text:
Not Necessarily the News

Not Necessarily the News (shortened as NNTN) is an American satirical sketch comedy series first aired on HBO in September 1982 as a comedy special, and then as a series from 1983 to 1990. For most of the run, the series featured Anne Bloom, Danny Breen, Rich Hall, Mitchell Laurance, Stuart Pankin and Lucy Webb. For the final season, the series switched to a live, up-to-the-minute format and also included reports from many other correspondents including Will Durst, Merrill Markoe, Richard Rosen and Harry Shearer.

The series was the birthplace of Rich Hall's sniglets, which spawned a number of books. It also included early appearances from Jan Hooks, and, among the many writers the show employed, was the first credited professional television writing gig for Conan O'Brien, Greg Daniels, Al Jean and Mike Reiss. The show was considered an inspiration and a predecessor to future news satirical programs like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Last Week Tonight, among others.

Synopsis
It featured sketches, parody news items, commercial parodies, and humorous bits made from overdubbing or editing actual news footage. It was based on the British series Not the Nine O'Clock News that had just ended earlier in 1982.

The original format lasted until May 1989, when the series switched to a live, up-to-the-minute format in the style of Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update and Friday's Friday Edition. NNTN came to an end in December the following year with its final episode, a "Not Necessarily the Year in Review" special for 1990.

Cast

 * Anne Bloom (1982–1990), as Frosty Kimelman
 * Rich Hall (1982–1990), who did a regular feature on "sniglets".
 * Tommy Koenig (1982 pilot)
 * Sam McMurray (1982 pilot)
 * Audrie J. Neenan (1982–1984), as Jacqueline Pennell
 * Danny Breen (1983–1990), as Steve Casper
 * Mitchell Laurance (1983–1990), as news reporter Pete Kimelman.
 * Stuart Pankin (1983–1990), as anchorman Bob Charles.
 * Lucy Webb (1984–1990), as Helen St. Thomas
 * Annabelle Gurwitch (1989–1990)
 * Tom Parks (1989–1990)
 * Merrill Markoe (1989–1990)
 * Richard Rosen (1989–1990)
 * Joe Guppy (1989–1990)
 * Will Durst (1989–1990)
 * Jon Ross (1989–1990)
 * Harry Shearer (1989–1990)

Theme and episodes
The show's first theme song was the instrumental bridge of Eric Clapton's cover of "Motherless Children". It was switched to "Hooray For The City" by Jack Mack & The Heart Attack in 1985.

The series also spawned two specialized episodes that aired as occasional specials: Not Necessarily the Year in Review, and Not Necessarily the Sniglets.

title: Not Necessarily the News


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divulge

Divulge was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Dictdef. RickK 23:13, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. Dicdef by well-intentioned (and very adventurous) newbie on an IP. Explanatory welcome message left. Andrewa 01:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: dictdef. Interesting formatting & old use of illustrative text.  The user should be encouraged gently to take some time with the policies.  Seems to be bright and interested, and we ought to welcome him or her. Geogre 01:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I just copied this verbatim into the Wiktionary (still needs cleaning up.) Delete.  --Ardonik 04:16, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

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

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divulge


text:
User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hello, I'd like to request that you restore all the deletions you made in the Category:FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World. As you know, the issue of deleting this category is still under discussion and should not have been acted on. I would also again like to request that you stop creating false entries. MK 04:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Seconded. Andy Mabbett 16:02, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Me too. It's quite wrong to remove people from the category when it is still under discussion.  --bodnotbod 17:42, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

I notice that you submitted Get-back-world-respect to RFC: Comments about Individual Users recently, but that it was deleted because it was not validated. I have resubmitted the request because of another dispute, and invite you to help me validate the request this time around. RFC: Get-back-world-respect. --Zanthalon 14:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi - could you leave some comments on the talk page of Template:Wikipedialang as to why you pulled out various constructed languages from the main listing? -- Kwekubo 21:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

missing semicolon after entity
Your displayed name (when you enter ) has an HTML numerical entity reference without a semicolon at the end (before the 'sv'). Please add one as this causes improper display on browsers. Specifically, please change "&30505sv" to "&30505;sv". -- pne 12:29, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. (I think it was a fairly recent change to the software that made the parser more strict that caused those problems.) -- pne 07:12, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Request accepted :-) Hmmmm, now, I go learn to do other things. When I know how to do enough things, and have teach in turn other people to do it as well, I can die in peace. Unsigned.

Last / Seven words of Jesus
Talk:Last words of Jesus — you disagree? — Matt 02:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Um...what?
Did you just move "Eastern philosophy" to "Eastern culture"? And can you undo it quickly, please? (see Talk:Eastern culture -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Secretlondon 18:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...
Dear Stevertigo,

I just came across Wikipedia and have found it on the whole balanced in presentation. Unfortunately, I found the entry on anti-semitism http://www.fact-index.com/a/an/anti_semitism_1.html misleading and more harm than help. I have checked the procedure for criticizing articles, and found the talk page and your discussion, and I'm turning to you for assistance.

 * Keep in mind that content outside of Wikipedia is no longer a part of Wikipedia, even though this is where their content may get made, its usually updated rather quickly. I did not look at the link, nor am I concerned with the content of Wikipedia knock-offs, but how is such material "harmful?" If it certain parts are factually incorrect, change them. If they represent polemic views, and could be better written, change them. Learn as you write, though. The only mistake one can make is to 1. assume that their own views are neutral, and 2. assume that you know more than others. Both of these serve to engender disrespect rather than to facilitate communication and education. Extreme views and the extremist themselves can be weeded out. What is left is only a reflection of the current state of a dialogue which is constantly changing.

I've written up a few criticisms (use of 19th c term for the age-old problem of anti-Jewish sentiment, no mention of the REAL sources of anti-Jewish sentiment, i.e., the racist and anti-Christian elements of the Talmud and the role of Jews in their host countries) if you are interested.

 * I missed this part before, but this tells me that you have brought with you some pre-conceived notions about what x is, and you want some help with pushing your theory x. This is not the way wiki works, fortunately. Your notions what the REAL sources of x are 1. assumes that you know what is real 2. assumes that those who disagree with you are not rational, and hold some kind of monopoly on a view. I completely reject the attempts to insert specially-interpreted material as you propose in a any context other than one which deals with that particular material itself. And then, you must be prepared to take criticism for it, and learn from all of your critics. -SV

This unbalanced presentation of a very delicate issue feeds a dangerous misunderstanding of the role of Jews in their host societies at a time when the world is descending rapidly into world war prompted in the view of many authorities (including the likes of Finkelstein and Chomsky) by the actions of Israel.

 * This is false. Neither Chomsky nor Finkelstein attribute the current war solely to Israel. Rather, they attribute to Israel a cultural change which forfeits Jewish and humanist principles, to an elitist and self-agrandizing state idolatry, which is largely a copy of US nationalism. Chomsky in particular is quite clear that it is the US and it's engines that drive the show; Israel has (for survival reasons) chosen to ally itself with the US, and in turn has at times done it's bidding. People like Dershowitx are completely correct to point out the hypocrisy of those who criticise Israel alone for the things the US does without question. The fact that many of Dershy's persuasion rarely put it so plainly is simply a factor of caution; anti-Semitism to them is a very real, ugly, and ignorant thing, which can't be dealt with reasonably. The thing that now comes back to haunt them, in this new connected age, is due to the cross-purposes of educating the public about the evils of Nazism, tyranny, etc, but then asking people to keep a blind eye to what goes on in Palestine. But that this hypocrisy is itself becoming a "potential source" for an increase of uneducated persecutory sentiment, is not going unnoticed. And this attention and reflection will manifest itself with an increased prominence of Israeli and US human rights group alliances, and strengths within their respective societies.

 * The operating wisdom seems to be an assumption average America is not educated, aware, sensible, and liberal enough to overcome "anti-Semitism," and this (paradoxically) is the reason for why all the excessive pro-War on Terror, nationalist, and anti-Arab pandering has really been going on. I hope that America doesn't substantiate this assumption.  But though its quite natural to want to blame someone else, when a bad idea goes utterly wrong, the "moral Chernobyl" of Abu Ghraib, for example cannot be put on Israel, even if some of the methods appear to "originate" from "Jewish" anti-Arabism.  After WWI, many Germans held the view that "non-Germans" were to blame for Germany's "tarnished glory," when the failures were exclusively the result of their own ethnocentric aggressions.  WWI was so costly, its quite understandable how people tended to avoid personal responsibility for their own mistakes, but we all know where that particular scapegoating led, and what developed in the decades after... In otherwords, I understand where you may be coming from, but history is to be learned from, if youre not too old to learn.

