text:
Talk:Sargon II

Untitled
are we sure the image is "Sargon and a dignitary"? I would consider the possibility that it is actually Sargon and a god. dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've heard the "Sargon and a god" thing too, associated with this particular image, but the new description came with the commons image, so I assumed that knowledge has improved since I read Near Eastern archaeology. It would be good to get the original source, or a paper addressing the possibilities. Stan 09:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * According to 'Une archéologie des peuples du Proche-Orient'by Huot, it is Sargon and a dignitary. Hope that helps. I think a god is unlikely, one would expect it to wear a horned crown. Djaser 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Most Assyriologists agree that it's Sargon and the crowned prince, Sennacherib. Assyrian gods and other divine beings were depicted with specific features, i.e. horns, wings, etc. Note the long cloth hanging from his headdress, which is similar to that of Sargon. This was only worn by members of the royal family. --Šarukinu 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did his reign begin 5674 BC? The date at the top says 721, but the article uses 722.

---

This article should be broken into subsections. It'd make for easier reading than the currenty block-o'-text approach.

Why is the Syriac present? AnonMoos 08:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Red links
OMG!! Someone needs to deal with the red links! Either create the pages for the links, or take out the links --BatzMonkey 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do any of these things, I'm new to Wikipedia. But I would like to report plagiarism. See http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Sargon_II_of_Assyria.html -note how many of the words are the same, such as "...he took his own life with his own iron sword, like a pig." Please check this out! Thanks!

EDIT: I think in fact the other site plagiarized Wikipedia, hopefully someone smarter than me can sort this out. thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.163.139 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove -> citation needed
I've removed the refimprove tag from the top of the article. It's been there three years. It is much easier to find some citations if other editors add "citation needed" tags instead to specific statements that need support than to try and guess where others think support is needed.ANE.Scholar (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Military campaigns - some alteration proposals
Hi!

I find the quoted block below, from the "Military Campaigns" chapter a bit confusing. First of all, the chapter runs chronologically, but this block is almost in the end, though refers to events in the begining of Sargon's rule. So it could be attached to the begining. I would refer to the three years siege of Samaria differently. It should be more unambigous, that he did his part in the end of that three years (inasmuch as it was really so). Perhaps sources would be also good to show. The Bible - 2 Kings 18:9-11. - does not say anything about the resettlement of Samaria by Assyrian ethnics. It speaks only about the fact of the deportation of the Israelites. (Read it!) The resettling of Samaria is described e.g. in ch. 17. Furthermore, concerning the deportation the text is formulated a bit ambigiously. (verse 11.) The "King of Assyria" is not so exact definition. It could be also Salmaneser's successor Sargon I.
 * 1
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3

The current form of the block to which I refer:

"Under his rule, the Assyrians completed the defeat of the Kingdom of Israel, capturing Samaria after a siege of three years and exiling the inhabitants. This became the basis of the legends of the Lost Ten Tribes. According to the Bible, other people were brought to Samaria, the Samaritans, under his predecessor Shalmaneser V (2 Kings 18). Sargon's name actually appears in the Bible only once, at Isaiah 20:1, which records the Assyrian capture of Ashdod in 711 BC." Radsek (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Translation of the name of the king
I don't want to edit into the text of the headline, but I doubt, that the translation is right. Propably someone, who is responsible somehow for it, should change it. But, I think it is more simple : šarru means "king", kânu : means "to be firm". The adjective is kīnu. The king's name means : "legal king", and nothing more. (Of course, it REALLY means more, for e.g., that propably he wasn't the legal king, but it doesn't belongs here) The "Šarru-ukin = he [= the god] made firm the king" can't be OK, first of all, because of the "spelling" and writing of the name in the historical texts is different, secondly, because it's grammar is not acceptable, as the "šarru" is still in nominative, and not in accusative.

Additionally, refering the Akkadian Sargon as "who had founded the first Semitic Empire" is a bit misleading, because even the ruler dynasty was Semitic (as Akkadian is a Semitic language indeed), it would be better to say the first empire in the region, mentioned, that united under Semitic rule (if it matters, because at the time it does not). Because of the definition of "empire", it contains not only more countries (or city states too, at this time) but different people as well (at this time akkadian and sumerian - mainly). I am not too familiar about the editing of Wikipedia, so this, propably bit indifferent sentence wouldn't really matter, and the discussion maybe better belongs to the "Akkadian Empire" page. In this case, it is just an additional opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.47.11 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Death of Sargon challenged; fn [1] directs to a page not found
In the section on the death of Sargon, it says that "Sargon fell while driving the Cimmerians from Ancient Iran". I know of no source that says that that was how Sargon ended his days - not ARAB, not Olmstead, not Roux. The footnote for the statement is apparently to an old British Museum page. The British Museum has redesigned its website and the link is no longer appropriate. Please provide a proper citation or correct this statement. Miriam.2109 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Akkadian cuneiform in place of Neo-Assyrian cuneiform?
Dear both! You know how greatly I appreciate all your fantastic contributions, but it seems our Neo-Assyrian pages have ended up using Akkadian cuneiform rather than Neo-Assyrian cuneiform for original names, an anachronism of more than a thousand years. It is especially disturbing when seeing the descriptive "Neo-Assyrian cuneiform:" followed by Akkadian cuneiform in the very first lines of these articles. I myself like to use Akkadian in notes to provide etymology, but I find it very confusing to let a script appear as what it is not in major pages. Now I am aware that it is probably a matter of installing supplementary fonts (namely Neo-Assyrian) in our operating systems, but I am pretty sure that 99.9999% of our readers don't, and will never do so... Would you agree to 1) revert to jpeg renderings of proper Neo-Assyrian when possible, until Microsoft finds a way to provide Neo-Assyrian unicode as a standard? 2) Keep the Akkadian rendering when appropriate for notes? Should Antiquistik be so inclined, since he seems to have the proper fonts, he could even do some excellent jpeg or svg renderings of the Neo-Assyrian script, and replace some of my clumsy scans... पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am ok with this arrangement. Antiquistik (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also okay with this - the correct contemporary rendition should be presented and it's unfortunate that the unicode implementation of Akkadian fails to cover the often quite different versions. I don't think a majority of readers are likely to install supplementary fonts. Hopefully a proper unicode implementation is added in the future for both Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sargon II


text: User talk:67.86.4.167

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

title: User talk:67.86.4.167


text:
Category talk:Salmon

This category had both taxonomic and nontaxonomic articles (e.g., Smoked salmon), so I added Category:Salmonidae for the taxa and changed this to be a broader, nontaxonomic category.

title: Category talk:Salmon


text:
Peter Gabriel (1977 album)

Peter Gabriel is the debut studio album by the English singer-songwriter and producer Peter Gabriel, released on 25 February 1977 by Charisma Records. After his departure from the progressive rock band Genesis was made public in 1975, Gabriel took a break to concentrate on his family life. In 1976, he began writing material for a solo album and met producer Bob Ezrin, who agreed to produce it. Gabriel hired several additional musicians to play on the album, including guitarist Robert Fripp and bassist Tony Levin. The album was later known as Peter Gabriel I or Car, referring to the album's artwork produced by Hipgnosis. Some music streaming services, including Gabriel's own Bandcamp page, refer to it as Peter Gabriel 1: Car.

Upon the album's release, it peaked at No. 7 on the UK Albums Chart and No. 38 on the US Billboard 200. It has since reached Gold certification in both countries for selling 100,000 and 500,000 copies, respectively. The song "Solsbury Hill" was the first single from the album, and peaked at No. 13 in the UK. Gabriel supported the album with a tour of Europe and the US through 1977, featuring a seven-piece band including Fripp and Levin. The album was remastered in 2002 and 2011.

Background and recording
In August 1975, Gabriel's departure from the progressive rock band Genesis was made public. He had announced the decision to leave the band early into their tour supporting The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (1974), citing estrangement from the other members, the strains on his marriage, and his wish to spend more time with his family. He also wanted to avoid giving the impression of quitting Genesis "to run off and do my solo album", and took a break. Genesis drummer Phil Collins, who later replaced Gabriel as lead vocalist, said the band had known about Gabriel's departure for some time. When they learned that Gabriel was to make a solo album, they sent a telegram wishing him luck.

By mid-1976, Gabriel had recorded a collection of demos for his album. One of those songs, "Excuse Me", was written in 1975 with poet Martin Hall, a creative partnership that predated Gabriel's departure from Genesis. He considered several producers, including Todd Rundgren and Jack Nitzsche. Someone suggested Canadian producer Bob Ezrin, known for working with Alice Cooper, Lou Reed and Kiss. Gabriel played his demo of "Here Comes the Flood" to Ezrin, who enjoyed the track so much he went to bed that night singing the song. He said: "We understood each other. We talked. There was an excellent rapport immediately – a human rapport – and that was what I was looking for above all." The pair agreed to share production duties; Ezrin led the "American rhythm sections" and "very rock passages", while Gabriel led the "more European things" and "quiet parts".

