text:
Mary Parker Lewis

Mary Parker Lewis is a political consultant who most famously served as Chief of Staff to Dr. Alan Keyes, candidate for President of the United States in 1996 and 2000. In addition to running both Keyes presidential campaigns, Lewis also ran the statesman's historic campaign for the U.S. Senate from Illinois against Barack Obama in 2004.

Her political works have come under scrutiny due to reports that in 2010, while these Political Action Committees (PACs) took in millions of dollars in donations, they paid out only a very small percentage to the causes they claim they are working to defend. Mary also took considerable compensation packages as well from these PACs.

Lewis was born and raised in southern California where she attended Scripps College in Claremont. She then completed graduate studies at Claremont Graduate School (now Claremont Graduate University) in her home state and at Notre Dame Institute in Virginia. Early in her career, Lewis served as a staffer with the Free Congress Foundation and the Hoover Institution. She became special assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and confidential assistant to William Kristol, Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett.

Lewis is also known in conservative activist circles as Executive Director of the Declaration Foundation, grassroots organizations founded by Dr. Alan Keyes to advocate the basic principles and core values of the conservative movement in the United States.

title: Mary Parker Lewis


text:
Talk:List of U.S. states by highest point

 * Just created this. It should likely be merged with List of tallest mountains of U.S. states at some point. Radagast 14:44, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll merge it into either that list or List of U.S. states by elevation. Phoenix2 17:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done -Ravedave 02:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
General Motors X platform

General Motors has used the X-platform or X-body designation for two different automobile platforms. All X-bodies were compact car models.

 * 1962–1979 General Motors X platform (RWD)
 * 1980–1985 General Motors X platform (FWD)

title: General Motors X platform


text:
Westcliff railway station

Westcliff railway station is on the London, Tilbury and Southend line, serving the locality of Westcliff-on-Sea in Southend-on-Sea, Essex. It is 34 mi down the main line from London Fenchurch Street via Basildon and it is situated between Chalkwell to the west and Southend Central to the east. Its three-letter station code is WCF.

It was opened in 1895 by the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. The station and all trains serving it are currently operated by c2c.

Description
The main ticket office is located on the London-bound side of the station, leading to platform 1. It has two serving positions and uses the Tribute ticket issuing system. Outside the main ticket office is a self-service ticket machine. A second, smaller ticket office is on the country-bound platform 2, but is not currently in use.

Facilities at the station include a bicycle rack, a taxicab stand, and a car park with 50 spaces and three disabled spaces. It was extensively improved between 2004 and 2006 in a £500,000 refurbishment project by a partnership between c2c and Southend Borough Council in order to attract more people to travel by rail.

Services
As of the June 2024 timetable the typical Monday to Friday off-peak service is:
 * 4 tph (trains per hour) westbound to London Fenchurch Street via Basildon (2 tph all stations and 2 tph semi-fast)
 * 2 tph westbound to London Fenchurch Street via Tilbury Town and Ockendon
 * 6 tph eastbound to Southend Central, of which 4 tph continue to Shoeburyness

title: Westcliff railway station


text:
Javier Portillo (Spanish footballer)

Javier García Portillo (born 30 March 1982) is a Spanish former professional footballer who played as a forward.

He started out at Real Madrid and appeared in 59 competitive games during his tenure, scoring 17 goals. In La Liga, he also played for Gimnàstic, Osasuna and Hércules for a total of 131 matches and 21 goals, and also competed professionally in Italy and Belgium.

In a 14-year senior career, Portillo represented Hércules in all three major levels of Spanish football.

Club career
Portillo was born in Aranjuez, Community of Madrid. In 1994, aged 12, he entered Real Madrid's youth system. Over seven seasons he was a prolific scorer, netting 370 goals and breaking a record previously held by Raúl. In August 2002 he signed his first professional contract, running until 2006 with a buyout clause of €15 million.

On 6 October 2002, Portillo made his first La Liga appearance and second overall for the main squad, starting in a 5–2 home win over Deportivo Alavés and ending that season with five goals in only ten games. He also scored a vital last-minute equaliser against Borussia Dortmund in the UEFA Champions League second group phase, a goal which ultimately proved to be crucial to reach the knockout stages.

Portillo was loaned to Serie A side ACF Fiorentina in July 2004, but was recalled by new manager Vanderlei Luxemburgo, who arrived midway through the 2004–05 campaign. However, the same coach deemed him surplus to requirements and another loan ensued, to Club Brugge KV of the Belgian Pro League. At the end of this loan period, Portillo returned to Real under newly hired coach Fabio Capello. With new signing Ruud van Nistelrooy adding to already present Raúl, Antonio Cassano and Ronaldo, he was released and signed a two-year contract with recently promoted Gimnàstic de Tarragona.

After a successful individual season (12 goals in all competitions, although the Catalans were relegated from the top flight), in July 2007 Portillo replaced at Osasuna Roberto Soldado, who returned from loan to Real Madrid. He was used irregularly in his first two years, and only netted three times in the league.

In late December 2009, Portillo – who was only fourth or fifth-choice striker for Osasuna coach José Antonio Camacho – finally moved clubs, signing until the end of the season plus two more with Segunda División's Hércules CF. After some time to adjust he finished in the starting XI, netting vital goals in the final stretch, including one in the last round for a 2–0 victory at Real Unión as the Alicante side returned to the first division after 13 years.

Portillo returned to reserve status in 2010–11, after Hércules signed David Trezeguet and Nelson Valdez in the off-season. He only started through injury or suspension to the pair, and scored just twice in official matches, one coming in a 3–1 away defeat of Real Sociedad on 3 April 2011, with Hércules being immediately relegated.

On 2 August 2011, Portillo signed for three years with UD Las Palmas in the second tier. For the 2012–13 season, however, he moved teams again, returning to Hércules on a three-year deal.

In late December 2015, Portillo announced his retirement at the age of 33. Subsequently, he worked as his last club's director of football.

International career
Making his debut in 2002 – shortly after his arrival at the Real Madrid senior setup – Portillo played ten times for Spain under-21s, and scored five goals.

Honours
Real Madrid
 * La Liga: 2002–03
 * Supercopa de España: 2003
 * UEFA Champions League: 2001–02
 * UEFA Super Cup: 2002

Individual
 * Copa del Rey top scorer: 2002–03 (8 goals)

title: Javier Portillo (Spanish footballer)


text:
General Motors Z platform

The Z platform or Z-body automobile platform designation was used on three different types of vehicles made by General Motors not including their trucks.

Chevrolet Corvair
The first was both generations of the Chevrolet Corvair from 1960 to 1969, which were a rear-wheel-drive and rear-engine compact car.
 * The Corvair featured a rear-mounted six-cylinder Chevrolet Turbo-Air 6 engine that included many aluminum components and an aluminum block, along with a rear swing-axle (up to 1964) suspension and rear transaxle. From 1965 the rear suspension was similar to the then current Corvette except that coils were used in place of a transverse leaf.

Vehicles using the rear-drive/rear-engine Z-body include:
 * 1960–1969 Chevrolet Corvair 500
 * 1960–1969 Chevrolet Corvair Monza
 * 1965–1966 Chevrolet Corvair Corsa

Chevrolet Corvette
The second was the Corvette from 1972 until 1975 when the second Y platform was developed for the Corvette. The second digit in the vehicle identification number displays vehicles that used this platform followed by either Body Style 37 for coupe or 67 for convertible.

Vehicles using the front-engine/rear-drive Z-body include:
 * 1972–1975 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Sport Coupe
 * 1972–1975 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray convertible

Saturn S-Series
The third was Saturn's automobile platform from its debut in 1990 until 2002, which were front-wheel drive compact cars. This platform was replaced with the GM Delta platform.

Vehicles using the front-drive/front-engine Z-body include:
 * 1991–2002 Saturn SC
 * 1991–2002 Saturn SL
 * 1993–2001 Saturn SW

title: General Motors Z platform


text:
39382 Opportunity

39382 Opportunity (provisional designation ) is a dark Hilidan asteroid from the outermost region of the asteroid belt, approximately 7.5 kilometers in diameter. Discovered during the Palomar–Leiden survey at Palomar Observatory in 1960, it was named for NASA's Opportunity Mars rover.

