text:
Talk:History of early Christianity

Revert by Mathglot
User:Mathglot reverted my addition of sourced info, and my removal of unsourced info, ourdated sources and WP:OR with the following edit-summary:

My reasons for my edits have been explained; see the revision history. Please be so kind to explicate: See also WP:BRD:
 * where there was "Massive removal of sourced content without explanation";
 * where there was "introduction of original research";
 * why sourced info was removed.

Please also be so kind to explain why you consider restructuring and expanding the article not to be an improvement, and why you prefer the previous version of the article. Note that there is an abundancy of articles on the history of early Christianity; see Talk:Christianity. It's not helpfull for readers, nor is it helpfull for editors who want to improve those pages. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 * We're a week later, and there's no response... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Free will
With this edit, I
 * shortened this unsourced infor from
 * to
 * to

 * Moved "The early Christians opposed the deterministic views [...] Augustine's deterministic teachings wholeheartedly." to Augustine of Hippo. It's mainly pov-taking against Augustine, 4th-5th century, and undue for this section on beliefs. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead
This edit moved info from the lead into the article. It also split "baptism" into two sections, namely baptism in the Apostolic Age, and infant baptism, which is about 2nd/3rd century Chrstianity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Historical Jesus
This edit shortened info that I'd copied from Historical Jesus. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Attitude towards woman
This edit removed a resume of Bible texts on woman. We don't interpret primary sources, we provide an overview of reliable secondary sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sabbath
This edit removed unsourced info, and quotes from primary sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Spread of Christianity
This edot removed Edward Gibbon, a source from 1776–1789. Seriously outdated. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit removed ubdue and unsourced info; the relevant info is that by 100 AD, tere were ca. 40 Christian communities. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content by Mathglot
Mathglot's revert also removed a large amount (c. 20,000 byte) of sourced info, without explanation. This includes:
 * Information on the development of low and high Christology:

 * Information on the historical Jesus and the quest for the historical Jesus:

 * Information on Paul:

 * Information on cummunal meals, an important practice in early Christianity:

 * Information on the eucharist, one of the two defining practices of early Christianity:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Problems with this page
There are several problems with this page:
 * Scope: "This article is a description of early Christianity itself." That's three centuries, in which Christianity changed dramatically, and in which several variant Christianities existed. "Christianity" is not a monlithis entity; it developed within a historical context, which is part of the story of Christianity;
 * History: to short; yet, an undue alinea on "Hellenocentrism";
 * Practices:
 * Nothing on communal meals and the eucharist;
 * Undue section on infant baptism;
 * Undue section on sabbath: most of the Early Church did not consider observation of the Sabbath to be required or of eminent importance to Christians;

 * Organization: redundant with Ecclesiology;
 * Beliefs:
 * Christology: only one sentence about adoptionism, two lines about the debate about "Early High Christology," without mentioning that phrase. Most of this section is an undue exposition from primary texts.
 * Nothing about salvation. Not about 'salvation by faith', and by the differences between early Jewish Christians, and Paul's interpretations. The socalled "New Perspective on Paul" was kind of a revolution in Biblical studies and the understanding of early first century Christianity; it is not treated in this article? Also, nothing on the ransom theory of atonement, which developed in the second century, and was the dominant view for almost a millennium. If salvation by Christ is the essence of Christianity, then why is it not even mentioned in this article?
 * Free will versus determinism: undue for this article;

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Orthodoxy and heterodoxy: good, but short; nothing specific about those variant Christianities. There was not just 'one' Christianity in those early centuries, but a wide range of variations. Those should be mentioned.
 * Religious writing: one sentence on the New Testament writings is not much. The Gospels give variant interpretations of Jesus and his message; that should be mentioned.
 * Spread of Christianity: that's history, isn't it?

Scholarly views on the historical jesus
There is disagreement about this section, which has been removed repeatedly: Yes, this section is relevant; we cannot only give the New Testament vision(s) on Jesus; we also give a critical historical vision. And no, this info is not contained in the previous section. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tahc removal diff, edit-summary This is also not about Early Christianity.
 * JJ reinserion diff edit-summary disagree. Christianity did not simply start with Jesus, but has a background
 * Tahc removal diff edit-summary Current scholarly views are already part of the so-called "New Testament" section.
 * JJ re-insertion diff edit-summary No. The "New Testament" section gives a view froma primary source; the "Scholarly views" sections gives a critical scholarship-view on Jesus
 * The so-called New Testament section is already a mix of the New Testament view and the current scholarly views on the historical Jesus. That is fine, so long as you don't imply that it is all from the New Testament.
 * The so-called "Scholarly views on the historical Jesus" section is not about the Jesus part of Early Christianity or any "critical historical vision" on Jesus. It is about the modern conferences and discussions from the 18th to 21st century. These discussions are events of the the 18th to 21st century. I don't mind including current conscious views on Jesus himself, but these views-- if you more of them-- can continue to be integrated into main section on Jesus' ministry.
 * Some Wikipedia articles (such as Moses) have a one section on the "Biblical narrative" and afterward a contrasting section "Historicity". To do that here you would separate out all the current scholarly views form the "Biblical narrative" section. Since so much else as to be part of this articles, and even Ministry of Jesus does not handle it this way, I do not think splitting it up here is called for. tahc chat 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Integrating it may be a good idea. But maybe first let Beland finish his job. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 * The merge is complete, and after that was done I rearranged Christianity in the 1st century. I moved some details about 18th-21st century quests and religious portraits of Jesus to other articles, and left the summary of secular scholarship in the "Historical person" section. Hopefully that makes sense to everyone? If not, it might be best to start a thread on Talk:Christianity in the 1st century since this article will probably be merged away. -- Beland (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Great Church v. splitter groups
Saying "in contrast to smaller, splitter groups" (vs. "so called by Christian historians because it would later split into smaller churches with different beliefs") is better in many ways. Your test says many thing without citation (and these claims are also not cited in the lead of the Great Church article.) 1. "So called" smacks of bias for no good reason. 2. "later" proposes this term was not used yet. 3. "later" proposes there were not other groups already. 4. "with different beliefs" makes it sound like they each had very different beliefs. A few did, but some had (by modern standards) only very slight beliefs differences. Sometimes splits were about who was the leader.

