text:
John Black and Marlena Evans

John Black and Marlena Evans are fictional characters and a supercouple from the American daytime drama Days of Our Lives. John is portrayed by Drake Hogestyn and Marlena is portrayed by Deidre Hall. In magazines and in advertising, as well as on Internet message boards, the couple is often referred to by the portmanteau "Jarlena" (for John and Marlena) or "Jolena" (for John and Marlena).

Storylines
John and Marlena became a supercouple in 1986 on the American soap opera Days of our Lives. Drake Hogestyn (John Black) joined the show that year and his chemistry with Deidre Hall (Marlena Evans) was undeniable. At the time, Hogestyn's character was an amnesiac named John Black. However, information (later revealed to be false) suggested that he was really Roman Brady, Marlena's husband who was presumed dead, with extensive plastic surgery to explain the difference in appearance between the old Roman and John Black. John (as Roman) and Marlena were then married until she "died" in a plane crash in 1987. The pair's romance in the 1980s was short-lived, but it left an indelible mark on Days of Our Lives fans and the soap opera world.

In 1991, Hall returned to Days of our Lives, and returned to her role as Dr. Marlena Evans. It was revealed that Marlena's supposed death in the plane crash was not true and Marlena had spent the previous four years in a coma. Soon afterwards, Wayne Northrop, the original portrayer of Roman, also returned to the show. In a stunning turn of events, Drake Hogestyn remained on the show, and the story was retconned; his character was revealed to be an impostor programmed with the memories of the real Roman Brady. As a result, the fake Roman reverted to the name John Black. John still ended up becoming friends with Roman, and remained a part of his and Marlena's lives. Marlena and Roman reunited, while John married Isabella Toscano. Isabella died shortly after, and Marlena consoled a grief-stricken John. John saved Marlena when she was kidnapped by Stella Lombard, and left for dead in a demolished warehouse. Their feelings for each other started to resurface after this. John was afraid of hurting Marlena and Roman, and decided to leave town to avoid acting on his feelings. Marlena boarded his private jet, though, and the two gave into their feelings, sharing a night of passion. The two embarked on a passionate and torrid affair, which was discovered by Marlena and Roman's daughter, Sami Brady.

Marlena later found out she was pregnant, and John asked for a blood test to determine the paternity, which said he was not the father. When Marlena went into labor, John delivered her baby girl, Belle. When Belle was kidnapped, John rescued her from Sami, who tried to sell her on the black market. At Belle's christening, Roman found out about John and Marlena's affair, and was furious. Marlena found out that Sami had switched Belle's paternity test, and John was actually Belle's father. Marlena moved out with Belle, and she and Roman divorced. John provided Marlena and Belle a place to stay while she was working out the divorce. Though their feelings were strong, John and Marlena were too guilt-ridden by their past mistakes to think about starting a relationship.

When Marlena was possessed, John helped perform an exorcism when he was led to believe he was a priest. He was successful, and Marlena was saved. He left the priesthood, and started a relationship with Kristen Blake, the adopted daughter of John and Marlena's worst enemy, Stefano DiMera. However, the pull between Marlena and John remained there. Kristen eventually became insecure, and hatched scheme after scheme to keep Marlena and John apart. John found out, and eventually broke up with her, and reunited with Marlena. Though the two were together, circumstances out of their control separated them again. Their love prevailed, though, and John and Marlena wed on July 5, 1999.

The couple faced many obstacles in their married life that included a brainwashed Hope Brady seducing John and becoming pregnant, though the child was later proven not to be John's, the feud between John's son, Brady and Marlena (later resolved), Marlena being brainwashed into believing she was a serial killer, and Marlena becoming pregnant with Roman's child, and later miscarrying the baby; Marlena develops amnesia, as a result.

In 2005, amnesia specialist Alex North came to town, later revealing himself to be Marlena's real husband from college. Marlena became torn between Alex and John and, due to John's raging jealousy and Alex's manipulations, especially his drugs, Marlena chose Alex. However, John did not give up on his love and did everything to try to win her back. However, even when it seemed that he was making headway, his drugs and manipulations enabled Alex to keep winning. The struggle continued to Morgan Island during Alex and Marlena's honeymoon in May 2006, after they had renewed their vows. During a fight on Morgan Island, Alex died.

Newly clearheaded, Marlena realized that Alex had been abusive during their marriage. She decided that she needed a little time to get back on her feet. Without any hard feelings, and with their love as strong as ever, Marlena chose to separate from John for a while, and she took a job in New Jersey. When it was discovered that Marlena was missing, however, John began to search for his love. With the help of Abe Carver, John rescued Marlena from a trunk in which she'd been held captive, in early October 2006. The couple's next obstacle, in December 2006, was fighting against Stefano DiMera's son EJ DiMera, who was sent by Stefano to kill John.

John and Marlena married for the third time (their first legal marriage) on December 5, 2006. However, none of the couple's children ( Eric, Sami, Brady or Belle) could attend. After being presumably shot by EJ, John fell into a coma. Marlena remained by his side, praying that he would wake up; he did wake up in May 2007. Also, John discovered that he was the son of Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera, thus making him the half-brother of his worst enemy Stefano DiMera. On October 17, John was a victim of a hit and run case, with the culprit remaining a mystery. John was taken into emergency, but apparently died peacefully in the arms of Marlena, his greatest love of all time. It was later discovered that his death was faked by Stefano.

Once again, John came back to Salem as Stefano's pawn and had no memory of his love for Marlena or his family (January 2008).

The couple endured a divorce due to John's inability to regain his memory and decision to live a life below Marlena's moral standards. When John regained his memory after a traumatic incident that left him temporarily (at least) paralyzed, John and Marlena reunited and were remarried before leaving the show on January 23, 2009.

John and Marlena (Drake and Deidre) returned to Days of our Lives on September 26, 2011 to celebrate the re-opening of the Horton Town Square. However, shortly after their arrival, John was arrested on embezzlement and corporate fraud charges. At first, John believed he was innocent but due to strong memory flashes, he quickly second guessed himself unaware that Stefano's son EJ has framed him for the crimes. When a rogue ex-cop fires shots into the Brady Pub where John, Marlena, Roman, Bo, Hope, Sami, Rafe, Caroline, and the kids are all present and when Johnny goes missing, John decides to plead guilty. On November 23, 2011, John is sentenced to 50 years in prison without the possibility of parole, equivalent to a life sentence. On December 23, 2011, Carrie and Rafe managed to find the evidence that would clear John's name. He was released and John and Marlena were reunited.

Reception and impact
In December 2008, Days of our Lives announced Deidre Hall (Marlena) and Drake Hogestyn (John) were departing from the series. Soap Opera Digest reported that the news "not only rocked the daytime world, it made headline in the mainstream press." In the week of their departure, the magazine published a collector's edition issue which featured the Hogestyn and Hall on the cover. Inside, the fan responses were printed as well as the story of the actors' dismissal and a time line of the fictional pairing's storylines. Fans of John and Marlena purchased a full-page ad in this issue thanking Hogestyn and Hall for twenty years of portraying the pairing as a couple.

