text:
User talk:Keito~enwiki

Please refrain from making personal attacks such as: "This idiot should be beaten to death and banned." on user talk pages. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   15:33, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

 * Sorry, 204.83.211.251 made me very angry. It won't happen again. --Keito 16:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Masashi Tashiro
Hi, Mr. Keito. I'm from Japan Hatto. I saw your Norwegian user page. There's Masashi Tashiro's name on it. I hope that his article is created on all wikipedia's languages. Because I want to spread his appearance (Is English choice correct?) all over the world. In addition, he was temporarily chosen as Time magazine's Person of the Year. Perhaps, the entertainer who followed the tragic fate as much as that because repeated scandals is only him. If you create his article on Norwegian wikipedia, I'm so glad and appreciate you. Please answer to me. --Hatto 03:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Really? Thank you so much! In recent, I added his article's sentence. But it may not be clean English. (I'm not good at English because I'm a Japanese person) Most of his article's information are from his Japanese wikipedia version and web site. I'm glad if you rewrite it to clean English. By the way, I'm a big fan of BOØWY, too! They are a legendary rock band! They gave huge musical influence to many Japanese band like Glay etc. Incidentally, I like, especially, its vocalist Kyosuke Himuro. I want you to improve and add the sentences of not only Masashi Tashiro but also BOØWY and Himuro. Thank you for answering to me.--Hatto 03:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are cute
♥
 * Why, thank you, mr.Andy! → ケイト∞ (contact) 11:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template
In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect. You currently have NoMultiLicense on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Village pump (policy) if you have any comments.

Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot  at 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Keito. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Keito~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Keito~enwiki


text:
Talk:Otto Lilienthal

Headline text
Entry deleted due to utterly pointless insult to the physical appearance of O. Lilienthal. --82.82.136.110 18:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jew?
I am sorry to post at the top but the discussion below is an exceedingly lengthy one and I would like to point out why, imho, it is of interest whether Lilienthal or anyone of that general time and place was Jewish:

Firstly, as mentioned below, Nazis spent serious effort discrediting German (and non-German) Jewish scientists and artists, so as a counterbalancing effort, it is not unreasonable to indicate a Jewish background.

Secondly, the status of Jews in Europe in the mid-19th century was somewhat unusual. In many countries, they were not full citizens or had only recently become such. If a scientist was able to overcome societal handicaps and contribute, this is of interest; certainly if a scientist had been black and born in 1849, it would be mentioned and of great importance to his life story.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

was he a jew? Matanya 5 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)

'No he wasnt.Why would he be?'

Why i dont read on wikipedia: was a son of muslim parents, or christian parents etc... Why is being a Jew, or have Jewish parents so important ?

There seems to be a edit skirmish and the User:Zivb2006 insists on adding, do we have any proof of that? STTW (talk)  17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Zivb2006 is understandbly confused because many partisan-like organizations have mistakenly reported Otto Lilienthal as Jewish. The misconception probably arised out of his surname which to many onlookers sounds very Jewish. In fact, his ancestors were Swedish, and it just so happens many Swedish surnames have a Jewish sound to them. Usedup 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason i added him to this category is because he appears to be one in alot of other encyklopedias and sources on the net (and off it), and if he had not, i would have never added him to this category.

 * He is described as Jewish in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, which is a reliable source. It appears from the above comment that there are plenty of other sources.  Are there reliable sources which say that he was not Jewish?--Runcorn 23:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Many. In fact, the Otto Lilienthal Museum in his birthplace of Anklam has a massive display of his geneology from generations back. The German publication Juden im Deutschen Kulturbereich by Siegmund Kaznelson, which was written in order to straighten the records of many people whose backgrounds were completely obfuscated during the Nazi Era (another notable one is Anatole France), writes at length of Otto Lilienthal's background. You see, the post-Nazi regime was not very careful of their resources and Nazis didn't bother keeping records after the Third Reich's collapse. I think a lot of those mistakes came from Lilienthal's very Jewish-sounding name. It is actually a Germanification of a Swedish surname, which may have had something to do with it. If you want a reference in English, see the Journal of "Jewish Social Studies" By Conferences on Jewish Relations (US edition). It basically makes many of the same conclusions as the Kaznelson book. You can also contact the people that run the website on Otto Lilienthal Museum. This information on Lilienthal not being Jewish is actually known pretty widely. Here are two forums where people are correcting the mistake:, . It is understandable that the anon continually adding Lilienthal is confused, but he could simply present his case on the talk page instead of edit war. I had to resort to a request for page lock. Usedup 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. Vague references to museum displays and journals 9without pages or even years) are not verifiable. Is there a reliable and verifiable source that you can cite here?  Here are some cites that are certainly no worse than these blogs., , .  I could easily list more.  None of these trumps a standard reference encyclopaedia, does it?--20.138.246.89 10:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello anon. I do not appreciate the condescending "attack" on my reply here with statements such as "Blogs are not reliable" and "Vague references....are not verifiable." I am assuming you are interested in Otto Lilienthal the person, and not simply Otto Lilienthal the representative of the Jewish people? If so, try to find anything about him not written in a partisan web-page like some of the sites your provided. Here are some points: Look, I think that he's backround was both jewish(although not practicing at all) and swedish-lutheranian, so that he was both in one way or the other, but its abbit of a problem because alot of different sources say different things, but i will keep on cheking it.Look i'll give you an example, the german inventor Berthold Schwartz also had a jewish sounding name although i know about him for 100% that he was not, and for that reason i did not add him to the category(the same for example with johan guttenberg)but with otto lilienthal its with further proof iv'e got.User:Zivb2006
 * 1) I never said "blogs" are reliable sources, and those are forums not blogs (equally unreliable), which if you actually thoroughly read my reply, you'd see I mentioned. They are examples showing that the error of Lilienthal's background is not unknown to the general public. This information on Lilienthal not being Jewish is actually known pretty widely. Here are two forums where people are correcting the mistake: is what I wrote. I never intended for the links I provided to be used as confirmations that Lilienthal was not Jewish. That would be, as you bluntly implied, very stupid of me.
 * 2) If you would have bothered to even look up the Journal in the way I presented it, you'd see that there is only one version of this called Journal of "Jewish Social Studies" By Conferences on Jewish Relations (with only subsequent editions changed every few years), and the original text is kept at Stanford University. You can probably find digital versions of this text at any media library. I believe google books has a snippet of it for viewing. This unfortunately won't give you a full read of the information though.
 * 3) Encyclopedias, usually, should not be cited with other Encyclopedias. This has been mentioned on wikipedia before: Reliable_sources. Primary sources are the best. Secondary come next. Encyclopedias are considered tertiary sources. In fact, the Jewish Encyclopedia itself (I'm not sure about Encyclopedia Judaica) has run into a lot of trouble in the past. Some years ago, the family of Felix Klein had to make public statements that they were not Jewish because the Jewish Encyclopedia recorded them as such. A German newspaper later published these statements. The newspaper was, albeit, right-wing but this doesn't really change the fact that the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong.
 * 4) Find any standard publication of his life in detail and you'll see the error, including details of everything I said of his Swedish heritage. The truth is, there is not any published biography of Lilienthal that I know of in the English language so although I wish I could refer to one; none exist. However, the website for the Otto Lilienthal museum is just as good as a published biography. It can offer you absolutely anything you'd want to know about Lilienthal. Contact the website. Here is a link: Usedup 14:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand fully why you might think this, but the problem is that the confusion on Lilienthal isn't the first time something like this has happened. It happens so frequently, in fact, newspaper articles and books are often created in order to "straighten the record" on both people BEING Jewish and NOT BEING Jewish. Yes, we have publications saying that Lilienthal was a "Jewish glider" and variations on that but there also are publications saying his ancestors were Swedish and noting nothing about Jewish ancestry. One example I found was Robert Kronfeld's (who ironically was Jewish) "The Story of Motorless Human Flight" where it is written "Otto Lilienthal was born on May 23rd, 1848, in a small German town, his family being descendants of old Swedish ancestors that had settled in Germany" Page 26. In addition, the book I mentioned above is a massive listing of people whose Jewish ancestry was unknown until now and people who were often thought to be Jewish but weren't. Lilienthal is on there as one who was mistaken to be Jewish, among many others that have already been confirmed elsewhere. Schwartz actually means "black" in German if I'm not mistaken, so there should be a lot of non-Jewish Schwartzs anyway. You bring up the possibility of Lilienthal being "both," but there is really no way to establish that as truth, especially if we have places saying he definitely wasn't Jewish and the information on him being Jewish is a mistake, and others saying he was "the Jewish glider" or "the Jewish pioneer of flight." We can't just take the middle ground. Usedup 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well mybe, but what i am trying to say is that its not something we can prove to that way or the other, its all mainly a matter of speculations, because in those times people used more to conceal their origens and did note expose them publiclly like today, especially jewish people becuse of fear of anti-semitism(not just in germany but all across europe), but i promise to keep checking in all sort of different sources.User:Zivb2006
 * Ok but then you could say that about almost any European. I don't see how anyone can know anything for sure. Like you said, a lot of history is speculations. Yes, many people could be Jews that we don't know of, but a lot of it has to do with relevance. What relevance does Otto Lilienthal being Jewish have to do with much of anything? Maybe if there was something to go on there, a more hardcore investigation would be merited, but right now there are two reasonably well-known publications saying Lilienthal's background wasn't Jewish at all and his whole geneology charted out at the Otto Lilienthal museum (I found a segment of it online: ). The Jewish Social Studies publication mentions this as well, saying that his geneology was compiled way before the advent of the Nazi era (when a lot of non-Jews were proclaimed Jews and a lot of Jews were proclaimed non-Jews). That whole era not only screwed up history, but left a horrendous paper-trail of mistakes. Usedup 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Firstly, IP editors are also entitled to the benefit of WP:Civil and WP:AGF. Secondly, whether his ancestors were Swedish is irrelevant.  Maybe they were Swedish Jews.  Thirdly, obviously we must accept the preponderance of reliable, verifiable sources that have been produced.  Finally, I have two more good sources, both from the Jewish Chronicle and both pre-dating any confusion caused by the Nazis.
 * Except we have two sources where Lilienthal is on a list of people who are mistaken to be Jewish. I think this counts off your theory of "Swedish Jews." Usedup 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * August 12 1910, p.22, quotes the reminiscences of one Herr Wilhelm Meyer-Forster, who knew "the late Otto Lilienthal, the Jewish engineer" and flew in one of his aeroplanes.
 * Wilhelm Meyer-Forster may have known Lilienthal, but there's no way he flew in one of his aeroplanes given that Lilienthal never built an aeroplane. It is important to distinguish here if Meyer-Forster called Lilienthal Jewish or the person who is quoting Meyer-Forster is calling Lilienthal Jewish. Usedup 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Article, "Jews and Aviation", February 23 1917, p.14-15 is based on an interview with Professor Selig Brodetsky, who had been researching Jewish contributions to science. He says "In many cases the only evidence one has that certain scientists were Jews is that they have apparently Jewish sounding names.  But these names are deceptive, and the result, as a rule, leads to misunderstanding and confusion."  He continues, "Luckily, however, I have come across two instances of Jews whose achievements are of such great importance that Jews, on this account, can be said to have played an integral part in the theory and art of flying."  These undoubted Jews were "D. Schwarz, a pioneer of airships" (i.e. David Schwarz (aviation inventor), and "the Jew, Otto Lilienthal". - R613vlu 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For both of these, it would help for analytical purpose if you could copy and paste the entire article, or give a link if possible. Many of your excerpts do not make clear who is saying what in what order. One thing that's interesting to me is both call Lilienthal "a Jew" but neither call him German, which every one knows him to be. Usedup 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * As for the IP, if the IP editors stay civil to me, it will be reciprocated. R613vlu (I had to copy and paste that really hard to memorize username), I can list about 10 more sources that say Otto Lilienthal is a Jew. Want me to? Quantity is not what we're after, because each source derives information from another, and eventually to a root. The first publication clearing Lilienthal's background was in the early 1930s (one later in 1939 which you can view a snippet on google books). His geneology was even collected before then. I can give you the link to all his relatives but the page doesn't given their religion and nationality as the full. However, I'm going to go an contact the museum (since no one else will) and send them your two sources from the Jewish Chronicle and ask them for other information on Lilienthal. I will then give links to whatever sources they give me (or a bibliography). If the museum agrees that Lilienthal was a Jew, then we can add the category. I'm not just saying this because I know they won't. I'm saying it to prove to you what I've been saying is true, in a Socratic method type of way. I believe you believe me and what I'm saying is true, so I'll take your information into account, especially the one on Lilienthal's friend. Satisfied? Usedup 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