Discovery
Opportunity was discovered on 24 September 1960, by Dutch astronomer couple Ingrid and Cornelis van Houten, as well as Dutch–American astronomer Tom Gehrels from photographic plates taken at the Palomar Observatory, California, United States.

Survey designation
The survey designation "P-L" stands for "Palomar–Leiden", named after Palomar Observatory and Leiden Observatory, which collaborated on the fruitful Palomar–Leiden survey in the 1960s. Gehrels used Palomar's Samuel Oschin telescope (also known as the 48-inch Schmidt Telescope), and shipped the photographic plates to Ingrid and Cornelis van Houten at Leiden Observatory where astrometry was carried out. The trio are credited with the discovery of several thousand minor planets.

Orbit and classification
Located in the outermost part of the main-belt, Opportunity is a member of the Hilda family, a large group of asteroids that are thought to have originated from the Kuiper belt. They orbit in a 3:2 orbital resonance with the gas giant Jupiter, meaning that for every 2 orbits Jupiter completes around the Sun, a Hildian asteroid will complete 3 orbits.

Opportunity orbits the Sun at a distance of 3.2–4.8 AU once every 7 years and 11 months (2,880 days). Its orbit has an eccentricity of 0.20 and an inclination of 3° with respect to the ecliptic. The asteroid's orbit does not cross the path of any of the planets and therefore it will not be pulled out of orbit by Jupiter's gravitational field. As a result of this, it is likely that the asteroid will remain in a stable orbit for thousands of years.

The body's observation arc begins with its official discovery observation, as no precoveries were taken and no prior identifications were made.

Diameter and albedo
According to the survey carried out by NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer with its subsequent NEOWISE mission, Opportunity measures 7.45 kilometers in diameter and its surface has an albedo of 0.061, which is typical for carbonaceous asteroids. A generic magnitude-to-diameter conversion, gives a diameter of 7 kilometers, for an absolute magnitude of 14.5 and an assumed albedo of 0.05.

Lightcurves
As of 2017, the asteroid's composition, shape and rotation period remain unknown.

Naming
This minor planet was named after a Mars Exploration Rover, Opportunity, following a proposal by the discoverer Ingrid van Houten-Groeneveld. The approved naming citation was published by the Minor Planet Center on 28 September 2004 (M.P.C. 52770). The minor planet 37452 Spirit was named for Opportunity's twin rover, Spirit.

title: 39382 Opportunity


text: Category:Extinction events

title: Category:Extinction events


text:
List of Indian student organisations

The following is a notable list of Indian student organizations:

title: List of Indian student organisations


text:
David Crane (programmer)

David Crane (born in Nappanee, Indiana, United States) is an American video game designer and programmer. Crane grew up fascinated by technology and went to DeVry Institute of Technology. Following college, he went to Silicon Valley and got his first job at National Semiconductor. Through his friend Alan Miller he learned about potential video game design work at Atari, Inc. and began work there in 1977.

After Crane and other programmers felt they were not being paid fairly at Atari, he left the company in 1979. Crane and Miller formed Activision, the first company to independently publish games for the Atari 2600. The company grew to be massively successful, with Crane's game Pitfall! (1982) being one the biggest sellers for the company. Crane continued to work for Activision making several games for the Atari 2600 and later the Commodore 64. After Activision hired Bruce Davis as the new CEO, Crane left Activison and later joined Garry Kitchen at Absolute Entertainment. At Absolute, Crane began working on several games for the Atari 2600, Nintendo Entertainment System and Super Nintendo Entertainment System.

After Absolute closed in 1995, Crane formed Skyworks Technologies who would make browser games in the mid 1990s and was among the first developers of games that would later be known as advergames. While at Skyworks, Crane designed two of the companies biggest App store sellers with Arcade Bowling and Arcade Hoops Basketball. In the 2010s, Crane would develop games for AppStar for iPhone and iPad and by the end of the decade created Audacity Games, a company that would develop games for older consoles such as the Atari 2600.

Early life
David Crane was born in Nappanee, Indiana in 1954. When he was young, Crane was fascinated by technology and engineering. He would dismantle a black and white television to create a channel tuner near his bedside and make a TV in a cabinet on his wall and create a laser that could ignite a match at the end of a workbench. He intended to work on making gadgets that would help people in their lives, but on reflection in 2010, he stated "Ironically, video game design was even a better fit for that combination of skills. But as I was growing up there was no such thing as a videogame, so how could I know?" Crane's first encounter with a video game was with the Magnavox Odyssey that his parents bought him. He later admitted he was "bored by the rudimentary games" but was fascinated by the technology's potential.

Crane first encountered a computer through a Boy Scout master who worked in data processing and began learning Hollerith code for punched cards. He attended a computer programming extension campus. Once Crane graduated in 1972, he could code in three different programming languages. Crane went to the DeVry Institute of Technology in Phoenix, Arizona. He completed the four-year course in 33 months and received his degree in electrical engineering.

National Semiconductor and Atari

Following college, he moved to Silicon Valley and got his first job at National Semiconductor in 1975. At the company, he worked on linear integrated circuits in order to become proficient in electronic design.

While playing tennis with Alan Miller, he was told by his friend that Atari was looking for game programmers. After proofreading a newspaper ad his friend had made for the position, Crane wrote a resume, was interviewed the next day at 10 am and had the job by 2 pm. Crane joined Atari, Inc. in the third quarter of 1977 and first began producing Arcade-inspired titled such as Outlaw and Canyon Bomber for the Atari VCS (later known as the Atari 2600). Crane was initially unsure about programming games, but found he enjoyed microprocessor programming and game design. Atari began their new line of computers with the Atari 800 and required help with software development. This led to Atari having all of its game designers, including Crane, step in to work on the machine's operating system.

In 1979, Crane and other game developers at Atari, including Miller, Larry Kaplan, and Bob Whitehead received a memo indicating that their games were the most financially successful for Atari, making up $60 million of Atari's $100 million game cartridge sales in 1978. As they were making a salary of $30,000, they asked for a raise and, according to Crane, were told by Ray Kassar that Crane was "no more important to the success of those products than the person on the assembly line who puts them together."

Activision
Crane and Miller left Atari in August 1979. They had a plan to create an independent development and publishing company to produce games for Atari's VCS console, which had not been attempted previously. Crane was suggested by a lawyer to Jim Levy in 1979. Levy had been working for GRT Records and was raising money to go into business making cassette tape software and believed abilities in marketing and the business skills to help create their new company Activision.

Initially working out of Crane's apartment, Miller and Crane began programming a development system for Activision. Whitehead and Kaplan would join shortly after. Activision had a five-year business plan, to initially make video games during the slow growth of the home computer and switch over to computers in the future. Activision's first games came out in 1980, including Crane's Dragster and Fishing Derby. The following year saw the release of Crane's other games Freeway while Crane would also contribute to other developer's games such as the code for the graphics in Kaplan's Kaboom!. In 1982, Activision released Crane's game Pitfall! which would be one the biggest sellers for the company.

Activision went public in 1983. Crane spoke positively about working at the company in the early 1980s, saying that due to their rapid success "everyone wanted to work [at Activision]. [...] When Activision reached sales of $60 million, we had 60 employees. People have to work pretty hard for a company to have revenues of $1 million per employee." Crane would follow up Pitfall! with two games: The Activision Decathlon (1983), which was developed with the impetus that the Olympics would be returning to the United States in 1984, and a sequel titled Pitfall II: Lost Caverns (1984). Crane stated he made the sequel to Pitfall! "at a time when the Atari 2600 should have been replaced by a new gaming system." and designed a custom computer chip called the Display Processor Chip that was unique to Pitfall II: Lost Caverns.

