text:
User:Improv/Quotes/kateessay

 * Or: “Why Wikipedia is doomed to failure”.

Please note: if, after you read this, your reaction is “well, if you don't like it, go away“, please understand that I am not not saying people should not contribute to Wikipedia and I am not saying Wikipedia has done/will do nothing useful. Wikipedia is useful, I do contribute to it and I do not plan to stop either reading or contributing. I merely believe that, in the future, Wikipedia may not be quite so useful.

See also: WhyWikiWorksNot

This page is subject to refactoring at any time to keep it readable.

Factual errors
Wikipedia has factual errors—I don't think anyone can deny that. Any written work of this size does. The question is, “how many?”; and the answer: no–one knows. Even if every article is created in good faith and entirely accurate—and that alone is dubious—how many errors have been introduced since then, whether by anonymous vandals, or POV–pushers, or simply well–intentioned but misinformed normal users?

At first, this wasn't a problem. Vandalism was quickly noticed and corrected, factual errors or omissions were researched and the articles corrected. But now, after only 3 years, the sheer number of edits in recent changes, the number of articles on an awesome variety of topics, is just overwhelming. No–one can possibly verify every single edit; no–one has the knowledge needed to spot—and correct—the factual errors that are introduced every day. Wikipedia is being crushed under its own weight. Its openness, the very feature that makes it so successful, is fast becoming its own downfall. Already we see vandals who deliberately introduce factual errors into articles; changing numbers, dates… most of them, perhaps, are caught, but how many aren't? Again—no–one knows.

In time—one year, two years, four years—Wikipedia will be worthless for more than anything other than a basic overview of a topic. Citing it as a reference source for facts will be laughable. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia will be a failure.

Internal politics
Wikipedia is drowning in politics. Requests for arbitration, requests for comments, what sysops are, or aren't, or should do, or shouldn't do; what a vandal is, or what a troll is; whether such–and–such a user can be banned or not, whether this or that article can be deleted…

All this contributes nothing to Wikipedia. It distracts editors from real work—writing articles—and drives off outsiders and new users, not to mention existing editors. And this is increasing, not going away. Every day there are more arguments; more vandals, more trolls. This is arguably something that could be resolved by change; a change in policy, a change in process… but where is that change? There are no wonderful new ideas on how Wikipedia should be run. Any unresolved dispute is solved by “ask Jimbo”. This is not scalable. If Wikipedia doesn't take a long look at solving these problems, they may well end up contributing more to Wikipedia's death than even gross factual errors.

Inherent weakness of Wiki
This is one of the most obvious, and yet—so far—one of the least troublesome problems with Wikipedia. But although the kind of person who would deliberately vandalise Wikipedia in a major way might be rare, they do exist, and it's only a matter of growth before they begin to be a problem. What happens when DDoS networks are created to perform vandalism? Restrictions on new users, blocking of users or IPs, or entire networks, and manual reversion can only go so far. The only argument against this appears to be “well, it hasn't happened yet”.

This inherent weakness will end up imposing an effective cap on the growth of any Wiki—once it reaches a certain size, concerted vandalism will devastate it, and Wikipedia is no exception.

—Kate | Talk 03:51, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Dysprosia on politics

 * I don't know about the factual accuracy comment, but I agree with you 100% on the "Internal politics" thing. Dysprosia 04:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I was actually not too sure about politics. It's possible that at the worst, it'd just mean editors come, edit for a few weeks and leave.  Inefficient, but not fatal.  On the other hand, though, it's certainly bad for PR, and when Wikipedia relies on donations and grants for its existence…   —Kate | Talk 04:13, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Shibboleth on facts & community

 * You have identified two problems with wikipedia, but neither of them come close to implying total collapse of Wikipedia, IMHO.

 * Misinformed normal users do indeed inject a lot of factual inaccuracies into new articles. Indeed, new Wikipedia articles are often bad. However, the key point is that uninformed users are not going to change the facts that have been written by experts. Thus this group will not decrease the quality of Wikipedia with time.

 * POV warriors are generally extremely blatant in the changes they make. They will replace entire sections to reflect their extreme viewpoint. It is easy to detect and revert POV warrior edits.

 * Vandals. Now you have noticed that 95% of vandals do things like replace entire pages like "blah blah blah penis". These kids are no danger to Wikipedia. The real problem is users that make false factual changes. Now to do this, you have to be genuinely malicious, and explicitly desire the downfall of Wikipedia, not just act on a silly graffiti impulse. There are very few people this nasty. This is proven by the rarity of truly malicious computer viruses, despite how easy it is to make one. And if they do a lot of vandalism like this, one of their edits will be detected and then the rest of the edits from their username/IP address will be scrutinized. Finally, do you really think anyone would have the energy to insert subtle factual errors into thousands of articles? Who would do such a thing? This is very much a contained problem.

 * Finally, it is true that Wikipedia will never be 100% accurate. But what is? There are so many errors in mainstream news sources, let alone the rest of the web. Yet people still use regular web pages for information. Wikipedia will still be much better quality than most web pages even if there are some scattered factual errors. It may never reach the accuracy of the Encyclopedia Britannica, but this will be more than made up for by the *much* larger number of topics covered here. Perhaps it will not be referenced in scholarly articles, but it will be (and already is!) a very useful resource for general use. You realize that on hundreds or thousands of topics, Wikipedia is already the top Google hit?

 * Second: bureaucracy. It's natural that there will be more bureaucracy as the userbase gets larger. It takes a lot of time from the editors, yes. But a lack of people writing articles is hardly the problem. And it hardly affects new users: they will never notice unless visit the arbitration pages. No collapse here.

 * To me, the only real threat to Wikipedia is the danger of a Kuro5hin-style collapse caused by a change in the community. What happened to Kuro5hin is that an influx of bad new users came, overwhelming the old community and drastically lowering the quality of the discussion. Wikipedia needs to take care to properly assimilate all new contributors into its standards of quality. But fortunately, it seems to have been doing this very well so far. I am also worried about running out of money (the servers are already too slow), but hopefully as Wikipedia gets a higher profile the donations will increase until it's no longer a problem.  It only takes one billionaire donator, after all.

 * Considering the amazing success of Wikipedia over the first three years of its existence, I don't see why you're so pessimistic. --Shibboleth 04:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * There are so many errors in mainstream news sources, let alone the rest of the web. Yet people still use regular web pages for information.

 * Yes—but isn't Wikipedia more than just a collection of web pages? I'd like to think Wikipedia could be an encyclopedia, an authoritative reference on almost any topic.  Perhaps this is simply not possible for a Wiki.

 * [If] they do a lot of vandalism like this, one of their edits will be detected and then the rest of the edits from their username/IP address will be scrutinized.

 * In some cases, yes. But how many?  If someone finds one error, corrects it, and goes off to do something else, it's likely enough to be lost in the history and never noticed by anyone else.  Or a piece of POV or error may be rewritten, rephrased, copyedited, to the point where it's impossible to find where the original error was introduced.

 * There is also a delay between the error or vandalism being introduced and it being found and corrected. In most cases, one would hope, a small delay; but what about this vandalism, left uncorrected for a month, and found by a journalist? (From WP:VP).  How many errors of this kind are there at any one time?  Let's call these uncorrected errors the error corpus, since fancy terminology is so fashionable.  As the size of tthe error corpus increases, Wikipedia's usefulness decreases.  How long can the size of it be kept in check? —or even measured?

 * You realize that on hundreds or thousands of topics, Wikipedia is already the top Google hit?

 * Yes. That's how I found Wikipedia, actually—via pulse-code modulation, IIRC.  But that isn't necessarily a good measure of quality, only popularity.  And I hardly need to say that popularity is not proportional to quality in this day and age…

 * And finally, politics might not have a direct, measurable effect on articles, but it does cause editors to leave, and it does make Wikipedia look bad. And most importantly, it fractures the community, the very thing that Wikipedia relies on.  Just look at Wik for an example.   —Kate | Talk 05:08, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

 * I agree that the delays are an issue, indeed probably the main issue as far as errors goes. But your example of "Chesapeake, Virginia" is somewhat unfair, as this is one of the autogenerated pages that's almost never visited by anybody.  What really matters is not the absolute size of the "error corpus", but which percentage of the pages on Wikipedia are errorfied.  On this measure "Chesapeake, Virginia" barely matters, since it would be visited by one person per year at most.  You'll notice that the most popular pages, such as World War II, are kept of very high quality.  This is what really matters.  I agree that there will be errors, and many of them, but it won't be to a disastrous level unless the quality of our main contributors (which are currently for the most part highly serious and educated) collapses.