I think "smaller, splitter groups" is highly grammatical, and the best way to say it-- but if you would rather say "in contrast to smaller groups", I can live with that. tahc chat 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Was this addressed to me? I don't think "splitter" is even an adjective in English, or a noun that can act as an adjective with the right meaning. Did you mean splinter groups? I was trying to avoid "the so-called Great Church" which implies the name is incorrect in some way, but I guess even this use of "so called" in a more literal sense still has the same connotation. I changed that to "so termed" but then kept reading... The previous sentence is trying to make clear that this was one, dominant strain among others. I was trying to be careful not to imply "Great Church" was the only one or that "Great" means "excellent". From the text in the body of Great Church, it sounds like actually my hastily thrown together explanation is incorrect—it was referred to as the Great Church at the time (starting around 180) as distinguished from the local church, and as a network of churches spread across parts of Eurasia and Africa, with an emerging structure of bishops and a set of somewhat coherent beliefs. It's not because it split later on. I rewrote the text yet again, but I think it probably needs more straightening out. I think the intro here will eventually be merged back up to History of Christianity, which has lot more breathing room. But I have more research to do on what factions existed so I can refine the explanations about that. -- Beland (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

delete Early Christianity

 * I propose we move this to discussion from Talk:History of early Christianity to here.
 * Rather than deleting Early Christianity completely, maybe we can leave (only) a list of links to the sub-articles. tahc chat 17:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Early Christianity in the History of Christianity may be divided into two distinct phases: the apostolic period (1st century), when the first apostles were alive and led the Church, and the Ante-Nicene Period, (c.100–325) when an early episcopal structure developed.
 * Christianity in the 1st century
 * Ministry of Jesus

 * Christianity in the Ante-Nicene period (c. 100–325)
 * Christianity in the 2nd century
 * Christianity in the 3rd century
 * Christianity in the 4th century

What do others think? tahc chat 18:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Christianity in late antiquity (c. 313–476)
 * Why would we direct readers to a list of links when there's a section that gives a prose overview and also includes all the same links? Just landing on a list implies there's no overview available, and you have to pick and choose which subtopic you want to read about. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Beland. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 * We would not direct people to this, per se. It would have the purpose of a disambiguation page, and it would be a place for all the current links to go to, when they have not yet been updated/modified to a more sensible page for that context.
 * In contrast, History of Christianity has only one sentence of summary (which we could include, like a normal disambiguation page)-- and then finding these links in the many parts that follow there would cumbersome at best. tahc chat 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Links to disambiguation-pages are to be avoided. History of Christianity has several sub-sections, not just an introductory line. Idon't see your problem here. And "Christianity in late Antiquity" is not part of "Early Christianity." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Well, the merge of the body to the two subarticles is complete, so I merged the intro to History of Christianity and redirected there. If there's any further discussion, it should probably be on that article's talk page. -- Beland (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of early Christianity


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Olympic flame at opening ceremony

Olympic flame at opening ceremony
self-nom; seems on par with other photos in FP and is only photo of this years' olympic flame on WP! seems characteristic of most olympic flames as well. blurry on full view but I was getting bumped by the turk to the right of me and the nigerian to the left and the greek behind me was using my shoulder for support! :) looks great in thumb and . Used in Olympic flame, 2004 Summer Olympics- Alterego 23:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support - - Alterego 23:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. As you said it looks great at a small view (about 800 pixels still looks good) but full image is a bit blurry. --Fir0002 04:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Enochlau 06:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure what is suposed to be in focus. Both the fireworks and the crowd are blury. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No part of the photo is particularly well exposed / in focus. Not stunningly composed. ed g2s  •  talk  02:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd like to support, because it is a good photo. The camera shake isn't so bad as to worry me too much, given this is a bit of a one-off event. It's more the composition that I find confusing. Also, I might prefer Image:Opening_Ceremony_Athens_2004_Fire_rings.jpg for a shot of the Olympic ceremony (though its got unclear Stock.xchng licensing) and Image:2002 Winter Olympics flame.jpg for the Olympic flame. - Solipsist 13:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Neutralitytalk 06:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * NOT promoted, +2/-5 -- Bevo 16:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Swimfin

Split fins

 * why are some split in the middle? - Omegatron 00:01, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

History and Trivia merge

 * The small bit under the trivia section should be referenced and moved to the history section, or removed: see WP:TRIV. -Superbeecat 10:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Force fins
(Section copied from User talk:RexxS

 * People come to wikipedia for information, perhaps more information should be added to give that to readers in the other sections, instead of deleting verifiable, accurate, descriptive, and cited information within the Force Fin section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatermanFF3 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Just picked up on this. The Force Fin material was originally written by an unknown, unaffiliated member of wikipedia. Somewhere along the line it was deleted, I simply came in last November, using the original wikipedia material as my basis, cited references verifying and clarified some details with encyclopedic material A further search of the MOMA libraries as well as those at the Metropolitan Museumk of Modern Art will lead you to the items within the collection. Try searching under Bob Evans as the Artist. If it is a statement of fact, its relevant. I will disclose I am a principal in Force Fin, and that gives me the authority to verify information written as to being accurate and factual.
 * Force Fins are different than other fins, that is most likely why a section was dedicated to it by an unknown, unrelated wikipedia member initially. Those differences, in essence, only are stated in the text -- open foot pocket - what does that mean? It is described with reference to wikipedia defintions of the metatarsals, phlanges, etc., and direct text from patents cited with reference to the PTO. Polyurethane is distinctly used in manufacture and cited within wikipedia definition of the same. Power and recovery is essence of product differentiation and cited from PTO records... that's what you're deleting, and that is distinct, definitional, factual, and its blanket removal is hereby noticed as vandalism.
 * If there is something wrong with the way in which I am using this talk section, please let me know, or permission to move this text to its proper location, with advisement to me, is given. I don't have the luxury of spending as much time on the computer as others, and do my best to be appropriate. WatermanFF3 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for taking the time to discuss your concerns. To answer your last question first: no, there's nothing wrong with using this talk page and you're most welcome. The rest is going to be more complex.
 * First of all, I have to remind you that the aim of what we write here is to create an encyclopedia. I know that's rather obvious, and I apologise for having to state it, but it's essential to have that in mind. As you know, the way we work is by allowing everybody to edit. The strength of that is in the sheer numbers of people who are willing to spend some time in doing it. The weakness is that it inevitably leads to different people having different opinion on all sorts of issues. The model of the way we resolve those differences is by discussing them until the vast majority can all agree on a solution - that is our concept of consensus. As a result, we have written down generalisations of some of the more common solutions and called them "policies" and "guidelines". Some of these are non-negotiable – the five pillars.
 * There is a policy called conflict of interest (CoI) and it came about because once wikipedia became popular, it was seen by some as a easy means of promoting a product. Not everybody who has a CoI edits improperly, but some do. So we have that guideline to ensure that editors have advice not only on avoiding impropriety, but also on avoiding the appearance of impropriety. You see, people who have an strong interest in a product may feel they are "toeing the line" of the policies, but their enthusiasm for the product may lead a different view of its importance from other editors. Let me give you an example: as objectively as possible, can you see what relevance the display of a Force Fin in a Museum of Modern Art has to the subject of swimfins in an encyclopedia? Of course it's relevant to Force Fins (and no doubt justifiably a source of pride), because it's a token of acceptance that raises the status of that fin, but it's not really of much use to the reader who wants to know something about different types of fins.
 * I know you are aware of the need to source claims and I believe you did so fully. However, you do need to be clear on what we mean by a reliable source. From the start, wikipedia was aware that anybody could create a website and place there anything they chose, within the bounds of law. That meant that we had to be cautious about how we treated sources. The policy crystallised as this: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So any website used as a source should be independent of whatever the text is written about. In this case, we would not consider the Force Fin website to be a reliable source for claims about Force Fins. That's not to say that we deny the accuracy of any claims, just their verifiability. We have no means of determining whether a claim made on a site is true or false, but we are willing to accept material based on websites that are independent of the subject and have a demonstrable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is not an impossible hurdle, it just means that if Force Fins reduce muscle fatigue, then we're willing to accept that if we can see that a reliable third-party has done done a study which proves it.
 * It's also worth examining the content of what you wrote. For example, I can see that you think that the use of polyurethane is important. But is it? Is it any better than using composites, polycarbonate or carbon fibre? If you know of a study from a reliable, independent source that clearly shows an advantage, then feel free to add something about polyurethane. Otherwise, what value does mentioning polyurethane have for the reader?
 * Finally, I ask you to read our policy on vandalism and identify precisely from the given types of vandalism in the table, which one you think took place when your content was rewritten. As you are inexperienced, it is only fair to warn you that making unfounded allegations of vandalism is taken very seriously on wikipedia. You may wish to strike out or remove your accusation above, by way of apology. Given your lack of understanding when you wrote it, I'm content to treat it as rather humorous, but you will need to be much more cautious in future before you make further use of the word. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I've reverted the re-insertion of material that is either irrelevant or not sourced to a WP:RS as explained above. --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you RexxS but I disagree and would like to give readers the time to give comment before you deprive them of information. I therefore have undone your edits. I believe the designer claim is not of interest to readers. I am not the designer. Links to ForceFin.com and other product websites are left within the edits and the links to wikipedia encyclopedic information were deleted.
 * Your criteria suggests that information should be based upon your value judgments, or should not be provided the reader at all. That is not the purpose of wikipedia for any subject.
 * It does not seem to me that wikipedia edits should be made with value judgments as to whether "polyurethane" is better than other materials or not. We should precisely not make a comparative claim as to it being better or worse than other materials within wikipedia. We simply state why it is used, what relevance it may have to being used in making a fin, any fin, it just happens to be stated within the context of its use, that is Force Fin.
 * Instead of depriving the reader of the the reason, why not give the reader more information within the context of the other fins. Why not explain what carbon fiber does for free diving fins, or rubber does for jet type fins, etc. To delete the link within wikipedia defining "polyurethane" is removing valuable factual information.
 * Likewise, with respect to an "open toe foot pocket", almost all fins have openings which allow for water to drain, what is distinctive of the open toe box of Force Fin products, freeing up the metarsal and phlanges, with definitional links within wikipedia and linking to Science Magazine, or used to link to summaries thereof is factual information, and should not be deleted.
 * We are trying to say these distinctions without value judgments, but with statements of facts. Your deletions are motivated by value judgments and for the reasons you state should be undone, and is the reason I have done so.
 * If there is a better way to make these statements and still give the reader the information they desire, we'll gladly entertain in discussion, but please allow time as I have other work to do also. 98.173.211.205 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatermanFF3 (talk • contribs)