It is telling that in other articles dealing with Jewish matters (Schneerson, anti-Zionism) the entries are qualified with "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Curiously the entry on anti-semitism is BOTH protected and free of this qualification, though I see there is at least some discussion going on the talk page. I'm not interested in engaging in online polemics, and I understand this issue is perhaps the most explosive in Wikipedia, but I see no reason why 'the other side' should not be fairly presented, even if the pro-Jewish POV gets the final word. Can you suggest how I could proceed? Thanks. - Eric Walberg

 * Page protections are a normal part of the cooling off process, and they are almost never misused to advance a view. I can understand that you personally dont want to engage in online polemics, but you cannot expect to recruit anyone to do your "work" for you. If what disinterests you about "polemic" engagement is the possibility that you may learn something from people you may disagree with, then I would encourage you to get over that phobia. Sincerely, Stevertigo 20:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Eric. I am considering my response to you carefully. I encourage you to read up on the articles we have at this point, and to understand wiki-culture a bit, in terms of how things eventually get done. Procedure is one thing. Wiki culture is quite another, as you may soon find out. Sincerely, Stevertigo 17:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Stevertigo, please note that there are some disagreements about the persecution template. How disgusting to read in that context on your page about a guy who thinks people hated jews because jews were racists and were currently starting a world war. I am impressed with your calm answers. Get-back-world-respect 04:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks GBWR - people come to encyclopedias not because they know everything, but because they have a lot to learn. How is any of us different? ;) -Stevertigo 10:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is persecution?
Anti- might belong under persecution if you can find somewhere some people who are being persecuted for that anything, wherever exactly the lines between opposition, discrimination, and persecution are drawn. If you want a persecution category then obtain clear consensus guidelines for it that detail what constitutes persecution with clear examples of where it applies and where it doesn't. If there is no consensus for such guidelines and examples, then it's all individual POV and there should be no category.

For example, it seems to me that within the US in respect to anti-terrorist government policy that people who strongly support the current government position and those who are against the current government position can probably in individual cases claim persecution by others. jallan 18:47, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:Persecution and "anti-Americanism"
I find it questionable that an administrator who tries to defend a template that is opposed by three others in an article blocks that article. I find it intolerable that an administrator personally attacks others and deletes deletion requests. I am puzzled given what I wrote above. Get-back-world-respect 23:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, youre really pushing it, kid. Thats three times now that you have completely misrepresented what I have said or done. I did not remove any VFD material - you added it to VFD as a link (which I simply changed) and to the template itself, both caused it to stretch too wide. -Stevertigo 23:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If your template does not work as you like that is not my problem. A vote for deletion note is necessary in order to help others to join the discussion. A link from vfd is helpful in the same context and is common practice. Please do not further deface my talk page with condescending comments like "kid". I saw we already had a similar conflict where you ignored the wikipedia policy to refrain from personal attacks. I really cannot see why a person like you should be admin, not to speak of mediator. Get-back-world-respect 23:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can I suggest you all chill out? Take a break - or edit an article on flowers or something? Secretlondon 23:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It can be enforced ;) Seriously - it doesn't look a constructive spat - more of a slanging match - although I've seen sillier edit wars. Secretlondon 00:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipolicy is clearly that a deletion notice shall not be deleted until there is consensus to keep the article. If you know so well how to deal with things here why did you not do what I just did? Get-back-world-respect 00:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * May I ask why you want to keep talk on a deletion vote page that is no longer needed and only diverts the readers from the real subject? I think it would have been in the interest of the communuity if you had accepted my proposal - and not doubled some paragraphs.
 * Interesting that you request comments on me after you repeatedly tried to insult me, which says more about you than anyone else, and ignores the Wikipedia policy No personal attacks. You also ignored wikipolicy when you deleted a vote for deletion note that clearly said Do not delete this note until there is consensus to keep. Also note that the comment page says Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If you think your condescending tirades were an attempt to resolve the issue I think you make a fool of yourself. Also note that Secretlondon's note was directed to both of us. I deem wasting others' time with a request for comment on you as equally ridiculous as your explanation: "irrational, incoherent process; unreasonable". Get-back-world-respect 10:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Youre misrepresenting me and my actions again. Thats the real reason for the RFC - to see if others have a history of this problem with you. "Note that" I simply trimmed up unnecessary material from the notice itself, and your insane apparent habit of deleting comments you dont like from your talk page isnt helpful either; which is why Im responding here. So, play not the innocent. All that said, at least your writing seems to becoming a bit more focused, and I appreciate that. -Stevertigo 17:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, it was Tuomas who deleted the note. But although you knew that it was done and wrote yourself that the text should have been adapted to the template width, you did not do it, in spite of the warning. I have no history of deleting others' comments because only in very rare events have people here treated me in such a condescending way and attempted insults. The only one who used even worse inappropriate language was TDC, who had been banned for such things already before. When at the time I asked you what to do about it because I saw that you were a mediator, which made me think you should be a respectable user with skills of mediation and balancing, I got an offensive comment empty of any productive content. You never answered my question about it.
 * I once agreed with Cecropia that we should delete our off-topic talk, I thought you might be as reasonable. And I saw other people striking out inappropriate notes. The Wikipedia policy No personal attacks says Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight. In extreme cases, users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. I repeat that I really cannot see why a person who engages in such nonsense should be an administrator, not to speak of mediator. Get-back-world-respect 14:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Please delete the template now as it was voted to be deleted and if you want to tell me anything let me know at my own page as I stop watching yours. Get-back-world-respect 04:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reply
Another one and I have merged the discussion as you suggested. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prejudice, Persecution, etc.
You ask, "What categories would you suggest that each of the subentries in the template be classified? This seems like a good solution. -Stevertigo"

I don't think Vfd is the best place to sort this out, but for one suggestion, we could have categories "Ethnic Persecution", "Ethnic Discrimination", and "Ethnic Prejudice" (probably also "Genocide") under Category "Ethnic_groups." But expect inclusions of particular articles to be controversial. Insofar as concerns are specific to ethnicity, we might discuss this further at WikiProject Ethnic Groups. Insofar as concerns are not specific to ethnicity, we'll need some other categories that descend from elsewhere in the hierarchy. -- Jmabel 07:26, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

VfD discussion
Hi, since I know you like to be well-informed about issues you take a stand on, it might be worth your while to take a look at Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as Humus wanted it to look:  It was a horrendous piece, a blantant pro-Israel editorial disguised as an encyclopedia article, consisting essentially of a list of mistakes made by the western media which thereby "proved" bias against Israel. When I encountered it about a month ago, I listed it on VfD, which may have not been the ideal response. Although a concensus to delete did not emerge, the discussion (which you can read here: ) did stimulate several of us to undertake a drastic rewrite of the text. We replaced the dubious and obviously slanted anecdotal material with, as you will have noticed, the results of "scientific" media analysis, ie word frequencies and other statistical information, which, much to the chagrin of pro-Israel faction, does not always favor Israel. Personally, I don't think the topic belongs in an encyclopedia; it lends itself better to a journalistic treatment, but the vote went to keep it, so we have done the best we can with the thing, although that is not of course to imply that it can't be improved. Anway, thanks for your continued help in keeping Wikipedia from turning into a soapbox for Pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian propaganda. -- Viajero 09:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Instead of being afraid of "Pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian propaganda" and adding quotes from el-Intifada, we should work together on improving and NPOVing the article. Here is one typical edit by Viajero: . I repeatedly offered to discuss it (as well as others) line by line. S/He does not engage in discussion, demonstratively does not cooperate, and reverts all edits other than his POV. Given Viajero's unwillingness to cooperate, his anti-Israel bias and his renaming of the article from its neutral title, I don't see how the phrase: "I listed it on VfD, which may have not been the ideal response." can be considered a concession. I don't see how we can proceed without him changing his attitude. Finally, being anti-Israel does not mean pro-Palestinian. The Palestinians deserve better than hatred incitement.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Okay, it's not really of use here to go back into the history with too much detail: Suffice it to say that you both represent poles in the spectrum, and that what you both produce will likely be prejudiced or otherwise considered by the other as biased. Amending to that, you two don't alone determine the article's development, and my favorite way of dealing with that is to simply protect the page, and bar the two main partisans from editing the article. In extreme cases, like with the famous Great Famine article debate, all but two selected moderates wind up editing the protected article. I say this simply to remind us of what must happen, in terms of process, regardless of what will happen in debate. -Stevertigo 21:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your offer to mediate, SV. I am afraid the problem is larger than the two of us. Take a look at any article relating to Israel at WP, there is a lot of activity going on to deligitimize and smear it. In addition to pure editng and NPOV problem, my colleague is unwilling to negotiate/cooperate/discuss, uses condescending tone and heavy-handed tactics and has succesfully agitated others against me. There is nothing wrong to be a Zionist or one against it (well, of course it is wrong, but theoretically speaking...), as long as we respect each other and strive for the same goal of improving WP. I do not believe this is my crusading colleague's intent.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Humus:"There is nothing wrong to be a Zionist or one against it (well, of course it is wrong, but theoretically speaking...)" Zionism as I understand it simply advocated that Jews could return to the territory known (for a little while) as Palestine, right? It says nothing of forcing people from their homes, beating them with stones, chopping down their olive trees, taking their land, etc. Correct?  If a philosophy does not express or espouse the harm of others, there can certainly be nothing "wrong" with it. So you are right; Zionism is not "wrong." Of course the reality seems a bit more complicated, in that both "Zionism" and "anti-Zionism" have extremist adherents within who do advocate and do harm to other human beings; and that harm, and the espousal thereof is "wrong," by whatever definition. Correct?  I dont think that either you nor Viajero espouse the harm of others, and therefore I cannot consider either of your positions "wrong." -Stevertigo 01:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sayeth Humus Sapiens:"...as long as we respect each other and strive for the same goal of improving WP. I do not believe this is my crusading colleague's intent." If you are suggesting that Viajero is acting out of deliberate mischeif, malice, or ill-will toward Wikipedia, and its goals of neutrality, then I suggest you take that up with the board. I would prefer not to deal with offhand inferences made to desparage the character of a brother Wikipedian; and you both seem to be making insinuations about the other's true intentions. In fact what this kind of inuendo does is it demonstrates the weakness in your respective arguments; which from the perspective of practicality and process, are equally obstructive for the goals of Wikipedia. I will give a little more attention to these articles, and find someone willing to work with me for representing both of youre views. I still have my full respect for you both as intelligent and articulate people; should you choose to wisely extend that respect to each other, some progress will be made that will be mutually satisfying. Like sex is (or at least should be). -Stevertigo 01:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