you are right.Lilienthal was not jewish (this is myth) he was protestant and he and his family(brother gustav and parents) were memebers of lutherien evangelical church of Anklam.there is documentation proof at the O.Lilienthal museum there. More information on Lilienthal and his brother, Gustav can be read in this famous book in german Erfinderleben. Die Brüder Otto und Gustav Lilienthal by Manuela Runge and Bernd Lukasch book also mentions their religions. 207.67.151.191

look, as i have already said before, nothing can be prooved by 100%(if he was a jewish-german or a lutheranian-german), so i think it would be for the best if we all just left this issue with a big question mark.I really can't see any point of us all going through it all the time and try to find different sources that he was or he was not..User:Zivb2006
 * So you're suggesting not adding any categories of Swedish/Jewish to him? I'd agree with that. Even his Swedish heritage is not 100% confirmed. But it seems that somebody already added Lilienthal to List of German Jews. Usedup 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * By the way, here is the email response from the Otto Lilienthal Museum:

Yes,and i would also suggest that inside the article we could write a line or two(although not neccasery) speculating his "could be" origens, only if its fine by you of course. Is it?..User:Zivb2006
 * Personally I don't think his ethnic of religious background is relevant unless it had some outstanding effect on him as a person. Whether he was Swedish, Jewish, or French some generations back really doesn't matter much at all. It may matter to some encyclopedias, such as religion-oriented ones such as the Catholic Encyclopedia or the Encyclopedia Judaica, but wikipedia isn't associated with either. Usedup 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The list you just mentioned is much less important so it would be better if we all would not start arguing about that aswell..User:Zivb2006

 * Usedup, I saw you were citing some forums and an email as your source. I would like to remind you of WP:RS and I would like you to be more careful with the sources you are intending to use. Self-published sources are never to be used as references, so I would appreciate if you could (if you haven't already) find some NPOV source that says whether or not Otto Lilienthal was Jewish.  Nish kid 64  18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true, and I'm assuming you think this because another user possibly misdirected you (or you didn't read my response above labelled as 1)). I wasn't citing the forums as my source at all and you can verify this from the sentence I put before I showed the forums: This information on Lilienthal not being Jewish is actually known pretty widely. Here are two forums where people are correcting the mistake: Whoever told you I was was trying to discredit me as a giver of reference. What I was citing as my source was "Juden im Deutschen Kulturbereich by Siegmund Kaznelson," "The Journal of Jewish Social Studies by Conference (US edition) Pg 194. (1939-1988)" where the statement "[] This impression becomes still more probable when considering that Otto Lilienthal, pioneer of aviation, often erroneously identified as Jewish []" is available as a snippet on google books, The Otto Lilienthal Museum of Anklam (as a primary source) -- whereas I e-mailed the museum director and reproduced the e-mail below; within that e-mail are primary sources of Otto Lilienthal's Anklam Church registry -- and the Schwipps and Runge/Lukasch Otto Lilienthal biographies. Another user also said that an english book on the Otto Lilienthal brothers makes the same statement about his background. So you see, many of the reference I have are actually primary sources (the best type), and many more are secondary. Usedup 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're using legitimate sources, then their should not be any problem. Continue your discussion with these users, and once an agreement has been made, leave me a message when you want the page unprotected.  Nish kid 64  22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He wasn't Jewish, I would know, he's my great-great-great-great-grandfather. The Lilienthal hasn't been Jewish for hundreds (as in like 750+ years).

EDIT. You can still find the Lilienthal family, most of them live in Oregon.--76.115.238.39 (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The name Lilienthal is not rare in Germany /Sweden. There is no relation known to Amerika. See: family tree; extended tree (known Lilienthal's)OLMuseum (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nearly funny (not untypical for "Allies mentality"!) to make a "bad" German for example a "good" jew. Or a "swedish" person, like in this article. But Lilienthal was neither jewish nor swedish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.36.186 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

YES ! he was indeed Jewish !