Following the video game crash of 1983 and the release of Pitfall II, Crane began focusing to transition into developing computer games at Activision. Crane felt the Commodore 64 had sold well enough to be a good platform to design games for. The first game he made, Ghostbusters (1984) which was finished in six weeks using work Crane had been developing for a game called Car Wars. The game went on to become the Activision title that was received the most ports across consoles and home computers. His next game, Little Computer People (1985) was a critical success while failing commercially. Crane later said that "there was so much programming in [Little Computer People] that it cost more to produce than it made at retail. We had dozens of ideas for follow-up products, but if those ideas were going to lose money the company couldn't afford to produce them. I regret that we were unable to follow those ideas to see what might have become of the first large-scale simulated life form on a computer." In 1985, Activision began the process of acquiring game company Infocom. As the deal was signed, Activision's board of directors replaced Levy and brought in Bruce Davis as the new CEO. Crane would leave Activision in 1987 later explaining that Activision's management "had no creative vision at all, I left when I could no longer affect the future of the company." He also noted a pay issue, saying that "the new president, Bruce Davis, asked me to take a fraction of my salary, with the rest made up through an incentive bonus. I asked him to put the bonus in clear terms in writing and he couldn't [...] He just slashed my salary without a compensating bonus. So I left."

Absolute Entertainment
Following Activision, Crane worked independently, including finishing research work on a video game system for Hasbro. By January 1989, Crane became the Senior Designer at Absolute Entertainment, a company formed by former Activision staff member Garry Kitchen. At Absolute, Crane would work on titles for the Atari 2600, the Nintendo Entertainment System, and the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Among these games at were Super Skateboardin', several games based on The Simpsons license, and two of his own creations: A Boy and his Blob (1990) and David Crane's Amazing Tennis (1992).

Crane recalled in a 2005 interview with Frank Cifaldi that the team "had a lot of fun on the development side, but under the rule of Nintendo, the publishing side of the game business was really tough." Crane said that to make any profit, the publisher had to predict how many games would sell in the market, saying that "If their estimate was off by 10% either way they were likely to lose money on the game." Absolute closed in 1995. Crane recalled that "It was painful to close down Absolute, but the same was happening to small publishers all around the world."

Skyworks Technologies
Following the demise of Absolute, Kitchen and Crane went into business making games that did not require inventory and began developing games for web browsers. Believing that audiences would be too afraid to give out information such as credit cards online, they developed a business model that would later be known as advergaming which involved allowing their games to be played for free while licensing them to companies to put on their websites.

Among the games they developed built and launched Candystand for The Lifesavers Company. Crane and Skyworks would take a percentage of their promotions budget and built a place to play games. Crane and company would also develop a similar site to Candystand with ESPN. Crane called this "moderately successful arrangement, only limited by the learning curve of their salespeople who could never quite understand the difference between sponsorship and advertising." While at Skyworks, Crane designed two of the company's biggest App store sellers with Arcade Bowling and Arcade Hoops Basketball.

Later work
In 2010, Crane and Kitchen began work at AppStar. Kitchen served as president and CEO while Crane was the company's chief technical officer. They published their first game, Iron Horse in 2010. Crane began reflecting on his career in 2010 and started writing and gathering material about working on Atari 2600 games. He considered publishing them to magazines or as a book, but opted to release them through AppStar Games on the iPhone, initially writing a work on Dragster but starting with a 2600 primer titled 2600 Magic as an app. Crane later created a crowdfunding campaign Kickstarter in 2012 to fund a spiritual successor to Pitfall!, which fell far short of his funding goal.

In the late 2010s, Crane and Kitchen created a company focused on hardware technology that would make cartridges and rom boards privately for development of Atari 2600 games. Early in 2021, Crane, Garry Kitchen and his brother Dan Kitchen launching Audacity Games, a company dedicated to making new games for old consoles. Their first title was for the Atari 2600 with Circus Convoy.

Legacy
In January 1983, The Video Game Update awarded David Crane as the Designer of the Year for Pitfall! in their Awards of Excellence for 1982. Pitfall! remained the game that Crane has been most associated with. In 2012, he stated that "I suppose that's not a bad problem to have, It's not a dark shadow. But I'm not just a classic gaming guy. This is what I do for a living!"

In February 2010, Crane became the first recipient of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences Pioneer award. The award is reserved for people whose work has shaped and defined the interactive entertainment industry.

IGN listed David Crane on their list of the top 100 game creators of all time at number 12.

Personal life
Outside engineering and video game development, Crane was an avid tennis player. Crane had played tournament tennis for decades, as well as playing in doubles with Alan Miller. While working at Absolute, Crane felt his video game career did not allow him to play enough tennis and enrolled at an expert tennis class at Cañada College. Crane said that during his adult life, he performed at the rating of 5.0 on the NTRP (National Tennis Rating Program) scale, a standardized scale Crane described as being from 1.0 for beginner to "7.0 for Roger Federer". In 2010, Crane said he still plays tennis in tournament league competitions, but due to age and injuries he is no longer at the 5.0 level.

Despite his love for the sport, Crane stated he never had interest in developing a tennis-themed game until he began developing games for the Super Nintendo, specifically with David Crane's Amazing Tennis.

title: David Crane (programmer)


text:
Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 1

Old stuff (archive later)
I seem to remember reading somewhere that hebephilia is the name for an adult sexually attracted to people early pubescent children (like age 10-14 or so, I guess). Anybody ever heard of that? Tokerboy 06:40 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)
 * I think your are thinking of ephebephilia (spelling?), which derives from ancient Greek ephebe, for youth (an ephebe was a male aged roughly 12-20 in ancient Greek socierty)...

"Someone Else" has introduced serious confusion into the prior version of the article:
 * sexual attraction or acts with post-pubsecents under the age of consent is not pedophilia, irregardless of those acts illegality -- pedophilia only refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children
 * they mutilated the family dynamics explanation for incest -- the withdrawal of the mother is not according to that theory not merely sexual, but more importantly emotional, psychological and social
 * they deleted the primary and original definition of the term, which is the medical one -- popular usages of the term pedophilia are secondary, just like popular uses of the term "quantum physics"
 * they mistakenly think pedophilia is a legal term -- it is not

Someone Else disagrees with you. Call this disagreement confusion if you like. The definition of pedophilia is Sexual attraction felt by an adult toward a child or children. Nothing medical about it. The 'medical' prism is but one through which the phenomenon can be viewed. I understand perfectly that you want to emphasize that desire is not illegal and I would point out that I haven't said otherwise. But it's also clear that there are laws designed to deal with crimes motivated by pedophilia, and that such crimes are treated differently (in terms of punishment, probation, and requirements for reporting) than are others. The 'medical diagnosis' of pedophilia is rarely made outside of a legal context. Someone else -- The word 'pedophilia' was invented by the medical profession, and hence that is the definitive meaning, whatever its vague and contradictory adoption by the wider community. Pedophilia (irregardless of incorrect popular usage) only refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children, not pubescent children (if they are to be called 'children' at all, and not, as would be more correct, adolescents). Furthermore, pedophilia implies long term sexual attraction to children--just as heterosexuality implies long term attraction to members of the opposite sex. Momentary feelings of sexual attraction to a child are not pedophilia, any more than a momentary attraction to a member of the opposite sex by someone who has been homosexual their whole life makes them heterosexual. The DSM-IV definition accurately describes these aspects -- your attempts do not....

And pedophilia is not a legal concept -- there are no laws relating to pedophilia. There are laws relating to sexual offences against children, but not all pedophiles sexually molest children, and not all people who sexually molest children are pedophiles. (Even under the DSM-IV definition -- for example, there have been cases of individuals who have molested children under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs -- assuming that they have not in the past had sexual feelings towards children, which is admittedly impossible to prove one way or the other, these people are not pedophiles, but they are still sex offenders.) Hence, as I said, pedophilia is not a legal concept -- sexual offences are. The two concepts may overlap, but they are quite distinct.

--- The word 'pedophilia' was first used in 1906, but the condition it describes existed before the word. And though it was used by medical practitioners, there's nothing particularly 'medical' about it. In any case, the medical definition is but ONE definition, and it is not the preferred definition in either dictionary I have readily to hand. In short, the meaning of words change, and their definitions are determined by how people understand them and not by their etymology. You can also stop knocking down the straw-man that I think pedophilia is a legal term. I don't. But I do recognize that many laws are explicitly meant to deal with child sexual abuse, specifically the repeated child sexual abuse which can be inspired by pedophilia.

