text:
California spiny lobster

The California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) is a species of spiny lobster found in the eastern Pacific Ocean from Monterey Bay, California, to the Gulf of Tehuantepec, Mexico. It typically grows to a length of 30 cm and is a reddish-brown color with stripes along the legs, and has a pair of enlarged antennae but no claws. The interrupted grooves across the tail are characteristic for the species.

Females can carry up to 680,000 eggs, which hatch after 10 weeks into flat phyllosoma larvae. These feed on plankton before the metamorphosis into the juvenile state. Adults are nocturnal and migratory, living among rocks at depths of up to 65 m, and feeding on sea urchins, clams, mussels and worms. The spiny lobster is eaten by various fish, octopuses and sea otters, but can defend itself with a loud noise produced by its antennae. The California spiny lobster is the subject of both commercial and recreational fishery in both Mexico and the United States, with sport fishermen using hoop nets and commercial fishermen using lobster traps.

Description
In common with all spiny lobsters, the California spiny lobster has two large, spiny antennae, but no large claws on its legs. The California spiny lobster is one of the largest spiny lobster species, and grows up to 60 cm long, but does not usually exceed 30 cm. Males can weigh up to 7.4 kg., with the record being a 16 lbs., 1 oz. male caught off Catalina island in 1968. The upper side of the animal is brownish red, without the paler bands or spots seen in some other spiny lobsters. The legs are a similar color, but with one or more lighter streaks running along their length.

Males and females of all ages can be distinguished by the position of the two round genital openings or gonopores. In females, they are at the bases of the third pair of pereiopods, while in males they are at the base of the fifth (last) pereiopods, furthest from the head and the closest to the abdomen. Mature females have a small claw on the fifth pereiopod, and enlarged pleopods.

Distribution
The California spiny lobster is found in parts of the Gulf of California, and along the Pacific coast of the length of the Baja California peninsula, extending as far north as San Luis Obispo Bay, California. There are occasional records from Monterey Bay, but the water there is too cold for the California spiny lobster to breed, and it is thought that any adult found in Central California arrived as a larva during El Niño years.

California spiny lobsters live on rocky substrates, at depths of up to 65 m. Although adults can be found in shallow water, including tide pools, they are more frequent in deeper waters. Juveniles generally inhabit rocky habitats at a depth of 0 - 4 m with dense plant cover, especially the surf grass Phyllospadix torreyi.

Ecology and behavior
California spiny lobsters are nocturnal, hiding in crevices during the day, with only the tips of their long antennae showing, as a means of avoiding predators. Towards dawn, the spiny lobsters form aggregations, which they maintain until dusk. At night, they emerge and feed on sea urchins, clams, mussels and worms. This activity is important in limiting sea urchin populations, and so maintaining healthy seabed communities.

Natural predators of the California spiny lobster include bony fish such as the California sheephead, giant sea bass and cabezone, sharks including the horn shark and leopard shark, octopuses and sea otters. In response to an approaching predator, spiny lobsters including the California spiny lobster can produce a loud noise using the stick-slip phenomenon, akin to a bowed instrument. The bases of the antennae act as a plectrum, which is rubbed over a file on the edge of the antennular plate. If a predator is very close, spiny lobsters will flex their muscular tail in order to escape the predator, backwards.

There is an annual migration, in which spiny lobsters enter shallower water in spring and summer, and head out to deeper water in fall and winter, reaching depths as great as 240 ft, perhaps to avoid the effects of winter storms.

Life cycle
Female California spiny lobsters reach sexual maturity at a length of 65 - 69 mm, which is typically at an age of 5–9 years; males are sexually mature after 3–6 years. Because all the hard parts are lost at each molt, the life span of mature spiny lobsters is uncertain; they are thought to live for 50 years or more.

Spiny lobsters do not have the gonopods (first pleopods modified for reproduction) that occur in clawed lobsters and crabs, and females do not have a deep pocket on the sternum in which to store sperm. Instead, a spermatophore is transferred directly from one of the male's gonopores to the sternum of the female. The male gonopore is, however, adorned with a "penile process", which is straight and serrated, with a small "hairbrush". The sternum of mature females has three "windows" on the last three segments, which uniquely among Panulirus species, span both halves of the sternum. These windows are softer than the rest of the exoskeleton, and are thought to help the male locate the correct location to place the tar-like spermatophore.