hate speech and listserve
I appreciate your comment on my talk page (although I think there are lots of editors more respected, and rightfully so, than I!). I think as with any discussion it is or should be evolving. I am irritated by the anonymous editor who responded to my comment to WHEELER mostly because I wanted to know what WHEELER thought, but that's life, at least at Wikipeida. By the way, do you understand the cause of the problem with my e-mails to the listserve? Do you know how to fix it? I don't want to resend my e-mails only to clutter up people's mailboxes unnecessarily, Slrubenstein

reply
You wrote:
 * it's not really of use here to go back into the history with too much detail: Suffice it to say that you both represent poles in the spectrum, and that what you both produce will likely be prejudiced or otherwise considered by the other as biased.

Sorry, but you are wrong. You are reducing this issue to an conflict between Humus and me. That fact is, as you would see if you took the time to view the page history and the read the Talk page which you admit you have not, is that the Media article, as it currently stands, represents the efforts on the part of at least a half-dozen users -- who understand Wikipedia's NPOV philosophy as Humus does not -- to turn this article from a crass pro-Israel screed into something halfway decent; we have all contributed material from various sources and we have edited each others contributions. If you don't want to spend time reading Talk pages and looking at page histories, that's your choice, but please spare me the uninformed pontificating and moralizing. For my part, I won't be troubling you any further. -- Viajero 15:29, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediator in the case of User:AndyL and User:WHEELER
A few days ago, AndyL listed a request on the Requests for mediation page between User:WHEELER and himself:
 *  see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:WHEELER and associated TALK page. Specific complaint about his anti-Semitic comment on Talk:Early_National_Socialism but also about his general conduct around POV editing and unencyclopedic behaviour. AndyL 05:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After discussing the matter with sannse, it seems that the first step is to identify one or more members of the committee who are willing to mediate in this case, although before proceeding it will be necessary to clarify the goals of the mediation.

And just FYI, there has also been quite a bit of chatter on the WikiEN mailing list about similar issues.

If you are willing to act as the mediator in this case, please leave a brief note stating so at Requests_for_mediation. The more people who are willing to mediate, the better, as this will provide more options for the two users to try to agree on.

Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 18:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi again -- I haven't heard from either party except to rule out Ed Poor. If you are still willing could you go ahead and take this on? It would be great if you could just contact each user and give them some info and get things started. You can find an example of what I've done before at User:Bcorr/new_articles. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 16:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

well done
Good sedition rewrite. Marlowe 04:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Hi, It's great to see one of my images used for Picture of the day (the image is one of my favourites too), but I thought the picture had to be chosen from Featured pictures? That one isn't, it's not on the candidates list either. Angela has reverted to the image that was already there for today. Regards -- sannse (talk) 09:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:CFD
I think Template:CFD should be at Template:Cfd so that it is in the same style as Template:Vfd and Template:Ifd. ☞spencer195 19:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update: Either Template:CFD and Template:RFD should be moved to Template:Cfd and Template:Rfd or Template:Vfd and Template:Ifd shoule be moved to Template:VFD and Template:IFD. ☞spencer195 19:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Highway 1
Even when on vacation I'm working for Wikipedia ;-)

sig
I don't know much of anything when it comes to my sig ;) Early upon coming to the wiki I tried using different colours, and was promptly scolded by martin. I stopped, but when I saw people using not just colours but small images, etc... I decided to try again, It was REALLY hard to get it the way it is now. Any advice on how to mess w it, (and what rules there are, if any) would be appreciated. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 21:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World
I have just added my name to the list of those in favour of keeping this category. Can you please undo all your deletes, since there is now a majority to keep the category, please. Noisy 17:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - I couldn't find your comment on Village Pump. Did you mean somewhere else? Noisy 17:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was about to write it - got distracted, and now Ive got to run out for a bit. Stevertigo 18:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople
I don't understand why you edited Fall of Constantinople in the way you did. "A dog is an animal that barks" is ceteris paribus better than "A dog refers to an animal that barks", and I would say that the latter is incorrect; one should say instead that the word "dog" refers to the animal, thus: "Dog refers to an animal that barks". And then the word dog should be italicized because one is writing about the word rather than using the word to write about the animal. Sometimes it is important to write about the word rather than about the thing. That happens in cases where the word refers to different things in different contexts, or where there is controversy about the appropriateness of the word, or in various other circumstances. But far more often, writing about the thing rather than about the word is more appropriate, partly because to write about the word rather than the thing just adds needless complication. There's a page in the style manual about the over-use of the phrase "refers to"; I'll give you a link to it if I find it. Michael Hardy 16:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here it is Use of 'refers to'. Michael Hardy 16:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above attacks a strawman. The article specifically says that in some cases refers to is appropriate, especially in dealing with divergent terms. That does not contradict the article's assertion that usually (as when one is writing the article titled dog) "A dog is an animal that barks" is better (even if only because simpler) than "A dog refers to an animal that barks). No one made a blanket claim that refers to is bad style, only that the simpler form should be used when it suffices (i.e., usually). Michael Hardy 21:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS: Lest any confusion remain, I've expanded the article Use of 'refers to' to deal at more length with the concerns you raise. Michael Hardy 21:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 9


text:
Jyoti Randhawa

Jyotinder Singh Randhawa (born 4 May 1972) is an Indian professional golfer. He plays on the Asian Tour where he won eight times between 1998 and 2009. He was ranked in the top 100 of the Official World Golf Ranking several times between 2004 and 2009.

Professional career
Randhawa turned professional in 1994. He played on the Asian Tour, having played on the European Tour from 2005 to 2010. In 2002, he finished top on the Asian Tour money list. He has finished second on the European Tour three times; the 2002 BMW Asian Open, the 2004 Johnnie Walker Classic and the 2007 Open de España.

Personal life
Randhawa was married to actress Chitrangada Singh. Their son is named Zorawar Randhawa. The couple divorced in April 2014 and their son's custody has been granted to Chitrangada.

He was arrested in connection with poaching of endangered animals and birds in Katarniaghat wildlife sanctuary on 26 December 2018.

Asian Tour wins (8)
Asian Tour playoff record (3–0)

Other wins (6)

 * 1999 Wills Southern Open
 * 2000 Xerox Open, Honda Siel Nike-PGA Cship, SRF Open
 * 2003 Kashmir Open
 * 2005 Hero Honda Open South

Results in major championships
Note: Randhawa never played in the Masters Tournament. {{legend|#eeeeee|Did not play}} CUT = missed the half-way cut WD = withdrew "T" = tied

Results in World Golf Championships
{{legend|#eeeeee|Did not play}} "T" = Tied Note that the HSBC Champions did not become a WGC event until 2009.

Team appearances
Amateur
 * Eisenhower Trophy (representing India): 1992

Professional
 * Alfred Dunhill Cup (representing India): 1999
 * Dynasty Cup (representing Asia): 2003 (winners), 2005 (winners)
 * World Cup (representing India): 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009
 * Royal Trophy (representing Asia): 2006

title: Jyoti Randhawa


text:
Public holidays in the Comoros

 * This is an incomplete list of holidays in the Comoros

 * January 1: New Year's Day
 * March 18: Cheikh Al Maarouf Day, death date of an Islamic preacher
 * May 1: Labour Day
 * July 6: National Day, celebrates independence from France in 1975.
 * November 12: Maore Day. Since 2005 National Maore Day has been one of the ways to fight against the presence of France on the Mayotte; it has been a holiday in Comoros since 2006.