You, apparently, have one point of view, and the general population has another, of what pedophilia means. Both these views should be attributed and explained in the article without preferring one as 'right'. Someone else -- Of course the condition existed before the word -- 'atoms' have been around since the beginning of the universe, although they were not called that until Democritus. But so what? The word pedophilia was invented by the medical profession, as part of medical jargon--and hence the primary meaning attributed to it should be that given it by the psychiatric profession.

Now it is true that words do change their meanings. But where technical jargon is accepted into popular usage, it is clear which meaning is the most correct -- the original technical jargon. This is especially since the popular usage is not a coherent usage by its own, but a broad collection of copies of the technical usage, some more correct than others. The medical profession has a more or less precise meaning for 'pedophilia' -- people at large don't. There is no clear, coherent, popular meaning of pedophilia -- rather there are a multitude of different usages, depending on how well people understand the technical term. But there can be no doubt that the technical usage is the correct one, and that popular usages are caused by people's lack of knowledge of psychiatry.

'Pedophilia' is like 'quantum physics', or 'operating system', or 'trigonometry', or 'habeas corpus' -- they are all technical jargon of different disciplines, of which the general public is more or less aware. And in all cases it is clear that the jargon meaning must be primary, especially in an encyclopedia, and the many public understandings (or more accurately misunderstandings) of these terms should take second place.

- You err when you assert that a word has one 'most correct' meaning. A dictionary doesn't stop with one meaning, and an encyclopedia CERTAINLY shouldn't. And while a proscriptive dictionary might label one meaning as more correct than another, the Wikipedia is not proscriptive: it's neutral. It should describe the multiplicity of uses, not arbitrate among them. Inclusion in the DSM IV is pretty much irrelevant except when billing insurance companies for treatment...and the DSM IV certainly contains no explanation of how the condition might be considered to be 'medical'. The article is not about the word 'pedophilia' but rather about the condition the word describes. An article on the atom would hardly confine itself to Democritus's understanding thereof. The fact that a 1906 systematization of paraphilias based on a now discarded psychiatric theory which was based more on philosophy than science happend to contain the word pedophilia really has little bearing on a description of "sexual attraction felt by an adult toward a child or children" which is what one should expect in an article titled Pedophilia. -- Someone else -- You err when you consider that an encyclopedia shouldn't label one meaning as more correct than another. All encyclopedias must make stylistic and editorial decisions, and such decisions are inherently prescriptive. Your insistence that they should not is just a cover for your prescription that populist uses should be given precedence. Following prescriptions is inevitable, so we better choose the right one -- the formal one. A bigger question is whether Wikipedia aims to be scholarly or merely popular. Although I make no claims to scholarship, scholarship must be our eventual aim. Giving preference to the medical (and other academic) meanings of terms furthers that aim.

An encyclopedia should label one meaning as more correct than another ONLY when it IS more correct. Most words don't have a single meaning that is more correct, and there is no reason to prefer the improbably precise medical definition over the usual dictionary definition here. It is clear that YOU prefer it, but it is not the most common definition. When the jargon definition you prefer differs from the usual definition, both should be explained, and without the judgemental notion that one is the 'understanding' and the other is the 'misunderstanding'. They are in this case just two ways of talking about the phenomenon in question. In any case, if the question is whether the Wikipedia is to be proscriptive or descriptive, my understanding is that that question has been decided, and it's descriptive - or aspires to be. It doesn't tell you how you SHOULD think, it tells you how people HAVE thought -- Someone else - They are not two ways of talking about the phenomena in question -- they are talking about different phenomena. The jargon term is a rather precisely defined idea, while the popular concept incorporates all sorts of other phenomena which don't belong to the jargon definition. A lot of things that are in the popular meaning of 'pedophilia' are not pedophilia in the technical sense, but rather belong under the headings of 'ephebophilia' or 'sexual offences' or 'sex offenders' or 'age of consent' or 'statutory rape' -- all of which, although they have greater or lesser degrees of connection to the phenomena of pedophilia or pedophiles (under the jargon definition), are separate phenomena. - The same word is used to describe very closely related phenomenon. That the one is more restricted and the other more inclusive does not make the former more correct. Both should be explained - even if explaining the broad concept 'confuses' the artificial precision of the narrow one. --- Someone else --- But to discuss the broader phenomena in a page entitled 'pedophilia' is to endorse the broader popular meaning over the technical meaning -- so rather than being prescriptively neutral, you are implicitly prescribing the popular usage, by following it in the article.

Basically, the old version of the article was pretty good -- it discussed the original, technical usage, but also mentioned that popular usage can be broader -- can be, not is, because popular usage is very varied and diverse, while the technical usage is pretty uniform.

Basically, the current version of the article is one-sided. The earliest version I saw equated pederasty and homosexuality and was repulsive. The current article is better than that. But it would be better yet if it could encompass the idea that the DSM IV's definition of pedophilia is not the only 'correct' one. And, no, discussing the broader phenomena is NOT to endorse them - it is merely being complete rather than dogmatic. Someone else -- When I said the earlier version, I was not referring to the one you mention (with its amateur equations of pederasty and homosexuality) -- I was referring to the one before that, which was quite accurate...

 * I'm vaguely with someone else here: like homophobia, the origins of a word do not dictate its current usage, and like the article on homophobia, this article shouldn't focus excessively on the original "technical" usage. One solution might be to disambiguate between underage sex and paedophilia (psychology), or similar. -Martin

 * No, the article paedophilia should discuss both scientific and popular usage of the term. It is inappropriate to omit either. --Eloquence

 * I agree that it is inappropriate to simply not have any information on underage sex. However, I don't see why information on underage sex has to be dealt with here at pedophilia. It's a seperate (though linked) subject, so I think it should be dealt with in a seperate article. Martin

 * The term pedophilia is used as a general label for child/adult sexual contact. This common usage means that we have to discuss child/adult sexual contact and social reaction towards "pedophiles", real or not, in this article. Groups like NAMBLA as well as child protection groups should be discussed here, because that's where people expect to find such a discussion. However, should this article hit the 32K size, we can certainly split it up. --Eloquence 23:28 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think I've cracked it. This article is now essentially two articles - one on clinical pedophilia, and one on underage sex. When it gets biggers, we can split it and disambiguate, but at this size I think you're right, Eloquence. Martin 23:02 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

-

Regarding clinical paedophilia - only symptoms/diagnosis and legal aspects are addressed here. I think it would be important to add information here about current theories of how paedophilia arises. For example, many people believe that paedophiles were sexually abused as children themselves - is there any evidence for this? Can a person 'become' a paedophile as a result of watching child pornography? Another very important aspect is whether paedophilia can be treated/managed, or whether a paedophile will remain a life-long danger to children.

pir 19:30 18. September, 2003

Current discussion
I edited the short part of the article referring to infantophilia. The article previously read "infantophilia (also called infantilism or nepiophilia)" Infantilism is not a synonym for nepiophilia though, and instead refers to wholly different sexual practices than infantophilia. I hope no one has any objections to removing infantilism as a synonym in this article. AspiringActivist 12:48, 26 July 2004 (UTC)

A question that relates to 'more information on pedophilia' in general, and by the way the reason I was searching Wikipedia on this subject, is: are there actually recorded cases of female pedophilia - meaning the adult is female, the object of desire male and 13 years of age or younger?
 * Try Mary Kay Letourneau for a start. The answer is, "yes, of course", but it is far less widespread than male pedophilia. Jwrosenzweig 19:04, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have translated the section on the definition of terms from the German article, because it looked more mature to me. Feel free to correct my stile and wording, as I am not a native English speaker. (For instance I am not sure, whether the term "structured pedophile" is really used in English.)

IMHO it does not make much sense to write much about the common usage of the term pedophilia as it is not very useful and the subject is already covered by child sexual abuse. I would like to move the section on under age sex there (or remove it entirely).

