text:
Talk:Lusatia

Spelling of historical names
It's quite possible the K spelling of modern-day Cottbus in the census data mirrors early 20th century usage... it's therefore somewhat moot which spelling to use in the article, or are there any guidelines for such cases? - Lasse

dispute of neutrality and historical mistakes
Well, I'am from Upper Lusatia and have to say that there are many historical mistakes in this article. Besides it would be much better not to mix the history of Lower Lusatia and Upper Lusatia in one paragraph. It would be much better to have 3 articles: Lusatia, Lower Lusatia and Upper Lusatia or at least different paragraphs. My language skills are not good enough to do it. It would make sense if someone who speaks English and German translates the articles form the german wiki - the Upper Lusatia article there is already realy good. I don't care if the articles are very short, because thats not an very important region for english speaking countrys, but I don't like the many mistakes. Thomas 16.01.06

I do agree with the previous statement. There are many historical oversimplifications in this article and it seems that some statements are rather propagandistic. The article puts the emphasis only on the slavic part of the history in this region and almost denies that this area has also now more then thousand years of german history. I also think that the history of the Oberlausitz and the Niederlausitz should be described separatly, since it differs quite a bit.

 * I wouldn't call it propagandistic, but it indeed needs some more facts. "now more then thousand years of german history" is a bit too much since the split of the Frankish Empire isn't even 1200 years back. The article is on my watch list now and as soon as I have some time for it I'll edit it. --32X 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes called Sorbia!
Where and when is this region called by the English construction Sorbia? I have never heard or read the name nor any possible German equivalent. A google search turns very few and almost no neutral use of the word. I removed the word Sorbia from this entry and unless somebody has proof that the word is seriously used as a name for the region I would say we keep it out.
 * It is mentioned a few times in Google Books, but the term does not seem to be in common usage. Olessi 02:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorbs is an ancient German name for the tribes of Serbs. Nowaday the word is not used (or even spelled) in latin script and is rarely seen outside of manuscripts and chronicles mainly because a certain man with a quarter of a mustache misused the word in some propaganda which pissed of the Sorbs. Now they call themselves "Serbs" or when wanting to be more specific "White Serbs". 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * bullshit alert. --32X (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Troll alert 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs an extensive rewriting
From the beginning with the Sorbian Flag and Domowina-Logo (which seems like a Coat of arms of Lusitia which it isn't) to the unimportant "Autonomy Movement" of some Germans in Görlitz (which sounds here like it would be an actual slavic Autonomy Movement, but in Görlitz itself lives nearly no Sorbs for centuries), the mix and oversimplification of history and the many little mistakes this article need lot of rewriting. Best would be to translate de:Lausitz, de:Oberlausitz and de:Niederlausitz into English --86.56.0.49 07:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. This article is flawed in many ways. First of all: the logo of the Domowina and the Sorbian flag. Both the flag and the logo implicate that the Sorbs are the dominating ethnic group, which isn't true at all. They are a minority, even in this small region. Oh, and at least the flag of Upper Lusatia ist blue and yellow (i don't know about Lower Lusatia).
 * The article should be splitted into Upper and Lower Lusatia since both regions share the same name (Lusatia), bot not the same history and are not the same. Most people also define themselves as Upper or Lower Lusatians, not simply as Lusatians. 84.181.94.113 19:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the flag and the logo because of the fact that they are not the official symbols of Lusatia. The flag is the flag of the Sorbs - and much of the area shown on the map is not inhabited by Sorbs. The Logo is the Domowina-Logo (you can find it now in the Domowina-article). The historical Logo of Upper Lusatia (totay there is no official Logo) is this: Knarf-bz 15:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

don't be shy about the english
Wikipedia is crawling with people who love to fix things, even if they don't add content. But someone who knows both German and the preferably some history of the region should make the first cut at these translations. Aren't there any bored undergraduates in Dresden?

 * Why in Dresden? What did you say about content? -- j.budissin 09:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Info: translation request for Upper and Lower Lusatia
Just to let you all know. There are translation requests for Upper and Lower Lusatia now. Splitting the region into Upper and Lower Lusatia and translating the german articles is probably the best way to solve this mess. Karasek (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that separate articles are needed. I might get around to working on it eventually, but there are other projects in my queue first. If you feel intrepid, feel free to take a stab at the articles yourself. Olessi (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion
Are the Sorbs mainly catholic today?

The first books written in Sorbian language were translations of the bible as a result of the Lutheran Reformation. Belonging to a Protestant state ment to be Protestant ( in 16th century). So why should the Sorbs stay catholic?(62.134.88.165 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

 * Most Sorbs around Bautzen and Panschwitz-Kuckau monastery are catholic, many of the others protestant. But there is no real statistics on that. -- j.budissin (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the terms SORB, SORBIAN
Can somebody explain why English uses the terms SORB and SORBIAN? They call them selves SERB, SERBKA, SERBJA, the name for the language is SERBSKI, SERBŠČINA. There is no sense in that. A Friend of Lusatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.195.13 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I guess, because the German word is Sorben, as you might know. I could also ask, why this is the case, but it definitely is. Historical reasons. Doesn't really matter, does it? -- j.budissin (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I guess it should be cleared up in the article as it seems to be leading to some confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.157.157 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not descended from Sorbs?
"More than 60,000 of the Sorbian Slavic minority continue to live in the region. Historically their ancestors are the Milceni and the Lusitzer, and not the Sorbs, that settled in the region between Elbe and Saale." What does this mean? Are the Sorbs of Lusatia distinct from a people of the same name, who live or lived to the west of Lusatia? Or is this some sort of error in construction? 140.147.236.195 (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

No, no, you're right, there was a Slavonic people of the same name in the Elbe/Saale area. "Sorben" was hardly ever used to refer to the Slavonic population of Lusatia prior to 1945. (The German term "Wenden" would be used, or, in scholarly language, sometimes "Serben" - which in today's German refers exclusively to the people of Serbia - or "Lausitzer Serben".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.157.157 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Right, but it descends from their own name, "Serbja". And also that name comes originally not from Lusatian people, but from Slavonic tribes in Thuringia. -- j.budissin (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinti & Roma or Sinti a subgroup of Roma?
I changed "alongside Sinti and Roma" to "alongside Sinti a subgroup of Roma" because the Sinti are a subgroup of Roma and the "and" implies they're two seperate groups when that isn't the case. So why did somebody change it back? 47.17.90.59 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lusatia


text:
Talk:Beşiktaş J.K.

First president
In the list of club presidents, the first name to occur is M. Samil Osmanoglu, while the club web site states Mehmet Şamil Bey. Was Bey president for a very short time or is there some other explanation for this discrepancy? /Dcastor 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Bey' means 'Mr.'
 * Ah, simple explanation. Thankyou. /Dcastor 01:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Achievement section
I just added to "Note" that 2 winnings were accepted by Turkish football federation as equivalent winning of Turkish Premier League. This decision was taken in the meeting which was held on 20 March 2002.

Ataturk and Besiktas
I propose to add a new section which includes the relation between Ataturk and Besiktas. How will we proceed?

 * honestly, i'm really not sure which team he supported and there's only very little evidence that he might have supported besiktas. i don't think we should create a new section, but perhaps just mention that "he is thought to have supported besiktas, because..." --Ademkader (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Super League
I nominated the article of Turkish Super League to be the next article to be upgraded by the Wikipedia community. Please go to this page and vote for our league. We need at least 3 votes to win!.Haydi Beyler, Deliogul 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sovyetler Birliği milli takımının article'ına yenildik bu hafta ama bir dahaki hafta için şansımız devam ediyor.Yukardaki linke tıklayıp bir oy atın da Süper Lig'i featured article yapalım. Deliogul 11:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Zaferrr!
Turkcell Super League article is choosen as the football collaboration of the week! Please help expanding the article. Oy atanlara büyük teşekkür. Deliogul 14:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The squad needs fixing, I went into the old versions just for a minute and there are a ton of old revisions, I have no idea which is right but some are clearly very wrong. I have no idea which is right, but someone needs to fix it.

Flags and infobox
Please note that as per WP:FLAGS, flags can be used as biographical indicators, and that a consensus must be reached on the talk page. I myself feel they are not distracting as they denote the nationality of each coach and member. Beşiktaş is a team that signs many different coaches and players from all over the world. Monsieurdl Talk 14:02 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile this with "The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is strongly deprecated" in WP:FLAGS? Alexf (Talk/Contribs) 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Birth and death dates for a living Manager and a Coach? It does not exist on this page, and therefore that point does not apply. I don't get that reference.