Movable holidays

 * Eid al-Fitr
 * Eid al-Adha
 * Islamic New Year
 * The Prophet's Birthday
 * The Prophet's Ascension

title: Public holidays in the Comoros


text:
Category:Chevrolet vehicles

Vehicles produced under the Chevrolet brand by General Motors worldwide.

title: Category:Chevrolet vehicles


text:
Operation Strike Fear

Operation Strike Fear can refer to:
 * Code name for the 2007 Baghdad crackdown in the 2003- Iraq War
 * Part of the fictional Galactic Civil War in the Star Wars storyline

title: Operation Strike Fear


text:
Salvador de Madariaga

Salvador de Madariaga y Rojo (23 July 1886 – 14 December 1978) was an "eminent liberal" Spanish diplomat, writer, historian, and pacifist, nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature and the Nobel Peace Prize and awarded the Charlemagne Prize in 1973.

Background
Salvador de Madariaga y Rojo was born on July 23, 1886, in A Coruña, Galicia, Kingdom of Spain. He graduated with a degree in engineering in Paris, France.

Career
Madariaga returned to Spain and became an engineer for the Northern Spanish Railway Company. At that time, he first came into contact with "Generación del 14" intellectuals.

In 1916, he abandoned that for work in London as a journalist for The Times newspaper. Meanwhile, he began publishing his first essays. In 1921, he became a press member of the Secretariat of the League of Nations and chief of the Disarmament Section in 1922. In 1928, he was appointed Professor of Spanish at Oxford University for three years during which he wrote a book on nation psychology, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards.

In 1931, the Second Spanish Republic appointed Madariaga as Spanish ambassador to the United States and a permanent delegate to the League of Nations; he kept the latter post for five years. Chairing the Council of the League of Nations in January 1932, he condemned Japanese aggression in Manchuria in such vehement terms that he was nicknamed "Don Quijote de la Manchuria". From 1932 to 1934, he served as ambassador to France. In 1933, he was elected to the National Congress and served as both Minister for Education and Minister for Justice.

In July 1936, as a classical liberal he went into exile in England to escape the Spanish Civil War. There, he became a vocal opponent of and organised resistance to the Nationalists and the Spanish State of Francisco Franco.

In 1947, he was one of the principal authors of the Oxford Manifesto on liberalism. He participated in the Hague Congress in 1948 as president of the Cultural Commission and he was one of the co-founders in 1949 of the College of Europe.

In his writing career he wrote books and essays about Don Quixote, Christopher Columbus, Shakespeare's Hamlet, and the history of Latin America. He militated in favour of a united and integrated Europe. He wrote in French and German, Spanish, Galician (his mother tongue) and English.

In 1973, he won the Karlspreis for his contributions to the European idea and European peace. In 1976, he returned to Spain after Franco's death, and became a member of the Spanish Royal Academy.

Personal life and death
In 1912 de Madariaga married Constance Archibald, a Scottish economic historian. The couple had two daughters, Nieves Mathews (1917–2003) and professor and historian Isabel de Madariaga (1919–2014). Constance died in May 1970. In November 1970, de Madariaga married Emilia Székely de Rauman who had been his secretary since 1938 (who died in 1991, aged 83).

Salvador de Madariaga y Rojo died age 92 on December 16 1978, in Locarno, Switzerland.

Awards and recognition
Madariaga received numerous prizes in his lifetime, including:
 * Honorary Member of the Royal Academy of Spain (1936)
 * Hansischer Goethe-Preis, University of Hamburg (1972)
 * Charlemagne Prize (1973)

Legacy
The Madariaga European Foundation has been named after him and promotes his vision of a united Europe making for a more peaceful world. The 1979–1980 academic year at the College of Europe was named in his honour.

An Oxfordshire blue plaque in honour of Salvador de Madariaga was unveiled at 3 St Andrew's Road, Headington, Oxford by his daughter Isabel on 15 October 2011.

Works
Madariaga wrote books in Spanish, English, French, and German. His best known is the novel El Corazón de Piedra Verde (Heart of Jade).

 * Selected books
 * The Sacred Giraffe: Being the Second Volume of the Posthumous Works of Julio Arceval (1925) (science fiction novel)
 * Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards: An Essay in Comparative Psychology, Oxford University Press, 1929
 * Disarmament, Coward-McCann, 1929
 * Anarchy or Hierarchy, Macmillan, 1937
 * Christopher Columbus, Macmillan, 1940
 * The Rise of the Spanish-American Empire, Hollis & Carter; Macmillan, 1947
 * The Fall of the Spanish-American Empire, Hollis & Carter, 1947; Macmillan, 1948
 * Bolivar, Hollis & Carter, 1952
 * Morning without Noon, 1973
 * El Corazón de Piedra Verde, 1942 (Heart of Jade)
 * War in the Blood (sequel to Heart of Jade)
 * Spain: a Modern History
 * Hernán Cortés – Conqueror of Mexico, Macmillan, 1941
 * The Blowing up of the Parthenon, 1960
 * On Hamlet, Hollis & Carter, 1948
 * Latin America, Between the Eagle and the Bear, Praeger, 1962

 * Articles
 * "Englishman, Frenchman, Spaniard," The Atlantic (April 1928)
 * "An Admirable Variety: Further Diversities of National Character," The Atlantic (September 1928)
 * "Disarmament--American Plan," The Atlantic (April 1929)
 * "Spain: The Politics," The Atlantic (March 1937)

title: Salvador de Madariaga


text:
Category:Sussex

Sussex is a historic county of Southern England. It is now divided into East Sussex and West Sussex and most of Wikipedia's Sussex articles are in the separate categories for those two counties.

title: Category:Sussex


text:
List of British coronations

This is a list by date of coronations of British monarchs from the 10th century to the present.

Monarchs of England, Ireland and Scotland (1603–1707)
From 1603 onwards England, Ireland and Scotland were personally united under the same ruler (see Personal union).

title: List of British coronations


text:
Talk:Tau (particle)

name
yeah, so it's not actually called a tauon. It might be easier for you guys to separate it from the wiki entries for greek letters etc but you've basically made a word up here. There's no greek letter 'electr' before you start going on about leptons and mesons ending in 'on'. I'm a particle physicist, i should know.

Speedy delete???

According to the history this page was moved to Tau (particle) and now we're moving it back again?

Edd 23:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, most of the articles linking to this particle do so via the Tauon redirect page. I've adjusted the remaining few articles so that all articles now point to Tauon. Check the template on Tau (particle) article - it refers to Tauon (which is a redirect to Tau (particle) and not Tau (particle) - so it remains linked when it should be bold. If we can move Tau (particle) to Tauon then all the redirects go away; and the template will finally work correctly. I'd suggest that the original move was a mistake - possibly by a person whose national article for this particle is Tau rather than Tauon. As such, the English page has probably laboured under a less common name. Ian Cairns 23:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yup, seems logical enough. Edd 20:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Move completed. Thanks for your assistance. Ian Cairns 21:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * "Seems logical enough", "probably laboured under a less common name", and speculation on the national origin of an editor are not sufficient criteria. "Correct, and agrees with verifiable sources" would have been.  Unfortunately, the verifiable sources, such as particle physics textbooks and journal papers would support naming the page "Tau (particle)".  This is why I have listed the page for a requested move back.  The template and any linking pages can and should be changed as well. The Wilschon (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the tauon actually called like that?