 * I don't know, someone like Wik is bound to cause problems no matter what reforms we make to the system. I'm a new user and wasn't around back when there was the Wik battles, but I understand he vandalized pages when he couldn't get what he wanted.

 * Anyway, I agree that Wikipedia has its problems, but I mostly object to your claim that it's "doomed to failure". The evidence doesn't indicate that Wikipedia is heading towards doom at present.  It's possible that it may collapse in the future, after all this is all a grand experiment and it's too early to tell --- but the indications are currently that Wikipedia is heading for success, and indeed is already quite successful.

 * I don't know, personally I don't care if Wikipedia is ever considered a "true" encyclopedia. As long at it becomes widely popular and useful to lots of people, I'll be happy.  It's already more useful than Britannica, not because it's better but because Britannica is non-free and there's no way to read it unless you pay for it, which most people won't do.  I've read a thousand times more encyclopedia articles since I started visiting Wikipedia than I ever did previously. --Shibboleth 05:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree strongly with that point, of course we will have inaccuracies in less known articles, however articles which are being constantly watched by a group of people who are very well known to the subject will remain top-quality. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:15, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

David Gerard on disruptive technologies
I propose a new slogan: Wikipedia: Even More Doomed Than Apple.

If you get three people in a room you have politics.

Look at it as a disruptive technology. These start with being better at some niche then expanding from there - David Gerard 12:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, but has Netcraft confirmed it?
 * I agree with Shibboleth, I think only about 10,000 entries accounted for most of the traffic. When we reach 10,000 active users, you'll only need each user to watch one of those articles (distributed watchlists) to combat perceptions. I'd like to see a person go unnoticed and mistakes go uncorrected at any large scale (i.e. more than a 1000 articles in 300,000+, not part of those top 10,000)
 * On a side note, Wik never vandailised in the main namespace (i.e. articles) as far as I know. Dori | Talk 19:21, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * The word you want is "beleaguered". -- Cyrius|✎ 19:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Charles Matthews on other problems
None of those three would keep me awake at night. Certainly compared with (i) servers (ii) determined litigation (iii) the good editors getting fed up of the 'free riders'. Charles Matthews 20:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Itai on politics
For my part, I'll take vandals over politicians any day. Politics - be it the forming of cliques or the piling of regulations - is a problem. The former is less a problem, as it is assumed would-be politicians would burn themselves out. The piling of regulations, which was not pointed out above, is, especially as there is currently no mechanism for "forgetting" regulation. I suppose one will arise eventually. Anyway, doomed is by no means the correct term, and even if it were, let it be. At the moment, I find myself increasingly unable to browse the web without popping into Wikipedia to clarify something, which basically means that Wikipedia 2004 is already quite good. At the very least - if Wikipedia disappears tomorrow - we've released quite a lot of quality material into the public domain, where it may live forever. GFDL! -- Itai 21:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wapcaplet on replies to common objections
Lady L.I., have you read Replies to common objections? I'm not sure that hanging around Wikipedia for a mere month is enough time to accurately forecast its downfall. To date, Wikipedia has surpassed even our more optimistic expectations. As others have noted above, I don't think overall factual accuracy is in jeopardy; providing an anomalous single vandalism that wasn't caught for a month, out of an article body of over a quarter million, is hardly compelling evidence. How long would it take to have factual inaccuracies and omissions in Britannica corrected?

And what do you hope to accomplish by forecasting Wikipedia's doom? Since you seem to believe that it is dead already, why hang about and discuss it? If you are interested in helping us overcome these problems, it may be more productive to think of solutions, rather than simply thinking of the ways in which it may fail. -- Wapcaplet 23:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I have read replies to objections. Think of this as something more specific—reasons I think Wikipedia might disappear entirely, rather than objects that might detract from or limit its success.

 * I don't think overall factual accuracy is in jeopardy; providing an anomalous single vandalism that wasn't caught for a month, out of an article body of over a quarter million, is hardly compelling evidence.

 * We'll see. That particular vandlism, obviously, (and as pointed out by someone else) would have been caught quickly if it weren't in an automated Rambot article.  However, it was also a particularly obvious vandalism.  What about more subtle things, from insertions of POV to changes to dates & statistics?  Will those all be caught so quickly?

 * If you are interested in helping us overcome these problems, it may be more productive to think of solutions, rather than simply thinking of the ways in which it may fail.
 * Yes, thinking of solutions would certainly be nice. However, as you say, I've only been here a month (slightly less, I think), and I certainly don't feel I'm better able to suggest solutions than the many experienced people who are currently discussing, for example, modifications to Recent Changes.

 * Don't think that I spend all day thinking about how Wikipedia is doomed to failure :-). This was just a quick ponderance I wrote while bored one day—take it as you will.  I certainly don't believe it's “dead already”, as evidenced by the fact that I'm still contributing edits.

 * —Kate | Talk 19:51, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

CSTAR on dubious topics
Though I am concerned with the accuracy issue, I am most bothered by the enormous number of articles covering dubious material. Pokemon dolls? I just clicked random page and got room. Now room might be a useful entry, for example comparing rooms in Chinese culture with rooms in Spanish culture; but this can quickly spiral out of control. Another entry of dubious value world city; motherfucker seems to fall under that category, but in fact does have some interest. Similarly there is qubit and pure qubit state. Also the self-promotion pages are real annoyances as are the self-promoting references. (Also I have entered pages for living practicing academics and have regretted it, since they may be mistaken for self-promotion on their part)  CSTAR 19:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't actually see these as a problem. They don't detract from existing articles, and if there's something to say about them, why not say it?  While they may be annoying, or take up space on the servers, I don't necessarily think they're contributing to Wikipedia's downfall.   —Kate | Talk 19:41, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

 * If there are 3 million articles, quality control is much harder with the result that it is much more likely that a random query will end up with something worthless. Although this is not quite the same problem, I just noticed that in the article on Gaussian processes there is a link to prior (intended to mean prior distribution in Bayesian analysis) but in fact points to priory. CSTAR 20:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * World city looks encyclopedic to me (and note: I didn't write it). :) -- Stevietheman 13:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mackeriv on perfection
By reading this page, I can see you have a couple of arguments. Arguments that can be reduced to a main subject, the real fact responsible for your pessimistic opinion towards Wikipedia. In sum, you fear that this encyclopedia will evolve in a so intense way that, in the end, it will be no longer a reliable source of information, due to various reasons. You fear that vandalism and misconceptions will take over articles, which would eventually conspire for the end of Wikipedia. You fear that us, helping members of this project, will start to disagree with each other's views, something that will end up damaging this site's content. You've also been moving efforts into making every single article to follow a "pattern". You want them to look and feel the same. You want to reach perfection.

 * Of course, nothing is perfect. I don't expect or want Wikipedia to become 'perfect'.  However, I would like to see it being 'acceptable'—and whether it can manage that is what I'm worried about.

Am I right in all of that? If that's what you really believe in, I am sorry to tell you, Wikipedia is already doomed. If you really think those issues will be capable of throwing this work into chaos, then, they really will. It's over. But there's something you haven't noticed. This is the Internet. You can't control the Internet. The cyberspace is a double-edged sword. While it is an infinite source of information about everything you can possibly think of, you can't completely rely on it. In that case, what really counts is the way this info gets to you. If you think of the Internet as a whole, you'll see that information is scattered everywhere. If you want to take advantage of the Net, you have to know where to find the info you want... and you also have to have the right skills in order to be able to select what is good for you and what isn't.

The way I see it, Wikipedia never was a 100% reliable source of information, and it will never be. No matter how many armies you recruit to control and standardize it, you'll never be able to make it completely trustworthy. It is impossible. However, a good thing about Wikipedia is that it's a place where people are able to gather a nice amount of information about zillions of different subjects. This is not supposed to be like a real encyclopedia, for a large number of reasons I shall not mention here. If it can't be considered like a regular encyclopedia, you can't expect it to behave like one either.

Think about this. If there are many people interested on turning Wikipedia into a pile of rubble, you can be sure there'll be an equally good number of other people interested on making it a nice encyclopedia.

