text:
User talk:Huerlisi

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

Here are some tips to help you get started:

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

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:29, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Bookyt screenshot.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bookyt screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading File:Bookyt screenshot.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Huerlisi


text:
User talk:Brandon W

Leave any comments you may have here.

Barnstar
I felt that this award was long overdue, as you've been on Wikipedia longer than a good deal of the Administrators themselves. Sharkface217 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

i found you brandon! -zach

WikiProject Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of The Early Years (DC Talk album) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Early Years (DC Talk album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Early Years (DC Talk album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Early Years (DC Talk album) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Early Years (DC Talk album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Early Years (DC Talk album)& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Brandon W


text:
User talk:Lelehalo

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

Here are some tips to help you get started:

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

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:30, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lelehalo


text:
Talk:The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet

Untitled
Hope the trivia wasn't too trivial for you. I don't know quite what sort of style you're aiming for in these articles. P Ingerson 21:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet


text:
Talk:Chimichurri

Untitled
Removed ¨Chimichurri is known as the ketchup of Argentina¨. How? By Whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falstaff85 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Chimichurri origins
I have just inserted references that prove the chimichurri sauce was "born" in Argentina, and therefore is an argentine sauce. However, it is known that the sauce is eaten in other countries. --El rrienseolava (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 * change origen of uruguay put argentina. chimichurri is of argentina. not uruguay. same dulce de leche. 37.160.41.182 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede
The lede poorly describes the sauce, beyond "it is a green sauce, and sometimes it is not." Are there any ingredients that define the sauce -- garlic and parsley?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.244.215 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the term
The source provided shows that the word was used as a nickname in the 18th century. This proves nothing about the origin of the term in relation to the sauce. Saying this discredits any of the stories below constitutes original research and goes against the rules of Wikipedia. (WP:NOR) All you can say from the links provided is that the word was also used as a nickname in the 18th century, but you cannot say that disproves any of the other origins for the term unless you can find a source that makes this connection. 190.245.89.52 (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * OK, I plead guilty to OR here. However, there are lots of sources better than the current blog entry (!!!) which do call these Jimmy stories "legends" or otherwise cast doubt on them ("Hmmm.").  Remember, WP:V does not require that we credulously accept everything we read on the Web or in cookbooks. --Macrakis (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I do think these explanations are not satisfactory and likely just folk tales, but we can't assure there is a connection with someone nicknamed chimichurri in Colombia unless there is a source for such a connection. So I think the current writing, where all sides are presented without judging the validity of one over another, is best. 129.132.211.189 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the Moroccans make a sauce with a very similar recipe, called 'charmil'; the similarity of the words as well as the recipe is fairly striking. I would say there is some possibility of an etymological as well as culinary relationship. Moroccan/Arab immigrant origins?jackbrown (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I think you mean chermoula, which has some similarities, but the word is quite different. Anyway, we'd need a reliable source for this claim. --Macrakis (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

See below,. It's certainly from the Basque word, though I haven't put it that way in the article.--Thnidu (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Chimichurri in Israel
Do you think I should add that chimichurri is used in Israel? I know a chain of burger restaurants in Jerusalem that uses chimichurri, which is the reason I familiar with this amazing sauce. pastasauce (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably found wherever you find an argentine; I first encountered the sauce in Mexico, where it is common in the finer restaurants of the Condesa. And more recently in SF, USA. So, not really relevant. jackbrown (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
§ Etymology: Given that Basque tximitxurri is pronounced almost identically to Spanish chimichurri and that there is a reasonable channel of transmission (the Basque settler community in Argentina), the folk etymologies relating them to unattested English names are patently absurd and should not be given top billing. Accordingly, I am
 * 1) adding the pronunciation of tximitxurri, which is extremely relevant here and nothing like obvious to English-speakers
 * 2) in IPA
 * 3) and in English respelling, in an admitted approximation, as an aid to those readers who don't know IPA, who are the vast majority
 * 4) and switching the order of the paragraphs
 * with appropriate rewriting.

I'm sure I've heard a number of food names that imply something very like "a mixture of several things in no particular order", but I can't think of them now. A brief list would be good as "cf. __,__,__/".

Please me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Agreed that the Basque etymology is the best supported. Do you have additional WP:RS for that?

 * As for the other food names meaning "a mixture of several things", I don't see how they contribute to this article at all, and have removed the list. --Macrakis (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo
Is there a less appetising and less representative photo available? This looks like a bowl of broth with some leaves in it! A Creep (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Most popular recipes seem to use balsamic rather than white wine vinegar
Do what you will with this info. Recipe references white wine vinegar but I see a lot of references to balsamic in the texts.

24.45.45.114 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

J

Disambiguation
There should be a proper "Not to be confused with..." section relating it to Chimichurris (article that needs fixing) rather than an off-hand mention at the end of the page. --139.47.117.211 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of Chimichurri
Upon looking up the Basque "tximitxurri" there were no results. When doing an English to Basque translation of "hodgepodge" the translation is "nahaspila" which means "a mess". So not sure of the accuracy of this etymology section. 24.89.85.23 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chimichurri


text:
Talk:Washington, D.C. schools

Initial version of this article is primarily made of public domain data, as a work of the US government, downloaded from here. The data only covers public schools, so people should feel free to add private schools, following the example given in the table. Niteowlneils 04:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like similar private school data is available from another page of the same site, just not in near as convenient form to create a table from. Niteowlneils 05:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Washington, D.C. schools


text:
Into the West

Into the West may refer to:
 * Into the West (film), a 1992 film
 * "Into the West" (song), a 2003 song from the film The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
 * Into the West (miniseries), a 2005 mini-series on Turner Network Television
 * Into the West (album), a 2004 debut album by New Zealand operatic singer Yulia
 * Into the West, the American re-release of Pilot Speed's album Sell Control for Life's Speed
 * "Into the West", a song from Will Martin's debut album

title: Into the West


text:
Talk:Rockingham County Public Schools

Untitled
Initial version of this article is primarily made of public domain data, as a work of the US government, downloaded from here. The data only covers public schools, so people should feel free to add private schools, following the example given in the table. Niteowlneils 04:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like similar private school data is available from another page of the same site, just not in near as convenient form to create a table from. Niteowlneils 05:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rockingham County Public Schools


text:
Morris Travers

Morris William Travers, FRS (24 January 1872 – 25 August 1961) was an English chemist who worked with Sir William Ramsay in the discovery of xenon, neon and krypton. His work on several of the rare gases earned him the name Rare Gas Travers in scientific circles. He was the founding director of the Indian Institute of Science.

Early life
Travers was born in Kensington, London, the son of William Travers MD, FRCS (1838-1906), an early pioneer of aseptic surgical techniques. His mother was Anne Pocock. Travers went to school at Ramsgate, Woking and Blundell's School.

Career
He then went to University College, where he began to work with Sir William Ramsay. Travers helped Ramsay to determine the properties of the newly discovered gases argon and helium. They also heated minerals and meteorites in the search for further gases, but found none. Then in 1898 they obtained a large quantity of liquid air and subjected it to fractional distillation. Spectral analysis of the least volatile fraction revealed the presence of krypton. They examined the argon fraction for a constituent of lower boiling point, and discovered neon. Finally xenon, occurring as an even less volatile companion to krypton, was identified spectroscopically. He knew the entire research story and wrote the biography of Sir William Ramsay in 1956 "A life of Sir William Ramsay, K.C.B., F.R.S."

In 1904 he became a professor at University College. In May 1904 he was selected a Fellow of the Royal Society.

In 1901-1902 Ramsay had been asked to advise the Indian government on the founding of a science institute and the institute was established in Bangalore with the help of the Government of Mysore and JN Tata. Ramsay suggested Travers as a possible director for this institute and in 1906, Travers was appointed as the director of the new Indian Institute of Science. The aim was to build the institute along the lines of the Imperial College of Science and Technology but Travers had conflicts with the Tata family especially in the interpretation of clauses in JN Tata's will. The institute was started in June 1911 with four departments: General, Organic, and Applied Chemistry and Electrical Engineering.

He returned to Britain at the outbreak of World War I and directed the manufacture of glass at Duroglass Limited. In 1920 he started a company with F W Clark called Travers and Clark Ltd. which was involved with high-temperature furnaces and fuel technology, including the gasification of coal. In 1927 he went back to Bristol as Honorary Professor in Applied Chemistry.

Travers continued his researches in cryogenics and made the first accurate temperature measurements of liquid gases. He also helped to build several experimental liquid air plants in Europe. He died in Stroud, Gloucestershire.