Awards
Deidre Hall and Drake Hogestyn were nominated for a Soap Opera Digest award for "Hottest Romance" in 1998 and won a Soap Opera Digest award for "Favorite Couple" in 2005 for their portrayal of Marlena and John.

title: John Black and Marlena Evans


text:
User:Sgeo/awawawaw

Test

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

title: User:Sgeo/awawawaw


text:
User talk:RoyBoy

What the heck is this gonna do? RoyBoy 05:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trust, but verify
Trust, but verify is old (but still solid) advice. Just a light-hearted link to a quirky little article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks again, wow that was messed up. Did we just post to each other's talk pages in the same minute about different things? Freaky. - RoyBoy 18:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Looks like it. Certainly I got your notice by saving this page and got a laugh when I saw who was pinging me. Happy editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Abortion: "Art, literature and film"
Since going back in the history files I see that you were the one who created this section of the abortion article, I thought I'd make sure that you know (what you probably already know) that it was recently removed from the article. There was a discussion about it on the article's Talk page at "Anne Sexton/Don't be buffaloed." KatieHepPal (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abortion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Abortion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlanZhu314159265358979 -- AlanZhu314159265358979 (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Saipan Colonial Period Names
Dear RoyBoy, please consider:

The period when Saipan was controlled by the Spanish is called the Spanish colonial period. The period when Saipan was controlled by the Germans is called the German colonial period. The period when Saipan was controlled by the Japanese is called the Japanese colonial period.

but...

The period when Saipan was controlled by the US is NOT called the US colonial period.

Is uniformity of descriptions not a goal of Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia aiming at truth, or simply a mouthpiece for the colonial masters?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.155.205.54 (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * You may have a point, but you made it very poorly by making a header in Saipan very long and argumentative. A heading in an encyclopedia shouldn't contain a question. Do you have any sources that call it "US colonialism", is there evidence that this was done against the will of the population? - RoyBoy 00:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roy, I do have a point, and it's blindingly obvious! I tried to just change it so it was in line with the convention for the previous three periods, simply saying "US Colonial Period" but it got changed back, as for some reason the naming conventions magically changed the moment the first US boots hit the shores of Saipan. I would say unless you have a document showing that the people of Saipan invited the US in, then it's a colony regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.155.205.54 (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * As a US "commonwealth" it's defined as "self-governing under a constitution of its adoption and whose right of self-government will not be unilaterally withdrawn by Congress". If it isn't a colony, then calling it colonialism sounds inaccurate and inflammatory. You need reliable sources to support a minority view, not an informal fallacy trying to shift the burden of evidence. - RoyBoy 01:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Abortion
The article Abortion you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Abortion for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlanZhu314159265358979 -- AlanZhu314159265358979 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Self Decay

The article Self Decay has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable local band.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 22:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Marine Science

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Marine Science. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Marine science. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Marine science – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.   Mr RD    19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ChemicalGalaxy Stewart 2004.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ChemicalGalaxy Stewart 2004.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ST-TNG The Inner Light.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ST-TNG The Inner Light.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GroceryGatewayLogo.GIF
 Thanks for uploading File:GroceryGatewayLogo.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Today's featured article/July 13, 2017
Blade Runner has been scheduled for the above date as today's featured article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the text that will appear on the Main Page; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for heads up, brought blurb down to 1512. Will be hard to tighten without removing items, but without Rental and Remaster memes; gets it to 1327. - RoyBoy 03:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Getting the wikibug back :), down to 1415. - RoyBoy 03:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Careful, it's a hard bug to shake once you get it! - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Heh, damnnn straight. Can I aim for 1200 chars or under? - RoyBoy 21:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Down to 1257, removed Hollywood meme. - RoyBoy 22:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At first glance Blade_Runner still looks sexy as hell, but if I engage my rusty Admin mode; would I be correct in thinking a good chunk of Blade_Runner can be summarised, with existing content moved/merged to Blade_Runner_2049? - RoyBoy 22:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great plan. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks much! - RoyBoy 14:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1684 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Replied on "ABC hypothesis" TALK page
Identifying reliable sources (medicine) specifically says: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content." That is a direct quotation which you can easily verify. Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chemical Galaxy

A tag has been placed on Chemical Galaxy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"Unremarkable book - author's article was just deleted for lack of notability."

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Edward321 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chemical Galaxy

The article Chemical Galaxy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Non-notable book. The article on the author has already been deleted due to lack of notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chemical Galaxy II.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chemical Galaxy II.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ChemicalGalaxy Longman 1951.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ChemicalGalaxy Longman 1951.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Smartcar (company) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Smartcar (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Smartcar (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

RFC Request
Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Black Coffee (DVD).png
Thanks for uploading File:Black Coffee (DVD).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anderson Water Systems

The article Anderson Water Systems has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Article is written like the 'about us' on a company website. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. An IP added a claim that the company is now SUEZ Water Technologies & Solutions, but I can't find RS to back that up; SUEZ Water Technologies & Solutions doesn't mention Anderson on its own site. I would BLAR to Degrémont, which I can verify it became part of; but it's not discussed in any depth there."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux  Talk 00:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Thx for your ongoing work. Wow, 1 year & 1 month since my last edit... never thought that would happen when I first joined. Best of luck to u and the imperfect project. - RoyBoy 17:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Monsanto
You made a redirect, Controlling our food, about 15 years ago, and it now points to a section that no longer exists. Do you want to take a look at it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks, updated to less specific destination. You sound familiar... wow its been a while! Scanning user page; we match on Tobacco smoke and DST: my concern mental health. Windows, interesting stance, my guess more flexible, collaborative and distracting. Similar to why Android leads mobile, pricing is a factor but perhaps that dovetails into centralized vs decentralized control. I watch too much TV, while it would be more productive to redirect that time back to Wikipedia... alas the work fades into mediocrity. RoyBoy 17:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I find that it's still fun to add content, especially if I see some obscure detail in the news and wonder whether Wikipedia has an article on it yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"Reearthing" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reearthing&redirect=no Reearthing] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  07:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:RoyBoy


text:
Talk:No independence before majority rule

Error in article
The article is not consistent. Which is it: "No Independence Before Majority African Rule" or "No Independence Before MAjority Rule". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.223.4 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Majority African Rule", because that makes way more sense. It's incidental in this case though, because the whites were a tiny minority anyway. --Jammoe (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be "No Independence Before MAjority Rule". I am not aware of any sources that use "African". It does not "make way more sense", as it introduces an unintended racial aspect. The principle was "majority rule", i.e. the rule by a government chosen by the majority in an election with universal franchise. Theoretically, the majority could have voted for white people. The principle was therefore not rule by Africans but rule by people chosen by the majority. Regnirts (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It was "No independence before majority rule" at the time (see ) and still is for those close to the events (see  ).  So I have moved the article--Rumping (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

POV warning.
Yes, yes, yes, but there is a definite point of view here, barely hidden. The qualified franchise was designed to maintain minority rule. It lacked the honesty of the (otherwise despicable) SA apartheid policy. And so I have removed reference to it here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Date?
The article gives no date for this policy. Without a date, it makes no sense, as clearly South Africa became independent without majority rule. Could someone knowledgeable please add the date and perhaps a list of countries or territories the policy affected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.196.224 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 * It only affected Rhodesia, and was used as a phrase in the late 1960s 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:E9F3:8518:79E8:CEAF (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing information
Dates should be included, as well as the reason why this rule wasn't applied to South Africa. ZFT (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Ahmed Zaoui

Untitled
Last night I attended the launch, in the "Beehive", of a book about him (promoted by members of two parties in Parliament) and was persuaded to buy a copy. Seems fairly factual despite a spelling error in the first sentence. It quotes most of the decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority that gave him official refugee status in August 2003.