The section "Clinical pedophilia" is now mostly redundant. I consider the definition from the German article better, because it is not so complex and has the addtional condition that the sexual interest in children must be the primary one. --Moon light shadow 21:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Elde: (Reversion to replace unwarranted deletions and changes)

Just saying that the changes were "unwarranted" is not enough reason for simply reverting them. My first change I have already made a week ago and I have received no comments to what I have written here on the discussion page. --Moon light shadow 10:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is what is wrong with the old definition:
 * "In medicine, pedophilia ... is sexual attraction of an adult to prepubescent children."

Why is the definition restricted to adults? A adolescent may notice that he is only attracted to children and not people of his age. He can reasonably consider himself a pedophile. The medical view is only one specific approach to pedophilia, and it is even questionable, if pedophilia should be considered a disorder.

The second definition is not useful for an encyclopedia at all:
 * "In common usage, pedophilia or under-age sex is sexual attraction and sexual acts towards children generally, including adolescents who are far beyond a prepubescent level of physical and psychological development. This article will discuss these two concepts separately."

Sexual attraction toward adolescents should be dealt with in the article on Ephebophilia. Sexual acts and the section "underage sex" go to child sexual abuse.

Sexual acts are only on topic with respect to pedophiles: How high is their percentage amoung all child sexual abusers, how high is the percentage amoung pedophiles committing child sexual abuse, what is different in sexual acts as opposed to all abusers and so on. --Moon light shadow 18:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you simply incorporated your first point, I'd not keep reverting. The essential problem is that you have a taken a reasonably well organized article and thrown it into a blender. As to the 'second definition', since when is comparing and contrasting common usage (in English speaking countries) with legal and medical usage not encyclopedic? Rather than replacing, try incorporating. Elde 00:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It is incorporated at the end of the section "Definitions" (Actually it was already present in the German version). The common usage of the word in German is not so different. Some pressure groups try to replace the word "pedophile" by "pedo criminal" (pädokriminell). And the media does not point out, when reporting about cases in foreign countries (like R. Kelly), that most acts would not be a crime in Germany at all. I prefer to keep the definition at the top of the article plain and simple (also as apposed to the definition in "Clinical pedophilia"). Maybe the reference to child sexual abuse should be given earlier in the following paragraph, so that the reader finds faster what he was really looking for. --Moon light shadow 13:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revertion of edits of 63.153.37.111 about ephebophilia

Labeling a sexual behaviour "normal" deals with sexual morality. The fact that American Psychiatric Association decided that pedophilia is a mental disorders is not based on scientific reasons at all. Not so long ago homosexuality was considered a disorder as well.

"Such sexual attraction to adolescents is a normal part of sexuality for most adult heterosexuals and homosexuals, and is not considered pathological by informed opinion."

Please do not write in terms of "normal" or "pathological", but about how common ephebophile desires are among adults. Moon light shadow 21:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

DJac75 added: "(It can be argued that these categories (ephebophilia or hebephilia) are artificial, as these conditions are not pathological, and typically overlap the sexual desires of psychologically healthy heterosexuals and homosexuals.)"

 * It depends on the current moral consent what is called "pathological". At least a quarter of all male heterosexuals and homosexuals can be aroused by children, too. So both ephebophilia and paedophilia overlap with healthy heterosexuality and homosexuality. I would call a person ephebophilie, if his primary interest is toward adolescents (Not only physical attraction but also falling in love).
 * If you just want so say that an age of consent of 18 is insane, then I agree. However I do not know, how to state it conforming to NPOV :-) -- Moon light shadow 16:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last paragraph is problematic

 * "Pederasty is underage sex between male adults and male adolescents or children. The North American Man-Boy Love Association advocates legalization of pederasty."

The definition of Pederasty is an attraction to boys in the age of about 12 to 20. So Pederasty is a special case of ephebophilia. Should I move the paragraph to ephebophilia, or did the North American Man-Boy Love Association actually advocate the legalization of man-boy relationships of any age? --Moon light shadow 16:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * It's worse than you assume, they are particularly inclined towards children, and are not even appropriately refered to as pederasts, as they quite often are inclined towards younger boys. Its a fantastically unpopular organization as you might assume, and I for one am not inclined to research more in depth on the subject than I already have accidentilly by viewing news reports. In any case I think it would be innapropriate to move reference of them as youy have suggested. Sam Spade 22:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article mentions two definitions of pedophilia, but it doesn't touch on the fact that the two are very different. Isn't that a problem?

 * Kraft-Ebing/ICD-10: Primary sexual attraction
 * DSM-IV: Distress or acting on fantasies

wildt 16:56, 21. Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I do not consider the diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV: Distress or acting on fantasies) a definition of pedophilia. It helps a therapist when making a decision whether a person needs treatment. Distress is a requirement, because you can not reasonably treat a person against his will. Acting on fantasies is an exception, because it is a crime. I once tried to remove the DSM-IV criteria, but the change was reverted. However now I think that it can be left in without confusion, when all references to it use the term clinical pedophilia. Currently there are no references to it, and keeping the section "Clinical pedophilia" only makes sence, if somebody writes more about therapy. --Moon light shadow 09:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed sentence: "250,000-500,000 pedophiles reside in the United States. - Source: U.S. Department of Justice" What definition of pedophilia do they use? --Moon light shadow 19:27, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

The subject of this article, whereas taboo in much of society, is increasingly becoming more acceptable. To some this is considered disturbing, and to others, this is welcomed as an enlightenment that society has long needed to do - to consider a 7 year old's informed, involved and clearly enunciated request for the attentions of a 42 year old man equal to that of her 19 year old cousin, effectively leading to a less agist society. More acceptable in the sense that not only do the media outlets which have reported the findings of a recent study on same - basically stating that it's acceptable for adult-child sex to take place (whereas the study didn't make those conclusions) - to put forth an enlightened point of view to some, and a terrible step backwards to others, but also more acceptable in the sense that there's changes in the language and changes in what's considered appropriate and what isn't.

First off, let's consider the changes that have been made in language. Language is very powerful, it's viral in nature - which is why the politically correct have fought so hard to change it. Grimoire (a book of magic and spells) derives directly from grammar. Chaos magicians actually strive to eliminate the verb "to be" in their lives, because of the subtle but powerful mental changes that occur as a result.

So, let's have a look at what changes you have in the language used in the media.

When was the last time you heard the term "statutory rape"? It had negative connotations that we, in an enlightened, equalitarian society have ceased to use. In an attempt to lighten the stigma on people stigmatised for their lifestyle choices and pursuit of individual freedom they'll choose some less ugly term like "sexual interference with a minor". Some people may find this offensive, but it's a step forward to treating the subject with an equal, objective view.

What else has changed? It isn't molestation anymore, but fondling, for the same reason. "Michael Jackson charged with fondling" is the modern way to say "Michael Jackson charged with drugging and molesting a small child."

 * While there are many interesting ideas in your comments, User:Summer 2.0, the fact checking lives much to be desired. Googling for news on Michael shows that there are 5 articles that mention "fondling" and 1500+ that mention "molestation". Ditto for "sexual interference with a minor" (13 hits, most are actually related to things like government interference) and "statutory rape" (300+ hits). Paranoid 23:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some take exception to the term "child prostitution". Prostitution is the exchange of money for sexual favours, which is an important step forward in recognising that instead of being something dirty and with stigma, a regressive byproduct of our Puritanical heritage, that it is a commodity like any other. And though I'm not involved in it in any way the child never sees a dime. Some refer to this as slavery and exploitation, and even campaigned against it, but this has to be taken in the proper context, and we must be cautious of ethnocentrism.

 * This sounds too much like trolling... Even though I personally disagree with the majority's view on child prostitution (it's fate better than starvation), I don't think your comments make much sense. Paranoid 23:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some neologisms that the intergenerational crowd are trying to make stick haven't quite managed to stick, yet - but progress is being made towards social justice. Ever wondered what "intergenerational sex" is? It could technically describe a 21 year old and a 42 year old. What it does refer to, however, is an often misunderstoodsexual bond between children and adults. They've certainly made the term "pedophilia" stick. "Love of children" is what it literally means. That sounds better than pederast, child rapist, or short-eyed creep, doesn't it? Some decry this as terrible, nasty language.