After mating, the fertilized eggs are carried on the female's pleopods until they hatch, with between 120,000 and 680,000 carried by a single female. The eggs begin coral red, but darken as they develop to a deep maroon. When she is carrying the eggs, the female is said to be "berried". The eggs are ready to hatch after 10 weeks, and spawning takes place from May to August, The larvae that hatch (called phyllosoma larvae) do not resemble the adults. Instead, they are flat, transparent animals around 14 mm long, but as thin as a sheet of paper. The larvae feed on plankton, and grow through ten molts into ten further larval stages, the last of which is around 30 - 32 mm long. The full series of larval molts takes around 7 months, and when the last stage molts, it metamorphoses into the puerulus state, the final larval stage, still transparent. The puerulus larvae settle to the sea floor when the water is near its maximum temperature, which in Baja California is in the fall.

The diet of the juveniles is varied, but comprises mostly amphipods and isopods, together with coralline algae and the plant Phyllospadix. When available, the juveniles prefer to eat crabs.

Fishery
In his original description, John Witt Randall noted that the California spiny lobster is "used as food by the natives" of Upper California. The California spiny lobster is now the most economically important lobster on the American West Coast. Sport fishing may account for up to half the entire catch, while most of the commercial catch comes from lobster traps, with smaller amounts coming from the use of trammel nets or by trawling. The major fishing area is west of Baja California, and imports from Mexico to the United States are twice the amount produced in California.

Sport fishing in California
Recreational fishermen are allowed to catch lobsters with hoop nets or by SCUBA diving or free-diving; almost all come from California, with only small numbers from other U.S. states. The California Department of Fish and Game estimates that recreational fishers caught more than 200,000 spiny lobsters in the first half of the 2008/2009 season, amounting to around 280000 lb, compared to commercial fishermen, who caught a total of 580000 lb in the same time.

The California Department of Fish and Game sets and enforces a number of regulations pertaining to recreational fishing of spiny lobsters:
 * 1) Open season for California spiny lobster runs from the Saturday before the first Wednesday in October until the first Wednesday after March 15.
 * 2) No implements other than hoop nets may be used; no one person may have more than 5 nets and no vessel may use more than 10 hoop nets. When fishing from land, each fisherman is limited to two hoop nets.
 * 3) Lobster fishers may not land more than seven California spiny lobsters on any given day, and may not have more than seven in their possession at any time.
 * 4) Fishers must carry a lobster gauge, and any lobster smaller than the minimum landing size must be returned to the sea immediately. The minimum size is a carapace length of 3+1/4 in, measured along the midline from the rear of the eye socket between the horns, to the end of the carapace. This is equivalent to a total body length of 20 cm.
 * 5) To fish for spiny lobster south of Point Arguello, a sport fishing license with ocean enhancement stamp must be displayed or kept nearby.
 * 6) A report card for the season must be bought, filled in and returned before April 30 after the season ends.
 * 7) Commercial and recreational traps must not be interfered with.

Commercial fishing in California
The open season for commercial fishing begins on the first Wednesday in October and runs until the first Wednesday after the 15th of March. Commercial fishermen may use individually buoyed traps, but may not dive for lobsters.

For those using lobster traps, the fishing effort is greatest at the beginning of the permitted season in California, and peters out towards the end of the season, 24 weeks later. Although the fishing effort becomes better concentrated on areas with more spiny lobsters during the season, the fishing efficiency (catch per unit effort) nonetheless decreases throughout the season.

Fishing in Mexico
In Mexico, spiny lobsters are an important commercial resource, representing the fifth most valuable fishery, worth US$18 million. Three species are exploited along the Pacific coast of the Baja California peninsula, but the catch of 744 t of the California spiny lobster makes up 95%–97% of the total, with only small quantities of Panulirus inflatus and Panulirus gracilis. The fishing rights are held by 26 local co-operatives.