I have easy access to every issued New Zealand Court decision about him (in case anyone's interested); currently (ie this morning and probably much of the afternoon) I'm doing things to an "rtf" version of the 30 September 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand (which I noted on the September 2004 page). Robin Patterson 21:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Picture wanted
Does anyone have a public domain or suitably licensed picture of Zaoui, with which we could illustrate the article? Drop me a note on my talk page if you have a picture but don't understand the process of uploading it to Wikipedia and linking it into the article.

Good job by the anon who included the Supreme Court decision in the article so quickly, by the way.-gadfium (talk) 04:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV and factual errors
Wow, this article REALLY needs a cleanup on both counts. As it stands, it might have well been written by Zaoui's lawyers. Just a few examples:

 * "Algeria sentenced him to death in absentia." -no cite, this was Zaoui's claim when in fact, the LEADERS of the FIS are alive in Algeria
 * I've added a cite. Note that the Algerian referendum of September 2005 may have changed matters.
 * Comment - the current situation does not change the fact he was sentenced to death in Algeria. No one's disputing that.
 * As the article stated. The current situation however, offers an amnesty. Armon
 * The amnesty does not offer any protection from the ongoing torture of disappearances of FIS members, information which you keep removing. Tell me to get back to work! 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "a military coup d'etat occurred in Algeria, with French complicity" -no cite, conspiracy theory
 * The best source I could find was a book in French (which I don't read). This isn't important to the Zaoui article, so I've removed it
 * The claim has been made by a number of parties (see here for one such example), but it is contentious, and I don't think it has a place in the article. Tell me to get back to work! 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, which will not reveal its reasons" -they have
 * Good point, although they didn't reveal their reasons for quite some time
 * Comment - they've released a summary of allegations, and have not released any of the classified information. The only person outside the SIS who will see all the information is the Inspector General
 * Which also means the RSAA didn't have all the facts. Armon
 * You've contradicted yourself - either the SIS has revealed its reasons, or they haven't. As for the SIS, see below. Tell me to get back to work! 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "He went to Europe, where he lobbied for a peaceful solution for Algeria. European governments were unsympathetic." -because the armed wing of his party terrorised Algeria
 * There is considerable doubt that Zaoui was associated with that armed wing.
 * Comment - the GIA is not generally considered the armed wing of the FIS.
 * No but the GIA splintered out of the FIS after the election. The FIS' armed wing (and it does have an 'official' one) is the Islamic Salvation Army.Armon
 * "Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks, France convicted him in absentia for "associating with terrorists"" -implies 9/11 had something to do with his conviction when his case was already before the courts
 * Fair enough, I've removed it.
 * "Following a declaration by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in August 2003 that he was a genuine asylum seeker," -states that's what they found while ignoring the controversy surrounding the RSAA's declaring "unsafe" his convictions in democratic western countries.
 * The decision by RSAA was a 215 page document. If we want to say more than those three words, then maybe we should quote their conclusion in full, which is:
 * "The appellant has a well-founded fear of being prosecuted for a Convention reason if returned to Algeria."
 * "The Authority finds that the appellant is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention. Refugee status is granted. The appeal is allowed."
 * I think the three words sums that up adequately. I've linked to a PDF copy of the document.
 * Comment - the RSAA does not exclude convictions from comparable countries lightly. The reasons are too long to reproduce in full here, but can be found in para's 867 and 868. That said, the protest from these countries about the affront to their courts certainly deserves its place here. Tell me to get back to work! 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This section needs to be fleshed out in any case. Outside of Zaoui's supporters, the RSAA's decision is astonishing. We also need to add in the French and Belgian reactions. The cites are already in the references. Armon
 * Armon, if you haven't already, I would really recommend that you read the RSAA's decision before you disparage it. There's a link on this page... It comes to over 270 pages and is extremely well referenced, and its decision is considered and measured. Your characterisation of the decision as 'astonshing' speaks for itself. The RSAA acknowledges that the SIS would not give it the classified evidence it claims to hold (the SIS is still soliciting for evidence to use against Zaoui), but was highly critical of the very poor standard of unclassified evidence offered against Mr Zaoui. I don't actually hold an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Zaoui, but I _am_ highly critical of the process so far, because of the violations of fair trial principles.

 * a general lack of any skepticism or links critical of Zaoui and his supporters' claims
 * Please add some. I went look for them. The best I found were a number of sections of David Farrar's blog (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz), but they're scattered over several years worth of moderately prolific blogging. He gave a couple of links he thought summed up the case rather well:, but on examining the links, one comes from the Green Party, and the other is from a blog called NoRightTurn, so I didn't think those links would satisfy you.
 * Comment - one thing to be careful of is lumping all those concerned for the welfare of Mr Zaoui into one group. While groups like Amnesty International have serious concerns about the nature of the process, and human rights abuses, they don't assert his innocence or guilt of criminal acts.
 * See Amnesty_international. When I was a member, AI only supported non-violent prisoners of conscience. If they've slipped into advocating on behalf of people who may be guilty of violence themselves, the criticisms are warranted, and central to a case of a possible terrorist being granted refugee status in NZ. Armon
 * Did you even read what I wrote? Let me state it again in clear and simple language. Amnesty explicitly does not consider Zaoui a prisoner of conscience, and takes no position on whether he has engaged in violent or terrorist activity. Amnesty's sole concern is for the rights of Mr Zaoui. Tell me to get back to work! 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've answered your points above with my comments indented to your bullet points, and I'v made changes to the article in response. Please feel free to edit the article directly, but please cite your sources for any claims made.-gadfium 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made some comments that I think are relevant. I don't subscribe to a position on whether Mr Zaoui is guilty of the claims against him, but I am disturbed at the large amount of mis-information and confusion surrounding his actions and circumstances. Tell me to get back to work! 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but you haven't actually pointed to any mis-information and confusion in this article, just slapped the NPOV tag back on. Your biggest beef seems to be too much information re: the SIS summary. Armon 12:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That the majority of the article consists of the position of one of the two main actors in this dispute (the other being Zaoui and his counsel) means that it certainly isnt NPOV Tell me to get back to work! 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

SIS Summary
I am concerned at the inclusion of the full SIS summary in the article. Firstly, this summary now takes up the bulk of the article, which unbalances it.
 * That's a fair point but it's only temporary. As I said in my edit notes I'm "chipping away at it" -the article will be much longer in the end and will include a "cause celebre" section which will present his supporters critiques of the case against him.

Secondly, assuming we have the right to republish it, it is a source document, and should go in WikiSources.
 * Maybe it should go in both places? If the government has released a document publicly don't WE have the right to publish it? (That's not a rhetorical question)

Wikipedia is not a suitable place for very lengthy quotes, and certainly not a place for the complete text of documents. I would prefer to see a summary of this document, and some of the information in it moved to the main part of the article detailing Zaoui's life before arriving in New Zealand.-gadfium 18:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I see your point here too, but I think it succinctly describes the issues surrounding Zaoui and the case against him as well as the reasons for the lengthy legal battles surrounding his case. It's a bit long but, ironically, already a summary, and I think anyone coming here to find out about his case needs that information as a starting point.

