text:
Talk:Portsmouth Sinfonia

(pity they don't work)

Untitled

 * worked last month; probably work again next month. Gzuckier 14:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for corrections
I am a founder member of the Portsmouth Sinfonia and owner of its copyrights and archive.

This article has a couple of inaccuracies. The bit about the Schuman and Grieg piano concertos is incorrect and should be removed. The Portsmouth Sinfonia have never done this.

Symphonia should be Sinfonia

Adrian Rifkin was not a founding member of the Sinfonia, but was present at the first concert

The above assertion is not sustainable, Adrian Rifkin was in his first year of teaching at Portsmouth when the Symphonia was founded and is playing the first violin on the floppy disc given out for the degree show, as well as playing in the Purcell room. The Symphonia was founded as the result of a conversation between him and Gavin though Gavin was the prime mover - this something a student might not have known! If Adrian is absent from the first picture with the Pier at Southsea in the background it is because he was orchestrating the image with the photographer. The original entry did not include the fact that Michael Parsons invited the PS to the Purcell Room, a move that effectively saved it from immediate extinction. gaisavoir

(The above text was accidentally posted on the article itself - instead of here on the discussion page - by new user Robin Man - 14:42, 18 January 2007. The text has been deleted from the article - and re-posted here where it should be - by Davidpatrick 15:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Playing Competence of the Members
According to an interview with Brian Eno, there was no criterion for playing ability - and some of the members did play instruments with which they were competent. The (Wikipedia) article implies that this was not the case. See. 82.29.215.250 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New York Times article on the Really Terrible Orchestra
On the second page of this NY Times article, there is some discussion of Portsmouth Sinfonia. --Larrybob 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reunion and CD
http://www.portsmouthsinfonia.com/media/sundaytelegraph.html

http://www.portsmouthsinfonia.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.40.140 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Portsmouth Sinfonia


text:
File:Stc-600.jpg

Image source:

Source website’s legalese: Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source and copyright status must be acknowledged.

The permission to reproduce Crown copyright protected material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

For further details on the licensing of Crown copyright, see current guidance issued by HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

The content of this Crown Copyright notice can also be read here, though we advise you to connect to the HMSO website in case there are any significant changes applied to the Crown Copyright notice without our knowledge.

Fair use rationale for RAF Strike Command
I (—xyzzyn) believe that the use of this image, the coat of arms of a military unit, in the article on this unit, RAF Strike Command, is fair use under United States law
 * 1) for identification of the unit.

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

title: File:Stc-600.jpg


text:
Talk:Tail recursion

Intro
my revision to the intro was because i thought the actual statement of what tail recursion really is had gotten a bit buried. Bgruber 04:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following revision to the Introduction. However, I do not wish to make such a change without submitting it to this review process. The reason I feel such a change is necessary is that it is not evident from the previous version of the intro that tail recursion adds efficiency; it seems to be demonstrating iteration to be superior to it, when in fact it should (in keeping with later sections of the article) be emphasizing that tail-recursion can be more efficient than other forms of recursion because it can be automatically converted to iteration.

"In computer Science, tail recursion (or tail-end recursion) is a special case of recursion in which the last operation of the function, the tail call, is a recursive call. Funcitions using tail recursion can easily be converted to use iteration instead, either manually or automatically. Doing so is beneficial because it can drastically reduce the amount of stack space used and improve efficiency. Tail recursion is often used in functional programming languages, in which the declarative approach and explicit handling of state promote the use of tail-recursive functions in place of other recursive functions that would otherwise rapidly fill the call stack."

If someone at a later time feels that this intro is appropriate, and has gone through sufficient review, please don't wait for me to change the article: go ahead and do it. --Fromageestciel (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Old question
Isn't the second point in the recursive definition backwards? Shouldn't
 * 2. If (if E0 E1 E2) is a tail expression, then both E1 and E2 are tail expressions.

be rather
 * 2. If E1 and E2 are both tail expressions, then (if E0 E1 E2) is a tail expression.

? --Mormegil 14:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No, this is correct. The statement is an expansion of the definition of tail expression.  A tail expression here is an expression whose value is returned by the caller.  This part of the definition simply states that, if the expression (if E0 E1 E2) is a tail expression, then both E1 and E2 are tail expressions - that is, if the value of (if E0 E1 E2) is directly returned by the caller, then, no matter which one of them is actually selected by the if operator, the value of E1 and E2 will be returned by the function that made the if call.
 * Where you are confused can be answered by this: The state of being a tail expression is dependent upon location, not upon any intrinsic properties of the expression. Ari 08:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

code and pre formatting in firefox
Previous tail recursion edit and Tail recursion differ only by  being replaces with  may be very confusing. I've rewritten the first example in pseudocode (below), but I'm not sure how to express &(*p); are there conventions for working with pointers in pseudocode?

function f(input : List) returns List if input = nil return nil else var n = new Link n.value = 1 n.next = f(input.next) return n

Qwertyus 13:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Or what about a language that actually uses cons?

(define (f input)  (if (null? input) (cons 1            (f (cdr input)))))

72.93.87.3 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional con
On newer microprocessor architectures hardware the branch predictor cannot predict function calls which isn't paired with returns. The performance hit can usually be triggered up in the call stack after the code has finished executing and returned, in completely unrelated code which does not mess with the stack.

bad example?
I'm confused by:

In some cases (such as filtering lists) and in some languages, full tail recursion may require a function that was previously purely functional to be written such that it mutates references stored in other variables.

I think this is trying to say either for efficiency reasons, some functions are re-written to use mutation, or if you have shared data, then operations like filter may want to mutate their inputs? I'm unsure. Either way, this is nothing specific to tail recursion. --Ian Barland Not-just-yeti 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)not-just-yeti

lack of mainstream compiler support
I just checked, and gcc, g++ and Java all fail to optimize a one-line tail-recursive function. Why? It might be nice have a paragraph trying to justify this. The only explanation I currently see is "making a complete call graph is a daunting task for a compiler". And in general, mutual recursion (esp. across files) might be problematic. But why not just check for a function recurring on itself, and optimize that? (The reason I'm looking at this wikipedia page is because theEuclidean Algorithm page made a claim that tail-recursion is inherently inefficient, whereas I thought it was more of lazy compiler-writers :-) --Ian Barland Not-just-yeti 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)not-just-yeti
 * I'm pretty sure gcc and g++ both optimize tail recursive functions, but Java does not. At least that's what was taught in my programming languages class. 67.135.15.12 04:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The article Euclidean Algorithm says "or using iteration (more efficient with compilers that don't optimize tail recursion)" which is correct.
 * For more info on what gcc does with tail calls look at http://home.in.tum.de/~baueran/thesis/baueran_thesis.pdf --MarSch 10:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Ah, that's a nice, easy-to-understand reference, thanks. (Been too long since I've worked with C; I'd forgotten just how easy and nasty pointer games are.)  That thesis should probably be one of the references for the main article.
 * Yeah, the Euclidean Algorithm page is correct now, but an earlier version had said tail-recursion could never be as efficient.
 * FWIW, the thesis asserts that limited tail recursion has been implemented in gcc for a while, but using gcc 4.0.3, the shortest tail program I write still Seg faults when I start trying large numbers. Sigh.  --Not-just-yeti 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another mechanism
The article states 'When a function is called, the computer must "remember" the place it was called from, the return address, so that it can return to that location with the result once the call is complete'.