The main legal restrictions on fishing for California spiny lobster in Mexico are a minimum landing size of 82.5 mm, the prohibition of catching berried females, and a closed season: from February 16 to September 14, fishing for spiny lobsters is prohibited in a region which moves south along Mexico's Pacific coast during the season.

The Mexican fishery for the California spiny lobster was the first Latin American fishery to be awarded the Marine Stewardship Council's sustainable fishery ecolabel, and the species is classed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List.

Names

Panulirus interruptus is called the California spiny lobster by the Food and Agriculture Organization, but a number of other local, vernacular names exist, including California lobster, California marine crayfish, and red lobster in the United States, and langosta colorada and langosta roja in Mexico. The preferred common name of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is simply spiny lobster.

John Witt Randall described the species in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia in 1840, based on material given to him by Thomas Nuttall. The exact locality is not known, being given only as "Upper California", but the most likely sources are the places where Nuttall was most active, namely Santa Barbara and San Diego. The specific epithet interruptus refers to the grooves on the abdominal tergites, which are interrupted in this species. Although originally placed in the genus Palinurus, the California spiny lobster was later transferred to Adam White's new genus Panulirus, together with other spiny lobsters that have long flagella on their first antennae.

Related species
The closest relatives are not the other species that occur in the East Pacific, but rather Panulirus argus from the Caribbean Sea and West Pacific species such as Panulirus japonicus, Panulirus marginatus, Panulirus pascuensis, Panulirus cygnus and Panulirus longipes; this relationship has been recovered from comparative studies of adult and larval morphology, as well as from molecular phylogenetics, using the sequences from cytochrome c oxidase and 16S ribosomal RNA genes.

The California spiny lobster can be differentiated from the other species in the genus by the interrupted grooves across the abdomen; other species either lack grooves, or have grooves which span the entire body segment.

title: California spiny lobster


text:
Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas

Population figures for the Indigenous peoples of the Americas prior to European colonization have been difficult to establish. Estimates have varied widely from as low as 8 million to as many as 100 million, though many scholars gravitated toward an estimate of around 50 million by the end of the 20th century.

The monarchs of the nascent Spanish Empire decided to fund Christopher Columbus' voyage in 1492, leading to the establishment of colonies and marking the beginning of the migration of millions of Europeans and Africans to the Americas. While the population of European settlers, primarily from Spain, Portugal, France, England, and the Netherlands, along with African slaves, grew steadily, the Indigenous population plummeted. There are numerous reasons for the population decline, including exposure to Eurasian diseases such as influenza, pneumonic plagues, and smallpox; direct violence by settlers and their allies through war and forced removal; and the general disruption of societies. Scholarly disputes remain over the degree to which each factor contributed or should be emphasized; some modern scholars have categorized it as a genocide, claiming that deliberate, systematic actions by Europeans were the primary cause. Traditional scholars have disputed this characterization, maintaining that incidental disease exposure was the primary cause.

Population overview

Pre-Columbian population figures are difficult to estimate because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence. Estimates range from 8–112 million. Scholars have varied widely on the estimated size of the Indigenous populations prior to colonization and on the effects of European contact. Estimates are made by extrapolations from small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used the existing estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people. Nonetheless, more recent estimates still range widely. In 1992, Denevan suggested that the total population was approximately 53.9 million and the populations by region were, approximately, 3.8 million for the United States and Canada, 17.2 million for Mexico, 5.6 million for Central America, 3 million for the Caribbean, 15.7 million for the Andes and 8.6 million for lowland South America. A 2020 genetic study suggests that prior estimates for the pre-Columbian Caribbean population may have been at least tenfold too large. Historian David Stannard estimates that the extermination of Indigenous peoples took the lives of 100 million people: "...the total extermination of many American Indian peoples and the near-extermination of others, in numbers that eventually totaled close to 100,000,000." A 2019 study estimates the pre-Columbian Indigenous population contained more than 60 million people, but dropped to 6 million by 1600, based on a drop in atmospheric during that period. Other studies have disputed this conclusion.

The Indigenous population of the Americas in 1492 was not necessarily at a high point and may actually have already been in decline in some areas. Indigenous populations in most areas of the Americas reached a low point by the early 20th century.