 * If you guys don't mind my 2 cents on this... I tend to agree with RexxS that some of this information is not needed in this article however I do think there is enough information available to prove the fins meet Notability. The publications that support my claim of notability are listed on the Force Fins site (news and magazine articles and research/ award publications). This opens up the possibility of keeping this article on topic and referring to a main "Force Fins" article to expand to the other information that is important to the fins themselves but not to a general overview that should simply state what they are.
 * We do have to be careful to properly reference the sources (ex. Time Magazine article here). I seem to remember an old AquaCorps article that should be used as a reference as well.
 * WatermanFF3, since you are a relatively new editor, an example of this can be found in the underwater habitat article SEALAB section. That article requires a brief summary of the project while referring to the main SEALAB_(US_Navy) article for those wishing to have a greater understanding of that project.
 * Thanks for listening... --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 * As I've modified the forcefins section on more than one occasion, I'm happy to explain why (Although much of this was covered by Rexx). The main issues I saw were an undue level of detail, a lack of independent resources, statements that were impossible to verify.
 * The section is almost double the length of other fins, as well as the broad types (eg paddle and split fins). No other sections include information on the number of product lines or trivia about modern art.  The section is written in scientific style language, with detailed and specific descriptions of human anatomy, fin physical properties and design, but there is no way to verify this apart from trusting the manufacturers claims. As Rexx stated, there are specific descriptions without stated relevance ("Trailing edge mechanism"), that while sounding informative actually provide little information to the reader. To be suitable for wikipedia; claims of product benefit or improved efficiency etc need to be verifiable from sources other than the manufacturer.  The museum statement can be considered trivia, and is borderline for retention.  As there are differences between the wiki description and the museum website, it is probably justified for removal.
 * While I deny any vandalism to the article, I would like to counter with my concerns of independence of the user adding the material since WatermanFF3 is the designer of the fins (as stated above) and claims be readding material written by an independent user, the curiously named WatermanFF2.
 * Condense I vote strongly for a highly condensed version of the section (As Gene stated there is probably some notability), as there are too many unfounded unindependent claims. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Clovis. The MoMa note establishes some notability, but the section has way too much detail and a lack of independent sources verifying the relevance of that information. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Gene Hobbs, thanks for the suggestion. I do believe an independent editor has the project underway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatermanFF3 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source for Force Fin
I have made the promotional claims about FF invisible pending provision of a reliable source. Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Please do not add this material or make it visible without providing an inline citation to an independent publication (not a promotional website). Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I found the refs, with less than a minute of googling. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * You didn't need to google, it's already in the page history. What could possibly make you think that a link to a manufacturer's website is a reliable source for claims that the manufacturer is making in the article? It is blatantly against WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; WP:SPS "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable."
 * Here's the claim: "this human/fin interface and design [of Force Fins] minimizes a major cause of cramping from fins, which is caused by conventional fins forcing the joint of the ankle beyond the natural end range of motion, resulting in a ballistic strain of the lower leg muscles." and it's supported only by a cite to the Force Fin website. --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Anthony, please don't restore material that has been challenged without citing independent reliable and verifiable sources for it. As Rexx says, this is the same improper sourcing which had been used before; a manufacturer's website does not qualify as a reliable source for promotional claims about their products. Crum375 (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I contacted San Diego State University yesterday to request the thesis. Ryan Lindsey never published a thesis on this work. I am sure he wrote some sort of project summary, especially if the project was externally funded. Does anyone know how to find him or who his adviser was? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I would imagine Bob Evans would be able to find him. --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, we could find Ryan, but what would be the purpose. Verify that the information is as he wrote it, that it was done independently of Force Fin, that it was his thesis and reviewed by his professors, which review culminated in award of his Masters in Science. With that verification would it be cited in the article? If the answer is yes, I'll give him a call and have him post here.

