text:
Talk:Governorate (Russia)

Old talk
What is the proper plural form of Governorate General? Is it Governorates General? Governorate Generals? Governorates Generals?--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:32, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Governorates General". It is French-style naming, "general" being an adjective. BTW it needs to be clarified how the notions "gubernator" and "general-gubernator" (and "guberniya" and "general-gubernatorstvo") were related." Mikkalai 19:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As for the difference between "gubernator" and "general-gubernator", maybe I'll add it later, unless you already have something to add.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Governorate-General
The usual English term is in fact "Governor-Generalship", and in the Russian Empire at least it is not the same thing as a Губерния. A Guberniya is a province (normally known as an Oblast in the outlying regions of the Empire), and a Governor-General had authority over several provinces. In Turkestan, for instance, The Governor General had authority over the Syr-Darya, Ferghana, Samarkand and Transcaspian provinces. Sikandarji 14:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * With the English term may be right, but as to the rest you a right only partially. You probably didn't read the article carefully how the meaning of the term Governor General changed over the history. Mikkalai 19:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair Enough - although I had always thought that as military rulers they were in some ways the successors of the pre-Petrine Voevody. Try not to use 'Governorate General' though as it looks abominable in English.Sikandarji 08:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Russian Governor Generals of estonia
Has anywone got any info on the governor generals of russian estonia? --Dahlis 23:00, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
 * If no one answers you, I'll try to dig something up for you after I return on 9/20. Can't promise I'll find this exact info, though.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:03, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Governorate?
Why are we translating this as "Governorate?" The 1911 Britannica uses "Government" as its term for divisions of Russia, or alternately "Province." This would point to what the usage was at the time these things actually existed. Can we point to usage of "Governorate"? john k 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the term came about in order to avoid using "guberniya", which is the direct transliteration from Russian and is unintuitive to the general English-speaking public. "Government" is too ambiguous (just try describing the history of the government of Smolensk Government and its differences from the government of Smolensk :)), and "province" is unacceptable because guberniyas themselves were administratively divided into provinces.  "Governorate" seems to be the best adequate translation of the Russian "guberniya".   With all due respect to Britannica (both 1911 and modern), the scope of their articles dealing with guberniyas is pretty limited, so they never ran into the problems we did.  They also invented the term "sector" to refer to Russian raions, so I'd take whatever terminology they are using with a grain of salt.
 * That said, if you have a better solution, please voice it here. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say that we should use "government" in this article, because it is not ambiguous. In any other articles we can say "government (guberniya)".  Thus, the Government (Guberniya) of Smolensk.  Britannica 1911 has articles on most Russian guberniya, so I don't see the idea that the scope of their articles is especially limited. john k 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * All we have to do to use government, at any rate, is to say that Tsarist Russia was divided into "provinces called Governments (Guberniya)" or else "provinces called Guberniya ("governments")". Lots of words have multiple meanings.  There is absolutely no reason not to use "government" a proper English word.  There are other similar uses - the French military provinces in 1789 were Gouvernements. john k 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to do all the work that needs to be done to introduce such a change, go right ahead. You will need to start with History of the administrative division of Russia and its subarticles, change every instance of "Governorate" to "Government" or "Government (guberniya)", make sure all double redirects are fixed, verify that all backlinks are linked properly, and that all existing references to "governorates" are straightened out.  You will also need to revise some of the narrative to make sure there are no "government" vs. "Government" ambiguities (I suggest you practice with my Smolensk example above first, writing a few paragraphs on the differences between the government of Smolensk and the government of Government of Smolensk; your practice passage doesn't need to be factual, just coherent).  Once you do all that, I promise you (or any other editor who embarks on and finishes this tremendous endeavor) a barnstar or any other award of your (their) choosing.
 * I beg your pardon if I sounded a little sarcastic, but my point is that the expected final outcome simply does not justify the amount of work involved. It's one thing to mention that "Russia was divided into provinces called Governments/guberniyas" in the lead section of the guberniya article (which is a fine suggestion, although not terribly superior to what the lead is already saying now); it's a completely different matter to correct the whole naming scheme, hopefully without screwing things up.  The value added by using what's arguably a better term, in my view, is quite marginal.  If you are willing to spend your time on that, I have no problem with it, but please make sure that when you are done things are in the same or better condition than they are now.
 * As for the existence of lots of words with multiple meanings, that is, of course, true. It is also true that one usually seeks synonyms when two such words collide in one sentence in order for one's writing to be coherent.  "Governorate" is just such a synonym in this case (one can imagine that due to the nature of the topic the meanings of "government" as "a governing body" and "an administrative unit" are bound to collide quite often).  Unless you can show that "governorate" is an entirely incorrect term to use, I am not convinced that this whole correction thing is anything more than a fool's errand.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, and you have called my bluff - I don't think I'm up to the task of changing the whole wide variety of articles. I tend to dislike neologism translations, but it's probably not worth the effort.  john k 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; however, please note the section I added below. The term is far from being a neologism.  If it were, I myself would be doing all the activities I so helpfully outlined to you above :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John that "government" (guberniya) would be a better term to use than governorate, as my searches through Google Books have brought up significantly fewer instances of the latter. Using some Baltic provinces as examples, guberniya is used occasionally, while usage of governorate is practically non-existent (Courland: government vs. governorate vs. guberniya; Livonia: government vs. governorate vs. guberniya). Unfortunately, the number of articles that would be changed does present a quandary. Olessi (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 * However, I think "government" implies sovereignty, where as "governorate" implies an imperial province ruled by an appointed "governor". See the definition of "governorate" on dictionary.com Martintg (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 * IMO, we should use the terminology most commonly used in English, which, indicated to me by Google Books and Britannica, is government. I agree with John's rationale and suggested phrasing of how to deal with the ambiguity of "Government". Unfortunately, I think a prospective change would be moot at the moment because of the scope of the changes. Olessi (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I started working on this topic back in 2004-2005, the choice of terminology was one of the first things I considered. I specifically chose "governorate", because, while it seems to be less commonly used than "government", it is still a correct English usage (both inside and outside the scope of the Russian Empire), and, as noted above, does not suffer from the ambiguity problem (once you start writing about the "government of Foo Government" or the "governor of the Government", you'll understand what I mean).  Judging from how the term proliferated without being questioned much by native English speakers, I'd say the choice was not poor after all.  We don't have to go for the "most commonly used English term"; the fact that the term is correct in English is good enough, especially if there are other good reasons to use it.  Remember that Wikipedia has more information on Russian governorates and thus is in greater need to organize and cross-reference it efficiently than any other English-language source out there.  What works for Britannica, which only covers a handful of Russian governorates, does not necessarily work for us.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I think it would be a good idea to mention that "government" is an alternative English designation for the units, at least. Olessi (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I, for some reason, was under impression it had already been listed. Fixed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that update. In a little bit, I'll add also known as the "Government of Foo" to the individual articles and create redirects for them. Olessi (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that—it's a tedious task. I'm glad I don't have to do it now :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference
Lest you still have doubts, a google books search shows that the terms "governorate" and "governorate general" are valid. "Governorship" is also used, although a good portion of the hits refers to the post of the Governor, not the administrative unit.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move
Judging from the above discussion and looking into the page "Governorate", I would propose to move this page to Governorates of Russia. `'Míkka>t 04:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I don't really feel that much is going to be gained by such a move, but I don't really have anything against it either.  Governorates of Russia, however, seems to work better as a title of a list of all guberniyas, while guberniya (or governorate (Russia)) would be where the actual encyclopedic information about the term is located.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is to be gained? An act of cleanup.  My suggestion was based on precedent, as explained. See Governorates of Syria for comparison.  "Guberniya" is not English. There long exist Endglish direct translations. It is reasonable to abandon the term "government" as confusing, so we are left with "governorate". List of gubernias belongs to List of governorates of Russia.  `'Míkka>t 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, guberniya, being listed in larger English dictionaries and all, can be considered an English word as well. It is certainly a more precise term than "governorate", and folks interested in this subject will recognize it just as easily as they would "governorate".  The downside, of course, is that it is not easily recognizable by folks who happen to see it in some other article mentioning guberniyas.  But anyway, like I said, I am not going to oppose to the move if it is supported.  I would, however, recommend, to first gain a consensus on a term dealing with "наместничества".  So far I've seen namestnichestvo, vice-royalty, and governorate used interchangeably, and the clash with "governorate" is considerable, which may murk the distinction even further.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Still not moved? It sits in the way to document usage outside the Russian Empire: http://www.nsi.bg/nrnm/index.php?i=1&ezik=en. The most consistent name would be Governorates of the Russian Empire. Guberniya would then only talk about the term. Androoox (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you could create a stub on Bulgarian gubernias (even if it's in your userspace), I can help move things around for better organization. The reason I'm asking for Bulgarian coverage first is that we have something to insert immediately after the moves are done (if there's nothing, who knows how much longer it will take until someone bothers to cover Bulgaria). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 10, 2014 ; 15:24 (UTC)