 * Really? I'm not sure that's necessarily true.  It remains to be seen whether the 'good' users can outnumber the 'bad'.   —Kate | Talk 19:51, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

While not all of them can agree on everything, their mutual interests will be enough to keep things up. In my opinion, there's no reason to think that Wikipedia will be pretty much ruined in three or four years. I say it'll live. Dunno for how longer, and its form will probably be much different in the future, but I'm sure it'll still be there for quite a while. – Mackeriv 03:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isomorphic on accuracy
On the accuracy issue, I often repeat an interesting analysis I once heard from another Wikipedian (although I've unfortunately since forgotten who.) Basically, it was the idea that the importance of keeping a page accurate and high-quality is proportional to the number of people reading it. However, the number of people looking at the page is also the number of people who will potentially catch errors on the page.

So you end up with a situation where pages that people actually read are kept clean and relatively error-free. Error-prone or otherwise poor pages are the ones that no one is reading anyway. The percentage of readers who come to Wikipedia and get accurate information is much higher than the percentage of pages that are accurate.

To this, I will add a comment from my own experience using Wikipedia. In many cases, it's important just to know that two things are connected, or that if I'm interested in subject A, I should be also looking for information on subject B. This is especially useful if I'd never heard of subject B before. Here, accuracy isn't an issue at all, since "fact-checking" the existance of a connection between two things is usually trivial once the connection is suggested. Isomorphic 02:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think Wikipedia will be useful for a general overview for as long as it's around—but does that qualify it as an encyclopedia? Perhaps Wikipedia isn't destined to become an encyclopedia, but rather something new and different.

 * It seems reasonable that often-read pages would be more accurate, but it also seems a shame to lose one of the strength of wiki; that its contributor base is so large that over time it's likely to accumulate articles on many esoteric or niche topics, which fall into decay after their initial contributor(s) leave. Where is the line between 'accurate' and 'dubious' drawn? —Kate | Talk 02:46, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)
 * As the number of readers increases, even pages on relatively obscure topics will be read fairly often by knowledgeable people. My personal hope is that some day Wikipedia will be such a universal reference that all knowledgeable specialists will feel obliged to make sure their field is covered accurately and completely. Isomorphic 05:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * That's an interesting point. Do you think Wikipedia will reach that point of growth before its hypothetical failure in that area from factual errors or other problems?   —Kate | Talk 19:51, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

 * I just stumbled across this discussion, which strikes to the heart of what I've been finding as a potentially insrurmountable issue: accuracy. If Wikipedia is not to be accurate, then it's a large pile of random statements, some true, some false, some neutral, some so biased you can't tell what the NPOV would be. In which case, one has to ask "What's the point?"

 * In addition, though, there's the problem of inaccuracy in obscure branches of knowledge. It's contended above that the less frequently an article is viewed, the less important it's accuracy. I say that exactly the opposite is true. The more frequently an article is viewed, the more likely it is that some helpful editor will notice an inaccuracy and fix it. But if an article is about some field of study so obscure that it's viewed only once a year, and it's inaccurate, that one person in a year with enough knowledge to go looking for that article just found wrong information. If it's an expert in the field, he's gained a bad impression. If it's no, then it's even worse, because the reader has no way to tell that something he has no knowledge of is wrong.

 * Just my thoughts... Kenwarren 02:24, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane &c on factual errors
I agree with much of what you say. Uncorrected blatant vandalism is not, unfortunately, confined to automatically generated articles. An example that I found by chance: The article on the Scottsboro Boys referred to them as "the PePe Boys" from May 4 until July 17.

On the bright side, while you're correct that the number of problem users can be expected to rise, we can also expect an increase in the number of sincere contributors who are on hand to deal with the problems. For responding to vandalism, blatant POV, horribly mangled writing and extreme sloppiness, I suggest that the ratio between the two groups is what counts. I see no reason to think that the ratio will worsen. Perhaps we could improve it by being quicker on the trigger to block people.

 * It depends whether the ratio of good contributors rises proportionally to the number of vandals. I'm inclined to think that in the beginning, there are relatively few vandals and many good users, and over time the number of bad users rises.   —Kate | Talk 19:51, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

The more serious problem is the factual error, whether introduced by subtle vandalism or by well-meaning mistake. To me, one big frustration is that people don't have to routinely justify their edits. Suppose I see that a particular date has been changed from 1939 to 1938. Unless I already happen to know the correct date, what am I supposed to do? Someone thought s/he knew it well enough to assert it was 1939. Someone else thought the same about changing it to 1938. Unless I'm willing to invest the time to research it independently, I'll probably just let it go. The natural result will be many instances in which Wikipedia makes an inaccurate assertion because someone plugged in something s/he thought was correct and didn't bother to check it. One solution, though it would impose a huge burden on participants, would be to require that all factual assertions be "footnoted". It could be an actual footnote where appropriate to the article, but much more common would be some sort of associated comment on the Talk page. Then there would at least be some prima facie indication that the edit wasn't pulled out of someone's garbled memory of a history class ten years earlier. The enforcement mechanism would be the community understanding that an unsupported edit can be summarily reverted. JamesMLane 10:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, the RC patrol exists to check edits like this. I'm not involved so I don't know much about it, but I know that if you see an edit you are suspicious of, you can let them know and they'll try to verify it.  Isomorphic 00:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your letting me know about that feature. Nevertheless, it doesn't really address the concern I'm raising. I'm talking about the many, many edits that give me no reason to be suspicious -- except that they show that at least one Wikipedian was wrong. On occasion I may have some relevant knowledge myself. On other occasions, something may set off my BS detector and I'll pursue it further. But most of the time, necessarily, I let it go. JamesMLane 10:04, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mozzerati on technological escalation

 * Talking as a relatively new Wikipedia person, I think that some of this isn't such a problem since I come in and know, quite well, a specified area and set of pages surrounding it. Even very subtle wrong edits such as the recent ones reverted on GSM (one character change, between existing GSM versions, both of which have maximum power levels) are picked up easily by specialists in the area and reverted quickly (discussion about why the revert is correct may take longer).  Generally, wrong edits just inspire some extra explanation.  As long as my experience, as a new user, is true for the other new users, then the more editing there is the more correction is going to go on.

 * having said that, there's something missing technologically. For the pages I'm actively editing I would really like to easily see the sum total of changes since the last version I checked.  Something equivalent to "what's new" for each page.  I imagine then being able to click on an aknowledge button and next time I checked, I would see the changes relative to that newer version.  Even with the easy comparison between distant versions, it's difficult to remember which was the last edit which was definitely okay.  The database requirement for this would be a date stamp on each watchlist entry and programming would, I guess, need a couple of new PHP pages..

 * The important point here is that the task of checking new edits should scale with the number of edits, not with the number of existing pages (pages which haven't been edited shouldn't need examination)

 * other ideas for technological escalation:

 * measure views on diffs pages by (consenting?) logged in users; present a page with the least viewed diffs; ensure that most changes get checked by some people
 * logged in user is counted as "stable" after at least one week and at least 10 edits (minimises throw away accouts) edits by newer users are specifically tagged
 * two view wikki; public default is last edit by logged in user; logged in default is diff page for whole article with an edit was okay button
 * two view wikki applied to specific IP addresses (e.g. all AOL addresses cause two view pages); after editing, these users get a speficic explanation why they are in two view mode and an invitation to complain to their ISP and log in.
 * two view wikki applied to specific pages as a form of partial protection
 * provide a "dodgy content" button which any user can press to complain about content (without having to know much about wikipedia); check which pages come up most often; if being misused too much, provide an explanation page they have to press okay on (just because you don't like it doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about it). Where appropriate suggest editing rather than complaining.
 * use public key crypto based cookies to create sub accounts of IP address accounts; warning visible during edit (and check box to ignore cookie); instructions given for clearning the cookie; many IP
 * introduce a proper system of references so that we can also refer to paper texts. I suggest simply expanding the use of URLs to cover also paper texts through e.g. ISBN URIs etc.
 * introduce a system of hidden (by default) references so that there can be many many references in a text without detracting from its flow. Then encourage deletion of any material which someone questions, but which noone can provide a reference for.   Similar process to votes for deletion allows warning of these planned deletions.
 * etc.

 * BTW. if any of these are already implented then you count that as a question about how to access these features :-)

 * some of these are definitely (slightly) harmful to openness, so use should be minimised, but the point is that right now wikipedia is quite okay, and in the case there start to be problems there's a long way that can be gone to make it more stable if the need arose. Most of these take some programming effort, so won't probably be done until there's a real need, but the fact that there are such options available can give hope for the future.