Using an estimate of approximately 37 million people in Mexico, Central and South America in 1492 (including 6 million in the Aztec Empire, 5–10 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a population decrease from all causes of 80% by the end of the 17th century (nine million people in 1650). Latin America would match its 15th-century population early in the 19th century; it numbered 17 million in 1800, 30 million in 1850, 61 million in 1900, 105 million in 1930, 218 million in 1960, 361 million in 1980, and 563 million in 2005. In the last three decades of the 16th century, the population of present-day Mexico dropped to about one million people. The Maya population is today estimated at six million, which is about the same as at the end of the 15th century, according to some estimates. In what is now Brazil, the Indigenous population declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated four million to some 300,000. Over 60 million Brazilians possess at least one Native South American ancestor, according to a DNA study.

While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from 3.8 million, as mentioned above, to 7 million people to a high of 18 million. Scholars vary on the estimated size of the Indigenous population in what is now Canada prior to colonization and on the effects of European contact. During the late 15th century is estimated to have been between 200,000 and two million, with a figure of 500,000 currently accepted by Canada's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health. Although not without conflict, European Canadians' early interactions with First Nations and Inuit populations were relatively peaceful. However repeated outbreaks of European infectious diseases such as influenza, measles and smallpox (to which they had no natural immunity), combined with other effects of European contact, resulted in a twenty-five percent to eighty percent Indigenous population decrease post-contact. Roland G Robertson suggests that during the late 1630s, smallpox killed over half of the Wyandot (Huron), who controlled most of the early North American fur trade in the area of New France. In 1871 there was an enumeration of the Indigenous population within the limits of Canada at the time, showing a total of only 102,358 individuals. From 2006 to 2016, the Indigenous population has grown by 42.5 percent, four times the national rate. According to the 2011 Canadian census, Indigenous peoples (First Nations – 851,560, Inuit – 59,445 and Métis – 451,795) numbered at 1,400,685, or 4.3% of the country's total population.

The population debate has often had ideological underpinnings. Low estimates were sometimes reflective of European notions of cultural and racial superiority. Historian Francis Jennings argued, "Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations." In 1998, Africanist Historian David Henige said many population estimates are the result of arbitrary formulas applied from unreliable sources.

Estimations by tribe
Population size for Native American tribes is difficult to state definitively, but at least one writer has made estimates, often based on an assumed proportion of the number of warriors to total population for the tribe. Typical proportions were 5 people per one warrior and at least 1 up to 5 warriors (therefore at least 5–25 people) per lodge, cabin or house. The total peak population size only for the tribes listed in this table is 3,509,150 in the US and Canada (including 510,525 in Canada). This number is very similar to Snow's estimate for the US and Canada as well as to Alchon's, Denevan's and Milner's estimates.

Pre-Columbian Americas

Genetic diversity and population structure in the American land mass using DNA micro-satellite markers (genotype) sampled from North, Central, and South America have been analyzed against similar data available from other Indigenous populations worldwide. The Amerindian populations show a lower genetic diversity than populations from other continental regions. Decreasing genetic diversity with increasing geographic distance from the Bering Strait can be seen, as well as a decreasing genetic similarity to Siberian populations from Alaska (genetic entry point). A higher level of diversity and lower level of population structure in western South America compared to eastern South America is observed. A relative lack of differentiation between Mesoamerican and Andean populations is a scenario that implies coastal routes were easier than inland routes for migrating peoples (Paleo-Indians) to traverse. The overall pattern that is emerging suggests that the Americas were recently colonized by a small number of individuals (effective size of about 70–250), and then they grew by a factor of 10 over 800–1,000 years. The data also show that there have been genetic exchanges between Asia, the Arctic and Greenland since the initial peopling of the Americas. A new study in early 2018 suggests that the effective population size of the original founding population of Native Americans was about 250 people.

Depopulation by Old World diseases
Early explanations for the population decline of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas include the brutal practices of the Spanish conquistadores, as recorded by the Spaniards themselves, such as the encomienda system, which was ostensibly set up to protect people from warring tribes as well as to teach them the Spanish language and the Catholic religion, but in practice was tantamount to serfdom and slavery. The most notable account was that of the Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas, whose writings vividly depict Spanish atrocities committed in particular against the Taínos. The second European explanation was a perceived divine approval, in which God removed the natives as part of His "divine plan" to make way for a new Christian civilization. Many Native Americans viewed their troubles in a religious framework within their own belief systems.