Look here: in the german wikipedia about his relative PETER LILIENTHAL

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lilienthal

Peter Lilienthal ist der Sohn eines Bühnenbildners und ein Nachkomme des Flugpioniers Otto Lilienthal.[1] 1939 floh seine Mutter aufgrund ihres jüdischen Glaubens mit ihm vor den Nationalsozialisten nach Uruguay, wo diese ein kleines Hotel eröffnete

The mother of Peter Lilienthal is described as being jewish. And his mother was the sister of OTTO LILIENTHAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:8CAF:D771:D29F:6DF8 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC) This isn’t true, for many reasons. Where do you see “Schwester” in the citation above? Anyone who tried to assert such made-up truth must have been purposefully lying for specific (((needs))). Based on my research Otto hadn’t a sister but a brother whose name was Gustav, and if he actually had any, it only means she must have bore her child 33 years after the death at the age of 48 of her older brother. To claim it was a younger brother is beyond dubious considering that Jew’s female fetilty. How old was her when she had her child? 30, 20, 40? It couldn’t be so long after 40 because of scientific limitation, no matter how rich they are. Otto was born in 1848 and died at 1896. Because of this their mother must have been super tough if she was the same woman. Moreover, it states that Peter was Otto’s descendant which can only suggest Otto was one of his patriarchs, leaving us only to doubt As to how that woman is related to Otto. She couldn’t have been Otto’s sister unless we assume we assume the possibly that she might have married her own nephew which was Otto’s male child which he had plenty. She might have been his granddaughter or daughter or even granddaughter and daughter-in law. If she was within the in law category, any attempt to prove his Jewishness through this is barely relevant and should be considered the last option. However even if she wasn’t, being a granddaughter or a daughter doesn’t suggest that Otto himself was Jewish because a person couldn’t be born without a mother who can be Jewish, especially if she was his granddaughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentilecommoner (talk • contribs) 12:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't Otto himself labeled as Jewish in the German wiki then? Besides if his last name is Lilienthal then he would've been related to Otto through his father, instead of his mother. I'm gonna remove the statement saying his father was a Jewish merchant now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBBorges (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that on the German wikipedia, it also says he is descended from a well known Lutheran theologian through his fathers grandmother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBBorges (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Email to Lilienthal museum
Of course you can use the German biographies (Schwipps, Runge/Lukasch) to give a source. A better primary source is: church register of "St. Nicolai", Anklam, archives of Otto-Lilienthal-Museum, accession number A156. Otto-Lilienthal-Museum.

Dr. Bernd Lukasch Otto-Lilienthal-Museum www.lilienthal-museum.de Ellbogenstr. 1, D-17389 Anklam/Germany Tel./FAX: +49-3971-245500/245580 - Original Message -

 * Ok, are there any biographies you can refer me to that confirm this? You see, this information needs to be sourced for the online encyclopedia wikipedia.

=
== He was Protestant. We have documents from the evangelical church in Anklam in the Museum. Possibly his ancstors came from Sweden, it is not surely known.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen/kind regards B. Lukasch

Dr. Bernd Lukasch Otto-Lilienthal-Museum www.lilienthal-museum.de Ellbogenstr. 1, D-17389 Anklam/Germany Tel./FAX: +49-3971-245500/245580 - Original Message -

 * Was Otto Lilienthal Jewish?
 * I know theres a lot of confusion on whether he was Jewish or not. Can you please provide me with some sources?
 * Thanks
 * Thanks
 * Thanks

Usedup 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Because of the fact that Lilienthal definitely was not a Jew I would propase to delete the reference "Encyclopaedia Judaica" because it is misleading.OLMuseum (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Syndrome of Lilienthal
This bit should be deleted. It's clearly fiction. Anybody disagree? 83.71.32.173 12:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Biplane
I read that his glider was a biplane, but the photos here don't prove it. Any comments on that?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lilienthal had many gliders, including at least one biplane (a model example may be seen at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington D.C.), though the majority of his prototypes and successful gliders were single-winged. Schnabeltier Angriff 20:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * More exactly: He built 3 biplanes in 1895 : Nr.13, Nr.14 and Nr. 15. Nr. 15. Nr. 15 original glider is preserved in Deutsches Museum, Munich. --192.108.125.11 07:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

redirects
I tried to get to this page by typing in "Lilienthal" and got rejected. I had to go google the guy to learn his first name to find this page. I will admit freely that I do not know how to set up redirects. Can someone create a redirect for "Lilienthal" so that it comes here? A lot of us don't know this guy's first name until we get here, you know. (Yes, I know that only a modern American would complain about having to make the trek all the way over to google and back for information, but redirects help smooth out the process.)

 * Typing in Lilienthal takes you to Lilie which is the origin for that name (and other similar ones); under its sub-heading Lilienthal, he is listed, along with several others who share his surname. Does that do allright for you? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
First "controllable" glider is not quite right, as it seems to imply the use of control devices. His gliders were not controlled with movable surfaces (like an elevator or ailerons, for example). He controlled his flight path, as best he could, by shifting his body weight in one direction or another in a rather athletic manner (as mentioned later in the article). A more accurate introduction, I believe, would say he "...was a pioneer of human aviation, who was the first person to make repeated successful short flights in a fixed-wing heavier than air glider." The introduction can be fleshed out with, "He followed an experimental approach to gliding first established earlier in the century by Sir George Cayley. Lilienthal made approximately 2,000 glides from 1891 until his death in a gliding crash in 1896. Photographs of him in the air were published worldwide and influenced public and scientific opinion about the possibility of flying machines emerging from idle fantasy into practical reality." (This intro would require some editing of the fourth paragraph.) DonFB 02:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He was the first to realise 3-axis control systems, & was supposedly working on small, powered machines, with a man-sized one ready for testing at the time of his death. They used a form of gas-generating rocket engine. He may well have taught the Wright's to fly. See; http://www.lilienthal-museum.de/olma/eotto.htm general info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archolman (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I noticed the above comment and want to state for the record that I believe some of it is not accurate. I have read some (not all) of the website you cited. The site discusses Lilienthal's control methods and their limitations. I did not find any mention that he achieved 3-axis control, or that he "taught the Wrights to fly". In discussing Lilienthal's fatal accident, a page on the website says,
 * "Steering with body shifting through a strong thermal did not succeed. The period of successful flights and then the accident demonstrated his flight concept and its limited steering ability.... ....there were two other problems he did not solve. The solution of these problems, in the evolution of the invention of the flying machine came through the research of the Wright brothers: First: The steering of the aircraft with Lilienthal's method of shifting the centre of mass was not sufficient in his glider design for non-standard or dangerous situations. The maximum weight shift was not large enough in comparison to the size of the glider." (Wing-flapping for propulsion was the 2nd problem.) Lilienthal was a great pioneer, but it's important to be accurate about what he did, and did not accomplish. DonFB (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And Jan Wnęk was the real first person to fly glide, 20 years before lilienthal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnekuu (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Wn%C4%99k he was first, not liliental, so why it is writen that he was first? how wikipedia could become good source of information, when there ale lies? maby it's because Wnęk was only peasant, who couldn't read? And what about tolerance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnekuu (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please let's stick to Wikipedia policy
Can we please stick to Wikipedia policies and not misquote WP:RS. WP:A is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. It deprecates the use of primary sources, and says explicitly that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible". WP:RS is only a guideline and is overridden by WP:A; in any case, it only refers to primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and it is incorrect to claim that it says or implies that primary sources are better. Further, "articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources". - Runcorn 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, Runcorn, I never misquoted WP:RS because WP:RS refers to sourcing on wikipedia and not research on subject matter. Primary sources are the best in terms of research because they're not potentially morphed by point of view, but as wikipedia states, sourcing with primary sources shouldn't be done because they can be used based on the perspective of the person doing the referencing. That is why secondary sources are favored. And as you know, there are plenty of secondary sources that support what I've been saying. So I don't know what your point is or how this supports anything on Otto Lilienthal. Usedup 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"....let's stick to Wikipedia policy" stick your own self