Map
For those interested, this rather large (over 9 MB) map nicely depicts the Russian Empire's subdivisions in European Russia. Olessi (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM
Only two of the articles in Category:Governorates of the Russian Empire that use "governorate" do not use the form "X Governorate": I moved them, but one non-Russian speaking user, which seems to be from Finland moved them back, called my moves "bad moves", please raise your voice. Schwyz (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Governorate of Estonia
 * Talk:Governorate of Livonia
 * The "bad" part in "bad moves" probably refers to the fact that the governorates are not really known as "Estonia Governorate" and "Livonia Governorate" in English, so Petri was right to revert the move (although I wish he were more specific with the rationale). As for these two governorate names not conforming with the rest of the names in the "Governorates of the Russian Empire" category, you are correct there.  The current names are not "wrong" by any means, but neither they are the only possible variants (as the articles' leads would attest).  I would recommend moving them, correspondingly, to "Estland Governorate" and "Livland (or Livonian) Governorate", both of which are equally correct and have the benefit of conforming with the rest of the titles in the category and being closer to the original Russian names.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2010; 15:38 (UTC)
 * I would support Estland and Livland. "Livonian" I would not, since the others don't use adjective. Schwyz (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 * You may note, that most of the governorates are named after their capital cities. The Baltic governorates listed above + Governorate of Courland and Lithuania Governorate are the exception. As pointed out by Miacek here the reason why the "of" form is used has to do with the use of declension in the source language and the fact that English does not distinguish between the place and the people. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sakhalin Oblast? Named for Sakhalin people? Or Sakhalin Island? Schwyz (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are the Sakhalin people? Hellerick (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Difference to oblast
I just read in Sergei Yesenin that he was born "in the Ryazan Province (Губерния, Gubernia)". Naively, I would have replaced that with "Ryazan Oblast". But from this article here it appears the oblasti were then only at the periphery. Is that just a naming convention, or was the Ryazan Gubernia a different entity from the Ryazan Oblast? The Russian Wikipedia has a section called, but it doesn't actually seem to address this question. — Sebastian 07:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yesenin was born in Ryazan Governorate. Ryazan Oblast was not established until 1937; well after his death.
 * It should be noted, however, that it is not uncommon to see gubernias and oblasts referred to as "provinces" in literature. For the most part, it is an acceptable practice, since most academic works only mention these entities in passing and don't really care about the differences. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is the sum of all human knowledge, which is why maintaining precision, especially when dealing with encyclopedic material about the administrative entities themselves, is of paramount importance. In the Yesenin article (since the administrative entity where he was born is of secondary, if not tertiary importance) it doesn't matter so much, although the link to Ryazan Oblast definitely needed to be fixed (I've taken care of it). Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 3, 2015 ; 14:29 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply and the edit; I hadn't been aware of the Ryazan Governorate article. (So thanks also for creating the disambiguation page; I just added a redirect from Ryazan Gubernia. Should the same be done for other губернии?) I'm still not clear how the Ryazan Oblast relates to the Ryazan Governorate; a comparison of the map at Oblasts of Russia with the fact that there were originally less than a dozen governorates suggests that the latter may have been much bigger. — Sebastian 15:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Yes, creating other "XXX Province" disambiguations, where XXX is the name of a governorate and a modern oblast is always helpful, as is creating redirects from alternative names/terms/spellings/etc.
 * To answer your other question, Ryazan Oblast is a successor to Ryazan Governorate, so to speak. The governorate was created in 1796 and existed until the Soviet times virtually unchanged. 1919 is when it fell victim to various territorial re-organizations; bits and pieces of it were being chipped off and transferred to other governorates and oblasts until 1928. In 1929, Ryazan Governorate was abolished altogether, with its territory becoming a part of Central Industrial Oblast (later renamed Moscow Oblast) and incorporated as Ryazan Okrug within that oblast. In 1937, Ryazan Oblast was split out as a separate entity and still continues in that form now. Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2015 ; 15:45 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes this helps! I just looked at the map Olessi posted above, (full size), and realized that there were many more oblasts later. The subject marked "Riazan" seems to be about the size of the modern oblast. So, can we conclude that at least this subject didn't change much, and by extension that oblasts in general are on first approximation not too different from the late governorates? — Sebastian 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirects and disambiguations
As Ëzhiki suggests above, "creating other "XXX Province" disambiguations, where XXX is the name of a governorate and a modern oblast is always helpful, as is creating redirects from alternative names/terms/spellings/etc.". I just checked Kazan for that purpose, and found that Kazan Province is actually a redirect. Also, I realize that the wording of my question was ambiguous, I had meant to ask whether redirects XXX Gubernia → XXX Governorate are needed. — Sebastian 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Gubernia", "guberniya", "guberniia", and probably a handful of other variants I'm forgetting, are all spellings one can encounter in English texts discussing these Russian entities. Our article titles are standardized to "governorate", because that's a less obscure and less ambiguous term, and because having consistent titles within any series, and especially the series which cover obscure entities without a common name (as is the case here), is always helpful. But since there's no way of telling how readers will arrive to any given article, creating redirects which cover all common variants is always a good idea. It is, however, also tedious and mind-numbingly boring (I should know; I created thousands of them) :)
 * Kazan Province is a redirect probably because not many know that Kazan Oblast was actually a real thing (it existed for less than a year in 1952–1953). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2015 ; 16:45 (UTC)
 * We don't even have redirects for all the basic words - Guberniia is missing. I just thought of creating that, but then had second thoughts when I realized that there may be some use to seeing that we have many articles that contain that text. These have Penza Guberniia, Yaroslavl guberniia , and so on, which raises a number of related questions for in each of these cases:
 * Do we actually not have the "XXX Governorate" article?
 * Should we have it, or can it be covered within the corresponding oblast article?
 * If we need an article, should it remain a redlink or be a temporary redirect?
 * — Sebastian 17:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One more level of complication: If a governorate changed its name, it multiplies the number of possible redirects. E.g. in Nikolai Uglanov the text reads "Petrograd Guberniia", and I just added a piped link to Petrograd Governorate, which in turn redirects to Saint Petersburg Governorate. — Sebastian 17:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We are indeed missing a great number of governorate articles (and most of those we do have are in a pathetic condition; some are plain incorrect even). Addressing this has been on my to-do list for years now, but I don't really have time to properly do that in addition to all the things about the modern entities I'm working on. If you feel up to the task and want to take it on, that'd be awesome!
 * Governorates can and should generally be mentioned in the oblast articles, but I wouldn't go as far as upmerging everything. The correspondence is rarely 1:1 (or even near it), and while the modern oblasts can be seen as historical successors to the governorates, in many cases there are significant gaps between the abolition of a governorate and the creation of a similarly-named oblast/krai/republic. If a stub can be created for a missing governorate, containing the most basic information (such as the dates it existed and its seat), that, in my opinion, would be preferable to redirecting it to a modern entity, which quite often is only tenuously related. If a stub can't be created, I personally would rather see a red link, which immediately tells me that the article is missing, instead of a redirect, which creates a false impression that everything is shipshape. Others may see it differently, of course, but in my experience this subject area isn't of interest to many, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for comments to pour into this thread :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2015 ; 17:58 (UTC)
 * You are right about name changes. Normally, the most recent name is used for the article's title, unless that's not the name under which the governorate was known throughout most of its existence. St. Petersburg Governorate is a case in point—it's most recent name is "Leningrad Governorate" (and "Petrograd Governorate" before that), but it was only known under these two names between 1914 and 1927. St. Petersburg Governorate, on the other hand, was its name for over two centuries prior. Having redirects from all historical names, of course, is even more important than having redirects from spelling variations...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2015 ; 17:58 (UTC)

''drive-by editing" - Penza Guberniia, Yaroslavl guberniia is a really bad idea. I dont want to repeat here numerous issuess with non-transparent wikipipes, but such things must be killed on the spot. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Help
Most of the individual pages of each governorate are very terrible as the are basically tiny, unsourced stubs (e.g: Astrakhan Governorate ). If someone could please improve them or at least have suggestions for improvement?. Gott Erhalte Kaiser Franz (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I looked at several of them and they contain a ref to "Russian Gazetter" not formatted as a footnote. So here is a suggestion: Make the Gazetteer into a footnote. It does contain some extra info, but it may be user carefully: Information must be with in-text reference, e.g. "The 1919 Russian Gazetteer says that...." Also, "Astrakhan Governorate " cha a hatnote Expand Russian - a good suggestion. YOu may ensure other governorate ministubs have it. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Would help if you would be more specific Gott Erhalte Kaiser Franz (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Improvement of these articles is in my workflow, see Siberia Governorate or Pskov Governorate as examples.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I am going to revert colleaague Franz in Astrakhan Governorate. You seem to be a very new editor and dont know the ruless of english wikipedia. He the article text must be based on reference to reliable sources, please read carefully out rules: WP:CITE and WP:RS. Because our main policy is WP:Verifiability. And in most cases the only way to verify wikipedia text is to check the references provided. You translated a huge text from russian wiki, which, as I keep noticing, has a huge number of articles with little references. We cannot accept unreferenced texts, sorry. Please translate only pieces which are supplied with footnotex and verify whether the footnoted text is covered in the sources cited. Unfortunately often the footnotes "migrate" due to careless addition of more text in front of the footnote.16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , care to fix the referencing problem with Astrakhan Governorate ? Lembit Staan (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will have a look. Russian Wikipedia indeed has serious issues with sources, we should discourage direct translations.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S.  FYI: this is our guideline : Help:Translation. It states what I was saying above: the translated piece of our article mush adhere to our (i.e., English Wikipedia) rules. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Endonymic translations in lede
Re our discussion on the Elisabethpol Governorate talk page I thought it best to continue it here to have a more centralised discussion on the issue which affects numerous articles. The prevailing trend on these articles I identified was using the official Russian language name, followed by the translation of the state which owns most of the modern-day territory, followed by an optional translation of whichever ethnic group is the majority of the population, if they are not the same as the state which owns it. For example, the Shusha Uyezd should by default receive its official Russian name, accompanied by the translation of the state which owns most of its modern day territory, Azerbaijani for the Republic of Azerbaijan, followed by an Armenian translation given the Shusha Uyezd was majority ethnic-Armenian. In the case of the Elisabethpol Governorate, since the area mostly corresponds to modern-day Azerbaijan, and Armenians were not a majority in the province, I think it would be appropriate to only leave the Russian and Azerbaijani translations in the lede, that is my rationale on the issue and my understanding of the trend on these articles.