Not necessarily - this is implementation dependent. Henry Baker somewhere discusses treating calls as a sort of dynamic macro, expanding each function token and pushing that onto an execution stack after popping the original occurrence of the function token. There is no explicit return at all, with the execution stack unravelling as it goes (until, presumably, it reaches a sentinel at the end). Even though there is apparently more overhead, Henry Baker suggested that if a language typically has small functions, with modern high speed caches this might be competitive. Also the overhead would obviously be immaterial for some user I/O bound scripting languages. P.M.Lawrence.

 * I've undone your edit. If you want this added, then find a comprehensible source or make an edit which properly explains how this works. --MarSch 10:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * So I notice. May I ask why you undid it, as opposed to clarifying it further yourself? As it now stands, it is false. You had the Henry Baker reference here to draw on. I decided to do no more than mention the existence of other ways for reasons of (a) relevance and (b) space. How do you suggest "explaining" it without defeating the object? "dynamic macro expansion" seemed to me to be a sufficient description. PML.

 * Here's something for you to work with, from Henry Baker's material at (last paragraph before the conclusion). I have highlighted the part that conclusively demonstrates that the undo has made a false statement:

 * Since Forth is usually implemented on a traditional von Neumann machine, one thinks of the return stack as holding "return addresses". However, in these days of large instruction caches, in which entire cache lines are read from the main memory in one transaction, this view should be updated. It is well-known that non-scientific programs have a very high rate of conditional branches, with the mean number of instructions between branches being on the order of 10 or less. Forth programs are also very short, with "straight-line" (non-branching) sequences averaging 10 items or less. In these environments, it makes more sense to view the return stack itself as the instruction buffer cache! In other words, the return stack doesn't hold "return addresses" at all, but the instructions themselves! When a routine is entered, the entire routine is dumped onto the top of the return stack, and execution proceeds with the top item of this stack. Since routines are generally very short, the transfer of an entire routine is about the same amount of work as transferring a complete cache line in present architectures. Furthermore, an instruction stack-cache-buffer is normally accessed sequentially, and therefore can be implemented using shift register technology. Since a shift register can be shifted faster than a RAM can be accessed, the "access time" of this instruction stack-cache-buffer will not be a limiting factor in a machine's speed. Executing a loop in an instruction stack-cache-buffer is essentially the making of connections necessary to create a cyclic shift register which literally cycles the instructions of the loop around the cyclic shift register

 * I trust this is sufficient to make my point that the undo made an incorrect assertion and that a full demonstration would be long and off topic. PML.

You are talking about machine with an instuction and a data stack.

 * No, actually. If you can be bothered to follow the reference I gave, you will see that in the architecture Henry Baker was considering, this was a change to the return stack, and the data stack retained its former behaviour. That is why my wording referred to an execution stack. PML.

It simply starts executing on the data stack using the instruction at the top of the instruction stack. Instead of function calls it simply copies the instructions that define the called function to the top of the instruction stack and proceeds by executing them. It follows that there is no need to explicitly do a return instruction, since when all instructions of the called function are executed, automatically the next instruction on the stack is the one after the call. Still even if the return address is implicit like it is in this scenario, I don't think the current text: "When a function is called, the computer must 'remember' the place it was called from, the return address, so that it can return to that location with the result once the call is complete." is false, even if the formulation is perhaps a bit biased towards register machines. Your own: "In a typical implementation, when a function is called the computer must 'remember' the place it was called from, the return address, so that it can return to that location with the result once the call is complete (this does not happen when calls are implemented by dynamic macro expansion to an execution stack)." is false instead, claiming the return address is not remembered.

If the continuation of a call is not stored in some way, then it is impossible to proceed with its execution after the call. It must be stored explicitly as a return address or implicitly in an instruction stack or some other way. --MarSch 18:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you are wriggling. With this implementation there is no remembering involved apart from that provided by a program counter (or instruction pointer, or whatever you wish to call it). As at the point where the "call" - dynamic macro expansion - occurs, that PC or IP is changed. There isn't even your wriggling "implicit" return address, as it cannot be distinguished from any other address later in the sequence. There is no requirement whatsoever to remember the value the PC had immediately previously, and no way to reconstruct it.

I suggest you reinstate the information I provided, or reword it. If you do not do so, you are wilfully adopting the view that if you don't like an edit, or don't understand it, even if there are authorities in support of it, you will remove it. That is pretty much what vandalism is, so if you do not do something constructive within a period of grace of three days I shall reinstate pretty much what I put before. If you persist in removing what I have now demonstrated is factually correct, I shall report it as vandalism.

N.B., further argument on the point is not constructive. Making suggestions for alternative phrasing is. I notice that you did not respond to my request that you explain "why you undid it, as opposed to clarifying it further yourself" (emphasis added). I have been inviting you to be constructive and you have signally ignored the option. P.M.Lawrence.

 * Please don't throw around epithets like "vandal" so carelessly. You may want to read Assume good faith before picking up this discussion again. I don't believe MarSch was acting maliciously.

 * I have read it, and I was not being careless. I do suppose that up to this point he was acting in good faith, and I was pointing out that for him to proceed knowingly would make that become vandalism - hence the "giving plenty of rope". PML.

 * As a matter of fact, I agree with pretty much everything MarSch has written here. While I don't see much of anything wrong with the phrase "In typical implementations", your additional parenthetical comment "(this does not happen when calls are implemented by dynamic macro expansion to an execution stack)" is not only ungrammatical, it's beyond unclear.

 * I must accept your judgment on unclear, but it is actually grammatical. But then, that is precisely why I invited constructive rewording - instead of which MarSch failed and refused to provide any. That is a giveaway as to whether he is becoming malicious. And, of course, not having that bracketed part, just having the other change, makes the edit as a whole weasel-wordish; it's only the "typically..." part on its own that works badly that way. I was well aware of that problem and wanted to clarify it away with something brief in brackets. If I failed to make things clear, that is no reason for MarSch's insisting on making them false instead of helping constructively. PML.

 * It doesn't matter what you say Henry Baker said, on this talk page; what matters in the end is what's written in the article itself. That parenthetical made no sense, so MarSch removed it. Fine.

 * Fair enough on that part, except that he didn't want an improved version either - but, he also removed the main part, recreating a falsehood. I agree that Henry Baker's points are irelevant to the body of the article; I only provided them to humour MarSch since he asked for a cite. PML.

 * It may be possible to add a more clear footnote to that paragraph pointing at Baker's paper; that's also fine.

 * Except that MarSch has made it clear that he doesn't want clarifications. When I offered some here on the talk page, he just rubbished them, claiming all sorts of wriggling stuff about the original.