 * It's not called the "tauon". It is called either the "tau" or the "tau lepton". As a reference I offer you Martin Perl's nobel prize citation, for example. On the Wikipedia page about Perl, someone had added a note "tauon" after the correct name "tau lepton". I had been wondering why this page was so strangely named since I first came to Wikipedia, and never bothered reading this talk page until now and discovering what had happened. Anyway I've removed every "tauon" I can find from Wikipedia. If necessary a note on the "tauon" name can be added here. --DannyWilde 15:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's great that the tau's primary page is under "tau lepton", since that's by far the most common usage. But perhaps it's a bit overzealous to remove all references to "tauon". It's certainly not absent from the literature, and it does follow the standard "(foo) (lept/mes)on" --> "(foo)on" rule. I'm going to add a note on the subject at the top. -- Xerxes 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A note on this page is enough, other references should be removed. Funnily enough I used to think the name was "tauon", I can't remember where I got the impression from. --DannyWilde 02:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I had a good look on the Google but I couldn't find any clues about where "tauon" comes from. Interestingly I found lots of pages by astronomers using the word "tauon".  I couldn't find any particle physicists using the word "tauon", although I found it being used on a couple of particle physics-related sites, for example in a speech by a non-physicist held on the SLAC site. Also, it appears in lots of these amateur guides to physics. Anyway, I have no idea where the "tauon" name comes from, but so far I see no evidence at all of its being used in particle physics. --DannyWilde 07:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Feynman diagram
This might sound kind of ignorant, but what does the d in the Feynman diagram represent? I assume the anti-U is its antiparticle, but I don't know what U represents either. Please assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.10.18 (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the Feynman diagram of the tau decay may be wrong. I believe at the initial decay, there should be the W- shown, and a tau-neutrino, rather than the anti-tau neutrino shown (as per conservation of lepton 'family' number, which should apply in this case). Can anyone confirm this?
 * You are right. the arrow in the other neutrino is also pointing in the wrong direction. Does anybody know how to fix this kind of image file? Dauto 06:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
 * There's something wrong with the Decay section; the decay branching probabilities don't add up to 100% and there's a reference to a commented-out image being incorrect in the article text. I've added the disputed-section template to the section until someone who understands what's going on can come and fix it. 75.15.155.179 (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * For reference, there are two diagrams at Image:Feynman diagram of decay of tau lepton.svg and Image:Tau-decays.png.png. Time3000 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I added File:Tau-decay.png to the decay section. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The u-bar and the d are swapped: the quark should be the one with the arrow pointing forwards and the antiquark the one with the arrow pointing backwards. ― A._di_M.3rd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 14:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * That is nit-picking. All arrows in this figure are pointing forward. Although this is not technically as in a real Feynman diagram, it is also how a RAL masterclass presents the decay. When particles are labeled as antiparticles, one can let the arrows point forward. This way, both experts and novices will not misunderstand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * It turns out that one of the three diagrams linked above had the arrow pointing in the usual direction and had the anti-up grouped with the other antiparticles. It's also an SVG, which is preferred over raster formats. I've swapped it in. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Page Name
When did that page change its name from Tau lepton to tauon? The other name is a better choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauto (talk • contribs) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed it in the last week for consistency (electron/muon/tauon). The other alternative would be mu lepton and tau lepton, but muon is the overwhelmingly predominant usage, while "tauon" is more prevalent than "tau lepton" in a google hit fights (roughly 784K hits vs. 69.5K hits). "Tauon electron" and "tau lepton electron" is 10.6K hits vs. 39 K hits. These two things (consistency and google hits) warrants the name tauon, IMO. Having the tauon be named the tau lepton would make it special in that it would be the only lepton with a name with the etymology [symbol + lepton] on wikipedia.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I may be wrong but I think  tau lepton  is the more modern usage. I won't fight you over that though. There are plenty of factually wrong or missleading statments in the WP High Energy pages. No need to argue about naming conventions. Dauto (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Consistency is all very nice, but on a similar idea to your google search a search of the Web of Knowledge (scientific papers) gave 24 results for tauon and 1862 for tau lepton. Clearly the second is the most used by scientists. 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IAA Particle Physicist. Nobody ever says "tauon" in this field.  You rarely even hear "tau lepton".  By far the most common thing is simply "tau" (or even "τ"), as in "We're looking for Higgs going to a tau pair", or "we detect the τ in the three-prong decay channel".  Furthermore, a quick search on the arxiv (nearly all new papers are posted on the arxiv at some point) shows a grand total of 15 papers using the word "tauon", which I think is rather telling...  This page should be named  tau (particle) .  If you like, I can provide references to any number of textbooks, reference works, and articles using "tau" or "τ", for instance Cheng and Li ("τ").  The Wilschon (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tauon-Catalyzed Fusion
Theoretically shouldn't Tauon-Catalyzed fusion be possible just like Muon-catalyzed_fusion? I would think it would cause fusion more readily because the Tauon should be 3477 times closer the the nucleus than an election, as opposed to the Muon's 207 times closer. Maybe this should get a mention? Ittiz (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not an expert on fusion, but I would expect the reason it isn't pursued is twofold: the high decay rate of the tau and the difficulty in reliably producing taus (esp. as compared with producing muons) The Wilschon (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Makes sense. What do you think would be appropriate for Wikipedia, a redirect to muon-catalyzed fusion and create a section discussion tauon-catalyzed fusion (with refs, of course)?Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Sure, I guess. Provided, of course, that there are any refs.  I would be surprised to find any because, to the best of my knowledge (admittedly fusion physics is not my subfield), it is not an active area of research at all. The Wilschon (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tauon → Tau (particle) — The name "tauon" is rarely used in the field of physics for the third generation lepton. The name "tau lepton" is occasionally used. The name "tau" or "τ" is nearly always used. I realize that this is inconsistent with the naming of the muon and the electron (second and first generation lepton, respectively), but wikipedia should describe, not prescribe, usage. The Wilschon (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The reason is that it breaks the electron/muon/tauon naming symmetry and thus confuses the reader for no reason, especially considering the wikipedia usage is also predominantly tauon. Google hits also show that tauon is more widespread (768,000 hits for "tauon", 74,500 hits for "tau lepton", 10,800 for "tau particle"). I agree that google hits is not the best metric to gauge use amongst scientific literature (tau lepton would probably win here), but tauon is accepted enough to be used for making things more accessible. The article also mentions all the alternative names of the tauon, and tau lepton redirects here. Switching would introduce a lot of confusion, with minimal gain. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I disagree that there is or even should be any lepton naming symmetry. It might be nice, but if wishes were horses...  We might as well rename the neutrinos to help out the SUSY folks then (neutrino/neutralino, blech)!  As a counter to your google searches, I find that tau physics gets 5,850,000 hits, tauon physics gets 30,500 hits, and "tau lepton" physics gets 64,700 hits.  Alternatively, tau particle gets 767,000 hits, tauon particle gets 28,500 hits, and "tau lepton" particle gets 123,000 hits.  Since I do not know of any usage of "tauon" in the literature, either in the field or in popular science, I expect that most people, physicists or merely the curious, will be less confused by a more standard usage.  Again, we are an encyclopedia and must describe, not prescribe.  I am presuming that if the title of this article changed, the rest of the wikipedia usage would also be changed to accord. The Wilschon (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "tau physics" hits are meaningless, there's just too many false positives on it (tau is used for lifetime, torque, ... ). For usage in literature, see for example, , , , and so on. "Tau" is no more used than "mu"s for muons, and "nu-e"s for electron neutrinos. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Ok, so we leave out the searches with the word physics as a descriminator. How about the ones with particle?  I hardly think your original tauon to tau lepton to tau particle is an apples to apples comparison, since I am not claiming that anyone calls the particle "tau particle", but rather simply "tau" (or "tau lepton").  Furthermore, citing arXiv papers for usage of "tauon" is particularly disingenous, considering that there are a grand total of 15 of them.  The "tauon mass" papers are furthermore little more than numerology.  As a counter, let me list some arXiv papers using "tau" or "tau lepton":

 * I found 17 papers using "tau" as the particle name in the first 50 hits on the arXiv under hep-ex (a total of 299 hits using "tau" in the title under hep-ex). This is more than the total number of papers using "tauon" at all in any category on the arXiv.  Note that these are not using tau, \tau, or $\tau$ as LaTeX-pidgin for τ, which is also common.
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1014
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0572
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3568
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1511
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4800
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3740
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2285
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0088
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3656
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3519
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3464
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2491
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3505
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0465
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.2664
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3144
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3219

 * I also found 17 papers using "tau lepton" as the particle name in the first 50 hits on the arXiv (some hits are cross-listed under hep-ph) out of a total of 74 hits for papers under hep-ex using tau and lepton in the title. This is again more than the total number of papers using "tauon" at all in any category on the arXiv.  Again I have attempted to exclude papers that were using LaTeX-pidgin for τ.
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1014
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.4086
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2161
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5141
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1368
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0702132
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0604022
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0602044
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0501065
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0408107
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0406010
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0403110
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0312046
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0311047
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0311028
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0302028
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0210066

 * When one considers that there are two other major arXiv sections (hep-ph and hep-th) to examine, it becomes clear that "tau" or "tau lepton" are used in the literature as the name for the third generation lepton overwhelming more than "tauon". The Wilschon (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose the descriptor is dropped only when placed in context, otherwise it should be named tauon or tau lepton. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. The particle is almost universally referred to verbally as "tau" in speech among particle physicists, and as "tau" or "τ" in writing, as any survey of the particle physics literature will show. The naming symmetry is indeed broken in practice; for instance, this excerpt from David Griffiths' well-known introductory particle physics textbook: "There are six leptons, classified according to their charge (Q), electron number (Le), muon number (Lμ), and tau number (Lτ)" (emphasis added). If further evidence is needed, note that the hypothesized supersymmetric partner of the tau is called the "stau", not the "stauon". An arXiv search of the former yields 227 hits, while the latter yields ZERO. Yill577 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Support. "Tau" is the common name. Naming conventions do not mention symmetry as a reason for not following normal practice. Aubergine (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request 2010