Publications
The following is a partial list of publications:
 * 1893. The preparation of acetylene from calcium carbide. Proc. Chem. Soc. p. 15.
 * 1894. Metallic derivatives of acetylene. I. Mercuric acetylide. Trans. Chem. Soc. p. 264.
 * 1895. (With W. Ramsay and J. Norman Collie) Helium, a constituent of certain minerals. Trans. Chem. Soc. p. 684.
 * 1896–1897. Some experiments on helium. Proc. Roy. Soc. 60,449.
 * 1898. The origin of the gases evolved on heating mineral substances, meteorites, etc. Proc. Roy. Soc. 64, 130.
 * 1898. (With W. Ramsay) n a new constituent of atmospheric air [Krypton]. Proc. Roy. Soc. 63,405.
 * 1901. The liquefaction of hydrogen. Phil. Mag. (6), 1,41 1.
 * 1915. (With N. M. Gupta and R. C. Ray.) Some compounds of boron, hydrogen and oxygen. London: H. K. Lewis
 * 1918. On the firing of glass pots. Trans. Soc. Glass Tech. 2, 170.
 * 1928. The complete gasification of coal for towns' gas. Trans. Soc. Chem. Ind. p. 203.
 * 1934. On a new view of the covalent bond, and the formation of free radicals. Trans. Faraday Soc. 30, 100.
 * 1956. The life of Sir William Ramsay. London: Arnold.

title: Morris Travers


text:
Talk:Francis Spellman

General Bias
This page has a perceptible slant against the reputation of the Spellman, not only in a single section or reference, but within the entire tenor of the argument. Furthermore, this bizarre contention seems to stem from the dichotomy of his rumored sexual orientation vs. his more conservative positions. I would chiefly note the the tone of the oft-cited 2002 article by Signorile as evidence.  What is most disturbing about this deeply ingrained flaw of the article's original author(s), is that it uses the personal struggles of one individual's contest between spiritual and temporal ideals as a general launchpad for a diatribe against his legacy, in toto. We must be holistic & fair in our approach to discussing such issues, and I believe that even a cursory review of many sources of information cited herein will even more clearly illuminate the ideological bent which influenced this article's contents. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree. There doesn't seem to be any slant against Spellman. There are several independent sources which discuss his likely homosexuality. If readers want to infer that this makes Spellman a hypocrite for presenting a different persona in public then they are free to do this - but the article nowhere states that. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point here; and while I wouldn't say the article wreaks of an agenda –– it's certainly pretty pungent. To present the facts and to allow the reader to make an educated inference thereupon is one thing, however if the information is delivered in such a way that this ostensibly "hypocritical" position (a matter I won't give airing to here) pervades the entire biography; than I judge that there is a legitimate question of factual/intellectual honesty in the writing. The referenced sources should be more closely reviewed, third-party opposing views (of which there are many) should be treated with equal weight, and an effort should me made to distinguish a very specific area of moral quandary from the work of a 78-year life. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to bring forward some third party opposing views then you are free to do so. Can I also suggest that you be very specific about aspects of the wording that cause you particular concern. Otherwise at the moment your contribution seems a bit general. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of hiding the general nature of the bias which I note permeates this article – hence the heading I gave the discussion topic. I would urge that it be reviewed in its entirety, as I had initially stated above; most importantly by minimizing or striking the prominent references to the Signorile article (the polemical bent of which speaks for itself). UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Spellman and Somoza
"In 1959, he served as papal delegate to the Eucharistic Congress in Guatemala; during his journey, he stopped in Nicaragua and, contrary to the Pope's orders, publicly appeared with dictator Anastasio Somoza Garcia.[1]"

I find this a little difficult to believe, seeing that Somoza was assassinated in 1956. Josh (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Disputed: Spellman's Homosexuality
Idle and poorly sourced gossip on this issue, fueled in part by a left-wing agenda, should have no place in this entry.65.184.58.186 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't make accusatory comments of political bias unless you can verify them. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If the claim is being made that Cardinal Spellman was homosexual, please cite the sources that make this claim and let's have a context for the reliability of these sources.

My suggestion for rewording is that "Allegations were published in the Village Voice when the Catholic Church sexual abuse crisis broke in 2002 that Cardinal Spellman had been a homosexual and well-known in New York's homosexual community. It remains a hotly disputed issue to the present day." (entered 17 Dec 2004) patsw 19:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this concern has been handled. When this concern was posted, the sentence in question read, "In 1942 Spellman formed a liaison with a chorus boy who appeared in One Touch of Venus." Now it reads "A few homosexual activists have alleged that in 1942 Spellman formed a liaison with a chorus boy who appeared in One Touch of Venus." I believe this should take care of the question. Therefore, I am going to delete the disputed warning. Remes 05:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon. removed the allegation of Spellman's homosexuality. There might be a reason to do so or there might not. Let's discuss. patsw 00:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This is very article on Spellman -- a man of intellect, influence and power. I don't object to the gossipy stuff about his alleged homosexuality but to reduce his life and accomplishments to that seems a bit ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.237.92 (talk • contribs)

This is more than gossip when you take into account Spellman's known work against gay rights and his radical right-wing approach to politics. Say what you want about him but I think these are important allegations and should at least be left in as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midipedia (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reliable evidence to support these allegations of homosexuality. Even the book cited by this article offers "no direct proof." In fact, the Cardinal's private secretary (who knew him for over 15 years) called these accusations "utterly ridiculous and preposterous." The sources cited in support of this accusation are hardly reliable and do not meet the level of verifiability demanded by such exceptional claims. Rep016 00:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I edited the article to include this passage in the Later Life section of the article: "John Cooney, one of Spellman's biographers, cited four interviewees which alledged that Spellman was a homosexual; however, no direct proof has ever been brought forward to substantiate Cooney's claims . In addition, Spellmam's personal secretary of 15 years asserts that these allegations are "utterly ridiculous and preposterous." " However, user:Otto4711 has been reverting edits which offer a point of view which is not in agreement with his, (calling some: "hostile" and "homophobic".) So, who knows how long my current edit will last. I am also going to remove the "LGBT Portal" box from this discussion page. Any reason to re-add it should be discussed here before it is re-added. Thanks. CJKpi (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a portal box. It's a project banner that merely identifies this article as being of interest to the LGBT Wikiproject. When people remove information about the subject's sexuality by calling it "a load of crap", that's hostile and homophobic. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well sourced rumors, especially when there are many of them, certainly should be included per our NPOV policies. The LGBT categories, also per policy, should stay off until the subject self discloses their sexuality or are no longer living. Find a neutral way to report the information and source it; it took me less than a minute to find several books that could be used. -- Banj e  b oi   02:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Spellman's been dead for years. Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes it much easier. Compare and contrast reliable sources and present a NPOV treatment from the best as to the likely nature, Spellman never spoke about ____ but newspaper accounts reported that ____. Etc. Once sourced content is added then the categories are also included. -- Banj e  b oi   11:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While the fact that Spellman is dead makes it a bit easier re BLP, the sources are a bit tentative and have been heavily criticized for their reliabilty and accuracy. Spellman seems to fall into the "everyone knows he was gay", in which there is never any actual proof offered other than repeated rumors. I'd keep off the LGBT-related categories, unless we create new versions of Catgeory:People of the United States who are "widely known" to be LGBT. As a Cardinal in the Catholic Church, it would seem that we need strong and definitive sourcing for such claims. Alansohn (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Benjiboi - would you mind flagging up some of those alternative sources you mention; would be really helpful to see what else we have. Many thanks. As for categories I'm fairly relaxed about whether he is or isn't on the LGBT people from the US list etc. I've always regarded such lists as a way to help people navigate easily through topics they might be interested in; but I'm conscious that lists seem to touch a raw nerve in some! The LGBT project page needs to stay though as it indicates that it's of specific interest to a group. I would discount the evidence of Spellman's secretary though - I can't imagine he would do anything other than support Spellman in public. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment. Some possible sources are here, here, here, and here. -- Banj e  b oi   12:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Very helpful indeed. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I've split off the existing information into a separate section as it really makes little sense to stick it in the middle of the "later life" section. Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Good idea - looks sensible. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Alleged nickname
There was an edit that his gay friends called him "Fanny". Anything's possible, but this is highly unbelievable.

More relevant, the source cited for this claim DOES NOT say so. Therefore, I have deleted the claim. Bogus citations, whether sincerely cited or disingenuously cited, are a frequent occurrence at Wikipedia. (Bogus citations are those in which the source offered does not touch at all on the information it is invoked on behalf of, or does touch on the topic but does not say what the inserting editor claims it says.) Clearly, there are many people who make insertions into Wikipedia articles who don't bother to read the sources they cite, and there are other editors who check articles only by checking for the existence of citations without actually looking up the sources to read them and verify they substantiate the inserted material. BTW, it's within the realm of possibility that the edit originally was furnished with a valid citation, but that the good citation and the edit got separated in the course of later edits.

