phase difference

-

"The wave theory of light is the set of light as an electromagnetic wave. In this theory, light is represented as a spectrum of frequencies, some of which we can see (visible light) and some of which we can't (ultraviolet and infrared light).

Also see: Electromagnetic radiation"

I'm going to redirect this stub over to a much more extensive discussion at "Wave-particle duality". That's where "Particle theory of light" already goes.

Atlant 00:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Is it really worth resurrecting this article, given that there is considerably longer explanation of the same concept at Light (which has the advantage of situating the wave theory in its historical context)? Djr32 (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know. The point of this article (IMO), is to be expanded so it covers a lot more than just than what the section in Light covers. Altough right now light contains a lot more info on this. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There's easily enough material to make a full article on the wave theory of light. It's a lot more than should fit in a section of an already very long article like Light. The full history could be covered here, with all the important events in the history of theory noted, much more than could be covered in a single section of a much broader article. If there's more in Light right now, maybe that could be copied here to start it off. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made the article into a redirect for now. If someone wants to write a proper article to go here (or a more general "historical development of theories of light" article) then great, but I don't see any point in leaving it as a stub. Djr32 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's going to write it if there's not already a stub there? Articles grow by starting off small and being expanded. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wave theory of light


text:
Extreme points of the United Kingdom

This is a list of the extreme points of the United Kingdom: the points that are farther north, south, east or west than any other location. Traditionally the extent of the island of Great Britain has stretched "from Land's End to John o' Groats" (that is, from the extreme southwest of mainland England to the far northeast of mainland Scotland).

This article does not include references to the Channel Islands because they are Crown dependencies, not constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

Extreme points of the United Kingdom

 * Northernmost point – Out Stack, Shetland at 60.85°N, -0.86667°W
 * Northernmost settlement – Skaw, Unst, Shetland Islands at 60.81667°N, -0.78333°W
 * Southernmost point – Pednathise Head, Western Rocks, Isles of Scilly at 49.85°N, -6.4°W
 * Southernmost settlement – St Agnes, Isles of Scilly at 49.88333°N, -6.33333°W
 * Westernmost point – Rockall at 57.58333°N, -13.68333°W, which was only incorporated into Scotland in the 20th century. If Rockall is ignored, Soay, St Kilda, at 57.83°N, -8.638°W is the westernmost point.
 * Westernmost settlement – Belleek, County Fermanagh at 54.46667°N, -8.16667°W. Until 1930, the westernmost settlement was Hirta, on the island of St Kilda, but it is now abandoned; the island now has a military base, staffed during the summer months.
 * Easternmost point – Lowestoft Ness, Suffolk, at 52.48333°N, 1.76667°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Lowestoft, Suffolk, at 52.46667°N, 1.75°W
 * Highest point – Ben Nevis, Scotland, at 1345 m 56.797°N, -5.004°W
 * Lowest point – Holme Fen, Cambridgeshire, 3 m below sea level at 52.48333°N, -0.21667°W

Extreme points within the UK
In addition to the extreme points of the UK as a whole, the extreme points of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and for the island of Great Britain are listed below.

Great Britain

 * Northernmost point – Dunnet Head at 58.66667°N, -3.36667°W, known also as Easter Head, Caithness, Highland
 * Northernmost settlement – Skarfskerry, Caithness, Highland, Scotland at 58.65°N, -3.25°W
 * Southernmost point – Lizard Point, Cornwall at 49.95°N, -5.2°W
 * Southernmost settlement – Lizard, Cornwall, England at 49.95°N, -5.2°W
 * Westernmost point – Corrachadh Mòr, Highland at 56.7°N, -6.21667°W
 * Westernmost settlement – Grigadale, Highland at 56.71667°N, -6.18333°W
 * Easternmost point – Ness Point, Lowestoft, Suffolk at 52.48333°N, 1.76667°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Lowestoft, Suffolk at 52.46667°N, 1.75°W
 * Furthest point from coastal waters - Church Flatts Farm, Coton-in-the-Elms, South Derbyshire at 52.72667°N, -1.62°W