Special care should be taken with the biographical use of flag templates in the following situations:

 * Never use a flag for birth or death place, since doing so may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality. No birth or death places in infobox.
 * Do not use the flag and name of the former country in a case of reliably-sourced renunciation of citizenship of that country. No renunciation at all.
 * Do not use the flag and name of the former (or later) country where is is unknown whether legal citizenship applied (or applies); in particular, a recent immigrant from one country to another should not be automatically given the nationality (much less flag) of the second country. For example, Alex Pagulayan, a Filipino-Canadian who recently emigrated permanently to the Philippines, will sometimes be listed with the Canada flag templates and sometimes with those of the Philippines in tournament charts, depending upon the time period, but should have his nationality or citizenship (with or without a flag) as "Canadian" in his infobox as he is not yet a Philippine citizen. Legal citizenship is not in dispute.
 * If someone's citizenship has legally changed because of shifting political borders, use the historically correct country designation, not a later one, and perhaps mention in the article prose the new country name, e.g. "Belgrade, Yugoslavia (today in Serbia)"; it may also be best to avoid using any flag at all. No change, citizenship established.
 * Use the flag and name of the country (be it a state or a nation) that the person (or team of people) officially represented, regardless of true citizenship, when the flag templates are used for sports statistics and the like. If a French player is awarded a medal for playing in a German team, the German flag would be used in a table of awards. The Scottish flag would be used with regard to the FIFA World Cup, but that of the UK for the Olympics. Caution should be used in extending this convention to non-sporting contexts, as it may produce confusing results. And a countervailing example would be an article about a sports team that officially represents a particular country but is composed of members who are citizens of several countries; a table of players at such an article might list them by their country of actual citizenship or professed nationality. They officially represent their countries in a sports context.
 * Avoid flag usage, especially to present a point of view, that is likely to raise editorial controversy over political or other factual matters about a biography subject. No controversy of facts.

You have no leg to stand on as nothing applies as I stated. Monsieurdl Talk 17:24 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable Fans
Someone cite a source for Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan being a fan of the club. Maajid 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. That was way too simple! Monsieurdl 18:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Stadium Capacity
TFF claims it is 32,086 but official BJK cites its 32,145. can someone find which is true? thanks!
 * i think the difference is negligible. --Deprem 14:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a new clue: My boss told me that TFF is certainly true because they inform and update UEFA about all club facts such as capacity, squad, techincal staff etc... So we would rather take TFF datas as reference. --umi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.98.249 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles in red
Hi folks, In my opinion, we must keep undefined articles without angle brackets ([ ]) till we find enough information to define them. Because they do not look good at all. For example: Former coaches and presidents. Just check Former Milan Managers and you fill get what i mean. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umi1903 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Carsi Hooligans
Can someone please put up something about the carsi grubu under supporters or create a new article for it because i am no good at editing on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.138.43 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

--I started adding a couple of things, but i agree, there has to be a new article about it. i don't really have lots of references/facts regarding the group so i can't really start a whole new article. --Ademkader (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

History Section
Hello fellas,

we need to expand the history section. please try to find some info from various websites. BJK history not only till early 20th century !!! --Umi1903 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes
Just created a new userbox for Besiktas fans.

--Ademkader (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Besiktas and Ataturk
Someone that knows how to edit on wikipedia really needs to add a section about Ataturk's suport of Besiktas. I know that when he went off to war he left his family at the Besiktas club building. Also someone needs to create an article about the carsi
 * For Carsi, I'm on the way of it. But for Ataturk, we need some solid sources to pose his name here. If we could justify it, it would be a perfect pleasure to put his name here for sure !! WE MUST FIND SOURCES ! --Umi1903 (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

African players
I think there should be a section to introduce the players with African roots that played at Besiktas ! Besiktas had a lot of players with African roots they even had a manager with African roots >> Jean Tigana

i think many BJK-supporters are proud to have seen players like Pascal Nouma at their squad :)

Redman19 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think dark skinned players is more suitable then Redman19 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

 * This is inappropriate! I disagree with this idea cause this is an absolute race discriminating! You might like black players as much as i do but this does not allow you to split them and relish their name, not lovely at all... If you do that, people can either think that you support positive discrimination or you abuse the black races ironically.
 * All in all, this section must be removed! I am barely waiting for aspects. --Umi1903 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok i removed it Redman19 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for attention. By the way, the managerial table which you created is also have some missings such as Austrian coach Melchior. Could you take a look? For me, we rather expand the history section than concluded parts such as managers. And I think this table is also unneccessary because there are lots of managers (almost 60) and the cells of table are really big, this cause the table to lay on too much. --Umi1903 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know Melchior succeeded Recep Adanir to finish off the season this is the reason i did not mention the interim coaches or coaches that were at the team for 4 months :) i only mention the managers that were appointed to coach a whole season, before i made this table, the managers area was a mess, it also look awful, i think adding those names in a table made it a lot better. Redman19 (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fahri Tatan
Fahri Tatan transferred to Konyaspor, so I removed him from the list. He was a good player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.224.9 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First sports club
It wasn't the first.It was the first Turkish. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

78.171.1.13 <= This asshole keeps causing vandalism

League Position Chart
Can we make a chart showing BJK's historical league position? We could highlight a few milestones such as the undefeated season, first champs league appearance etc too. please see the manchester united example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manchester_United_League_Performance_1893-2008.PNG Ademkader (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Record defeat
People keep removing Besiktas's record 0-8 Champions League defeat to Liverpool in 2007 from the page.

Please will those who do so please justify why they think this isn't a notable record that should be included in an encyclopedia. It is listed on the Liverpool F.C. page as the record Champions League victory (and presumably if Besiktas has won the game by the same 8-0 margin it would be on the Besiktas page). Just because it was a deflating loss and record for Besiktas supporters does not mean that the biggest loss in the biggest international club competition in the world isn't notable and worthy of inclusion. Ericoides (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That match isn't the biggest defeat in the history of Champions League. There has been 10-0 and 8-0 defeats before, so it is neither the first, nor the biggest defeat.  EinderiheN (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks for the information, although I believe it was the biggest at the time. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Erkan Zengin
To whoever keeps changing the flag by his name, stop doing it. Until he has played for the Turkish national team, if he ever will, his flag should remain that of Sweden as that was the last nation he represented internationally. This is how it is supposed to be under Wikipedias WP:MOSFLAG guidelines. 81.231.155.144 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

League name
The correct name for the league that Besiktas plays in is the Türkcell Süper Lig, or Süper Lig, not Turkish Super League. Real Madrid and other Spanish clubs play in La Liga, not the Spanish League. I have corrected all instances of the inaccurate name and changed them to Süper Lig. Monsieur dl   mon talk 00:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Logo
The article states that besides Besiktas only Karşıyaka S.K. has the right to have the Turkish flag in their emblem. I also see the flag in the logo of Bursaspor and Konya Şeker S.K.. So I doubt the statement. Miho (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Information, please correct "The club's football team, the oldest in the country"
Beşiktaş were founded as gymantics club and they had a football team only in 1911, predated by several Turkish teams who are still active (Galatasaray being the oldest one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.204.5 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close: as many of the oppose !votes have noted, this will need to be done for all Turkish football clubs and WikiProject Football might want a wider input. I advise the nominator to go to WT:FOOTY and create a centralised discussion there so a consensus can be established. No prejudice to speedy renomination should consensus be gained there. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   12:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

– Correct name is without dots as per official club sources and Turkish naming rules. Can be confirmed through club's official online presence. Also in line with WP naming conventions guidelines for sports teams and was discussed on WikiProject Football. Junk2711 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Beşiktaş J.K. → Beşiktaş JK
 * Beşiktaş J.K. (athletics) → Beşiktaş JK (athletics)
 * Beşiktaş J.K. (men's basketball) → Beşiktaş JK (men's basketball)
 * Beşiktaş J.K. (women's football) → Beşiktaş JK (women's football)

 * Oppose no consensus in WP:Footy. Also mass move dot to without dot that affect the consistency among 100+ Turkish clubs, is not a good way to start individual moving thread such as this one and another in Talk:Fenerbahçe S.K.. Matthew hk (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Matthew hk. Also, this sort of change needs to be done en masse via a centralised discussion rather than individual clubs at a time. Number   5  7  12:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but not procedurally I think the abbreviations should be considered on a country by country basis, as the Balkan domestic teams/Eastern European teams certainly don't use periods in their Wikipedia articles (GNK Dinamo Zagreb, AEK Athens), and the typical way of reading Turkish football team names is without the periods. But I agree this should be done centrally. SportingFlyer  talk  12:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree that all clubs should be moved to titles without dots, but this isn't the correct method for gaining the consensus to do so. – PeeJay 12:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose as above - whatever naming convention is decided, it needs to be constant for all Turkish clubs. There needs to be a central discussion, not a bunch of ill thought out RMs. There is no consensus anywhere that we should not use dots, not any evidence presented that dots are not used. GiantSnowman 13:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if this isn't the correct way to request this then. If someone can start a centralized process I would appreciate it. Otherwise I'll just leave it as it seems like too much of a hassle to correct something simple. As we discussed earlier, this affects a minority of Turkish clubs and only a handful in the league. Not sure how you get 100+ clubs. Actually there are sources at the mentioned discussion, and the link I used on this page leads to that specific section on WikiProject Football. The point there is that the naming convention for Turkish names is not for us to decide as it has already been decided by Turkish naming rules, making the use of dots incorrect and not just a matter of preference or convention. -Junk2711 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As we previously discussed, Turkish naming rules are relevant to tr.wiki, but not en.wiki. (it was also pointed out to you that this would need a centralised discussion not individual RMs, so it's disappointing to see you ignored that advice). Cheers, Number   5  7  11:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t recall any mention against individual RMs but I did start a centralized discussion. Maybe you could assume good faith and consider that this specific type of move is not something that everyone might have experience in. As I pointed out earlier, the whole point of mentioning the Turkish naming rule is to show that having “J.K.” is incorrect and not the same as in English where you can have either FC or F.C. We can’t just make “SK” become “SC”, “FK” become “FC” - these would also not be the correct name. You can’t change or Anglicize a name for consistency. If there is an article for someone with the Turkish name Muhammet, does there name become Mohammed on en.wikipedia? No. I would ask you to please start a centralized discussion for this topic in the appropriate manner. Thanks. -Junk2711 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Support per nom and SportingFlyer. I believe however that we must change it also for the other clubs. Linhart (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * BesiktasJK-Logo.svg