 * Mozzerati 09:01, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Others
This looks very similar to claims that Capitalism is doomed to failure. Gosh, there's a lot of accurate information in Wikipedia? Who knew? Gosh, where the information is disputed the reader gets to know! Who knew? Gosh, its growing larger and more accurate all the time! Who knew? Guess there's something to the concept after all... - Tεx  τ  urε  21:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

* Rolls eyes* I hate pessimism much, much more than anything else. It must be all the Star Trek happy-endings. Rock on with that emo tune, Lady L.I. Good luck, and good day.Peace Profound! -- Merovingian ✍  Talk  05:34, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, it's not so much pessimism as speculation :-) The sub–title is intended to be slightly humourous.  —Kate | Talk 06:40, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Very interesting. I almost share your views. --Rrjanbiah 04:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Cassandra was talking about things she found somewhat annoying, like potholes in the streets caused by the chariots. Where, by the way, is the evidence that things are getting worse? I sometimes find old articles that are in obscure places - they aren't as good as typical new postings from mid-2004. Charles Matthews 18:20, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the problems that Lady Lysine Ikinsile has brought up. I think that Wikipedia has tended to vigoursly argue that it does not have problems whenever someone says that it does. Since Wikipedia in general works pretty well, there must not be too much of a problem. That doesn't mean that there are no problems in Wikipedia. I have started the page Unsolved Problems as a place to discuss the problems that wikipedia still has. Jrincayc 19:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that as wikipedia grows and becomes ever more popular it will bring it to the attention of people with more and more specific knowledge. They will tend to correct the errors, and wikipedia's accuracy will improve. I actually think that it may exceed the accuracy of printed books; including Encyclopedia Britanica; printed books are much harder to correct.

-Wolfkeeper

Factual errors
Thus, Wikipedia is definately not going to suffer from the downfall you predict. ··gracefool |☺ 03:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no evidence of this - in fact isn't your hypothesis unprovable?
 * 2) The more users, the more vandals and the more anti-vandals. Sure, "No-one can possibly verify every single edit", but Everyone can.
 * 3) There is no reason to think that popular or respected articles will decrease in quality, since many people are watching them.

title: User:Improv/Quotes/kateessay


text:
Muhammad Khan Junejo

Mohammad Khan Junejo (18 August 1932 18 March 1993) was a Pakistani politician and statesman who served as the tenth Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1985 to 1988 under president Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. During his tenure as Prime Minister he sought to strengthen the power of the office and assert civilian control over state affairs, foreign affairs and military appointments, coming into conflict with Zia-ul-Haq and various senior military officers eventually culminating in his dismissal by Zia. His inquiries into the Ojhri Camp Disaster, appointment of Aslam Beg as VCOAS, various Corps Commanders, growing control over senior military promotions, forays into international politics, rejecting Zia appointments in his cabinet, stance against martial law, austerity policies and purported spying on Zia through the civilianized Intelligence Bureau all contributed to the souring in their relation.

Junejo was an influential landowner and involved in the agricultural industry. He was educated in Karachi, where he attended the St. Patrick's College, and was trained as an agriculturist at Agricultural Institute, Plumpton College in the United Kingdom. He gained public notice when he joined the Ayub administration and subsequently held cabinet portfolio of railways, health, communications and labour from 1963 to 1969.

After participating in the 1985 elections, he was chosen to form the government on Pakistan Muslim League's platform, of which, he took over the party's presidency. His government was noted for its support of conservatism, austerity measures that reduced the government budget deficit, and repealing of the emergency laws which allowed the freedom of press and media in the country. Despite strong resistance and fierce opposition from President Zia-ul-Haq, Junejo authorized his Foreign Minister Zain Noorani to sign and ratify the Geneva Accords in 1988. His relations with President Zia-ul-Haq further soured when he opened a parliamentary inquiry on the Ojhri Camp disaster in 1988. On 29 May 1988, Prime Minister Junejo was dismissed by President Zia over charges on incompetence and economic stagflation and immediately called for new general elections. After the general elections held in 1988, he led his own faction while holding ceremonial party's presidency.

Early life and education
Mohammad Khan Junejo belonged to a Sindhi Rajput Family. He was born in Mirpur Khas District, Sindh, British India on 18 August 1932. He hailed from an influential agriculturalist family in Sindh that had a traditional conservative mindset.

He was educated at the St. Patrick's High School in Karachi and later graduated from the St. Patrick's College. He went to Hastings in England where he was trained as an agriculturist and earned a diploma to be certified in 1954.

Junejo was an agriculturist and a farmer who cultivated the famed Sindhri mangoes in his local village in Mirpur Khas. His father, Deen Mohammed Junejo a landowner in modern day Mirpurkhas District (Sindhri) is also notable for being the one to introduce South Indian variety of mango to his plantations, which over time developed into the Sindhri mango. Junejo was a conservative Muslim and a dominant figure in his village, who had his wife living in the village for her entire life, and kept her out of public sight even when he was elected as Prime Minister and eventually moved to Prime Minister's Secretariat. Nothing or very little was known about his wife as he often traveled and visited other states with his elder daughter; he was married with five children.

Early Political career
Upon returning from the United Kingdom in 1954, he joined the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and under Ayub Khan's Basic Democracies system was elected as Chairman of Chairman of the Sanghar Local Board (or Mayor for Sanghar District) and worked as a party worker for the Muslim League until 1963. He participated in elections and was elected for West-Pakistan legislative assembly and soon he joined the Ayub administration and subsequently held cabinet department of Health, Communications and Labour until 1965. He again successfully participated in the presidential elections in 1965 and was elevated as the Minister of Railways under the Ayub administration which he served until 1969.

From 1970 to 1977, he was unable to defend his constituency from Sanghar but became closer to religious leader Pir Pagara, of which he later became his political missionary and devoted disciple (murid) of the Pir. In 1977, he was named as a caretaker cabinet minister when General Zia-ul-Haq, the chief of army staff, took over the civilian government led by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. From 1977 to 1979, he served as the Railway minister but later resigned in 1979.

Election
In January 1985, President Zia-ul-Haq announced to hold nationwide general elections that would be based on non-partisanism– there have been political rumors that the U.S. President Ronald Reagan had a subsequent political role in such regards.

Junejo was successful in defending his constituency from the Sanghar District and was known to be a religiopolitical missionary of Pir Pagara who had been leading his own political faction in Sindh. President Zia considered three names for the appointment of the Prime Minister that included: Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Liaquat Ali Jatoi and Junejo– all were from Sindh.

Two days after the promulgation of the RCO (Revival of Constitution 1973 Order) on March 2, 1985, President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq held a meeting with the Martial Law Administrators (MLAs) to select a Prime Minister. According to amendments in the constitution the President was to nominate a Prime Minister from the newly elected National Assembly. The MLAs decided since that former deposed Prime Minister, Z. A. Bhutto was Sindhi, the new Prime Minister should also be from Sindh. The MLAs supported the candidacy of Elahi Bakhsh Soomro over Mohammad Khan Junejo (who was also shortlisted). However, after General Zia's consultation with Pir Sahib Pagara led to the dropping of Soomro and Junejo being selected for the role.

President Zia hand-picked and appointed Junejo as Prime Minister through an invitation to form the civilian government in accordance with the Revival of Constitution Order (RCO). His mindset reflected a conservatism and was a powerful feudalist whom President Zia considered him to be ineffective in leading towards the decision-making processes. and after securing votes in the Parliament through the Vote of Confidence (VoC), he met with President Zia and reportedly asking him about the ending of the martial law. According to General Khalid Mahmud Arif, Junejo neither expressed happiness or thanked Zia after news of his appointment as Prime Minister.

End of Martial Law
On 20 March at 8:00 PM, Zia welcomed Junejo in his office and told him he planned to nominate him as Prime Minister of Pakistan, Junejo rather than thank the President instead immediately questioned him "When do you plan to remove Martial Law?" Zia tried to convince the Prime Minister that Martial Law would now support the Prime Minister. Early in his Premiership during an address as the National Assembly, Junejo stated that Martial Law and Democracy could not coexist. Zia did not appreciate these remarks and Gen Mujibur Rehman, Zia's information secretary had them expunged from the PTV telecast.

On 30 December, 1985 Martial Law was lifted after Junejo had managed to "push" Zia enough.