 * However — admittedly without reading Baker's paper — I don't see how Baker's clever idea would work if the called function was actually bigger than the instruction cache. Then you'd need to fall back on the usual call-stack idea... unless Baker's talking about some kind of architecture where the instruction cache is unbounded in size and there is no "PC", which sounds cool, but also extremely esoteric and I'm not totally sure whether it would work. (In particular, I don't see how you'd make a function containing local branches, unless you used continuation passing style for everything (which is not unheard of)).

 * Off the top of my head I see no problem with forward branches, and backward branches can be handled using recursion. That is, if the higher level language needs (say) iteration, then that can be handled using an iterator construct that is syntactic sugar, i.e. that construct is itself implemented recursively. Perhaps the proposed change should bring out that this instruction stack approach makes tail recursion problems go away? The underlying conceptual problem doesn't go away, but the implementation issues get engineered out. PML.

 * I'll read the paper and see how Baker deals with it. Assuming the idea is worth mentioning, still, esoterica belongs in footnotes, where it won't clog up the main flow of ideas. --Quuxplusone 06:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This approach treats the cache as a buffer, it doesn't need to get everything in at once. A virtual cache, if you will (and, if you want this for flexibility rather than efficiency, you can use batch files built around this - I've seen it, on old Datapoints). And yes, esoterica doesn't belong in the main stuff. I pointed thgat out myself. It's why I didn't provide any more than a terse piece of stuff in brackets. But if people insist that reasons be clarified and not just explained, then where are we? As things now are, MarSch has not only removed that, he has re-installed a fallacy. Specifically, it is not true that 'When a function is called, the computer must "remember" the place it was called from, the return address, so that it can return to that location with the result once the call is complete' (emphasis added). P.M.Lawrence.

Did you know that you can type four tildes in a row — ~ — to sign and date your posts? It's considered good form to sign and date comments on talk pages, so other readers can follow the chronology.

I've read Baker's paper now; it turns out that you quoted everything Baker had to say on the subject, so I wasn't able to satisfy my curiosity about the tricky bits of the idea. (I Googled up a post on the TUNES mailing list that gets about as detailed as Baker.) I was hoping to get back here before you called me on the "local branches" thing, though; I see now that in the "instruction stack" paradigm, one wouldn't have the concept of a "branch", but merely a lot of very small functions, mostly tail-recursive. However, I don't see what the idea buys you. You have to implement a hardware stack, which AFAICT is impossible to "get right"; either you make your expensive fast-memory "top of stack" buffer too big, in which case you waste resources, or you make it too small, in which case you lose efficiency. (Or you do something totally different and cool that we all missed.) Niklaus Wirth has a very interesting essay called "Good Ideas: Through the Looking Glass" in which he says the same thing about register windows, which strike me as very similar to the "instruction stack" idea: in both cases we're taking something with a pretty decent "traditional" implementation (normal register set; normal instruction cache) and deciding that it would be more theoretically attractive if it were implemented using a hardware stack instead.

Anyway, as soon as your instruction stack gets too big, I think you have to start paging out the lower part into RAM. Which means you're constructing — albeit inefficiently — a stack growing somewhere in RAM, containing the next instructions to be executed when the current procedure returns. (You can make it more efficient by only storing those instructions' addresses in the stack, of course.) And then what do you have? A call stack!

If you can provide any evidence that this "instruction stack" idea actually works in hardware, in some way that is not dependent-on or in-the-worst-case-isomorphic-to the traditional "call stack" paradigm, then (1) it'll be worth including in the article, and (2) I'll be very intrigued. Until then, though, the claim that an "instruction stack" magically makes the call stack go away strikes me as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence to support it. --Quuxplusone 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd chime in to say that most of this discussion and indeed much of the article as it currently stands seems to focus on programming language design, compiler design and computer architecture, as opposed to the "pure computer science" concept of tail recursion. Surely these are important related topics, and there is ample room in the article to discuss how tail recursion impacts upon them, but I think the article would be best served by putting those parts in separate sections and labeling them appropriately. As for this particular debate, I think such a labeling would help to solve the problem: P.M. Lawrence is correct when he says that the "description" section is imprecise in that such statements about return addresses are implementation dependent, and others are correct in that a major reason why tail recursion is an important concept is that what i believe to be a vast majority of architectures utilize such an implementation. Perhaps to start with the "description" section should be renamed "tail call optimization." Looking around, I would say that the article Recursion (computer science) actually contains a better description of tail recursion than this article. Bgruber 01:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tail Recursion Distinctiveness Being Lost
IMHO The main point of distinction for tail recursion (as opposed to general recursion) is that it can be optimized. I know that Common Lisp and SCHEME optimize tail recursion intelligently. The wording of the intro suggests even tail recursion is always inefficient. I assume that is not intended. See Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming by Peter Norvig page 63.

Also IMHO, the functional equivalence and mutual transformability of recursion and iteration is true and important. But it is confusing to mention it in an intro to tail recursion. Can this be put somewhere else?

BTW: AI employers often ask applicants if they know about the significance to efficiency of tail recursion. ClickStudent 14:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I do not think your assertion in your edit to the article that general recursion can be transformed into tail-recursion is correct. But I would love to be proved wrong. Do you have a reference? --MarSch 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Apologies for my wording but you are absolutely correct (as far as I know). The reason I left in the half truth is that this wording seemed to me to have a better chance of avoiding removal, given the apparent preference of the original writer for iteration universally. Sadly, truth is often politics. I have seen that in far too many wiki entries. Feel free to modify as you see fit. You obviously understand. BTW: This is my first wiki edit. It seemed presumptuous to start right out with modifying an intro. (afterthought: many could be replaced with tail recursion, but I don't want to do the Turing proof.) Apologies again. ClickStudent 13:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Please don't feel presumptuous about editing any part of any article. Taking action is encouraged (WP:BOLD).--MarSch 09:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Second afterthought...Any recursion CAN be transformed to a tail recursion. But you need to use another stack. Proofs about recursion generally get handled with the Pumping Lemma (see any computational theory textbook, e.g. Sipser). 'course, using another stack is probably cheating for purposes of our discussion. 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClickStudent (talk • contribs)

 * Right, the possibility of using an extra stack had slipped my mind. Anyway, general recursion is off-topic in this article, since this article is specifically about tail recursion. So even though your edit did not introduce any errors it does remove a simplified characterizaton of what tail recursion is. I will revert you for now, but don't let that discourage you from fixing any other issues that you perceive. --MarSch 09:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * One more thought. Perhaps the use of "iterative process" and "recursive process" (as also used in SICP) would clarify this article. --MarSch 09:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, your points are well taken. I've given it a second try at simplification. (BTW: I'm reluctant to introduce the word "process" in an intro.) It seems to capture the essence of what tail recursion is good for, as far as I know. I hope you consider it to be accurate and concise. ClickStudent 11:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I've edited your version. I hope you're starting to like the intro better. --MarSch 15:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * This version is extremely confusing. It sounds like tail recursion always returns immediately to the function that isn't part of the recursion. ClickStudent 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Confuses Tail Recursion with Tail Calls
This article starts by talking about tail recursion and then gets lost in talking about tail call optimization.