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There appears to be enough support for a move, but the choice of name varies. Based on the support !votes, the most popular seems to be Tau (particle) - which is when I have moved it to. The second move was much easier. As an "outsider", I can see the points made that only physicists are likely to be searching for the article, so it's better to go with whatever is the real (i.e. commonname) usage. Not only will redirects will take care of any reader typing "Talon", but they will probably also notice the page name as it comes up by the time they have typed "tau"  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Tauon → Tau lepton — The term 'tauon' is hardly used in physics literature to refer to the heaviest lepton (see, for example tauon vs tau lepton ), and is on the verge of being an invented name on Wikipedia. Physics texts, popular science books , and the media all predominantly use 'tau' or 'tau lepton'. Uniformity of the charged lepton names on Wikipedia hardly justifies naming an article based on a rarely used term. TriTertButoxy (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC) if you think that the usage of "tau lepton" should be avoided on Wikipedia since it may cause confusion for lay readers between the tau particle and the tau neutrino (which are both leptons), or  if you disagree. Feel free to add any additional comments or citations. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Tauon neutrino → Tau neutrino

 * ✅ Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * . Wikipedia should use standard terminology and not invent its own. I think a clarifying statement to the effect of "although neutrinos are leptons, the phrase tau lepton refers exclusively to the charged particle" would be best. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * as per above.TR 21:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tau (particle)


text:
Public holidays in Greece

According to Greek law every Sunday of the year is a public holiday. In addition, there are nine mandatory, official public holidays: New Year's Day, 6 January, 25 March, Orthodox Easter Monday, 1 May, 15 August, 28 October, 25 December and 26 December. There are, however, more public holidays celebrated in Greece than are announced by the Ministry of Labour each year as mandatory. The list of these non-fixed National Holidays rarely changes and has not changed in recent decades, giving a total of twelve National Holidays each year.

A public holiday that occurs on a Sunday is not transferred to another date, with the exception of 1 May, which is regarded by the locals more as a general strike than a public holiday.

In addition to the national holidays, some public holidays that are not celebrated nationwide, but only by a specific professional group or a local community. For example, many municipalities have a patron Saint also called 'Name Day' or a Liberation Day, and at this day it is customary for schools to have a day off.

title: Public holidays in Greece


text:
Hard Times (novel)

Hard Times: For These Times (commonly known as Hard Times) is the tenth novel by Charles Dickens, first published in 1854. The book surveys English society and satirises the social and economic conditions of the era.

Hard Times is unusual in several ways. It is by far the shortest of Dickens's novels, barely a quarter of the length of those written immediately before and after it. Also, unlike all but one of his other novels, Hard Times has neither a preface nor illustrations. Moreover, it is his only novel not to have scenes set in London. Instead the story is set in the fictitious Victorian industrial Coketown, a generic Northern English mill-town, in some ways similar to Manchester, though smaller. Coketown may be partially based on 19th-century Preston.

One of Dickens's reasons for writing Hard Times was that sales of his weekly periodical Household Words were low, and it was hoped the novel's publication in instalments would boost circulation – as indeed proved to be the case. Since publication it has received a mixed response from critics. Critics such as George Bernard Shaw and Thomas Macaulay have mainly focused on Dickens's treatment of trade unions and his post-Industrial Revolution pessimism regarding the divide between capitalist mill owners and undervalued workers during the Victorian era. F. R. Leavis, a great admirer of the book, included it – but not Dickens's work as a whole – as part of his Great Tradition of English novels.

Publication
The novel was published as a serial in Dickens's weekly publication, Household Words. Sales were highly responsive and encouraging for Dickens who remarked that he was "Three parts mad, and the fourth delirious, with perpetual rushing at Hard Times". The novel was serialised, in twenty weekly parts, between 1 April and 12 August 1854. It sold well, and a complete volume was published in August, totalling 110,000 words. Another related novel, North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell, was also published in this magazine.

Synopsis
The novel follows a classical tripartite structure, and the titles of each book are related to Galatians 6:7, "For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Book I is entitled "Sowing", Book II is entitled "Reaping", and the third is "Garnering."

Book I: Sowing
Superintendent Mr. Gradgrind opens the novel at his school in Coketown stating, "Now, what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts", and interrogates one of his pupils, Cecilia (nicknamed Sissy), whose father works at a circus. Because her father works with horses, Gradgrind demands the definition of a horse. When she is scolded for her inability to factually define a horse, her classmate Bitzer gives a zoological profile, and Sissy is censured for suggesting that she would carpet a floor with pictures of flowers or horses.

Louisa and Thomas, two of Mr. Gradgrind's children, go after school to see the touring circus run by Mr. Sleary, only to meet their father, who orders them home. Mr. Gradgrind has three younger children: Adam Smith (after the famous theorist of laissez-faire policy), Malthus (after Rev. Thomas Malthus, who wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population, warning of the dangers of future overpopulation), and Jane.

Josiah Bounderby, "a man perfectly devoid of sentiment", is revealed as Gradgrind's close friend. Bounderby is a manufacturer and mill owner who is affluent as a result of his enterprise and capital. He often gives dramatic and falsified accounts of his childhood.

As they consider her a bad influence on the other children, Gradgrind and Bounderby prepare to dismiss Sissy from the school; but the two soon discover her father has abandoned her thereto, in hope that she will lead a better life without him. Mr. Gradgrind gives Sissy a choice: to return to the circus and its kindly manager, Mr. Sleary, and forfeit her education, or to continue her education and work for Mrs. Gradgrind, never returning to the circus. Sissy accepts the latter, hoping to be reunited with her father. At the Gradgrind house, Tom and Louisa befriend Sissy but they are all discontent with their strict upbringing.

Amongst the mill workers, known as "the Hands", is a gloomy man named Stephen Blackpool (nicknamed "Old Stephen"): another of the story's protagonists. When introduced, he has ended his day's work and meets his close friend Rachael. On entering his house he finds that his drunken wife – who has been living away from him – has made an unwelcome return. Stephen is greatly perturbed, and visits Bounderby to ask how he can legally end his marriage and marry Rachael. Mrs. Sparsit, Mr. Bounderby's housekeeper, disapproves of Stephen's query and Bounderby explains that ending a marriage would be complex and prohibitively costly. When Stephen points out the injustice of this, Bounderby accuses him of having ideas above his station. Leaving the house, Stephen meets an old woman who seems interested in Bounderby and says she visits Coketown once a year. Upon returning, he finds Rachael caring for his wife, and stays until three o'clock. When Rachael falls asleep, Mrs. Blackpool wakes up and mistakes a bottle of medicine for alcohol. Despite knowing that she will die if she drinks the entire bottle, Stephen does not move to stop her. Rachael wakes and is able to prevent Mrs. Blackpool from poisoning herself, and Stephen, horrified by his lack of action, finds strength and resolve to bear his suffering.

Several years pass. Sissy becomes Gradgrind's housekeeper, caring for his younger children. Gradgrind tells Louisa that Josiah Bounderby, 30 years her senior, has proposed marriage to her, and quotes statistics to prove that an age difference does not make a marriage unhappy or short. Louisa passively accepts the offer, and the newlyweds set out to Lyons (Lyon), where Bounderby wants to observe how labour is used in the factories there. Tom, her brother, elatedly bids her farewell.

Book 2: Reaping
Book Two opens on Bounderby's bank in Coketown, over which the "light porter", Sissy's old classmate Bitzer, and the austere Mrs. Sparsit keep watch at the afternoon. A well-dressed gentleman asks for directions to Bounderby's house, as Gradgrind has sent him from London with a letter of introduction. It is James Harthouse, who has tried several occupations and been bored by all of them.

Harthouse is introduced to Bounderby, who accepts him and then regales him with improbable and brief mentions of his childhood. Harthouse is utterly bored by him, but enamoured of the now-melancholy Louisa. Louisa's brother Tom works for Bounderby, and has become reckless and wayward in his conduct. Tom admires Harthouse, who holds him in some contempt, and Tom discloses contempt for Bounderby in the presence of Harthouse, who notes Louisa's affection for Tom and later learns that Tom has money problems – and that Tom persuaded Louisa to marry Bounderby to make his own life easier.

At a crowded union meeting, the agitator Slackbridge accuses Stephen Blackpool of treachery because he will not join the union, and Stephen learns he is to be 'sent to Coventry' – shunned by all his fellow workers. Summoned by Bounderby, he is asked what the men are complaining of; and when Stephen tries to explain, Bounderby accuses Stephen of being a troublemaker and sacks him. Later Louisa and Tom visit Stephen, expressing regret, and Louisa gives him some money. Privately, Tom tells him to wait outside the bank after work.