Civilian Premiership
Following the lifting of martial law on his repeated instances Junejo announced his cabinet in which he rejected many of Zia's cabinet appointments, only accepting Sahibzada Yaqub Khan as Foreign Minister and Mahbubul Haq as Minister for Planning and Development and later Finance Minister. Junejo also removed Lt. Gen. Mujibur Rehman from his position as Secretary of the Ministry of Information. Anwar Zahid, a civil servant posted by Zia as the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister was replaced by Junejo by Captain Usman Ali Isani, which whom he was more comfortable. He kept two ministerial departments of defence and interior.

He also overrode Zia-ul-Haq's objections to on having the same military staff as the president (e.g. MS and Aide-de-Camps) on the basis that the previous deposed PM Z. A. Bhutto had this privilege. He also exercised his own judgement in the appointment of key officials including federal secretaries, ambassadors, chief secretaries and inspectors-general of police. Junejo demanded the right to join the president in the ceremonial state coach and to jointly take salute on the occasion of the 23rd-March parade, later winning the right to independently act as chief guest on the 14th August official ceremony.

Prime Minister Junejo's social policies led to the political independence when he was appointed as the President of Pakistan Muslim League. His policy also included the freedom of the press despite the opposition he faced from President Zia in this issue. He gained popularity for his daring stance and disagreement with Zia over a number of issues.

On the economic front, he took the austerity measures and ultimately halted the Islamization of Economy process ran under the Zia regime, which put him at odds with President Zia.

Junejo attended every session of parliament and remained accessible even after office hours in order to build ties with members of parliament who were elected on non-party basis and had their own personal power bases. In an order issued through the Pakistan Banking Council (PBC), no bank was authorized to sanction a loan to any political office-holder without first referring the matter to him.

The Prime Minister also had an interest in foreign relations, meeting with President Ronald Reagen in 1986, Rajiv Gandhi at the 1987 SAARC Summit in Kathmandu, and the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito the same year.

Junejo was in Skardu when he received word that element in Parliament were mustering support to defeat the vote schedule for the June 1985 budget. The Prime Minister then spent the next two days on the phone with members of the National Assembly identifying issues in proposed tax changes which were causing problems. He then requested the finance minister to remove the most unpopular ones before the vote. The finance minister than suggested austerity measures to offset losses in taxes. Proposing to make it mandatory for members of the cabinet and civil officers who were entitled official cars to use locally assembled 1000cc Suzuki's. Junejo sought to implement these austerity measures in the 1987-88 Federal Budget.

When Junejo made the announcement in parliament in June 1987 he added generals to the austerity list, which received widespread media coverage and editorial praise. The budget was passed.

Junejo continued to speak publicly about reducing the perks and privileges of senior military officers, at one point threatening to remove their large staff cars and putting them in domestically produced Suzuki mini-cars. This evoked a response from (Retired) Lt. Gen. Ejaz Azim on the newspaper The Muslim on 28 June 1987, who according to Shuja Nawaz was encouraged by Zia to write an article that defended the senior leadership of the army.

When Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan, Zia maintained that her supporters would not be allowed to welcome her at the airport. At a meeting in Lahore chaired by Zia, Junejo said the government should under no circumstances stop the crowds. “There is democracy in the country,” Further remarking. “We cannot prevent people from gathering to receive her.” Junejo managed to prevail over the President.

In order to strengthen his own position Junejo sought to create a government party. Political parties could be officially registered from February 1986 onwards, but Junejo registered a new reconstituted Pakistan Muslim League (PML) a month early, linking his with the Pagaro Muslim League, becoming President of the new party, which was the only party legally allowed to hold the name 'Muslim League.' Following the response accorded to Benazir Bhutto, convinced Junejo that the party would need populist support. Its eleven-resolution manifesto published on 2 July promised economic reforms for the rural and urban poor, even of Junejo lacked the political base to do so. He gained legislative support by allowing members of the National Assembly to disburse development funds and residential plots to their own constituents.

Political conflict with General Zia
In 1986–87, his political relations with President Zia began to deteriorate over the control of foreign policy. Against Zia's wishes Junejo authorized his Foreign Minister Zain Noorani to ratify the Geneva Accords that allowed the Russian retreat from Afghanistan. In this regard, he had held a party conference where he invited the Communist Party and Pakistan People's Party to discuss to end the bloodshed in Afghanistan. In 1987, he provided his political support and eventually used his prerogative to appoint Lieutenant-General Mirza Aslam Beg as vice-army chief, despite President Zia wanting Lieutenant-General Zahid Ali Akbar, who was instead sent to DESTO.

Junejo began to assert his authority in the appointments of senior army officers and approving promotions to three and four-star ranks. He would also withhold promotions until those he wished to promote were also promoted. An example being Lt. Gen. Shamim Alam Khan who later became Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC), whose promotion on Junejo's insistence only came after Zia's choice Major General Pirdad Khan was also promoted. Junejo had sat on Pirdad Khan's promotion until Zia agreed to Alam's. Prior to his dismissal the latest appointments of corp commanders would also be approved by him. General M. Shariff was promoted to Lieutenant General and became commander of V Corps in Karachi in May 1988 by Junejo. To replace the outgoing VCOAS, Zia recommended Lt. General Zahid Ali Akbar Khan, however Junejo turned down the recommendation and instead promoted Mirza Aslam Beg to the position.

Prime Minister Junejo also stalled the fundamentalist legislation in an attempt to keep leverage on President Zia. Following the massive explosion near the hidden Ojhri camp facility in Rawalpindi Cantonment that resulted in more than 100 lives lost, Prime Minister Junejo announced to call for a parliamentary inquiry to overlook the incident. After ordering an initial inquiry under Gen Imran Ullah Khan he changed his stance over fears of cover up and constituted another committee under Aslam Khattak, Qazi Abdul Majeed Abid, Ibrahim Baloch and Rana Naeem. Junejo informed the media that he would present the committee's report to the National Assembly and punish those responsible. According to Salman Faruqui, this was the "final nail in the coffin" for the Zia-Junejo relationship. Yusuf Zaman called it the "final straw which broke the camel’s back." According to Ian Talbot, the investigation threatened to embarrass the ISI, General Arif also claimed that Zia's desire to exonerate former ISI director, General Akhtar Abdur Rahman would play a factor in the later dismissal of Junejo under Article 58(2)(b).

In 1986 he re-asserted civilian control over the Intelligence Bureau (IB), replacing a serving major general, Agha Nek Mohammad with police officer Mian Aslam Hayat. Zia was told that the Prime Minister had ordered surveillance of him, which was to be conducted by the Civilian Intelligence Bureau (IB). According to General Arif, the President ordered the head of Signal Corps to confiscate all the recording equipment of the IB following the dismissal of Junejo. This equipment would later be released without screening. General Refaqat, the Presidents new COS was also blamed in the souring of relations between Zia ul Haq and Mohammad Junejo.

On 28 May 1988, DG ISPR Brigadier Siddique Salik informed Prime Minister Junejo of President Zia holding the press conference the next day in this regard, terming it "very important." On 29 May 1988, President Zia appeared on PTV News and surprisingly announced to have dissolved the Parliament, using the Eighth Amendment. Many investigative newspapers and political gossips pointed that it was the inquiry report on the "Ojhri Camp disaster" that implicated the military members in Zia's administration despite President Zia claiming of Junejo's Government had been dismissed because the law-and-order situation had broken down to an alarming extent and the government could not be run in accordance with the Constitution.

Later Political Career
During the general elections held in 1988 his Junejo Muslim League joined the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad alliance. He was unsuccessful for defending his constituency but was elected for the National Assembly general elections held in 1990 and remained head of the Pakistan Muslim League (J). During the run up to the 1990 elections, the ISI reportedly provided financing to the opponents of the Pakistan Peoples Party. Following a case registered by (Retired) Air Marshal Asghar Khan against Gen Aslam Beg, DG-ISI Asad Durrani and Yunus Habib, Durrani produced an affidavit listing those who had received money from the ISI. A report from Ardeshir Cowasjee, a newspaper columnist, based on the affidavit included Junejo, who reportedly received Rs. 2.5 million from the ISI.

After sacking Junejo, Zia attempted to have Junejo removed as President of PML. Despite Zia's support to candidates such as Nawaz Sharif he failed to remove Junejo. Following the death of Junejo, Nawaz Sharif nominated himself as President of the Pakistan Muslim League on 21 March 1993.

Later life and death
In 1993, he was diagnosed with leukemia and went to the United States for the treatment where he was treated at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, United States, where he died the same year. He was brought and buried in his locality.