A tail call is the general case where a procedure calls a procedure as its last action and does not need to do further processing of the result. A tail recursion is a special case of a tail call where the procedure calls itself. Tail recursion is much easier to optimize than general tail calls. All it requires is that your target instruction set/language have an equivalent of jmp or goto.

In particular, that means that for the most common compiler targets - C, virtually any machine code, and several virtual machines (JVM and CLR) - tail recursion can be done with little effort. The compiler can just emit an imperative loop with a jmp/goto from the bottom of the procedure to the top (note, on the JVM Java does not do this optimization but Scala does).

The more general tail call case is what may require all the more advanced stuff this article talks about such as trampolining, garbage collected stack frames, etc.

Second, the article says that Scheme requires tail recursion optimization. That's true, but not the real story. Scheme (along with Haskell) requires full blown tail call optimization. Of course, that implies tail recursion optimization as well because a tail recursive call is just a special case of a tail call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.63.92.58 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is confusing, but tail call elimination (TCE) can be implemented through goto just as tail recursion implementation. The described devices are needed when you compile to C, which has no guaranteed TCE; I just clarified this in the article. Scala is a different case: given limitations of the JVM it can implement only tail-recursion optimization (because a jump in the JVM must be within a procedure). I also fixed the second point you mention. Blaisorblade (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
Some reasons why I attempted the minor changes to the opening:

 * "tail recursion is recursion where the last operation is a recursive call" -- need to clarify that there is no additional (non-tail) call as well.

 * minor: "the function" is suddenly introduced mid-sentence, even though recursion is about algorithms, not just functions.

 * The phrasing "such recursions can be translated ..." seems awkard. Every English speaker I know would say "such recursive calls can be translated ...".  Admittedly, this could be a difference between US English usage and other English usage.

 * "...with iteration, manually or automatically," still scans poorly to me; while 'either' adds one word it is worth the clarity.

A bigger problem with the opening paragraph is that recursion is about algorithms, whereas tail-recursion-optimization is about implementation (as the previous section alludes to).

Second Scheme Example is Unnecessarily Complex
The second Scheme example should look similar to the first except for the change to accumulator style. There is no need to use a lambda instead of the function definition short hand. Also, why is there this addition of an assertion, especially if the contract states number -> number.

May I suggest: (define (factorial n acc) (if (= n 0) acc (factorial (- n 1) (* n acc))))

If it is really necessary we could do (define (factorial n) (factorial/acc n 1)) (define (factorial/acc n acc) (if (= n acc) acc (factorial (- n 1) (* n acc)))) 129.10.116.251 (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

not-just-yeti (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be merged with Tail call
The two articles are about the same subject, but the other is vastly inferior. However, the correct name is the one of the other article. In most cases general tail call optimization is as easy as tail recursion optimization (see the discussion in the freely available book "Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation").--Blaisorblade (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree these articles should be merged. —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Merge performed, and I did some cleanup. Some more proof-reading is required probably, but I guess not today. --Blaisorblade (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tail recursion


text:
N.Y.P.D. (TV series)

N.Y.P.D. is a half-hour long American police crime drama set in the context of the New York City Police Department. The program appeared on the ABC network from 1967 to 1969, running in the evening during the 9:30 p.m. night time slot. During the second season, N.Y.P.D was joined by The Mod Squad and It Takes a Thief to form a 2½ hour block of crime dramas.

Plot
N.Y.P.D. centers around three New York police detectives – Lt. Mike Haines (Jack Warden), Detective Jeff Ward (Robert Hooks), and Detective Johnny Corso (Frank Converse) – who fight a wide range of crimes and criminals. The show features many real New York City locations, as well as episodes based on actual New York City police cases.

Cast

 * Jack Warden as Lt. Mike Haines
 * Robert Hooks as Det. Jeff Ward
 * Frank Converse as Det. Johnny Corso
 * Ted Beniades as Det. Richie
 * Denise Nicholas as Ethel
 * Tom Rosqui as Det. Jacobs

Development
The show was produced by Talent Associates, Ltd., a company founded by Alfred Levy and David Susskind. Talent Associates had produced 14 years of the anthology program Armstrong Circle Theatre and The Kaiser Aluminum Hour, both highly respected shows. Television producer, movie producer, and talk show host David Susskind created N.Y.P.D. with screenwriter Arnold Perl (Cotton Comes to Harlem).

At the time of his death in 1971, Arnold Perl was working on a screenplay about assassinated black activist Malcolm X, which would later become the basis for Spike Lee's 1992 film, Malcolm X. Daniel Melnick, the show's executive producer, was a partner with Susskind in Talent Associates and had brought Mel Brooks and Buck Henry together to create the TV comedy Get Smart in 1965. Producer Susskind and actor Harvey Keitel would work together again on Martin Scorsese's Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974). Scripted by writers like Lonne Elder, who would later be the first African-American nominated for a Best Screenplay Oscar (for 1972's Sounder), the stories came with such titles as "Cruise to Oblivion," "Which Side Are You On?," "The Screaming Woman," and "Deadly Circle of Violence."

In N.Y.P.D. scripts, there were white cops and black cops, white suspects and black suspects, white witnesses and black witnesses, an unselfconscious racial blend that would not otherwise be seen for several years on U.S. network television (Room 222 and Hawaii Five-O were among the next series to feature casts situated similarly.)

Casting
Among the actors who appeared in the series were Robert Alda, Rutanya Alda,Conrad Bain, Philip Bosco, John Cazale, Leslie Charleson, Miriam Colon, Franklin Cover, Matthew Cowles, Blythe Danner, Ossie Davis,Mary Fickett, Scott Glenn,Moses Gunn, Graham Jarvis, James Earl Jones, Raul Julia, Marcia Jean Kurtz, Laurence Luckinbill, Nancy Marchand, Bill Macy, Donna McKechnie, Meg Myles, Priscilla Pointer, Andrew Robinson, Esther Rolle,Richard Ward, Louis Zorich, Jill Clayburgh, Jane Elliot, Ralph Waite, Gretchen Corbett
 * Al Pacino S2E5 "Deadly Circle of Violence"
 * Martin Sheen S2E8 "The Peep Freak"
 * Jon Voight S1E14 "The Bombers"
 * Harvey Keitel S2E6 The Shady Lady
 * Jane Alexander S2E14 The Night Watch
 * Roy Scheider S2E19 Who's Got the Bundle?
 * Sam Waterston S2E23 No Day Trippers Need Apply
 * Charles Grodin S1E6 Money Man
 * Howard Da Silva S1E7 Old Gangsters Never Die
 * Murray Hamilton S1E24 The Private Eye Puzzle
 * Charles Durning S2E1 Naked in the Streets

Writing
In 1967, N.Y.P.D. was the first television series in America to air an episode with a homosexual theme ("Shakedown"). The police track down a man blackmailing homosexual men, prompting several suicides.

Opening credits
The series' opening credit sequence, prominently featuring a closeup of a police car emergency light as the vehicle drives through the streets of New York, would later be spoofed in the 1980s comedy series Police Squad! and subsequent movies.

title: N.Y.P.D. (TV series)


text:
Talk:Ron Paul

Climate change
No. Of course "rising temperatures in some parts of the globe" and "temperatures are cooling in other parts" - duh.