 * This brings up a question though -should I not "chip away" at the article but rather submit a full re-write at once? Cheers, Armon 11:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "chipping away" is a good way to approach it. I don't know what the copyright status of the SIS summary is. There are a number of copies freely available on the web but that means very little. The problem with using the SIS summary as an account of Zaoui's life is that it shouldn't be edited by anyone. If we take the exact same information, but put it in our own words and put it in the "Background" section of the article, with links to the original document, then others can expand on it. As it is, we have much of the same information in both sections. I have no objection to quoting individual paragraphs of the SIS summary, as appropriate.-gadfium 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

POV and Disputed Tag
Hi, I put those tags on the article and plan to remove the Disputed tag once I think all the factual errors are gone. I don't however feel I should remove the POV tag until I get at least a second opinion once I think it's neutral -is that the right way to do it? Armon 11:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. I've posted on the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard suggesting that more people getting involved with this article would be a good idea. There are other places to ask for outside comment, but that seemed like the place most likely to get people who had some familiarity with Zaoui.-gadfium 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to remove the POV tag. Any vigorous objections?-gadfium 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well I stuck it on in the first place but I admit I haven't done as much on this article as I should have. I don't have a problem with that so I'll take it off. BTW I removed the AI "position" that you restored because it's uncited and may be problematic in terms of NPOV. Armon 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm putting the tag back on because the SIS summary of allegations is still far to large in relation to the rest of the mans life, and any contrary assertions. It hasn't been chipped away at, which was the rationale for keeping it there. If it doesn;t change within a few weeks I'll remove it and replace it with a smaller section. Tell me to get back to work! 10:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair point about me not continuing to chip away at the article, but the SIS summary doesnt need it -it's already a summary. His case in NZ is the reason he's notable and therefore even in WP. As for you edits tonight, some are good, some aren't, but none of them cite sources so you'll need to put them in. Please keep in mind though, that claims by Zaoui himself, or via his lawyers, don't meet WP:RS. This is why the reference to his supposed torture scars is coming out now. Armon 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The reference to the scars on his arm being caused by the 1986 torture is accepted as true by a court of NZ, after verification from an independent medical expert. As far as I know no-one has contested this except you. Your apparent refusal to accept anything published in the RSAA appeal is getting ridiculous (ie, you've reverted every edit I've made that used the RSAA as a source) Tell me to get back to work! 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty in Algeria
While I didn't add the Amnesty position in the first place, I think something is necessary to balance that paragraph. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that Zaoui can't go home anytime he wants now that there is an amnesty. Clearly, it isn't as simple as that. The cite for the AI position isn't hard to find: crtiticism of amnesty, continued torture. On the other hand, maybe we should be producing a paragraph or section in History of Algeria about the amnesty and its critics, which this article can then link to.-gadfium 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that there is an amnesty, (Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation) and that the chief criticism of it is that it has allowed both Islamist and government murderers to get away with their crimes, and also keeping in mind that the FIS leadership (ie Ali Belhadj and Abbassi Madani) is free in Algeria -there really isn't any need to balance the article with a non-credible threat against Zaoui. It's simply his supporters' rhetoric. 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've linked to the Charter article from that para, so those who want to get the full story on the amnesty can do so.-gadfium 19:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Should have done that myself ;) Armon 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the amnesty is to be included, the existence of continued torture and abuse needs to remain. Otherwise this article is giving the false impression that there is nothing preventing his return. The bias in the article is already strong enough. Tell me to get back to work! 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would favour the paragraph on the amnesty being rewritten to explain that although there is now an amnesty, and Zaoui is therefore presumably no longer under a death sentence, there are good reasons why he cannot be expected to return to Algeria. I don't know exactly what those reasons might be. The paragraph has to be about Zaoui, not about the amnesty.-gadfium 08:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this needs a bit more research. I'm assuming that Zaoui has has given his reasons why the amnesty is unacceptable. There should be a source for this somewhere. Armon 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a proper cite for this?
I suggest that we copy text here which need citation. Armon 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Mr Zaoui decided to leave Malaysia shortly after it was visited by the head of the Algerian police services, on what was claimed as an investigation of Malaysian policing methods.
 * Claimed by who? Is there a cite for this? Armon

Have added reference to RSAA decision. The actual text of the decision reads:

[435] The following year, during the appellant’s time in Malaysia, the head of National Security in Algeria, Ali Tounsi, visited the country ostensibly to observe Malaysian police practices. The appellant remains highly sceptical of such an explanation, pondering what the Algerian police might learn from the Malaysian police that they do not know already. He believes instead that this official visited Malaysia at least in part to liaise with the Malaysian authorities about his presence there. His fears were reinforced by information passed to him by a friend to the effect that the authorities were planning to detain him. This caused the appellant to make plans and ultimately to depart from Malaysia.

Senor Pluma 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Fine, but it will need a rewrite. The claim of an Algerian/Malaysian conspiracy needs to be attributed to Zaoui rather than presented as though it's a fact. <<-armon->> 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith
Armon has been reverting discussions made by myself (including as IP 210... and 131... sorry, I didn't always log in.) without discussing his reasons on talk. This is getting frustrating. I'm busy, and will do a thorough rewrite of the page later in the year, and at the moment I've only got time to add small snippets. Armon, you seem dedicated to removing information that does not fit a particular view of the case unless it is immaculately referenced. Stop it. Tell me to get back to work! 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out Carbonite's law. -I think you mean edits, not discussions. I've responded to all of your points on this page. Please log in when you edit, and please cite the page of a novel-length document. As for removing improperly cite material, if want your edits to stand -cite the page so everyone can see what you're referring to. The fact that you are busy (as is everyone) is not an excuse. Armon 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm using paragraph numbers is because there are two versions of the document - printed and online, and the page numbers don't correspond. This way anyone can find the information, and more accurately and faster too. I can't always log in to edit (wikipedia is often extremely slow to load on my connection (up to 10 minutes per page); despite having broadband, meaning logging in can take another 20 minutes). As for your reversions, they were removing factual information from the article without discussion, often replacing it with incomplete or incorrect material, implicitly assuming that my contributions couldn't (or shouldn't) stay. Tell me to get back to work! 03:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Make that are removing uncontested, referenced factual material and replacing it with incomplete or incorrect information. By rv'ing as soon as I say anything, you're making out that I'm making shit up. You're reverting way to much, way to quickly. Tell me to get back to work! 09:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Death sentence in Algeria
Cleaned up an egregious bit of misinformation just now -the claim that Zaoui in under a death sentence in Algeria. This is wrong. His convictions there carried (pre-amnesty) life imprisonment. Armon 01:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, wrong again. He was sentenced to death at his 1993 trial, and then to life imprisonment in 96 and 97, which is where some of the confusion arises. (RSAA para 468). We should also note the serious contravention of the norms of justice (ie these were kangaroo courts) (RSAA paras 466-502) and that no serious legal system in the world would consider these convictions safe. Tell me to get back to work! 02:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The paragraph you refer to states: "[468] Convictions and sentences were routinely entered in absentia, including the majority of those sentenced to death. This is illustrated by the rather stark figures that exist for the relevant time: between February 1993 and June 1994, 10, 194 people were tried by three Special Courts. Of these, 1127 were sentenced to death (964 in absentia, including the appellant) and 6507 to terms of imprisonment (including life). 2500 were acquitted. Before executions were suspended by moratorium at the end of 1993, 26 people had been executed." It not about Zaoui -it's about cases that may be similar to his. The RSAA's inquiry to Interpol produced the two convictions as stated in the text I will restore. As for quoting the paragraphs of the RSAA document -good idea, but you might want to make sure it says what you think it does. Armon 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but I have a printed copy right in front of me and it states "[468] On 1 August 1993, the appellant was convicted of a number of offences, including attacks on state security, criminal association and bearing arms (being offences under the Penal Code and Articles 3, 4 and 7 of Legislative decree 92-03). He was sentenced to death by the Special Courts operating in Algeria at that time". The corresponding text is at para 458 of the pdf version (I did not expect that there was a difference between the two). I'll check the refs and cite the appropriate pdf paragraphs, since thats what we're linking to. I'm rv'ing your rv as a result though. Tell me to get back to work! 08:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the pertinent paragraphs are (sorry this will be long):