But that too is hardly likely. Here's another relevant truth: there is at least one published claim (I found it this week on the Web) that Spellman had friends (of some sort) who called him "Franny" (catch the 'R'). Now THAT is plausible; anybody who has grown up in areas of the northeastern USA with heavy Irish-American population knows that two fairly common nicknames for the boy's name, "Francis" are "Fran" and "Franny". Now, a person's nickname is rarely a notable fact. Generic nicknames like "Rosie", "Jen", "Bill", or "Bob" are especially nonnotable. Among Irish-Americans, "Fran" and "Franny" are generic nicknames. Dale Chock (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes agree this is suspect. I've read other articles/ books that suggest Spellman was rather nicknamed "Thelma" Spellman instead. But nicknames aren't really the thing for wikipedia - whether they're true or not. It's a bit too gossipy. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

His main biograph Robert I. Gannon says that the original name was Frank. He was given the name Francis for the priesthood? --House1630 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Ok - if you're confident then go ahead. I queried it as it sounded counter-intuitive. A strong Catholic family would I feel have named their son Francis after the saint and then called him Frank as a nickname - that sounds to me more plausible (particularly in the 1920s). But if you've got a source then go ahead and go with Frank. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rollback reintegrating later life and sexuality info
The previous version where this information was integrated read much better IMHO and I can't imagine a good article having any "alleged" subsections. I propose that the prior version be restored allowing for appropriate updating since then of content and sourcing. -- Banj e b oi   03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Friendship of Francis and Eugenio
In 1999 TIME magazine erred by choosing Albert Einstein over Eugenio Pacelli as "Person of the Century". Surely, that honor belonged to an American, not an Italian, but they were egregiously wrong.

As this is written, the Roman Church is as egregiously wrong in =denying= the beautiful, mutual love of Eugenio and his life partner, Marie Lehnert. Roosters are crowing their heads off. The friendship of Francis Spellman was founded upon his his 1927 discovery of their love. Francis gladly acted as their "beard" during the summer of 1930, when he checked out a Vatican touring machine and drove the three of them willy nilly, back and forth through the Alps for nearly two months. They sang and laughed and played and taught each other languages. Spelly could not help loving the pair of them. When Marie was left in Berlin, the men drove to Rome in silence, looking out windows with damp eyes.

Francis soon approached Pope Pius XI and said that his difficult work at the Vatican was showing need of an assistant. "Who would that be?" asked the pope. "Well, in Berlin I met a nun who is multi-talented and multilingual and energetic---. "And her name would be?" "She is called Sister Pascalina," Francis answered. "And you can't get along without her, I suppose." "No," answered Spellman in Italian with a Boston accent. "Well, I will order her transferred to the Vatican to help you in your work," Pius XI said, grinning from ear to ear. And so did Eugenio Pacelli learn about friendship. Francis had to resist putting a bow on her.

Eugenio Pacelli and Francis Spellman were complimentary geniuses. Spelly understood that, when the USA emerged from The Great War, it came home with a prize it never wanted: World Protector of the Christian Faith. Iberia and France and Europe had dropped the baton. This was a tough insight for Cardinal Pacelli who, nose to the floor and arms outspread, had committed his whole being to the annihilation of Communism and Soviet Russia. Apparently, the key to achieving his goal was a nation of Protestant bumpkins. Now what?

This is why, from 1930 on, the friendship of the two men (and Pascalina) is one of the most important in American history (and world history). In 1930 Eugenio already knew he was going to be the next pope. He had a long time to plan the salvation of the planet and the defeat of the anti-Christ. Never forget, as nuncio to Munich, Pacelli had met Adolph Hitler and made the first of many cash contributions to his anti-Bolshevik "cause".

Pacelli had the vision; Spelly had the ability to see the possible roles for the USA. Plan "A" failed on 19 November 1942 when Soviet forces turned the tide and began pushing the invaders back to Germany. Plan "B" was to get the US to accept surrender of Germany and join in the destruction of the Soviet Union. Plan "C" is what we called the Cold War. In each case, Francis Spellman was the real Military Vicar of Christ. Spelly worked for his dear friend's goals from 1958, when Pacelli died, to his own death in 1967. He pushed us to save the Asian Catholic remanant from 400 nearly wasted years of mission.

Pacem in terris. --Ed Chilton

 *  In 1999 TIME magazine erred by choosing Albert Einstein over Eugenio Pacelli as "Person of the Century". Surely, that honor belonged to an American, not an Italian, but they were egregiously wrong.

 * What American would that be ? There were millions of them in the 20th century, but I can't think of one who will be remembered in 500 years.

Claverhouse (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Shannon
Are we clear that the Shannon review explicitly states that Cooney "does not actually include any first-hand testimony describing such alleged liaisons, in either the original proofs, or in the published edition"? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 * To revert to "personal POV-pushing" claims so early on is rather lazy, but never mind. My question still stands. The added text says "The Cooney biography does not actually include any first-hand testimony describing such alleged liaisons, in either the original proofs, or (as noted above) in the published editiom". Could you please confirm that the New York Times review actually says "there is no first hand testimony in the proofs" etc. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality vs Homosexual Rumors
Please stop what is becoming an edit war over a subsection title, and discuss it here before the article get locked down in the wrong version. — Becksguy (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This section has been marked for deletion. It's slanderous. 108.23.216.206 (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Unless you have a specific legal action in mind then no it is not slanderous. We must simply ensure that it complies with wikipedia guidance on biographies and sources. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I have taken him off the LGBT categories though as he looks to have been added by an anon and I think we're not supposed to categorize people into groups unless it's agreed they fit. Looking him up there are Catholic sites that agree he was homosexual, but if he didn't self-identify and it's not confirmed I think we're to avoid categorizing people as Gay or Republican or Agnostic or whatever. He could still fit the LGBT project as the linkage of him as such does look to be historically significant, and more than I might have though, so I won't do anything on that.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed some more egregious violations of WP:NPOV that wouldn't fly in a WP:BLP and they won't fly here, considering the sources and quality of information therein. Elizium23 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Great to see you on this article too Elizium! What a coincidence. None of what was there violated NPOV. If you think it does then take the argument specifically to a administrator board to get advice. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate for administrators to intervene in such a content dispute. I have opened an RFC as outlined in the WP:DR policy. Elizium23 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
I have renewed the neutrality dispute and tagged in specific the section in question, I would like to discuss whether such elements as: lack of "allegation" in the title; lack of "no direct proof" statement; the unsourced adjective "unequivocally" to editorialize on the statement placed after it; presence of unsourced "unable to provide evidence" statement, are violations of the NPOV policy.
 * Question before the RFC: What can be done to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy in this section? Elizium23 (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try discussing it before you go directly to an RF? 3 comments on a decades old thread doesn't really warrant an RFC.--Adam in MO Talk 05:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it does. Given the history of this editor I have taken the step directly to WP:DR without waiting for the inevitable edit war first. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Given the history of this editor". I have never been censured or blocked from editing so either clarify what you mean here or withdraw the accusation. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a behavioral issue then that should be addressed at ANI. You should AGF and attempt to have a conversation before the RFC.--Adam in MO Talk 05:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Elizium23 (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds awfully damn suspicious that you'd show up to an article that was edited three years ago by someone you've had a dispute with and immediately start a content dispute. Your proposal isn't even cogently worded. I think the status quo before you contentiously started this RFC it was fine. If you have an alternate proposed wording please post it and stop following people and hounding their edits. --Adam in MO Talk 18:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not suspicious at all - he's trailing me. It's embarrassing. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Beg your pardon? I've been at this article for five years ever since I reverted some IP vandalism. Contaldo has been protecting his preferred version of the article for eight years. I am sorry if you do not understand my proposal, I think the salient points are utterly clear about what I object to. See the proposed edit I made if you can't understand what I am talking about. This article has been under NPOV dispute since July 2015 but the problem has existed ever since Contaldo80 touched it. By all accounts, I am 8 years overdue to solve this through civil and collegial dispute resolution rather than edit-warring. I did not "contentiously start" anything, I am trying to end this once and for all. Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can anyone advise me how I make a complaint about Elizium23 hounding me? He follows me around from article to article - amending or removing edits. He went to my talk page to make an offensive point about wanting "god to bless me". I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable. I have a suspicion that he's a priest - he won't deny it and I think it's inappropriate to edit sensitive articles such as this without declaring an interest. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Francis Spellman. 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/20090312092417/http://www.spellman.com/s/190/cardinalspellman.aspx?sid=190&gid=1&pgid=882 to http://www.spellman.com/s/190/cardinalspellman.aspx?sid=190&gid=1&pgid=882
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121212005739/http://web.bu.edu/com/co201mag/contest/s04/rebelwithacause.htm to http://web.bu.edu/com/co201mag/contest/s04/rebelwithacause.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=14219