But, like so many other ignorant laymen, Paul misses the point.

Climate change is about mean temperatures. What he says is 1. bullshit, 2. fringe propaganda and does not belong on Wikipedia unless we also quote a competent source that refutes it. So, if we do not also have a quote from a climatologist who explains how idiotic Paul's reasoning is, that quote has to go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FRINGE: Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame.
 * Please read WP:BLP: Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints
 * Please read WP:NPOV: While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.
 * "What he says is 1. bullshit" He is a career politician, bullshit is part of his job description. Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is not part of Wikipedia's job decription to help him spread it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 * It does not look as if anyone wants to defend that revert. So, I'll delete the stupid quote again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of the words fiscal policy to describe opinions on the federal reserve instead of monetary policy
Hi all,

First timer here. Maybe nitpicking but in macro-economic courses that I took (Econ and math major) I was taught that the federal reserve's interest rate manipulation, open-market operations etc. were examples of monetary policy, not fiscal policy. I understand fiscal policy to be more the tool of congress i.e. changing taxes or spending money to stimulate the economy. I believe articles on fiscal vs monetary policy should support this.

This is in one of the first paragraphs in the introduction section, which I guess I can't edit. Language would be much more precise if it were to be changed imho. 2601:586:5280:EEB0:303D:85BB:6EF8:B46E (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 * You are correct. I edited this sentence accordingly. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 14:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ron Paul


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revival of the draft

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - no consensus

Revival of the draft
This page is more of a current event and not really one of those articles that can serve as a reference for a long time. It is not notable to have just "revival of the draft" as the topic. This article is more like a part of a political platform and belongs in the article about the person or the event that brought it up. No potential to become encyclopedic. --flyhighplato 14:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep content, either as standalone article or merge with draft and redirect. This is an enduring, major topic, well worth someone's attention. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Merge with draft but no redirect. I really don't see anyone searching the term.  Draft reinstatement is probably more commonly used.  And has been proposed several times since the abandonment of the draft. -Vina 17:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary, with a questionable POV.  It would, however make a good item for inclusion into the draft Conscription article, written from a neutral POV. --Feedle 17:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree about content should be in Conscription. I'm neutral on redirection: the topic isn't really "encyclopedic". --Feedle 01:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Conscription; this is a major topic, as Wile E. said, but the current article focuses way too much on issues that will be moot for this article in three months and has no historical information, nor does it explain the motivations of the various political actors involved (Rangel's idea of reinstating the draft is for dramatically different reasons than a hypothetical Bush reinstatement plan). The conscription article, while not perfect, is far more mature. - RedWordSmith 17:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Conscription, I agree. Oh, I'll bet that a draft is coming again, too, but hyperventilating articles about current events are not encyclopedic, and shrill articles in general are POV. Geogre 18:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep until after the election, the proper main article is conscription but that is not succinct enough for the politicos, I fear if this is deleted, they will just try to create a stealth page with only one POV elsewhere. Keep this around so that they will realize they won't achive a single POV.--Silverback 19:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. We are not Wikigument. --Improv 20:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, this entire article exist for the purpose of POV. Kill it! -- Old Right 03:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd say merge or place under a better title and perform minor NPOV.  — siro  χ  o  04:05, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. not encyclopedic. Wolfman 04:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete! - I agree with Old Right and Wolfman. -- Crevaner 05:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article on Conscription has a country-by-country discussion of countries that currently have a draft.  It could add similar discussions of countries that don't now have it but have used it in the past.  The "United States" subheading there could mention that the invasion and occupation of Iraq led to some calls to re-institute conscription.  Therefore, merger makes sense.  Incidentally, Conscription needs major NPOV'ing.  It now states numerous opinions as fact: "The large militaries enabled by conscription are responsible for far more casualties than all the traditional weapons of mass destruction combined." and "The torture and attack upon civilian elements of the draft imply that no nation using conscription is justified under just war doctrine."  I've left a note on Talk:Conscription to begin the process. JamesMLane 06:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV prognostication.   — Gwalla | Talk 23:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is always someone talking about resuming the draft, often for social engineering purposes. Therefore non-notable. Gazpacho 03:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to conscription Lachatdelarue [[User talk:Lachatdelarue|(talk)]] 22:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
File:Bomber600.jpg

Summary
Source: http://www.rafmarham.co.uk Copyright holder: Royal Air Force Permission: British Crown Copyright.  Details: "Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source and copyright status must be acknowledged.

Licensing
NB:Due to prohibition on creating derivative images, the Crown Copyright license is considered non-free for the purposes of Wikipedia. As such, it is used here under Fair Use guidelines.

Fair use rationale for RAF Bomber Command

 * 1) No free-licensed or public domain images have been located that would serve as a suitable replacement for this image.
 * 2) Given the purpose this image is being used for in the article, it is unlikely that any such image will be located in the future (copyright for departmental logos and the Royal Arms are protected by Letters Patent and will never expire under the terms of the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988.)
 * 3) As a squadron logo, the image has little to no commercial value, and its reproduction here will not deleteriously affect profits for the copyright holder.
 * 4) The image is being used here for informational purposes only, and its use on the English-language Wikipedia is not predicted to affect the value of the image or that of its copyright in any way.

Fair use rationale for Adlertag

 * 1) No free-licensed or public domain images have been located that would serve as a suitable replacement for this image.
 * 2) Given the purpose this image is being used for in the article, it is unlikely that any such image will be located in the future (copyright for departmental logos and the Royal Arms are protected by Letters Patent and will never expire under the terms of the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988.)
 * 3) As a Command logo, no longer in use by the RAF, this image has little to no commercial value, and its reproduction here will not deleteriously affect profits for the copyright holder.
 * 4) The image is being used here for informational purposes only, and its use on the English-language Wikipedia is not predicted to affect the value of the image or that of its copyright in any way.

title: File:Bomber600.jpg


text: User talk:202.84.222.179

title: User talk:202.84.222.179


title: File:Coastal-cmd600.jpg


text:
Talk:Public diplomacy of Israel

POV II - Redirect Israeli propaganda
Israeli propaganda links here. If this is not POV, what else would it be?--Aschmidt (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Having a redirect doesn't mean that the concepts are the same. It means this is the article in which the topic is discussed.  This seems to be the most appropriate article for discussing Israel propaganda, so it links here. Zerotalk 12:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 * See WP:RNEUTRAL  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the point is, the term "isreal propaganda" is POV in itself, isn't it?--Aschmidt (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, redirects are allowed (to some degree) to be less neutral or POV. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC) This article is **incredibly** white washed. Which is not surprising. Hasbara is not "public relations" in a neutral sense, but a coordinated effort by Israel and its internet 'sayanim' to present an entirely skewed picture of what it does, and of course, to smear legitimate criticism as "anti-semitism" - even to the point of absurdity such that protesting Israeli war crimes or the racist statements of Israeli officials is itself "racist." Hasbara is more Ministry of Truth from 1984 than some sort of advertising campaign.

http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Hasbara_-_overview 50.136.53.238 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)rpt

Restored removal of longstanding source
In this edit, Brewcrewer removed a source that has been in the article for over two years:

... The term is used by the Israeli government and its supporters to describe efforts to explain government policies and promote Israel in the face of negative press, and to counter what they see as delegitimisation of Israel around the world. Hasbara means "explanation", and is also a euphemism for propaganda.