''[365] On 14 March 2003, the Authority wrote to the chief executive, invoking his further assistance under section 129P(4) of the Act. Inter alia, we sought: a) all Interpol and Police communications regarding the appellant since his arrival in New Zealand; and b) all information about the appellant held by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (the SIS). [366] The material received from Interpol and the Police was reports regarding the appellant's travel and use of a false South African passport and information from Interpol Algeria, setting out warrants against him, issued by the Algerian authorities, namely: a) Warrant 727/01-p and 160/01-INS, issued on 10 November 2001, for "belonging to and setting up a terrorist group abroad"; b) Criminal conviction No 89.96, dated 26 May 1996, for "establishing a terrorist organisation to destabilise state institutions and terrorise the population"; c) A sentence of life imprisonment, No 173.1997, dated 2 February 1997, for "plotting against the state, criminal conspiracy, inciting armed rebellion and assassinations and destruction of property"; d) A sentence of life imprisonment, No 263/96, dated 12 December 1996, for "acts of aggression to destabilise state institutions and inciting armed rebellion to carry out assassination and destroy property". [367] The information received from the SIS was: a) A report by the Belgian Security Service to the SIS, recording the appellant's conviction in that country; b) A report by the Swiss Security Service (the SAP) to the SIS, recording the appellant's time in that country; c) An SIS-compiled chronology of the appellant's background; d) SIS-compiled reports on the both the GIA and the FIS. [368] On 8 April 2003, the Authority wrote again to the chief executive, under section 129P(4) of the Act. Inter alia, the Authority sought: a) Copies of all communications between Interpol Wellington and Interpol Algeria regarding the appellant; b) Confirmation that the only outstanding warrants against the appellant are those issued by the Algerian authorities. [369] On 9 April, the New Zealand Police confirmed that the appellant is the subject only of the four arrest warrants, all issued by the Algerian authorities, as above and that he is not wanted by any other jurisdiction.''

See also: ''[416] That the appellant has been convicted in Algeria of a number of offences is without doubt. What is less clear is the nature of the charges and, in particular, the penalties imposed.''

[417] It is the appellant’s evidence, corroborated by independent material, that he has twice been sentenced to death – at the beginning of August 1993 and in November 1997.

The RSAA's belief in his death sentences consisted entirely of Zaoui's testimony:

''[123] Not long after his return, the appellant learned through friends that, on 27 July 1993, he was convicted in absentia by the Algerian courts of, inter alia, carrying arms, attacking national security and forming armed groups and was sentenced to death. He had been unaware of the charges. In view of the convictions, which he knew were specious, he realised that it would be dangerous for him to remain and he returned to Morocco on 1 August 1993, travelling on the Zenati passport.''

...for the 1993 sentence, and...

''[235] On 25 November 1997, Arabic News reported that the appellant (and 19 others, including Anwar Haddam) had been sentenced in absentia to death for "belonging to armed groups and for weapons trafficking". The date of those convictions is uncertain but was, presumably, shortly before the Arabic News article.''

...for the 1997 one. The RSAA took the view that Zaoui's claims were credible despite the evidence to the contrary. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, you're not entitled your own facts. The "death sentence" issue is a only a (possibly self-serving) claim from Zaoui, and the RSAA's opinion, is only that, opinion. Other democratic governments have been far more skeptical of Zaoui, as have other branches of the NZ government.

Mostlyharmless, please re-read WP:NPOV in order to understand why I am reverting your edits. It is not acceptable to write the article from the RSAA's POV and present opinions as facts.

BTW, the paragraph numbers are from the PDF. Is there any reason to believe that it's non-canonical if it's different from your printed version? If so, we need a better reference. Armon 13:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

NO! You don't get it. The information received against Mr Zaoui refers to outstanding warrants.

"[417] It is the appellant’s evidence, corroborated by independent material, that he has twice been sentenced to death – at the beginning of August 1993 and in November 1997." Emphasis added.

[419] The communiqué from Interpol Algeria to Interpol Wellington refers to the imposition of two sentences of life imprisonment but it is clearly not a complete record of the penalties recorded against the appellant. (We doubt, for example, that he escaped punishment on the May 1996 conviction.) Further, it is reasonable to rely on the information provided to the appellant while he was in Burkina Faso that there were six life sentences. Accordingly we find that the appellant has been convicted of a number of serious terrorist-related offences and sentenced to life imprisonment on six occasions, and on two occasions to death. All convictions were entered in absentia following trials before either the Special Court or the Military Tribunal.

I'm quoting facts. You're removing them because they don't fit your POV - again I refer readers of this page to your criticism of the RSAA decision as 'astonishing'.

I'm taking this to an RfC. Tell me to get back to work! 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, maybe not an RfC just yet, but I am going to find others to comment on your behaviour (and the dispute over facts on this page). I'm very close to leaving this project for a significant period of time because on WP, it's not who's right that succeeds, its the most persistant. And I don't have the time to be more persistant than you. Notice how your edits on Algerian Civil War haven't been reverted? That's not because your changes are correct, it's simply because no-one, and particularly User:Mustafa, who actually knows his shit, can be bothered edit warring with you. I'd like to refer users to [] for just one example of Armons disruptive and aggressive refusal to properly discuss controversial edits. Tell me to get back to work!

(Very much informal) request for arbitration
User:Mostlyharmless has left a message on my talk page asking me to mediate a dispute on this page (or give a third opinion, it's not entirely clear). The claim is that User:Mostlyharmless and User:Armon are in a content dispute of inclusion of certain sources. From looking at the history, it looks to me that there is a slow revert war going on, so I certainly see that there is some sort of dispute in the air. Now, at this point nothing has been put even on the Mediation Cabal page, so it's even less formal than "completely informal", but I'm willing to lend a hand to get this straightened out. Here's the question: do the two users in question think it's a good idea for me to try and mediate this dispute? --- Deville (Talk) 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't follow the correct procedure, I haven't done this before! I'm in support of an impartial commentator looking at the dispute, and if you'd like to play that role, that would be cool.(perhaps it should go to the mediation cabal then?) Tell me to get back to work! 23:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's totally not a problem at all. The MedCabal is already extremely informal so it doesn't really matter much.  I'll just wait until we hear back from Armon and then I'll jump into it. --- Deville (Talk) 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, I've got no problem with that -though I view this as a content/POV dispute. The irrelevancies of any other arguments I may have had, plus his obvious following me here from another page, suggests to me that Mostlyharmless is beginning to meet the definition of a wikistalker. Armon 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I reject those allegations entirely. I came to this article, and then went to Algerian Civil War for more information (being both an FA and something I'd used earlier in the year for research). When I was there I tried editing, as there were significant POV and reliable source issues with some of the information you were contributing. I was reverted without talk after trying to change things, behaviour you're repeating here. In my opinion the debate there remains unresolved, but after realising I didn't have the tenacity to stick it out over you, I gave up. Then I came back here, and haven't touched any of the pages you've edited. I research thoroughly, which is why I looked at your contributions (the contributions link is there for a reason!). This is about content. But it's also about your constant reversions. 210.86.85.138 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * In other words, you went trolling for "ammo" against me -rather than looking up the proper citations you were "too busy" to provide. Also, given the expansion of this talk page since you've arrived, your repeated claim of "I was reverted without talk" is more than slightly dubious- spare me. Armon 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You've just called me a stalker and a troll. Since I realised that you require a much higher standard of proof than any other article I've edited for anything you don't like to stay, I've referenced to as high a standard as possible. But you're right - I have 45,000 words of uni to write in the next 6 weeks, and there is no way I should be here. I would appreciate comment from Deville as to what course of action to take. Perhaps something more formal would help Tell me to get back to work! 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Clear reason why RSAA's opinions are not to be presented as fact
They are disputed:

''European lawyers deny Zaoui 'flaws' 23.04.2004 By CATHERINE FIELD PARIS - France and Belgium, and defence lawyers in those countries, have bluntly rejected allegations made by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority that convictions handed down by their courts against Ahmed Zaoui were flawed. Those allegations lie at the foundation of the RSAA's decision to classify Zaoui as a man fleeing persecution and thus deserving of refugee status in New Zealand.'' continued

From the same article:

''The note from the French Foreign Ministry followed a request for information regarding Zaoui's trial and conviction in 2001. A French diplomatic source noted that the request for information had come from the New Zealand Government after the RSAA ruling had been handed down - and not while the case unfolded. In that light, France viewed the Zaoui affair as a turf battle, the source implied.''

-emphasis mine. Armon 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It is possible to quote sections that are UNCONTROVERSIAL, and NOT OPINIONS, without any comment at all on the convictions in the French and Belgian courts, and the SIS security risk certificate. A large portion of the judgement falls into this category and this is what I've quoted from. I could have gone much further than I have.I could also have quoted from the many sources that go futher still - had I tried to present the position of Mr Zaoui and his counsel, which is still absent, is unlikely to be presented while you are editing this article (and don't you dare accuse me of being a supporter of him! I most certainly am not!) But you seem determined to reject anything the RSAA says as counterfactual. And that disturbs me. But thank you for not reverting me immediately. 210.86.85.138 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, there are some facts of the case in the document which are usable without qualification, but not the RSAA's opinions (i.e. their judgement) of them. Armon 04:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * To Deville - the RSAA is an investigative body that is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive refugee bodies in the world. It is not a soft touch, and rejects around 80% of applications. Until the Zaoui case the NZ Government spoke very highly of it. 210.86.85.138 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Armon, your emphasis would seem to an uniformed observer to be meaningful. However,the fact that they contacted the French Government after the RSAA judgement is actually irrelevant, as the SIS is entitled to gather information on Mr Zaoui until the end of the SRC process, as they are indeed doing. Tell me to get back to work! 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * If the RSAA presumed to pass judgement on the French case, and they did, finding it "unsafe", then it's highly relevant to note that they hadn't bothered to contact the French authorities themselves. Given his convictions and failed refugee and human-rights claims in 3 different western countries, one would have assumed they would have contacted those governments to begin with.
 * As for how "tough" NZ is on refugees, Zaoui gave his reasons for showing up here as follows:
 * [284] The appellant went into hiding. He discussed his situation with X who counselled against going to Australia, where he would be held in detention and recommended that he come to New Zealand. The appellant had read of the New Zealand Prime Minister's humanitarian response to the Tampa crisis and felt encouraged to approach the New Zealand authorities.
 * Turns out he was wrong about being detained...but he did become a cause célèbre, and after years of legal wrangling costing millions of dollars, he's still here. Armon 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Who needs the truth, or context, or even just reading sources carefully and in their entireity?
I'm sick of this. Armon miscontrues the truth once again. He's just gone on a POV rant which shows how it's not about getting the most accurate article, but disliking a refugee who has publicity. The opinion of Mr Zaoui about whether NZ was a safe country for asylum doesn't prove anything, so I'm not sure what your point is. The vast majority of the $1.4 million cost so far is the Crown's spending on appeals and the SRC. The reason the legal battles of Zaoui are not over is because of continued delays from the crown. The latest delay to the review of the risk certificate was not due to any fault of Zaoui or his lawyers, rather, the SIS asked for more time so they could try and find more evidence and put together a case, three and a half years after issuing the risk certificate. Incompetent, or just lacking in evidence required to pass by a retired high court judge? I don't want to know.

I'll come straight out and say it - I'm far better informed about Ahmed Zaoui than you are. I've spent much of the last two months researching this case, and have read thousands of pages and dozens of documents, written by all sides. You only ever take things out of context, ignoring the smear campaign launched against Zaoui and the FIS. He might well be guilty of serious criminal acts. But the RSAA was right to disregard the European trials as unsafe. Irrespective of the guilt of Zaoui, the trials were based on hearsay, confusion, unreliable sources, and hyperbole. Much of the evidence they accepted was just plain wrong.

Given the way you're treating anything I put in this article, I have no confidence that waiting this out or going through processes will have any effect. I really don't think that any editors of this encyclopedia have the competence to assess the respective claims of truth of the evidence we're presenting without doing extensive research themselves. Those who can reliably comment on parts, like User:Mustafa, you're just going to reject out of hand.

So, with that, I'm leaving.

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where truth doesn't matter. Tell me to get back to work! 06:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

SIS summary, again
I asked before that the SIS summary not appear in full here, because it's a source document. Source documents do not belong in encyclopedia articles. It also still is unbalancing the article. Please remove it, or I will do so myself. I first asked this in February, and desisted because the article was a work in progress. I think six months is plenty of time.-gadfium 05:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I don't actually know how to put it in wikisource -can you do it? Armon 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not appropriate to include the full summary here. It probably can't go on wikisource either, though, since all content there has to be under a free license. -- Avenue 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that it doesn't have to go on Wikisource, since we can link to it elsewhere on the web. However, although I have no experience with Wikisource either, I'll figure out how to add this document if someone can show me that it was released under a suitable licence.
 * In the meantime, I have removed the summary from the article in favour of a link to it, and also linked to Zaoui's lawyers' response to it.-gadfium 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY?!!! I've never done this before and might be doing it all wrong, but as someone who relies on Wikipedia for information I must protest at the way this article stands. It is currently clearly making a political point, and that cannot be right in terms of neutrality. To imply at the end that Zaoui could simply go back to Algeria and all would be forgiven is just silly. No-one takes this seriously on either side of the debate - and even if one side did take it seriously, surely Wikipedia should NOT be taking sides? Both sides of the argument should be presented equally, and the conclusion or final paragraph should be neutral. Is no-one going to take responsibility for this article? (GoggleDog 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC))
 * The situation is Algeria is germane. The civil war is more-or-less over, and the amnesty is a fact - it's therefore not a political point unless the facts are. OTOH I assume that Zaoui must have given his reasons why the amnesty is not acceptable to him. Please give us the sources which state his case. <<-armon->> 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
The recent changes are all pretty good. In the spirit of renewed cooperation, I hope that we can edit without conflicts :) I've just clarified that refugee status was granted in 2003, but the Security Risk Certificate meant that the NZ Govt had an appeal (so to speak) against letting Zaoui stay in the country (while still accepting his refugee status, which the NZ Govt did not contest) based on security grounds. Mostlyharmless 06:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if there is reason to keep the allegations made against Zaoui by Helen Clark in the article - they were indicative of the New Zealand Government's position towards Zaoui at the time, and as such are useful for the reader who might not know the context of the way the case was being handled by the Govt and media. Mostlyharmless 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I tracked down what you referred to in an old version:
 * In September 2004, Prime Minister Helen Clark's office stated that Zaoui had links to al Qaeda, but Clark later withdrew the claim, saying that her "office had probably gone too far in making the link" PM can't back up al Qaeda claim, Ruth Berry and Catherine Masters, New Zealand Herald, 21.09.2004.