Peter Gabriel was recorded at The Soundstage in Toronto in the autumn of 1976, with additional sessions at Morgan and Olympic Studios in London. Gabriel was uncertain of what parts he could and could not perform, so he agreed to Ezrin's choice of musicians, including bassist Tony Levin. Some of the musicians, including synthesizer player Larry Fast and guitarist Robert Fripp, were selected by Gabriel to tackle his soundscape-oriented ideas. Roy Bittan of the E Street Band was originally contacted to contribute keyboards on the album, but management prevented him from participating. Gabriel recalled the Toronto sessions as "fast, exciting and hot". After two days of hearing Levin play, Gabriel invited him to play on the tour. Other musicians involved were drummer Allan Schwartzberg, percussionist Jimmy Maelen, guitarist Steve Hunter, keyboardist Jozef Chirowski, and Larry Fast on synthesisers and programming.

Although mainly happy with the music, Gabriel felt that the album, particularly "Here Comes the Flood", was overproduced. Piano-only or piano with synth versions of that song appear on Fripp's album Exposure and his appearance on Kate Bush's television special in December 1979, in which Gabriel and Bush sang "Another Day" by Roy Harper. A third version appeared on the 1990 compilation album Shaking the Tree: Sixteen Golden Greats. Gabriel often performs the song live, accompanied by only himself on keyboard, either in German or English, depending on the audience. The song was debuted during an appearance on Thames Television's Good Afternoon in the summer of 1976.

Artwork
The front cover depicts Gabriel sitting in the front passenger seat of a 1974 Lancia 2000 owned by Storm Thorgerson, co-founder of Hipgnosis and the cover's designer. For the shoot, which took place in Wandsworth, London, the car was sprayed with water from a hose. The black-and-white image was then hand-coloured, and reflections modified using a scalpel by artist Richard Manning. Because Gabriel's first four albums were not titled or numbered, the album later became informally known as Car. An alternative proposal was to feature a photograph of Gabriel wearing contact lenses intended to give his eyes the appearance of metallic ball bearings; this was included on the inner sleeve.

Release
The album was released on 25 February 1977 on Charisma Records and in the US and Canada on Atco Records, and reached No. 7 in the UK and No. 38 in the US. The first single taken from it, "Solsbury Hill", became a Top 20 hit in the UK and reached No. 68 on the Billboard Hot 100. The second single, "Modern Love", did not chart.

After Peter Gabriel's release, Gabriel assembled a touring band, consisting of Fripp (occasionally using the pseudonym "Dusty Rhodes", and sometimes performing from offstage) and Hunter on guitar, Levin on bass, Fast on synthesisers, Schwartzberg on drums, Phil Aaberg on keyboards and Jimmy Maelen on percussion. The first leg of his debut solo tour, entitled "Expect the Unexpected", started on 5 March 1977 in the United States and continued until April. The UK portion of the tour concluded on 30 April. A second leg assembled a different band, which included Sid McGinnis on guitar, Levin on bass, Jerry Marotta on drums and Bayette on keyboards. The "Sightings in the Test Area During Autumn" leg began on 30 August and saw the band play throughout England and Europe before concluding on 1 November 1977.

Reception
Rolling Stone critic Stephen Demorest described Peter Gabriel as "a grab bag collection of songs that bear little resemblance to one another" and called it "an impressively rich debut album". Robert Christgau of The Village Voice found it "a lot smarter" than Gabriel's past work in Genesis, and despite noting that "every time I delve beneath its challenging textures to decipher a line or two I come up a little short", felt that the album was "worth considering". Nick Kent, writing in NME in 1978, said that Peter Gabriel was "a fine record with at least one 24-carat irresistible classic in 'Solsbury Hill' and a strong supporting cast of material that, all in all, in a year besmeared with great albums was, in retrospect, sorely underrated". The album received the prize of the French Académie Charles Cros.

Track listing
All songs by Peter Gabriel, except "Excuse Me", co-written with Martin Hall.

Personnel

 * Peter Gabriel – lead vocals, keyboards, flute, recorder
 * Robert Fripp – electric guitar, classical guitar, banjo on "Excuse Me"
 * Steve Hunter – acoustic guitar on "Solsbury Hill", "Slowburn" and "Waiting for the Big One"; electric guitar, electric rhythm guitar, pedal steel
 * Dick Wagner – backing vocals, electric guitar on "Here Comes the Flood"
 * Tony Levin – bass guitar, tuba, leader of the Barbershop Quartet on "Excuse Me"
 * Jozef Chirowski – keyboards, additional vocals on "Excuse Me"
 * Larry Fast – synthesizer, programming
 * Allan Schwartzberg – drums, phone directory
 * Jimmy Maelen – percussion, synthibam, bones, additional vocals on "Excuse Me"
 * London Symphony Orchestra – strings on "Down the Dolce Vita" and "Here Comes the Flood"
 * Michael Gibbs – orchestral arrangement

title: Peter Gabriel (1977 album)


text:
Live at Tin Angel

Live at Tin Angel is the second self-published album by American singer-songwriter Susan Werner, released in 1993 (see 1993 in music).

Track listing
All songs written by Susan Werner, except where noted

 * 1) "So Heavy" – 3:41
 * 2) "The Great Out There" (Greg Simon) – 4:21
 * 3) "Still Believe" – 5:28
 * 4) "Last of the Good Straight Girls" – 2:58
 * 5) "Snow White" – 3:23
 * 6) "My Mother's Garden" – 4:21
 * 7) "Shackamaxon Street" – 3:34
 * 8) "Intro: Attend the Sky" – 0:35
 * 9) "Attend the Sky" – 3:52
 * 10) "Soul's Not at War" – 4:27
 * 11) "Maybe If I Sang Cole Porter" – 4:04
 * 12) "Society Ball (Just the Band)" – 1:55
 * 13) "La Vie en Rose" (Mack David, Marcel Louiguy, Edith Piaf) – 2:50
 * 14) "Intro: Ain't I Lonely" – 0:54
 * 15) "Ain't I Lonely Tonight" – 3:51

Personnel

 * Susan Werner – vocals, acoustic guitar, piano, keyboard

Production

 * Engineer: George Pierson
 * Mastering: Glenn Barratt
 * Cover design: Susan Werner

title: Live at Tin Angel


text:
Talk:List of Australian Government entities

Untitled
I have created this list, but I am having trouble deciding how deep to list sub-departmental entities. All the information is available from the Government directory.

I am also considering changing the name of this article to List of Australian Commonwealth Government entities. Martyman 08:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite
I am going to rewrite this list, starting from a top level of Ministerial Portfolios. Martyman 03:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten this by portfolio as this is how the Australian Government Directory is ordered. I have also added many of the missing governmental bodies. There may be some I have missed and many may be non-notable and could be removed. Martyman 23:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This is great. However, I'm wondering whether this articles' function might better be served by an over-arching category with sub-categories and separate articles?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * True, that would be a much more elegant way of doing this. Unfortunatly it wouldn't properly replace this unless someone actually created a stub for all of the red links on this page, and that isn't very practical as many of these probably don't really deserve their own article. --Martyman- (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears as though this page needs complete revision. For example, Mark Vaile is now the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, not Trade. There must be many other inaccuracies due to ministerial reshuffles. Talk 00:48, 01 May 2007(UTC)

Etc
What's the Industrial Relations one?Chorocobo 08:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of date
This page is still basically about the situation under Howard. Isn't it time to bring this up to date? m.e. (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Title
There have probably been thousands of different government entities since 1901. This list is supposedly only about currently existing entities. Either the title should be changed, or it should list all of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Australian government entities. 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/20131014052331/http://www.dpmc.gov.au/parliamentary/docs/aao_20130918.pdf to http://www.dpmc.gov.au/parliamentary/docs/aao_20130918.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926150856/http://www.dpmc.gov.au/parliamentary/docs/aao_20100914.pdf to http://www.dpmc.gov.au/parliamentary/docs/aao_20100914.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525151347/http://www.directory.gov.au/index.php?tab=0 to http://www.directory.gov.au/index.php?tab=0

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) 05:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent issues
I haven't looked at this list in a few years, and when it popped up in my watchlist today I noticed that it'd really devolved into a bit of a mess in a couple of areas.

Firstly, the whole "Department summary" section seems entirely misplaced and blows out the length of an already long article. This is not the place for changes in departmental structure over time, because the result is far, far too long for an already-long article, even with the WP:RECENTISM situation of only going back to 2013. That's content we already cover in the individual department articles and often in the individual ministry articles if they're done properly, and the lists in this article could be straight-up ported to those articles pretty easily if it's not already there.