Another issue which should be discusssed is if an endonymic translation is included, should it use the anachronistic modern script, or the standard used at the time, for example, Azerbaijan Arabo-Persian in place of modern Azerbaijani Latin (which began use in 1992). If the aim is to establish a standard or default for translations in the lede, I believe it should be done here with a proper discussion on the pros and cons of doing so as to make the article as understandable as possible for the reader. -𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 02:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I think there are 2 possible solutions. Keep only Russian, or add local majority language spelling. If we are to keep only the old Russian alphabet, then modern Russian will need to be removed too, as I see many articles use modern Russian alphabet. But I don't think it makes sense to remove modern alphabets. After all, the aim is to provide a spelling in the language of majority population. It is also the case for example with such entitles as Kazan Governorate, Ufa Governorate, etc. Turkic people had multiple alphabet changes, but normally the modern alphabet is used in the articles. And the argument about Armenian oblast is not relevant. At the time of its existence it did not even have an Armenian majority, so it is not clear what spelling to use there. Grand  master  09:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am personally in favour of the second solution and thus support including the pre-1918 official Russian spelling followed by the endonym of the majority (or plurarity) population, perhaps even with a transliteration. I think this would be the most equitable and logical outcome in this case, however, I am interested to hear what counter-arguments the others have to say on this. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 12:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I already said in the Elisabethpol Governorate talk, I support only official Russian spelling, as it was the Russian Empire. Also, we have issues of anachronism, which aren't being addressed. We can't add Az spelling for example with modern Latin alphabet, that's not how it works. You can't say I support multiple spellings, then say stuff like that. And for these reasons, leaving only the official Russian version is better and creates less confusion. We don't need to create a rule like this translation of the state which owns most of the modern-day territory, followed by an optional translation of whichever ethnic group is the majority of the population we can just leave out all the other spellings and keep the only official Russian one. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 * "We can't add Az spelling for example with modern Latin alphabet, that's not how it works."
 * Yes, I addressed this exact point due to the anachronistic nature of adding a 1992 alphabet spelling to a 1917 district. One of the solutions could be to use the correct alphabet for the time, including in the case of the Armenian and Georgian districts by using a translation in pre-reform Armenian and Georgian spelling, respectively.
 * "We don't need to create a rule like this translation of the state which owns most of the modern-day territory, followed by an optional translation of whichever ethnic group is the majority of the population"
 * I'm not saying we need to create this rule, I simply stated that it is what I identified as the status-quo/de-facto rule on these articles, and it's worth being addressed for what it's worth, whether we decide to keep it or replace it. Since you seem to be basing your position on the official state-preferred name of the district, I would direct you to page 84 of Arthur Tsutsiev's Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus (ISBN: 9780300153088) where it can be seen that the uezds of the Russian Empire were preserved as administrative units of the Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian Soviet republics from 1922–1928 (and I believe it's obvious that Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian were the official state languages of these Soviet republics, respectively) therefore, these administrative divisions' names during the Soviet-era should (by your logic) be listed as a translation in the lede in addition to their name within the Russian Empire. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And in 1920s Azerbaijani language used Latin alphabet. Which Azerbaijani script should we choose, from which era? Grand  master  14:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we have WP:RS stating those other spellings were officially recognized or used in documents? Or are we just going to play the WP:OR games, without even figuring out which alphabet was used? I'm still of the belief that only official Russian spelling of Russian Empire's Governorates should remain in the lead. If we can find at least one reliable source backing those other lang spellings, showing at the very least which alphabetic version was used, we should create a small subsection Name like suggested in Talk:Elisabethpol Governorate. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lede: Only include the original Russian spelling, in contemporaneous orthography.
 * Body: create a "name" section where major regional languages are added, in addition to the Russian original and modern spellings. We should not forget that it was the Russian Empire with a Russian identity. Not the Armenian, Azerbaijani or Martian Empire. Russian original spelling should be listed once more within this section, in addition to the modern Russian spelling. Major/relevant regional languages in the contemporaneous scripts should then be added, alphabetically, behind the Russian ones. As for the Transcaucasian governorates, this includes (Perso-)Arabic script for Azerbaijani, as that was the major script used by the Turkic speakers of Transcaucasia (later Azerbaijanis). I'm willing to compromise by adding modern spellings too ( including the 1992 Latin script for Azerbaijani in the Transcaucasian governorates), but only if they are added behind the contemporaneous scripts. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "And the argument about Armenian oblast is not relevant. At the time of its existence it did not even have an Armenian majority (...)"
 * While they might not have constituted a majority straight off the bat, they were indeed a major plurality in the Armenian Oblast, before becoming the largest ethnic group over time. By 1832, they had already achieved parity with the Muslims (which consisted of both Trancaucasian Turkics and Kurds) of the Armenian Oblast. Furthermore, the Oblast was named after Armenians and founded in a major part of the historic Armenian homeland. I would say there is definitely "relevance".
 * "Thus, the total population of the new Armenian Province in 1832 was 164,450,13. Armenians forming 50.09% and Muslims 49.91% . Two centuries after their forced exile, the Armenians had only achieved parity with the Muslims in part of their historical homeland ." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914. Routledge. p. 20.
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't make comments like "are we just going to play the WP:OR games" again, it's mean and creates a toxic environment in an already hostile topic area. Secondly, I'd like to understand the rationale as to why you believe the majority population's endonym for these Russian districts should be concealed in the body of the article, yet in several Ottoman Vilayet articles—of which the state language was Ottoman Turkish—you added an Armenian translation in the lede, even preceding the Ottoman Turkish translation? For a specific example, refer to your edit in the Diyarbekir Vilayet article where you added an Armenian translation (without any consensus or explanation) despite the fact that the majority population was not Armenian by any estimate, official or otherwise; and similarly in your edit on the Erzurum Vilayet article. According to WP:IMPARTIAL and other guidelines, these abolished district articles should be treated consistently and all should either have only their official name in the lede, or also include the majority population's endonym, so I think it may be worthwhile to re-evaluate your standing in this issue. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 07:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the things we're discussing here, and stop this WP:OTHERSTUFF. And btw, I don't mind creating a subsection Name for those villayet articles either, not sure how that was a "got you" or something. You also forgot to mention that these villayet city names (at least the six Armenian villayets, which were the ones I edited) come from Armenian language, see Diyarbakır and Erzurum the two examples you brought, I think in those cases it's justified to be included in the lead, even though again, I don't same treatment for those too. Kind of weird that you had to dug out some October edits of mine, though. And I agree with LouisAragon's latest suggestion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Please focus on the things we're discussing here, and stop this WP:OTHERSTUFF"
 * I am discussing the issue at hand, which relates to the inconsistency of adding native translations in the lede in some abolished articles, but not in the ones which don't have "enough" of an Armenian character, specifically in contrast of the Diyarbakir Vilayet and the Elisabethpol Governorate articles.
 * "not sure how that was a "got you" or something."
 * It wasn't intended as such, rather, I am trying to understand your rationale which seems to be able to arbitrarily justify one position whilst holding another.
 * "You also forgot to mention that these villayet city names (at least the six Armenian villayets, which were the ones I edited) come from Armenian language"
 * I'm not really sure what the etymology of some of the vilayets' city names have to do with including an Armenian translation in the lede of their district articles, that sounds like you're saying the inclusion of a translation in the districts lede depends on the etymological origin of the district's administrative center? In which case, I'd refer you to the fact that Ganja, the administrative center of the Elisabethpol Governorate (which we were previously discussing), has a Persian etymological origin—are you advocating for the inclusion of a Persian translation in the lede of the Elisabethpol Governorate article?
 * "the two examples you brought, I think in those cases it's justified to be included in the lead, even though again, I don't same treatment for those too."
 * Please share your rationale as to why you think those cases are "justified to be included in the lead"? Again, these districts had Armenian minorities, and were never incorporated into an independent Armenian state, so I'm confused as to why their translations are there, yet same logic isn't applied to Azerbaijani-majority districts in using Azerbaijani translations. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 12:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You really need to concise your comments, not everyone has time to read your essays. First of all, Armenians were majority in number of these vilayets and total population was higher from any other ethnic group, please stop pushing this "Armenian minorities", this is the second time you do so without any evidence. And secondly, most importantly, I stated that I don't mind creating a subsection for those vilayets either, but I'm still puzzled how your WP:OTHER and WP:OTHERSTUFF to prove-a-point is relevant here. You should focus on the articles we're discussing and as far as I'm aware, this talk discussion is about Russian Empire and its Governorates,... in its talk page. Yet you keep bringing other articles and ignoring my comments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "You really need to concise your comments, not everyone has time to read your essays."
 * Please don't make comments like "not everyone has time to read your essays", it's mean and creates a toxic environment in an already hostile topic area, this is the second instance I'm asking you. And sorry, but if you don't have time to read 6 sentences (even less than your replies after) which are direct responses to you, maybe you shouldn't be engaging in a discussion without any intention to take replies seriously.
 * "First of all, Armenians were majority in number of these vilayets and total population was higher from any other ethnic group,"
 * This is a debated claim with numerous interpretations, in any case of the ethnic composition, the point still stands that if you are justifying an Armenian translation in the lede of an abolished district article, that same logic (according to WP:BALANCE) should be applied to other abolished district articles in including translations other than Armenian if the ethnic composition justifies it, especially so if they became an administrative unit of that state (ADR 1918–1920).
 * "but I'm still puzzled how your WP:OTHER and WP:OTHERSTUFF to prove-a-point is relevant here."
 * I don't see how this is WP:OTHER or WP:OTHERSTUFF since they are directly relevant as being the same class of abolished districts from the same time period, peoples and region, you are simply using semantics to distinguish them when in-practice, they should be treated consistently unless there is a consensus stating otherwise. Also worth noting that those guidelines you posted both refer to the exact same guideline, so you are using two variants of the same subsection to exaggerate your point.
 * "Yet you keep bringing other articles and ignoring my comments."
 * I haven't ignored your comments, I'm trying to answer each one of your points to help us reach a consensus, in lieu, you seem determined not to explain your rationale/logic that Ottoman district articles are deserving of native endonyms, but Russian Imperial and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic district articles aren't.
 * I'm not against creating a subsection called "Name" in the district articles for unofficial local/native endonyms, however, I believe official district names (which include Imperial Russian and Armenian/Azerbaijani/Georgian terms) have no reason not to be included as translations in the lede, as consistent with other articles on WP. - 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 00:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't ignored your comments, I'm trying to answer each one of your points to help us reach a consensus, in lieu, you seem determined not to explain your rationale/logic that Ottoman district articles are deserving of native endonyms, but Russian Imperial and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic district articles aren't. - Where did I say this? My argument is that with Vilayets, if a name (as is the case with Diyarbakır and Erzrum villayets you brought up) is based on Armenian cities that have been Armenian for centuries and most importantly, comes from Armenian language, it does actually have a better justification for the lead inclusion, than saying "population=inclusion". If something is based on a specific language, by definition, said language spelling is a due inclusion. But even in those cases, I'm open to discussing the same treatment as Name section proposed here, but I'm not going to entertain it here on this talk page as I already said. Keep it to the respective article pages.
 * you seem determined not to explain your rationale/logic that Ottoman district articles are deserving of native endonyms, but Russian Imperial and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic district articles aren't. - What? Firstly, stop misrepresenting me about Villayets, I explained my position pretty clearly at this point. And secondly, I'm fine with removing / creating a section of other lang spellings for ALL governorates, not just Azeri spellings. Thought this was the whole point of the discussion, was it not, LouisAragon? To determine a standard for ALL governorates, yet Nunuxxx, you keep saying I have something specifically against Az spelling governorates. I actually removed all other lang spellings from Elisabethpol Governorate, Armenian included. The entire discussion was transferred to this talk page to define a standard for ALL governorates. FYI, baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks - consider this as a last warning from me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And btw, if a name (as is the case with Diyarbakır and Erzrum villayets you brought up) is based on Armenian cities that have been Armenian for centuries and most importantly, comes from Armenian language, it does actually have a better justification for the lead inclusion. I'm not saying if it should or should not, that (again) isn't something to be discussed in this talk page, and personally, I would be fine with a Name subsection too. This is the last time I'm addressing the villayets stuff in this talk page, keep it for their own respective pages and keep this page out of WP:OTHER arguments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the best solution to this would be an RFC, with the questions:

Option 1: The lead of articles about governorates of the Russian empire should include official Russian language name (pre-reform script), followed by the translation of the state which owns most of the modern-day territory.

Option 2: The lead of articles about governorates of the Russian empire should include official Russian language name (pre-reform script), followed by the translation of the state which owns most of the modern-day territory, followed by an optional translation of whichever ethnic group is the majority of the population, if they are not the same as that of the state which owns it.

Option 3: The lead of articles about governorates of the Russian empire should include official Russian language name (pre-reform script).

Is everybody is ok with it, I will go ahead and start the RFC. Grand master  22:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Autonomous governorate?
We have a template-generated red link for Autonomous governorate. Cleary identifiable concept? Worth of standalone article? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Governorate (Russia)


text:
Category:Missaukee County, Michigan

Articles related to Missaukee County in the U.S. state of Michigan.

title: Category:Missaukee County, Michigan


text:
Talk:Leo Laporte

Sex chat material
Please see discussion at WP:BLPN about the inclusion of the "sex chat" material. This is unencyclopedic garbage that is insufficiently relevant to Laporte, his notability, and his life to warrant inclusion. Please do not reinsert until a consensus is established, either here or at BLPN in favor of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Editors should take a look at WP:BLP and WP:RECENTISM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Keep the gossip and the speculation out of this article.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  22:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sex scandals certainly are encyclopedic. Take a look at Anthony Weiner's page. 50.81.60.161 (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What a beta 207.35.12.10 (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Sex scandals are relevant. You bet Bill Clintons page has lots of details about the Lewinsky scandal. I think a controversy section is warranted with a link to the Gawker article. Let the readers decide the validity, it can be presented in a neutral and unbiased way. Same for the Erik Lanigan controversy. It doesn't need to be super lascivious or detailed, but it does need to be mentioned. The question is whether Leo's overly rabid fanbase will try to edit anything unflattering out. The chat was posted publicly, it was in the news, it should be mentioned on his encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.224.22 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton examples are not good comparisons. Weiner resigned, Clinton was impeached, and those incidents were covered in depth by reliable sources. So, if you propose to mention this in the Laporte article, bring forth the reliable sources that describe the incident and its impact on his life, and the language you propose to add, here on the talk page. Blogs and social media aren't acceptable sources, and there must be consensus to add controversial content.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Leo's BBS

 * MacQueue (1986-1988) SAN FRANCISCO, CA

BLP Redactions
Yesterday, I reviewed the removal of a section titled Podcasting: The Tech Guy contoversy by user Bbb23. I was vaguely aware of the situation, but this section provided a lot more info that I had previously been aware of. I also took a long look at WP:BLP. WP:BLP states articles "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". It also states "We must get the article right" and "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" which led me to WP:NEWSBLOG.

As I read the removed portion, and initially the removal seemed to make some sense. While it was labeled with inline citations, I could see why Perez Hilton might seem less than reliable (and I agree- I would not use that source!). But with two sources- Gawker in a bylined article being the second- a little more credence could be allowed. When you add in the uncut video on the Gawker site (also considered a source see WP:RELIABLE), the questionably of the charge that is pretty well rendered moot. Two sources and a video pretty well establish that the removed portion is "right". (I am NOT going to post or reference the uncut video on the page, but for reference, here is a link to it: )

If I had not read the talk page here, I probably still would have sided with removal (being conservative). But now I see this is not the first time that. . While I would not go so far as to say these incidents rise to encyclopedic, and now worthy of inclusion.

Laporte is not a private citizen- he is a public figure who knowingly and consciously puts himself in the public eye. The bar for public figures is set much higher. I am NOT saying we take our responsibility to publish what is right any lighter- right is ALWAYS best. But what I am saying is that Laporte has put himself out there, and concerns for his privacy are considerably less than for an average person.

Further, he fashions himself and his company as "People You Trust." Thus,.

We do not remove parts of articles because they might be embarrassing to their subject. We post to inform. Check out the Janet Jackson article- is the wardrobe malfunction ignored? No. Neither should this be glossed over. It is reliably sourced, there is no way to question whether it happened, and goes to the subject’s character. In this instance, it is encyclopedic.

I have rewritten the section removed. I have toned it down and made it less objectionable, with no gossip or speculation. If you want to edit it, please do. But at this point, this should remain as a portion of the Leo Laporte page.

Slo town ca (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I have removed this material, per WP:BLP - the sources referenced are not reliable for controversial material about living persons. I have also redacted the sections of the comment above which are also contrary to WP:BLP; and amended the section header. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with this removal; if the sole source is Gawker, that suggests it's not significant to Laporte's life. The analogy to Janet Jackson is inapposite - the Janet Jackson incident was widely reported and resulted in record-breaking FCC monetary penalties to the broadcasting network. Neither of those two situations appear to be true in this case. In addition, I've redacted the link to the material, because it serves no encyclopedic purpose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Leo Laporte. 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/20060926020523/http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/6296/Focus_On_Leo.html to http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/6296/Focus_On_Leo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804031636/http://blog.clickonline.org.au/2008/03/27/lab-with-leo-off-tv-in-australia-let-us-see-the-remaining-episodes/ to http://blog.clickonline.org.au/2008/03/27/lab-with-leo-off-tv-in-australia-let-us-see-the-remaining-episodes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804031755/http://blog.clickonline.org.au/2008/03/27/response-from-how-to-channel-australia-regarding-the-lab-with-leo/ to http://blog.clickonline.org.au/2008/03/27/response-from-how-to-channel-australia-regarding-the-lab-with-leo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312214849/http://leoville.com/Appearances/LiveWithRegisAndKelly to http://leoville.com/Appearances/LiveWithRegisAndKelly

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) 00:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leo Laporte. 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/20150121055714/http://twit.tv/taxonomy/term/1/0/feed to http://twit.tv/taxonomy/term/1/0/feed

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) 04:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Leo Laporte Head Shot.jpg
 * This Week in Tech - Iain, Leo, Phil, Lisa.jpg

Welp, wikipedia is pwned
Oh well, most of laportes page was pulled because some ferocious super fan doesnt like true things. Wikipedia is dead, long live wikipedia. 72.229.22.134 (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Leo Laporte


text:
List of conquistadors

The following is a list of conquistadors.

A

 * Lope de Aguirre
 * Hernando de Alarcón
 * Diego de Almagro
 * Hernando Alonso
 * Alonso de Alvarado
 * Hernando de Alvarado
 * Pedro de Alvarado
 * Luis de Moscoso Alvarado
 * Juan de Ampudia
 * Pascual de Andagoya
 * Pedro Arias de Ávila
 * Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón
 * Juan de Ayolas

B

 * Hernán Sánchez de Badajoz
 * Vasco Núñez de Balboa
 * Rodrigo de Bastidas
 * Sebastián de Belalcázar
 * Antonio de Berrío
 * Francisco de Bobadilla

C

 * Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca
 * Sebastian Cabot
 * Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo
 * Alonso de Cáceres
 * Alonso Calero
 * Bartolomé Camacho Zambrano
 * Juan de la Cámara
 * Pedro de Candia
 * Francisco Cano
 * Alonso de Cárdenas
 * García López de Cárdenas
 * Antonio Díaz de Cardoso
 * Juan de Carvajal
 * Luis de Carvajal y de la Cueva
 * Juan de Cavallón
 * Francisco César
 * Juan de Céspedes
 * Beltrán de Cetina
 * Gregorio de Cetina
 * Pedro Cieza de León
 * Christopher Columbus
 * Francisco Hernández de Córdoba (founder of Nicaragua)
 * Francisco Hernández de Córdoba (Yucatán conquistador)
 * Francisco Vázquez de Coronado
 * Juan Vázquez de Coronado
 * Hernán Cortés
 * Juan de la Cosa
 * Bartolomé de Las Casas