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) 12:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorted in LGBT cats

 * Category:LGBT Roman Catholic clergy
 * Category:LGBT Roman Catholic bishops
 * Category:LGBT Roman Catholic cardinals

 * Advocate.con: 21 Gay Popes, Cardinals, and Assorted Catholic Leaders, By Jacob Ogle

Spellman was a LGBT Roman Catholic cardinal. That should be sorted in categories. --

title: Talk:Francis Spellman


text:
Alfred Shaw

Alfred Shaw (29 August 1842 – 16 January 1907) was a Victorian cricketer and rugby footballer, who bowled the first ball in Test cricket and was the first to take five wickets in a Test innings (5/35). He made two trips to North America and four to Australia, captaining the English cricket team in four Test matches on the all-professional tour of Australia in 1881/82, where his side lost and drew two each. He was also, along with James Lillywhite and Arthur Shrewsbury, co-promoter of the tour. He also organised the first British Isles rugby tour to Australasia in 1888.

Career
Shaw was one of the few cricketers of his time whose Christian name was used more frequently than his initials. Standing only 5'6½" tall, he put on copious weight near the end of his career, when his naturally corpulent build was dramatically accentuated. It is unfortunate, therefore, that most photographs of him were taken so late in his cricketing life. A man of droopy aspect, bushed eyes, some classically Victorian facial hair and a belt nearer his breast than his substantial waist, he did not look the part of the era's finest medium-pacer, but there were few who questioned his credentials.

Shaw's first-class career extended from 1864 to 1897, and most of his matches were for Nottinghamshire. He had the unusual distinction for a professional of frequently captaining that county, and this was vindicated when he took Notts to four successive Championships from 1883 to 1886. He was a natural leader with a powerful persona, but his connection with Notts all but ended after that last triumph. As his team-mates observed, the county's team went into rapid decline upon his departure.

Sometime during Shaw's early career, he suggested that the creases should be made by whitewash and this was gradually adopted through the 1870s. The origin of creases is uncertain, but they were in use at the beginning of the 18th century when they were created by scratching, the popping crease being 46 inches in front of the wicket at each end of the pitch. In the course of time, the scratches became cuts which were an inch deep and an inch wide. The cut was in use until the second half of the 19th century when whitewashing replaced it.

A fervent champion of the professional cricketer's rights, Shaw did a lot of work in support of his contemporaries. He declined to tour with WG Grace in 1873/74 because the professionals in the squad were to be afforded only second-class facilities. In 1881, he led a strike of Notts professionals, demanding a formal contract of employment to guarantee an automatic benefit at the end of an agreed playing period. The high-handed Nottinghamshire committee thought this absolute anarchy and, apparently justified in its feeling that an amateur skipper was the way to go, dropped every member of the offending faction from the side. There was eventually a reconciliation, however, and Shaw took on the captaincy once more.

He was a remarkably accurate bowler, sending down more overs than he conceded runs in his entire career. A maiden over was more easily bowled then than it is now, as it comprised only four deliveries, but Shaw's unparalleled consistency in this regard scarcely dropped off when the five-ball over was launched in 1889. Nearly two-thirds of all the overs that he bowled were runless.

Although he might by today's terms be called a seamer, back then Shaw was fundamentally a length bowler, holding a line on or just outside the off-stump: certainly, he often employed the off-theory, with as many as eight fielders patrolling the offside. His run-up was made up of six rapid, economical steps, but, according to the man himself, "I really used to bowl faster than people thought I did, and I could make the ball break both ways, but not much. In my opinion, length and variation of pace constitute the secret of successful bowling." However, although he was regarded almost universally as "the high priest of length", he and Ted Peate together poured scorn all over suggestions that they were capable of "hitting the spot" with nearly every delivery (as was the common perception).

Shaw's first-class bowling average is, by a quite substantial margin, the lowest of any bowler to have taken 2,000 or more wickets, but must be remembered that the pitches of the nineteenth century (particularly those at the start of his career) were far more bowler-friendly than they later became and are today. Still, this did not stop WG Grace from asserting that, between 1870 and 1880, Shaw was "perhaps the best bowler in England". Certainly, he was supreme among slow bowlers.

For many years he was on the MCC groundstaff. In 1874, he took all ten wickets for the club in a first-class innings. In 1875 (against the MCC this time), he returned bowling figures of seven for seven off 41.2 overs, 36 of them maidens.

At the end of that 1876 season, Shaw went to Australia with James Lillywhite Junior's side. He is famous for having bowled the first-ever delivery in Test Match cricket (unscored off, of course) to Charles Bannerman, who went on to score 165. On his debut, he took five wickets in the second innings. As a batsman, he became the first Test cricketer to be stumped; this was achieved by Jack Blackham off the bowling of Tom Kendall. Shaw played in seven of the first eight Test Matches, missing out in 1882 because, according to a 1902 interview with Allan Steel, "he was not bowling quite at his best". Some, though, felt that his presence in the side that year might have turned the tide England's way and ruled out the birth of The Ashes. As it was, he never played another Test Match and thus finished his career at the highest level with twelve wickets at an uncharacteristically large average of 23.75.

Shaw helped fellow cricketers Andrew Stoddart and Arthur Shrewsbury to organise what became recognised as the first British Lions rugby union tour of Australia and New Zealand 1888/89. The team played 55 matches, winning 27 of 35 rugby union games and 6 out of 18 matches played under Australian rules.

After Shaw's first retirement, he became a renowned umpire, but perhaps his greatest playing achievements were still ahead of him. Along with his cricketing engagements under cricket-mad Arthur Stanley, 5th Baron Sheffield, he was employed to coach young Sussex cricketers, working part-time as a cricket coach at Ardingly College. It did not go unnoticed that Shaw was still far better than most of the county's regular bowlers, thus, at the age of 52, Shaw returned to county cricket.

In 1894, he bowled 422 overs for his new county, conceding just 516 runs and capturing 41 wickets. The following year, at Trent Bridge (when it was so cold that KS Ranjitsinhji kept his hands in his pockets and fielded the ball with his feet), Shaw bowled 100.1 five-ball overs as his former team accrued a gargantuan 726. He finally retired again two matches later, when Sussex drew against Middlesex, and only ever returned to the first-class scene in 1897 to play the Gentlemen of Philadelphia. He subsequently became a publican and died aged 64.

title: Alfred Shaw


text:
Talk:Revisionist Zionism

follow up discrepancies
when following the links to some individuals mentioned in this article you will notice the extreme discrepancy in the pictures drawn about the characters in their own wiki. for example Aryeh Levin or Uri Zvi Greenberg... e.g. Aryeh Levin wiki is litteraly praising him for his "exemplary character traits":

"Reb Aryeh was known for his sublime character traits of "humility, kindness, and respect for all." "Reb Aryeh was humble toward everyone. He treated everyone he met with love, respect, and dignity."[6] "He saw only the good in human beings, even those for whom others rarely had a kind word."[7] "Reb Aryeh Levin was perpetually involved with deeds of charity and helping the poor."[8] " "Reb Aryeh fulfilled the Talmudic law that "One must love his wife like himself, and honor and respect her more than himself." Once Rabbi Aryeh Levin’s wife felt pain in her foot. They went to the doctor together whereupon the doctor asked, "What can I do for you?" Rabbi Levin answered in all sincerity, "Doctor my wife’s foot is hurting us.""

this seems to be in contrast with his encouragement of selfdescribed facists?

further it seems there there are edit wars going on in favour of erasing any link to revisionist zionism, e.g. see the talk page of Uri_Zvi_Greenberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.13.19 (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

maybe someone is able to make a more visible connection to Lehi and revisionist zionist history in those wikis.