Copied from talk pages
I recommend you do not revert as you have done on List of Jewish inventors and List of German Jews without knowing all the facts on TALK:Otto Lilienthal. Had you have have read this page, you'd know there are as many as five official published accounts that say Lilienthal is not Jewish (two of which say directly that he is "erroneously" identified as Jewish, and three which are official biographies). You can verify the first two with directions I gave on TALK:Otto Lilienthal. The biographies are not available unless you can read German and find snippets on the database that the German wikipedia article has here.....but you can actually e-mail the author of one at the Otto Lilienthal museum and "verify" it this way. Either way, your statement that there are no reliable sources to "three?" (which I'm not sure how you derived not having read TALK:Otto Lilienthal) reliable sources is just flat-out wrong. Please do not revert again. Usedup 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be so condescending. What makes you think I haven't read TALK:Otto Lilienthal? A publication purporting "to straighten the records of many people whose backgrounds were completely obfuscated during the Nazi Era" is irrelevant, since there are reliable sources predating the Nazis that Lilienthal was Jewish. Please provide proof that any of the references are "official biographies" - official by whose criteria? You cannot verify anything by quoting e-mails; an e-mail is not a verifiable source. I shall continue to ensure that Wikipedia abides by WP:A, which is policy. - Newport 17:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Just to let the you two know, I reverted to the last version by Used-up on List of Jewish inventors because Newport hasn't given any reasons why his sources are more reliable and/or verifiable. Siegmund Kaznelson's book is actually a really good source. Anyone with an e-publications account can access part of it, and I believe it's available at most libraries with an international section. As for the others, I never heard of any Jewish Social Studies Journal, but that is not to say it doesn't exist. What is meant by "official biography" should probably also be explained. Truth is, none of these sources on either side are easily "verifiable" so I don't think this should be used as a strong criteria for reverting. --Tellerman

Not true, several of the sources I present ARE easily verifiable. Contacting the author of a book is pretty much as verifiable as you can get. The Jewish Social Studies Journal has a collection:. I once again point anyone who has doubts to google-books. What do you mean "What is meant by Official Biography"? An official biography is a biography that is not self-published and written by a professional. I direct anyone to the external link on the German wikipedia here, to see the numerous publications (in German) written about Otto Lilienthal. I have not been presented with any source from a biographical publication on Lilienthal claiming he was of Jewish descent. Encyclopedia Judaica, the Jewish Chronicle, and books like "A Little Joy; A Little Oy by Marnie Winston" are not professional publications on Otto Lilienthal's life; they are merely reporting another of many supposed "Jewish people" in their writings. Usedup 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two Jewish Chronicle sources. One is a quote from someone who knew him.  The other reports the specific researches of Selig Brodetsky on Lilienthal; brodetsky is quoted explicitly as saying that Lilienthal was Jewish and it was not just a question of his having a Jewish name.  Quoting a book that has not previously been cited is a red herring.  Note that both these Jewish Chronicle sources predate the Nazis; it was a Nazi claim that he was not Jewish.  And e-mailing an author and citing his response is not verifiable.--20.138.246.89 10:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Read User_talk:Newport to help clear up your misunderstandings. Usedup 02:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think user:Used-up is citing the email as a source, but rather the book the emailee has written as the source. That emailee is Dr. Bernad Lukasch so I'm assuming the book in reference to be "Erfinderleben. Die Brüder Otto und Gustav Lilienthal by Manuela Runge and Bernd Lukasch." Which, by the way, was mentioned earlier on this talk page by another anon so it seems to be popular. In general, biographies are seen as better sources than newspapers (?) like the Jewish Chronicle. Is there a biography that says Otto Lilienthal is Jewish?
 * You are not incorrect at all. Finally, someone actually reads what I write. I'd like to know the answer to that last question myself. No one appears to want to answer that. Usedup 23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Two Suggestions: Both Used-up and Newport appear to be discussing something about sources pre-dating or post-dating the Nazis. I would advise that we avoid these type of discussions as they are original research. Whether a source pre-dates or post-dates a certain timeframe is irrelevant if the source says what you're looking for. Secondly, perhaps page locks need to be instituted so we can prevent edit wars.

Reminder: The burden of proof is on the person who claims their source is better. --Tellerman
 * The Jewish Chronicle is one of Britain's oldest national newspapers. Why does Tellerman say "newspapers (?) like the Jewish Chronicle"?--20.138.246.89 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to refer to me in the third person, I am part of this discussion. Anyway, went ahead and did a little investahmahgating myself. Here are the full articles on Brodetsky's Jews in Aviation and Reminiscences of Mayer-Furster and the conveniently overlooked "Jews" and Jews. So to respond to Used-up's question about whether "the Jewish engineer" was written by Herr Mayer-Furster or the author of the article, it appears to be the article-writer. Not sure what the point of that source was then. Seems like Brodetsky may have stumbled upon another "hopeless goy" after all. --Tellerman

Quote
I believe that the Quote at the top of the page is wrong, because on wikiquote, it said that that is a quote that was made about him, not by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.105.205 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right: See, but Ferber signed the quote with "Otto Lilienthal", himself.OLMuseum (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you pronounce his last name?
Could someone add this information? Thank you! DBlomgren (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Better late than never: His last name is somewhat pronounced like "lee-lee-ann-toll", stress on the first syllable. The "o" in the last syllable here should be spoken very "open", like in "Mom", or better, like the "u" in the words "nut" and "hut". The meaning of his name is, by the way, "valley of the lilies". Greetings from K-Town, Germany, Ein alter Lauterer94.219.1.215 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Otto Lilienthal. 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/20120121184354/http://www.berlin.de/mauer/mauerweg/lichtenrade_lichterfelde/index.en.php to http://www.berlin.de/mauer/mauerweg/lichtenrade_lichterfelde/index.en.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219041804/http://firstflight.open.ac.uk/liliienthal/lilienthal.html to http://firstflight.open.ac.uk/liliienthal/lilienthal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

a comment
"Sacrifices must be made!" "must"?! for whom and for what?! (sadomasochism or something?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.101.175 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Jewish origin?
How can we get rid of the obviously wrong claim of jewish origin? The sources given do themselves not have any second level source, they just make the claim. I checked German sources. Not of them debates this in detail. Seems as nobody sees this as a relevant issue. Best--Nillurcheier (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that edited Wikipedia text in neither the article nor the footnotes makes a "claim" of his Jewish origin. In the footnotes, the article simply reports that several sources have identified him as Jewish. The reliability of sources can be challenged through discussion, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not require that sources being used "have any second level source," as you said. In the article or footnotes, any text disputing or rebutting the statements made by the existing sources about his identity must be based, in turn, on reliable published source(s). DonFB (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have to agree with you that the "claim" is only made by the sources and the articles is well in line with the Wikipedia policies. However it stays dissatisfying that none of the sources itself is citing a reliable secondary source, which would help to proof the stance of jewish ancestry. Hence, I am challenging these sources. I also asked for reliable  family sources in the German Wikipedia. Let's wait and see, whether there are any.
 * Yes, let's see if other sources are available on the other side of the issue. But again, our policies don't say that we can only accept sources that show their own sources and not accept sources if we don't like the sources they cite, or if they don't cite any of their own. DonFB (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * here is a first source for his father's baptizm: https://lilienthal-museum.museumnet.eu/nachlass-lilienthal/korrespondenzpartner/18060 --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, there is a long discussion about this topic, I didn't notice before, let us go through it.--Nillurcheier (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is his Confirmation document: https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/QYSXTFGIUQQBWKKFPY5WQBHZOHBBMS65 so we can close the discussion --Nillurcheier (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "confirmation document" reference needs to be properly formatted in the footnote, showing, at a minimum: webpage title (linked to webpage url), website name, possibly the publisher, and date accessed. Keep in mind that, under Wikipedia policy, primary sources, of which the "confirmation" page is clearly an example, must be used with caution, and should not be interpreted by Wikipedia editors in any manner. With that caution in mind, I looked at several sources in addition to the references here for his baptism and confirmation and have not found any statement of "Protestant" demonination, as written in the article. Without a source explicitly supporting the phrase "He was Protestant", that phrase should be deleted. I changed spelling to "Anklam"; the "confirmation" image appears to show "Anclam", but I believe we should standardize on spelling with the letter k, which is what numerous sources use. Again, I want to see the reference properly expanded into a standard format, with adequate identifying information. The wording in the footnote, "Nevertheless some sources claim him to be Jewish", is acceptable to me. DonFB (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we are making progress. Sorry for the unsufficient formating of the ocnfirmation source, I will correct that. Anclam was the common spelling till 1902 (says the German WIkipedia). He was member of the evangelical-lutharan church, which is beyond any doubt a protestant denomination. But may be it is more precise to keep the evangelical-lutheran. There is another proper source: : „Juden im deutschen  Kulturbereich“  von  Katznelson  (Jüdischer  Verlag,  1959), Anhang  „Irrtümlich  für  Juden  gehalten“  auf  Seite  1053 darunter wird  Otto  Lilienthal  aufgeführt. Translation: Amendment page 1054: "mistakenly thought to be jewish" names Otto Lilienthal among others. Nillurcheier (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see referencing for the text: "He was a member of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church...." If that phrase is based on an assumption of his (or his parents') membership because of his baptism in a particular church, such an assumption falls short of Verifiability. Without explicit referencing of membership, the sentence should be modified, simply to say: "He was baptised in St. Nicholas church[5] and confirmed in St. Mary's church, both in Anklam.[6]" DonFB (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In 1848, being baptized in that church (building) meant of course becoming member of the church (religious body) who ran the church (building). And confirmation means (then and now), becoming full member of that church. But anyhow, I rate that "minor". --Nillurcheier (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Otto Lilienthal