 * References

Brew gave the edit summary, "rm paritisn oped. not sure about the the other source". The source is not an op-ed, however; it's a news story written by a reporter under the auspices of The National's foreign desk. Further, every source that discusses this topic will inevitably include a significant measure of subjective opinion. That's just the nature of this topic; it's a "soft" or "subjective" one, not the same as if we were writing an article about an objective topic, like, say, rocks. I've restored the source. – OhioStandard  (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Btw, the preceding source notes, "They [volunteer bloggers] are expected to work in tandem with a team of undercover staff created in the foreign ministry last July whose job is to pose as ordinary surfers and post good news about Israel on websites." Attempting to conceal the true origin of a message is, as many dozens of academic sources aver, a hallmark technique of propaganda organisations. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda
Isn't "hasbara" basically = propaganda? --Autismal (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

CN tag to Ref
This seemed to be the simplist way to remove the cn tag, and replace it with a ref. It was originally added here, in content of considerable longevity. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Quote mining
Yes, israelnationalnews.com wrote "propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified.", but it also wrote:
 * Hasbara, which means "explanation" in Hebrew, is the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda.

Would I be allowed to use the same source for quoting "the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda"? --80.114.178.7 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If is is properly ref'd, neutrally stated, and flows with current content, yes; the ref has been accepted for a long time. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why a small newspaper, like http://www.israelnationalnews.com, is getting so much attention. On this topic, it is also biased: whithout the Zionist occupation of Palestine, it wouldn't even exist. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinkwashing (LGBT)
The entry for Pinkwashing (LGBT) contained far more material about "Brand Israel" than is appropriate for that WP entry. As I'm about to trim it to some nugget of relevant material, I'm placing the material I plan to edit down here, so that anyone who finds useful material can add it to this Public diplomacy (Israel) entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Brand Israel campaign

Sarah Schulman, a writer and professor at the City University of New York, describes pinkwashing as an indespendible part of the official government campaign, which she calls ""Brand Israel", to alter public perception of Israel as "militaristic and religious" and promote it instead as a "modern democracy", a "safe and secured place for investment", and a "tourist destination with the sun and the sand". She traces its origins to 2005.

2005: In October 2, the "Brand Israel" marketing was adopted by a group of senior officials in the Foreign Ministry, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Finance Ministry. It included a three-year consultation with American marketing executives and aimed at upgrading Israel from a "well-known brand" to a "likable brand" in the United States by selecting appealing images of Israeli society and highlighting the symbols that represent "progressiveness" and "modernness". The Brand Israel Group (BIG) Several conducted studies to establish international and domestic perceptions of Israel.

2007: The Israeli Foreign Ministry organizes a "Brand Israel" Conference in Tel Aviv to launch the campaign with a 4 million dollar budget. Another 3 million in annual spending on public relations efforts. This year also witnessed the first wave of a niche marketing strategy, which targeted the heterosexual population. Specifically, a photo-shooting project was initiated by the Consulate General of Israel, featuring Israeli female veterans in swimsuits. This project was featured in Maxim Magazine, the largest young man life-style magazine in America with a monthly readership of over nine million, under the title of "Women of the Israeli Defense Forces". It was reported by the Electronic Intifada in 2007, the global advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi started to work for the Israel in improving its image without charge.

2008: Israeli started to commission its artists in promoting the liberal and progressive image of Israel. PACBI published a sample contract between Israeli artists and the government, which reveals that the artist is paid with transportation and accommodation expenses to attend international events on the condition that their works need to “promote the policy interests of the state of Israel via culture and art including contributing to creating a positive image for Israel.” However, the contract specifically indicated the artist is forbidden to "present himself as an agent, emissary and/or representative of the Ministry." The general theme of those movies is to portray the victimhood of Palestinian gay community and the needs of saving Palestinian gay people from their homophobic society.

2009: The International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association announced an October Conference in Tel Aviv with the goal of promoting Israel as a "world gay destination." Halem, a Lebanese LGBTQ organization, responded with a call for a boycott. The symposium took place despite of opposition. In its newsletter, the Travel Association acknowledged and dismissed the protest, specifying the goal of this event is to support LGBT business around the world, not to focus on Israeli occupation of Gaza. In May 5, the Foreign Ministry of Israel announced to send an Israeli delegation to the 2009 World Outgames in Copenhagen and to sponsor part of the event.

2010: Statistics showed that, by 2010, the Foreign Ministry of Israel had allocated over 26 million dollars toward the "Brand Israel" campaign. In April, Brand Israel launched Israeli Pride Month in San Francisco, an event funded by Israeli government. Later in July, the Ministry of Tourism and Agudah, the largest Israeli LGBT organization joined together in launching "Tel Aviv Gay Vibe." Run in England and Germany, this online tourist campaign aimed to promote Tel Aviv as a tourist destination for European LGBT community. The campaign included advertisement on gay community websites, magazines and gay social mobile applications. A slogan was featured on Gay Tel Aviv, the official website for this campaign, indicating Tel Aviv as on of the "most intriguing and exciting new gay capitals of the world." An investment of NIS 340 million (about $88.1 million) was made jointly by the Ministry of Tourism and the Tel Aviv Municipality.

2011: The Tel Aviv Tourist Association filed a formal request with the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association to host World Pride in 2012. In July, The Anti-Defamation League hosted StandWithUS, with Yossi Herzog speaking on gay rights in Israel and gay presence in the Israeli Defense Force. In August, the Jerusalem Post reported the Foreign Ministry is promoting Gay Israel as part of its campaigns to break apart negative stereotypes many liberal Americans and Europeans have of Israel.

2012: In May, the 20th Annual Equality Forum was held in Philadelphia, which featured Israel as the country of the year and invited Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren as the keynote speaker. In the official page of the event, Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Israeli Ministry of Tourism were listed as the collaborators and the sponsors. Later this year, Tel Aviv's 14th annual Gay Pride Parade was held on June 8, 2012, following an event that marked the conclusion of the week-long carnival in Israel's largest city. On the event, the U.S. ambassador addressed the crowd in Hebrew, saying that "this is a day to celebrate and rejoice. Human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights." Following this event, the website Gaycities published a survey conducted by American Airlines, naming Tel Aviv as the world’s "Best Gay City of 2011".

2013: In August, Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai endorsed a project of erecting a monument for gays and lesbians persecuted by the Nazis during World War II. The project was proposed by attorney Eran Lev, who explained the project as "the first and only memorial site in Israel to mention the victims of the Nazis who were persecuted for anything other than being Jewish." He further indicated the purpose of the monument as "a place of quiet that will invite visitors to sit, contemplate, reflect and be in solitude." Existing monuments honoring gay Holocaust victims can be found in San Francisco, Amsterdam and Berlin, which also famous for its gay community presence.