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

title: Talk:Beşiktaş J.K.


text:
Gentil

Gentil may refer to:

People:
 * Jean-Paul Alaux, called Gentil, French landscape painter and lithographer
 * Émile Gentil, a French colonial administrator
 * Guillaume Le Gentil, a French astronomer
 * Jean-François Gentil, a French colonial officer
 * Joseph Philippe Gentil, Mauritian composer
 * Otto Gentil, German sculptor

Places:
 * Gentil, Rio Grande do Sul, a municipality in Brazil
 * Port-Gentil, a city in Gabon

Other:
 * Gentil, a white wine blend from Alsace

title: Gentil


text:
Zamrock

Zamrock is a musical genre that emerged and gained popularity in Zambia during the early 1970s. It has been described as a fusion of traditional African music and psychedelic rock, garage rock, hard rock, blues and funk, taking influence from popular bands like Black Sabbath, Blue Cheer, the Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, and Cream.

Rock musician Rikki Ililonga and his band Musi-O-Tunya are widely regarded as the inventors of this style of music. Other notable artists include WITCH, The Peace, Amanaz, Chrissy "Zebby" Tembo, and Paul Ngozi and his Ngozi Family.

Though it is no longer as popular in the country as it once was due to Zambia's economic difficulties in the late 1970s, Zamrock has seen a recent resurgence, led by former WITCH member Emmanuel Chanda, better known as Jagari.

History
Zamrock's roots can be traced back to the 1950s, with northern singers from the Copperbelt Province such as Stephen Tsotsi Kasumali, William Mapulanga, and John Lushi. Zamrock as a musical movement came of age in the turbulent first decade after Zambia's independence from British colonialism, rising and falling in tandem with the country's economic success. Zambia's boom from its copper mines led to a bust when copper prices fell and the country was devastated by the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s.

After the country announced its independence in 1964, then-president Kenneth Kaunda introduced the slogan, "One Zambia, one nation" to promote unity. In order to celebrate the culture of the newly independent nation, Kaunda decreed that 95% of music played on radio stations had to be Zambian in origin. Since Western rock was popular in Africa, many Zamrock artists were inspired by bands that were popular in the West and adopted similar styles to those playing on British and American radios.

The rush to urbanization in mine-adjacent regions meant a variety of new artistic styles. The country's newfound wealth brought with it urban sensibilities and a surge in interest in electric guitar use. Zamrock player Paul Ngozi of the Ngozi Family is credited with creating the kalindula sound, a rhythmic pop music sound with fuzzy electric guitar leads centred around the bass guitar of the same name.

While the price of copper fell and Zambia's economy crashed, Zambia found itself surrounded by political turmoil in neighbouring states. This conflict led to a rise in anti-establishment messages in Zamrock music. When the country offered to shelter refugees, Zambia's power stations were bombed. Once-prosperous cities were at the mercy of blackouts and curfews. Musicians were reduced to playing unstable sets during daylight hours while their ticket prices became unaffordable for most.

The AIDS epidemic played a huge part in bringing Zamrock to an end. The disease began to spread in the 1980s and has continued to devastate the nation since. It is estimated that between 1.2 million and 1.3 million have died from AIDS in Zambia as of 2019. Every member of WITCH except Emanuel "Jagari" Chanda had died of AIDS by 2001.

A resurgence of interest across the globe in recent years, including reissues in North America and the production of a documentary, has allowed some Zamrock performers, including Jagari, to tour, perform, and record new material.

Furthermore, the rise of musical piracy had a significant impact on Zamrock artists. Bootleggers would copy and sell Zambian artists' music, forcing them to leave the industry and find work in other fields after losing their primary source of income.

Despite these challenges, Zamrock has yet to completely disappear from the world of music. A resurgence of interest across the globe in recent years, including reissues in North America and the production of a documentary, has allowed some Zamrock performers to tour, perform, and record new material.

Jagari from WITCH is one of these artists who has managed to make a comeback. In the last 5 years since his return in 2017, he has performed in several European countries such as Moscow and Paris, something he never got the chance to do in his band's prime. He has also toured around the United States, and been awarded for his achievements by the Zambian National Arts Council.

About the music
Because the peak of Zamrock music occurred during a period of social unrest, much of the music released at the time reflected the difficulties that people were facing. Sometimes referred to as an aggressive genre, it addressed contentious issues such as racism in Southern Africa all while still maintaining an exuberant feel.

Definition
The term "Zamrock" refers to the combination of Western rock with the distinct style of African music. Zambian DJ Manessah Phiri is credited with the creation of the term.

Zamrock is heavily influenced by psychedelic rock and funk music, popular Western genres of the 1970s. It shares many features of these genres, most notably wah wah and fuzz.

title: Zamrock


text:
User:Thmaw

Thein Hla Maw, a young Myanmar software engineer.

title: User:Thmaw


text:
Talk:Steve Gibson (computer programmer)

Complaints Against Steve Gibson
User: Could you better explain the nature of the complaints against Steve Gibson? It is important to address them specifically. --Alexwcovington 08:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Credited with coining the term spyware by who? First time ive heard it.... The article is POV and needs to be rewritten - for a start some discussion of what Gibsons critics (virtually the entire security industry) have said or the whole syn cookies debacle might help balance it a bit. Gibson is wonderfull at public relations but Id like to see any article that was a bit more honest than this fawning statement....

The GPA is more proof of this being written by a GRC acolyte - and gibsons written exactly one software program - Spinrite - and thats it - so i also question his credentials as a software engineer.

POV and boldly so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.206.85 (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexwcovington, the section on critism needs sourcing. In the links are two pages, but they don't really seem like great sources. "Secruity Experts" are mentioned over and over, but not who they may be. To quote WP:NPOV, If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;. This needs to be done. --Falcorian | Talk 05:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the majority of security professionals take the view that Steve Gibson is a media darling rather than a security expert. The relevant section of WP:NPOV is "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;". Unfortunately this is not the case as expertise in computer security is invariably gathered through experience rather than reference texts (That's to say that there is no single text which can be referred to; one requires an appreciation of the entire field). Additionally most but not all controversies surrounding this man stem from failure to communicate vital nuances or from massively overplaying the importance of insignificant aspects rather than outright misinformation. --DanPope 23:05, 24 January 2006 UTC

Regarding the bullet under the Criticism section that discusses his Windows Metafile vulnerability conclusions from episode 22 of Security Now: in the next episode of the same podcast, he retracts many of his allegations against Microsoft and takes a much more conciliatory tone about the whole issue. His comments on episode 22 are certainly an example of him irresponsibly jumping to a conclusion without having done sufficient research, but it seems unfair to mention that episode without also mentioning the other. --Silpertan 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the issue with the windows metafile exploit explanation by Steve Gibson? Of course it was intentionally put in Windows in a time when nobody thought about people surfing the net with Windows (back then Windows 3.x). Windows in the early days just wasn't an operating system with multiples users and thus security in mind. I think steve gibson excellently explained that in security now. That is why I slightly changed the first sentence of that section. --Julian Bartholomeyczik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.101.168.110 (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the part about excessive plugging of SpinRite in Podcasts. The new issue of Security Now has just been released and the plugging has already started to get complaints so is valid in the Criticism section. BackStagePass 09:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the section that you re-added because it was criticism, instead I removed it because it cites a user that makes a post to a public forum. This really does not fall within the guidelines of what is considered to be a relaible source, which is required in order to verify such claims per Attribution.  However, if a journalist wrote an article, or some review which could be cited then this criticism gains some verifable status, rather than being from just some guy.  --  malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Have looked again at complaints made by Security Now listeners and along with edits by 'Zarek' I think we have covered the use of SpinRite mentioning in podcasts. BackStagePass 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I still question how one or two users who complain on a web forum are considered to be noteworthy criticism. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the source supposed to be the posts made in the comment section? If so, I'm certain those don't pass WP:RS. If Leo mentioned in the show however, that he got complaints, then that might be enough. --Falcorian (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge Leo never acknowledged any complaints of that sort. I still believe that this should be removed from the criticism section on the basis of unreliable sources.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove it, the sources provided aren't clear as to what it's referencing, and if it's simply referencing the comments, it doesn't pass WP:RS. --Falcorian (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just went to transcript of show 83 and Spinrite was only said twice so looks like comments were taken on board. Looking back on this. In SN80 Leo said he did not want SN81 to be one big advert for Spinrite. When it came out 'Spinrite' got mentioned 29 times so probably what got some peoples backs up. BackStagePass 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