text:
Battle of Kurikara Pass

The battle of Kurikara Pass (倶利伽羅峠の戦い), also known as the battle of Tonamiyama (砺波山), was a crucial engagement in Japan's Genpei War; in this battle the tide of the war turned in the favour of the Minamoto clan.

"Yoshinaka won by a clever strategy; under cover of nightfall his troops enveloped the main body of the Taira, demoralized them by a series of tactical surprises, and turned their confusion into a disastrous, headlong rout."

Background
Minamoto no Yoshinaka, commander of a contingent of warriors from Shinano Province, invaded Taira lands in Shinano, Echigo, Etchū, Kaga and Echizen. The war was put on hold in 1181 on account of two years of famine. As conditions improved in 1183, the Taira sought retribution against Yoshinaka. Taira no Koremori, son of Taira no Shigemori and grandson of the late Taira no Kiyomori, took charge of this operation, backed by Taira Michimori, Tadanori, Taira no Tomonori, Taira no Tsunemasa and Taira no Kiyofusa. Their forces severely reduced by battle and famine, the Taira sought to recruit warriors from the surrounding lands and did so at the risk of further famine, since many of these warriors were farmers leaving their land. The Taira army departed from Kyoto on 10 May 1183.

Minamoto no Yoritomo, Yoshinaka's cousin, moved to fight him for dominance of the clan in March 1183, but was convinced to stand down and withdraw by Yoshinaka, who argued that they should be united against the Taira. To ensure his intentions, Yoshinaka also sent his son to Kamakura as a hostage. Shortly afterwards, Yoshinaka received news of Koremori's army, and moved to engage him, along with his uncle Minamoto no Yukiie, Tomoe Gozen, and his shitennō, Imai Kanehira, Higuchi Kanemitsu, Tate Chikatada and Nenoi Yukichika.

Battle
Approaching the mountain passes which connect western Honshū to the east, Koremori split his forces in two, one part taking the Kurikara Pass (between Tsubata, Ishikawa and Oyabe, Toyama today) up to Tonamiyama, the other entering Etchū Province through Noto Province to the north. Minamoto no Yoshinaka, seeing the Taira forces coming up the pass, displayed thirty white banners on Kurosaka Hill a few kilometers away to trick his enemies into believing that his force was larger than it really was. This was a delaying tactic, aimed at keeping the Taira atop the pass until night fell, so that the second part of his strategy could fall in place.

He divided his own forces into three, sending one group to attack the Taira from the rear; a second beneath the Pass, as an ambush party; and the third he accompanied and held centrally. In order to conceal these movements, Yoshinaka sought to distract his enemy with a highly formal battle, beginning with archery exchanges using whistling-bulb arrows. This was followed by individual duels amongst a hundred samurai, to which the Taira gladly indulged, in the hopes of earning their individual places in the chronicles and epic poetry which were sure to follow such a war.

Meanwhile, Yoshinaka's armies moved into position, and as the sun set, the Taira turned to find behind them a Minamoto detachment, holding far more flags than a single detachment should merit, giving the illusion of greater numbers. Yoshinaka's central force, having gathered a herd of oxen, now released them down the pass directly into the Taira army, with lit torches tied to their horns, a strategy learned from the ancient Qi general Tian Dan. Many of the Taira warriors were simply knocked off the path. Yoshinaka's soldiers then charged down the north slope forcing the Taira down into the Kairaka Valley and Yoshinaka's ambush.

Aftermath
The surviving Taira, confused, demoralized, and having suffered heavy losses, fled. This was a major victory for the Minamoto, leading to the Taira abandoning Kyoto.

title: Battle of Kurikara Pass


text:
Template talk:North Gyeongsang

It would be nice to have a more Gyeongbuk-specific image for the bar. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get an answer as to whether the Gyeongbuk symbol mark (which would be perfect) is Wikipedia-usable. Perhaps a thumbnail map of the province? -- Visviva 15:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Template talk:North Gyeongsang


text:
Galliano (band)

Galliano are a London-based acid jazz group that were originally active between 1988 and 1997. The group was the first signing to Eddie Piller and Gilles Peterson's Acid Jazz record label. The original members were Rob Gallagher (vocals – credited as Roberto Galliano), Constantine Weir (vocals), Michael Snaith (The Vibe Controller) and Crispin Robinson (percussion).

Other important members included Valerie Etienne, who participated in the recording of all their albums, along with other musicians such as Mick Talbot on keyboards, Crispin Taylor on drums, Ernie McKone on bass guitar, Mark Vandergucht guitar, and Steve Ameedee, otherwise known as Uncle Big Man (dancer). Ski Oakenfull replaced Mick Talbot on keyboards in 1994. The band split in November 1997 after musical differences over direction of travel, with Crispin Taylor starting a Cliff Richard cover band. The band announced a return in 2023, including a new album and several live gigs.

Career
The group's first single, a reworking of Curtis Mayfield's Freddie's Dead called Frederick Lies Still, was released in June 1988. It was also the first release on the Acid Jazz label. Their second release was on Let the Good Times Roll by The Quiet Boys in 1989. The Quiet Boys was an alias used by acid jazz pioneer Chris Bangs who then went on to produce Galliano.

Galliano's first album release was In Pursuit of the 13th Note in 1991, which was produced by Bangs. Their second album A Joyful Noise Unto the Creator was released in 1992.

Galliano achieved the peak of its success in 1994 with The Plot Thickens which peaked at number eight in the UK Albums Chart. Two UK top 40 singles were released from the album Long Time Gone (a cover of a David Crosby song from the self titled first album by Crosby, Stills & Nash) and Twyford Down. The latter was a comment on the road building protests taking place at the time and the protest at Twyford Down in particular, and they were joined onstage by anti-roads protestors to make appeals to the audience. The album was well received making the NME's list of top 50 albums of the year. Following its release Galliano performed on the Pyramid Stage at the Glastonbury Festival in 1994 and returned to play the NME Stage in 1995.

Galliano's fourth and final studio album 4 was released in 1996. This included track, Slack Hands, which was used in the title sequence of Kevin Reynolds' 1997 film, One Eight Seven, starring Samuel L. Jackson.

Galliano broke up in 1997. Gallagher together with Etienne formed Two Banks of Four, Gallagher also performs solo using the names Earl Zinger, William Anderson and together with Alex Patchwork as The Diabolical Liberties.

In the spring of 2023, Galliano announced a return, including a new album and a few live gigs in the summer that year. The band played twice at Gilles Peterson's We Out Here Festival in August 2023, playing covers of "Harvest for the World" and "Uptown Top Ranking" alongside their original material.

In May 2024, they released their first single in 28 years, "Circles Going Round The Sun"; in June 2024, they released "Pleasure, Joy & Happiness", a cover of a song by Eddie Chacon. Their next album, Halfway Somewhere, is due for release on August 30, 2024.

Live albums

 * Until Such Time (Recorded Live In Europe '92) – 1993 – Talkin' Loud
 * Live at Liquid Room (Tokyo) – 1997 – Talkin' Loud

Compilation albums

 * What Colour Our Flag – 1994 – Talkin' Loud
 * Thicker Plot (Remixes 93–94) – 1994 – Talkin' Loud

title: Galliano (band)


text:
Talk:John Young (astronaut)

Speed record
I chose to remove the speed record section from the Apollo 10 section. My decision is based upon the fact that Young didn't do anything himself to accomplish this; it was just the trajectory the spacecraft was on. It was brought back in, and I'm hoping to get some community decision on it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Bolden quote
I see that you have re-added the Charles Bolden quote that I removed last year in the run up to nominating this article for GA/FA. As we disagree on whether this quote belongs or not, I would like to go over why I removed it.