Criticism of Israel

Scholars from various disciplines in many different countries have criticized Israel's pinkwashing as a form of colonialist propaganda. Jasbir Puar, an associate professor of Women's & Gender Studies at Rutgers University, pointed out that pinkwashing by Israel attempts to diverting attention from Israel's role as a colonial power with a distracting and exaggerated comparison between gay rights in Israel and in Occupied Palestine. Others describe it as an instance of classic Orientalist ideology, in which Arab society, specifically Palestine, is portrayed as "backward and stagnant" due to its percieved "barbaric, tribal, uncivilized and Islamic" nature, in contrast to the Jewish State of Israel.

Joseph Massad, associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, contends that these practices are the continuation of colonial power in legitimatizing their occupation by blaming the natives for their moral lacking. And the reason for Israeli government and its propaganda organs to "insist on advertising and exaggerating its recent record on LGBT rights", according to him, "is to fend off international condemnation of its violations of the rights of the Palestinian people."

Some Israeli activists argue that the Israeli state is hypocritical in portraying itself as a gay-friendly society. In an interview with Haaretz, Palestinian Israeli activist Haneen Maikey indicated that the LGBT community does not have real rights behind the seemingly tolerant image portrayed internationally. Haaretz also published a poll showing that 46 percent of Israelis surveyed population see homosexuality as a perversion. Sarah Schulman pointed to a considerable number of people and movements in Arab/Muslim countries who are or sympathize with LGBTQ people and that the non-Muslim world harbors much anti-LGBT intolerance centered in religious fundamentalist groups, especially in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism.

Keegan O'Brien writes: "Nothing illustrates the highly selective and hypocritical nature of Israel's supposedly "progressive" character more clearly than the experiences of LGBT Palestinians. As the Palestinian LGBT organization Al Qaws has pointed out, there is no special pink route for LGBT Palestinians to get them around the daily humiliation of checkpoints throughout the West Bank. And being LGBT most certainly does not grant protection to Palestinians when the Israeli Defense Forces decide to rain down missiles on their homes, schools, and hospitals in Gaza as it has been doing."

Responses

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor and a frequent defender of Israel, has said that this term is used against Israel by "some radical gay activists" who are antisemitic "bigots." He called the use of the term pinkwashing in this context as "nothing more than anti-Semitism with a pink face." In an opinion piece in the New York Post, he examined Israel’s record of recognizing and protecting the rights of its gay population in contrast with the treatment of the LGBTQ community in the West Bank and in Gaza, arguing that the state practice of promoting the gay-friendly image and social progressiveness is not whitewashing. In 2012, after the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the City University of New York announced a conference on Homonationalism and Pinkwashing, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a trustee of CUNY, called the event "disgusting". He said that adopting the term "pinkwashing" to describe the state practices of Israel is "a continuation of idiocy by people, leftists, anti-Semites, and Islamists to demonize Israel."

Shaul Ganon of the Israeli based gay rights group, Aguda, says: Each side is trying to gain some points. The truth is the only one who gets screwed by this is the Palestinian gays.

Yair Qedar, an Israeli filmmaker, says: Rather than openly opposing international anti-Israel LGBT groups, the gay community in Israel has essentially ignored the pink-washing issue... This is a real shame because LGBT rights are something Israelis should be proud of — for ourselves, our neighbors and all peace-seeking people.

Apologetics
Given how the word is used, wouldn't a more appropriate translation be "apologetics"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DsouzaSohan (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Hasbara Fellowship's external link and subsequent revert
Yesterday, and in light of the previous edit, I removed the HF link in External links with the comment “thanks for prev revert, but I do believe this non-public recruiting tool should indeed be removed.” The 'non-public' may have been a slow-connection impulse, since only the headers and a request for my email came up quickly. I still believe the 'recruiting tool should indeed be removed'; I additionally consider that edit summary a reasonable explanation already given for the edit.

HF is currently mentioned 5 times in the article. It is linked to its article on its formation; unlinked in its anti-Wikipedia campaign; article-linked again in See also; noted as a ref; and lastly linked differently to its official site in External links. That seemed to me overly weighted to the point of direct advocacy thereof, by Wikipedia, through its editors.

After checking WP:EL today, my immediate response to a sysop's subsequent revert is this one, and I'll note alternatively that the header and points 1 and 2 seem also to apply. This page is not that article's page; that page is an outgrowth of this page, and it adds little other than a sign-up sheet and a request for donations of time and money for only the pro side. Additional comments appreciated. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

MediaMonitors.net
An opinion by Edward Said is sourced from this website, but it seems to be one of those bizarre sites that has meaningless content but hopes to get search engine traffic to display ads. See this, for example. Can the quote can be sourced elsewhere (also it needs to have quote marks if it's a quote)? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

, so you are saying that "Propaganda by Israel" is a more appropriate category? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think that would be npov, as we would be endorsing criticism in our own voice, however that would rectify the factually incorrect in.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the parent, dozens of categories and articles in there. Don't see why the Israeli cat would be a NPOV violation. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the category as POV-ish either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Propaganda in Israel" is clearly an incorrect category because these are efforts to influence public opinion outside of Israel. "Propaganda by Israel" would be more appropriate, but there don't appear to be any other such categories and I recommend against making Israel your test case at WP:CFD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But doesn't this propaganda originate in Israel and is then disseminated to the outside world? It would be still "Israeli-origin" propaganda, i.e. "in Israel"... K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This actually does not, for the most part, originate in Israel - but by Israeli diplomats and affiliates abroad. Grammar aside, referring to Israeli public relations, as propaganda in Wikipedia's own voice (as opposed to a claim raised by critics), is a gross NPOV violation.Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: "Israeli diplomats and affiliates abroad" -- they are presumably gov employees (at least the diplomats). It's Propaganda originating in Israel, so the cat seems applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The NPOV problems here are deeper than the in/by discussion, however, public diplomacy or "hasbara" is for the most part not conducted in Israel as Israelis are well aware of the challenged they face, and have little need for explanation. Where or how this material is assembled is immaterial to dissemination.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tried to look for a parallel situation, and here's an example: Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union is covered as part of the main article (in the Soviet Union). One of the linked article, Active measures talks about influence operations directed outside of the Soviet Union, and is categorised as Category:Propaganda in the Soviet Union.
 * But what is the deeper issue that you see with the category? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The word propaganda appears many times in the article backed by sources and is even mentioned in the lede. I agree with K.e.coffman that the propaganda originates in Israel even though the intended audience is outside. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You would need, in my mind, mainline RSes agreeing this is propaganda - and not just have polemic sides saying this is so and mainline sources mentioning critics saying it is so. There is generally a consensus that the totalitarian Soviet regime engaged in propaganda, such consensus does not extend to all other countries.Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which the article already has. I restored the article given that (1) is already there, and (2) Lack of a better category for propaganda done by Israel. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda
The description "Hasbara means "explanation", and is also a euphemism for propaganda." is, ironically, ipso facto propaganda. Why are the articles on Public diplomacy of the United States, Public diplomacy of South Korea, etc. not described as "a euphemism for propaganda" as well? I also can't help but notice that all the sources for this claim are opinion pieces that don't quality for WP:RS. VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 * From Public relations, "In international relations, public diplomacy or people's diplomacy, broadly speaking, is the communication with and dissemination of propaganda to the general public of foreign nations to establish a dialogue designed to inform and influence." Propaganda is not in itself a negative word. It derives from words such as propagation, which simply means to spread something. Sewing seeds, for example, is commonly referred to as propagating.