Including islands

 * Northernmost point – Marshall Meadows Bay, Northumberland at 55.8°N, -2.03333°W
 * Northernmost settlement – Marshall Meadows, Northumberland at 55.8°N, -2.03333°W
 * Southernmost point – Pednathise Head, Western Rocks, Isles of Scilly at 49.85°N, -6.4°W
 * Southernmost settlement – St Agnes, Isles of Scilly at 49.88333°N, -6.33333°W
 * Westernmost point – Crim Rocks, Isles of Scilly at 49.88333°N, -6.45°W
 * Westernmost settlement – Bryher, Isles of Scilly at 49.95°N, -6.36667°W
 * Easternmost point – Lowestoft Ness, Suffolk at 52.48333°N, 1.76667°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Lowestoft, Suffolk at 52.46667°N, 1.75°W

English mainland

 * Northernmost point – Marshall Meadows Bay, Northumberland at 55.8°N, -2.03333°W
 * Northernmost settlement – Marshall Meadows, Northumberland at 55.8°N, -2.03333°W
 * Southernmost point – Lizard Point, Cornwall at 49.95°N, -5.2°W
 * Southernmost settlement – Lizard, Cornwall at 49.95°N, -5.2°W
 * Westernmost point – Dr Syntax's Head, Land's End, Cornwall at 50.06667°N, -5.71667°W
 * Westernmost settlement – Sennen Cove, Cornwall at 50.06667°N, -5.7°W
 * Easternmost point – Lowestoft Ness, Suffolk at 52.48333°N, 1.76667°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Lowestoft, Suffolk at 52.46667°N, 1.75°W
 * Geographic centre of England - Lindley Hall Farm (#4), Leicestershire (near Fenny Drayton and Higham on the Hill) (52.56193°N, -1.46485°W;

The distance between the southernmost point (Lizard Point) and the westernmost point (Land's End) is only 38.5 km.

Including islands

 * Northernmost point – Skerriagh, Ballygill North, Rathlin Island, County Antrim at 55.3°N, -6.23333°W
 * Northernmost settlement – Rathlin Island, off Ballycastle Bay, County Antrim at 55.28333°N, -6.18333°W
 * Southernmost point – Cranfield Point, County Down at 54.01667°N, -6.05°W
 * Southernmost settlement – Greencastle, County Down at 54.03333°N, -6.08333°W
 * Westernmost point – western part of Manger townland, County Fermanagh (immediately east of the Bradogue Bridge) at 54.46472°N, -8.1775°W
 * Westernmost settlement – Belleek, County Fermanagh at 54.8°N, -8.15°W
 * Easternmost point – Cannon Rock, off Ards Peninsula, County Down at 54.48333°N, -5.41667°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Portavogie, County Down at 54.45°N, -5.43333°W

Northern Irish mainland

 * Northernmost point – Benbane Head, County Antrim at 55.25°N, -6.46667°W
 * Northernmost settlement – Ballintoy, County Antrim at 55.23333°N, -6.35°W
 * Southernmost point – Cranfield Point, County Down at 54.01667°N, -6.05°W
 * Southernmost settlement – Greencastle, County Down at 54.03333°N, -6.08333°W
 * Westernmost point – western part of Manger townland, County Fermanagh (immediately east of the Bradogue Bridge) at 54.46472°N, -8.1775°W
 * Westernmost settlement – Belleek, County Fermanagh at 54.8°N, -8.15°W
 * Easternmost point – Burr Point, Ards Peninsula, County Down at 54.48333°N, -5.43333°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Portavogie, County Down at 54.45°N, -5.43333°W

Including islands

 * Northernmost point – Out Stack, Shetland at 60.85°N, -0.86667°W
 * Northernmost settlement – Skaw, Unst, Shetland at 60.81667°N, -0.78333°W
 * Southernmost point – Mull of Galloway, Wigtownshire at 54.63333°N, -4.86667°W
 * Southernmost settlement – Cairngaan, Wigtownshire at 54.63333°N, -4.9°W
 * Westernmost point – Rockall at 57.58333°N, -13.68333°W
 * Westernmost settlement – Caolas, Bhatarsaigh (Vatersay), Outer Hebrides at 56.93333°N, -7.53333°W
 * Easternmost point – Bound Skerry, Out Skerries, Shetland at 60.41667°N, -0.71667°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Bruray, Out Skerries, Shetland at 60.43333°N, -0.75°W