 * It's in the "Navy service" section, and Bolden would not have flown with Young prior to Young's Navy retirement, as Bolden joined NASA in 1980.

 * It doesn't change or add to the narrative that Young was an accomplished pilot. His experience as a record-setting Navy test pilot and service as a commander or pilot for groundbreaking missions establishes that he was an accomplished aviator. Hoot Gibson was the commander for Bolden's first flight and Young was the original commander for Bolden's second flight. His praise for two of his three commanders (I'm sure Loren Shriver is good, too) is subjective and doesn't explain any of their specific accomplishments. While it would be relevant if Bolden was praising an aviator who is otherwise not accomplished or experienced, that is not the case with John Young. To maintain WP:NPOV, I think it is best not to include quoted praise from one individual and let Young's accomplishments speak for themselves.

Please let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I see your point about the Navy service section not being the best place for the quote; the NASA career section would be better.
 * As for the quote itself, it is a relevant, specific quote by a reliable source. Stating that Bolden is being unduly nice to two of his commanders is flat-out OR especialy when, as you acknowledge, Bolden never actually flew on the Shuttle with Young.
 * If a veteran shuttle astronaut chooses to in an oral history specifically praise, by name, two of the many astronauts and pilots he has worked with over 40 years as being especially skilled, who are we to disregard that? What about the fact that said veteran astronaut a) reached flag rank and b) later became NASA Administrator? How many more bona fides does he need to demonstrate his worthiness of being a RS? Ylee (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 * asked me to give my input. As you've noted, the Navy section doesn't make sense for the quote. The quote is specifically in regard to them acting as mentors for Bolden after he joined the corps in 1980. So definitely elsewhere, if at all. Where would you put it? --Neopeius (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 * The question is about veteran astronauts mentoring Bolden on his rookie flight, but Bolden specifically and immediately cites flying ability in his answer, of which the quote is only a small part. The fact that Bolden mentions Young by name despite their never actually flying on the shuttle together further indicates that Bolden is referring to Young and Gibson's flying skills specifically, although Bolden explains how flying ability was important in Gibson being a mentor to the rookie astronaut.

 * As for where to put it, after further thought, I think keeping it in the Navy section actually works, because Bolden is specifically referring to Young's piloting skills. Another possibility is at the end of the NASA management section, by inserting a paragraph break before "After working at NASA for over 42 years". The Bolden quote fits well with the recitation of statitics on Young's NASA career. Ylee (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I think the point I was trying to make about whether or not the quote enhances the narrative may not have come across as I would have liked. I don't mean to imply that Bolden is not a reliable source of information. It's more that Young's flying credentials are established by stating his accomplishments in the prose, and the views of Bolden are the opinion of one individual. At no point in the GA or FA nominations was there feedback that the reader wouldn't think of Young as a good aviator. Bolden's praise doesn't discuss a specific event or capability associated with Young; it is just his opinion that Young was good at his job. There are not other astronauts, aviators, or NASA managers being quoted on their opinion of Young; it's not clear how Bolden's quote is more relevant than their opinions.

 * If Bolden's opinion is more relevant than others', it should at least be paraphrased per MOS:QUOTE, as sentences like "They're just awesome" and "Never met two people like them" are pretty generic, and it's not really clear what specifically "Everyone else gets into an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane" means, other than general praise. Furthermore, the original source does not specifically say that Young and Gibson were the best pilots that Bolden had ever met, just that they stood out and were exceptional aviators.

 * I disagree that the Bolden quote belongs in the Navy career section. As Young was not done flying when he retired from the Navy, it's not like his aviation career was specific to his naval service. Having it in this section implies that Bolden and Young flew together as naval aviators, which they did not. It would be different if the opinion came from someone such as Lovell or Conrad, who worked with Young prior to joining the astronaut corps. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 * As I said, you basically claimed that Bolden was being unduly nice to two of his former shuttle commanders, as opposed to offering an objective view. In that context, "subjective" is synonymous with "not reliable"

 * Bringing up the GA/FA nominations is a straw man. That such a concern never came up during those nominations does not mean that a relevant subjective statement by a qualified, reliable source cannot be added. Bolden's opinion is relevant (not more relevant or less relevant, relevant) because of his experience, positions, and qualifications.

 * You claim that Bolden's "they're just awesome" and "never met two people like them" are "pretty generic" and therefore meaningless statements? What kind of praise are you used to receiving in life?

 * You then pretend that you don't know what Bolden's "everyone else gets into an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane" means. You know very well that Bolden is further praising Young and Gibson in the highest terms. I know that you know what Bolden is saying.

 * Bolden does not have to say "Young and Gibson are the best pilots I've ever met" for him to communicate this. The full paragraph (out of a long, long, long answer that praises both men in detail, especially Gibson) is

 * "Yes. Hoot was unbelievable, especially as a pilot. He and John Young were two guys that to this day continue to boggle my imagination in terms of their piloting ability. I’ve met a lot of people in my life in aviation, over thirty-five years; never met two people like them. Everybody else gets in an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane. They’re just awesome."

 * There is no interpretation possible other than Bolden saying that in more than 35 years of flying, Gibson and Young are the two best pilots he ever met. (Again, you claimed above that his praise of the two is "pretty generic". Like Bolden, my imagination boggles.)

 * I will expand the quote in Wikipedia to include the full sentence starting with "I've met a lot of people", to provide additional context for Bolden's basis for making his subjective statement. I will also move the quote to the end of the NASA section, as per the above discussion. Ylee (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I request that you focus on content for this discussion, as personal arguments that criticize the editor, not the edits, are counterproductive to getting a disagreement settled. I think we disagree on whether Bolden's opinion needs to be included when discussing Young's flying ability. The point I was attempting to make above is that Bolden's praise does not necessitate the original wording in order to get its meaning across. If his praise is left in, I think this article should follow the guidelines of MOS:QUOTATIONS and paraphrase it appropriately, rather than expanding the quoted text. My take is something along the lines of "Astronaut Charles Bolden described Young and Hoot Gibson as two exceptionally talented pilots that he had worked with throughout his aviation career." I'll make a post over at WP:SPACEFLIGHT to request further input. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the reasons discussed above, I am removing the Bolden quote. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 * You have not achieved a consensus to do so here or in WP:SPACEFLIGHT, and you have yet to demonstrate that the quote is off-topic, or from an unreliable source. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason. Ylee (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Conversely, there has been no consensus to leave this quote in, nor has its necessity in the article been demonstrated. WP:ILIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to include it. At the time of this comment, your only contributions to this article have been the repeated inclusion of this direct quote, including its addition in 2014, and the insistence of its necessity. To me, this implies that you dislike that your addition did not survive as this article was improved to GA and FA class, and you wish for it to be included now that the article has passed the reviews to get it to FA. There was plenty of opportunity for you to provide this kind of feedback between the quote's removal in spring 2020 and its FAC in December. I removed the quote because I did not, and do not, think it was an informative quote that provided new information that hadn't already been explained by paraphrased accounts, and it did not belong in a good or featured article. My reasoning is explained above. The fact that no editors who went over the page's edit history during the review asked for it back indicates that its removal was considered a positive change and its absence isn't detrimental to demonstrating Young's flying ability. If you believe the removal of this quote degrades the quality of the article, I invite you to nominate it over at WP:FAR to ensure that low-quality articles do not remain as Featured Articles, rather than engage in an WP:EDITWAR on an article that has already passed multiple quality reviews. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 * If this quote happens to be my one and only contribution to this article, that is my business and not yours, and does not affect whether the edit is worthwhile. The status quo, not what you want, is what is preserved in the case of a dispute in which there is WP:NOCONSENSUS. (And no, the status quo is not "the state that the article was in when it passed FA".)

 * Your ascribing WP:ILIKEIT is inapt as the quote passes WP:V and is relevant to the article. My ascribing WP:IDONTLIKEIT to you is more apt, however, as your arguments above basically are "Delete: no need" or "Delete as cruft".