 * I am not sure anyone tried to make "pedophilia" stick. It's a medical term and the presence of "philia" doesn't make it a nicer word. Just like with "necrophilia". :) Paranoid 23:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So now that we've started using far less threatening terms and nicer words for frankly, what amount to crimes, let's take a look at the other side of the coin - media images.

When did the sexualisation of children start? But I'll tell you, little girls weren't encouraged to dress up like mini-Britney Spears until recently. Abercrombie and Fitch using nudity and graphic sexual depiction to market to children is just a symptom of a larger movement, one of tolerance and free speech. Remember the furore over thong panties for little girls at Baby Gap? This was coordinated by the religious right. Ordinary people weren't offended.

Once upon a time, if you suggested in a movie or television show sexual contact with a child, of any age, you'd be set on fire. Apparently the latest Nicole Kidman vehicle, Birth, has as its plot this woman getting the idea that a 10 year old boy is the reincarnation of her dead husband. So she makes out with him, nude, in a bathtub. Imagine if the scene took place with a man thinking a 10 year old girl is the reincarnation of his dead wife. People wouldn't be saying "oh, let's wait and see the film before judging, this could be much ado about nothing, the producers are only angry to hype the film," etc. We as a society are moving towards true equality in this regard, namely that it will be just as acceptable to do so with a small girl as a small boy.

 * I don't see the evidence for that move to equality. It was always more tolerated for women to have sex (kiss, whatever) with boys, just like it was OK for men to fool around. Perhaphs related to different sexual and social roles of the genders. Paranoid 23:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An actress makes out with a ten year old, nude, in a bathtub. This doesn't appear to be a crime, anymore, but instead, art, in order to make a movie tenderly justifying this kind of action. That's the crack in the armor we as a society need to start advancing other ideas..... maybe Lolita isn't so bad. Let's make the explicit version. While we're at it, age of consent in Canada is 14, shouldn't we become as enlightened, etc. and scrap our antiquated laws?

Maybe we're heading in that direction already. R. Kelly's defence, when shown a video of himself with a little girl, basically boiled down to "that isn't me. And anyway, her parents, who say she's 18, says that that girl ain't her." Then the guy goes on to play the race card, saying this is an issue cause whitey be tryin to keep a brother down. No offence, but back in the day Fatty Arbuckle's career was DESTROYED by the mere ALLEGATION of this kind of behaviour. Nowadays we have documented video proof, and the artist in question has actually seen an increase in sales and income.

I'm not advocating a return to 1950s prudery - I'm merely suggesting you make up your own mind as to whether or not things are acceptable to you, your own viewpoint. Seeing as how there is no right and wrong, and that nobody has any right to inflict any views on another, this crap has been rewritten to address the insensitivities in the previous one.

 * What crap are you referring to, exactly?

POV
This article is pretty biased towards the point of view of society at large. The point of view of the pedophiles themselves is not represented; some of it is outlined in childlover. Someone should fix this :)
 * May I ask you if you think that the article about child abuse should be written from the point of view of abusers? Get-back-world-respect 22:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is about pedophilia and not CSA. Anyways both views should be represented. --Moon light shadow 09:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Since society represents a better consensus than a webpage the main focus should be on the majority's view. Get-back-world-respect 01:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Difference Between Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse
Links that relate to abuse recovery and the sexual victimisation of children do not belong on this page. Pedophilia by itself does not imply any action on the sexual attraction at all. Whether it is a paraphilia or not, pedophilia is not an action in and of itself; therefore it does not have any victims. I am removing once again the links that are already appropriately placed on the child sexual abuse page. Zanthalon 23:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The links do not only relate to abuse recovery and sexual victimisation of children. Just read. One focusses on helping pedophiles - about which this article is - to deal with their paraphilia, so this is exactly the right article to have it. Also note that many who were once "loved" by a "childlover" have severe problems with that experience later, so the other link is equally appropriate. Get-back-world-respect 23:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The links should be listed only once in the most suitable article. Only links that deal specifically with the therapy of pedophiles are appropriate here. The therapy of victims does not depend on whether the offender was a pedophile or not but on what happend and on the victims' problems. --Moon light shadow 09:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The links should be listed where they are helpful. One focusses on helping pedophiles - about which this article is - to deal with their paraphilia, so this is exactly the right article to have it. Get-back-world-respect 01:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. These articles are not intended to help pedophiles, they are intended to make a good encyclopedia. If you want to help pedophiles, join some community organisation that does it, don't waste your time vandalising Wikipedia articles. Paranoid 16:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy No personal attacks, your language is unacceptable. Articles generally have external links helpful in understanding the topic comprehensively. The offer of therapeutical treatment to pedophiles who agree they are in danger to harm themselves as well as others meets that criteria a lot more than links to "childlovers". Get-back-world-respect 17:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''I have copied this debate in from RFC/Get-back-world-respect. It seems more relevant to have this debate here.''

title: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 1


text:
Articulation (education)

Articulation, or more specifically course articulation, is the process of comparing the content of courses that are transferred between postsecondary institutions such as TAFE institutes, colleges or universities. In other words, course articulation is the process by which one institution matches its courses or requirements to coursework completed at another institution. Students rely on course articulation to assure themselves that the courses they have completed or intend to complete will not need to be repeated at the institution to which they are transferring.

Course articulation is distinct from the process of acceptance by one institution of earned credit, from another institution, as applicable towards its degree requirements, i.e. "transferring credit". For example, a university may count units of academic credit earned at a community college towards its minimum number of units for a bachelor's degree. But it might not treat certain previously taken courses as good as its own specific course requirements for a particular major or concentration for that same degree, if the articulation process reveals that the other institution's course curricula are not equivalent to or not as rigorous as its own course curricula. In that latter situation, a transferring student may discover they cannot graduate until they take courses at the second institution which partially overlap or repeat material they have previously studied at the first one.

Course articulation may be done on an ad hoc basis when a student actually wishes to transfer. It may also be done pursuant to existing course-to-course comparison data, or based on formal articulation agreements. In the last case, representatives of each institution compare their respective course curricula, to determine which courses are comparable and which are not. Their consensus is then formalized in a written agreement which is used by students and advisors and is regularly updated according to a mutual schedule.

Articulation between institutions with different academic terms is particularly difficult. For example, an institution on the quarter system may have three first-year courses in a subject, while an institution on a semester system may have two first-year courses. While both might cover approximately the same material by the end of one academic year, they may tackle subtopics in a different order, meaning that a student who transfers without taking the entire sequence at one institution will have significant knowledge gaps.

Although credit transfer can be conducted between education bodies in separate countries, the process of articulation can become very complicated when students transfer courses earned at multiple and international campuses, transfer courses from more than 5–10 years ago, or have alternative credit experiences such as exam or military credit.

title: Articulation (education)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinians killed by Israelis

Palestinians killed by Israelis was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. The final tally was 14 clear delete votes and 8 keep votes. I would also have voted to delete under the argument that casualty lists are not inherently encyclopedic. However, even with my opinion, this would not reach a clear consensus. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep.