Scottish mainland

 * Northernmost point – Dunnet Head at 58.66667°N, -3.36667°W, known also as Easter Head, Caithness, Highland, Scotland
 * Northernmost settlement – Skarfskerry, Caithness, Highland, Scotland at 58.65°N, -3.25°W
 * Southernmost point – Mull of Galloway, Wigtownshire at 54.63333°N, -4.86667°W
 * Southernmost settlement – Cairngaan, Wigtownshire at 54.63333°N, -4.9°W
 * Westernmost point – Corrachadh Mòr, Highland at 56.7°N, -6.21667°W
 * Westernmost settlement – Grigadale, Highland at 56.71667°N, -6.18333°W
 * Easternmost point – Keith Inch, Aberdeenshire at 57.5°N, -1.76667°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Peterhead, Aberdeenshire at 57.5°N, -1.76667°W

Including islands

 * Northernmost point – Middle Mouse, Anglesey at 53.43333°N, -4.43333°W
 * Northernmost settlement – Llanlleiana, Anglesey at 53.41667°N, -4.41667°W
 * Southernmost point – Flat Holm, Cardiff, off Lavernock Point, Vale of Glamorgan at 51.36667°N, -3.11667°W
 * Southernmost settlement – Rhoose, Vale of Glamorgan at 51.38333°N, -3.33333°W
 * Westernmost point – Grassholm, Pembrokeshire at 51.71667°N, -5.48333°W
 * Westernmost settlement – Treginnis, Pembrokeshire at 51.86667°N, -5.3°W
 * Easternmost point – Lady Park Wood, near Monmouth, Monmouthshire at 51.81667°N, -2.65°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Chepstow, Monmouthshire at 51.61667°N, -2.65°W

Welsh mainland

 * Northernmost point – Point of Ayr, Flintshire at 53.35°N, -3.31667°W
 * Northernmost settlement – Talacre, Flintshire at 53.35°N, -3.31667°W
 * Southernmost point – Breaksea Point, Vale of Glamorgan at 51.36667°N, -3.4°W
 * Southernmost settlement – Rhoose, Vale of Glamorgan at 51.38333°N, -3.33333°W
 * Westernmost point – Pen Dal-aderyn, Pembrokeshire at 51.85°N, -5.31667°W
 * Westernmost settlement – Treginnis, Pembrokeshire at 51.86667°N, -5.3°W
 * Easternmost point – Lady Park Wood, near Monmouth, Monmouthshire at 51.81667°N, -2.65°W
 * Easternmost settlement – Chepstow, Monmouthshire at 51.61667°N, -2.65°W

British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies

 * Northernmost – Point of Ayre, Isle of Man at 54.41667°N, -4.36667°W
 * Southernmost – South Pole, British Antarctic Territory at -90°N, -50°W – disputed
 * Southernmost – Thule Island, South Sandwich Islands at -59.45°N, -27.3°W – if not including Antarctica
 * Westernmost – Oeno Island, Pitcairn Islands at -23.91667°N, -130.73333°W
 * Easternmost – Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory at -7.3°N, 72.5°W

title: Extreme points of the United Kingdom


text:
Dover Demon

The Dover Demon is a creature reportedly sighted on April 21–22, 1977, in Dover, Massachusetts, a town about 15 mi southwest of downtown Boston. While explanations have been proposed, the sightings remain unresolved.

Sightings
17-year-old William "Bill" Bartlett claimed that while driving on April 21, 1977, he saw an alien-like creature "with tendril-like fingers" and glowing eyes on top of a broken stone wall on Farm Street in Dover, Massachusetts. 15-year-old John Baxter reported seeing a similar creature on Miller Hill Road the same evening. Another 15-year-old, Abby Brabham, claimed to have seen the creature the following night on Springdale Avenue.

The teenagers all drew sketches of the alleged creature. Bartlett wrote on his sketch, "I, Bill Bartlett, swear on a stack of Bibles that I saw this creature." According to a local news report, "the locations of the sightings, plotted on a map, lay in a straight line over 2 mile". The sightings were not made public until the first half of May. At that time, a local "investigator of unexplained phenomenon" noted similarities to creatures in the Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter of 1955. While no witness reported seeing a UFO, the sightings were also investigated by the Mutual UFO Network and associated groups, given the descriptions of the creature.

Possible explanations
It has been suggested that the creature may have been a foal or a moose calf.

Skeptic Joe Nickell believes the creature was likely a snowy owl, based on size and plumage, which would have reflected in the yellow headlights of older cars as the peach color described by Bartlett. In addition, the "long spindly arms" and fingers of the supposed creature could be the partially opened wings and the splayed feathers at the wingtips of a snowy owl.