When a robbery takes place at the bank, Stephen is suspected of the crime; even more so as he had left the town the next day. Mrs. Sparsit observes the advancing relationship between James Harthouse and Louisa, and suspects an adulterous liaison. Unable to hear their dialogue, she assumes the affair is progressing. When Harthouse confesses his love for Louisa, Louisa refuses him. They leave separately, and Mrs. Sparsit follows Louisa to the station, where Louisa boards a train to her father's house; Mrs Sparsit loses her. When Louisa arrives, she is in an extreme state of distress. Having argued that her rigorous education has stifled her ability to express her emotions, Louisa collapses at her father's feet in a dead faint.

Book 3: Garnering
At Bounderby's London hotel, Mrs. Sparsit gives him the news her surveillance has brought. Bounderby takes her back to Coketown and to Stone Lodge, where Louisa is resting. Gradgrind tells Bounderby that Louisa resisted Harthouse's advances, but has experienced a crisis and needs time to recover. Bounderby is immensely indignant and ill-mannered, especially towards Mrs. Sparsit for misleading him. Ignoring Gradgrind's pleas, he announces that unless Louisa returns to him the next day, the marriage will end. She does not come back.

Harthouse leaves Coketown after Sissy tells him never to return. As Slackbridge increasingly blackens Stephen Blackpool's name, Rachael goes to the bank to say she knows where he is, and that she will write asking him to return to Coketown to clear his name. Bounderby is suspicious when she tells him Stephen was visited by Louisa and Tom the night he was dismissed, and brings her to Gradgrind's house where Louisa confirms Rachael's account.

Mrs Sparsit eventually tracks down Mrs Pegler, the old woman who makes a mysterious annual visit to see Bounderby's house, and brings her to the house where she is revealed as Bounderby's mother. Far from having abandoned him to a life of hardship, she gave him a good upbringing and, when he became successful, allowed herself to be persuaded never to visit him. Bounderby is now publicly exposed as a ridiculous humbug 'bully of humility'.

On a Sunday outing, Rachael and Sissy find Stephen, who has fallen down an abandoned pit shaft while walking back to Coketown. He is rescued by villagers but, after professing his innocence and speaking to Rachael for the last time, he dies. Louisa and Sissy now suspect that Tom has committed the bank robbery, and simply told Stephen to loiter outside the bank in order to incriminate him. Sissy has already helped Tom escape by sending him to join Mr. Sleary's circus. Louisa and Sissy find Tom there, disguised in blackface. Gradgrind arrives and despairs, and a plan is hatched with Sleary's co-operation to get Tom to Liverpool, where he can escape abroad. The plan is temporarily foiled by the arrival of Bitzer, who hopes to obtain promotion from Bounderby by bringing Tom to justice, but Sleary arranges an ambush and Tom is taken to Liverpool where he boards ship.

Bounderby punishes Mrs Sparsit for his humiliation by turning her out, but she doesn't particularly mind the dishonour. Five years later, he will die of a fit in the street, while Mr. Gradgrind, having abandoned his Utilitarian ideas and trying to make Facts "subservient to Faith, Hope and Charity", will suffer the contempt of his fellow MPs. Rachael will continue her life of honest hard work, while Stephen Blackpool will be pardoned by Mr Gradgrind. Tom will die from fever fairly near Coketown, having expressed penitence in a tear-stained letter. Louisa herself will grow old, but will never remarry and have children of her own. Louisa, showing kindness to the less fortunate and being loved by Sissy's children, will spend her life encouraging imagination and fancy in all she encounters.

Mr. Gradgrind
Thomas Gradgrind is the notorious school board Superintendent, who is dedicated to the pursuit of profitable enterprise. His name is now used generically to refer to someone who is hard and only concerned with cold facts and numbers, a follower of Utilitarian ideas who neglects the imagination. He soon sees the error of these beliefs however, when his children's lives fall into disarray.

Mr. Bounderby
Josiah Bounderby is a business associate of Mr. Gradgrind. Given to boasting about being a self-made man, he employs many of the other central characters of the novel. He has risen to a position of power and wealth from humble origins (though not as humble as he claims). He marries Mr. Gradgrind's daughter Louisa, some 30 years his junior, in what turns out to be a loveless marriage. They have no children. Bounderby is callous, self-centred and ultimately revealed to be a liar and fraud.

Louisa
Louisa (Loo) Gradgrind, (later Louisa Bounderby), is the eldest child of the Gradgrind family. She has been taught to suppress her feelings and finds it hard to express herself clearly, saying as a child that she has "unmanageable thoughts." After her unhappy marriage, she is tempted to adultery by James Harthouse, but resists him and returns to her father. Her rejection of Harthouse leads to a new understanding of life and of the value of emotions and the imagination. She reproaches her father for his dry and fact-based approach to the world and convinces him of the error of his ways.

Sissy Jupe
Cecilia (Sissy) Jupe is a circus girl of Sleary's circus, as well as a student of Gradgrind's. Sissy has her own set of values and beliefs which make her seem unintelligent in the Gradgrind household. At the end of the novel, when the Gradgrinds' philosophy of religiously adhering solely to facts breaks down, Sissy is the character who teaches them how to live.

She struggles to keep up with Gradgrind's extreme reliance on the recitation of facts, and therefore is seen as not worthy of the school. Sissy is also representative of creativity and wonderment because of her circus background, and those were things that the Gradgrind children were not allowed to engage in. With the urging of Josiah Bounderby, Mr. Gradgrind goes to inform Sissy's father that she can no longer attend his school.

While Sissy and her father were very close once, Mr. Jupe abandoned his daughter. In a moment of compassion, Mr. Gradgrind takes Sissy into his home and gives her a second chance at the school. Sissy continues to fall behind in the school, so Mr. Gradgrind keeps her at home to tend to his invalid wife.

While Sissy is the device of imagination and fantasy in the novel, she also serves as the voice of reason. She cannot grasp the philosophy of Gradgrind's classroom because she has a more realistic view of how the world should be perceived. After Louisa and Mr. Gradgrind come to terms with the fact that their way of life is not working, Sissy is the one they come to; she takes care of Louisa and helps her live a new, happy life.

Tom
Thomas (Tom) Gradgrind, Junior is the oldest son and second child of the Gradgrinds. Initially sullen and resentful of his father's Utilitarian education, Tom has a strong relationship with his sister Louisa. He works in Bounderby's bank (which he later robs), and turns to gambling and drinking. Louisa never ceases to adore Tom, and she aids Sissy and Mr. Gradgrind in saving her brother from arrest.

Stephen Blackpool
Stephen Blackpool is a worker at one of Bounderby's mills. He has a drunken wife who no longer lives with him but who appears from time to time. He forms a close bond with Rachael, a co-worker, whom he wishes to marry. After a dispute with Bounderby, he is dismissed from his work at the Coketown mills and, shunned by his former fellow workers, is forced to look for work elsewhere. While absent from Coketown, he is wrongly accused of robbing Bounderby's bank. On his way back to vindicate himself, he falls down a mine-shaft. He is rescued but dies of his injuries.

Other characters

 * Bitzer – a very pale classmate of Sissy's who is brought up on facts and taught to operate according to self-interest. He takes up a job in Bounderby's bank, and later tries to arrest Tom.
 * Rachael – the friend of Stephen Blackpool who attests to his innocence when he is accused of robbing Bounderby's bank by Tom. She is a factory worker, childhood friend of Blackpool's drunken and often absent wife, and becomes the literary tool for bringing the two parallel story lines together at the brink of Hell's Shaft in the final book.
 * Mrs. Sparsit – a widow who has fallen on hard times. She is employed by Bounderby, and is jealous when he marries Louisa, delighting in the belief that Louisa is later about to elope with James Harthouse. Her machinations are unsuccessful and she is ultimately sacked by Bounderby.
 * James Harthouse – an indolent, languid, upper-class gentleman, who attempts to woo Louisa.
 * Mrs. Gradgrind – the wife of Mr. Gradgrind, an invalid who constantly complains. Tom Sr.'s apparent attraction to her is because she totally lacks 'fancy', though she also appears to be unintelligent and without empathy for her children.
 * Mr. Sleary – the owner of the circus which employs Sissy's father. He speaks with a lisp. A kind man, he helps both Sissy and young Tom when they are in trouble.
 * Mrs. Pegler – an old woman who sometimes visits Coketown to observe the Bounderby estate. She is later revealed to be Bounderby's mother, proving his "rags-to-riches" story to be fraudulent.
 * Jane Gradgrind – a younger sister of Tom and Louisa Gradgrind who spends a lot of time with Sissy Jupe. She is cheerful, affectionate and despite looking similar to Louisa, in personality she is opposite.

Major themes
Dickens wished to educate readers about the working conditions of some of the factories in the industrial towns of Manchester, and Preston, to "strike the heaviest blow in my power", and as well to confront the assumption that prosperity runs parallel to morality. This notion he systematically deconstructed through his portrayal of the moral monsters, Mr. Bounderby and James Harthouse. Dickens also believed in the importance of the imagination, and that people's lives should not be reduced to a collection of material facts and statistics. The description of the circus, which he describes as caring so "little for Plain Fact", is an example of this.