 * I do not believe that without this quote this article would no longer qualify for FA or GA, and have never implied as such. As I stated above, claiming that I have indicated this is a straw man. Conversely, you are stating that this quote reduces the quality of the article to below GA or FA. (I am especially amazed by your claim that because no one during the GA/FA review process looked over the article's edit history and thought that the by then-removed quote should be restored, that is evidence of the quote's inappropriateness for the article. Since when is reviewing an article's edit history a standard part of the FA evaluation process? I see nothing about this at WP:FA?.) If you continue to disagree with the appropriateness of this quote in the article, I suggest you bring it up at WP:3O.

 * Speaking of 3O, you wrote above:

 * If Bolden's opinion is more relevant than others', it should at least be paraphrased per MOS:QUOTE, as sentences like "They're just awesome" and "Never met two people like them" are pretty generic, and it's not really clear what specifically "Everyone else gets into an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane" means, other than general praise. Furthermore, the original source does not specifically say that Young and Gibson were the best pilots that Bolden had ever met, just that they stood out and were exceptional aviators.

 * Again, for the record: Is it accurate to state that

 * you describe Bolden calling Young and Gibson as pilots "They're just awesome" and "Never met two people like them" as "pretty generic"

 * you state that you do not know what Bolden stating "Everyone else gets into an airplane; John and Hoot wear their airplane" means? You deny that a reasonable interpretation of his statement is that Young and Gibson are the two best pilots he met during his career?

 * To summarize, because there is no consensus over removing the Bolden quote, I will again restore it. WP:3O is the next step if necessary. Ylee (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Added to WP:3O. And both WP:FA and WP:GA review history to make sure the article is stable. As a measure of what has changed, I find it helps to view the article prior to when "work" began by the nominator. It's a good way to differentiate what the author did and didn't change (and not asking why they chose to do something that they just left untouched). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

3O discussion

 * (Here from Third opinion). May I start with a couple of questions- Do secondary RS also praise John Young in the way the specific quote does? Does any other source reproduce the same quote (or a likewise one)? Cinadon36 07:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 * While Young was still working at NASA, the Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine reported that when he stood up at the astronaut corps' Monday morning meetings, everyone became silent because "He doesn’t say anything unless it’s important", and that astronaut Brewster Shaw said that Young had "the most intuitive engineering mind I’ve ever seen". George Abbey quoted Robert Gilruth as saying that Young was the best engineer at NASA. Another astronaut, Tom Jones, said of Young that "No shuttle malfunction or tight corner of the flight envelope fazed him". Astronaut Robert Crippen said that in the astronaut corps, "if they have a hero, that hero is John Young". Air & Space's obituary of Young said that he was known within NASA as being "an astronaut's astronaut". Historian Andrew Chaikin called him "a space legend". Ylee (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply. Would you agree if something written in prose, summarizing Chaikin's view, be inserted instead of the blockquote? My weak suggestion is to go with prose, because that specific quote is from a non-independent primary source. See for example WP:PSTS. Cinadon36 04:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to inserting Chaikin's view, either using the "a space legend" quote directly or not. I would not want it to replace the Bolden quote that the 3O is about, because of the uniqueness of the flavor of praise that a person with his credentials gives Young. ("space legend" is, while a compliment, too vague in my mind. There are a lot of astronauts one could call a "space legend" going back to Yuri Gagarin.) Ylee (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but even if the sensational issue created by the flavor of the quote is a subjective matter (I do not like even subtle sensationalism- but that is a matter of taste) how do you address the issue of quoting a non-independent primary source, which gets too much attention? Seems that is an obstacle hard to pass.Cinadon36 06:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would this paraphrase work?
 * Astronaut and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden called Young one of the two best pilots he had known in his career. Robert Gilruth reportedly called him the best engineer at NASA. Historian Andrew Chaikin wrote after Young's death that he was "a space legend".
 * Or, how about the entirety of what I wrote above starting with "While Young was still at NASA"? Ylee (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I lean towards the first option, but pls do not make any edits before comments. He might offer a valid counter-argument. Thanks. Cinadon36 07:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My primary objection to use of a direct quote is following the guidance of MOS:QUOTE. I think direct quotations are appropriate in quoting specific dialogue pertaining to an event, such as the first words Young said on the moon or throughout a mission, or a speech. I think almost any information stated after the fact, such as Bolden's interview in which he praised Young, can and should be paraphrased. I prefer the paraphrased version referencing Bolden and Gilruth, but I don't think Chaikin's viewpoint needs to be included. That being said, I maintain that the prose detailing Young's selection for 6 spaceflights, especially commanding a moon landing and the first flight of the Space Shuttle, establishes his credentials as a skilled and capable astronaut and does not require additional praise from individuals. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Valid point, it does seem redundant, doesn't add anything meaningful. , does it? Cinadon36 09:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 * There are others who have flown in space six or even seven times (Mission specialists have more flight opportunities than pilot astronauts), but you don't hear the same kind of praise about their flying and test pilot/engineering skills, because they are not pilots. They may or may not be called "a space legend" after their deaths, but to assume that they will seems like OR. Meanwhile, we have the fact that Young did receive such a plaudit, and others. Ylee (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is true that other astronauts have had more trips or a far longer stay in space than John Young. However, none of these astronauts also commanded a lunar landing mission or the the first test flight of space vehicle. None of the praise Young received from the above sources, or from others such as the books by Stafford, Cernan, and Scott Kelly, is necessarily incorrect, but readers will not get to the retirement section of the article and be unsure if Young was an accomplished astronaut. The facts about Young's career can stand on their own without the support of others' opinions. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks everybody for your polite discussion, you made your arguments pretty clear and both were sound. My opinion is that it is not necessary to include a paraphrased quote as it adds almost nothing substantial to the topic. If it were from far above (i.e the POTUS or VPOTUS), or included in a published academic book, then ok. But such claims are of trivial importance. Even though I recommend not to include anything on the article, if you decide to add a sentence, do not add the exact quotation. That was my 2¢.Cinadon36 07:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in on this discussion and helping to settle the disagreement. Per your recommendation, I will remove the text in question. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Find a Grave
Acceptable EL. Article does not post an image of his gravestone and the link is not used as a reference. – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a link used as a reference that provides an image of his gravestone; this link does not provide anything unique. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Article title change
I see that you changed the name of the article to include Young's middle initial. Why did you do this? Per WP:INITS, the middle name/initial should only be included if that was the primary way of referring to an individual. As far as I'm aware, Young is referred to as "John Young" in most sources; his middle initial is not included in most sources beyond stating what his middle name is. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 * NASA gives John W. Young or only Young. CRS-20 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what sources you are referring to, but Young's middle initial appears to only be included when giving his full name in a title-like fashion. The sources used throughout this article refer to him as John Young, or Young in subsequent mentions. It's only things like official mission posts, biographies, or his obituaries that mention a middle initial. I am changing it back to its previous title. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Young (astronaut)


text:
Calorie restriction

Calorie restriction (also known as caloric restriction or energy restriction) is a dietary regimen that reduces the energy intake from foods and beverages without incurring malnutrition. The possible effect of calorie restriction on body weight management, longevity, and aging-associated diseases has been an active area of research.

Dietary guidelines
Caloric intake control, and reduction for overweight individuals, is recommended by US dietary guidelines and science-based societies.

Calorie restriction is recommended for people with diabetes and prediabetes, in combination with physical exercise and a weight loss goal of 5-15% for diabetes and 7-10% for prediabetes to prevent progression to diabetes. Mild calorie restriction may be beneficial for pregnant women to reduce weight gain (without weight loss) and reduce perinatal risks for both the mother and child. For overweight or obese individuals, calorie restriction may improve health through weight loss, although a gradual weight regain of 1 - 2 kg per year may occur.

Risks of malnutrition
The term "calorie restriction" as used in the study of aging refers to dietary regimens that reduce calorie intake without incurring malnutrition. If a restricted diet is not designed to include essential nutrients, malnutrition may result in serious deleterious effects, as shown in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. This study was conducted during World War II on a group of lean men, who restricted their calorie intake by 45% for six months and composed roughly 77% of their diet with carbohydrates. As expected, this malnutrition resulted in metabolic adaptations, such as decreased body fat, improved lipid profile, and decreased resting heart rate. The experiment also caused negative effects, such as anemia, edema, muscle wasting, weakness, dizziness, irritability, lethargy, and depression.