Kach
I just went through this doing a general copy edit and came across "However, the left-wing part of Kach also claimed to be the inheritors of Revisionist Zionism—" This may be my ignorance, but "left-wing part of Kach" sounds to me like "the Jewish part of the Russian imperial family". Was there a "left-wing part of Kach"? Who would that have been? What did they stand for? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

They stood for basically the Herut and Baruch Marzel

This needs a source. --Zero 08:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * There is not enough at Baruch Marzel to give me a clue what this means politically. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The Kach movement is not related to Revisionist Zionism, but to national religous messianism. Guy Montag 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism (disambiguation)
Inserted main heading above. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"*Revisionist Zionism, a movement that argues the terms of the British Mandate in Palestine."
Is that correct? That's what the Disambiguation page says at Revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism (Zionism)

 * Reference: A History of the Jewish People, ed. by H. H. Ben-Sasson (Harvard University Press, 1969, 1976) "Revisionsts", p. 1159. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Historians call participants of this "movement" Revisionists. That's the point. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The current article name is either WP:Original research or WP:Neologism. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * From the article: In 1925, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance How can "Revisionist Zionism" be either original research or a neologism? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 * See also, A History of the Jews (1987, 1988), Index'',, by Paul Johnson, p. 641. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Paul Johnson, in said text, on said page, has this: "Revisionists (Union of Zionist-Revisionists, later, "Likkud"'''. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Revisionism (Zionism)"
Ludvikus has suggested renaming this article "Revisionism (Zionism)". I think this is inappropriate.

There is a Zionist movement called Revisionist Zionism. In a general context, I don't think anybody uses the word Revisionism by itself when they refer to Revisionist Zionism. (In a specifically Zionist context, one might speak of Revisionism or Revisionist but this is a shorthand, just as one might speak of Labor to mean Labor Zionism.) I don't think there's any chance that somebody who comes to Wikipedia looking for information about Revisionist Zionism will type Revisionism and expect to find an article about Revisionist Zionism — but per Naming conventions (precision) and Disambiguation, this is the only reason one might name an article "Revisionism (Zionism)". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC) - The above defines the issue(s) well, I think. Please give your view/vote below with a brief comment, beginning with either *Move, or Keep: --Ludvikus (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * From the article: In 1925, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance How can "Revisionist Zionism" be either original research or a neologism? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting

 * Keep. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Move, for the reason(s) I've given above. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Malik Shabazz is absolutely correct about the usage he states. It is used by the Jewish Virtual Library and is as well a subtitle of at least one book. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose, therefore that we have a REDIRECT to Shabazz's title. As one reads the Index of the scholarly work I cited above one will NOT find a reference to "Revisionist Zionism." And I maintain that it is a term of disparagement to them. Revisitionist Zionists would maintain that they are insulted thereby, and claim that they are the true Zionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In 1925, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance How can Revisionist Zionism be a term of disparagement? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the way to seek guidance on the choice(s) is to look at the uses by the scholarly sources on Zionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Revisionist movement is the Only expression given for it in Melvin I. Urofsky's American Zionist Movement (1975, 1995), Index, p. 533. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Malik. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Malik. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Hertz1888 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism, briefly Revisionists, also Union of Zionist-Revisionists, later Likud
That's a summary of my point. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to participate in an Edit War
One, single, editor persist in Reverting all my work. I will therefore, reproduce here, for archival purposes, what I hold to be the better opening (--Ludvikus (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)):
 * Revisionist Zionism, briefly Revisionists, also Union of Zionist-Revisionists, later Likud --Ludvikus (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Your work is being reverted because it's just plain wrong. Revisionist Zionism is a philosophy and political movement. Revisionists are people who espouse Revisionist Zionism. The Union of Zionist-Revisionists was an organization of Revisionists. Likud is a political party that supports (or once supported) the principles of Revisionist Zionism. Four different animals: philosophy/movement, people, organization, political party. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. OK. Then why don't you Disambiguate? If I'm wrong, it's your fault. You've completely ignored my repeated requests for it. Perhaps you do not know what WP:DAB is? If you knew it, or did it, we would not be in this predicament. Answer me about Disambiguation, please. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does Wikipedia need a disambiguation page? There isn't any confusion between the articles about Revisionist Zionism, the Union of Zionist-Revisionists, and Likud. Nobody is likely to type one phrase when they meant to type the other. Perhaps you should read WP:DAB to make sure you understand the purpose of a disambiguation page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We're getting somewhere, brother. I've just inserted your exact word above into Revisionism, which is a DAB page. Know please go there and WP:cleanup after me]], consistent with your distinctions. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism
The issue now is essentially the above WP:DAB page. Let's stick to the issue & reach a consensus. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I deleted links to two articles that aren't likely to be confused with revisionism. Please read WP:DAB and try to understand why I deleted the them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's contrary to your own explanation of what these are. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you are unware that this page is also a Wiktionary page. Therefore, according to your own explanation, these belong there. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I never said that anybody would confuse Likud with Revisionist Zionism, so please don't put words in my mouth. And a Wikipedia disambiguation page is not a Wiktionary page. The Wikipedia page merely has a link to the definition of "revisionism" in Wiktionary. In any event, what does Wiktionary have to do with anything?
 * Please read WP:DAB and try to understand that guideline. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I understand you. However, look carefully at the page - a page You edited - you yourself left it as a Wiktionary. It is at present a Wiktionary page!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll study your points more carefully. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Zionism (revisionist)
I now think the above is best. I think it conforms best to the usage, ordinary and scholarly, and it better distinguishes from what I believe are two WP:Neologisms remaining at Wikipedia, namely: Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism), which I think are (the latter) effectively covers for Historical Revisionism, Negationism and their subcategory, Holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Open discussion
Please express your views below. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC) "Over the years Israel has moved relentlessly towards the political right,    towards an interpretation of Zionism known as Revisionism."
 * Move appears appropriate. Jabotinsky first organized the Union of Zionist Revisionists, and in consequence thereof Zionists commenced calling one another revisionists. There is this usage:
 * My concern is to WP:Disambiguate it clearly from all forms of Historical Revisionism, an anathema to the Jewish people who have nothing to do with the latter. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I want Wikipedia to say that within Zionism there is Revisionism, and not that within Revisionism there is Zionism. (as the current title does). --Ludvikus (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Historical Revisionism" says that within Revisionism there is the historical kind. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Support for Move (1):
 * The Jews of China - Google Books Result
 * by Jonathan Goldstein - 1999 - Jews
 * D.2 Zionism and Zionist-Revisionism in Shanghai, 1937-1949 Pan Guang
 * To understand Zionism in Shanghai after 1937 it is essential to discuss the origins and ...
 * [books.google.com/books?isbn=0765601036]...
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

-
 * Support for Move (2):
 * Vladimir Jabotinsky -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
 * Zionist leader, journalist, orator, and man of letters
 * who founded the militant Zionist Revisionist movement that played an important role in the ...
 * [www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/298639/Vladimir-Jabotinsky]
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

-
 * Support for Move (3):
 * Vladimir Jabotinsky
 * 3, 1940, near Hunter, NY, U.S.), Zionist leader, journalist, orator, and man of letters
 * who founded the militant Zionist Revisionist movement that played an ...
 * [www.odessit.com/namegal/english/jabotins.htm] - 4k
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

-
 * Support for Move (4):
 * [PDF]
 * THE ANTI-ZIONIST CAMPAIGN IN POLAND 1967–1968 [*] Dariusz Stola
 * File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
 * The campaign not only separated the masses from potential leaders
 * but channelled a part. of popular frustration:
 * against ‘Zionist-revisionist’ scapegoats. ...
 * [web.ceu.hu/jewishstudies/pdf/02_stola.pdf] - Similar pages
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

-
 * Support for Move (5):
 * Lenni Brenner: Holocaust History, Beyond the UN's Rhetoric
 * Sharon was born into a family of supporters of
 * Vladimir (Zeev) Jabotinsky and his Zionist Revisionist movement.
 * When Sharon became a teenager, he abandoned ...
 * [www.counterpunch.org/brenner01292005.html] - 82k - Cached - Similar pages
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