 * Absent association with Force Fin, the foundation given by his study is valuable to all divers. The industry tells you that cramping can be alleviated by eating bananas. A banana boost might be good for you, but divers are not potassium deficient as a class. Cramping from fins is among the top 3-complaints of divers, and the sooner the industry admits that its primary cause is extended plantar flexion necessary to hold a proper angle of attack when kicking a fin with a blade that extends from one's toes the better it will be for all. IMHO, with a lifetime of experience and basic physiology to back it up.  WatermanFF3 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The study is interesting, but you overstate its value. As you know, there's been a lengthy discussion about the study on a scuba forum, as I indicated above; and there's no point in re-hashing it here. The study showed that one diver, on one day, extended his toes less using a Force Fin than he did with a single model of conventional fin. The rest is extrapolation from one datum point to divers as a whole, and from toe extension to cramps. I'm sorry, but the evidence just isn't there at the moment for those sort of conclusions. As for bananas, you should know better than to believe what "the industry" tells you. Hypokalemia is indeed uncommon, and cramps is far more likely to be due to dehydration, with calcium, magnesium or vitamin D deficiency more likely than shortage of potassium. You are right to draw attention to a probable linkage between plantar hyperextension and cramps – a good, published, peer-reviewed study would go a long way towards making your case. I do have sympathy with your frustration here. You believe sincerely that Force Fins would eliminate a major cause of cramps – and a lot of divers agree with you.
 * My personal view is that I'd recommend trying Force Fins to anyone who regularly suffers from cramps. But my view and your belief don't trump Wikipedia's policies on sourcing. And that's the point: studies that have been published in respectable journals - and PhD theses that have been reviewed and accepted - are acceptable primary sources, but we use them with care, preferring good quality secondary sources. A project done as part of a Master's course is very unlikely to come any close to meeting those standards. The nail in the coffin is that the only source we have for Ryan's work is your website, a self-published source. I understand you see me as some sort of undercover agent for another fin manufacturer, who is only trying to obstruct your goal of revealing the "Real truth ®" to the world, but I'm honestly not - take a look at my contributions like the featured article on oxygen toxicity. I only want to see this scuba-related article, which I care about, written to Wikipedia's standards. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * To add my 2 bits regarding the removal of the reference hosted on the manufacture's website. I have strong suspicions that the report lacks independence and is intended purely for promotional reasons.  I am unable to find this report, or any by the stated, author on journal search engines and there are a number of features of the reference which make it suspicious.  The reasons why are as follows:
 * It's written in a heavily promotional way with conclusions about the benefits of forcefins in the introduction.
 * Its tone is conversational, not scientific (although many scientific words are dropped in)
 * It includes no citations whatsoever
 * It has a sample size of 1, so no statistical inferences can be made
 * There is only one comparison made
 * The conclusion comes before the discussion (That would not even pass highschool science)
 * While an experiment may have been done, the fact that was not funded by the university, was not evidently published in a peer reviewed journal and must have required external funds makes it very suspicious. I think it is worth having the reference hidden until the actual reference (if it exists) turns up. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Clovis Sangrail, Force Fin did not fund the study, nor did we participate in its design or execution. There are no hidden agendas. We are an open book, and fact check better than most scuba industry publications before publishing anything at ForceFin.com You will find very few peer reviewed studies in recreational scuba. University Professors granting a degree based upon the research is about the best you will find. - WatermanFF3 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A man does not need great funding or a rajah's treasury to do go fin swimming with various swimfins and record what it happened. He likely funded himself. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Waterman, please take a look at Rubicon Research Repository, which contains thousands of peer reviewed studies related to recreational scuba. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted material in Force Fins
"Force Fin" is the trademark for fins designed, developed, manufactured and distributed by Bob Evans Designs, Inc. There are over 30 models of Force Fins. They are distinguished by:
 * Following this post, perhaps it would be best to respond on this talk page, in the hope of finding some consensus on what should be included in the article. I'll place below the text that WatermanFF3 would like to be included:

(1) An open foot pocket, that encloses over the instep, leaving the metatarsals and phalanges, toes free so the foot can flex, and cantilevers the force of the kick from the large muscles upper thigh. This eliminates a major cause of cramping from fins, which is caused by extended Plantar_flexion, having to hold toes pointed (lower leg muscles contracted) because the blade extends from the end of the toes.

(2) Force Fins are made of Polyurethane. Polyurethane cross-links to hold to its molded shape at the molecular level, which works together with various design features, including structure on the underside of the fin blade that compresses when kicked against, recoils, and the blade responds by snapping back into its original molded shape. This snapping action does the work for the kicker on the recovery and generates thrust by moving water behind. Use of polyurethane allows the fin to be designed with clean, or narrow side and leading edges, and without ribbing that can generate turbulence and impede the flow of water over the blade.

(3) Force Fins have trailing edge mechanism, the most well know of which is the upcurved blade and V-shape at the end like some fishes' tail, or [split blade], with a curved trailing edge, others are outfitted with [winglets], to channel and focus water behind. The Tan Delta Force Fin is part of the permanent collections of the [New York Museum of Modern Art] for changing the way mankind perceives moving through water, and along with the Extra Force Fin is part of the collections of The Costume Institute of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art.

I have no problem with the first line, nor with the description of the fin (although I would have cited it to the patent in the absence of a good photograph).

I think the following are claims of a medical or scientific nature and must be verifiable by a cite to an independent journal or site, showing a peer-reviewed study:
 * cantilevers the force of the kick from the large muscles upper thigh. This eliminates a major cause of cramping from fins, which is caused by extended Plantar_flexion, having to hold toes pointed (lower leg muscles contracted) because the blade extends from the end of the toes.
 * This snapping action does the work for the kicker on the recovery and generates thrust by moving water behind.

I think the following text is (1) inaccurate since other fins are made of polyurethane (shinfins, V-TEK split fins, and (2) irrelevant unless there's something about polyurethane that distinguishes it from other fin materials – in which case, let's see the scientific evidence that it makes a difference:
 * They are distinguished by: ... Force Fins are made of Polyurethane. Polyurethane cross-links to hold to its molded shape at the molecular level, which works together with various design features, including structure on the underside of the fin blade that compresses when kicked against, recoils, and the blade responds by snapping back into its original molded shape"

Similarly for "trailing edge mechanism" – if it's important, then give a reliable source that says so. Otherwise, it's no more than pseudo-scientific marketing blurb.

Finally, the least of my objection, which is indeed a matter of editorial judgement: The Museum of Modern Art/Metropolitan Museum of Art text. Let me make this 100% clear, I do not doubt (and never have doubted) that this true. It is eminently suitable for inclusion in the article Force fin – and I'll even offer to help you format the references there - but my judgement here is that it is far too trivial a piece of information for a general article on swimfins.

On that final point, I'd very much like to hear other opinions, because it's inclusion depends on judgements based on WP:UNDUE: "... discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". I doubt that anyone familiar with our core policy of verifiability is going to disagree with the other points, but even so I'm happy to discuss. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Let me add my view about WP:UNDUE. Let's say we find volumes of excellent high quality scientific third party reviews of one brand of fins. Even then, we should not devote more space for it, or otherwise highlight it more than any other brand, unless we have reliable sources telling us that this particular brand is much more notable or common. Otherwise, we'd be violating WP:UNDUE by over-promoting one brand over the others. Crum375 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Just a short comment in response to Crum's note, it seem's the swimfin article is working counter to what would be expected. There are only a few brandnames mentioned, and they all appear to be very small / boutique products. More dominant products such as Apollo's biofin which are regularly reviewed, unique designs, are widely used and have been tested are curiously absent.
 * BTW it would be good to have an image of a splitfin if anyone has one - I couldn't see anything on wikimedia. It could be swapped with one of the Beauchat images since there are two of them (As long as it still shows open / closed foot pocket). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clovis Sangrail, He who cries the loudest is generally the worst offender. What's all this fuss about my disclosed bias? I don't think that the purpose of the article is to list the many companies that make the many fins that are available, but to show the variations. Although we do make a split fin, they are distinctive in more ways than just their foot pocket design, as are all other models of Force Fins. To post a picture of Apollo's Biofin would slight the other 18 or so variations of split fins made by other companies under the same license agreements, an even stronger case of WP:UNDUE with respect to their models and the BioFin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatermanFF3 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I think it would improve the article if we had a photograph of a split fin (from any manufacturer) to replace one of the two images of Beauchat fins as they are so similar - we already have illustrations of open- and closed-heel. I'd really like to see a good quality image of a Force Fin, since they are so distinctively different from most others. Waterman, do you have a good image that you would be prepared to release under a Creative Commons Share-Alike licence? I'd be happy to give any help with uploading if you needed it. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Waterman, I have no preference for which companies split fin is posted, I was just suggesting that since they're very common it would be informative to include an image. Re WP:UNDUE, I can guarantee any fin producer will have arguements for the notability of their product, and I was pointing out that notability is not only determined by having particularly unusual designs, actual usage can also be considered. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Franklin
Franklin was a great guy, but since he also loved straightforwardness, in all due respects, it should be mentioned that his "fins" were worn on the hands, not the feet.189.38.128.134 (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Łasiński
Did anybody try to consider this guy? The article is in polish, but they claim that he invented the swimming fins in 1914, while being at the Adriatic.