D

 * Alonso Díaz Moreno
 * Bernal Díaz del Castillo
 * Melchor Díaz

E

 * Ambrosius Ehinger
 * Martín Estete
 * Juan de Estrada Rávago

F

 * Francisco Fajardo
 * Nikolaus Federmann
 * Martín Fernández de Enciso
 * Pedro Fernández de Lugo
 * Pedro Fernández de Valenzuela
 * Juan Freyle
 * Alejandro de la Fuente

G

 * Aleixo Garcia
 * Diego García de Paredes
 * Martín de Goiti
 * Estêvão Gomes
 * Gil González Dávila
 * Garci González de Silva
 * Juan de Grijalva
 * Felipe Gutiérrez
 * Nuño de Guzmán

H

 * Pedro de Heredia
 * Miguel Holguín y Figueroa
 * Philipp von Hutten

I

 * Domingo Martínez de Irala

L

 * Luis Lanchero
 * Miguel López de Legazpi
 * Diego de Losada

M

 * Gonzalo Macías
 * Baltasar Maldonado
 * Juan Maldonado
 * Pedro Malaver de Silva
 * Luis Marin
 * Diego de Mazariegos
 * Pedro de Mendoza
 * Pedro Menéndez de Avilés
 * Pedro Menéndez de Márquez
 * Gutierre de Miranda
 * Diego Miruelo
 * Francisco de Montejo
 * Diego de Montemayor

N

 * Pánfilo de Narváez
 * Diego de Nicuesa

O

 * Alonso de Ojeda
 * Cristóbal de Olid
 * Diego de Ordaz
 * Francisco de Orellana
 * Juan de Oñate
 * Rodrigo Orgóñez
 * Joan Orpí i del Pou

P

 * Alonso Álvarez de Pineda
 * Vicente Yáñez Pinzón
 * Francisco Pizarro
 * Gonzalo Pizarro
 * Juan Pizarro
 * Hernándo Pizarro
 * Juan Ponce de León

Q

 * Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada
 * Hernán Pérez de Quesada

R

 * Diego López de Ribera
 * Jorge Robledo
 * Juan Rodríguez Suárez
 * Gaspar de Rodas
 * Diego de Roxas
 * Bartolomé Ruiz

S

 * Juan de Salcedo
 * Juan de Sanct Martín
 * Francisco "Chamuscado" Sánchez
 * Gonzalo de Sandoval
 * Ulrico Schmidl
 * Diego de Sojo
 * Hernando de Soto
 * Juan Díaz de Solís
 * Georg von Speyer
 * Gonzalo Suárez Rendón

T

 * Pedro de Tovar

U

 * Francisco de Ulloa
 * Martín de Ursúa
 * Pedro de Ursúa

V

 * Pedro de Valdivia
 * Juan Valiente
 * Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar
 * Ortún Velázquez de Velasco
 * Hernán Venegas Carrillo
 * Juan de Villegas

title: List of conquistadors


text:
Talk:Detachable chairlift

First detachable lifts?
It'd be nice to put some history here on where the first detachable lift was open. I recall that Vail had one of the earliest (if not the earliest) detachables, the Vista Bahn, but perhaps that was simply the earlist North American (or even US) detachable. Pimlottc 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ten seat chairs
I had thought there were 1 or 2 10-place chairlifts in France, but I can't find them on google. This page refers to one, but they're probably just confused. I guess it's 8. Stevage 03:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I can understand how "only" eight people on a chair might seem like ten. That's a mindboggling number of people to egress all at once.  Heck, the bits of freeway around here with four lanes on each side sometimes seems like five....  —EncMstr 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What happens to the haul rope?
I came here looking for the answer to what happens to the haul rope after the chair derails. I imagine that there is some kind of spindle, or "long path" that it traverses while the chair is leisurely sent around the pickup/dropoff area. Does anyone know (and can they add it to the article)?

 * See chairlift. (These two articles probably ought to be merged.)  —EncMstr 03:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed; chairlift is more informative than this article.

Explanation
The haul rope gets sent around a bullwheel just like a fixed grip chair. The carrier grip detaches the rope and is then brought around the station by a series of belts,conveyors, and tires until it reattaches to the haul rope. the belts conveyors and tires slow the chair down and speed it up again to haul rope speed without the haul rope ever changing its speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.15.7 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Speed figures way too high
I can't think of any detachable chairlift that races through a station with 1m/s. Also, most of these lifts (at least in Europe) make 4-4,5m/s, but not 6 in average. Any thoughts or reliable sources on that? 217.233.75.205 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations or delete
This page is 95% unsourced. Make sure you cite everything. 95% of the content in this article could get deleted by a user and the would have a good reason for it. Fix this up. TigerScientist (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure getting rather self righteous and whacking "citations needed" statements all through an article will do anything useful. It may only make a majority of readers resent the person who does it. I've written quite a few "peer reviewed" papers, but Wikipaedia is more informal by its very nature. As long as industry experts are content that basic statements of fact in an article are correct and anything unusual or surprising is referenced, then perhaps there's no need to footnote sources for basic and undisputed facts. While I'm not going to delete all the "More citations needed" annotations that TigerScientist has added, perhaps he/she could tone down their edits a little? Thanks. :-) Bogong (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I will admit I got a little over board on this page. I will delete the info that is not basic. TigerScientist (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Almost nobody will resent the addition of CN tags to a wikipedia article, they’re a super common and necessary part of the editing process. We don’t give a single solitary fuck what industry experts think outside of their published work, whether they are content or not literally does not matter. Everything on wikipedia needs a source, preferably an inline one. You can’t delete the annotations that TigerScientist has added without sourcing the material, that would be disruptive and you would quickly be blocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Of course articles on this site should be accurate, but they should also be readable, which is something many of the more zealous editors forget. The flow of an otherwise easily understandable sentence can be damaged by constant square bracket interruptions. I've won a few awards for my writing and after editors pointed out to me, I've learnt to scan text to ensure its readability. Try reading text with a lot of square bracket interruptions out loud, I think you will discover that it's impossible to read it in a calm and measured way. So I advocate keeping references, links and other square bracket interruptions where they could be valuable or useful to an average reader, but don't add any extra out of pedantry or a need to be utterly comprehensive. Bogong (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

MND detachable chair
MND have a detachable chair at la plagne however there is no mention of them in the history section 2A01:CB1E:61:CC98:5402:BCC0:A44C:9A0F (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

European History
Think there could be more info on Manufactures in Europe. for example More on Poma in France, Von roll and GMM just to name a few. Present section seems to only include information on the American subsidiaries. I'm Sure I have not listed everything but there is a lot more that can be added to this page. there is lots of information of this topic on websites online such as https://www.remontees-mecaniques.net/. OliverRoads (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Detachable chairlift


text:
1089 (number)

1089 is the integer after 1088 and before 1090. It is a square number (33 squared), a nonagonal number, a 32-gonal number, a 364-gonal number, and a centered octagonal number. 1089 is the first reverse-divisible number. The next is 2178 (= 1089 × 2 = 8712/4), and they are the only four-digit numbers that divide their reverse.

In magic
1089 is widely used in magic tricks because it can be "produced" from any two three-digit numbers. This allows it to be used as the basis for a Magician's Choice. For instance, one variation of the book test starts by having the spectator choose any two suitable numbers and then apply some basic maths to produce a single four-digit number. That number is always 1089. The spectator is then asked to turn to page 108 of a book and read the 9th word, which the magician has memorized. To the audience it looks like the number is random, but through manipulation, the result is always the same.

In base 10, the following steps always yield 1089:
 * 1) Take any three-digit number where the first and last digits differ by more than 1.
 * 2) Reverse the digits, and subtract the smaller from the larger one.
 * 3) Add to this result the number produced by reversing its digits.

For example, if the spectator chooses 237 (or 732):

 * 732 − 237 = 495
 * 495 + 594 = 1089

as expected. On the other hand, if the spectator chooses 102 (or 201):

 * 201 − 102 = 99
 * 99 + 99  ≠ 1089

contradicting the rule. However, if we amend the third rule by reading 99 as a three-digit number 099 and take its reverse, we obtain:

 * 201 − 102 = 099
 * 099 + 990 = 1089

as expected.

Explanation
The spectator's 3-digit number can be written as 100 × A + 10 × B + 1 × C, and its reversal as 100 × C + 10 × B + 1 × A, where 1 ≤ A ≤ 9, 0 ≤ B ≤ 9 and 1 ≤ C ≤ 9. Their difference is 99 × (A − C) (For convenience, we assume A > C; if A < C, we first swap A and C.). If A − C is 0, the difference is 0, and we do not get a 3-digit number for the next step. If A − C is 1, the difference is 99. Using a leading 0 gives us a 3-digit number for the next step.

99 × (A − C) can also be written as 99 × [(A − C) − 1] + 99 = 100 × [(A − C) − 1] − 1 × [(A − C) − 1] + 90 + 9 = 100 × [(A − C) − 1] + 90 + 9 − (A − C) + 1 = 100 × [(A − C) − 1] + 10 × 9 + 1 × [10 − (A − C)]. (The first digit is (A − C) − 1, the second is 9 and the third is 10 − (A − C). As 2 ≤ A − C ≤ 9, both the first and third digits are guaranteed to be single digits.)

Its reversal is 100 × [10 − (A − C)] + 10 × 9 + 1 × [(A − C) − 1]. The sum is thus 101 × [(A − C) − 1] + 20 × 9 + 101 × [10 − (A − C)] = 101 × [(A − C) − 1 + 10 − (A − C)] + 20 × 9 = 101 × [−1 + 10] + 180 = 1089.