Secondly, this list was always a list of government departments and agencies. In most areas, it still is, but there's some areas (Education, Employment, PMC, etc) where it's been reduced to a random list of policy areas in that portfolio that's fundamentally useless for our purposes. We've got no interest in precisely how a department organises its internal bureaucracy, but we do in making sure readers can find our content on government departments and agencies. Whoever removed all the redlinks also did it no favours, because the actual agencies were overwhelmingly notable and a bunch have since gotten articles but aren't linked, and now it doesn't highlight the agencies that still need them. It really needs a rework to be pulled back to what it was meant to be (which was genuinely useful). Pinging as a recent involved editor. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that everything after Department Summary section is a complete mess and I have no idea how to fix that so I have no comments about those. As for the Department summary section which I mainly edit on, I think it is a good summary (and should be expanded to include pre-2013 changes) but I do not mind if this section as a whole should be placed somewhere else more appropriate.  Marc nut 1996  (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that it's a good summary, it's just that if it covered all ministries it'd be half a mile long in this tangentially related article that was also very long. It'd be better to copy it over into the individual ministry articles (I'd expect that the specific content already would be in the individual departmental articles). I think the actual list is relatively easy to fix - just go back to the original source (which was the Administrative Arrangements Order) and just update it, cutting out all the random dreck along the way. I'm happy to do it if there's agreement on that (just because it would take a while to fix, so I don't want to do it if it's at all controversial). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've started a draft of a potential rewrite removing all of the outdated information from the Departmental Summary section and updating each section after. I've limited sub-entries for departments to those which have their own Wikipedia pages. Skymann102 (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Potential Resources
Hi, just wanted to pass on two resources that would probably help a great deal in re-doing this page:

 * https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/administrative-arrangements-order-23-June-2022.pdf
 * https://www.directory.gov.au/portfolios

They are themselves being progressively updated since the election but most of the info needed to clean up the page will be accessible via those links. Proutk (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

An extra list entry
I have no idea where it "belongs" in this list, but an article I recently wrote Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency belongs here. When this page gets cleaned up I ask that it be added to the list (somewhere). Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 * AHPRA is a body created under a uniform law of the States and Territories. It is not a federal government agency and might not belong in this list unless a new section is created for such bodies. Skymann102 (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong. To be honest, it looks like the page is trying to be two different, conflicting things:
 * (1) a list of "government entities" (the current page title). I would think AHPRA qualifies for this list as it is a statutory authority under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS).
 * (2) A list of "government departments" grouped by "portfolio", as according to the list on the most recent "administrative arrangements order" or AAO (https://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/administrative-arrangements-order-5-december-2019). Importantly, this specific list does not include the NRAS (I don't know why it doesn't).
 * Consider Australia post. It's described as a "government business enterprise" on its page. Is that a government entity? I'd say so, but I suppose there's some distinction between government entity and government contractor which blurs the line. Regardless, just because it's in the AAO, ie. that it's in this particular organizational political model, that automatically makes it a political entity according to the current inclusion criteria for this article.
 * Comparing the article to List of federal agencies in the United States, doesn't the Australian government just seem a bit, less organized if we take the AAO as a ground truth? That's not really Wikipedia's fault, but it would be a little nicer if there was a way to organise legislative bodies not listed in the AAO without breaking some strict ordering.
 * So there's some options I suppose.
 * 1: Rename the page to what it's currently about, and possibly draft a new page for a more complete list of Australian government entities, or maybe specifically a new list article covering statutory authorities that aren't listed in the AAO.
 * 2: Add more to this list, under new, different sections like in the US article version, under a subheading like "Independent agencies and government-owned corporations", indicating the AHPRA is empowered through the NRAS.
 * 3: Leave it as is, and maybe let AHPRA sit in the less structurally organized, less prescriptive Category:Commonwealth Government agencies of Australia.
 * Personally think option 2 makes the most sense since it's consistent with the US article, and makes the information more easily accessible which I would think is the goal of a list like this. Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


text: Talk:Live at Tin Angel

title: Talk:Live at Tin Angel


text:
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case ruling in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

Background
Section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,, authorized the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to suspend deportation of an alien continually residing in the United States for at least seven years where the U.S. Attorney General, in his discretion, found that deportation would result in "extreme hardship". After making such a finding, the Attorney General would transmit a report to Congress pursuant to § 244(c)(1) and either house of Congress had the power to veto the Attorney General's determination pursuant to § 244(c)(2).

Facts
Respondent Jagdish Rai Chadha was born in the British colony of Kenya to Indian parents. Chadha was a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and entered the United States on a British passport when studying in Ohio as a foreign exchange student. After Kenya's declaration of independence from Britain in 1963 he was not recognized as a legitimate citizen or resident of Kenya (as his parents were Indian) or India (as he was born in Kenya). Furthermore, his right of abode in the United Kingdom was stripped under the Immigration Act 1971 due to his lack of connection with the United Kingdom. After his non-immigrant student visa expired in 1972, none of the three countries would accept him onto their territory, rendering him de facto stateless.

The INS initiated deportation proceedings against Chadha. Chadha sought to suspend his deportation, and the INS accommodated his request according to § 244(a)(1), and transmitted a report of the suspension to Congress according to § 244(c)(2). The House of Representatives vetoed the suspension of Chadha's deportation, and the INS resumed deportation proceedings. Chadha raised constitutional objections to § 244(c)(2), but the immigration judge found no authority to rule on such claims and ordered Chadha deported. Chadha then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which also found it lacked any authority to consider constitutional objections to § 244(c)(2). Chadha appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the deportation order, and the INS supported his challenge to the constitutionality of § 244(c)(2). The Ninth Circuit found § 244(c)(2) unconstitutional and ordered the Attorney General to suspend deportation proceedings. The INS appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court in order to obtain a final judgment on the constitutionality of § 244(c)(2).

The House and Senate, as amici curiae, argued that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney General's determination was constitutionally invalid. It asked the United States Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Congress argued that: (1) Chadha lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 244(c)(2) because that section is not severable from § 244(a)(1). Therefore, if Chadha were to succeed in invalidating § 244(c)(2), his means of remedy in § 244(a)(1) would also be destroyed, and there would be no relief possible; (2) the Court did not have jurisdiction over the issue because the Attorney General and INS enforced the challenged statute and thereby effectively waived their right to challenge it; (3) the action was not a genuine case or controversy, as both the original plaintiff and defendant challenged the statute without real opposition; (4) the action was a non-justiciable political question.

Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment. In an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, the court held that the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney General's determination was constitutionally invalid, unenforceable, and not binding. Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive branch inconsistent with the bicameralism principle and Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution.

The court rebutted Congress's assertions as follows: (1) § 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is severable from the rest of the act pursuant to the express severability clause § 406. The legislative history of § 244 supports the proposition that Congress, frustrated with the process of passing private laws to provide relief for deportable individuals, would likely not have been willing to retain the private law mechanism rather than ceding all power to the Attorney General. (2) The Attorney General and INS did not waive their right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute by enforcing the statute. (3) The action is a genuine case with adequate representation in favor of sustaining the act provided by the houses of Congress as amici curiae. (4) The case is a judicable question, not exempted by the political question doctrine; the constitutionality of a statute is a question for the courts.

The court then presented its affirmative reasoning: (5) When the Constitution provides express procedures, such procedures must be strictly observed. Two such provisions are bicameralism and presentment in the enactment of law. (6) The presentment process—especially the President's veto power—was intended by the Framers to provide a mechanism by which the executive branch could defend itself against legislative encroachment and could prevent ill-conceived policies. (7) Similarly, the bicameralism requirement was formulated in order to hinder congressional action and thereby prevent legislative encroachment. (8) The action of the House of Representatives is legislative in nature because (a) it modifies rights and duties of individuals outside the legislative branch; (b) the enactment would otherwise have required a private law, which is a legislative function; and (c) the nature of the action is inherently legislative. (9) When the Framers intended to authorize Congress to exercise power outside of the bicameral and presentment principles, it provided alternate procedures explicitly; other procedures cannot be admitted. (10) Because the action of the House of Representatives was legislative, but did not conform to the mode of action specifically stated by the Constitution for legislative action, it is therefore invalid, unenforceable, and not binding.

Concurrence
Justice Powell, in a concurring opinion, argued that to invalidate all legislative veto provisions is a serious matter, as Congress views the legislative veto as essential to controlling the executive branch, and should therefore be undertaken with caution. However, Congress's action in this case is nonetheless unconstitutional. Contrary to the views of the majority, Congress's action is not legislative in character but adjudicative, and it therefore violates the principle (called the anti-aggrandizement principle) that Congress may not expand its own power into the areas of competence of the other branches. The Constitution specifically attempted to prevent this form of aggrandizement in the Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, which prohibits Congress from undertaking legislative trials that lack the safeguards and accountability of judicial trials. For a house of Congress to force the deportation of Chadha would amount to such a legislative trial.