POV Dispute
This article needs ALOT of work. It reads like a back and forth argument right now. --Falcorian | Talk 05:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article has come a long way in a short time. I think Copysan put in a particularly good edit.  I'm a little concerned of the direction Kupci is moving the article... Equating this article to the Seigenthaler debacle, especially after the recent improvements is a step backward, and I do believe that Gibson's critics have bases for their accusations and deserve a measure of consideration in this article.  -- A l e x W C o v i n g t o n  (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the article has come along way. I do agree with Kupci's removal of GRCSucks.com, because regardless of the merit of the claims against Gibson on it, it does have a title that doesn't seem appropriate. However, his edits seem to be pushing the article a little into the NPOV zone.Oh yes, his comparing this to Seigenthaler seems way off base as well. --Falcorian | Talk 23:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * GRCSucks.com should not be removed. 'A title that doesn't seem appropriate'? Oh get a life. GRCSucks has more and more benevolent factual information on the charlatan than anyone. Anyone duped to think otherwise is a - dupe. talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.201.79 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Immaturity doesn't strengthen your case. --Falcorian(talk) 17:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As a practitioner, and a reasonably well-known one, I'm going to assert that GRCSUCKS.COM has as much *or more* notability in the security industry as GRC Research does. I added it back; the whole point of having that page is to centralize criticism of GRC, which means most of the good-faith criticism of GRC revolves around it. You can't lose a vital source because the word "sucks" appears in it. Tqbf —Preceding undated comment added at 00:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering what purpose the Radsoft links serve. Both are either POV and/or out of date. If the content there is verifiable, wouldn't it be better to place the links in context as a part of the article?Sschinke 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They serve the purpose of... Well... Nothing really. Frankly though, I was too lazy to read through them and decided to let someone else make the call as I didn't want to be seen as monopolizing the links section. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - article is rather weighted against Steve. I'm adding POV tags. -- XPMaster 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you take a second and document your current POV issues with this article, so we know why the tag belongs there? --- tqbf 03:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Links Removed
I have removed three links, they are as follows: --Falcorian(talk) 18:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why Assembly Language Is BAAAD - This article has nothing to do with Gibson. Yes, he codes in Assembly but that's the only real link. I'd suggest Assembly language if you want to include information from the article. Frankly, this link is like putting a "Ford is BAD!" link at the bottom of random articles of people who drive Fords.
 * Web-myth debunker's life threatened by Steve Gibson Groupie - I skimmed this article, and it seems to be about a random fan, not Gibson. I may have missed the line where it says "It turns out it was Gibson that sent the death threat", but I don't think I did.
 * Steve Gibson Criticism - Removed for the above reason. I also don't believe that sites that at least try to pass themselves off as smear sites help Wikipedia's credibility, and further I think criticism of Gibson has been thoroughly covered by the previous links.
 * I think GRCsucks.com may deserve a link in the criticism section, but I agree the other links are unnecessary. -- A l e x W C o v i n g t o n  (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I seem to be in the minority on removing it, so by all means throw it back up. --Falcorian (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Alexwcovington here. GRCSucks.com, while having an unfortunate name, does have some excellent and well thought out analysis of Gibson's claims and assertions. Copysan 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, if there are no objections, can we put the "Steve Gibson Criticism" link back up? --68.230.70.235 23:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's late and I can't re-read the site tonight, but I will tomorrow. Until I do, I still object. --Falcorian (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read the site yet? If so, do you still object?--68.230.70.235 02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that GRCSucks.com is already linked to in the Criticism section. Adding another link at the end of the page would be treating it more like a neutral source. --AlexWCovington  (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Something I completely missed... Thank you for pointing it out. --Falcorian (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Still POV?
Falcorian, do you feel the article has improved sufficiently to remove the NPOV tag? If not, What still needs to be done? -- A l e x W C o v i n g t o n  (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks better now. The only real thing I can think of left is those two radsoft articles, which I don't really feel like reading through, but which on the surface seem rather POV as pointed out above. I think the tag can safely come off. --Falcorian (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is still POV... the reference links at the bottom smack of bias, linking to sites critical of Gibson. I still dispute this article's neutrality. Deltwalrus 13:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and 62.103.255.73's Edits
62.103.255.73, please provide sourcing for your edits. The only sources I could find for some was radsoft.com, and even then it was wild speculation on the writers part. --Falcorian (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What radsoft edits are you referring to? Are you talking about the ZoneAlarm promotion thing? Copysan 21:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Zonealarm thing, so far as I could tell with a quick google search, is based on a radsoft article, which, if my brief read of it is correct, basicly says "This seems likely so it is!". But also in reguards to the number of people working there, and a few other changes.--Falcorian (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. I read the radsoft articles, and I could not find any objective evidence. The radsoft articles compare Gibson to Hitler. While I'm not a member of Gibson's Gestapo, I can see that the radsoft article should not be used as a source. From this evidence and Falcorian's search, I think that any unsourced further mention about ZoneAlarm and Gibson should be regarded as vandalism. Copysan 23:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Does Gibson hold an Engineer's degree ?
I would like to add this information into the introduction, similar to the one on the Leo Laporte page, to clarify the use of the word engineer in this article:

Gibson studied EECS at UC Berkeley, but did not earn a degree.

I couldn't find any evidence that Gibson holds an Engineer%27s degree, List of University of California, Berkeley alumni says "attended", but does not mention any academic degree. Please comment. --Ministry of Truth 06:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any such claims in the article at present -- it seems that Gibson dropped out to pursue his career. Besides, in the United States most schools have B.S., M.S., and Ph.D or D.Eng programs rather than engineering degrees in the sense described in the article.  --AlexWCovington  (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the use of Engineer, whether he obtained an academic title is relevant information and the same information about Leo Laporte is therefore included on his page. As you think he dropped out too, I'll add this information unless proof of any academic titles earned is provided here over the next couple of days. --Ministry of Truth 17:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you may be suffering from a bit of culture shock here; in the United States the term "Engineer" is used a bit more loosely than in other countries; perhaps this is unfortunate but we can't redact Wikipedia to reflect what we think the world should be; Gibson could be described as an engineer, at least by US standards, by his body of work. --AlexWCovington  (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that WP should take its worldwide audience into account and as neither the factual truth nor the added value of such a mention have been disputed so far, I contemplate to make the edit as worded above soon. --Ministry of Truth 12:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may throw in my two cents before running off for two weeks: I'd have to see the evidence that he did not graduate, as the only bit that has been brought up so far is a site that is not all inclusive. Since there has been no good evidence either way, I think the current "Attended" works perfectly. --Falcorian (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I see you're an assistant at the University of California, Berkeley, would you kindly share your inside knowledge how to verify this fact one way or the other without actually going there as I don't live nearby ? That might also give us the opportunity to put "attended" back into the list where you removed it, which tends to contradict the above "works perfectly" a bit:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_University_of_California%2C_Berkeley_alumni&diff=prev&oldid=58823514 --Ministry of Truth 21:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure how one would check it at Berkeley, it seems like that kind of info would require a reason to access, but I can look into when I get back, no promises though. ;) As for attended on the list of alumni, I would consider that a different case from here. On the list graduation years are given, so saying "attended" seemed to lean more towards the not graduating point of view, while nothing seemed more neutral (case in point, the other 'attended's on the list that I can see are all from non-graduates while there are a few blank entries for unsure cases already). Here though there is no president set by other entries in a list, and so it sounds perfectly neutral. --Falcorian (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your eagerness to help and unprompted reversal of your edit to the alumni list. --Ministry of Truth 00:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if an engineering degree is held or not. Self taught people are almost always the foremost in their field, only idiots need spoon feeding by professors at a university, who largely themselves are failures in their field and can only find employment "teaching". It is quite clear that Gibson is widely envied amongst the security industry due to his genius, and te fact that he has been proven correct in almost every situation. - John Farr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.30.112 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