Having reviewed the article and the discussion, however, I consider this article to be an unmaintained orphan and exercise my right as an ordinary editor to redirect it to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rossami (talk) 00:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unverifiable, forgotten and old, list page. In case you're wondering, there isn't an "Israelis killed by ...." version of this article (it'll redirect to one of the Israel conflict pages), so it's not unbalancing anything. Terrapin 14:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Being an old and forgotten list is a reason not for deletion, but for fixing. Furthermore this list is not unverifiable as it gives names and sources. I therefore contend that this VfD listing is invalid. —No-One Jones (m) 23:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good for you. Terrapin 05:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Forgotten, difficulty in verifying, inherent incompleteness, danger of POV... Average Earthman 16:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same issue as all these death lists. Inherently POV, impossible to verify, and inevitably becomes obsolete when the original motivated editor loses interest or moves on. Jayjg 16:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix as long as we're keeping the other IPC casualty lists. I invite those who voted to keep the other lists to explain why they're voting to delete this one. —No-One Jones (m) 16:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I generally vote to delete these kinds of lists; I believe this has been my consistent policy, for the reasons I listed earlier. Jayjg 20:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Except in the debate linked above. Why that one and none of the others? BTW I quite agree that all these casualty lists ought to be deleted, but I don't agree with this kind of cherry-picking. —No-One Jones (m) 23:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Because, as I said, it was part of a larger problem. There were a whole series of related articles that needed to be fixed up, merged, NPOVd etc. Jayjg 03:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yet that listing applied to the whole series. If there was a time to deal with them together, that was it. —No-One Jones (m) 04:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand it as applying to the whole series; I don't think VfDs can do that, can they? If I had understood it that way, I would have voted differently. Jayjg 05:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The whole list of pages was in the initial listing, but your explanation makes sense: it's not clear whether one can VFD a whole series at the same time. I retract and apologize for my accusations of hypocrisy. —No-One Jones (m) 21:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've generally seen sets of related articles each individually listed on VfD; I know I've voted on a number that were listed that way, which is actually quite tedious.  My initial comment there could have explained my position better; I do have a tendency to write brief comments (if any at all) on VfD. Jayjg 22:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to an appropriate page. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 17:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 'Keep. - Xed 19:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Conti|✉ 19:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you're going to keep the Violence against the Israelis page, keep this one with a possible name change. Or merge with a more NPoV Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Darksun 20:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherent POV. --Improv 21:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indrian 23:29, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for roll calls of the dead in any conflict. Gamaliel 05:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Why ever not? I would be more than happy to have a List of soldiers killed in Gallipoli. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; generally concur, although, for example, would it be irrelavant to have a list of incidents in which ETA has conducted fatal attacks? or Al Qaeda? or (in the 1940s) Lehi? Which is to say, the list of the death toll of one side is not encyclopedic, but the list of attacks carried out by an organization might be. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nobody's ever going to turn this into a anything resembling an inclusive list. The title doesn't even describe the actual content: "Palestinians killed by Israeli troops on October 31, 2001.". --jpgordon{gab} 04:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I am willing to reconsider my vote if the following conditions are met: 1) A distinction is made between militants and non-combatants. 2) A distinction is made between innocents targeted on purpose (e.g. bombing a civilian bus) vs. human shields vs. bystanders harmed by mistake in a police action aimed to prevent further terrorist attacks. In a court of law, a lot of difference is made between intentional victims of violence and those who died unintentionally. So should be in an encyclopedia. 3) The information found in other WP articles is not duplicated. 4) Hate-speech links are removed.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, circumstances of death do not establish notability. Gazpacho 13:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I disagree. Circumstances of death can establish notability. I also recommend expansion and the creation of the opposite article Israelis killed by Palestinians, as these are just as notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kill both lists, and sanction the edit warriors that made them. Ambi 10:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and bear in mind that some users saying "delete both lists", have not in fact voted to delete the other list (Violence against Israelis). --style 11:46, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
 * Because they all get redirected to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004, which lists BOTH sides. If you want to delete any redirects, post them and I'll vote to delete those too. Terrapin 15:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep most definitely, as the bullets and bombs are flying in both directions in this (civil) war. IZAK 15:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete I would say the same for a page claiming to list all Israelis killed by Palestinians.--Josiah 05:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep There should be a list of people killed from X year to Y year in this conflict. Pretending people are not being blown up, on either side, is simply not factual. --ShaunMacPherson 18:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh come on now! Since when has not listing every single casualty in a conflict been tantamount to denial?  Is Wikipedia denying the Holocaust because it does not have a list of the 11 million (give or take) people killed in that horrific event?  There is a difference between denial and the removal of information that in no meaningful way adds to our understanding of the conflict or the issues behind it. Indrian 22:51, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: User talk:62.49.173.154

title: User talk:62.49.173.154


text:
Talk:Theme Hospital

Quirks section deleted
Why? good issues... important info

Corrections
A user incorrectly identified the staff's 'attention to detail' rating as being the same as the ability of staff member, whilst in fact it is a different characteristic. Added more gameplay info. Liquid121 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The game was originally published by Electronic Arts (like all the other Bullfrog games). It was later rereleased by Sold Out Software as a budget title (not in 1997)

Alternate cover
There's an alternate front cover where the 'green cross' is more like a six-sided asterisk. I am not sure why there are two versions, but there's a picture of it at. I tried to add the picture to show the alternate cover but I am not sure how to link it to the English article Marky1981 13:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Mine is the same as the one on the French Wikipedia and I am in the UK. • Thorpe • 11:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen the asterisk-type one in the UK too, I just meant there's a picture of it in the French version of this article that I don't know how to get hold of! Marky1981 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Can't you just upload it to this Wikipedia? • Thorpe • 12:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The original version of Theme Hospital had the green gross. Later versions had the green "six sided asterisk". The later version was updated to include the latest patch and therefore had network play enabled by default. The different logos enabled savvy users to identify a patched version from an original. I don't know if there were any political reasons behind the change. I suspect that the Red Cross may have had something to do with it. They fiercely protect their trademark and it wouldn't suprise me if they threatened legal action against Bullfrog for feturing a trademark similar to theirs! 82.24.157.22 (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Copied?
Hasn't part of this article (well, most) been copied from this. • Thorpe • 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, in my opinion. I removed it. It's for the best anyway. The list was horribly long. I would hope that something like this (if similar information is readded) would be done so either in prose form or in a way in which the TOC or article itself isn't a mile long. K1Bond007 03:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote the bit on Bloaty Head, in its own Wiki article actually, and was planning to do the same for every disease. Until I realised what a silly exercise that would be. Someone took down my Bloaty Head article and pasted the text here, which I applaud. If anything the disease descriptions should be simply snarfed from the TH manual, copyright notwithstanding. --Jquarry 06:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Choppy Mouse Issue
I added info about this issue that exists in the game on today's computers. • Blueguy20 • 3:42, 07 July 2006 (UTC)

Diseases Added
I added four diseases under Clinically-Treated Diseases. They are Hairyitis, Jellyitis, Alien DNA, and Serious Radiation. Blueguy20 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For rooms that require machines, they seem to be only upgradeable to a certain point, then all upgrades stop for that room. Can anyone else verify this or is my game just wacky? Bio 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast List?
is that cast list right, the peeps that done the voices, because the links are to child actors, they are kids of 5 and 6 at the time of the voice overs! That can't be right, surely! Govvy 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got rid of that section as I think it was most likely some person having a joke...those three are 13- and 14-year-olds, all from the show 'Hannah Montana', who would have only been very young at that time, and there is no evidence elsewhere to suggest that this information has any basis on fact at all. User:Baberlp

site managers?
Is there a different version for different countries? My UK version cals them 'handymen' 82.13.83.244 23:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here, my UK version calls them handymen also. I think the French version has a different box cover also. Govvy 13:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * : I couldn't find any evidence to suggest voice clips would've been changed for other versions. Feel free to prove me wrong there.. Whilding87  19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Quirky Names
Should something be added about the names of some of the doctors? For example, I have seen doctors with names that include 3 identical letters one after each other, as well as a janitor named Y. Cure. Since the sayings of the receptionist are in the article, should names be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bio rules (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Trivia
Throwing trivia into pointless, unreferenced sections doesn't make it any less trivial. Any information in the article should be to support the notable features of the game, and at the very most one or two examples can be used to demonstrate the nature of the game. There's no point in retaining the entire list; it's not necessary to communicate any point in the article. -- Scottie_theNerd  06:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * There isn't a single reference in the article as it stands. Anywhere.  And it's not clear that one could provide a reference for nearly anything in the article except to cite the game itself as the source.  In that regard, you're applying a justification very selectively.