In my opinion these references are absolutely the most important things to keep because they fall down the memory hole very easily. The initial allegation will have left a cloud over the case which no timid retraction or failure to restate ever wipes away. This is how smear campaigns achieve the desired results even on the basis of no evidence. It's crucial that people are able to pin down the precise source of the allegations so they can identify where the mysterious imprint on their memory came from, as well as to prove that some smearing happened. So it's disappointing that people have chosen to delete this reference in the interest of tidiness, because this is the only place it is ever likely to be recorded. I would strongly urge people to put it back in somewhere as a side comment before it gets completely lost.Goatchurch 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put the quote in, but contextualised with the stances of other political actors who took prominent stands on the issue. Mostlyharmless 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ahmed Zaoui. 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/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011002043/http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/news/mediareleases/2003/20031016-zaoui.html to http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/news/mediareleases/2003/20031016-zaoui.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013190206/http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/ref_20030801_74540.pdf to http://www.nzrefugeeappeals.govt.nz/PDFs/Ref_20030801_74540.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011002043/http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/news/mediareleases/2003/20031016-zaoui.html to http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/news/mediareleases/2003/20031016-zaoui.html

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) 17:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ahmed Zaoui


text:
Ethel M. Dell

Ethel May Dell Savage (2 August 1881 – 17 September 1939), known by her pen name, Ethel M. Dell, was a British writer of over 30 popular romance novels and several short stories from 1911 to 1939.

Biography
Dell was born on 2 August 1881 to a middle class family in Streatham, a suburb of London, England. Her father was a clerk in the City of London and she had an older sister and brother. Dell began to write stories while very young and many of them were published in popular magazines. Her stories were mainly romantic in nature, set in the British Raj and other old British colonial possessions. Her stories were considered by some to be overly sexual. Her cousins were known to tally the number of times she used the words passion, tremble, pant and thrill.

Dell worked on The Way of an Eagle, her first novel, for several years, finally publishing it under T. Fisher Unwin after being rejected eight times by other publishers. The book was included in Unwin's First Novel Library, a series which highlighted a writer's first book. The Way of an Eagle was published in 1911 and had gone through thirty printings by 1915.

In 1922, Ethel married a soldier, Lieutenant-Colonel Gerald Tahourdin Savage, who resigned his commission at his marriage, making Dell the sole support of the family. Despite unfavorable reviews from critics, she developed a strong fan base, earning from £20,000 to £30,000 a year. Her husband devoted himself to her and fiercely guarded her privacy. Dell continued writing, eventually producing about thirty novels and several volumes of short stories over the course of her life.

Dell died of cancer on 17 September 1939 at age 58.

Pictures of her are very rare and she was never interviewed by the press.

References in literature
The protagonist of George Orwell's novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying, makes several negative comments about Dell and other authors (notably Warwick Deeping), specifically mentioning The Way of an Eagle. He also refers to her in the 1936 essay "Bookshop Memories" and in his answers to The Cost of Letters (1946), a questionnaire on the subject of earning a living by writing.

Noël Coward, in the introduction to Three Plays, writes, “There will always be a public for the Cinderella story, the same as there will always be a public for Miss Ethel M. Dell and the Girls Companion. In the world of amusement it is essential for someone to cater for the illiterate ...”

The titular character of Winifred Watson's novel Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day refers to Dell as the source of her inspiration to encourage a young gentleman to punch a rival by hissing, "Sock him one" at the key moment.

In Richard Hughes's In Hazard, the engineer Souter aboard the steamer Archimedes has a nightmare about the late chief engineer who was lost at sea. Rather than try to sleep, he begins to read a book by Ethel M. Dell.

P. G. Wodehouse refers to Dell in several stories and in the novel Uncle Dynamite (1948). D.H. Lawrence mentions Dell in the second draft of "The First Lady Chatterley" (Mondadori 1954), published as "John Thomas and Lady Jane" in 1972.

In Cornelia Otis Skinner's popular Our Hearts Were Young and Gay (1942), the narrator says her travel-mate was well read but that she herself "had a secret letch for Ethel M. Dell."

In M. John Harrison's novel The Centauri Device, "a calf-bound set of Ethel M. Dell firsts, signed and numbered by the author" are part of the detritus of the 20th Century arranged with other objets d'art at a narcotics party on 24th century Earth.

In Gladys Mitchell's The Saltmarsh Murders, the curate mentions Ethel M. Dell.

In Dorothy Sayers's novel The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club, first published in 1928, Ethel M. Dell is mentioned as an example of escapist literature. "Servants and factory girls read about beautiful girls loved by dark, handsome men, all covered over with jewels and moving in scenes of gilded splendour. And passionate spinsters read Ethel M. Dell. And dull men in offices read detective stories."

Kenneth Halliwell and Joe Orton 'interfered' with the cover of a library copy of Storm Drift. This defacement is, at first glance, designed to affront "Romance" writing but the complexity of this collage and that of many other library books carried out between 1960 and April, 1962 has yet to be completely unravelled.

Ogden Nash mentions her by name in his poem, "I Always Say A Good Saint Is No Worse Than A Bad Cold."

Single novels

 * The Way of an Eagle (1911)
 * The Knave of Diamonds (1913)
 * The Rocks of Valpré (1914)
 * The Bars of Iron (1916)
 * The Hundredeth Chance (1917) – also as The Hundredth Chance
 * The Rose of Dawn (1917)
 * Greatheart (1918)
 * The Lamp in the Desert (1919)
 * The Desire of His Life (1920)
 * The Top of the World (1920)
 * The Obstacle Race (1921)
 * The Knight-Errant (1922)
 * Charles Rex (1922)
 * Verses (1923)
 * Tetherstones (1923)
 * The Unknown Quantity (1924)
 * A Man Under Authority (1926)
 * The Black Knight (1926)
 * The Gate Marked Private (1928)
 * The Altar of Honour (1929)
 * Storm Drift (1930)
 * The Silver Bride (1932)
 * The Silver Wedding (1932)
 * Storm Drift (1930)
 * Dona Celestis (1933)
 * The Prison Wall (1933)
 * The Electric Torch (1934)
 * Where Three Roads Meet (1935)
 * Honeyball Farm (1937)
 * The Juice of the Pomegranate (1938)
 * The Serpent in the Garden (1938)
 * Sown Among Thorns (1939)

The Keeper of the Door Series

 * 1) The Keeper of the Door (1915)
 * 2) By Request (1928) – U.S. title Peggy by Request
 * valign="top"|

Omnibus collections

 * The Safety Curtain and Other Stories (1917) Includes:
 * The Safety Curtain
 * The Experiment
 * Those Who Wait
 * The Eleventh Hour
 * The Place of Honour

 * The Tidal Wave and Other Stories (1920) Includes:
 * The Tidal Wave
 * The Magic Circle
 * The Looker-On
 * The Second Fiddle
 * The Woman of His Dreams
 * The Return Game
 * Rosa Mundi and Other Stories (1921) Includes:
 * Rosa Mundi
 * A Debt of Honor
 * The Deliverer
 * The Prey of the Dragon
 * The Secret Service Man
 * The Penalty