Other properties
Multiplying the number 1089 by the integers from 1 to 9 produces a pattern: multipliers adding up to 10 give products that are the digit reversals of each other:

 * 1 × 1089 = 1089 ↔ 9 × 1089 = 9801
 * 2 × 1089 = 2178 ↔ 8 × 1089 = 8712
 * 3 × 1089 = 3267 ↔ 7 × 1089 = 7623
 * 4 × 1089 = 4356 ↔ 6 × 1089 = 6534
 * 5 × 1089 = 5445 ↔ 5 × 1089 = 5445

Also note the patterns within each column:

 * 1 × 1089 = 1089
 * 2 × 1089 = 2178
 * 3 × 1089 = 3267
 * 4 × 1089 = 4356
 * 5 × 1089 = 5445
 * 6 × 1089 = 6534
 * 7 × 1089 = 7623
 * 8 × 1089 = 8712
 * 9 × 1089 = 9801

Numbers formed analogously in other bases, e.g. octal 1067 or hexadecimal 10EF, also have these properties.

Extragalactic astronomy
The numerical value of the cosmic microwave background radiation redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time)

Other uses

 * In the Rich Text Format, the language code 1089 indicates the text is in Swahili.

title: 1089 (number)


text:
National Nanotechnology Initiative

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is a research and development initiative which provides a framework to coordinate nanoscale research and resources among United States federal government agencies and departments.

History
Mihail C. Roco proposed the initiative in a 1999 presentation to the White House under the Clinton administration. The NNI was officially launched in 2000 and received funding for the first time in FY2001.

President Bill Clinton advocated nanotechnology development. In a 21 January 2000 speech at the California Institute of Technology, Clinton stated that "Some of our research goals may take twenty or more years to achieve, but that is precisely why there is an important role for the federal government."

President George W. Bush further increased funding for nanotechnology. On 3 December 2003 Bush signed into law the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which authorizes expenditures for five of the participating agencies totaling $3.63 billion over four years.. This law is an authorization, not an appropriation, and subsequent appropriations for these five agencies have not met the goals set out in the 2003 Act. However, there are many agencies involved in the Initiative that are not covered by the Act, and requested budgets under the Initiative for all participating agencies in Fiscal Years 2006 – 2015 totaled over $1 billion each.

In February 2014, the National Nanotechnology Initiative released a Strategic Plan outlining updated goals and "program component areas" ," as required under the terms of the Act. This document supersedes the NNI Strategic Plans released in 2004 and 2007.

The NNI's budget supplement proposed by the Obama administration for Fiscal Year 2015 provides $1.5 billion in requested funding. The cumulative NNI investment since fiscal year 2001, including the 2015 request, totals almost $21 billion. Cumulative investments in nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety research since 2005 to 2015 total nearly $900 million. The Federal agencies with the largest investments are the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The NNI received increased support for emerging technologies during the Trump administration and a special focus on clean energy and mitigating climate change during the Biden administration. NNI cumulative investment by 2023 inclusive reached $40 billion, and nanotechnology has become pervasive in material, energy and biosystem related discoveries and applications.

Goals
The four primary goals of NNI are:

 * 1) Advance a world-class nanotechnology research and development program;
 * 2) Foster the transfer of new technologies into products for commercial and public benefits;
 * 3) Develop and sustain educational resources, a skilled workforce, and a dynamic infrastructure and toolset to advance nanotechnology;
 * 4) Support responsible development of nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives
Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives (NSIs) spotlight areas of nanotechnology where significant advances in nanoscale science and technology can be made with the focus and cooperation of participating agencies. NSIs accelerate research, development, and application of nanotechnology in these critical areas.

As of December 2020, the current NSIs are:
 * NSI: Water Sustainability through Nanotechnology – Nanoscale Solutions for a Global-Scale Challenge,
 * NSI: Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology – Improving and Protecting Health, Safety, and the Environment,
 * NSI: Sustainable Nanomanufacturing - Creating the Industries of the Future,
 * NSI: Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond.

NSIs are dynamic and are retired as they achieve their specified goals or develop an established community they no longer require the spotlight provided as a NSI. Retired NSIs are:
 * NSI: Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond,
 * NSI: Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion - Contributing to Energy Solutions for the Future,
 * NSI: Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure - Enabling National Leadership in Sustainable Design.

Nanotechnology-Inspired Grand Challenges
A nanotechnology-inspired grand challenge (GC) is an ambitious goal that utilizes nanotechnology and nanoscience to solve national and global issues. The first and current GC was announced in October 2015 after receiving input and suggestions from the public. As of December 2020, the grand challenge is:
 * A Nanotechnology-Inspired Grand Challenge for Future Computing: Create a new type of computer that can proactively interpret and learn from data, solve unfamiliar problems using what it has learned, and operate with the energy efficiency of the human brain.

Participating Federal Agencies and Departments
Departments and agencies with nanotechnology R&D budgets:• Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

• Department of Commerce (DOC)

• * Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)

• * Economic Development Administration (EDA)

• * National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

• * U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

• Department of Defense (DOD)

• Department of Energy (DOE)

• Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

• * Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

• * National Institutes of Health (NIH)

• * National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

• Department of Transportation (DOT)

• * Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

• National Science Foundation (NSF)

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

• * Agricultural Research Services (ARS)

• * Forest Service (FS)

• * National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)

Other participating departments and agencies:• Department of Education (DOEd)

• Department of the Interior

• * U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

• Department of Justice (DOJ)

• * National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

• Department of Labor (DOL)

• * Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

• Department of State (DOS)

• Department of the Treasury (DOTreas)

• Intelligence Community (IC)

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

• U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)

Results and Effects
Only a very small number of studies attempted to evaluate the effects of the NNI objectively. A multi-nationation study between the US and the Netherlands published in 2023, looked at the result of patent filing, issuance and mainteance since the NNI was launched in 2010 until 2023, when there last data were available.

US-invented nanopatents with US assignees, were somewhat more apt to renew at least once (14.5% vs. 11.7%) compared to the US -assignees on average, but somewhat less inclined to pay for full maintenance of 20 years from filing (40.5% vs. 52.5%). The lower propensity to renew could be attributed to a quickly changing technology-landcape.

title: National Nanotechnology Initiative


text:
User:Rj/emk

Stricken from wikipedia
the vfd

Ted Kennedy's driving patterns

 * Ted Kennedy had a record of serious traffic violations including a June, 1958 conviction for "reckless driving." Their nature formed a pattern of deliberate and repeated negligent operation.
 * On March 14, 1958, Deputy Sheriff Thomas Whitten had been on routine highway patrol outside Charlottesville, Virginia, when an Oldsmobile convertible ran a red light, sped off, then cut its tail lights to elude pursuit. A license check revealed the car belonged to Edward M. Kennedy, a 26-year-old law student attending the University of Virginia. Kennedy had previously been fined $15 for speeding in March 1957.
 * Whitten was on patrol at the same intersection a week later, he testified, "And here comes the same car. And to my surprise, he did exactly the same thing. He raced through the same red light, cut his lights when he got to the corner and made the right turn." Whitten gave chase. He found the car in a driveway, apparently unoccupied. Looking inside, he discovered the driver, Teddy Kennedy, stretched out on the front seat and hiding. Whitten issued a ticket for "reckless driving; racing with an officer to avoid arrest; and operating a motor vehicle without an operator's license (Mass. registration.)"
 * Kennedy's attorneys were able to win numerous postponements, but eventually he was convicted on all charges and paid a $35 fine. Court officials never filed the mandatory notice of the case in the public docket, however, and Kennedy's name had not appeared on any arrest blotter. Instead, a local reporter discovered the case when he spotted 5 warrants in Kennedy's name in a court cash drawer.
 * Three weeks after his trial, Ted Kennedy was caught speeding again, and still operating without a valid license.
 * In December 1959, Kennedy was stopped again for running a red light and fined $10 and costs. In Whitten's view, "That boy had a heavy foot and a mental block against the color red. He was a careless, reckless driver who didn't seem to have any regard for speed limits or traffic ordinances."
 * The offenses in Virginia had occurred on Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts driver's license, but mysteriously neither the Registry of Motor Vehicles nor the office of probation in Cambridge had any record of the out-of-state convictions. Had it been revealed at the inquest, the Senator's history of negligence and reckless driving would have been further evidence to support a charge of manslaughter in the Chappaquiddick accident.

Source: Senatorial Privilege by Leo Damore

 * Ted Kennedy's Driving Record - List of Traffic Offenses

Edit history
... 12:40, Sep 15, 2004 Texture (Chappaquiddick - rm link to article deleted by VfD vote) ... 22:27, Sep 14, 2004 Rj m (Chappaquiddick - lnk history) 22:15, Sep 14, 2004 24.129.60.12 (Chappaquiddick) ... 16:01, Sep 8, 2004 Sukee m (Chappaquiddick) ... 08:25, Sep 8, 2004 Sukee m (Chappaquiddick - removed the word fixed, replaced with corrected, POV) ... 03:40, Sep 7, 2004 64.24.228.18 03:39, Sep 7, 2004 64.24.228.18 (Driving record covered in external link. Should not be part of listing.) 03:38, Sep 7, 2004 TUF-KAT m (Reverted edits by 64.24.228.18 to last version by Sukee) 03:33, Sep 7, 2004 64.24.228.18 01:11, Sep 6, 2004 RickK (cleanup) ... 21:10, Jul 26, 2004 Draco? m (Chappaquiddick - Fixed preformatted block that shouldn't have been) 18:59, Jul 25, 2004 Rj (article "fixed" also?) ... 10:21, Jul 4, 2004 67.3.219.72 (External links - since are vote to merge only made 1 sentence.) 06:06, Jul 4, 2004 Johnleemk (merging from Ted Kennedy's Driving Record?) ... 11:14, Jul 1, 2004 Snoyes m (Reverted edits by 67.18.139.204 to last version by Buster2058) 11:07, Jul 1, 2004 67.18.139.204 (Chappaquiddick) 14:41, Jun 26, 2004 Buster2058 (added see also link) ... 03:27, Jun 12, 2004 Andrew Levine (Almost half the article was about Kennedy's driving record. It needs more about his senatorial record and service.) 03:29, Jun 9, 2004 Long Tall Texan m (Chappaquiddick) 18:36, Jun 5, 2004 Lst27 m 23:38, Jun 4, 2004 Rj m (lnks) ... 11:05, May 24, 2004 67.117.148.153 21:02, May 10, 2004 24.117.85.67 ...

title: User:Rj/emk


text:
User:Ed Poor/cults

This is a public watchlist

You are welcome to add to this list any articles related to new religious movements which some people consider spurious.