 * We do have a difference of opinion about the notability of the restored material. I'm not trying to do a blanket revert of your edits -- for instance, I do agree with your removal of the game-guide aspects of it, which didn't really tell me anything about the game.  But the humor and popular references material does help to give me a sense of what the game is "like" -- and mind you, I've never played it, so I'm not arguing from a fanboy stance.  I hope you can temper your outrage at the fact that I find that material useful -- even encyclopedic.--Father Goose 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Could you explain how it is encyclopedic? Basically, we've got one external reference to popular culture - the names of rival hospitals, which is trivia - had there been more emphasis on pop culture references, that would warrant its own section. We've got self-references to the developer, which is pointless. The game humour contains examples that are taken out of context and convey nothing meaningful - why should Theme Hospital have a section for humour when the WP:VG guidelines don't include it as a standard section? Most games have humour of some sort; there's little reason to provide examples unless the game's humour is specifically outlined as notable by a reliable source. Finally, just because you find it useful doesn't necessarily mean it belongs on Wikipedia. -- Scottie_theNerd  10:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The self-reference material is pretty weak. I'll delete that.  Meanwhile, you keep citing guidelines which don't support your assertions.  "Not a standard section'" -- claiming that as grounds for deletion is inventing policy out of thin air.  WP:VG has two things to say about trivia: avoid "an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia" and "Such information should be integrated into appropriate areas of the article".  We differ on what's excessive -- though you seem to be taking the point of view that any trivia is excessive -- and whether the sections I added are "appropriate areas".  You should note that I edited the material to try to improve its presentation within the article; I didn't just say, "Hah, it has a different heading now, it's no longer trivia."

 * By comparison, you didn't make an attempt to integrate the trivia section, just deleted it outright, which puts you at odds with the WP:TRIV guideline ("Don't simply remove it, but seek to minimize it."). And, oh, yes, I uttered the dread word "useful", which triggered your referring me to the page which states, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged".  You're trying to resolve this difference of opinion we have by citing one guideline after another, none of which fully support your views.--Father Goose 07:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It is not my practice to remove trivia sections outright. However, there was nothing in the trivia section that I could salvage for my aforementioned reasons. By integrating into the article, the policies suggest incorporating anything notable into the main text rather than creating sections that do little more than list those interesting points. If you are able to incorporate the trivia into the main gameplay descriptions, please do.

 * In regards to current content, I don't see why the humour section should stay. As I said above, no other game section has a humour section despite most games having some form of humour. The diseases bit can be added to the description already in the article, whereas the cheating comments and receptionist are barely notable. These should be described as part of the game as a whole rather than picking out individual one-liners. The rival hospitals, on the other hand, may be included as its own section - but if the article comes under closer scrutiny, I doubt it'll last. -- Scottie_theNerd  13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * If you can move the diseases bits, please do. Closer scrutiny might see the removal of what remains, although I don't have a crystal ball.--Father Goose 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, your edit summary regarding the "integration" was a bit disingenuous, but at least you met me an eighth of the way. I'll settle for that.--Father Goose 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * There isn't anything more I can integrate. The points are mostly out-of-context examples that aren't notable or self-explanatory enough to keep, or have already been mentioned in the main gameplay paragraphs. There's still plenty of room to improve the article, so please feel free to add what you feel needs to be added.-- Scottie_theNerd  05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Theme Hospital Clinic Fanpage WP:EL
A few days ago I added a new link to this page that was promptly deleted because of the WP:FANSITE rule. I agree that there have to be rules here but in this case following the rule without thinking twice is, well..., hardly a sensible thing.

TH is a classic game, about 10 years old, so the official Bullfrog site is no longer existing. To find info and patches you have to use alternative ways. There used to about half a dozen fanpages, one better than the other, but these have all disappeared, with the exception of (nearly) one, that was the most complete, detailed and accurate anyway. This situation makes Theme Hospital Clinica virtual official page. It has a complete description of all functions, people, diseases, scenarios in the game, has a very detailed walkthrough and a still active forum. But you can't link to the page as it is fan-based.

The kind of linking that is apparently allowed on this item is to GameSpot and MobyGames. These are the kind of sites that bombard you with adds, pop-ups, tracking and publicity cookies and if you want to download a file you have to pass via a myriad of new windows just to read at the end you have to login to get the file anyway.

I just wrote that there is only one TH fanpage left. This is not entirely true. A second one can be found at alt-tab.net. It could be a re-hash of one of those 'old' original fanpages that were on the web. Strange enough there is a link to the download section of that site on the TH Wikipedia entry. Following the WP:FANSITE rules it should be immediately deleted as well.

The alt-tab.net game is however rightly mentioned for containing the so-called prenancy patch. The whereabouts of the original programmer of this patch are lost in time and can't be traced back. But the patch that can be downloaded is an enhanced 'pregnancy patch' version anyway, altered by a certain Ian Jefferies. And that man is the person who has created and still maintains the Theme Hospital Clinic website and forum.

(I want to add that I am not affiliated to Theme Hospital, nor to any of the fanpages that exist on the subject). Felix Atagong 10:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I can't find anything about fansites on External links so I don't understand this removal of a link. Samulili 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * This is a new one -- treating the name of a shortcut link (WP:FANSITE) as a rule itself. "No fan sites" would be a reasonable rule -- provided it actually were a rule -- if it meant "don't add your fansite which has absolutely nothing to add about the subject".  I checked out each of the external links, though, and the Theme Hospital Clinic is clearly a better resource than Mobygames and the others.  I'd be willing to bet it was deleted reflexively because it was labeled as a "fansite".  I've restored the link.--Father Goose 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Linking to Mobygames, GameSpot, GameFAQs or other game sites doesn't seem to be widely approved. I faintly recall a debate over th deletion of the Mobygames template for something along those lines, and the consensus on WP:VG seems to be that "resource" sites should only be provided in External links if their content is not appropriate to the article. In this case, I think leaving the link is fair. -- Scottie_theNerd  16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I think the "original programmer" was actually me - my site (made around 1997 - apologies for the design and writing style...) has the original version of the patch, which (if I remember correctly) was purely my work and was the first time that the existence of the 'pregnancy' disease was publicised. I believe I found it when looking through some file that listed all the diseases, while trying to write a badly-written FAQ. I have absolutely no idea how I actually patched the level files, though. Philip Taylor 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

psp
hey their should be a link 2 the site to download the game 4 psp and ps3 and also wat is the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.58.191 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Future
Anyone know or think that they should produce the game again with a better format for the future? I think it would be successful and would love to play this old treasure again! It could be significantly updated and could be played over xbox 360 and PS3 etc would be fantastic!Bankhallbretherton (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As it says in the box at the top of the page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.". Have a look at Wikipedia talk page guidelines for acceptable use, thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Android Theft
I'm guessing the thief on the Play Store is the one who added the entry about a "uk based developer" getting Theme Hospital to work on Android and selling it on the playstation store. The version he stole is from AngryPineapple.com.

The author stated: "Please note that the paid version on the Google Play is based off my code but has absolutely nothing to do with me. I can’t offer any support for it whatsoever. I have no idea what changes he has made to the code, if any, so my advice is to always download versions from here or compile your own. I will NEVER charge for this port as I think it discredits the work done by Corsix and the CorsixTH team to develop this amazing clone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.112.10 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I found a template of interest.
I know you're using "Manual, page x" for many of the citations, but do you know about the Rp template?

The template allows you to do Rooms include GP's Offices, Psychiatric rooms, Operating Theatres and Pharmacies, and are built by placing down a blueprint, assigning the location of doors and windows, and then placing down required and optional pieces of furniture. so that it would display as:

 * Rooms include GP's Offices, Psychiatric rooms, Operating Theatres and Pharmacies, and are built by placing down a blueprint, assigning the location of doors and windows, and then placing down required and optional pieces of furniture.

Let me know if it's viable for the article. FosterHaven (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I used to do it that way, but was told that's not the best way to do it because all those page numbers in the body adversely affect readability. It was a major concern on this FAC of Ridge Racer (video game). Adam9007 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theme Hospital. 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/20161009101644/https://www.pixeldynamo.com/news/gaming/2014/09/11/29006/theme-hospital-free-eu-psn/ to https://www.pixeldynamo.com/news/gaming/2014/09/11/29006/theme-hospital-free-eu-psn/

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) 07:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160322194410/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg056.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322193639/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg057.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322200358/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg058.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322203114/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg061.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322205923/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg062.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322205716/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg063.jpg

CorsixTH
No separate page for this project (yet)? There is enough material for a spin-off and a better description.

This would mean to change the redirect page.. I'm not sure if this must be agreed upon, or just started it. Camp0s (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Theme Hospital


text: Category:PlayStation 1 peripherals

title: Category:PlayStation 1 peripherals