His widow, Begum Junejo, died in Karachi on July 13, 2003, at the age of 60.

Legacy
Former Federal Secretary and Press Secretary to Junejo Syed Anwar Mahmood, writing an editorial in The News International called Junejo "honest to the marrow," who led "by example" and claimed he "never compromised" on integrity and merit. Further remarking he could not recall a democratically elected government in Pakistan governing so "fairly, cleanly and effectively," writing that its dismissal by Zia Ul Haq "derailed the democratic train so badly that it continues to wobble even today."

Journalist Shaikh Aziz called Junejo a "calm person" who never showed "high ambitions", when he was in communications with Ayub Khan. But after questioning Zia over the lifting of Martial Law he thought of becoming a "real prime minister". Also calling him a "thorough gentleman" and "true disciplinarian", who "possessed a reputation of unquestionable integrity."

According to Ishtiaq Ahmed, "Instead of being the pliant protégé, Junejo turned out to be a man of principles and integrity—which Zia found unacceptable."

Salman Faruqui, a former civil servant writing in Dawn claimed due to his farming background, Junejo was often able to foresee rough weather and gathering storms and would move accordingly. Further asserting "He had demonstrated leadership to a brutalised nation and given it some hope." Who conducted himself with "integrity and dignity, caring for the poor and downtrodden."

Ian Talbot in Pakistan: A Modern History stated that "Even on apparently trivial matters of protocol, Junejo sought to do everything possible to raise the dignity of the Prime Minister's office."

His public image was popular in politics for his driving of blue coloured Suzuki FX and, he popularly drove the FX in Islamabad despite the annoyance of President Zia who had a strong preference for Mercedes-Benz W126.

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

title: Muhammad Khan Junejo


text:
Talk:Classification theorem for surfaces

sorry

 * Section added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote the whole thing before checking in surface. I'm not sure how to get rid of the blank page. Apologies for the mess. -alodyne

i am sorry too
i shouln't have added the delete tag so hastily. A better option is the redirect to the other article Papeschr 13:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no worries
No worries both – I’ve made the article into a redirect, and moved relevant info into Surface – thanks for your contributions!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


text:
Air Ambulance Show

Air Ambulance Show is an international fair of integrated emergency systems for professionals and general public. The fair takes place every year in May in Hradec Králové in the Czech Republic.

title: Air Ambulance Show


text:
User:Marianocecowski/Work

Argentina

 * Info from EuropaWorld

Sports

 * Jugadores históricos - FootbalFactory (Spanish)
 * Argentine Players - FootballDatabase
 * Olimpia Awards 2004

Pictures

 * Presidencia.ar
 * Argentine geography/geology at usgs.gov

Todo

 * Check
 * Cerro Bayo (20.04.2006)
 * Belgranodeutsch (01.09.2008)

Tools

 * Special:Log/delete
 * Special:Blockip

Contributors

Templates

 * Template messages/General
 * Template messages/Deletion
 * Template messages/Disputes
 * Template messages/Maintenance
 * Template messages/Cleanup

Welcome
 * Anon Good wiking, ~

Disambig Deletion
 * Disambig
 * - For other uses, see topic (disambiguation)
 * - For other uses, see topic
 * vfd - Vote for Deletion
 * (speedy)

Warnings
 * Controversial3 - read talk page before editing
 * Disputed - factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
 * POV The neutrality of this article is disputed
 * POV-check This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy
 * protected
 * vprotected - because of vandalism

Checks
 * sectionclean
 * wikify
 * copyedit - proper English spelling, grammar, usage, etc.
 * cleanup-verify - information that has not been verified. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand
 * notenglish
 * cleanup-translation - has been translated, and needs attention
 * Move to Wiktionary
 * cleanup-translation - has been translated, and needs attention
 * Move to Wiktionary

Others
 * -  BIG! yourcomment
 * - divbox - colours:
 * none - gray - red - blue - green - yellow - amber - brown - orange - purple - navy - forest - white - black - bloodred

 * backgroundcolor =#FFFFF, id=Krneki, image=mojaslika.png
 * backgroundcolor =#FFFFF, id=Krneki, image=mojaslika.png

title: User:Marianocecowski/Work


text:
Talk:K9 (Doctor Who)

K9 vs K-9
(Created a new section since the previous one is more than a decade old.)

It seems that the spelling "K9" is preferred in common usage, while "K-9" is used very rarely. The below sources provide more solid support for K9:
 * 2005 BBC News article
 * 2014 BBC information page
 * A similar conversion on the Doctor Who Wikia
 * The Programme as Broadcast forms from The Invisible Enemy (Doctor Who) (first episode starring K9)
 * The Programme as Broadcast forms from A Girl's Best Friend
 * Radio Times billings for The Invisible Enemy

I think that the article title along with all references to the name should be changed. Thoughts?

--Liam McM (Talk|Contribs) 22:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Further to the list above:
 * Official K9 Facebook page
 * Official K9 website
 * Website of Bob Baker (scriptwriter), creator of K9
 * --Liam McM (Talk|Contribs) 15:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 16:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

K9 (Doctor Who) → ? – Character has been featured in four television series, two of which are Doctor Who spin-offs and one of which is unrelated to Doctor Who. Due to this I think the article should be moved since the character received main billing at one point or another in all four series. The Doctor Who (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 * K9 (Whoniverse)? I'm not sure a change needs to be made though to be honest, the spin offs are part of the Doctor Who franchise and even K-9 (TV series) doesn't appear to be entirely separate, as per that article "Baker and Tams have confirmed that this K-9 is the original K-9 Mark I, who appeared in Doctor Who". In any case, I would suggest that the character is primarily notable for appearing in the main Doctor Who series. PC78 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It could go either way here because it wasn't a BBC production. So you are correct it's not entirely separate but it is enough in my opinion. As for notability I think that the other series hold some weight primarily SJA but the other two as well. The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose - normally this would be K9 (character) since it appears in multiple shows, but that's WP:INCDAB, so using the the first show and the show its most known for is fine. "Whoniverse" is ugly and unprofessional, and no sources use that to refer to the character, so it WP:ASTONISHs for not being natural or recognizable. -- Netoholic @ 08:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I only used "Whoniverse" above because that's where Doctor Who (franchise) leads you. I wouldn't personally regard it as in improvement on the current title for the same reasons you mention. PC78 (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. The character is predominantly known for his appearances in Doctor Who proper; the fact he appeared elsewhere many decades later doesn't mean his article can't have it as disambiguation.  O.N.R.  (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Vastly best-known as a companion of the Doctor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:K9 (Doctor Who)


text:
Talk:Planet of Adventure

(William M. Connolley 09:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I always wondered if JV knew about "wank" :-)

Untitled
I deleted "rescue" (it was to investigate a signal) and "vying for supremacy" which I felt doesn't fit with the image/idea of the books, which is that the situation on tschai is stable.

_____

"Wank" may be slang, but its meaning is not a connnotation but a denotation. It isn't confined to British usage, either. I have corrected the text accordingly. I have also corrected an unfortunate phrasing that implied that 'Wannek' was Vance's original choice of title.

Agemegos 13:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Gzhindra
In The Pnume, it's made fairly clear that the Gzhindra are exiled and/or ostracised Pnumekin who now dwell as ghian in the ghaun. In other words, they're former Pnumekin. They aren't explicitly described as upper class, and, in fact, Zap210 makes allusion to the fact that she would be forced to live above ground as a Gzhindra now that she has seen "secrets". Peter1968 10:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mothership?
Having reread the book, finishing yesterday I think that the presence of a mothership is supposition, and is not reflected in the actual text. This supposition is perhaps based on the description of the ship Adam and Paul are in as a "scout-boat" rather than as a "space-ship." At no point do the two scouts mention the loss of a mothership or express regret at the loss of life (crew/friends/colleges) that would have been killed with the motherships destruction. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that their ship is damaged by a near miss, and forced to crash-land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.24.119 (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In the copy of the anthology that I read I recall that the story does start aboard a larger ship, but it is torpedoed from the surface of the planet, and totally destroyed.

But I may be confusing that with Big Planet....which has a similar opening.