Dissents
Justice White, dissenting, argued that (1) the legislative veto power is absolutely necessary to modern government, as exemplified by the legislative veto powers granted in the War Powers Act of 1973. (2) The absence of constitutional provisions for alternate methods of action does not imply their prohibition by the Constitution, and the court has consistently read the Constitution to respond to contemporary needs with flexibility. (3) The legislative veto power does not involve the ability of Congress to enact new legislation without bicameral consensus or presentation to the president, but instead involves the ability of Congress to veto suggestions by the executive, a power that both houses of Congress already possess. (4) The court has allowed Congress to delegate authority to executive agencies; lawmaking does not always require bicameralism or presentation. (5) The bicameralism and presentation provisions of the Constitution serve to ensure that no departure from the status quo takes place without consensus from both houses of Congress and the President or by a super-majority vote of both houses of Congress. In this case, the deportation of Chadha is the status quo situation, and the veto by House of Representatives of an alternative suggestion of the executive branch is reasonable given the purposes of bicameralism and the Presentment Clause.

Justice Rehnquist, in a dissent joined by White, argued that it is unlikely that Congress would have promulgated § 244(a)(1) without the corresponding provisions of §§ 244(c)(1–2). Therefore, the provisions are not severable from one another, and holding one unconstitutional requires invalidating the other.

Aftermath
Chadha became a citizen of the United States and was living in Albany, California, as of October 2015.

Chadha increased the power of the executive branch. Legislative vetoes continued to be enacted after Chadha, although various presidents have issued executive signing statements disclaiming the unconstitutional legislative veto provisions. The consultation provisions of the War Powers Act, for example, while contested by every president since Richard M. Nixon, are usually grudgingly obeyed. Some laws, such as the National Emergencies Act were amended to replace the legislative veto with a joint resolution, requiring a Presidential signature and able to be vetoed, requiring a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to override. Joint resolutions have proven difficult to pass over a veto, and in cases where that process was chosen the power of the President has increased greatly.

Other processes, such as fast-track legislation or sunset clauses, have taken the place of the legislative veto in other laws with greater success in obtaining similar results to the original legislative vetoes. The Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. Sections 801-808, allowed Congress to disapprove federal agency regulations; the effect of Chadha is that any such legislative disapproval can be vetoed by the sitting President, and is not a true legislative veto. Instead, its practical use is limited to the initial days of a new President's term following a change in Administration. Such a veto had been exercised only once, in March 2001, until 2017, when the 115th Congress under President Donald Trump passed fifteen such vetoes, overturning various rules issued under the Obama administration.

In 1984, then-Delaware senator and future President Joe Biden who served as the ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a scholarly article in Syracuse Law Review appraising the impact of the Supreme Court decision on how the government works. The article was added to congressional records on July 26, 1985 on request of Wendell Ford.


text: Category:Susan Werner albums

title: Category:Susan Werner albums


text:
Talk:Tenderloin, San Francisco

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Preshlistana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Quotes
I removed this quote from the text as the Barbary Coast referred to another part of town in the 19th century.

 * "...the haunt of the low and vile of every kind. The petty thief, the house burglar, the tramp, the whoremonger, lewd women, cut-throats and murderers, all are found there. Dance-houses and concert saloons, where bleary-eyed men and faded women drink vile liquor, smoke offensive tobacco, engage in vulgar conduct, sing obscene songs, and say and do everything to heap upon themselves more degradation, unrest and misery, are numerous. Low gambling houses thronged with riot-loving rowdies in all stages of intoxication are there. Opium dens, where heathen Chinese and God-forsaken women and men are sprawled in miscellaneous confusion, disgustingly drowsy, or completely overcome by inhaling the vapours of the nauseous narcotic, are there. Licentiousness, debauchery, pollution, loathsome disease, insanity from dissipation, misery, poverty, wealth, profanity, blasphemy and death are there. And Hell, yawning to receive the putrid mass, is there also.
 * — B. E. Lloyd, refering to the Barbary Coast

- Trick 02:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How it got its name
I've lived in the SF area for 35 years, and had numerous friends in the Tenderloin, and working for local community groups. The "police can afford to eat tenderloin" origin is considered folklore at best. The more likely origin is a reference to the older NYC district with similar characteristics, or a similar naming as the "soft underbelly" of the city with reference to vice, graft, and corruption. --MCB 20:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I removed the reference to the confusing and obscure "labor districts" in the first paragraph. They have no currency outside organized labor and are never used in a general (tourist, business, etc.) context. In any case the neighborhood was not "named for" them; it's the other way around. --MCB 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As a rank outsider who ended up on this page trying to work out where someone was euphemisitically referring to having visited simply saying "the tenderloin" (as well as it being gentrified to the chagrin of a lot of residents, and on the coast somewhere vaguely near attractive beaches, so I figure it's this one), I was immediately struck by the similarity between its shape and positioning within the city versus that of the namesake cut of meat in the cow: a wide, horizontal triangle buried within a number of other neighborhoods / muscle groups. Might that be a more logical origin, especially from the days where people were more routinely familiar with the naming of cuts, and it may have been occupied by a large contingent of slaughterhouse workers with an ironic sense of humour concerning their own living conditions and diet as contrasted with the area's appearance on a map? 146.199.0.164 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

69.33.230.212 is enforcing his/her sensiblities in the form of censorship
tenderloin.net has been photo-documenting the tenderloin district of san francisco long before wikipedia was a gleam in kovitz & sanger's collective eye. this link has been part of this page since 14 dec. 2004.

tenderloin.net may have graphic photos but all content is non-sexual and everything is real.

some of the photos include editorial commentary which people may disagree with but no images are photoshopped or manufactured. all photos are genuine and can speak for themselves. tenderloin.net is a photographic observation of the tenderloin district of san francisco in its natural state.

i suggest everyone look at 69.33.230.212's history of contributions to the wikipedia project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.33.230.212

rather than adding content and expanding wikipedia, 69.33.230.212 has added two words to the wikipedia entry for Rent_%28musical%29 and the remainder of this individual's "contributions" are limited to removing the tenderloin.net link from this page.

69.33.230.212 should spend more time exploring wikipedia and deciding if wikipedia content like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VaginalOpening.jpg

are as "offensive" as the images presented by tenderloin.net.

--

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein (Strength to Love, 1963)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre, referring to Voltaire)

Commercialism & Site Added by It's Owners and Promotes
FROM WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES What should not be linked to:
 * 1) 1 In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
 * 2) 2 Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.
 * 3) 3 Sites that primarily exist to sell products.

The Tenderloin.net website does not provide a unique resource beyond the article.

The Tenderloin.net is a link that has been added by the site's owners and promoters themselves, since 14 dec, 2004. (Longevity of linking doesn't trump the guidelines.)

The Tenderloin.Net website is a website that seeks to sell a video called bumfights and really just a page away from the commercial website. Their interest in linking to this page seems to be that of commercial interest only. I am not enforcing my sensibilities on anybody. The wikipedia guidelines plainly state that they wish to write about what is offensive, but not to be offensive. Defend your spam in whatever form you feel is needed. Whatever helps your company sell videos, I guess.

www.tenderloin.net - Is a splash page and link to sell "Bumfight Videos". There are plenty of liquour stores in the Tenderloin also, should there be a link to Beer companies. Plenty of Adult Bookstores, should there be a link to each porn publisher. I guess by this logic, it would be the case. Hey, even Albert Einstein would aprove - or so it would seem.

I contributed a fair amount to the existing article, although under a different IP address and I live in the Tenderloin. Does that make me more or less qualified? Neither. Wiki is open to all for edits and corrections.

what happened to "offensive?"
69.33.230.212's excuse for censorship has changed from "offensive" to "commercialism" & "spam." what will it be next?

69.33.230.212's assertion that the link "has been added by the site's owner" is baseless. this kind of deliberate misinformation is one of the wikipedia's projects biggest weaknesses. so big that yesterday wikipedia took one small step toward rectifying this problem:

http://us.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/05/wikipedia.rules.ap/index.html

users like 69.33.230.212 are not unlike the House of Unamerican Activities in the 1950's, imposing arbitrary measures of political correctness and answering to no one:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/page2.html

"Although the project has no shortage of volunteers, most add nothing: busying themselves with edits that simply add or takeaway a comma."

"And Wikipedia's "cabal" has become notorious for deterring knowledgable and literate contributors. One who became weary of the in-fighting, Orthogonal, calls it Wikipedia's HUAC - the House of Unamerican Activities prominent in the McCarthy era for hunting down and imprisoning the ideologically-incorrect."

"So right now, the project appears ill-equipped to respond to the new challenge. Its philosophical approach deters subjective judgements about quality, and its political mindset deters outside experts from helping."

"This isn't promising."

External Link Spam: 66.159.223.15
Spam is offensive and violates the Wikipedia Guidelines. It is interesting that for all of 66.159.223.15's complaints about a lack of textualt contribution, the author's ONLY contribution is to repeatedly add this spam to the article. 66.159.223.15 has made not a single contribution to this article or any other.