SYN Cookies
Minitruth, could you please add how it is inferrior or source? Simply putting "It is inferrior" is rather POV and unverified. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Falco, no sweat, would word from The Man Himself do:
 * "SYN Cookies had some useful features I hadn't considered
 * My own invention (as described on the following pages) was less than a day old and, of course, had never been implemented. By comparison, the details of SYN Cookies were years old and had the benefit of extensive open-source community experimentation and tweaking. So SYN Cookies had evolved some useful improvements that I had never considered, as well as some unnecessary (TCP Option) complications that were not required by my security scanning NanoProbe / RSVP application." http://www.grc.com/r&d/nomoredos.htm ?
 * --Ministry of Truth 21:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect! --Falcorian (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, Falcorian, always glad to oblige ;-) . While we're at it, would you help me find appropriate language to include the following facts into the syncookie story:
 * djb, modest as usual, crossposted his idea to no less than five newsgroups in 1996 (alt.security,comp.security.unix,comp.security.misc,comp.security,comp.protocols.tcp-ip) http://cr.yp.to/syncookies/idea, started a mailinglist dedicated to the subject the same month: http://cr.yp.to/syncookies/archive and posted to the linux netdev mailing list.
 * Linux had syncookie support from 1997 on: Eric Schenk himself did a reference implementation in February 1997 http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/net/9702.3/0070.html

With this amount of exposure freely available to anybody interested in the field, Gibsons claim to have independantly re-invented the wheel is, to put it mildly, surprising. How could a NPOV version of this possibly look like ? --Ministry of Truth 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve Gibson does NOT claim to have invented SYN Cookies. Also, Steve DID talk to Dan Bernstein (from the same source) "I exchanged some eMail with Dan to discuss his implementation...". This whole section should just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.222.63 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Computer Engineer
I've discussed this briefly in Leo Laporte as a side issue and it prompted me to check here, is there any support (or sensible opposition) to stating Steve as a Journalist and dropping the computer engineer description? I'd even favour a Computer Engineering Journalist description. Steve is widely criticised for any of his products or services in computer engineering having been written by ghost writers and has no formal qualifications or notable experience in IT as and of itself. A journalist he may be, a DJ, a internet personality even, but he is not a computer engineer without verifiable education, experience, resultant products or services or something else that points to achievements of any note in the field. Elomis 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you believe Gibson's resumé, he has worked on many projects throughout his career that constitute electrical, computer, and software engineering. We can accuse the guy of padding, but unless there's proof otherwise, there's no reason to call him a charlatan in the article -- he claims to be a computer engineer, and the burden of proof is on us to show that he is not. --AlexWCovington  (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I guess the only way to settle this is to define what the minimum allowable threshold is to declare someone to be anything professionally. I would imagine that having done a year of law school years ago before I dropped out I would be publicly flogged for declaring myself an attorney. That's an example of an industry that has clear guidelines and IT perhaps due to it's infancy has much more lax considerations. I would personally consider Steve Gibson to be an computer engineer under the conditions that he either holds (perferably) or has held, an employment contract stating his title or function as such, held a diploma or higher in a computer engineering related discipline or industry certifications granted by information technology companies in line with their associated educational programs. It is widely accepted that Gibson studied computer engineering, like I studied law and with much the same result (no degree awarded). Gibson's resume available on his website shows no position in his employment history where he was a computer engineer, he was a Director of Engineering at one point, VP of Development at another and beyond that he has held consultative roles. He has in fact held no computer engineering position of a company he did not found personally, and therefore his employment as a computer engineer cannot in my opinion be validated. I have no intention of outting the guy as a charlatan, I just don't think that particular wording of the article is accurate. Elomis 06:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been a very contentious point. It was a contentious point when the article called him a "computer expert" rather than a "computer engineer."  It will probably still be contentious if it describes him as any number of titles -- Gibson is not universally well-liked in any particular capacity.  Feel free to change it if you feel a particular description will play better; I'm not going to be a voice holding back the article. --AlexWCovington  (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I don't particularly like him but it's best settled with neutrality, not editing the page into a hate page which is why I checked first. It's been changed to enthusiast which is much easier to verify. Funny thing is I think expert is actually even better than engineer, an engineer is a very specific thing whereas expert probably has a lower burden of proof and can be more subjective (I consider my wife an expert cook, but not a Chef). I think enthusiast describes Steve most accurately. Elomis 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah! That's something I didn't think of.  I was focused on a job description-- I never thought of hobby terms like enthusiast.  It works well! --AlexWCovington  (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hate to stir the pot again, but may I suggest that "enthusiast" may not be the best term either? It's very broad and generic, for one thing. (In fact, one could easily argue that Leo, Steve, and the entire audience of the "Security Now!" podcast are "computer enthusiasts." What's needed is some adjective that describes why Steve is hosting the show and not any other random guy (like me) who also calls himself an "enthusiast".)  I'd really rather go back to the "engineer" (or "software engineer") description. "Security expert" is probably too contentious to use, which is perhaps understandable since the term conveys a high level of qualification that not everyone wants to concede to Steve. But "software engineer" seems to be a much lower bar to reach. I think it's a fair term to use, especially given that 1) Steve has obviously written a lot of software and 2) gets a significant portion of income from his commercial product "Spinrite". The term "lawyer" (to address an earlier discussion) denotes what a person IS (as certified by a law school), but "software engineer" is more of a description of what one actually DOES. Based on that, I think it's fair for Steve to be described as an "engineer", and not simply an "enthusiast". Motley Fool 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I selected it for broadness and for being generic. I honestly (and I think, fairly) assert that the reason Steve Gibson is hosting the technology podcast is not because he is a computer engineer, or enthusiast even, but because he is in some opinions rather good at hosting a technology podcast.  He is a technology podcaster, it's what he does and arguably who he is.  Security Expert is entirely inappropraite, it is something that is very easily defined and verifiable as someone who is an ISC2 CISSP, someone who has worked for a considerable period of time in the technology security industry as a security expert (and not say, VP of Security Operations), someone who has been awarded Security+ certification by the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), has made significant public contributions to security industry bodies (Bugtraq, SecurityFocus...) that were widely accepted by those communities as valid and accurate or a combination of any or all of those things.  I don't think anyone could objectively and fairly concede any of those to Steve Gibson.  Steve hasn't written a lot of software, he contends that he has written a handful (and with opinions that he employed ghostwriters only marginally substantiated) and has not produced anything for some years. SpinRite which is hotly contended as Nadaware (software which doesn't do anything or anything useful) (a program which repairs physical damage to disks?).  Even if all of that is misinformation or some sort of vendetta against Gibson, I used to be a 5th grader years ago, I haven't done much 5th grade stuff since so it's inaccurate to call me a 5th grader at this point even if I issue a podcast called "5th Grade Now!".  I understand the contention that computer engineer isn't what someone is but is something someone does, Steve Gibson doesn't do it.

Elomis 00:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Spinrite does repair and revive defective disks. I've used it in 1990 and successfuly optimized the interleave of an MFM hard disk (newer versions don't do that because there aren't MFM hard disks anymore) to make it faster. I also used it in 2000 to repair a hard disk. Finally in 2005 to revive a hard disk which lived another year. Google "spinrite success stories". Steve Gibson did it. Vyx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

How about the term "pundit", as in a source of vocal opinion on a subject matter. -- Tomlouie | talk 03:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me after reviewing the definition, doesn't upset fans by inferring that he is not qualified or skilled and doesn't upset me by inferring that any qualification or skill he has is anything but the result of generalised involvement in journalism.

Elomis 07:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to feel around for here is some word that indicates Steve Gibson is more than just a talking head or a random guy who likes to play with computers. Let's think about it in this way - ask yourself "Why do people go to grc.com? What do people want from Steve Gibson?" The answer is "software" (Shields Up, Spinrite, Unplug 'n' Pray, etc.) It's not "technology opinions" or "journalism". I think of John C. Dvorak as a "pundit" - not in a derogatory way, but simply as an acknowledgement that his specialty is opinion technology journalism, not necessarily in diving deep into code, operating systems, etc. Steve certainly has his opinions (e.g. the debate over raw sockets, the origin of the WMF vulnerability, etc.) but his main "gig" is his software. I'm aware of the old feud with John Navas, but I don't think that disqualifies him as being described as a "software engineer". And unless someone can demonstrate that the software on his activity page is fraudulant, I think we have to take him at his word that he actually wrote (and still maintains) that stuff. Finally, I think it's reasonable to ask "What is Steve Gibson's day job?" I don't think he's making any money off his Security Now podcast, so it's probably fair to say that the Steve Gibson Corporation (and related software and/or consulting activites) IS his job. That's far more than "pundit" or "enthusiast", IMHO. -- Motley Fool 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Replying to myself, how about "software developer"? Since GRC is a software development firm, and it's safe to say that Steve has a large part in writing that software, would this not be a fair description of him, while avoiding any more grandiose titles that seem to raise controversy?  -- Motley Fool 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I could disagree with you more, and for all the reasons you have stated. I've deliberatley avoided citing John Navas because counter-trolling is trolling but in answer to your statements; I think Steve Gibson is a random guy who likes to play with computers, I think he is a talking head.  He's certainly notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, he's certainly notable enough to have the Securirty Now! podcast but I'd contest that GRC is solely a software product marketing firm and verges on being Steve Gibsons personal homepage.