Utilitarianism
The Utilitarians were one of the targets of Dickens's satire. Utilitarianism was a prevalent school of thought during this period, its founders being Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, father to political theorist John Stuart Mill. Bentham's former secretary, Edwin Chadwick, helped design the Poor Law of 1834, which deliberately made workhouse life as uncomfortable as possible. In the novel, this attitude is conveyed in Bitzer's response to Gradgrind's appeal for compassion.

Dickens was appalled by what he saw as a selfish philosophy, which was combined with materialist laissez-faire capitalism in the education of some children at the time, as well as in industrial practices. In Dickens's interpretation, the prevalence of utilitarian values in educational institutions promoted contempt between mill owners and workers, creating young adults whose imaginations had been neglected, due to an over-emphasis on facts at the expense of more imaginative pursuits.

Dickens wished to satirise radical Utilitarians whom he described in a letter to Charles Knight as "see[ing] figures and averages, and nothing else." He also wished to campaign for reform of working conditions. Dickens had visited factories in Manchester as early as 1839, and was appalled by the environment in which workers toiled. Drawing upon his own childhood experiences, Dickens resolved to "strike the heaviest blow in my power" for those who laboured in horrific conditions.

John Stuart Mill had a similar, rigorous education to that of Louisa Gradgrind, consisting of analytical, logical, mathematical, and statistical exercises. In his twenties, Mill had a nervous breakdown, believing his capacity for emotion had been enervated by his father's stringent emphasis on analysis and mathematics in his education. In the book, Louisa herself follows a parallel course, being unable to express herself and falling into a temporary depression as a result of her dry education.

Fact vs. Fancy
The bastion of fact is the eminently practical Mr. Gradgrind, and his model school, which teaches nothing but "Facts". Any imaginative or aesthetic subjects are absent from the curriculum, and analysis, deduction and mathematics are emphasised. Fancy, the opposite of Fact, is epitomised by Sleary's circus. Sleary is reckoned a fool by Gradgrind and Bounderby, but it is Sleary who understands that people must be amused. Sissy, the circus performer's daughter, does badly at school, failing to remember the many facts she is taught, but is genuinely virtuous and fulfilled. Gradgrind's own son Tom revolts against his upbringing, and becomes a gambler and a thief, while Louisa becomes emotionally stunted, virtually soulless both as a young child and as an unhappily married woman. Bitzer, who adheres to Gradgrind's teachings, becomes an uncompassionate egotist.

Officiousness and spying
Mr. Bounderby spends his whole time fabricating stories about his childhood, covering up the real nature of his upbringing, which is revealed at the end of the novel. While not a snooper himself, he is undone by Sparsit unwittingly revealing the mysterious old woman to be his own mother, and she unravels Josiah's secrets about his upbringing and fictitious stories. Mr. Bounderby himself superintends through calculating tabular statements and statistics, and is always secretly rebuking the people of Coketown for indulging in conceitful activities. This gives Bounderby a sense of superiority, as it does with Mrs. Sparsit, who prides herself on her salacious knowledge gained from spying on others. Bounderby's grasp for superiority is seen in Blackpool's talks to Bounderby regarding divorce proceedings and a union movement at his factory, accusing him that he is on a quest 'to feast on turtle soup and venison, served with a golden spoon.' All "superintendents" of the novel are undone in one way or another.

Morality
Dickens portrays the wealthy in this novel as being morally corrupt. Bounderby has no moral scruples, and, for example, fires Blackpool "for a novelty". He also conducts himself without any shred of decency, frequently losing his temper. He is cynically false about his childhood. Harthouse, a leisured gent, is compared to an "iceberg" who will cause a wreck unwittingly, due to him being "not a moral sort of fellow", as he states himself. Stephen Blackpool, a destitute worker, is equipped with perfect morals, always abiding by his promises, and always thoughtful and considerate of others, as is Sissy Jupe.

The role of status on morality
Dickens is also concerned, throughout Hard Times, with the effects of social class on the morality of individuals. Some contrasting characters relating to this theme are Stephen and Rachael, and Tom and Mr. Bounderby. Stephen's honesty and Rachael's caring actions are qualities not shown in people from higher classes, but among hard working individuals who are browbeaten by the uncaring factory owners such as Bounderby. These qualities appear repeatedly, as Stephen works hard every day, until he decides to leave town to save the names of his fellow workers, and Rachael supports Stephen through this, while struggling to provide for herself as well. In contrast to these behaviours, Mr. Bounderby refuses to recognise the difficulties faced by those in lower classes, as seen by him completely casting aside Stephen's request for help. Other aristocratic characters simply carry out blatantly immoral actions, such as Tom throwing away his sister's money, falling into debt, then robbing a bank, and even framing someone else for his actions. Tom is also seen to be deceitful as he is able to keep his guilt hidden until the evidence points only toward him. On the contrary, when the news comes out that Stephen had robbed the bank, Stephen begins to head back to Coketown to face his problems and clear his name. Overall, the stark difference in morality between characters of dissimilar social status suggests Dickens's idea that there is a form of innate natural law that may remain unhampered in those leading less titled lives. Stephen's concept of right and wrong is untainted by the manufactured values of utilitarianism, instilled into Tom and Bounderby.

Literary significance and criticism

Critics have had diverse opinions on the novel. John Ruskin declared Hard Times to be his favourite Dickens work due to its exploration of important social questions. However, Thomas Macaulay branded it "sullen socialism", on the grounds that Dickens did not fully comprehend the politics of the time. Edwin Percy Whipple criticized the novel in Scribner's Magazine by saying, "'Hard Times' is a satire on political economy, of which Dickens knew little, and the little he did know offended his benevolent feelings..." as he believed Dickens' criticisms of a utilitarian education were misguided. George Bernard Shaw argued Hard Times to be a novel of "passionate revolt against the whole industrial order of the modern world". But he criticized the novel for failing to provide an accurate account of trade unionism of the time, arguing that Slackbridge, the poisonous orator, was "a mere figment of middle-class imagination". Believing that it was very different from Dickens's other novels, Shaw also said: "Many readers find the change disappointing. Others find Dickens worth reading almost for the first time."

F. R. Leavis, in The Great Tradition, described the book as essentially a moral fable, and that 'of all Dickens's works (it is) the one that has all the strengths of his genius – that of a completely serious work of art'. This, however, was a view which he later revised in Dickens the Novelist, which recognised that Dickens's strengths and artistry appeared fully in other works.

Walter Allen characterised Hard Times as being an unsurpassed "critique of industrial society", which was later superseded by works of D. H. Lawrence. G. K. Chesterton said that it was "the harshest of his stories"; whereas George Orwell praised the novel (and Dickens himself) for "generous anger".

Adaptations
The novel was adapted as a 1915 silent film, Hard Times, directed by Thomas Bentley.

In 1988 Portuguese director João Botelho adapted the novel to the big screen in Hard Times (shot entirely in black & white) transferring the action to an unspecified industrial Portuguese city of the 1980s.

Hard Times has been adapted twice for BBC Radio, first in 1998 starring John Woodvine as Gradgrind, Tom Baker as Josiah Bounderby and Anna Massey as Mrs. Sparsit, and again in 2007 starring Kenneth Cranham as Gradgrind, Philip Jackson as Bounderby, Alan Williams as Stephen, Becky Hindley as Rachael, Helen Longworth as Louisa, Richard Firth as Tom and Eleanor Bron as Mrs. Sparsit.

In the theatre, Hard Times was adapted for the stage by Stephen Jeffreys and presented in 1988 as a four actor play at the Ensemble Theatre, directed by Mike O'Brien. It was later adapted for the stage by Michael O'Brien and directed by Marti Maraden at Canada's National Arts Centre in 2000. In 2018 Northern Broadsides toured an adaptation written by Deb McAndrew and directed by Conrad Nelson.

The novel has also been adapted twice as a mini-series for British television, once in 1977 by ITV with Patrick Allen as Gradgrind, Timothy West as Bounderby, Rosalie Crutchley as Mrs. Sparsit and Edward Fox as Harthouse, and again in 1994 by the BBC with Bob Peck as Gradgrind, Alan Bates as Bounderby, Dilys Laye as Mrs. Sparsit, Bill Paterson as Stephen, Harriet Walter as Rachael and Richard E. Grant as Harthouse.

title: Hard Times (novel)


text:
Talk:Officine Meccaniche

Untitled
Dear Wikipedians,

OM and Officine Meccaniche have been separate articles. I have written a new entry just now under "OM (Officine Meccaniche)". Outside Italy, OM is better known and I feel "Officine Meccaniche" sounds generic for those who are unfamiliar with this company. I think the two previous entries should be completely deleted. Redirection to the new entry, however, seems to be helpful.

Regards, --Millisits 23:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Officine Meccaniche