It is an external link to a commercial website, among other things, which wiolates the external linking policy. In a similar vain, the article on Computer Viruses shouldn't link to computer virus software companies, etc. It's called SPAM.

define spam
spam is defined as "unsolicited commercial email." 69.33.230.212 is once again misleading the community.

i'll address 69.33.230.212's points one at a time:

The Tenderloin.net website does not provide a unique resource beyond the article.

tenderloin.net is by far the most comprehensive photo-documentary resource covering the tenderloin district of san francisco, online or offline. how is this not unique?

''The Tenderloin.net is a link that has been added by the site's owners and promoters themselves, since 14 dec, 2004. (Longevity of linking doesn't trump the guidelines.)''

stating "Tenderloin.net is a link that has been added by the site's owners" is totally baseless. the same statement was made on the history page. 69.22.230.212 is making things up and passing them off as fact. the wikipedia project's vulnerability to community members like 69.22.230.212 who deliberately mislead is one of the project's biggest weaknesses.

longevity does not trump guidelines but it is indicative of the content's relavence when it has been part of a page for over a year and has remained throughout many different edits by many different people.

''The Tenderloin.Net website is a website that seeks to sell a video called bumfights and really just a page away from the commercial website. Their interest in linking to this page seems to be that of commercial interest only. I am not enforcing my sensibilities on anybody. The wikipedia guidelines plainly state that they wish to write about what is offensive, but not to be offensive. Defend your spam in whatever form you feel is needed. Whatever helps your company sell videos, I guess.''

once again, 69.22.230.212 is misleading the community. most of the websites which are external links on wikipedia pages have some form of advertising. if tenderloin.net were a commercial site, there would be ads on every page and surrounding every photo. tenderloin.net contains nothing of the sort. the intro page has an editorial recommendation in favor of bumfights in the form of a single lined text link at the bottom of the page which the user must scroll down to see! this is anything but "commercial interest only."

now that i have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that tenderloin.net's primary purpose is not commercial and in fact has much less commercial content than most of the sites externally linked by wikipedia, i wonder what 69.22.230.212's next excuse for censorship will be?

Flawed Reasoning & SPAM & Outright False Information
It is SPAM, it does seek to promote a commercial interest and it is not relevant.

66.159.223.15's main arguement for inclusion is: "a photographic observation of the tenderloin district of san francisco in its natural state."

66.159.223.15 also states: tenderloin.net is by far the most comprehensive photo-documentary resource covering the tenderloin district of san francisco, online or offline.

That is definately not true.

The second statement is ridiculous on it's face. The San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner both have an extensive archive of photos of the tenderloin. The San Francisco public library has in it's collection numerous books and media that represent the neighborhood. There have benn documentaries produced by PBS featuring Maya Angelou that show this neighborhood. There are organizations in the neighborhood such as St. Anthony and Glide Memorial with photo archives full of images.

There is a page on the linked website that declares to be typical real estate in the tenderloin and shows a number of trailers and campers for sale. The tenderloin is in the middle of an urban city and has no mobile parks or trailers. So that's untrue.

There are factual errors and false accusations (similar to the problem discussed in the USA Today Op-Ed):

The website shows a number of photos of homeless and african american men standing on the street and declares them all to be "Crack Dealers". (http://tenderloin.net/crack.html) That is not shown to be true, and is in fact relevant to the type of false information that was discussed in the USA Today Op-Ed article about Wikipedia and spreading false information. Are those pictures in fact all of known crack dealers? No.

The website has a section that shows pictures of young women and in the tenderloin and declares them to be photos of prostitues. Is that a factual statement and representation? No.

66.159.223.15's arguements of "Macarthyism" and "misleading information" should be directed to the website claimed to be a factual representation of the tenderloin, when it is really a site designed to belittle the homeless and sell a commercial product.

It would be quite easy to find a camera and focus it on any street corner in America, make a website and say this site represents "such and such town", these people are all prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. Take pictures of condemed housing from somewhere and say, "this is housing from xyz town". Haha. So what? It isn't true or relevant. No matter if I got the domain name xyztown.net. Should that be a link to xyztown's wikipedia article? No.

Why not? It wouldn't be true, it wouldn't be representative and it wouldn't be relevant. Tack onto all of that, if the person who created the site added the link himself, it would be a violation of Wikipedia. If the site was designed to promote sales of videos, it would be commercial.

The tenderloin.net sit is riddled with factual errors, untrue statements and contains many pictures that aren't even from the tenderloin - while labeling them as being from that neighborhood. That is fiction and not a fact or a photo essay of the neighborhood in it's natural state.

That is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be? No wonder the Wikipedia has a problem. Go figure.

I'll leave it for other users to correct the spam link, but 66.159.223.15's arguement for the link's inclusion is totally flawed. The strongest arguement made by 66.159.223.15 would in fact be a case for the deletion of the link.

The wikipedia is not a search engine. It should be relevant, non-commercial and present factual information that supports the article. It is none of these.

It's easy to scream censorship and Macarthyism. But 66.159.223.15 is the one accusing people of being Un-American. I am merely trying to clean up an article that is supposed to be about the Tenderlon, not about Bumfight videos. And if there were an article about bumfight videos, I still think that site is a commercial site promoting a product and it would be spam.

you are still unable to validate your constantly evolving position
It is SPAM, it does seek to promote a commercial interest and it is not relevant.

now you're repeating yourself. this is incorrect and was addressed previously.

Your Arguement for inclusion is: "a photographic observation of the tenderloin district of san francisco in its natural state."

That is definitely not true.

''There is a page that declares to be typical real estate in the tenderloin and shows a number of trailers and campers for sale. The tenderloin is in the middle of an urban city and has no mobile parks or trailers. So that's untrue.''

the "san francisco real estate" page is a parody. humor. something which you obviously lack. notice it was called "san francisco real estate" and not "tenderloin real estate." is spinning and twisting the best you can do?

There are factual errors and false accusations (similar to the problem discussed in the USA Today Op-Ed):

''The website shows a number of photos of homeless and african american men standing on the street and declares them all to be "Crack Dealers". That is not shown to be true, and is in fact relevant to the type of false information that was discussed in the USA Today Op-Ed article about Wikipedia and spreading false information. ''

''Are those pictures in fact all of known crack dealers? No.''

where is it stated that "those pictures in fact all of known crack dealers?" you said this, no one else. http://tenderloin.net/crack.html

''The website shows pictures of women in the tenderloin and declares all of them to be photos of prostitues. Is that a factual statement and representation? No.''

you ask if this is "a factual statement and representation?" where is it stated that all photos of women are of prostitutes? most of the photographic content contains no editorial content at all.

Your arguements of "Macarthyism" and "misleading information" should be directed to the website you claim to be a factual representation of the tenderloin, when it is really a site designed to belittle the homeless and sell a commercial product.

i do not see how mcarthyism has anything to do with expressing an opinion. enforcing your opinion on others is mcarthyism and it is censorship.

tenderloin.net is a factual representation of the tenderloin in its photos, which are all 100% genuine, no fakes. you may disagree with the editorial content but the photos speak for themselves.

''It would be quite easy to find a camera and focus it on any street corner in America, make a website and say this site represents "such and such town", these people are all prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. Take pictures of condemed housing from somewhere and say, "this is housing from xyz town". Haha. So what? It isn't true or relevant. No matter if I got the domain name xyztown.net. Should that be a link to xyztown's wikipedia article? No.''

no where does tenderloin.net express that all the residents of that neighborhood are "prostitutes, drug dealers, etc."

http://tenderloin.net/crack.html again, most of the photographs include no editorial content. tenderloin.net contains more photos of the tenderloin district of san francisco than any other source online or in print. this is a fact.

''Why not? It wouldn't be true, it wouldn't be representative and it wouldn't be relevant. Tack onto all of that, if the person who created the site added the link himself, it would be a violation of Wikipedia. If the site was designed to promote sales of videos, it would be commercial.''

asked and answered.

why don't you address the fact that not only has your reason for deleting this link changed from "offensive" to "commercialism," but also your assertion in both discussion and history that the link was added by the site's owners. that indicates that your reason for deleting the link is actually something other than what you are representing it to be.

''The site you reference is riddled with factual errors, untrue statements and contains many pictures that aren't even from the tenderloin - while labeling them as being from that neighborhood. That is fiction and not a fact or a photo essay of the neighborhood in it's natural state.''

again, most of the photos contain no comments. all photos are 100% genuine and are anything but fiction. if you disagree with or find no humor in the editorial comment, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. just don't push it on the wikipedia community.

''That is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be? No wonder the Wikipedia has a problem. Go figure.''

tenderloin.net is not an encyclopedia. it is an external link on this page.

''I'll leave it for other users to correct the spam link, but your arguement for the link's inclusion is totally flawed. Your strongest arguement would in fact be a case for the deletion of the link.''

nice job changing the subject to avoid answering my criticism.