-
 * Oppose for move (2):
 * My Jewish Learning: Ze'ev Jabotinsky: Leader of Revisionist Zionism
 * Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Revisionist Zionism. Origins of Zionism.
 * Jewish History from 1650 - 1914. Modern Jewish History. Jewish History and Community.
 * [www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Modern/Overview_The_Story_17001914/Zionism/Jabotinsky.htm] - 22k -
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What on earth?
What on earth is happening here? This is the worst structured talk page I have ever seen. Is it a requested move or an argument about the disambiguation page? Regardless, the article is at the correct location (Revisionist Zionism), no question. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bear with me, please. I'm trying to gather evidence as to what the correct name of the article should be. The article is about a movement within Zionism. And it turns out that Jabotinsky had formed "official" organizations from which the movement's name derives. I'm gathering evidence that the name we've got now for the article is a WP:neologism. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Number 57. Article is in the right place, the way Marxist feminism, for example, should not be moved to "Feminism (Marxist)". -- Nudve (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In 1925, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance Revisionist Zionism is not a neologism, nor is it original research. You've been trying to make this argument for several days. Now you're just being disruptive. Please stop. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Why are we having this discussion for the third time? See . — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at #5 above, you see the following: Zionist revisionist movement. I don't think we should invent names to suit Wikipedia when a proper name or common name exists. In our case, the original name derives at least from the American union which Jabotinsky formed, namely: the Union of Zionist-Revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Malik, Nudve and No. 57. It's time to leave it be.  Revisionist Zionism is the name it's known by, more than any other. There is none more appropriate. Please stop wasting other editors' time. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "PS" comment, User:Malik Shabazz, immediately above, is out of sequence. Please give me a moment, and I shall respond to it appropriately. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides me and you, User:Malik Shabazz, the only other active editor on this talk page was User:Boodlesthecat. And he has so far said nothing. It appears to me that your opinions are different than mine - from that it does not follow that the expression of mine here are "disruptive." As to your more specific point, I'm now proposing a different name than I did before. Futhermore, I feel I need to say that, no Wikipedia is the private turf of anyone, and it's my experience that Wikipedia's articles are constantly getting better as time moves forward. And no one, or two, editors can dictate to a third what he or she must do. Now lets get back to the issue at hand:

 * As I've indicate above, it would appear that Zionist revisionist movement is the best tile for our article. I wish to direct you all to the Archives which support this name as most appropriate as well. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludvikus, stop it already before your endless disruptions get you blocked. OK, I said something. Happy? And yet again, stop using bullets on talk pages. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludvikus, this is the second time you have moved this article against consensus. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What consensus. You were away. And it was just me and him. It appear there are only two editers talking to each other lately. Where did you come from? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the best title, because it is not necessarily a movement - it's an opinion, a way of thinking. Please do not move it again. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 * "What consensus"?!? The three editors beside me and Boodles who said to leave the article where it is during the two hours before you unilaterally decided to move the page. That's the consensus. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly ZIONIST-REVISIONIST MOVEMENT is the correct title. Reasonable editors please help out a fellow NPOV champion against this politically motivated hatchet job. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, not it isn't. See the Jewish Virtual Library article or Zionism-Israel. If anything is an expert source on Judaism/Zionism, I'd say they are. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You cite good source. And these are important. However, I think the problem is that the article is sloppy about what it is about. You should not confuse Likud with Jabotinsky's original organization, of which the latter is a successor. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, although the JVL is a wonderful organization, and does good things, it it is not a primary scholarly source - like a pear reviewed journal. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, Antisemites who propgagate the Protocols of Zion invented the idea that the so-called "Elders of Zion" were the participants in the First Zionist Congress. In order to show the ridiculousness of this view I contacted by email the JVL, and they told me that they didn't know - that I should go to the archives of the American Jewish Committee. So although the JVL is a great source of useful leads, it is ultimately an advocacy group. The place to go is to the historical journals which, by subscription, are available to anyone who pays. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice further what the JVL makes reference to: Revisionist Zionist Alliance - who are they, why do we have no reference to them, and did the JVL get it wrong? Look at the I've recently created: Union of Zionist-Revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Ludvikus, stop it. You troll through Google trying to find quotes to support your moves after you make them ("Bear with me, please. I'm trying to gather evidence..." you say above), but you apparently have zero comprehension or knowledge of the subjects you are googling. Stop it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving old messages
I just archived all threads that haven't had any responses since 2006. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisiontists
I own (and am holding in my hands right now a scholarly reference work, an anthology):
 * A History of the Jewish People '''
 * ed. by H. H. Ben-Sasson
 * [authors]:
 * A. Malamat
 * H. Tadmor
 * M. Stern
 * S. Safri
 * H. H. Ben-sasson
 * S. Ettinger
 * (Tel Aviv: Dviir Publishing House, c1969)
 * (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976)
 * If you turn to its "Index", pp. 1159, you'll only find "Revisionists" - there is no such thing listed in it such as we have: Revisionist Zionism. I submit, therefore, that it is either a neologism, or a term of more recent vintage which designates something else. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm starting to think that you don't know what a neologism is. How can a phrase used more than 80 years ago by the man who established Revisionist Zionism be considered a neologism? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Do you realize that this is the fourth time you've written that Revisionist Zionism is a neologism, and you have yet to respond to the fact that Jabotinsky used the phrase as early as 1925. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm glad we're talking. But I think you din't here me. I'm trying to tell you that until at least 1976 scholar Abraham Malamat used the term Revisionists to designate the followers of Jabotinsky. And that in his index he has no listing that is the same as the article here: Revisionist Zionism. In other words, until 1976 at least (when the book was translated), in the English language (in the USA) these people were known as "revisionists." OK? (just got your PS, will answer later your PS) --Ludvikus (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 * First, Ludvikus, you're cherry-picking your sources. Second, it doesn't much matter what a history of the Jewish people says. In 3000-4000 years of Jewish history, how many pages do the Revisionist Zionists get? One? One-half? A better source would be a history of Zionism, a book about Revisionist Zionism, or a biography of a key Revisionist Zionist. In any event, you still haven't responded to the fact that the founder of the movement used the name Revisionist Zionist in 1925. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me exact references so I know what your talking about. Just give me two things: (1) The exact title of the book you are talking about, and (2) the page number. Otherwise I do not know what you are talking about - and it becomes impossible to avoid disruptiveness. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS (example): I'm right now holding in my hand a book I own. American Zionism, by Melvin I. Urofsky (1975, 1995), ISBN 0-8032-9559-6 - and as I turn to the Index, page 533, the only thing I find listed is "Revisionist movement." How do you account for that? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Are you both really quarelling about the use of the expression "Revisionist Zionism" ???
 * If you don't know the topic, you should avoid working on this article.
 * Here are hundreds Ceedjee (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, good observation. However, (1) look at the dates? And (2) open these books and read them. Surfing on the Internet with Google is no substitute forv reading the books you find. (3) Nevertheless, your own reference show that this expression is of recent vintage. And I think that's an exremely important fact. Also, I will put your insults aside, but ask you to adopt a more civil tone of voice consistent with Wiki Policy. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * funny.
 * you have your answer. We are in 2008 and in 2008, historians are talking about Revisionist Zionism.
 * Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no "debate" except in Ludvikus' mind. According to the article, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance in 1925. So the term has been Revisionist Zionism from the beginning. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because "I'm talking to the wall." Reading Melvin I. Urofsky's American Zionism (1975, 1995), p. 357 has no "Revisionist Zionism." Rather, Urofsky discusses "Revisionists" and immediately introduces a footnote with a star ("*"). He discusses in that context the Revisionist party as follows:

"*The Revisionist party had been founded in 1925 bt Vladimir Jabotinsky    to fight for a revision of the Zionist Executive's conciliatory attitude     toward great Britain's whittling down of the Balfour promise,     and to urge greater effort in the settling of Palestine."
 * Urofsky, an authority on Zionism, makes no mention of the "Revisionist Zionist Alliance, and, I might add, neither does Wikipedia."
 * The Jewish Virtual Library does. Is that your source for it?
 * But another source I own, History of the Jewish People, says that in 1925 Jabotinsky had set up the Federation of Revisionist Zionists, which proclaimed its aspiration to return to the 'original Herzlian policy', .... --Ludvikus (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another book I own, A People Apart, by David Vital, p. 994, has Zionist Revisionist Movement. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Ludvikus, why don't you write to the publishers of this book and tell them Revisionist Zionism doesnt exist. Let us know what they say. And this book. And this one. And this one. And this one. And stop cluttering the talk page with this foolishness. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That's not a good idea (to write to them). However, your list of books above is excellent. For that you get some points in favor of a WP:Barnstar. Give me a moment to ponder the complex situation: (1) You gave me a list of 5 books, but I've only had a chance to handle the first one, a 2005, but I think we are lucky, this first 2005 book may be enough to solve our dilemma. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Revisionist Zionism is a subject classification scheme used by the Library of Congress. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The first book I open this morning : Sachar, Howard, ''A History of Israel. From the Rise of Zionism to our Time'', Knopf, 3rd édition, 2007, (formely published 1976 and 1996) ISBN 9780375711329 has in the index p.1253 an entry for "Revisionist Zionism" with 15 differents references. The second book I open : Laqueur, Walter, A History of Zionism, Schocken Books, 2003 (formely published 1972), ISBN 0850211497 refers in the index p.634 to "Revisionists". p.350, he refers to a book written by Vladimir Jabotinsky in the 1920's (around 1926?) and titled : ''"Was wollen die Zionisten-Revisionisten ?". Ceedjee (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's very helpful. I have an idea. Hangon a moment. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) "Eran Kaplan is assistant professor of Judaic studies at the University of Cincinnati." He's the author of the 1st book of the 5 given above. That too is very helpful. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still there : Amazon also refers to this book : and states it was indeed published in 1926. Ceedjee (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to the first book (this German language one requires translation, etc.). I think we should deal with the 1st book: The Jewish radical right: Revisionist Zionism and its ideological legacy. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Ludvikus, you are gravely mistaken when you refer to "our dilemma". The only dilemma here is yours. Nobody else is questioning the name of the article. Nobody. Only you. It's your dilemma, not ours. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * (1) I'm going to email the Library of Congress to learn when they came up with this Subject classification scheme (they're quite responsive). I agree that there "extists" the label "Revisionist Zionism." But it only started being used in the last few decades. The older scholars did not use it. I think that's an important fact. Now look what at what Prof. Kaplan introduces The Jewish Radical Right. So are the tw0 phenomena one? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (2) How come the older scholars didn't use that expression, Shabazz? And is it a label for the "Jewish Radical Right"? according to Prof. Kaplan's book title? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (3) Is Jabotinsky a member of the "Jewish Radical Right"? All the scholars on Zionism say that he wanted a state, whereas Brandeis maintained otherwise. So what are these books telling us about that? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was used the first time in 1926, by the founder of the Revisionit Zionist Movement.
 * At the lattest, scholars used this in 1976, ie 32 years ago (and Howard Sachar is not just a scholar, he is one of the major reference)
 * Would you mind defening : recently, primary source, and reliable secondary source ?
 * Ceedjee (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Ludvikus, why don't you e-mail whomever you'd like and research whatever issues you have. In the meantime, your incessant questions on this page are disruptive. First you tried to argue that "Revisionist Zionism" is WP:OR or a neologism. Now you acknowledge that it exists, but you will only concede that it is a few decades old. As I pointed out 4-1/2 days ago, Jabotinsky used the term in 1925. The phrase has been used to refer to this philosophy from the beginning. You still have not addressed this fact; you prefer to muddy the water with other issues like the Jewish Radical Right.
 * Please do all the research you'd like. But please stop posting status updates every 10 or 15 minutes as you have been doing for the past 5 days. As I wrote, this is extremely disruptive. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As another editor wrote earlier, if you have to ask basic questions about what Revisionist Zionism is, maybe you shouldn't be editing this article or trying to rename it. This isn't a forum to educate Ludvikus about Revisionist Zionism. Please conduct your research in a quiet corner of the library, not on this Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very provocative of you, and insulting to the memory of the great Malcolm X. If you don't cut it out, I'm going to ask you to change your name on Wikipedia because of all your provocations. Just give us an exact quote of such usage in the past. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I won't give you anything. There is a solid consensus to leave this article where it is, a consensus you have twice violated by moving it. Since you wish to rename the article, it is your responsibility to convince other editors of the validity of your point of view. It is not our responsibility to educate you, provide you with references, quotes, books, or anything else. Stop this madness or I will go back to WP:ANI and ask to have you blocked. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Again you are insulting. Please stop right now. I'm having a productive discussion with two other editors, including Bootles-the-cat who supplied us with five titles, and the other editor whose name I do not remember, and you come in with disruptions. You use the inappropriate word "madness" and you threaten to report me. Now cut it out already. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Palestine Post, April 16, 1933, titles an article : Split among the Revisionist Zionists.
 * The article start by "The differences of opinion between the Revisionist Zionist Executive and their charmain Mr Jabotinksy have now lead to a definite cleavage".
 * Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm sorry, User:Seejee, for not rememdering your name. I find your reference to the 1932 newspaper above extremely relevant, useful, and contributory to our discussion, so thanx for your good work. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Herut
This section needs to be expanded. Because it just dangles in the article as half a sentence there's confusion about this article. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's the following:

 * 1) Herut (Hebrew: חרות - Freedom) was the political party of the Revisionist Zionist movement in Israel.
 * 2) Herut – The National Movement, a new Herut party was created in 1998 by dissenting members of the Likud led by Michael Kleiner and Benny Begin.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I think there's a confusion or insufficient clarity respecting the movement and the party. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should Split the article into the movement and party - as they are obviously related yet distinct. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The successor of the "Revisionists" was the "Herut." These Revisionists founded the Histadrut Ovdim Leummiyim, or the Histadrut of Nationalist Workers. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, I do not think the article is clear about it's subect matter, namely, the Zionism of Jabotinsky, a major other voice in the Zionist movement, and the subsequant party politics, particularly when Menachem Begin assumed political office. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Summary: for these reasons I think we should distinguish between the two major versions of Zionism on the one hand, and Israeli party politics on the other. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

map
Egypt is misspelled on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.24.179 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Union of Army Veterans
Content is lacking on "Berit ha-Hayyal" (Hebrew: Union of Army Veterans), a Revisionist organization in Europe and Mandate Palestine of the 1920s and '30s. See Encyclopedia Judaica 14:129. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Zionism and the Roads Not Taken 1880-1948
— Assignment last updated by Bane117 (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Does it still exist?
I find the article a bit confusing in the lack of established clarity on whether revisionist Zionism continues to exist, or whether it was just a historically influential movement. Zanahary (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2024
Link for Histadrut Susanod (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Per MOS:DUPLINK only the first occurrence needs to be linked, and it already is. Jamedeus (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Revisionist Zionism


text:
TFC

TFC may refer to:

 * Taiwan Fertilizer Company, a company based in Taipei, Taiwan
 * Tastee Fried Chicken, a Nigerian fast-food chain
 * Tohokushinsha Film Corporation, a film distributor and production company based in Akasaka, Minato, Tokyo
 * Tanglewood Festival Chorus, the Boston Symphony's chorus since 1970
 * Team Fortress Classic, a first-person shooter video game
 * Tennessee Farmers Cooperative, an agricultural cooperative in Tennessee
 * Terrace F. Club, an eating club at Princeton university
 * The Final Cartridge III, a cartridge to freeze and save on Commodore 64 computer
 * The Final Cut (disambiguation)
 * Telford Central railway station, Shropshire, England National Rail code
 * Thin film composite membrane
 * Turner Fenton Campus, a high school in Brampton, Ontario, Canada (now renamed to Turner Fenton Secondary School)
 * The Fight Club, a Canadian promotion out of Edmonton, Alberta
 * The Filipino Channel, an international Filipino broadcasting service owned by ABS-CBN
 * Triangular fibrocartilage, an articular discus found in the wrist
 * Truist Financial, a bank based in Charlotte, North Carolina

In association football

 * Tamworth F.C.
 * Thionville FC
 * Torino F.C.
 * Toronto FC
 * Toulouse FC
 * Trafford F.C.

title: TFC


text:
List of Minnesota railroads

The following railroads operate in the U.S. state of Minnesota.

Common freight carriers

 * Airlake Terminal Railway (ALT)
 * BNSF Railway (BNSF)
 * Canadian National Railway (CN) including subsidiaries Cedar River Railroad (CEDR), Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway (DMIR), Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway (DWP), Illinois Central Railroad and Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WC)
 * Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) through subsidiaries Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad (DME) and Soo Line Railroad (SOO)
 * Cloquet Terminal Railroad (CTRR)
 * Minnesota Commercial Railway (MNNR)
 * Minnesota, Dakota and Western Railway (MDW)
 * Minnesota Northern Railroad (MNN)
 * Minnesota Prairie Line, Inc. (MPLI)
 * Northern Lines Railway (NLR)
 * Northern Plains Railroad (NPR)
 * Otter Tail Valley Railroad (OTVR)
 * Progressive Rail, Inc. (PGR)
 * Red River Valley and Western Railroad (RRVW)
 * St. Croix Valley Railroad (SCXY)
 * Twin Cities and Western Railroad (TCWR)
 * Union Pacific Railroad (UP)

Private freight carriers

 * Cliffs Erie Railroad
 * Northshore Mining
 * US Steel

Passenger carriers

 * Amtrak (AMTK)
 * Lake Superior and Mississippi Railroad
 * METRO Light Rail
 * North Shore Scenic Railroad (NSSR)
 * Northstar Line (MNRX)
 * Osceola and St. Croix Valley Railway