 * Now I don't feel polite following you around, . I want you to go to Wikiproject Israel, and bring all of these suggestions to them, because you seem to have a lot of good faith to contribute, but you are just going around testing and people are only going to start fights with you. You are just beginning Wikipedia it seems, with a deep interest in Israeli politics, so that Israel project is going to link to things that interest you, as well as people who will support and guide you as a beginner. Best of luck now, o/ ~ R.T.G 19:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll take a look at the Wikiproject. (Though regarding this specific article, I still think the "propaganda" description is POV and insinuates something very negative.) VwM.Mwv (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Make it your business to fix it and make it perfect, but you can't war it in. The largest parts of Wikipedia outside articles and commentary, are the rules of interaction, and the manual of style. We are expected to aim for a certain method on the articles. I am sure you have something to contribute WPP:Israel. Go over the article and compare it to Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. Try to get it how you like it, but strictly to the guides on NPOV and sources in particular. Don't be afraid to wait until you've a couple of hours and read the article one section at a time, opening all the sources and searching for more while you read, and that's how articles develop really best. o/ ~ R.T.G 00:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Be careful, VwM, at the top of this talk page is a banner which states this is a controversial topic which has been restricted at the highest level on Wikipedia because of disputes. You cannot revert more than once per day on this article. ~ R.T.G 00:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictures
The pictures seems to me like WP:OR.We need WP:RS that ties them to Hasbara. I will remove them if WP:ONUS is not met --Shrike (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hasbara is what the IDF Spokesperson's Unit does. That's their job. This is a fine example of WP:BLUE. Zerotalk 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Its you own WP:OR that is an example of Hasbara we need source that ties this picture together --Shrike (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw I invite you to read the comment by Sean Talk:Public_diplomacy_of_Israel on this page --Shrike (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If these two images are not hasbara, there is no hasbara. It's pure BLUE. But I have too many other problems at the moment to care very much. Zerotalk 02:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no, pictures do not reliable sources, and if they had reliable sources we likely could not use the pictures as they wouldnt be free at that point. See Manual_of_Style/Images: Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. I am removing the tags.  nableezy  - 15:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Name-change?
This article was moved from Hasbara to present name back in 2009, after very little discussion, with the arguments given here.

Note the quote from User:Nagle in 2009: "There was an official effort from the Israeli Foreign Ministry back in 2005 to substitute the phrase "public diplomacy" for "hasbara"[20]. So even the Foreign Ministry moved away from using the term "hasbara"".

I would say the move from "hasbara" to "public diplomacy" is in itself a hasbara move...

And in the years since, "Hasbara" has become far more common, (I came here because a recent article about Amin al-Husseini use the word).

Also, the present name does not convey the correct impression, IMO: Hasbara is not only "diplomacy", it is (far) more "public relations" (some would say "propaganda"), Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Here is another article from just this week:

"To achieve this, the organization recruits pro-Israeli activists and organizations for 'Hasbara' purposes ('Hasbara' means roughly 'explaining' in Hebrew, and is a general term used for Israel's public diplomacy efforts aimed at the international community in defence of its actions)."

I don't think we should use the Hebrew name for a title but it is I think fine for a bolded altname. Public diplomacy in the given context essentially means lobbying or what we would call POV pushing.09:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Hmm, User:Selfstudier; I am not sure I agree with you. BTW, the Israeli Foreign Ministry has (at least) since 2005 tried to change "hasbara" into "Public diplomacy" Should we follow the Israeli Foreign Ministry?

 * But if you see the article Public diplomacy; it is all about open informations. Nothing about covert operations, and that is what is typical for Hasbara/"Public diplomacy of Israel".

 * If you look at that recent Haaretz article you linked to; it continues:
 * "In its previous format, the organization was allocated 250 million shekels to fund covert pro-Israeli propaganda and “consciousness shaping” activities on social networks. Like with the current decision, half the budget, 128 million shekels, was meant to come from the government and the other half from donations. However, due to low contribution, likely caused by reluctant donors hesitant to identify themselves with covert propaganda operations". (My bolding)

 * The word to note is "covert". "Covert" has nothing to do with "Public diplomacy"; quite the opposite.
 * I agree that we should (mainly) stick to english words on en.wp, but sometimes there simply isn't any English word which cover the original concept; take Sumud; what english word could that accurately be translated to? AFAIK; none. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 * But hasbara need not be covert and the page topic would be changed if only covert hasbara was included. I'm finding it hard to decide on this one. I have a natural antipathy towards foreign-language article titles, unless the word is quite well known to English speakers. For example Mossad is lovely, Irgun is unavoidable, Aliyah is borderline, and Olei Hagardom is unacceptable. I'm not sure where "hasbara" fits into this scale. Maybe around the 'aliyah' point? Zerotalk 03:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is Jewish lobby, hmm, yes and no. Atm there are Israel lobby articles only for UK and US, maybe this should be the parent article of those named Israel lobby (links to dab page) rather than the current euphemism? Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No enthusiasm for that suggestion? It seems logical to me given the article content (the Israel lobby in the United States is linked out as a main and the UK lobby should be as well. Then we can rename this to be the parent of those two (and any others that might get set up, like Israel lobby in the Gulf or whatever). Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Hasbara" no direct translation?
The article says that hasbara has "no direct English translation," but it does - it's just the gerund of 'explain' in Hebrew. The propagandistic connotations are just a result of Sokolow and later others using the term to describe propaganda efforts (i.e. "explaining one's side").

Preferably this bit could be updated? Add that it's a verbal noun of explain (maybe cite a Hebrew-English dictionary) and remove the bit about it "roughly meaning" 'explaining'. As it stands it gives the impression that hasbara is a word barely glossed by English 'explaining' rather than what it is, a word fully glossed by it with a note in the margins. Kyoto Grand (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Change "Palestine Media Watch" to "Palestinian Media Watch"
The article erroneously refered to the organization that has nothing to do with pro-Israel media operations. "Palestinian Media Watch" is the actual organization that is related.Lags331 (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Done. Have changed the link in the diaspora advocacy section to Palestinian Media Watch. Andykatib (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Chapter or separate article about Right-wing pro-Israel lobby on Russian Wikipedia
I suggest adding information about the right-wing pro-Israel lobby on Russian Wikipedia. More information about it can be found in the first link here (please use translator to read it).You can verify the results of this lobby yourself by translating stable versions of Russian Wikipedia articles about Israel or Palestine and comparing them with the pages on English Wikipedia. The lobby actively uses the ban on dissenters and has active representatives in the administration of Russian Wikipedia. Some members of Russian Wikipedia use user-boxes, such as "This participant considers Russian Wikipedia to be strongly non-neutral on the pro-Israeli side" to express their disagreement with the situation (examples can be found here, here, and here). Account20 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Public diplomacy of Israel