''The wikipedia is not a search engine. It should be relevant, non-commercial and present factual information that supports the article. It is none of these.''

again, most sites externally linked on wikipedia pages contain much more commercial content through advertising. again, the photos are 100% genuine and are 100% factual.

It's easy to scream censorship and Macarthyism.

it's easy to scream "offensive" and "spam."

But you're the one accusing people of being un-american.

none of my comments on either the discussion or history pages have accused anyone of "being un-american." you are again making things up and stating them as fact. the inability to filter deliberate misinformation is one of the wikipedia project's greatest weaknesses. next you're going to say that the link "has been added by the site's owner."

''I am merely trying to clean up an article that is supposed to be about the Tenderlon, not about Bumfight videos. And if there were an article about bumfight videos,''

the bumfights video is not mentioned anywhere in the article and you have not removed bumfights from the article at any time.

I still think that site is a commercial site promoting a product and it would be spam.

how can a site which doesn't even have adsense-style or doubleclick style advertising be considered commercial? again, the link to bumfights is a single line of text at the bottom of one page which is an editorial recommendation. what you think and what is factual have turned out to be mutually exclusive over and over and over.

you have also made a habit of ignoring my hard points and hitting my soft points. i have addressed all of your concerns. you are intellectually dishonest by debating in this manner. you are factually dishonest when you make statements like the link "has been added by the site's owner" and that i'm "accusing people of being un-american."

Commercial Website
Besides promoting a video, the link to photos also has products for sale on shirts, caps, bags, mugs with photos from the website. Commerce = Commercialism. Linking to Bumfights where the site owner get a 20% comission on sales = Commercialism. It is definately a website promoting a commercial interest. It is SPAM, the user 66.159.223.15 continues to add the link and nothing more to Wikipedia. It should be removed.

Can you prove that the site owner gets 20% commission of the sales of Bumfights videos or are you pulling that claim straight out of your ass?

I could make the claim that you are a homosexual prostitute that specializes in beastiality but that doesn't necessarily make it true...or does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.244.200 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

An outsider's view
First, please avoid edit wars, they serve no purpose. Instead of constantly reverting, discuss this in a civil manner on the talk page.

Second, I agree that the link adds nothing to the article and is not needed, and is more than likely commercial SPAM.

Third, if all else fails, submit the dispute to WP:RFC, but please try to work it out here first. Peyna 00:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

2 out of 255 is hardly commercial or promotional content
tenderloin.net has 255 web pages. most of those pages contain photos only, no text.

253 of those pages do not contain commercial content in any form--text links, google adwords style or doubleclick banner style.

2 of those 255 web pages contain simple text links to commercial sites but these text links are in the form of editorial recommendations, not paid advertisments.

in light of these facts:

- please explain how tenderloin.net is a commercial site promoting a product.

- please explain how externally linking to tenderloin.net from this article is of significant financial benefit to anyone.

RFC
A partial request for an WP:RFC on the inclusion of a link to Tenderloin.net has been made at This RFC

First, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. In general we are quite happy if articles have _no_ external links apart from references - we would much rather have the content inside the Wiki where it can be editted by all. Nevertheless there can be advantages in including some well chosen external links that are particularly appropriate to topic and can't be included in any other way.

Tenderloin.net appears to be a collection of photographs of people in and around Tenderloin, San Francisco, so it is not completely off topic. However it doesn't add much of relevance and appears to be POV pushing so is probably better removed. The author might prefer to contribute some photos under a free license to Wikimedia Commons. -- Solipsist 09:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * delete -- Solipsist 09:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Ian 13 20:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- support Solipsist's suggestion that the author contribute some photos under a free license, if he thinks it's so important that readers see these photos. Wikipedia is about free content, not promoting unfree content. Phr (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- as above, plus I believe that the link promoter is not acting in good faith Ergative rlt 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I understand the objections to the site, and although I don't think the link is repeatedly added in order to promote any commercial interest, the tone of the site is not itself neutral as to its viewpoint. That said, it is probably the best collection of photos of the Tenderloin available on the net, and I am reluctant to remove a pointer to a useful resource. MCB 06:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletions on Tenderloin wiki page
Looks like the typical SF liberals control this page by their overzealous enforcement of what they consider the truth. You obsessive wiki deletion artists have your heads wedged firmly in your posterior. As someone who lived on the outskirts of the Tenderloin for 12 years I can say for a fact that your glowing descriptions of the Tenderloin are nothing but pure fantasy.

A co-worker of mine was CARJACKED at GUNPOINT less than six months ago from the corner of Larkin and Sutter as she picked up a friend and was loading a suitcase in the trunk of her car. Her and her friend were driven around the Tenderloin by the carjackers for the next two hours while the carjacker and his accomplice sold the suitcase and rifled through their purses for cash. Your skewed view of the Tenderloin is a joke and doesn't reflect the REAL Tenderloin. One might think you are a Tenderloin property owner making efforts to raise your property values.

I suggest you wiki assholes get a life and stop imposing your flawed and false views on intelligent people.

And by the way, tenderloin.net IS hands down the best photographic reference of the Tenderloin. To say that is is not because the Chron took some photos just makes you sound like even more of a moron. Thank god I moved out of SF and got away from assholes like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.37.114 (talk • contribs)

Larkin and Sutter = Nob Hill/Polk Gultch not the tenderloin

Revert War
I post this message due to the severe edit war taking place: My I ask all parties involved in edit war to stop reverting edits, especially refering to the external link on this page. If you do so you run the rish of breaking WP:3RR (The three revert rule), and if this happens you may be blocked from editing. Any user who is having their edits reverted by multiple users, and is restoring them will be placed forth for Adminstrator intervention, and for further action to be taken. Thank you for reading this. Ian 13 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Guess you wiki asswipes don't understand shit.
Do not revert means do not revert.

Do any of you have an education that goers past the third grade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.141.92 (talk • contribs)

The Tenderloin in Pictures
So, I can't really tell what the final outcome of the dispute between the promoters of bumfights/tenderloin.net and their detractor was from the posts above but it seems clear to me that 1) tenderloin.net is essentially an advertisement for bumfight products and 2) the POV expressed at tenderloin.net is hostile, insensitive, and cruel in regard to its treatment of the homeless and mentally ill. One page of photographs is accompanied by the heading:"Another afternoon in the Loin - Dealers, pimps, hookers, freaks and lazy bastards". The photos that follow would perhaps be an acceptably neutral observations of homeless life were they not prefaced with such a degrading caption. Not only is tenderloin.net crass and exploitative of the "freaks and lazy bastards" it showcases, it is attempting to make money at the expense of some of the most destitute and unfortunate people in the First World. As of 2:05 AM, 5/29/06, the external link to this pathetic display of sadistic cruelty still exists. Can anyone possibly justify why it should remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.241.217 (talk • contribs)

 * I took out the link but probably won't be on Wikipedia much for the next few weeks, and I don't want to get sucked into an edit war. I do have a few TL pictures of my own that I might upload if I can find them. Phr (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I have to agree that the article takes too much of a real-estate-salespersons-point-of-view for my tastes. I may try to tone it down when I get back to editing. Phr (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No surprise that people might fight about this article
While it's no surprise that people fight about this article, the level of vitriol here would embarrass anyone who actually works or lives in the Tenderloin who also sees this site. If you promote anything besides *fact* here, get a grip. It's an encyclopedia - not a soapbox. Thanks, Throbblefoot 07:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Borders
Whatever one's personal definition of the Tenderloin is, the article should reflect common usage. This does often include the lower Polk Gulch region and the area immediately south of, or on the southern slopes of, Nob Hill - see some of the links, and the discussion on gentrification - and thus should be mentioned in the article. Also, the Castro isn't a very good choice to set the location of the Tenderloin as the two neighborhoods do not share a border. Finally, saying that Post Street is the northern border, but that it can range as far north as Geary Street makes no sense as Geary is south of Post. Ergative rlt 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The borders of the Tenderloin are fixed at the jurisdiction of the Tenderloin Taskforce of the SF Police Department.  The northern border of their beat is O'Farrell Street, and the southern border of SFPD's Northern Division is at Geary.  Therefore, the northern boundary of the Tenderloin is at O'Farrell. Bricology (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Not too sure about the southern boundary of the TL being Market - I have always understood it to be McAllister from Polk down to Market, then Market over to Mason. SFPD TL Task Force jurisdiction includes Civic Center and UN Plaza, which are bounded by McAllister to the north, Van Ness to the West, and Market to the south and east. It seems obvious to me that City Hall, Civic Center, and UN Plaza wouldn't be included in the Tenderloin, but I would like to open the matter to further discussion before unilaterally changing the article.