 * The Odds and Other Stories (1922) Includes:
 * The Odds
 * Without Prejudice
 * Her Own Free Will
 * The Consolation Prize
 * Her Freedom
 * Death's Property
 * The Sacrifice

 * The Swindler and Other Stories (1923) Includes:
 * The Swindler
 * The Swindler's Handicap
 * The Nonentity
 * Her Hero
 * The Example
 * The Friend Who Stood By
 * The Right Man
 * The Knight Errant – [1922 movie, novel's date uncertain]
 * A Question of Trust
 * Where the Heart Is

 * The Passer-By and Other Stories (1925) Includes:
 * The Passer-By
 * Tommy-Rot
 * The Tenth Point
 * The Lucky Number
 * The Money Monster

 * The House of Happiness and Other Stories (1927)
 * The Live Bait and Other Stories (1932)

Additional, uncertain titles found in some lists:
 * The Princess's Game (1920)
 * Pullman (1930)
 * }

Filmography

 * The Way of an Eagle (UK, 1918)
 * The Safety Curtain (1918)
 * Keeper of the Door (UK, 1919)
 * The Rocks of Valpre (UK, 1919)
 * The Swindler (UK, 1919)
 * The Hundredth Chance (UK, 1920)
 * The Tidal Wave (UK, 1920)
 * A Question of Trust (UK, 1920)
 * Bars of Iron (UK, 1920)
 * A szerelem mindent legyőz (Hungary, 1921, based on the novel The Way of an Eagle)
 * Greatheart (UK, 1921)
 * The Place of Honour (UK, 1921)
 * The Knave of Diamonds (UK, 1921)
 * The Woman of His Dream (UK, 1921)
 * The Prey of the Dragon (UK, 1921)
 * Lamp in the Desert (UK, 1922)
 * The Knight Errant (UK, 1922)
 * The Experiment (UK, 1922)
 * The Eleventh Hour (UK, 1922)
 * A Debt of Honour (UK, 1922)
 * Her Own Free Will (1924)
 * The Top of the World (1925)
 * The Rocks of Valpre (UK, 1935)

title: Ethel M. Dell


text:
180-degree rule

In filmmaking, the 180-degree rule is a basic guideline regarding the on-screen spatial relationship between a character and another character or object within a scene. The rule states that the camera should be kept on one side of an imaginary axis between two characters, so that the first character is always frame right of the second character. Moving the camera over the axis is called jumping the line or crossing the line; breaking the 180-degree rule by shooting on all sides is known as shooting in the round.

The 180-degree rule enables the viewer to visually connect with unseen movement happening around and behind the immediate subject and is particularly important in the narration of battle scenes.

Examples
In a dialogue scene between two characters, a straight line can be imagined running through the two characters. If the camera remains on one side of this line, the spatial relationship between the two characters will be consistent from shot to shot. Shifting to the other side of the characters on a cut will reverse the order of the characters from left to right and may disorient the viewer.

The rule also applies to the movement of a character as the "line" created by the path of the character. For example, if a character is walking in a leftward direction and is to be picked up by another camera, the character must exit the first shot on frame left and enter the next shot frame right.

A jump cut can be utilized to denote time. If a character leaves the frame on the left side and enters the frame on the left in a different location, it can give the illusion of an extended amount of time passing.

Another example could be a car chase: If a vehicle leaves the right side of the frame in one shot, it should enter from the left side of the frame in the next shot. Leaving from the right and entering from the right creates a similar sense of disorientation as in the dialogue example.

Reverse cuts
The imaginary line allows viewers to orient themselves with the position and direction of action in a scene. If a shot following an earlier shot in a sequence is located on the opposite side of the 180-degree line, then it is called a "reverse cut". Reverse cuts disorient the viewer by presenting an opposing viewpoint of the action in a scene and consequently altering the perspective of the action and the spatial orientation established in the original shot.

There are a variety of ways to avoid confusion related to crossing the line due to particular situations caused by actions or situations in a scene that would necessitate breaking the 180-degree line. The movement in the scene can be altered, or cameras set up on one side of the scene so that all the shots reflect the view from that side of the 180-degree line.

Another way to allow for crossing the line is to have several shots with the camera arching from one side of the line to the other during the scene. That shot can be used to orient the viewer to the fact that they are looking at the scene from another angle. In the case of movement, if a character is seen walking into frame from behind on the left side walking towards a building corner on the right, as they walk around the corner of the building, the camera can catch them coming towards the camera on the other side of the building entering the frame from the left side and then walk straight at the camera and then exit the left side of the frame.

To minimize the "jolt" between shots in a sequence on either sides of the 180-degree line, a buffer shot can be included along the 180-degree line separating each side. This lets the viewer visually comprehend the change in viewpoint expressed in the sequence.

Style
In professional productions, the applied 180-degree rule is an essential element for a style of film editing called continuity editing. The rule is not always obeyed. Sometimes a filmmaker purposely breaks the line of action to create disorientation. Carl Theodor Dreyer did this in The Passion of Joan of Arc; Stanley Kubrick also did this, for example, in the bathroom scene in The Shining. Directors Jacques Demy, Tinto Brass, Yasujirō Ozu, Wong Kar-wai, and Jacques Tati have also ignored this rule sometimes, as has Lars von Trier in Antichrist. In the seminal French New Wave film À bout de souffle (Breathless), Jean-Luc Godard breaks the rule in the first five minutes in a car scene which jumps between the front and back seats, improvising an "aesthetic rebellion" for which the New Wave would become known. When the rule is broken accidentally, or for a technical reason (such as the inability to place a camera physically in the correct position), there are techniques which may be employed to attempt to hide it. For example, the editor may pre-lap a word or two of dialog prior to the cut, so that the viewer will concentrate on what is being said as a distraction from the breaking of cinematic convention.

Some styles used with the 180-degree rule can elicit an emotion or create a visual rhythm. By moving the camera closer to the axis for a close-up shot, it can amp up the intensity of a scene when paired with a long shot. When the camera is moved further away from the axis for a long shot after a close-up shot, it may provide a break in the action of the scene.

In the Japanese anime feature Paprika, two of the main characters discuss, and demonstrate, the disorientating effect of crossing the line.

Empirical research
Empirical evidence exploring the importance of maintaining the 180-degree rule is limited. The basic premise is that abiding by the rule helps keep characters on the correct side of the screen. Thus, it is assumed that if the rule is violated, it can lead to distraction, and disrupt the flow of the moment. This is then extrapolated to affect the rhythm, or emotions of the scene. However, these notions are rooted in filmmakers' subjective reports, rather than empirical evidence.

There has been research that demonstrated crossing the line can negatively affect the accuracy of spatial representation of the scene. Furthermore, flipping the characters' positions can disrupt the viewer's understanding of the relative orientations on screen. Violations appear to also affect spatial memory for the location of objects in a scene, but does not affect memory for the narrative, the order of unfolding events, nor the understanding of narrative flow.

Broadly speaking, empirical research indicates that abiding by the 180-degree rule is not important in a practical sense. Accurate spatial representations are not important for the scene, nor is it remembered across the longer duration of a movie. Furthermore, more recent research demonstrated that while viewers can spot violations, the presence of these violations have no effect on the enjoyment of the scene nor movie, when compared to not having violations.

title: 180-degree rule