Defunct railroads

 * Electric
 * Duluth Street Railway
 * Duluth–Superior Traction Company
 * Fargo and Moorhead Street Railway
 * Granite City Railway
 * Interstate Traction Company
 * Lakeside Railway
 * Lyndale Railway
 * Mankato Electric Traction Company
 * Mesaba Railway
 * Minneapolis and St. Paul Suburban Railroad
 * Minneapolis and St. Paul Suburban Railway
 * Minneapolis, Anoka and Cuyuna Range Railroad (MA&C, MACR)
 * Minneapolis, Anoka and Cuyuna Range Railway (MA&C)
 * Minneapolis, Lyndale and Lake Calhoun Railway
 * Minneapolis, Lyndale and Minnetonka Railway
 * Minneapolis Street Railway
 * Park Point Traction Company
 * St. Paul City Railway
 * St. Paul Southern Electric Railway
 * Superior Rapid Transit Railway
 * Twin City Rapid Transit Company
 * Wahpeton–Breckenridge Street Railway
 * Winnoa Railway and Light Company
 * Woodland Railway

 * Private
 * Itasca Lumber Company

title: List of Minnesota railroads


text:
Anthem of the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

The State Anthem of the Kirghiz SSR was the national anthem of the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic (modern-day Kyrgyzstan). The music was composed by Vladimir Vlasov, Abdylas Maldybaev and Vladimir Fere, and the lyrics were written by Kubanychbek Malikov, Tulgebai Sydykbekov, Mukanbet Toktobaev, and Aaly Tokombaev.


text:
Talk:Goodson-Todman Productions

Untitled
Shouldn't this be Game SHow Titles? I don't see any facts other than the titles & dates of airing. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.144.56 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Goodson-Todman Productions


text:
Helen Maria Williams

Helen Maria Williams (17 June 1759 – 15 December 1827 ) was a British novelist, poet, and translator of French-language works. A religious dissenter, she was a supporter of abolitionism and of the ideals of the French Revolution; she was imprisoned in Paris during the Reign of Terror and spent much of the rest of her life in France. A controversial figure in her own time, the young Williams was favourably portrayed in a 1787 poem by William Wordsworth.

Early years and education
She was born on 17 June 1759 in London to a Scottish mother, Helen Hay, and a Welsh army officer father, Charles Williams. She had an older sister, Cecilia (baptized 1760), and an older half-sister Persis from her father's first marriage (born 1743). Her father died in December 1762 when she was two. He had previously served as Secretary for Minorca when it was a British possession, and accumulated enough personal property that his widow and daughters lived comfortably on the income from his estate and pension. They moved to Berwick-upon-Tweed. Williams later described herself as coming from a "family of women", growing up with only her mother and sisters. Williams described her upbringing in the preface to a 1786 book of poems as "a confined education."

Career
In 1781, the Williams family moved to London, where Williams met Andrew Kippis, who would have great influence on her literary career and political views and brought her into contact with the leading London intellectuals of her time.

Her 1786 Poems touch on topics ranging from religion to a critique of Spanish colonial practices. She allied herself with the cult of feminine sensibility, deploying it politically in opposition to war ("Ode on the Peace," a 1786 poem about Peru) and slavery (the abolitionist "Poem on the Bill Lately Passed for Regulating the Slave Trade," 1788).

In the context of the Revolution Controversy, she came down on the side of the revolutionaries in her 1790 novel Julia and defied convention by travelling alone to revolutionary France, where she was hosted by Mme. Du Fossé, who had earlier, in London, given her lessons in French. Her Letters Written In France marked a turn from being primarily a writer of poetry to one of prose. She enthusiastically attended the Fête de la Fédération on the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille and returning briefly to London in 1791 was a staunch, though not completely uncritical, defender of the Revolution. Returning to France in July 1791, she published a poem "A Farewell for two Years to England"; in fact she briefly visited England again in 1792, but only to persuade her mother and her sisters, Cecilia and Persis, to join her in France just as the country was moving toward the more violent phases of its revolution.

After the September Massacres of 1792, she allied herself with the Girondists; as a saloniere, she also hosted Mary Wollstonecraft, Francisco de Miranda and Thomas Paine. After the violent downfall of the Gironde and the rise of the Reign of Terror, she and her family were thrown into the Luxembourg prison where she was allowed to continue working on translations of French-language works into English, including what would prove to be a popular translation of Bernardin St. Pierre's novel Paul et Virginie, to which she appended her own prison sonnets. Upon her release, she travelled with John Hurford Stone to Switzerland. She was harshly criticised for this since Stone, separated from an unfaithful wife, was still legally a married man; the subsequent history of Williams and Stone's relationship only tended to confirm the rumours. Nonetheless, her few poems from this period continue to express Dissenting piety and were published in volumes with those of other religiously like-minded poets. In 1798, she published A Tour in Switzerland, which included an account of her travels, political commentary, and the poem "A Hymn Written Amongst the Alps." Williams' 1801 Sketches of the State of Manners and Opinions in the French Republic showed a continued attachment to the original ideals of the French Revolution but a growing disenchantment with the rise of Napoleon; as emperor, he would declare her ode "The Peace signed between the French and the English" (also known as the "Ode on the Peace of Amiens") to be treasonable to France. Nonetheless, he proved to be, in this respect, more lenient than the revolutionary government had been to this now-famous international literary figure: she spent a single day in prison and continued to live and write in Paris. After the Bourbon Restoration, she became a naturalised French citizen in 1818; nonetheless, in 1819 she moved to Amsterdam to live with a nephew she had helped raise. However, she was unhappy in Amsterdam and soon returned to Paris, where, until her death in 1827, she continued to be an important interpreter of French intellectual currents for the English-speaking world.

Selected works
Williams' works consist of poetry, novels, volumes of letters, and translations. The lines are not always clear, as she might include an original poem in the preface of another work, even in a translation of someone else's work.

Poetry

 * Edwin and Eltruda. A legendary tale, 1782, her first published work
 * An Ode on the Peace, 1783, celebrated the end of the American Revolution
 * Peru, A Poem. In Six Cantos, 1784, an epic poem that critiques European colonialism
 * Poems, 1786
 * A Poem on the Bill Lately Passed for Regulating the Slave Trade, 1788
 * A Farewell, for Two Years, To England, 1791
 * "Ode to Peace," the Morning Chronicle, 1801
 * Poems on various Subjects, 1823
 * "The Bastille, A Vision"

Novels

 * Julia, 1790

Non-fiction

 * Letters Written in France, 8 vols, 1790-–1796.
 * A Narrative of the Events Which Have Taken Place in France, from the Landing of Napoleon Bonaparte ... Till the Restoration of Louis XVIII ..., 1815.
 * Letters on Events which have passed in France since the Restoration in 1815, 1819
 * A Tour in Switzerland, 1798.

Translations

 * Paul and Virginia by Bernardin de Saint Pierre.
 * The political and confidential correspondence of Lewis XVI with observations on each letter. London and New York, 1803.
 * Williams also translated (from French to English) several works of Alexander von Humboldt, who was German but wrote in French.
 * Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of the New continent during the years 1799–1804, by Alexander de Humboldt and Aimé Bonpland; with maps, plans, etc. Longman, Hurst, Rees, etc., London 1814–1829
 * Researches concerning the institutions & monuments of the ancient inhabitants of America, with descriptions & views of some of the most striking scenes in the Cordilleras! Longman, Hurst, Rees, etc., London 1814

title: Helen Maria Williams


text:
Cozma

Cozma is a Romanian surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Miron Cozma (born 1943), Romanian labor union organizer
 * Ionela Cozma, Romanian swimmer
 * Marian Cozma (1982–2009), Romanian handball player
 * Valentina Cozma, Romanian handball player

title: Cozma


text:
Talk:Joannes Philoponus

In sum (commenting on my own piece), one could say that Philoponus anticipates a MODE OF CONCEPTUALISATION that, in adumbrating important nominalist themes in Ockham, Biel et al (the ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY AND CONTINGENCY OF THE WILL OF GOD in regard to all created existence __as well as the NON-ESSENTIALITY OF CREATED FORM), sidesteps and marginalises Aristotle and Medieval Scholasticism almost one thousand years before the main-stream began to follow on in his wake.

Also, given the influence of this strand of thought on Luther and the Calvinist divines, this is a Catholic thinker who left a legacy with strongly Protestant resonances. To a sympathetic observer, all this is praiseworthy; to others (even a feminist critic like Carolyn Merchant) it is PROTO-REIFICATION!!

Where do I Stand?!

How do Protestantism and Nominalism stand with respect to 'prehistories' of the Enlightenment? As a 'psychic Catholic' (in the same sense as when CG Jung once characterised himself as a 'Catholic Protestant'), I see Philoponus' position in the history of thought as a (relatively tenable) HEGELIAN MOMENT.

But only relatively so!!

Which Sergius does the article refers to? Melaen

title: Talk:Joannes Philoponus


text:
User:Apease

I am a computer consultant, ontologist and programmer, doing research in ontology and formal reasoning. You can access my publications and projects here.

title: User:Apease