I'll take software developer as being accurate from an encyclopedic perspective, I honestly believe (along with a wide community) that Gibson has probably not written more than 20 lines of code in his life but anybody with a clue will concede that developing software is not neccessarily writing code. If you agree with me and mine that he didn't write the software, or you agree with others who insist he did, he certainly markets, supports, commentates, manages and version controls the software and according to any sensbile definition that is development of software. I've added it, rather than replaced enthusiast, to the article. I imagine in adding descriptions of him we will wind up with an average that is accurate :-) Elomis 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Elomis - On what fact do you base your wild and inaccurate assertions regarding Gibson's abilities. I personally believe you are not qualified to speak on this subject or to judge Gibson in any way. Please cite this "wider community" that along with you believe Gibson "has not written more than 20 lines of code in hs life" as this can easily be disproved by visiting news.grc.com where Gibson clearly is shown in his efforts of coding software from the ground up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.30.112 (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me. -- Motley Fool 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that there does seem to be a lot of unexplainable enmity for Gibson, I don't think insulting other contributors is the best way to address it. In fact, I think it makes the position look weaker. --Falcorian (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Falcorian – Point taken, perhaps too much of an ill conceived rant on my part, I have removed it. I fail to see why there is such speculation regarding Gibson’s credentials when anyone familiar with his work should know that he clearly knows his onions. This discussion page reads like a page from grcsucks.com, which, after all of Gibson’s “controversial claims” were proven to be correct suddenly stopped being updated. Perhaps the author of the site had a little too much egg on his face. I challenge anyone here to offer cold hard proof that Gibson is not all what he claims. He does not have to provide proof of an Engineering degree to be called an engineer here. In fact, one does not need an engineering degree to call themselves an engineer at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.30.112 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding : "He does not have to provide proof of an Engineering degree to be called an engineer here. In fact, one does not need an engineering degree to call themselves an engineer at all." AND

This issue was discussed on the live recording of SG's show/pre show "Security Now E225: Same Origin Troubles" at 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) between Leo Laporte and Steve Gibson. They essentially contend that by virtue of SG having used engineering techniques to develop product(s), and receiving kudos from Steve Wozniak of Apple SG is an engineer.

It is the case in most of the world that the title of engineer is reserved for persons with appropriate formal education and license. The United States is no exception as per []; though in the US it make not be illegal to use the title without qualification as in other locales. Based on the fact that Steve Gibson is not licensed, and is not an engineering graduate he should not use the title engineer or any derivatives. Instead the term "Technologist" should be used. --67.230.128.133 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Gibson Research Corporation
For the discussion see Talk:Gibson Research Corporation. Greenshed 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OT: I met him...
... at Call for Help, during the taping of episode 282. He talked with me, I didn't have a clue in the world who he was, let alone he coined the term spyware. Geez, so weird. That, and I had now clue in the world who Amber MacArthur and Leo Laporte were. Oh, blissful ignorance. -- Zanimum 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Coined the term 'spyware'
I think he did claim this in a recent episode of Security Now... but I can't remember which one. I'll try and look it out. MartinBrook t'' 10:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, here it is (Security now episode 44 (transcript): "'it was during beta testing of the very first version of ZoneAlarm which offered outbound port blocking, which is to say application-level port blocking, that I discovered the very first piece of spyware on my machine and coined the term 'spyware." MartinBrook t 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that he has no proof of this, and Zone Lab's press release beats him to any of his claims. He can't retroactively claim credit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.194.140.83 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I know - I was just making the point in response to Malo's recent edit, "rv to previous, gibson doesn't claim it, the register simply reported it" - the point being that Gibson does claim it. Not sure if this point should be in the article though. MartinBrook t'' 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:myststixI just edited the spyware page, removing the reference to Gibson 's claim that he coined the term. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it should not be presented as fact. In fact, I find that most likely his mention was inserted so that he would get some traffic to his website, as the page reads just fine after removing his mention. Also, the Wiki page on SpinRite is full of the same technobabble as on Gibson's commercial site, leading me to believe it was planted on Wiki by him or cronies. Again, I would question the validity of having a SpinRite page at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myststix (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
The article section list Gibson's request that listener's vote for his Security Now podcast and his review of the Kindle as criticisms but provides not source as to what notable person(s) criticized him for these actions. Since I don't believe everyone would agree those actions are wrong then I think to be NPOV, a notable source making such criticisms should be added. The current sources only verify that he did make these requests but not that he was criticized for it. --Cab88 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair on the unregistered Wikipedia users the other three criticisms are not sourced either, what makes them any more valid? --BackStagePass (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Have re-added it as the other three criticisms do not source the criticism so vote rigging on Security Now is perfectly valid. --BackStagePass (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. If you can't source criticisms, they don't belong on the page. Please don't make me revert criticisms out of the Steve Gibson article; I'm as critical of him personally as anyone else. --- tqbf 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, the relevant policies you're looking for are WP:V and WP:BLP. Note that BLP articles are held to a higher standard than other articles. --- tqbf 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed this section "controversy". There is a slightly lower bar for citing controversies than criticisms: you still need to provide verifiable sources to establish that the statement is controversial --- and, especially, that some reliable source has noted the controversy --- but you don't need to establish that someone was criticizing Gibson for it. This still doesn't allow the "vote rigging scandal"; Intgr and Cab88 are right: nobody has verified that this is at all unusual or untoward. --- tqbf 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that to show something is controversial, you need to actually show some controversy. Someone lying or saying something wrong is not itself controversy unless other people have specifically noted the person was lying or was wrong. Similarly, making a statement unsupported by others is not in itself controversial without evidence that there is a controversy there (for example, if a source has specifically noted that the statement is unsupported by any evidence). It is OR and a violation of BLP to to include a statement and then say there is controversy there because he was wrong or there is no evidence to support the claim. To put it a different way, a controversy only exists when other sources say there is a controversy, not because wikipedians find something controversial. I know for some people, this may seem strange, but even if someone were to say, for example, all people of X race should be exterminated, there is still no controversial unless sources say there is a contrversy. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In particular, editors should take a look at this version . While the 2nd controversy seems fine, the first and third are not. While it may be true SG's statement about SYNcookies was wrong, there is no evidence for a controversy there. Similarly while there is no evidence to support the claim the WMF backdoor was included on purpose, there is also no evidence that there is a controversy there. I've added sources from the external links section which establishes some degree of controversy. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think The Register constitutes a reliable source for this article. The guidelines restrict news sources in biographical articles on living persons to "high-quality news organizations," but The Register often publishes satire. The cited articles are opinion pieces and not at all professional journalism. Mdavidn (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Register is sort of the National Enquirer of the tech world. Their stories are often based on rumors and leaks, they cannot be considered 100% accurate or unbiased. All of the Register stories were written by the same person - Thomas C Greene. See link here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/24/letters/ The author of http://radsoft.net/news/roundups/grc/ seems to have a personal grudge against Steve Gibson. Why does he have a page just filled with anti-Gibson stories? It seems to me that this is a clear BLP violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I did a little editing of the page, and I know it needs verification. I have been conversing with Steve via e-Mail and this is the gist of what the "InfoWorld" section came from:

Hi James,

> I do understand, I was even considering not asking for that very reason.

I'm glad, thanks.

> If you've got anything else to add to it, feel free to do so. I think it's okay so far, I didn't write most of the article, although I am cleaning it up.

One thing I noted is that for eight years (1986-1995) I *was* a contributing editor and columnist for InfoWorld magazine, but I am no longer.

> Thanks for the support of Wikipedia...

Of course! Wikipedia has become a phenomenal resource on the web. I'm glad to see it so highly ranked by Google. I use and depend upon it a lot.

> ...as well as a very decent photograph. Might I ask what that photo's circumstances are for the caption?

I was in Toronto in April of '07 appearing on and taping four episodes of Leo Laporte's "Call for Help" television program on TechTV for Rogers Cable. I went up to Toronto every few months to appear as a guest on Leo's show to talk about technology, security, privacy, and such.

Love, Wikijimmy (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Security Now!
In a recent deletion discussion it was suggested the Security Now! may be merged with this article. Please read that AfD discussion and carry on here - Nabla (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I think the article should remain as is. It has 100,000 listeners a week, won the 2008 PodcastAward, and it was one of .Net Magazines Top 10 Tech podcasts, and has two notable hosts. *Shrug* If people still think it needs to be split, it should probably be merged across two articles, TWiT.tv (network) and Gibson. --Falcorian (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement -> NPOV
I've changed the advertisement tag to a NPOV tag because half the artice is very pro and half is very anti. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Information about "DNS Benchmark" is outdated
The information about "DNS Benchmark" is outdated, for example, "Gibson is currently working on DNS Benchmark". DNS Benchmark has been released - http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm --Mortense (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibson Research Corp Employees
FYI: Elaine is not an employee (as the term is normally used) of Gibson Research Corporation. She is a for-hire transcriptionist who runs her own company. Steve Gibson is one of her clients, hiring her to transcribe the Security Now podcasts. Her company, On-Site Media Transcription Services, can be found here: http://www.on-sitemedia.com/ Steve Gibson talks about using her services here: http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-186.htm (search for "On-Site Media")  Rn86 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Checking the sources on the article and the ones you provided it clear that Elaine is not employed by Gibson Research Corporation. I also tried to confirm her being an employee on grc.com but could not. It would be a stretch of the word employee to include her so I will go ahead and delete her from the article. I am certain a case could be made for her inclusion in the Security Now! article.  — Rɑːlɑːjər  talk 07:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Hackers movie?
Imho a note about the movie "Hackers" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers_(film) ) would be appropriate. A quote from the movie - "Hack the gibson" already became a meme. In the movie the young hackers break into a "Gibson computer" which is a specially guarded high security system. It is obviously a cameo to Steve Gibson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterKyodai (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There may something to that but unless that connection is shown by a reliable source to be referring to the article's subject inclusion would be original research or worst yet false. An interview with the director or writer stating why they used Gibson would probably be enough. IMHO I doubt it. — Rɑːlɑːjərtalk² 00:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no, it's neither obvious nor correct. The phrase is an homage to the sci-fi writer William Gibson. Nathanm mn (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
... but I don't care. Just had to say that I used to have a lot of respect for Gibson, but after following the M.I.C.E. link and reading his twisting and slippery pseudo-explanations that would do any politician proud, it's just a smouldering crater now.