Police told the Associated Press that creatures reported by the teenagers "were probably nothing more than a school vacation hoax." Skeptic Ben Radford has suggested the sighting may have been influenced by the pop culture of the time, as 1977 was a year for "big-headed client-type creatures".

In popular culture
In 2009, the Dover Demon was featured in an episode of the American horror television series Lost Tapes, which aired on Animal Planet.

The Dover Demon appears as a character in the American comic book series Proof, which features various other creatures. In the comic, it is a creature able to see into the future. It appears in another similar comic book series called The Perhapanauts. The Dover Demon also made brief appearances in the comic books The Pound: Ghouls Night Out and Hack/Slash: Entry Wound. A Dover Demon also appears in the webcomic Gunnerkrigg Court.

title: Dover Demon


text: Category:Scott County, Minnesota

title: Category:Scott County, Minnesota


text:
Talk:Acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaynat08.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshuanoel, Jeffyang13, Wendi.gu. Peer reviewers: Ashleigh.lauran, Davidhaase10, Medded.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RIP
A roblox developer known as Lizzy_Winkle passed away due to Leukemia. She'll forever be in our hearts. </3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:4300:1E10:1A:1947:F2DC:713F (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks to User:EC, this page took off. I have taken some time to copyedit it, as there was a lot of redundancy (e.g. the side-effects of chemotherapy are general enough to go under chemotherapy and not here). Nevertheless, this is a very good article. JFW | T@lk  11:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

leukemia
leukemia is very scary to have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.254.226.59 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Signature added by SUM1 (talk) 22 January 2020

--- "For patients, like in other cancers, the success rate is either 100% or zero, rendering overall statistical rates meaningless."

To me this sounds like an inspirational speech and doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia article. There are overall statistical rates, and they are not meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.153.118.200 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC). Signature added by SUM1 (talk) 22 January 2020

Thrombosis
- ALL patients are relatively prone to thrombosis. This study looks into why and whether preventative treatment is needed. JFW | T@lk  23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh God!
Will somebody PLEASE clean up the little summary thing before the table of contents? Dancanm 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ALL mutation?
My cousin had ALL. In early October she went to the doctor and they found some cells they had never seen before. Doctors said ALL does not mutate, but for an unknown reason - hers had. Does ALL mutate into other forms of leukemia? Look at the October 9th and Oct. 15th entry of the link provided. Documentation of cell mutation San Antonio Guytalk 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ALL abbreviation
I'm not convinced how useful this abbreviation is, as it could be slightly confused as 'All' with certain readers. E.g. "Initial symptoms are not specific to ALL". CycloneNimrod (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC

Fluorescent lights contribute to ALL?
Not suitable for the article, but this is a somewhat curious study. Picked it up from a correspondence while browsing NEJM. II | (t - c) 20:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Usually, the "fluorescent lights cause cancer" story is attributed to people staying inside (lack of sunshine) or staying up late at night (disrupted light/dark cycles). There's no good data on the subject, just weak speculation.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Secondary ALL
I'm not sure about this edit, but it seems unlikely to be correct. Once you have ALL, you can't get ALL as a secondary malignancy. But perhaps it's supposed to refer to getting ALL secondary to something else (e.g., treatment for a solid tumor)? Does anyone have a source that settles this one way or the other? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Patients can acquire secondary myelodysplastic syndrome which can progress to secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) as a result from previous exposure to certain chemotherapy drugs such as etoposide or cyclophasphamide. This is rarely seen in patients with a history of breast cancer treatment or lymphoma treatment. Even more rare is the acquisition of secondary ALL (sALL) as a result from similar circumstances. There are several case reports and case series which report on secondary ALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconley2004 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is t(3;21)(p14;q22) relevant?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3088882 From that link: Abstract High-resolution chromosome banding studies were carried out on leukemic cells from a young patient with acute nonlymphocytic leukemia (ANLL), M2 of the FAB classification. A new chromosomal abnormality involving a translocation between chromosomes 3 and 21 was observed, i.e., t(3;21)(p14;q22). A complete remission was never obtained in spite of aggressive chemotherapy and the patient died 8 months after diagnosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.38.75.52 (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Prognosis of t(8;14)
There is a contradiction in the 2 tables on this page. Under the heading 'Cytogenetics' it says in the table that the translocation t(8;14)(q24.1;q32) has a poor prognosis, but under 'Prognosis' another table says that rearrangements of 8q24 are intermediate. Being the father of a T-ALL patient with t(8;14) I'd be particularly interested in expert clarification. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.249.12.50 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Intensification = consolidation
Suggest adding consolidation in parenthesis next to intensification as they mean the same thing with regard to chemo treatment. Source: cancer.org --Ymarker (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No hint of any current R and D
Article should summarise current R&D or refer back to leukemia ? Rod57 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WHO 'proposed' were adopted in 2008
The FAB material should be condensed and the newer classification expanded, including the cross-referencing to Burkitt's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.51.220 (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Wikipedia is pretty constipated. Even in the face of a rational nudge like this, we might leave things until almost a decade has elapsed. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