"Edmund Łasiński był wynalazcą płetw. W 1914 roku będąc w Porto Re nad Adriatykiem razem z prof. Fischerem wypróbował swój wynalazek." http://www.borzecin.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3071&Itemid=436

He is also mentioned as the inventor in the book 'I haj vivat Poznańczanie' by Marcin J. Januszkiewicz p.187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.105.162 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It is difficult for those of us who do not read Polish to use the reference, or to assess whether it is a reliable source. If you can understand and translate the content, and can explain why the source should be considered reliable, you can edit the article to include information from the source. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Swimfin. 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/20090709140530/http://www.ishof.org:80/honorees/68/68bfranklin.html to http://www.ishof.org/honorees/68/68bfranklin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526123506/http://www.apollosportsusa.com:80/Products/Fins/Principles.htm to http://www.apollosportsusa.com/Products/Fins/Principles.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206052137/http://www.forcefin.com:80/index.html to http://www.forcefin.com/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

B-Class review
Not ready yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Swimfin


text: User talk:65.41.148.79

title: User talk:65.41.148.79


text:
Talk:J.C. Penney

==Penney's talks of buying HeroClothing.com? No offense, but I doubt it, given that there are very few references to the site anywhere.

Proposed move to J.C. Penney
The stores are called "JCPenney". The article should be at JCPenney. Mike H 00:03, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, the company is called "J.C. Penney". The "JCPenney" thing is a stylised logo, nothing more. Check the SEC filings -- you'll find none for this fictional "JCPenney" company.--chris.lawson 22:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Chris is correct. I support the move to J.C. Penney.  —Lifeisunfair 01:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Support: yes, Chris is correct. Jonathunder 06:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: for the reasons Chris stated above. -Locke Cole 11:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Eugene van der Pijll 22:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Employees paragraph
I don't have the energy right now to rewrite it, but the employees paragraph reads like a sixth-grader's report on the place where his mom works. --Captadam 15:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Never mind; I just removed it. --Captadam 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

JCPenney doesn't have stores in all of the states
In the article it says JCPenney has stores in all of the states,that ain't true,Hawaii doesn't have a JCPenney

Founder of JCPenny
There are no references to McManus as a founder of JCPenny anywhere except wikipedia. Chirag 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

J.C. Penney competition
With Federated merging the MayCo stores into Macy's, J.C. Penney and Macy's are no longer different. Macy's has opened up as just another department store, therefore the section stating J.C. Penney competes below Macy's is incorrect and needs to be rewritten or removed. --Write On 1983 02:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Defacement of "1969-1979" Paragraph
Someone changed the name of the Harlem chain of drugstores to "crack houses" and stated that J.C. Penney sold its Italy stores to the mafia.Mary quite contrary 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have fixed it. In the future, you can correct vandalism like this yourself by using the edit this page tab at the top of the page.—WAvegetarian (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I most definitely will - still learning the ropes. Mary quite contrary 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i am severely  disappointed  that  jc  penny  has no   contact  us  site

Fair use rationale for Image:Jcpenny logoq.gif
Image:Jcpenny logoq.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:J.C. Penney


text:
Lene Hau

Lene Vestergaard Hau (born November 13, 1959) is a Danish physicist and educator. She is the Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and of Applied Physics at Harvard University.

In 1999, she led a Harvard University team who, by use of a Bose–Einstein condensate, succeeded in slowing a beam of light to about 17 metres per second, and, in 2001, was able to stop a beam completely. Later work based on these experiments led to the transfer of light to matter, then from matter back into light, a process with important implications for quantum encryption and quantum computing. More recent work has involved research into novel interactions between ultracold atoms and nanoscopic-scale systems. In addition to teaching physics and applied physics, she has taught Energy Science at Harvard, involving photovoltaic cells, nuclear power, batteries, and photosynthesis. In addition to her own experiments and research, she is often invited to speak at international conferences, and is involved in structuring the science policies of various institutions. She was keynote speaker at EliteForsk-konferencen 2013 ("Elite Research Conference") in Copenhagen, which was attended by government ministers, as well as senior science policy and research developers in Denmark.

In acknowledgment of her many achievements, Discover Magazine recognized her in 2002 as one of the 50 most important women in science.

Early life, family and education
Hau was born in Vejle, Denmark.

Hau earned her bachelor's degree in mathematics in 1984 at the University of Aarhus in Denmark at the age of 24. Hau continued her studies there, receiving her master's degree in physics two years later.

For her doctoral studies in quantum theory, Hau worked on ideas similar to those involved in fibre optic cables carrying light, but her work involved strings of atoms in a silicon crystal carrying electrons. While working towards her doctorate, Hau spent seven months at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics near Geneva. She received her doctorate from the University of Aarhus in 1991 at the age of 32, but by this time her research interests had changed direction.

Career
In 1991 she joined the Rowland Institute for Science at Cambridge, Massachusetts as a scientific staff member, beginning to explore the possibilities of slow light and cold atoms. In 1999 at the age of 40, Hau accepted a two-year appointment as a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University. Her formalized training is in theoretical physics but her interest moved to experimental research in an effort to create a new form of matter known as a Bose–Einstein condensate. "Hau applied to the National Science Foundation for funds to make a batch of this condensate but was rejected on the grounds that she was a theorist for whom such experiments would be too difficult to do." Undeterred, she gained alternative funding, and became one of the first handful of physicists to create such a condensate. In September 1999 she was appointed the Gordon Mckay Professor of Applied Physics and Professor of Physics at Harvard. She was also awarded tenure in 1999 and is now Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Harvard. In 2001 she became the first person to stop light completely, using a Bose–Einstein condensate to achieve this. Since then she has produced copious research, and new experimental work, in electromagnetically induced transparency, various areas of quantum physics, photonics and contributed to the development of new quantum devices and novel nanoscale applications.