Now that I've got that off my chest, feel free to revert. 101.118.174.51 (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Middle Name?
Does anyone know Steve's middle name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LurryKiss (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

California's Business Search
California Secretary of State's Business information of record database Search

under construction
please back off. I am working this article over to source it properly. I'l be done in an hour or so. I tagged it under construction to keep things cool while I work. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * done Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

COIN discussion
Just FYI: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

TWIT.TV
The TWIT network is a reliable source because it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and features experts all across the IT industry including journalists from the Chicago Sun-Times, ABC News and many other respected news organizations. In any case, even if TWIT was not a reliable source (which I don't agree with), WP:SPS applies: surely, Steve Gibson is a reliable source on his own birth date. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i would never do this. it is absolutely shit scholarship, to rely on a talk show where people are joking around. i will not edit war over it.  chalk this up to another "whatever". Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For fact-checking, could you please transcribe what is being said in the podcast about his birth date, including context? I really couldn't bear sitting through 2 hours of this. -- intgr [talk] 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. I find security fascinating.  In any case, itt's about 8 minutes in.  They always post transcriptions, but since the show just aired, I don't think it's up yet.  When they upload it, I can added to the reference.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While it may be a reliable source for some things, I would not consider the TWIT network to be totally reliable. The Security Now podcast host has regularly (and jokingly) referred to Mr Gibson's middle name as 'Tiberius' - something that I understand subsequently found its way onto this article. Ambiguosity (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No mention of controversy
I noticed that this page makes no mention of the controversy surrounding Steve Gibson and his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.162.78 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I recall that roughly a decade ago I edited a section on criticism of Steve's claims, as well as descriptions of GRC products in the article which were marketing copy. It looks the article's NPOV problems eventually caused the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater: it has lost all references to the controversies which were one of the most noteworthy features of this person (and possibly the main justification for having an article in the first place). Triskelios (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I am also here for the controversies after hearing of his abhorrent AES password generator. We should probably find some reliable sources to resurrect the section. Artoria2e5 🌉 09:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Is Gibson still alive?
Spinrite and his site haven't been updated since 2013. Verdana ♥ Bold 05:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Gibson continues to participate in his Podcast with Leo Laporte on the TWiT network, Security Now, published weekly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:100:659F:BD5C:DB37:B428:A21C (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would someone be dead just because they've given up on an old website? Given how fast linkrot happens, I would think that they entire world population would be counted as dead by now, since the number of dead websites probably outnumbers the head-count of humans on the planet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Steve Gibson (computer programmer) → Steve Gibson (programmer) – Per WP:CONCISE, WP:DAB: don't use a longer disambiguation term than is necessary. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~  Aseleste  (t, c, l) 05:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Prefer Steve Gibson (software engineer), per the lede. He is more than the teenage programmer that he was.  This much better matches his degree and various job titles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Possibly applicable parenthetical qualifiers may be consulted among those used for the entries under parent Category:Computer scientists by field of research as well as under Category:Software engineers and Category:American computer programmers, which lists a considerable number of those disambiguated as either "(computer programmer)" or simply "(programmer)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all for improvement of consistency. Talking from a position of no particular expertise, I think that an "engineer" has built things, and a "programmer" just used keyboards (but allow for connecting wired, or punching holes).  I'm also all for having parenthetical disambiguators, which are title, match the lede description.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no real objection to Steve Gibson (software engineer). While it's not more WP:CONCISE it is certainly more WP:PRECISE. My only quibble would be that Gibson is most notable to the typical reader for programs he or his company have created. But a counter would be that the RS, which really determine notability, are often more interested in his other work. Given the breadth of that work, we could almost go with Steve Gibson (technologist), which gains concision at the cost of precision. I don't really care, as long as we don't use "computer programmer" which is redundant ("programmer" isn't regularly used in contemporary English in any other sense, even television program[me] management, government program[me] administration, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Support changing it to "Steve Gibson (software engineer)" per SmokeyJoe. Gnominite (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Looks like the article is watched by many. Extra opinions will be helpful here to ensure stability of the title.  ( Non-administrator comment )  ~  Aseleste  (t, c, l) 05:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the software programmer is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, why not moved it to just plain title without any disambiguator and DAB page moved to "Steve Gibson (disambiguation)" without leaving a redirect. 36.77.74.149 (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a sure thing. Steve Gibson (businessman), the owner of a professional football/soccer club, would have a good claim. Major sports and the politico-economics in their background generate far more press and public awareness than various geeky proposals and technical wizardry (as much as I wish that were reversed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Steve Gibson (computer programmer)


text:
Ballute

The ballute (a portmanteau of balloon and parachute) is a parachute-like braking device optimized for use at high altitudes and supersonic velocities.

The original ballute configuration was invented in 1958 by the Goodyear company. The innovation soon caught the attention of other organisations, including NASA; the agency incorporated ballutes into the escape system of the Gemini spacecraft. It has subsequently seen extensive use within the aerospace sector as a means of retarding the descent of various payloads, such as sections of rockets and atmospheric probes. Various proposals involving ballutes, such as for deorbiting/recovering low-mass satellites and interplanetary research programmes, have been issued in recent decades.

Design
The ballute is an inflatable device used to generate drag. In terms of its basic configuration, it is a cone-shaped balloon, featuring a toroidal burble fence (an inflated structure intended to ensure flow separation) that is fitted around its widest point. The burble fence acts to stabilize the ballute as it decelerates through different flow regimes, typically descending from faster (even supersonic) flows into subsonic speeds. The design of the ballute, particularly its drop-like shaping, make it more suitable for decelerating at extreme speeds than a conventional parachute. Ballutes can be categorised into three primary configuration, these being cocoon ballutes that enclose their payloads, attached ballutes that attach directly to the base of their payloads, and towed ballutes that trail after their payloads. The isotensoid ballute has been recognised as the standard configuration, although other arrangements have been tested. It has been proposed that ballutes could be arranged in both stacked toroidal and tension cone form factors. Some ballute configurations are specialised to certain purposes or industries, such as the aerospace sector.

By attaching a ballute to an air-dropped object, such as a bomb or an aerospace payload, it should (provided it is of sufficient size and has correctly deployed) limit its rate of descent, potentially minimising damage to the payload on contact with the ground. They can generate a relatively high amount of drag for their mass, making them attractive in weight-constrained scenarios typical to aerospace applications.

Inflation of a ballute is typically achieved either by a gas generator or by external air being forced into the structure by an arrangement of ram air inlets. The design of the inflation mechanism is particularly critical to its successful application; if the inlets are too small or too few, the ballute shall not maintain its shape and collapse, while excessive inlet flow likely results in overpressure and raising the risk of bursting. Accordingly, the ballute has to be precisely designed to conform with the environmental conditions it is to be exposed to; similarly, the deployment ought to be with similar care, such as in respect to timing. Improper deployment is likely to cause failure, as excessive deceleration forces risk snapping fixing points and tearing fabric; tangling is another potential risk.

Applications
The ballute was originally developed in response to the instability of early supersonic parachutes, proving to be an attractive alternative.

The ballute has been used on freefall bombs dropped from an aircraft, helping to both retard and stabilise the descent.

The ballute has been extensively used through the aerospace industry. One of its earliest uses in the sector was as an element of the astronaut's launch escape equipment aboard NASA's Gemini spacecraft; it was also being used to slow down the descent of the Arcas, an early American rocketsondes, by the mid-1960s. During the 1960s, the agency performed detailed research into the ballute as an aerodynamic decelerator system on other planets, such as Mars.

In the 1984 film 2010: The Year We Make Contact, a ballute is used on the Leonov spacecraft to shield it from the effects of heating during aerobraking, allowing the Leonov to slow itself without expending fuel and establish an orbit around Jupiter's moon Io. In 2000, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory was researching the ballute, emphasising its potential for use in both aerocapture and aerobraking operations. Around that same period, the European Space Agency was also evaluating the use of inflatable shielding as a means of facilitating the controlled reentry of spacecraft.