'Acute'
The acute should refer to the fact that the cells does not progress pass the blast stage and not about time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdarm (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lancet review article
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2962187-4/abstract The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 22 March 2013 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62187-4 Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia Dr Hiroto Inaba MD a Corresponding Author, Prof Mel Greaves PhD c, Charles G Mullighan MD b

--Nbauman (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Immunophenotype
Can someone add the immunophenotype (like CD10+, CD20+, CD3+ etc..) of pre-B and pre-T ALL? In this moment, there are only undefinied "T, B cell associate antigen", it isn't very useful.. Thank you, although still a good article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.192.119.9 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

 * 10.1111/bjh.13215 Use of antibodies in the treatment. JFW | T@lk  09:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 * 10.1111/bjh.13896 Br J Haem advances in the management of Ph+ALL in childhood. JFW | T@lk  11:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What results from immunotherapy - any clinical trials
The Treatment/immunotherapy section only seems to mention Chimeric antigen receptor but isn't clear if the CAR treatment is approved for ALL or what clinical trials have started/reported, even if it has been tried in animals. - Rod57 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. 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/20080323074708/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_3X_How_Is_Acute_Lymphocytic_Leukemia_Classified.asp?rnav=cri to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_3X_How_Is_Acute_Lymphocytic_Leukemia_Classified.asp?rnav=cri

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced statements going back 60 months
Hi, y'all. This article has unsourced statements going back five years! Anybody up to remedying that? Having fun! Cheers! 03:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

UCSF Expanding Wikiproject Medicine Elective
Hello Wikipedians. We are three fourth year medical students at UCSF who will be improving this article over the next four weeks as part of the Expanding Wikiproject Medicine elective. Our usernames are Jeffyang13, Joshuanoel, and Wendi.gu. Pleased to meet you! We plan on using the acute myeloid leukemia article as an exemplar and will adhere to the wikiproject medicine manual of style. We will improve the entire article, updating it with the latest information and adjusting the language to make it more accessible to a lay audience while preserving the detail that makes it useful for students and others with a background or interest in the sciences. We welcome all recommendations and critiques and look forward to working with anyone who has an interest in improving this article.

Project timeline:
 * week 1 (11/20-26) - division of labor, collection of sources
 * week 2 (11/27 - 12/3) - reading, beginning offline edits
 * week 3 (12/4-10) - complete offline edits early in the week, transfer edits to user-facing page by Thursday for peer review
 * week 4 (12/11-15) - solicit and respond to peer feedback, make revisions