Cleanup and Editing
Did a massive cleanup and revision of the article. Added infobox, removed Peacock\Weasel terms; removed bloated, irrelevant information, as well as lists. Looking at the previous For future edits, please refer to the following as far as Wikipedia rules guidelines, or your edits will be deleted and your IP possibly blocked. Thank You!

 * Policies and guidelines
 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * What Wikipedia is not

Eman007 16:00, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed name change for district
, PETA wants its name changed to the "tempeh district" or similar vegan term. Should this be added?(mercurywoodrose)75.61.138.42 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be appropriate to list any proposed name changes, if they've received media attention. Others would include "the Ten", "the 'Loin", "the TL", etc.  Some of these have been re-branding attempts on the part of local groups, others are slang, but if they meet WP:N and WP:RS, I think they should be included. Bricology (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Timeline for use of the name
One aspect of the name that has been neglected in the article is the timeline of its use. There are really two separate issues here: the geographic area and the various names for it that have been used over the past 165 years, of which "Tenderloin" is just one (and a fairly recent one at that). As it is now, the article conflates these two separate topics. The neighborhood now known as SF's Tenderloin was not called such before the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. I've looked at dozens of pre-Quake maps and most of them refer to the area as "Downtown"; none of them use the term "Tenderloin". Indeed, before the 'Quake, the neighborhood was quite affluent. For example, I've seen photographs of large, detached single-family houses on O'Farrell at Leavenworth as would've befitted upper-middle-class families. And private clubs like the Bohemian Club, The Family (club), the Olympic Club and countless others were operating within a few blocks of the area; something that they would not have done had the neighborhood been considered "bad" at the time (pre-1906). After burning down, the area was largely rebuilt with nice hotels, concert halls and theaters, and middle-class apartment blocks for single men who worked in the Financial District. The peak in rebuilding occurred in the 1920s during which the neighborhood continued to be referred to as "Downtown" and it wasn't really until the 1950s that anyone locally referred to the area as the "Tenderloin". So really, when the article speaks of SF's "Tenderloin", it's referring to a fairly recent nickname rather than a long-time or official name. I'd welcome any additional information on the timeline of the use of the name to flesh this out before adding it to the article. Bricology (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Tenderloin has evolved...
This Wikipedia page is outdated to put it mildly. There have been many changes to the Tenderloin. That strip club--Chez Paree--has been closed now for maybe 10 years, replaced with an upscale bar. Boeddeker Park has never been a haven for drug dealers or addicts. It has had staff on site to ensure that that does not happen. Boeddeker Park has been the playground for several of the local grammar schools in the area and park staff have been diligent in protecting the park from criminal activity for obvious reasons. The park has just recently re-opened--Dec. 10, 2014, after extensive renovation. The old building was torn down and replaced with one where park supervisors have complete visual access to the entire park. Again, for the benefit of the children. St Anthony Soup Kitchen and Senior Housing complex has also recently opened. The Channel 7 building--vacant for so many years has been refurbished into private apartment units. The downtown YMCA building has been remodeled for subsidized SRO housing. The description given of the Tenderloin as dangerous does not tell the complete story; there has been a police sub-station located on the corner of Jones and Eddy street for more than 10 years now, and that has had a positive impact on the safety of the community. I don't know who is in charge of maintaining this page--but some people have to take the bug out of their butt and get to work with a refurbished article. StevenTorrey (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@StevenTorrey, I plan to re-edit this page by including the Central Market/Tenderloin Strategy by the SF Planning Commission. This page does not include the changing culture of the Tenderloin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preshlistana (talk • contribs) 09:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tenderloin, San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080912221659/http://www.sfgate.com:80/maps/sfhomicides/ to http://www.sfgate.com/maps/sfhomicides/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tenderloin, San Francisco. 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/20120104072951/http://www.aerosolfiends.com:80/wordpress/page/24/ to http://www.aerosolfiends.com/wordpress/page/24/

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) 10:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Human Feces?
Really??? It's been there for months, so is it real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.195.10 (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has any thoughts on this?:

There's nothing about it anywhere in the article, and it's just a picture (named Tenderloin_Poop_Map) with a caption saying

"San Francisco's Tenderloin, as seen on a map that tracks reports of human feces on SF's streets. Blue dots represent reports in any given month".

There's no way this is real. It's hilarious, but come on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.194.140 (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternate name "Tian Delong"
This appeared in a news story on February 17, 2021 https://news.yahoo.com/elderly-asian-man-pushed-hip-163012166.html

Ryan General Wed, February 17, 2021, 10:30 AM A suspect has been arrested in connection with an assault on an elderly man in the Tian Delong (Tenderloin) District in downtown San Francisco on Sunday night.

Google searches are pretty sparse for "Tian Delong". Is this a local pronunciation among an ethnic group in the area? Group29 (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Human trafficking
I need to get ahlod of this PD. I will look for the phone #. I believe my son had a labotomy in the Tenderloin dist in 1998. My mothers husband, Hans Sellhorn owned a hotel in the Tenderloin until 2006 198.102.103.18 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tenderloin, San Francisco


text:
Talk:Civil Rights Memorial

Untitled
Get a picture
 * Done. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fire Semester 3
— Assignment last updated by Worm Insurrection (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Civil Rights Memorial


text:
Rhianna Pratchett

Rhianna Pratchett (born 30 December 1976) is an English video game writer and journalist. She has worked on Heavenly Sword (2007), Overlord (2007), Mirror's Edge (2008) and Tomb Raider (2013) and its follow up, Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015), among others. She is the daughter of fantasy writer Terry Pratchett.

Career
Rhianna Pratchett studied journalism at the London College of Printing and following graduation began writing for Minx magazine, where her first games reviews were published. She moved to the long running PC Zone magazine as an editorial assistant, staff writer, eventually becoming a section editor. She wrote for many other publications including The Guardian.

Pratchett moved into script writing and narrative design in 2002, with Beyond Divinity, produced by Larian Studios in Belgium. She also wrote a novella to accompany the game. In 2007, her work on Heavenly Sword was nominated for a BAFTA and a year later she won a Writers' Guild of Great Britain 'Best Videogame Script' award for Overlord. Pratchett wrote the comic Tomb Raider: The Beginning with Dark Horse and the Mirror's Edge miniseries with DC Comics, along with several of her own short stories. She has contributed to various books on games narrative including Professional Techniques for Video Game Writing and Game Writing: Narrative Skills for Videogames.

Since 2012, she has been co-director of Narrativia Limited, a production company which holds exclusive multimedia and merchandising rights to her father Terry Pratchett's works following his death. In 2012 and 2013, Narrativia announced that it would be working on three television projects based on Pratchett's father's works: The Watch, Good Omens, and Wee Free Men, as well as several other projects; Pratchett was reported as co-writer of The Watch but in 2019 she announced she had not been involved in the project "for many years". In a deal announced in April 2020, multiple Discworld novels are to be adapted for television by Narrativia, Motive Pictures and Endeavor Content.

She has also spoken on BBC Radio 1, Radio 4, 5Live and multiple conferences around the world, including Develop, Animex, GDC and TEDx Transmedia. In June 2015, she said that her father's 41st Discworld novel The Shepherd's Crown, to be published posthumously later that year, would mark the end of the series, and that no further novels or books of unfinished work would be authorised for publication.

In 2023, Pratchett hosted her first radio programme, Mythical Creatures, a ten-part documentary series for BBC Radio 4 about creatures from British folklore. It was first broadcast from 18-29 December, 2023.

Video games

 * Beyond Divinity (story editor) – Larian Studios (2004)
 * Stronghold Legends (writer) – Firefly Studios/2K (2006)
 * Heavenly Sword (co-writer/story) – Ninja Theory/Sony (2007)
 * Overlord (writer/audio co-director) – Triumph Studios/Codemasters (2007)
 * Overlord: Raising Hell – expansion pack (2008)
 * Viking: Battle for Asgard (writer) – The Creative Assembly/Sega (2008)
 * Mirror's Edge (writer) – DICE/EA (2008)
 * Prince of Persia (additional writer) – Ubisoft Montreal (2008)
 * Overlord: Minions (writer) – Climax/Codemasters (2009)
 * Overlord: Dark Legend (writer/voice director) – Climax/Codemasters (2009)
 * Overlord II (writer/voice director) – Triumph/Codemasters (2009)
 * Risen (co-writer of English localization) – Piranha Bytes/Deep Silver (2009)
 * CSI: Fatal Conspiracy (writer) – Telltale/Ubisoft (2010)
 * BioShock Infinite and BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea (additional writer) – Irrational Games/2K (2013)
 * Tomb Raider (lead writer) – Crystal Dynamics/SE (2013)
 * Beat Buddy: Tale of the Guardians (writer) – Threaks (2013)
 * Thief (story and cinematics) – Eidos Montréal (2014)
 * Rival Kingdoms (story and characters) (2015)
 * Rise of the Tomb Raider (lead writer) – Crystal Dynamics/SE (2015)
 * Overlord: Fellowship of Evil (writer) – Codemasters (2015)
 * Dance of Death: Du Lac & Fey (story consultant) – Salix Games (2019)
 * Lost Words: Beyond the Page (writer) – Sketchbook Games (2019)
 * Surgeon Simulator 2 (writer) – Bossa Studios (2020)

Gamebooks

 * Crystal of Storms (Fighting Fantasy) – published by Scholastic (2020)

Other books

 * Campaigns & Companions: The Complete Roleplaying Guide for Pets (with Andi Ewington) - published by Rebellion (2021)

 * Tiffany Aching’s Guide to Being a Witch (with Gabrielle Kent) - published by Penguin Books (2023)

Tabletop games

 * Bardsung (lead writer and narrative designer) – Steamforged Games

Comics

 * Mirror's Edge #1 to #6 – published by DC Comics (2008)
 * Tomb Raider: The Beginning – published by Dark Horse Comics (2013)
 * Legends of Red Sonja #3 – published by Dynamite (2014)
 * Tomb Raider #7 to #18 – published by Dark Horse Comics (2014–2015)

Film and television
Pratchett has appeared in the documentaries Games Britannia, Critical Path and Charlie Brooker's How Video Games Changed the World.