Chunner (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I remember the captain dispatching the two scouts, and them watching in horror as their mothership is blown up soon after they leave. Their scoutship is damaged by the explosion. One of the revelations of Servants of the Wankh is that the Wankhmen are responsible (to safeguard the status quo and their cushy existence). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just read my new copy of Planet of Adventure, and the first few pages do chart the mission & fate of the mothership. Chunner (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Planet of Adventure. 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/20110930054821/http://www.editions-delcourt.fr/catalogue/bd/le_cycle_de_tschai_1_le_chasch_volume_1 to http://www.editions-delcourt.fr/catalogue/bd/le_cycle_de_tschai_1_le_chasch_volume_1

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) 06:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

map caption
File:Map_of_Tschai.jpg I would like to add to the caption "…for the Vance Integral Edition" but cannot prove it. —Tamfang (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Planet of Adventure


text:
Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi

Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi (14 August 1931 – 20 November 2009) was a Pakistani politician who served as the Caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan for three months, from 6 August 1990 to 6 November 1990. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi's ancestors were Murids of the Pir's of Sarhandi.

Early life
Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi was born in New Jatoi, Naushehro Feroze District, Sindh. He was the eldest of four brothers, and his grandfather, Khan Bahadur Imam Bux Khan Jatoi, was a member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly in 1923, 1927 and 1931. At the time there were only four members representing the entire present Province of Sindh.

His father Ghulam Rasool Jatoi was a member of the Sindh Legislative Assembly twice in 1946 and again 1952, after which one unit was imposed in West Pakistan.

Jatoi was educated at Karachi Grammar School and passed his senior Cambridge. In 1952, he went to England for his bar at law, but had to return home within one year due to his father's serious illness.

Mr Jatoi was an active leader in politics. He was one of the founding members of Pakistan Peoples Party along with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He was one of Bhutto's closest confidants until Bhutto's execution in 1979. He remained associated with the PPP until 1986 when he formed his own party with its emblem of a tractor, becoming one of Pakistan's political leaders with his own political party.

Politics
Jatoi was elected to the first Provincial Assembly of West Pakistan in 1956. He has also served as chairman District Board of Nawabshah District in 1952, holding the distinction of being the youngest District Board chairman on the South Asia.

Jatoi along with Z.A. Bhutto and other politicians formed Pakistan People's Party in 1967. He has been elected to the National Assembly of Pakistan in 1962, 1965, 1970, 1989, 1990, 1993 and 1997. He has also been elected to the Sindh Provincial Assembly in 1973 and 1977.

He held the Portfolios of Political Affairs, Ports and Shipping, Communications, Petroleum and Natural Resources, Information Technology, Railways & Telecommunications in the Federal Government headed by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. In 1973, he was elected Chief Minister of Sindh, and held this office until 1977. He has the distinction of being the longest serving Chief Minister of Sindh since the birth of Pakistan. After the imposition of Martial Law, Jatoi remained associated with the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD). Twice he was arrested in 1983 and 1985.

Later, he founded the National Peoples Party. A number of political heavyweights from all over the country were brought into the National People's Party, launched under the chairmanship of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi. Among them were Ghulam Mustafa Khar, Haneef Ramay, Hamid Raza Gilani and Kamal Azfar. An attractive manifesto was prepared and the party was expected to gain prominence due to the declining popularity of the Peoples Party at the time.

The NPP and the PML, then headed by Muhammad Khan Junejo, along with seven other political parties, contested the 1988 elections from the platform of the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad. The PPP won the bout, though with a thin majority.

Interim Prime Minister
He was the Founder President of Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) formed in 1988. In 1989, he was elected to the National Assembly in by-elections from Kot Addu. Jatoi was subsequently elected leader of the combined opposition parties in the National Assembly in 1989.

Mr. Jatoi was appointed Prime Minister after the dismissal of the Benazir Bhutto government on corruption and incompetence charges by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan. In protest at the autocratic tendencies of the Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Jatoi joined hands with the opposition led by Bhutto in launching a movement against the Sharif government, resulting in its dismissal in 1993.

The NPP contested the 1993 elections and later joined the Benazir Bhutto government as a coalition partner until the Governments dismissal in 1996 by the PPP President Farooq Leghari. In the 2002 general election, it was the dominant partner in a new group called the National Alliance which was chaired by him. The National Alliance won 16 seats in the national Assembly, 16 seats in the Sindh Assembly and three Senate seats.

Family
In the 2008 election his son Ghulam Murtaza Khan Jatoi won election in NA-211 Naushahro Feroze-I under the banner of the National Peoples Party, defeating the runner-up PPP candidate and holding the seat won in 2002 by Dr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan Jatoi under the National Alliance banner. His other son, Arif Mustafa Jatoi (Former Food and Agriculture Minister) won PS-19 and another son, Masroor Jatoi won PS-23, both Provincial Assembly Seats. The Youngest son is Senator Asif Mustafa Jatoi. This has set a record wherein four sons are simultaneously present in all three Legislative forums, i.e. Provincial Assembly, National Assembly and Senate.

Death
Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi died in London on Friday November 2009 after a protracted illness at the age of 78.

Book

 * Ghula Mustafa Khan Jatoi, a Distinguihed Parliamentarian: Selected Speeches, 1962-1990, Alvi Publishers, 1997, 166 p.

title: Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi


text:
Politics of Abkhazia

Politics in Abkhazia is dominated by its conflict with Georgia. Abkhazia became de facto independent from Georgia after the 1992–1993 war, but its de jure independence has only been recognised by a few other countries. Abkhazia is a presidential representative democratic republic with a multi-party system, wherein the President is both head of state and head of government. Executive power is exercised by the government of the Republic of Abkhazia. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the People's Assembly of Abkhazia.

Georgia maintains an Abkhazian government in exile in Tbilisi.

Executive branch of the partially recognised Republic of Abkhazia

 * President
 * Aslan Bzhania
 * Independent
 * 23 April 2020
 * Prime Minister
 * Alexander Ankvab
 * Aitaira
 * 23 April 2020
 * }
 * }

Legislative branch
The People's Assembly has 35 members, elected for a five-year term in single seat constituencies.

Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia
The de jure Government of Abkhazia in exile, then the Council of Ministers of Abkhazia, left Abkhazia after the Russian-backed Abkhaz separatist forces and their allies from the Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus took control of the region's capital Sukhumi after heavy fighting on 27 September 1993, leading to the mass killings of ethnic Georgians and loyal citizens, in which several members of the Abkhazian government, including its chairman Zhiuli Shartava, were executed by the rebels. The Council of Ministers relocated to Georgia's capital Tbilisi, where it operated as a de jure government of Abkhazia for almost 13 years. During this period, the GAIE was led by Tamaz Nadareishvili, until President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili appointed a new chairman, Irakli Alasania, his envoy in the peace talks over Abkhazia.

On 27 July 2006, the Georgian authorities relocated the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia to Upper Abkhazia. "This decision means that for the first time since 1993 the government enters into the middle of Abkhazia, of our Abkhazia, to exercise Georgian jurisdiction and the Georgian constitutional order. This is very important fact and very fundamental political event," Saakashvili said in his televised address to the nation.

Malkhaz Akishbaia, a western-educated Abkhaz politician was Chairman of the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia from April 2006 to June 2009, when he was succeeded by Giorgi Baramia.

This Government was forced out of Upper Abkhazia during the 2008 South Ossetia War.

Executive branch of the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia
!align=left|Chairman of the Supreme Council
 * Gia Gvazava
 * Abkhazeti
 * June 2009
 * Chairman of Cabinet of Ministers
 * Giorgi Baramia
 * Abkhazeti
 * June 2009
 * Deputy of Supreme Council
 * Tamaz Khubua
 * Abkhazeti
 * June 2009
 * }
 * June 2009
 * }

Council of Ministers of Abkhazia in exile
Ethnic Abkhaz and Georgian deputies elected to the Abkhaz Supreme Soviet under the unsuccessful 1991 power-sharing arrangement continue to operate from Tbilisi as the de jure government and parliament-in-exile. They began boycotting the Abkhaz parliament in May 1992, complaining of Abkhaz discrimination, and in June commenced a campaign of civil disobedience while attempting to set up parallel power structures in Sukhumi. In October 1992 elections to the Georgian parliament were conducted in those parts of Abkhazia controlled by the central Government. However, with Abkhazia outside Tbilisi's jurisdiction by the time of the 1995 Georgian parliamentary election, the MPs elected from Abkhazia in 1992 automatically retained their seats in the Georgian parliament. After the separatist victory, the de jure Government represented 300,000 IDPs in Tbilisi. There were two significant political groups of Abkhaz IDPs. In April 1999 Tamaz Nadareishvili, chairman of the government-in-exile and at the outbreak of the war Deputy Chairman of the parliament of the Abkhaz Autonomous Republic, founded the Abkhazia Liberation Party (ALP) to contest the October 1999 Georgian parliamentary elections. Formerly a Communist Party functionary in Abkhazia, he was Deputy Prime Minister of Georgia 1993–95. The ALP was the successor to My Home Abkhazia, a party he founded to contest the 1995 parliamentary election but which failed to gain parliamentary representation. However, the ALP is opposed by the Co-ordinating Council of Refugees from Abkhazia founded in 1996 by Boris Kakubava, an MP in the Abkhazeti faction. The Council was represented by the League of Popular Representatives of Georgia political party. Kakubava strongly opposed Shevardnadze whom he blamed for the loss of Abkhazia.