Typical low-calorie diets may not supply sufficient nutrient intake that is typically included in a calorie restriction diet.

Possible side effects
People losing weight during calorie restriction risk developing side effects, such as cold sensitivity, menstrual irregularities, infertility, or hormonal changes.

Humans
Decreasing caloric intake by 20-30%, while fulfilling nutrient requirements, has been found to remedy diseases of aging, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and diabetes in humans, and result in an average loss of 7.9 kg in body weight, but because of the long lifespan of humans, evidence that calorie restriction could prevent age-related disease in humans remains under preliminary research. While calorie restriction leads to weight and fat loss, the precise amount of calorie intake and associated fat mass for optimal health in humans is not known. Moderate amounts of calorie restriction may have harmful effects on certain population groups, such as lean people with low body fat.

Life extension
As of 2021, intermittent fasting and calorie restriction remain under preliminary research to assess the possible effects on disease burden and increased lifespan during aging, although the relative risks associated with long-term fasting or calorie restriction remain undetermined.

Intermittent fasting refers to periods with intervals during which no food but only clear fluids are ingested – such as a period of daily time-restricted eating with a window of 8 to 12 hours for any caloric intake – and could be combined with overall calorie restriction and variants of the Mediterranean diet which may contribute to long-term cardiovascular health and longevity.

Minnesota Starvation Experiment
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment examined the physical and psychological effects of extreme calorie restriction on 32 young and lean 24-year-old men during a 40% reduction in energy intake for 6 months. The study was designed to mimic dietary conditions during World War II. Participants could only eat 1800 kcal per day, but were required to walk 5 km per day and expend 3000 calories. The men lost about 25% of their body weight of which 67% was fat mass and 17% fat-free mass. The quality of the diet was insufficient to accurately represent the diet during war due to the inadequate consumption of protein, and a lack of fruits and vegetables. Despite the extreme calorie restriction, the experiment was not representative of true calorie-restrictive diets, which adhere to intake guidelines for macronutrients and micronutrients. Chronic weakness, decreased aerobic capacity, and painful lower limb edema was caused by the malnourished calorie restrictive diet. Emotional distress, confusion, apathy, depression, hysteria, hypochondriasis, suicidal thoughts, and loss of sex drive were among the abnormal psychological behaviors that occurred within six weeks.

Intensive care
, current clinical guidelines recommend that hospitals ensure that the patients get fed with 80–100% of energy expenditure, the normocaloric feeding. A systematic review investigated whether people in intensive care units have different outcomes with normocaloric feeding or hypocaloric feeding, and found no difference. However, a comment criticized the inadequate control of protein intake, and raised concerns that hypocaloric feeding safety should be further assessed with underweight critically ill people.

Non-human primates
A calorie restriction study started in 1987 by the National Institute on Aging showed that calorie restriction did not extend years of life or reduce age-related deaths in non-obese rhesus macaques. It did improve certain measures of health, however. These results were publicized as being different from the Wisconsin rhesus macaque calorie restriction study, which also started in 1987 and showed an increase in the lifespan of rhesus macaques following calorie restriction.

In a 2017 report on rhesus monkeys, caloric restriction in the presence of adequate nutrition was effective in delaying the effects of aging. Older age of onset, female sex, lower body weight and fat mass, reduced food intake, diet quality, and lower fasting blood glucose levels were factors associated with fewer disorders of aging and with improved survival rates. Specifically, reduced food intake was beneficial in adult and older primates, but not in younger monkeys. The study indicated that caloric restriction provided health benefits with fewer age-related disorders in elderly monkeys and, because rhesus monkeys are genetically similar to humans, the benefits and mechanisms of caloric restriction may apply to human health during aging.

Activity levels
Calorie restriction preserves muscle tissue in nonhuman primates and rodents. Muscle tissue grows when stimulated, so it has been suggested that the calorie-restricted test animals exercised more than their companions on higher calories, perhaps because animals enter a foraging state during calorie restriction. However, studies show that overall activity levels are no higher in calorie restriction than ad libitum animals in youth.

Sirtuin-mediated mechanism
Preliminary research indicates that sirtuins are activated by fasting and serve as "energy sensors" during metabolism. Sirtuins, specifically Sir2 (found in yeast) have been implicated in the aging of yeast, and are a class of highly conserved, NAD+-dependent histone deacetylase enzymes. Sir2 homologs have been identified in a wide range of organisms from bacteria to humans.

title: Calorie restriction


text: User talk:66.178.22.82

title: User talk:66.178.22.82


text:
Agent handling

In intelligence organizations, agent handling is the management of so-called agents (called secret agents or spies in common parlance), principal agents, and agent networks (called "assets") by intelligence officers typically known as case officers.

Human intelligence
A primary purpose of intelligence organizations is to penetrate a target with a human agent, or a network of human agents. Such agents can either infiltrate the target, or be recruited "in place". Case officers are professionally trained employees of intelligence organizations that manage human agents and human agent networks. Intelligence that derives from such human sources is known by the abbreviation HUMINT.

Sometimes, agent handling is done indirectly, through "principal agents" that serve as proxies for case officers. It is not uncommon, for example, for a case officer to manage a number of principal agents, who in turn handle agent networks, which are preferably organized in a cellular fashion. In such a case, the principal agent can serve as a "cut-out" for the case officer, buffering him or her from direct contact with the agent network.

Using a principal agent as a cut-out, and ensuring that the human agent network is organized in a cellular fashion, can provide some protection for other agents in the network, as well as for the principal agent, and for the case officer if an agent in the network is compromised. Assuming that standard principles of intelligence tradecraft have been strictly observed by the principal agent and the agents in the network, compromised agents will not be able to identify the case officer, nor the other members of the network. Ideally, agents may work side by side in the same office, and conduct their clandestine collection activities with such discipline, that they will not realize that they are both engaged in espionage, much less members of the same network.

Since an agent can sometimes identify his or her principal agent, however, or reveal information under interrogation that can lead to the identification of a principal agent, the protection provided by cellular network organization can be time-sensitive.

If principles of intelligence tradecraft have not been strictly observed, it is also possible that compromised agents can reveal information that exposes other members of the network. In the real world of espionage, human lapses are very much the norm, and violations of the principles of tradecraft are common. It is for this reason that agents are ideally trained to resist interrogation for a defined period of time.

If an agent is able to resist interrogation for a defined period of time, the odds improve that other members of the network can be alerted to the compromise.

Case officer
A case officer is an intelligence officer who is a trained specialist in the management of agents and agent networks. Case officers manage human agents and human intelligence networks. Case officers spot potential agents, recruit prospective agents and train agents in tradecraft. Case officers emphasize the elements of tradecraft that enable the agent to acquire needed information, and enable the case officer to communicate with and supervise the agent. Most importantly, case officers train agents in methods of avoiding detection by host nation counter-intelligence organizations.

Agents, spotting, and recruitment
By definition, an "agent" acts on behalf of another, whether another individual, an organization, or a foreign government. Agents can be considered either witting or unwitting, and in some cases, willing or unwilling. Agents typically work under the direction of a principal agent or a case officer. When agents work alone, and are not members of an agent network, they are termed "singletons".

The identification of potential agents is termed "agent spotting" (also termed "talent spotting"). Identifying potential agents, and investigating the details of their personal and professional lives, involves the granular verification of their bona fides. Such activities can include uncovering personal details that leave potential agents vulnerable to coercion, blackmail, or other inducements, such as sexual approaches.

Approaches to potential agents can be multitudinous and considerable time can pass before the potential agent is maneuvered into a position where a recruitment "pitch" can be hazarded.

Training
Agent training often includes techniques of tradecraft such as clandestine communication, including cryptography, the use of one-time pads, the construction of concealment devices, and the employment of dead drops. Other elements of tradecraft include elicitation, surveillance and countersurveillance, photography and the emplacement of audio devices, sensors, or other transmitters. Case officers generally train agents one at a time, in isolation, including only those elements of tradecraft needed to penetrate the target at hand. Case officers will also teach agents how to develop cover for status, and cover for action, meaning how to establish credible pretexts for their presence and behavior while engaged in collection activities. A well-trained and competent agent can conduct his or her clandestine tasks while under close surveillance, and still evade detection. More advanced agent training can include resistance to interrogation.

title: Agent handling