Each of us have taken ownership of editing the following sections: Again, let us know if you have any recommendations or requests off the bat (we see the request from a few days ago for improved sourcing of statements – will do). Otherwise, watch this space for updates and more details about this project. Thanks! – Joshuanoel (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikibox (Joshuanoel)
 * Lead (Joshuanoel)
 * Signs/symptoms (Jeffyang13)
 * Cause/Pathophysiology (Joshuanoel)
 * These sections will likely be combined, with pathophysiology as a subheading of cause.
 * Diagnosis (Jeffyang13)
 * Treatment (Wendi.gu)
 * Prognosis (Wendi.gu)
 * Epidemiology (Jeffyang13)
 * Rewrote the lead and the infobox. Please let me know if anyone has any questions/concerns/suggestions. Thanks. Joshuanoel (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Joshuanoel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Overall, I like the rewrite of the infobox but have a couple of suggestions/questions. First, I would recommend using the term bleeding instead of hemorrhage and pale appearance instead of pallor, especially in the infobox and/or in the lead since Wikipedia encyclopedia articles are meant for a general audience (the goal is to get it as close as possible to an eighth grade reading level). It's difficult but keeping medical jargon to a minimum is one of our goals. Second, I was unclear why weight loss was removed from the infobox. Can you clarify why you made that change, please? Thanks, and again, welcome to Wikipedia! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, & agree with your recommendations, and it seems that Doc James already made those edits. Re: weight loss – I was the one who originally added that in. I then found a source that had a helpful table listing prevalence of symptoms at diagnosis (although with just an n = 100). Weight loss was only present in only 10%, the other listed symptoms were more common. The table is on p. 21 of the cited source – but can also be found in this article (http://www.danmedj.dk/portal/page/portal/danmedj.dk/dmj_forside/PAST_ISSUE/2014/DMJ_2014_08/A4883#Table%201) Joshuanoel (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Joshuanoel! Consider rewording 'Disease underlying mechanism is DNA mutations that result in high numbers of lymphoblasts in the bone marrow.' in the lead as it is confusing. Are you trying to say 'The mechanism underlying the disease are DNA mutations that result in high numbers of lymphoblasts in the bone marrow.'? Davidhaase10 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks David. I agree it's unclear or maybe just awkwardly worded. We've been going back and forth with that paragraph (see section below this one). Will probably take another look at the lead and that paragraph in particular tomorrow. Let me know if anything else is unclear, especially in the cause section. Had a tough time deciding in how much depth to go and how to keep it simple. Thanks again, & hope your and Jon's interviews went well. Joshuanoel (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Took another stab at that section today. Edited the sentence you referenced. Joshuanoel (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the lead does a great job of catering to a general audience presenting it in an easily understandable way. I also appreciate how it is structured in the same order as the rest of the article. No grammatical errors. The wiki box is also well laid out and concise for such a broad topic. Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhaase10 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for your contributions and feedback. Our course now over but there's still some work I want to do here, so I expect to be back from time to time to work on it. Joshuanoel (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Mechanism versus cause
We tend to use cause to mean risk factors and triggers. This may include inherited generic mutations or genetic syndromes.

For ALL the build up of genetic mutations such that an increase number of lymphoblasts occur in the bone marrow is the mechanism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I'll consider clarifying edits with that in mind. Joshuanoel (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I made some edits to the lead. I wrote "can lead to" instead of "cause" at the beginning of the second paragraph since I felt "cause" was too strong without qualifiers explaining that the cause of disease still isn't well known. "Lead to" sounded less deterministic and more appropriate to me, tho I might be splitting hairs and we can substitute "cause" for "lead to" if others want to. I avoided "mechanism" because I'm not convinced this is a clearly understood metaphor among the public for stepwise progression of disease, and stylistically the word is a bit ugly. Again, not a strongly held position, we can put it in if the style manual suggests it or for other good reasons. Thanks Joshuanoel (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments, decided would be better to break the cause section back into two parts (cause and mechanism). Kept the word 'mechanism' as the section heading per style guide. Will likely add more pathophys to the end of this section.Joshuanoel (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject Medicine Peer Review
Hi all!

Overall, the article is great. -I liked how the Signs and Symptoms section was very readable for the average person. -I liked how the lead paragraph summarized the major portions of the article. -After looking through the edits, I really liked how the cytogenetics section was expanded. It's super complicated, but I think that a med student looking at that information would find it very helpful. -I noticed is that the lead paragraph is still fairly technical in nature, and I think it could do with even more simplification of the language. -I know your group was thinking of simplifying some of the tables, especially the treatment/chemo table, which I think would be a great idea (but also difficult).

I hope that helps! Great job, everyone!