Qubit transfer
Hau and her associates at Harvard University "have demonstrated exquisite control over light and matter in several experiments, but her experiment with 2 condensates is one of the most compelling". In 2006 they successfully transferred a qubit from light to a matter wave and back into light, again using Bose–Einstein condensates. Details of the experiment are discussed in the February 8, 2007, publication of the journal Nature. The experiment relies on the way that, according to quantum mechanics, atoms may behave as waves as well as particles. This enables atoms to do some counterintuitive things, such as passing through two openings at once. Within a Bose–Einstein condensate a light pulse is compressed by a factor of 50 million, without losing any of the information stored within it. In this Bose–Einstein condensate, information encoded in a light pulse can be transferred to the atom waves. Because all the atoms move coherently, the information does not dissolve into random noise. The light drives some of the cloud's roughly 1.8 million sodium atoms to enter into "quantum superposition" states, with a lower-energy component that stays put and a higher-energy component that travels between the two clouds. A second 'control' laser then writes the shape of the pulse into the atom waves. When this control beam is turned off and the light pulse disappears, the 'matter copy' remains. Prior to this, researchers could not readily control optical information during its journey, except to amplify the signal to avoid fading. This experiment by Hau and her colleagues marked the first successful manipulation of coherent optical information. The new study is "a beautiful demonstration", says Irina Novikova, a physicist at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. Before this result, she says, light storage was measured in milliseconds. "Here it's fractional seconds. It's a really dramatic time."

Of its potential, Hau said "While the matter is traveling between the two Bose–Einstein condensates, we can trap it, potentially for minutes, and reshape it – change it – in whatever way we want. This novel form of quantum control could also have applications in the developing fields of quantum information processing and quantum cryptography." Of the developmental implications, "This feat, the sharing around of quantum information in light-form and in not just one but two atom-forms, offers great encouragement to those who hope to develop quantum computers," said Jeremy Bloxham, dean of science in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Hau was awarded the George Ledlie Prize for this work, Harvard's Provost Steven Hyman noting "her work is path-breaking. Her research blurs the boundaries between basic and applied science, draws on the talent and people of two Schools and several departments, and provides a literally glowing example of how taking daring intellectual risks leads to profound rewards."

Cold atoms and nanoscale systems
In 2009 Hau and team laser-cooled clouds of one million rubidium atoms to just a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. They then launched this millimeter-long atomic cloud towards a suspended carbon nanotube, located some two centimeters away and charged to hundreds of volts. The results were published in 2010, heralding new interactions between cold atoms and nanoscale systems. They observed that most atoms passed by, but approximately 10 per million were inescapably attracted, causing them to dramatically accelerate both in movement and in temperature. "At this point, the speeding atoms separate into an electron and an ion rotating in parallel around the nanowire, completing each orbit in just a few trillionths of a second. The electron eventually gets sucked into the nanotube via quantum tunneling, causing its companion ion to shoot away – repelled by the strong charge of the 300-volt nanotube – at a speed of roughly 26 kilometers per second, or 59,000 miles per hour." Atoms can rapidly disintegrate, without having to collide with each other in this experiment. The team is quick to note that this effect is not produced by gravity, as calculated in blackholes that exist in space, but by the high electrical charge in the nanotube. The experiment combines nanotechnology with cold atoms to demonstrate a new type of high-resolution, single-atom, chip-integrated detector that may ultimately be able to resolve fringes from the interference of matter waves. The scientists also foresee a range of single-atom, fundamental studies made possible by their setup.

Awards

 * Dirac Medal and Lecture, the University of New South Wales, 2019.
 * Lise Meitner Distinguished Lecturer, 2018
 * Honorary Alum 2011 – Aarhus Universitet
 * Carlsberg Foundation's Research Award from the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters on October 6, 2011. The prize of 1 million Danish kroner (around US$150,000) was given in connection with the 200 year anniversary of brewer J.C. Jacobsen, founder of the Carlsberg Breweries and the Carlsberg Foundation.
 * Awarded the H.C. Ørsted Lectureship 2010
 * Recipient of 'World Dane 2010' from the Global Network of Danes Worldwide. She received the annual award "Årets Verdensdansker" (World Dane of the year) because she, according to Danes Worldwide, "emphatically and persistently has put Denmark on the world map".
 * Selected National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellow by the United States Department of Defense, January 25, 2010.
 * An honorary appointment to the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
 * American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Fellow, December 7, 2009.
 * American Academy of Arts and Sciences, April 20, 2009.
 * Foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 2008
 * Delivered the Capital Science Lecture at Carnegie Institution for Science in 2008
 * Rigmor and Carl Holst-Knudsen Award for Scientific Research
 * George Ledlie Prize in September 2008.
 * Richtmyer Memorial Award, by the American Association of Physics Teachers 2004
 * Delivered a Nano Lecture on Slow Light for the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) 2003
 * Delivered the Leon Pape Memorial Lecture, 2003
 * "Genius Grant" – MacArthur Fellow 2001–2006
 * NKT Award, by the Danish Physical Society 2001
 * The Ole Rømer Medal, by the president of the Danish Natural Science Research Council, 2001
 * An honorary degree, Æreshåndværker Kjøbenhavns Håndværkerforening, in the presence of Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Copenhagen, 2001
 * Samuel Friedman Rescue Award, given by the Samuel Friedman Foundation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2001
 * Recipient of the Year 2000 Award from the Top Danmark Foundation, Copenhagen
 * Appointed Gordon Mckay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard, as well as Principal Investigator for the Atom Cooling Group at the Rowland Institute, 1991
 * A Carlsberg Scholarship which enabled her to spend a year undertaking research, by the Carlsberg Foundation, Denmark, 1988
 * Recipient of the Research Fellowship, 1986–1989, by the Faculty of Sciences, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Publications

 * Lene Vestergaard Hau, Manipulating Light Unit 7 of the Annenberg Foundation's "Physics for the 21st Century"
 * Anne Goodsell, Trygve Ristroph, J. A. Golovchenko, and Lene Vestergaard Hau, Field ionization of cold atoms near the wall of a single carbon nanotube (2010)
 * Rui Zhang, Sean R. Garner, and Lene Vestergaard Hau, Creation of long-term coherent optical memory via controlled nonlinear interactions in Bose–Einstein condensates (2009)
 * Naomi S. Ginsberg, Sean R. Garner, and Lene Vestergaard Hau, Coherent control of optical information with matter wave dynamics (2007).
 * Naomi S. Ginsberg, Joachim Brand, Lene Vestergaard Hau, Observation of Hybrid Soliton Vortex-Ring Structures in Bose–Einstein Condensates (2005).
 * Chien Liu, Zachary Dutton, Cyrus H. Behroozi, Lene Vestergaard Hau, Observation of coherent optical information storage in an atomic medium using halted light pulses
 * Lene Vestergaard Hau, S. E. Harris, Zachary Dutton, Cyrus H. Behroozi, Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas

title: Lene Hau


text:
Talk:Robert Jay Lifton

Thought reform/cults
I've made some drastic edits and cut most of this text:

 * His 1961 book, Thought Reform introduced theories of "brainwashing" and "mind control", which he later advocated in court in the capacity of an expert witness in the 1976 trial of Patty Hearst. The theories, however, failed to become mainline science: American Psychologists Association (APA) dismissed them in 1987, American Sociologists Association officially supported the decision. Currently, "brainwashing" and "mind control" theories are considered science fiction by professional psychologists and sociologists. U.S. Courts repeatedly refused to accept references to "brainwashing" and "thought control" as phenomena existing in reality.

 * The theories are however widely used by anti-cult activists. Lifton has published many books in which he applied these theories to goverments, new religious movements and terrorist groups.

 * In 2002 an attempt was made again to make the American Psychological Association form a panel to re-evaluate the theories. References to terrorism and religious fanaticism were made by anti-cult activists to emphasize the importance of the theories and attract support from mainline scholars. It is unknown whether the attempt was successful.