=Polemics=

There are '''multiple contradictions within the deprogramming movement''':
 * 1) Cults brainwash with coercive persuasion, amounting to mind control, so we brainwash your children out of cults, using one-sided arguments and coercive persuasion, but this isn't mind control: we're freeing their minds; we believe steadfastly in "freedom of mind"
 * 2) Call or write, and we'll tell you all the terrible things we know (or have heard, or want you to believe) about the cult your son just joined, and we'll help you get him out vs. "We don't maintain a list of cults, these are just groups of concern" and "We feel no need to prepare a balanced evaluation of any particular group, because you can get positive information directly from them";
 * 3) the major effect of deprogramming and charges of mind control and maintaining "cult info" clearinghouses, is that people are extremely wary of contacting the NRMs directly for any info, especially after hearing from the anti-cultists that NRMs are "cults" which "use deception" and can "zap" nearly anybody into snapping.

Redirects

 * List of purported cults
 * from Cult homicide 00:47, Mar 16, 2005 Willmcw

 * Anti-cult movement
 * from Debunking of the anti-cult movement myths 04:48, Mar 18, 2005 Willmcw (changed to redirect to anti-cult movement)

Deletions, past and future

 * Christian cults - vfd 22:32, Mar 13, 2005 Binadot

 * Definitions of cult - vfd since March 22

 * List of deadly cults vfd 20:31, Mar 19, 2005 Zappaz

New or "hot" articles

 * Multiple contradictions within the deprogramming movement, talk:Multiple contradictions within the deprogramming movement
 * Ticket to Heaven, talk:Ticket to Heaven
 * personality alteration, talk:personality alteration
 * List of deadly cults, talk:List of deadly cults (see List of purported cults)
 * Recovery from Cults, talk:Recovery from Cults (book)
 * Destructive cult, talk:Destructive cult (see List of purported cults)
 * Steven Hassan, talk:Steven Hassan - an "exit counselor" or deprogrammer
 * Opposition to cults, talk:Opposition to cults - This page should be merged with anti-cult movement, opposition to cults and new religious movements, cults
 * Christian cults, talk:Christian cults - tagged for deletion
 * Debunking of the anti-cult movement myths, talk:Debunking of the anti-cult movement myths (see Anti-cult movement)
 * mass suicide, talk:mass suicide

(see ) (see ) (see ) (see ) (see )

General

 * definitions of cult, talk:definitions of cult
 * cult, talk:cult
 * new religious movement, talk:new religious movement
 * cult suicide, talk:cult suicide
 * suicide cult, talk:suicide cult
 * cult homicide, talk:cult homicide

Mind control - theory & practice

 * mind control, talk:mind control
 * brainwashing, talk:brainwashing
 * deprogramming, talk:deprogramming
 * exit counselling, talk:exit counselling
 * Snapping, talk:Snapping
 * , talk:
 * , talk:

Movements
Eileen Barker proposed 5 categories of these:
 * cult watching groups
 * cult watchers
 * cult watch
 * cultwatch

 * NRM, talk:NRM - should redirect to:
 * new religious movement, talk:new religious movement - general, scholarly
 * list of controversial new religious movements, talk:list of controversial new religious movements
 * anti-cult movement, talk:anti-cult movement
 * counter-cult movement, talk:counter-cult movement - Christians vs. heretics

 * list of purported cults, talk:list of purported cults

NRM - general, scholarly anti-cult and counter-cult movements - POV of "cult opponents" destructive cult - indisputably bad groups

 * Votes for deletion/Christian cults, talk:
 * List of purported hate groups, Talk:List of purported hate groups
 * List of purported hate groups, Talk:List of purported hate groups

People

 * cult apologist, talk:cult apologist
 * Anson Shupe, talk:Anson Shupe
 * Robert J. Lifton, talk:Robert J. Lifton
 * Steven Hassan, talk:Steven Hassan
 * Rick Ross, talk:Rick Ross
 * Ted Patrick, talk:Ted Patrick
 * Andrew Wilson, talk:Andrew Wilson

Groups

 * CARM, talk:CARM
 * Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
 * CAN, talk:CAN
 * Cult Awareness Network, talk:Cult Awareness Network

General info
Thanks to anonymous, who provided this list:

Maharaji
Guru Maharaj Ji, the "perfect spiritual master" who was so famous in the 1970s.

 * Prem Rawat, talk:Prem Rawat
 * Teachings of Prem Rawat, talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat
 * Techniques of Knowledge, talk:Techniques of Knowledge
 * Premie, talk:Premie

 * Divine Light Mission, talk:Divine Light Mission
 * Elan Vital, talk:Elan Vital

 * Criticism of Prem Rawat, talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat
 * Divine United Organization, talk:Divine United Organization

Unificationism

 * Sun Myung Moon, talk:Sun Myung Moon
 * Unification Church, talk:Unification Church
 * Unification Movement, talk:Unification Movement
 * Moonies, talk:Moonies
 * Unification Church and anti-Semitism, talk:Unification Church and anti-Semitism
 * Unification Thought, talk:Unification Thought
 * Unification Theology, talk:Unification Theology
 * Sang Hun Lee, talk:Sang Hun Lee
 * UT, talk:UT
 * Object (philosophy), talk:Object (philosophy)
 * Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, talk:Family Federation for World Peace and Unification
 * Common base, talk:Common base
 * Subject-object problem, talk:Subject-object problem
 * Give and take, talk:Give and take
 * Common base, talk:Common base
 * Subject and object, talk:Subject and object

Someone asked Damian Anderson for the definitions of the following terms:

 * Boonville
 * CARP
 * Creative Community Project
 * dual characteristics (of creation, God)
 * Fall of man (Unificationism)
 * four position foundation
 * give-and-take relation
 * heart (Unificationism)
 * Holy Spirit Association
 * ICUS
 * indemnity (Unificationism)
 * Lord of the Second Advent (Unificationism)
 * matching (Unificationism)
 * MFT
 * New ERA (Unificationism)
 * Oakland Family
 * Ocean Church
 * Pusan
 * restoration (Unificationism)
 * Second Adam
 * spiritual parent (Unificationism)
 * suffering
 * The Principle (Unificationism)
 * three blessings (Unificationism)
 * True Parents
 * Unification Theological Seminary
 * Washington Times

It's a long list, so I can see why Damian might have felt justified in saying, "do your own homework".

title: User:Ed Poor/cults


text:
HMS Argus

Nine ships of the Royal Navy and one of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary have been named Argus, after Argus, the hundred-eyed giant of mythology:

 * HMS Argus (1799) was a 10-gun sloop, originally a French privateer, captured in 1799 and broken up in 1811.
 * HMS Argus was to have been a 36-gun fifth rate. She was ordered in 1812, but cancelled that same year.
 * HMS Argus (1813) was an 18-gun Cruizer-class brig-sloop launched in 1813 and sold in 1827. The sale was subsequently cancelled and she was resold in 1828.
 * HMS Argus was to have been an 18-gun sloop. She was laid down in 1831, but cancelled later that year.
 * HMS Argus (1849) was a wooden-hulled paddle sloop launched in 1849 and broken up in 1881.
 * HMS Argus (1851) was a coastguard vessel launched in 1851, renamed HMS Amelia in 1872, and HMS Fanny in 1889. She was hulked in 1899, used as a boom defence vessel from 1902 and was sold in 1907.
 * HMS Argus was a coastguard vessel launched in 1864 as HMS Imogene (1864). She was renamed HMS Argus in 1884 and was sold in 1903.
 * HMS Argus (1904) was a coastguard vessel launched in 1904, renamed HMS Argon in 1918 and sold in 1920. Renamed Peninnis and operated by the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company from 1920 to 1926. Renamed Riduna and sold to the Alderney Steam Packet Company in 1926. Sent for break-up at Plymouth in 1931.
 * HMS Argus (I49) was an aircraft carrier, originally laid down as the Italian liner Conte Rosso. She was purchased in 1916 and launched in 1917. She was on harbour service from 1944 and was sold for breaking up in 1946
 * RFAUX Argus (A135) is a Royal Fleet Auxiliary aviation training and primary casualty receiving ship, previously the container ship MV Contender Bezant, launched in 1981. She was purchased in 1984 and renamed RFA Argus in 1987. She is currently in service.

Battle honours

 * Groix Island 1795
 * Ashantee 1873–74
 * Arctic 1941
 * Atlantic 1941–42
 * Malta Convoys 1942
 * North Africa 1942
 * Kuwait 1991

title: HMS Argus


text:
Communist Workers' Party (United States)

The Communist Workers' Party (CWP) was a far-left Maoist group in the United States. It had its origin in 1973 as the Asian Study Group (renamed the Workers' Viewpoint Organization in 1976) established by Jerry Tung, a former member of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) who had grown disenchanted with the group and disagreed with changes taking place in the party line. The party is mainly remembered as being associated with victims of the Greensboro Massacre of 1979.

The CWP followed the policies of Mao Zedong. The CWP also incorporated aspects of the CPUSA's anti-racist pre-Popular Front program. In particular the CWP emphasized unionization and self-determination for African Americans.

Origins
The CWP enjoyed some success in textile cities of North Carolina. The new party established branches in New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Greensboro, West Virginia, Colorado and other locations. Before forming itself into a party in October 1979 (the founding congress was held in the backroom of a discothèque in New York City), the group was known as the Workers Viewpoint Organization. Under its umbrella, it directed groups as the Revolutionary Youth League, the African Liberation Support Committee, and the Trade Union Education League.