Ashleigh.lauran (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

And here is a second review from WDKeenan for another student: Great job with this! Below are some minor edits. Feel free to use any or none of them. Email me with questions about my suggestions if you have any. Treatment Section: ''Change "...strides in the efficacy.." to "...strides to increase the efficacy..."'' ''You hyperlink "growth factors," but perhaps consider adding a brief descriptor when it is first mentioned in the mechanism section as it is important to understanding treatment and I think it could be described briefly. I know that is n to your section, so maybe whoever has that section can do this?  The chemotherapy table is FANTASTIC!!! It clearly explains the goals and gives just enough pharmacological for a general understanding of the three phases of chemotherapy.  I know that you hyperlink "hybridoma," but I would also consider adding a clause or sentence describing this.'' ''Change "T cells cells..." to "T cells."'' Prognosis: ''Consider expanding on the race part of the table. Are races other than black or white associated with prognosis?'' Great job, Wendi! I think a lay reader perusing this out of curiosity and a pediatrician looking for the latest updates in treatments would both come away from reading your work having learned something. Feel free to use my edits at your discretion. Thank you! AminMDMA 19:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I found the article to be very well put together - I really liked the lead section. It gives a great overview of the article without getting into too much detail. It also relays the level of importance of the article in general. I appreciated the amount of effort that went into making more readable as well. The different aspects of ALL are well organized in their respective sections in an easy to follow fashion. Each section’s length is appropriate for its importance to the article’s subject. Nice white-board explanation of AML/ALL and schematic on lymphoid lineage Few minor suggestions: Consider making some edits to the wording in the “signs/symptoms” as I think this section is one of the most important (referred to) portion of the article. Changes could be hyperlinking some words (for example “anemia”, “mediastinal”) or changing the wording (for example neck stiffness instead of “nuchal rigidity”). I would also consider hyperlinking or explaining the different phases of chemotherapy in general. But the table is very well put together!!! Medded (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"A L L" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect A L L. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What does "One can feel" mean?
"a liver one can feel (64%), a spleen one can feel (61%)" I tried to search this in dictionary but found nothing. 114.10.27.35 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

holy god leukemia is scary
I pray that one day when my time comes, it is NOT from leukemia. Imagine your own blood, the fluid flowing inside of you, turning against you and killing you. Also, it seems really, really, painful. This looks like a sad way to go, and I respect all who pass away from this horrible disease. AlikaHall (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Acute lymphoblastic leukemia


text:
User:Andries/Wikipedia:controversy

This satirical article has been removed by me because it led to controversy and considerable confusion. It was in the first place a joke. It also helped to show other users how difficult and arbitrary the list of purported cults is. At a certain moment, I really did not know anymore how to proceed with the list of purported cults. I am still thinking about it. It was also therapy: I was in a cult and it was not funny, I still want to understand the experience. Yes, I am bitter about that experience but I am not (yet) bitter about Wikipedia. The article was also a play of words, and a kind of practice for my edits on new religious movements. The article also had a serious meaning, there is nothing esoteric about cult involvement. Besides, I think that a high level of personal identification with Wikipedia may not be healthy. I do care about Wikipedia but I joined Wikipedia because I care about facts free from propaganda, self-deception and bias. Wikipedia is for me a means of providing facts and I can get upset if I think that facts are distorted. I think this is quite a good trait for a contributor.

I think it is a bit unfair to criticize me for the article that was here. The article showed my skill in writing in a quasi-NPOV way and handling the concepts involved in cults and NRMS. This skill helps me to correct POV edits by others. The only justified criticism that I can think of, is that I have used Wikipedia's web space to some extent as a personal page but nobody complained about this.

Andries 06:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I saw the article when the controversy was raging, and I did not particularly mind it. Well, the part about me being like Jim Jones was a bit for me to swallow, but I knew it was not meant seriously.

I think that the study of cults is one of the most important parts of the study of cultural dynamics generally, and that the types of things we see manifested in cults are or can be latent tendencies in any organization. While of course I don't welcome being compared to Jim Jones, I do welcome a healthy sense of constructive self-criticism within the community, to help us avoid various problems of institutional rigidity.

One of the things that I think I must do, in order to discourage bad cultural dynamics, is to be pleasant and open about criticism of me. It just isn't helpful for me to get offended, and for people to leap to my defense, over every little thing. Jimbo Wales 14:59, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Jimbo: I am interested in knowing more about your theory of "cults" and their comparison with organizational design. -- Zappaz 23:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Zappaz, your special interest(POV) is showing.--AI 10:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What cult? - Bagel7 23:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * In my mind you cannot criticize something that is subjective, without the criticism being subject to the same rules. The idea of a cult can only be truly defined by experience I believe. As you say, you were a member of a cult, and it was not fun. Indeed that must be a powerful experience. I, having never been in a cult in the sense I think you mean, have different thoughts on it. This was an interesting posting, otherwise I would not be commenting on it. If you look up 'cult' here, on this web site, you find an interesting explanation. It goes as follows:

a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.

That speaks to me of a subjective culture defining the belief systems of others experience. I hang out at a bar on Fridays for the last 16 years with a group of people that have just as insane ideas and notions as I do. By the above definition, this is indeed a cult as well... however, with Wikkipidia, there is no inherent core belief system and there can really be no coherent 'membership' list. This is not a criticism but an exercise in logic I believe, just as the definition of cult is as well.Fluidmind23 09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

title: User:Andries/Wikipedia:controversy