Abkhazia today
The Abkhaz conflict has not been resolved; a ceasefire agreement was signed on 15 May 1994 and a United Nations peacekeeping force (UNOMIG) was given the task of monitoring the agreement. A separate force from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was assigned to a peacekeeping mission.

Peace talks have taken place on and off over the last ten years, but have achieved little of significance. Although there have been no major outbreaks of fighting in the meantime, border clashes and armed raids by both sides continue to inflict casualties.

A new constitution was adopted, on 4 November 1994, which declared Abkhaz sovereignty. Parliamentary elections were held on 23 November 1996, but these were not recognised by the Georgian government or the international community, as the elections were held after ethnic cleansing when majority of pre-war population had fled Abkhazia. The CIS imposed economic sanctions in January 1996 and the region is officially blockaded by Georgia.

The de facto authorities organised a referendum on 3 October 1999 which approved the current constitution though more than half of the pre-war population expelled from Abkhazia did not take part in voting.

2004 elections
On 3 October 2004 presidential elections were held in Abkhazia. In the elections, Russia supported Raul Khajimba, the prime-minister backed by seriously ailing outgoing separatist President Vladislav Ardzinba. Posters of Russia's President Vladimir Putin together with Khajimba, who like Putin had worked as a KGB official, were everywhere in Sukhumi. Deputies of Russia's parliament and Russian singers, led by Joseph Kobzon, both a deputy and a popular songster, came to Abkhazia campaigning for Khajimba.

Still, on 12 October Abkhazia's Supreme Court, after a series of contradictory decisions by the Electoral Committee, recognised that the new president would be a businessman Sergei Bagapsh, accused by his rival's supporters of being pro-Georgian, although Georgia does not recognise any separatist candidates or even the elections. Abkhazia's outgoing President Ardzinba claimed the decision was illegal and made under pressure from supporters of Bagapsh. The decision was cancelled by the Supreme Court the night of the same day. When supporters of Raul Khajimba seized the building of the Supreme Court and destroyed the protocols from local electoral constituencies new elections were prescribed.

Soon the Supreme Court cancelled the later decision, and again named Bagapsh the new president. His supporters captured a local TV station, while Raul Khajimba's supporters took control over the parliament's building. Outgoing president Ardzinba replaced Raul Khajimba as a prime-minister with Nodar Khashba, who, before this appointment served in the Ministry for Extraordinary Situations.

On 5 December the presidential candidates Sergei Bagapsh and Raul Khadjimba agreed to hold new elections. In these elections they would run on a joint ticket, with Khadjimba as vice presidential candidate.

Politics after the recognition
After Russia recognised Abkhazian independence the Abkhazian president Sergei Bagapsh signed a series of controversial deals giving Russia control over the border with Georgia proper, the Abkhazian railway network and airport, the right to build long term military bases as well as rights to search for oil off its coast. He also called for the legalisation of the sale of real estate to non-citizens.

These policies were met with growing alarm by opposition parties and war veteran groups. Amid growing tension a meeting on 20 May 2009 of six political parties and war veteran movements held a press conference in Sukhumi to express their concern at the president's imputed plans to "hand over chunks of Abkhazia's national heritage to foreign commercial structures for a long time period." They described relations with Russia as "based on trust and mutual respect" before adding that the Abkhaz leadership's "hasty and thoughtless decisions" risked fuelling anti-Russian sentiment and domestic political tensions in the run-up to the presidential ballot. And they stressed, "our state must retain control over our strategic infrastructure."

The Vice President Raul Khadjimba (once an ally of Russia against Sergey Bagapsh) resigned on 28 May 2009, saying he agreed with the criticism the opposition had made. Subsequently, a conference of opposition parties in July 2009 nominated Raul Khadjimba as their candidate in the Abkhazian presidential election, 2009 scheduled for December of the same year.

Abkhazia's future
Abkhazian leaders have made alternating demands in recent years. At times, they have insisted on full independence, and at other times, they have requested associate membership in the Russian Federation. However, the Russian government has inconsistently responded to the latter proposal, fearing the negative effect of such an action on its relations with Georgia. On 28 November 2003, Russian MP Vladimir Zhirinovsky brought forth such a resolution in the State Duma, but saw it rejected. Nonetheless, most citizens of Abkhazia now possess Russian citizenship, and Abkhazians do not require a visa. In April 2023, Russia threatened to annex Abkhazia, a move which was resolutely opposed by de facto Abkhazian authorities.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, European Union and United Nations have continued to insist that Abkhazia must remain part of Georgia, and that at the very least, the many Georgian refugees who fled after the 1992–1993 war must be allowed to return, before any acceptable vote on independence can be held.

The Georgian government has continued to insist on Abkhazia's reunification with Georgia, but has differed in its suggestions of means to achieve this, particularly under the government of former President Mikhail Saakashvili.

They have, at times, proposed two main peace deals. The first one would divide Georgia into seven autonomous entities, each with power over police and economic issues, but relinquishing power over defence and foreign affairs to the federal government. In a later proposal, it was suggested that Georgia and Abkhazia could form one federal Georgian republic, somewhat along the lines of Serbia and Montenegro.

The Georgian government has, at times, suggested that they may attempt to resolve the conflict by military means. After the 2004 removal of Ajarian leader Aslan Abashidze from office after large public protests, Saakashvili suggested that Abkhazia and fellow separatist entity South Ossetia could be reintegrated in the same manner. However, over the following months, he distanced himself from this idea.

Saakashvili has also attempted to portray the Abkhaz dispute as being between Georgia and Russia, owing to the latter's support of the separatists, with the separatist government being portrayed as little more than a Russian puppet. To this end, they have pushed for either the complete removal of, or major changes to the mandate of the Russian peacekeepers, and the removal of Russian military bases from Abkhaz territory. During 2003, they succeeded in achieving the latter demand, with Russia removing its bases, leaving only its peacekeeping force.

Both the Abkhaz de facto separatist government and separatist opposition parties (Amtsakhara) resolutely oppose reunification with Georgia under any circumstances.

title: Politics of Abkhazia


text:
File:Wild honey beach boys.jpg

This is an album cover. It is believed that low-resolution versions of album covers may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. See Copyrights.

title: File:Wild honey beach boys.jpg


text:
User:Pettifogger

From WordNet: The noun "pettifogger" has 2 senses in WordNet. 1. shyster, pettifogger -- (a person (especially a lawyer or politician) who uses unscrupulous or unethical methods) 2. quibbler, caviller, caviler, pettifogger -- (a disputant who quibbles; someone who raises annoying petty objections)

title: User:Pettifogger


text: User talk:83.29.19.9

title: User talk:83.29.19.9


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feds

Feds
Feds 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.

Ok, this is a little confusing. This page contains a CopyrightFreeUse notice on it. The source image (Image:Songplanetpic.jpg) doesn't have any sort of notice on it. The page was created by anon user and the image added by (who also upload the image) Louisromegoux. There's some links here, but there's for a 1988 movied called Feds. This is an unsigned band we're talking about. In addition to the page, what about the image? Move the copyright over? Unverified? Delete it? --Ricky81682 09:26, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * There's a more well-known -signed- American band The Feds, as well as the movie. I'm not sure that relatively unknown unsigned bands are terribly encyclopedic, until proven otherwise. Willing to be proven wrong, though. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 09:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I doubt they're encyclopedic, to gig across the city doesn't make one notable. I suggest we turn this into a page on the notable band and the film. Also, the copyright notice should be moved to the picture page if it's kept. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:13, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and delete image. Euphoria 08:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete and list image for deletion: Unsigned bands are not notable, regardless of their age.  Even The Shaggs aren't notable because of their age.  Geogre 20:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feds