1979 Greensboro Massacre
Confrontations with the Ku Klux Klan ("Klan" or "KKK") were particularly acute in Greensboro, North Carolina, where the Klan sought to disrupt the CWP's effort to unionize poor, black mill workers in the Greensboro area. In July 1979, the Klan held a rally and viewing of The Birth of a Nation in China Grove, near Charlotte, which was disrupted by CWP members who burned a Confederate flag and taunted members of the KKK. CWP leader Paul Bermanzohn taunted the Klan in the press, saying "The KKK is one of the most treacherous scum elements produced by the dying system of capitalism" and inviting further confrontation with "We challenge you to attend our rally in Greensboro."

On November 3, 1979, members of the KKK, including a police informant, and the American Nazi Party drove up to the "Death to the Klan" rally organized by the CWP. Members of both the Klan and the CWP were armed, and an exchange of gunfire soon ensued. Four members of the CWP and one rally participant were killed by the KKK. These deaths became known as the "Greensboro Massacre." Two subsequent trials of KKK and ANP members resulted in acquittals. In response to the acquittals of the accused killers, the CWP attempted to storm the 1980 Democratic National Convention and succeeded in setting off firecrackers in Madison Square Garden.

Ideology
From its earliest phase as the Workers' Viewpoint Organization, the CWP had considered itself as Maoist and supported the so-called Gang of Four after Mao's death. Following the line of Mao, it considered the Soviet Union and its bloc as restored capitalist countries. For some time after the arrest of the Gang of Four, the group remained silent about the events in China but later accused China also of having taken the capitalist road.

An article published in the Workers Viewpoint in 1976 criticised a social liberal and libertine view of sexuality as "the bourgeoisie’s attempts to dope us with degenerate culture and fascist ideology." The article opposed pornography as representing anti-woman American bourgeois hedonism (it singled out the film Snuff) and argued that homosexuality "is a form of social sickness, a form of social perversion. It is a form of bourgeois ideology which appeals especially to the petty bourgeoisie because of its appearance as sexual freedom."

In 1980, there was a dramatic reversal of this line. In his book The Socialist Road, CWP Chairman Jerry Tung announced that both the Soviet Union and China were socialist, although an unhealthy bureaucracy had taken shape in the governments of both countries.

Demise
Subsequent to the Greensboro massacre, the group gave up its Leninist structure and moved towards a social democratic formation that would work for peaceful transition to socialism; it dissolved the Communist Workers' Party and formed the New Democratic Movement in 1985. The New Democratic Movement lasted only a few years. The most important remnant of the CWP/NDM can be found in the Greensboro Justice Fund, which continues to this day and promotes groups struggling for social justice.

Publications

 * Preliminary Draft on the Asian national question in America: Part 1, The Chinese National Question. n.c.: Asian Study Group, 1973.
 * Build Marxist-Leninist Leadership of the Women's Movement: Women and Men Unite Against Sexism, Racism, and Imperialism. New York : Workers Viewpoint Organization, 1975.
 * Eternal Glory to Chairman Mao, Greatest Marxist of the Contemporary Era New York: Workers Viewpoint Organization, 1976.
 * The African Peoples' Struggle Will Surely Triumph!: Build the Communist Leadership of the African Liberation Support Committee!. New York: Workers Viewpoint Organization, 1977.
 * Fight for the Real Emancipation of Women!: Smash the Double Yoke of Capitalism and Domestic Slavery = Luchen por la Verdadera Liberación de Mujeres!: Aplaste el Doble Yugo del Capitalismo y Esclavitud Domestica. New York: Workers Viewpoint Organization, 1977.
 * Communists Should Be the Advanced Elements of the Proletariat. New York: Workers Viewpoint Organization, 1978.
 * Whip Weber now! New York: Workers Viewpoint Organization, 1979.
 * Turn the Country Upside Down to Beat Back the Renewed Wave of Attacks from the Capitalists' tools: KKK, Nazis, Pigs, and FBI. New York: Committee to Avenge the Murder of the Communist Workers Party (WV) 5, 1980.
 * The Current Revolutionary Situation: Our Tasks. Phil Thompson New York: Communist Workers Party, 1980s.
 * Jerry Tung, The Socialist Road: Character of Revolution in the U.S. and Problems of Socialism in the Soviet Union and China. New York: Cesar Cauce Publishers, 1981.
 * The Afro-American National Question. New York: The Party, 1981.
 * Scott Van Valkenburg, Central America: Communist Threat? New York: Communist Workers Party, 1984.

Archives

 * Workers Viewpoint. New York, NY. Publisher: Communist Workers Party. 1983-1986. Box: 252a, current.
 * Tamiment Library Boxed Newspapers Collection. 1873-, (Bulk 1960-1990).


text:
Talk:New World syndrome

Untitled
I hope to clean up this article & add more sources in the coming weeks. Will try to address 2 concerns below. phette23  —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this condition distinquishable from Metabolic syndrome? Fred Bauder 17:58, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article cite more sources? Is this a condition noted by the World Health Organization or any other credible health organization?

 * They would not include it if it was only a working hypothesis. And yes it needs more sources. Would you like to add some? Kortoso (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:New World syndrome


text:
Teodor Rotrekl

Teodor Rotrekl (6 June 1923 in Brno – 1 September 2004 in Prague) was a Czech illustrator and painter. His most known works are illustrations of science fiction books and journals.

title: Teodor Rotrekl


text:
Marxist–Leninist Party, USA

The Marxist–Leninist Party, USA (MLP) was an anti-revisionist Marxist–Leninist communist party arising out of a series of communist and workers' groups that began in 1967 and lasted until 1993 when it dissolved. It was founded as the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist–Leninist) in the 1960s as a Maoist organization allied with the Canadian Communist Party of Canada (Marxist–Leninist), CPC (M-L). During its history, it became a Hoxhaist group, before turning away from backing Albania, then rejecting Maoism and subsequently Stalinism as being revisionist. After its dissolution, the majority of its members who remained active formed the Communist Voice Organization. Its main publication was the paper Workers Advocate.

History
The group's origins lie in a small, predominantly African American, group founded in early 1967 called the Cleveland Draft Resistance Union. In 1968, they reorganized as the Workers Action Committee and broadened their focus from anti-war activities to community organizing, strike support, and the study of Marxism. They embraced Maoism and developed a close relationship with the Canadian Communist Movement (Marxist–Leninist) led by Hardial Bains. In May 1969, the WAC attended a Marxist–Leninist conference in Regina, Canada and established the American Communist Workers' Movement (Marxist-Leninist). It has "just 100 members."

The ACWM emulated some of the strategy expounded by Communist Party of Canada (Marxist–Leninist) leader Hardial Bains, including attempting to launch a daily newspaper. This experiment — the only Maoist daily ever published in the United States — was the People's America Daily News which lasted for 77 issues.

In about 1973, the group was renamed the Central Organization of US Marxist–Leninists. and militantly opposed the police and fascism, as well as socialists and communists they considered "revisionist". The group continued to move with the CPC (M-L) from Maoism to Hoxhaism until in 1980 they adopted the name Marxist–Leninist Party USA and split with the Canadian group the following year, with those remaining loyal to the CPC (M-L) becoming the U.S. Marxist–Leninist Organization.

The break with the CPC (M-L) led to the MLP beginning a reassessment of its politics, partially in an attempt to draw other anti-revisionists towards it, as many groups claiming anti-revisionism were moving to the right-wing. By the late 1980s, the MLP had come to the conclusion that anti-revisionism meant that they had to reject the traditional support of the communist movement's positions from the time of the 1935 Congress of the Comintern onwards. This decision, however, led to an ideological impasse in the MLP, and at its fifth Congress in November 1993, it voted to dissolve itself. A number of activists in the MLP have continued work as the Communist Voice Organization.

title: Marxist–Leninist Party, USA


text:
Communist Party USA (Marxist–Leninist)

The Communist Party USA (Marxist–Leninist) was a small American Maoist group founded in 1965 by Los Angeles members of the Provisional Organizing Committee to Reconstitute a Marxist–Leninist Party (POC) around Michael Laski. Laski stated in a 1968 interview that this split was motivated by dissatisfaction with the POC's response to the Watts riots.

History
In 1967 Detective James C. Harris of the Los Angeles district attorney's office testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee about the group. He stated that the "intent of the CPUSA-ML has been to aggravate" the African-American population in Los Angeles "to the point of civil disobedience and to attempt to condition their minds to respond in a rebellious way in the event of a contact with a police officer."

General Secretary Laski was expelled after gambling away nearly all of the party's funds in Nevada in an attempt to raise more funds. After the expulsion, two groups existed with the name Communist Party USA (Marxist–Leninist), one led by Arnold Hoffman, which continued to publish People's Voice; and one led by Laski, which started a new paper, The New Worker. In 1969, the Laski group merged with the Proletarian Revolutionary Party led by Jonathan Leake.

Laski was the subject of a 1967 essay by Joan Didion (later collected in Slouching Towards Bethlehem), entitled "Comrade Laski, C.P.U.S.A. (M.-L.)." She described him as having constructed a personal world "of labyrinthine intricacy and immaculate clarity, a world made meaningful not only by high purpose but by external and internal threats, intrigues and apparatus, an immutably ordered world in which things mattered."

title: Communist Party USA (Marxist–Leninist)


text: Template:History of the administrative division of Russia


text:
Administrative divisions of Russia in 1708–1710

The administrative division reform of 1708 was carried out by Russian Tsar Peter the Great in an attempt to improve the manageability of the vast territory of Russia. Prior to the reform, the country was subdivided into uyezds and volosts, and in the 17th century the number of the uyezds was 166.

Creation
On, 1708, Peter issued an edict dividing Russia into eight governorates (guberniyas). The edict established neither the borders of the governorates nor their internal divisions; instead, their territories were defined as the sets of cities and the lands adjacent to those cities. Some older subdivision types also continued to be used.