Basically this is a POV screed which bashes Lifton for having been cited by anti-cult groups, but shows little knowledge of his work. There are several big problems here: 1. This text entirely blurs the distinction between Lifton's theory of "thought reform" and the claims of anti-cult groups who have cited Lifton's work rather selectively. The latter are what the APA and ASA disavowed, and in fact Lifton himself has spoken against such misapplications of his work. 2. It is very misleading to mention Thought Reform without mentioning its conclusion, which was that such techniques generally failed in their grand ideological ambitions, managing only to coerce short-term behavior and/or produce general nervous breakdowns—which is what he claimed had happened to Patty Hearst. 3. The "Lifton has published many books..." sentence is also very misleading; Lifton's other books often make reference to "totalism" as a feature of authoritarian ideologies, but that has nothing to do with brainwashing or thought control; those are not the focus of his work.

I hope to return to the article soon and expand it to do more justice to the breadth of Lifton's writing. ←Hob 00:04, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

If you want to do justice to his work then erase the entire article.

His latest - Nazi Doctors - is pure bunk. History it ain't. Rehashed myths that make for a good movie script, fiction at best - no quotes, no research, ... but very saleable. Antecdotes can come from both sides - in WW2 buddies of severely wounded GIs left their friend where the German soldiers would take him to the "NAZI DOCTORS" to save his life. Document our atrocities before you take a flight of fancy - unless you are Wiki I guess.

 * The incoherent comment above speaks for itself - I'll just point out that this anonymous editor seems to think The Nazi Doctors is Lifton's "latest". It was written in 1986. ←Hob 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistory disambiguation
I spent quite a lot of time recently on the variant of psychohistory which has become associated with the name of Lloyd deMause. The article is now a merged version of two separate articles. A link to Robert Jay Lifton is included in the section titled "Notable psychohistorians". There is also a disambiguation at the top of the page for Isaac Asimov's use of the term: psychohistory (fictional).

At present, this article mentions the Wellfleet Group briefly. I did a Google search and found that more material is available. Would any of the previous contributors object if I reworked the "Influences" section to expand on the activities of the Wellfleet Psychohistory Group? It's two sentences at the moment. If there was more material about the group, the section could be renamed "The Wellfleet Psychohistory Group." -- Bookish 17:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mental coercion only short-term?
Hob, can you supply a reference to the edit that Lifton says mental coercion or thought reform/brainwashing is "only" able to effect short-term behavior? This goes completely against what I've studied on the subject. 208.78.72.18 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Citation certainly needed, but maybe the statement should be that the "cult personality" disappears if it is not continually renewed by social pressure from the cult. Having less experience and more like tales from former cult members, I got the impression that most of the cult's energy is directed towards making the members not bailing out, and keep the member being ideologically well-behaved (JW). ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 22:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I finished it a few days ago and I'm pretty sure that's what he says. When taken out of the brainwashing environment (e.g. when his subject leave China), the effects start to vanish. Only one or two out of the about 40 cases got really converted to the other side, and it took on one case some years, but the subject started questioning the doctrines. Even when staying in the environment, a lot of the subjects have started having doubts and challenged in some way the doctrine. 78.90.26.228 (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I

 * I haven't read Lifton on brainwashing/mind control, but I'm reminded of something I read several years ago about UFO contact cults, namely that new recruits are eager believers when in the company of the core group, but when the new recruits are away from the core group their faith begins to fade. Sorry I can't recall the source -- possibly Jacques Vallée? I wouldn't post it to Wikipedia without a reliable source, although the basic idea (presence of group reinforces faith of believers) seems self-evident and applicable to a great many areas of human interaction. Karl gregory jones (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sentence out of place?
The following sentence seems completely out of place, what book is it referring to? Can someone put it where it belongs?

"The term thought-terminating cliché was popularized by Robert Lifton in this book."

-- Dougher (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust section out of place
Could the contents of the Holocaust section be integrated with the structure of the article so that it did not appear to be an advertising-like placement of propaganda or provocation? DCDuring (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, one of Lifton's best known books, be merged here. There is already a section here that is just a slightly abbreviated version of the other article. Readers interested in the book would benefit from the background on the author, and those interested in the author would get the full information on the book. BayShrimp (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. None of his other books has its own article, and there are 21 listed here. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have added some material to the section on the book here. Borock (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Lifton in litcrit
On 3 June 2015, User:Hmak06 (contributions) added a section about:

 * Heide Kunzelmann's study about Austrian Avantgarde poet Hans Carl Artmann (1921-2000), entitled "Ich bin ja der Proteus. H.C. Artmanns Poetik der Wandelbarkeit" (Vienna, Sonderzahl 2013,ISBN 978 3 85449 402 7). Kunzelmann exemplarily discusses Artmann's poetics in the context of the author's personal history as a deserter of the Wehrmacht (etc)

This remained in the article for over two months, till I deleted it a few minutes ago.

Despite its claimed exemplariness (?), Kunzelmann's work isn't mentioned in the article on H. C. Artmann (although Hmak06 got it into the German-language article about him).

Hmak06 does appear keen on the importance of Heide Kunzelmann. Her fellow editors of de:WP are not all so impressed. And here, the same.

I've deleted the section from this article, as trivia and/or advertising. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Robert Jay Lifton. 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/20080528192547/http://www.stonehill.edu:80/media_relations/articles/051808_themes_of_commencement.htm to http://www.stonehill.edu/media_relations/articles/051808_themes_of_commencement.htm

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 08:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What degree does Robert Jay Lifton have? MD?  PhD?
Here is a link that confirms he has a M.D. degree. Let's add it. https://www.nymc.edu/school-of-medicine-som/som-alumni-profiles/robert-j-lifton/

title: Talk:Robert Jay Lifton


text:
Talk:Tharg the Mighty

Only character in every issue
In case folks take issue with my saying Tharg is the only character in every issue (citing Judge Dredd as the real holder of that distinction). Tharg was indeed in the first prog, appearing in a (rather scary) story in which he disintegrated someone (who I think was a fleeing droid). By contrast, Dredd didn't appear until the second prog, in a (horribly drawn) strip concerning "Whitey" and the now dwarfed Empire State Building). Refs: (tharg's first appearance) {Dredd's first appearance) -- John Fader 00:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * No problem with that - however he didn't appear when the men in black took over. I've changed the wording so that Dredd and Tharg as being unique in appearing in most progs. sheridan 01:52, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

 * Would it be actually worth mentioning Vector 13 in the entry as it was notable for being his major absence from the magazine - I put a mention in about this in their entry (Emperor 23:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tharg the Mighty. 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/20160806085648/http://comicsalliance.com/bizarro-back-issues-how-tharg-saved-christmas-1981/ to http://comicsalliance.com/bizarro-back-issues-how-tharg-saved-christmas-1981/

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) 20:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

To quote, or not to quote
In the Publication History section there seems to be a mix of story titles in quotes, and some not - which is the preferred version? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The only quotes I can see are for subtitles. For instance, Timehouse was the title of the series, and “Century Duty” was a story within that series. Richard75 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tharg the Mighty


text:
Talk:Geography of Sudan

Well this is out of Date--J intela (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Needs Splitting
There are now two countries, Sudan and South Sudan. This article needs to be split into two.41.232.154.174]} ([[User talk:41.232.154.174|talk) 07:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Geography of Sudan. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20101209234758/http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se:80/artspec_information.asp?thingid=35993 to http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=35993

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geography of Sudan


text:
Patan, Gujarat

Patan, also known as Anahilavad, is the administrative seat of Patan district in the Indian state of Gujarat and is an administered municipality. It was the capital of Gujarat's Chavda and Chaulukya dynasties in medieval times, and is also known as Anhilpur-Patan to distinguish it from Prabhas Patan. During the rule of Gujarat Sultanate, it was the capital from 1407 to 1411.