Various proposed interplanetary atmospheric probes have incorporated ballutes; for envisioned missions to Venus, they shall act not only to control atmospheric entry but to provide buoyant support for the sensor payload as well. Landers on Mars may also use ballutes during direct atmospheric entry, while cocoon-style ballutes may also be adopted for orbital transfer vehicles in orbit around Earth. Particularly large ballutes may be used for planetary aerocapture purposes on various planetary bodies around the Solar System. Furthermore, extended designs using inflatable tension cone ballute technology have been proposed for deorbiting NanoSats and recovering low-mass (< 1.5 kg) satellites from low Earth orbit.

In early 2012, Armadillo Aerospace used a ballute during the testing of its STIG-A rocket. In February 2015, the Danish nonprofit aerospace organisation Copenhagen Suborbitals were engaged in testing a ballute for its Nexø rockets. In April 2018, Elon Musk tweeted that SpaceX would recover Falcon 9 second stages with the help of a "giant party balloon", after the company started landing the rocket's first stages routinely. However, the plan was called off. In August 2019, Peter Beck, founder and CEO of Rocket Lab, announced that they would attempt to recover their Electron rocket's lower stage utilising a ballute for supersonic deceleration, enabling the stage to be captured in mid-air by a helicopter.

title: Ballute


text:
Richard Armstrong

Richard Armstrong may refer to:

 * Richard Armstrong (author) (1903–1986), winner of the 1948 Carnegie medal for children's literature
 * Sir Richard Armstrong (British Army officer) (1782–1854), British army officer
 * Sir Richard Armstrong (conductor) (born 1943), British conductor
 * Richard Armstrong (Hawaii missionary) (1805–1860), missionary and educator
 * Richard Armstrong (museum director) (born 1949), American museum director
 * Richard Armstrong (politician) (1815–1880), UK MP for the Irish borough constituency of Sligo, 1865–1868
 * Richard Lee Armstrong (1937–1991), American-Canadian geologist

title: Richard Armstrong


text:
User talk:Thmaw

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:55, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thmaw


text:
Thank You (Duran Duran album)

Thank You is the eighth studio album by English rock band Duran Duran. It was released on 27 March 1995 by Parlophone. Consisting of cover versions, the album performed moderately on the charts, reaching number 12 on the UK Albums Chart and number 19 on the US Billboard 200, but received negative reviews from critics.

The title track, ("Thank You", originally by Led Zeppelin) originally appeared in an edited form (5:06) on the soundtrack to the 1994 film With Honors. A still shorter edit (4:32) later appeared on Encomium: A Tribute to Led Zeppelin, a month before the full version was included on this album.

Critical reception
The two singles from the album were covers of Grandmaster Melle Mel's "White Lines (Don't Don't Do It)" and Lou Reed's "Perfect Day". "Lay Lady Lay" was a single in Italy and in Spain.

J. D. Considine of Rolling Stone said "some of the ideas at play here are stunningly wrongheaded, like the easy-listening arrangement given Elvis Costello's 'Watching the Detectives' or the version of Zeppelin's 'Thank You' that sounds like the band is covering Chris DeBurgh. But it takes a certain demented genius to recognize Iggy Pop's 'Success' as the Gary Glitter tune it was meant to be or to redo '911 Is a Joke' so it sounds more like Beck than like Public Enemy."

In 2006, the album was declared the worst album of all time by Q magazine.

"Perfect Day" was the first single from Thank You and became a moderate hit, peaking at number 28 on the UK Singles Chart. In the US the song narrowly failed to crack the Billboard Hot 100, only reaching as high as #101 from 24 June to 8 July 1995. The B-side of the single was a version of the Velvet Underground's song "Femme Fatale", previously available in 1993, on Duran Duran's Wedding Album.

Lou Reed said on the electronic press kit that accompanied the album that Duran Duran's version of "Perfect Day" was "the best cover ever completed of one of my own songs".

Personnel
Duran Duran
 * Warren Cuccurullo – guitar, production
 * Simon Le Bon – vocals, production
 * Nick Rhodes – keyboards, production
 * John Taylor – bass guitar, production

Additional musicians

 * Roger Taylor – drums on "Perfect Day" and "Watching the Detectives"
 * Steve Ferrone – drums on "White Lines" and "Crystal Ship"
 * Tony Thompson – drums on "I Wanna Take You Higher"
 * Anthony J. Resta – drums on "White Lines", "Lay Lady Lay", "911 Is a Joke", "Ball of Confusion" and "I Wanna Take You Higher Again"
 * Terry Bozzio – drums on "Success", "Thank You" and "Drive By"
 * Abe Laboriel Jr. – drums on "Lay Lady Lay" and "I Wanna Take You Higher Again"
 * John Jones - additional keyboards, guitars, and vocals
 * Jonathan Elias – Moog synthesizer on "Crystal Ship"
 * Bruce Dukov – violin
 * Henry Ferber – violin strings
 * Ron Folsom – violin strings
 * Armen Garabedian – violin strings
 * Berj Garabedian – violin strings
 * Michelle Kikuchi-Richards – violin strings
 * Joy Lyle – violin strings
 * Maria Newman – violin strings
 * Pamela Goldsmith – viola
 * Scott Haupert – viola
 * Suzi Katayama – cello
 * Lee Oskar – harmonica on "Watching the Detectives" and "I Wanna Take You Higher"
 * Flo & Eddie – background vocals on "Success"
 * Grandmaster Flash & the Furious Five – background vocals on "White Lines" and "I Wanna Take You Higher"
 * Grandmaster Melle Mel – background vocals, rapping on "White Lines"
 * Curtis King – background vocals on "I Wanna Take You Higher"
 * Lamya – background vocals on "White Lines" "I Wanna Take You Higher" and "Drive By"
 * Maxanne Lewis – background vocals on "Ball of Confusion"
 * Tessa Niles – background vocals on "Perfect Day" and "Watching the Detectives"

Technical

 * John Jones – producing, audio engineering, mixing, programming
 * Anthoy J. Resta – production, engineering, mixing, programming
 * Steve Churchyard – engineering
 * Avril McCintosh – engineering
 * Ken Scott – engineering
 * Tony Taverner – engineering
 * Jason Corsaro – mixing
 * David Richards – mixing
 * Tim Palmer – mixing
 * Bob St. John – mixing, production
 * Mark Tinley – programming
 * Tim Young – mastering

title: Thank You (Duran Duran album)


text:
Talk:Natanz

Just putting this out there, this article is both terribly outdated and horribly sourced. I'd fix it but I don't have the time or knowledge of Wikicode to do it. --207.188.236.196 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT
I hail from one of the villages of Natanz. I wish to say a few words and invite anybody who is well versed on the subject to give some comments on the etymolgy of the name of Natanz and its villages. They can reach me via "makalmu@yahoo.com" My comments:

1- I think the name KARKAS here does not mean vulture but it denotes "kar-kassi" which means the stronghold or the borough or the castle or the town of the kassites or cassites. 1 A - Probably Natanz was visited by one of the Assyrian kings in 8 century b.c.

2- It is amazing, I have never heard about the martyrdom of Darius III taking place around Natanz. I have heard many enlightening annecdotes about the history and culture of the place by the locals but never about Daruis III. Could you kindly provide your sources pls? 3- As is written in the Iranian national mythology (shahnameh)Darius III was not murdered by Eskandare Maghduni's (Alexander the Macedonian) troops, but by a treacherous officer of Darius. Alexander had this officer killed.

4- The shrine's name is that of "Abdus - Samad" I would be thankful to receive any comments on my request. Thankful to any guidance and help forwarded,Ellied.
 * 1) vulture? In the hills surrounding Abyaneh, it is said to still exist towers used by the zoroastrians to expose the corpses to be devoured by vultures. Could this be the origin of the name for Kuh-e-Karkas? Siffler 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

population = ???
hi Ellied - i haven't worked on the Natanz page except for edits about the population and the threatened US/Israeli attack.

Could you put in an up-to-date estimate of the population? i put 3000 from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - but of course this is very old.

BTW (by the way), you are most welcome to write a farsi version of this page: just write:

fa:NATANZ

at the bottom of the page, but instead of NATANZ write this in farsi script - wikipedia will store this in unicode coding. Then preview and save and you will see a farsi link at the left. Click on this link and then write the version in farsi. Boud 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Natanz. 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/20131205214408/http://tehrantimes.com/politics/104773-iran-will-continue-20-percent-enrichment-at-fordo-natanz to http://tehrantimes.com/politics/104773-iran-will-continue-20-percent-enrichment-at-fordo-natanz
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211011922/http://tehran.stanford.edu/imagemap/natanz.html to http://tehran.stanford.edu/imagemap/natanz.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140721021444/http://www.natanz.org/ to http://www.natanz.org/

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) 01:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Israeli attack
Has the facility here been destroyed? 137.188.108.49 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Natanz