Achievements

 * Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015) – Won Outstanding Achievement in Videogame Writing at 68th Writers Guild of America Awards 2016. Won Outstanding Achievement in Character for Lara Croft at 19th Annual D.I.C.E. Awards 2016
 * Risen (2009) – co-nominated for a WGGB award 2010.
 * Won the European Women in Games Hall of Fame Award in 2013.

title: Rhianna Pratchett


text:
Harvard International Review

The Harvard International Review is a quarterly international relations journal published by the Harvard International Relations Council at Harvard University. The HIR offers commentary on global developments in politics, economics, business, science, technology, and culture, as well as interviews with global leaders.

Structure
The magazine features quarterly cover topics, broad surveys of developments in international relations (collectively referred to as the Global Notebook), outside perspectives, and interviews. Cover topics in recent years have included analyses of the role agriculture plays in international development, the erosion of trust in modern institutions, and the trade-offs between compromise and defiance.

Various boards within the HIR also work to copy-edit articles, design the print magazine, connect with new subscribers and advertisers, and maintain the magazine's website and social media presence. The HIR 's website features exclusive content and active blogs on current events. In all, the magazine has a growing readership of over 200,000.

History
The HIR was founded in 1979 by a group of undergraduate students in the Harvard International Relations Council, allowing students to analyze foreign affairs in an academic and journalistic forum. After monthly publication early on, the HIR pivoted to quarterly distribution, and began soliciting the perspectives of prominent figures in international relations.

To date, the magazine has featured articles or interviews from over 40 presidents and prime ministers, four UN Secretaries-General, four Nobel Economics Prize laureates, and seven Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

Notable alumni
Notable Harvard alumni to have been staff members of the Harvard International Review include Philip A. Brimmer, Erik Brynjolfsson, Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty, Bernard Hebda, Stephen A. Higginson, Ambassador Philip S. Kosnett, David Laibson, Simpsons writer Jeff Martin, Robert McCord, Marc Rotenberg, Phillip Steck, John Weston, and M. Edward Whelan III.

title: Harvard International Review


text: User talk:69.9.27.98

title: User talk:69.9.27.98


text:
Talk:Bernard Sumner

Surname
The article isn't very explicit on what surname Bernard used when he was in Joy Division (Dicken, Albrecht or Sumner). I myself am kind of confused.

 * I think it should mention that he was born Dicken, the brief period he used the name Albrecht, and his subsequent settling on the name Sumner. If there are no objections I will go ahead and do that. sugarfish (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 * There are a lot of Sources in Internet, for example Bernard Sumner on Discogs, Bernard Sumner on Russian Wikipedia, on IMDB and so on where it said that his Birth name was Bernard Dicken, his Alternate names was Albrecht, Albrecht-Dickens, Barney Rubble etc. So I think we should to change Birth name line Bernard Sumner → Bernard Dicken. --Antara-2009 (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Discogs.com, other wikis and imdb are not reliable sources as they are user submitted. We would need a source from a printed publication (book, newspaper, magazine) or from a website that complies with WP:RS and WP:SPS. --JD554 (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 * This page at MySpace claims to be 'official' and gives Sumner's birth name as Bernard Dicken. That page links to the 'Band Website' www.neworderonline.com which gives the same information here (but note here "We are NOT an official New Order website".)  Mr Stephen (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble with MySpace is that it can be difficult to establish if genuinely is the official page. As you pointed out the other website is not official. I think we still need a good reliable source. --JD554 (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

←I'll re-add "Dicken" as his birth name as I've found a couple of reliable sources now. --JD554 (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Courtesy of the Waterstones reference library, it seems it's a bit more complicated. David Nolan devotes several pages to the issue in a book, acknowledging that it's a murky business.  In short, Nolan has it that Sumner was born Sumner, then his mother married someone called Dicken (IIRC it was Dickin, but common sense suggests my memory is faulty).    Mr Stephen (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Currently the article makes no mention of any name besides Sumner. At least a brief acknowledgment that he has used other names is probably in order, if only for people who have seen him listed as Bernard Albrecht. I'm not sure I know the history well enough to attempt the edit - my recollection is that he gave his name as both Albrecht and Sumner during the JD period, and gradually dropped the Albrecht (I don't recall him using Dickens or any other name), but again I'm not confident enough to attempt to change. --CAVincent (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Extremely late in the day, but I remember he was known as Albrecht during the 'Unknown Pleasures' era and likely until the death of Curtis. The minimalist approach of Factory Records in their sleeves and record label designs does not name the individual members of the band, and writing and playing credits were the band name. I wonder if the early 'sampler' records have any mention of the name Albrecht. There was some controversy about both Joy Division and New Orders' names, and the images in early JD single releases, as being related to Nazism - I think there were issues relating to the Albrecht for the same reason. I think he was captioned "Albrecht" in some television appearances early on, and was referred to as the same in interviews. If decent credible sources can be found for any of this, then it provides reason to include the name (especially as a redirect). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

'He is a fan of Manchester United football club'
I thought he wasn't interested in football - hence Keith Allen's involvement in World In Motion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.217.179 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Electronic
I know they're not as important as Joy Division or NO, but surely Electronic deserve more than a single sentence in a paragraph describing various collaborations? They did produce three critically acclaimed albums after all. Pjc51 (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Divorce
The article mentions that the song "Round & Round" is about Sumner's divorce without citing any sources. Meanwhile, the article for the song itself mentions (also without citing a source) that the song is about Sumner's relationship with Tony Wilson of Factory Records. Both seem plausible. Neither has any evidence to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.2.68 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"You all forgot Rudolf Hess"
In what context and why did Bernard say: "You all forgot Rudolf Hess" Can anyone answer that for me, please? Thank-you. (120.149.113.145 (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

 * At a gig at the Electric Circus, Sumner shouted, "You all forgot Rudolph Hess!" before a performance of Warsaw. sugarfish (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection

 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5th February 2015.
Due to the almost constant vandalism on this article from the New Order vandal, can we have this page protected please?

JG Malmsimp (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Page protection requests are made here: WP:RFPP  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see there have been plenty of additions and removals of genres. Are there sources for any of them? bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bernard Sumner


text:
International Organization (journal)

International Organization is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal that covers the entire field of international affairs. It was established in 1947 and is published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Organization Foundation. The editors-in-chief are Brett Ashley Leeds and Layna Mosley.

International Organization is considered the leading journal in the field of international relations, and one of the top journals in political science. In a 2005 survey of international relations scholars on "which journals publish articles that have the greatest impact" in their field, about 70% included International Organization among the 4 "top journals", ranking it first among 28 journals. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 7.8, ranking it 3rd out of 187 journals in the category "Political Science" and 1st out of 96 journals in the category "International Relations".

The journal was founded in 1947 by the World Peace Foundation, a philanthropic institution. In its early years, the journal focused on the United Nations, but expanded its scope over time to become a general international relations journal. The journal has been credited with helping to establish the subfield of international political economy within international relations. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, who joined the journal in 1968, played an important role in steering the journal from scholarship focused on the UN to generalist scholarship in international relations. Keohane and Nye broadened the definition of institution so that it did not exclusively refer to formal organizations. In the 1990s, the journal played an important role in expanding the theoretical pluralism of international relations scholarship, bringing prominence to social theories (such as rational choice and constructivism) alongside the traditional realist and liberal theoretical frameworks.

Keohane was editor of the journal from 1972 to 1980. Peter J. Katzenstein was editor of the journal from 1980 to 1986. Stephen D. Krasner was editor of the journal from 1986 to 1991. Lisa Martin was the first female editor of the journal from 2001 to 2006. The journal has been a flagship journal of international relations since the mid-1970s.

title: International Organization (journal)