Patan was established by the Chavda king Vanaraja. During the rule of several Hindu and Muslim dynasties, it thrived as a trading city and a regional capital of northern Gujarat. The city contains many Hindu and Jain temples as well as mosques, dargahs and rauzas.

It is a historical place located on the bank of the now extinct Saraswati River. Patan has an old market which is quite sizeable and is believed to have been in continuous operation since at least the rule of Vaghelas and gandhis.

History
Patan was established by the Chavda ruler Vanaraja in the ninth century as "Anahilapataka". During 10th-13th century, the city served as the capital of the Chaulukya dynasty, who succeeded the Chavdas.

Jain community
Patan has been home to a community of Jains for at least several hundred years. According to a 1375 CE letter written by a Jain monk,

The people here participate in shining devotion, gifting, morality, and asceticism; the mendicants are firm in upholding the blossom of equanimity; the many Jain temples are blessed with a multitude of images; and even in time of drought the people obtain success in religious actions by means of their merit. The merchants here have built up a mountain of gold; there are many playful young women with swift feet and side-glancing doe-like eyes; gifting is given as if to a divine tree which will sing their praises; and even those focused on moksha at once touch that true excellence amidst the pleasures of transmigration.

– Verses 13-14 of Vijñapti Mahālekha, sent by the Kharatara Gaccha Jain mendicant Jinodayasūri from Patan to Lokahitācārya in Ayodhya, in 1375 C.E.

Education
Patan is home to the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University named after the famous polymath Acharya Hemachandra. It was previously known as North Gujarat University.

There are many schools and colleges in Patan. Sheth B.D. High School, P.P.G experimental higher secondary school and Junior College is the oldest. Other famous schools are P.P.G. Experimental High School, Adarsha Vidhyalaya, Bhagwati International Public School, Sheth M.N. High School, Sheth B.M. High School, Prerna Mandir High School, Pioneer School of Science, Lord Krishna School of Science and Eklavya School of Science.

There are K.D. Polytechnic Patan for diploma in engineering, Government Engineering College and Sheth M.N. Science College, Sheth M.N.Law College. Patan is the education hub in North Gujarat.

Patan is also known for fotonVR startup who won egovernence silvar award for Innovative Use of ICT.

Heathcare
Patan is a prominent medical centre in North Gujarat with almost 200 practicing medical professionals. It has a medical college named GMERS Medical College and Hospital, Dharpur-Patan at Dharpur on Unjha Highway.

Major hospitals include General Hospital, Janta Hospital, Naari Hospital, Docter House and other Clinics in Patan.

Patola

The Patola is one of the finest hand-woven sarees produced today. This is a specialty of Patan. It is famous for extremely delicate patterns woven with great precision and clarity. A patola sari takes 4 to 6 months to make, depending on how complicated the designs is and if the length is 5 or 6 metres. This saris are totally colored with vegetable colors. Costs start from Rs. 20,000 which may go up to Rs. 20,00,000 even depending on the difficulty of work as many times gold threads are included during its weaving process.

There are only two families making Patola saris. They don't teach this art to other family members. Only their sons are eligible to learn.

Salvivad, a place where Patolas are woven along with places where traditional clay toys are made are worth visiting. Many annual religious fairs act as tourist destination.

It is an ancient art and needs to be preserved as well as nurtured. Local folks in Gujarat always praises the "Patan Na patola" being most costly item for the women to afford in Gujarat.

Tourist attractions
Two famous architectural monuments have gain the status of national monuments. One of them is Sahastralinga tank and other one is Rani ki vav stepwell.

Panchasara Parshvanath Temple
The Panchasara Parshvanath Temple is an important Jain temple located in Patan.

Rani ki Vav
Rani ki vav is an intricately constructed stepwell situated in the town of Patan in Gujarat, India. It is located on the banks of the now dried-up Saraswati River, which was a seasonal river even during its best period.

This stepwell is the oldest and the deepest among the 120 other stepwell in Gujarat. The sculpture of Rani ki vav depicting Vishnu's avatars, Hindu Goddesses, Jain idols and their ancestors. Most of the sculpture is in devotion to Vishnu, in the forms of his avatars (Krishna, Rama and others), representing their return to the world. It was included in the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites on 22 June 2014.

Sahasralinga Tank
Sahasralinga Tank is an artificial water tank that was constructed during the Chaulukya (Solanki) rule. It is designated as a Monument of National Importance and is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India.

Regional Science Centre
The Regional Science Centre in Patan, Gujarat is dedicated to interactive exhibits, activities, and shows to promote science learning for all ages. Explore dinosaurs at the Dinosaur Park, learn about the human body, see the wonder of optics, and discover how science is used in everyday life through hydroponics, solar energy, and rainwater harvesting. Enjoy science demonstrations, hands-on experiments, and virtual reality experiences.

Local
City bus service is run by municipality connecting nearby village. Autorickshaw are available. Patan Bus Station is under construction.

Bus Station
Patan Central GSRTC Bus Station is the largest bus station of Gujarat.

Rail
Patan is 108 km from Ahmedabad Railway Station. Ahmedabad - Bhagat Ki Kothi (Jodhpur) Main line. It is also connected by rail to Mehsana, Ahmedabad and Okha by BG Line. Patan railway station is now connected with Bhildi Railway Station With New BG Line. New train will start from Bandra to Bhagat Ki Kothi and connectivity to Rajasthan, Delhi, Mumbai.

Roads
The National Highway 68 connecting Ramgarh in Rajasthan with the province of Gujarat passes through Patan-Chanasma, thus connecting it with the cities Jaisalmer, Barmer and Radhanpur. State Highways SH 7, 10, 130 pass through Patan and connect it with the nearest cities of Gujarat. National Highway 68 connects it with Mehsana, Himmatnagar and Ahmedabad.

Air
The nearest airport is Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport at Ahmedabad. Mehsana Airport It is just 51 km From Patan city. Deesa Airport It is just 53 km from Patan city.

Demographics
India census, Patan had a population of 112,038. Males constitute 53% of the population and females 47%. Patan has an average literacy rate of 72%, higher than the national average of 59.5%: male literacy is 78%, and female literacy is 65%. In Patan, 11% of the population is under 6 years of age.

Patan is home to a large Śvetāmbara Murtipujaka Jain community that has deep roots in Patan. The community has been documented in an ethnography by John E. Cort (2001).

title: Patan, Gujarat


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFGurus (0th nomination)

FFGurus was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Non-notable fan site. Alexa traffic rank for ffgurus.net: 430,868. Niteowlneils 00:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete ~ mlk ✉ ♬  01:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
 * Delete  --fvw *  08:21, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMO even a sub-sub-sub... stub must have an intersting line. Gtabary 17:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's a Delete dedicated to the popular website. Wyss 00:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. utcursch 07:29, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. CranialNerves 21:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.