According to later academics such as Noble David Cook, a community of scholars began "quietly accumulating piece by piece data on early epidemics in the Americas and their relation to the subjugation of native peoples." Scholars like Cook believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the primary cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans. One of the most devastating diseases was smallpox, but other deadly diseases included typhus, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, mumps, yellow fever and pertussis, which were chronic in Eurasia.

However, recently scholars have studied the link between physical colonial violence such as warfare, displacement, and enslavement, and the proliferation of disease among Native populations. For example, according to Coquille scholar Dina Gilio-Whitaker, "In recent decades, however, researchers challenge the idea that disease is solely responsible for the rapid Indigenous population decline. The research identifies other aspects of European contact that had profoundly negative impacts on Native peoples' ability to survive foreign invasion: war, massacres, enslavement, overwork, deportation, the loss of will to live or reproduce, malnutrition and starvation from the breakdown of trade networks, and the loss of subsistence food production due to land loss."

Further, Andrés Reséndez of the University of California, Davis points out that, even though the Spanish were aware of deadly diseases such as smallpox, there is no mention of them in the New World until 1519, implying that, until that date, epidemic disease played no significant part in the depopulation of the Antilles. The practices of forced labor, brutal punishment, and inadequate necessities of life, were the initial and major reasons for depopulation. Jason Hickel estimates that a third of Arawak workers died every six months from forced labor in these mines. In this way, "slavery has emerged as a major killer" of the indigenous populations of the Caribbean between 1492 and 1550, as it set the conditions for diseases such as smallpox, influenza, and malaria to flourish. Unlike the populations of Europe who rebounded following the Black Death, no such rebound occurred for the Indigenous populations.

Similarly, historian Jeffrey Ostler at the University of Oregon has argued that population collapses in North America throughout colonization were not due mainly to lack of Native immunity to European disease. Instead, he claims that "When severe epidemics did hit, it was often less because Native bodies lacked immunity than because European colonialism disrupted Native communities and damaged their resources, making them more vulnerable to pathogens." In specific regard to Spanish colonization of northern Florida and southeastern Georgia, Native peoples there "were subject to forced labor and, because of poor living conditions and malnutrition, succumbed to wave after wave of unidentifiable diseases." Further, in relation to British colonization in the Northeast, Algonquian speaking tribes in Virginia and Maryland "suffered from a variety of diseases, including malaria, typhus, and possibly smallpox." These diseases were not solely a case of Native susceptibility, however, because "as colonists took their resources, Native communities were subject to malnutrition, starvation, and social stress, all making people more vulnerable to pathogens. Repeated epidemics created additional trauma and population loss, which in turn disrupted the provision of healthcare." Such conditions would continue, alongside rampant disease in Native communities, throughout colonization, the formation of the United States, and multiple forced removals, as Ostler explains that many scholars "have yet to come to grips with how U.S. expansion created conditions that made Native communities acutely vulnerable to pathogens and how severely disease impacted them. ... Historians continue to ignore the catastrophic impact of disease and its relationship to U.S. policy and action even when it is right before their eyes."

Historian David Stannard says that by "focusing almost entirely on disease ... contemporary authors increasingly have created the impression that the eradication of those tens of millions of people was inadvertent—a sad, but both inevitable and "unintended consequence" of human migration and progress," and asserts that their destruction "was neither inadvertent nor inevitable," but the result of microbial pestilence and purposeful genocide working in tandem. He also wrote:

"...Despite frequent undocumented assertions that disease was responsible for the great majority of indigenous deaths in the Americas, there does not exist a single scholarly work that even pretends to demonstrate this claim on the basis of solid evidence. And that is because there is no such evidence, anywhere. The supposed truism that more native people died from disease than from direct face-to-face killing or from gross mistreatment or other concomitant derivatives of that brutality such as starvation, exposure, exhaustion, or despair is nothing more than a scholarly article of faith..."

In contrast, historian Russel Thornton has pointed out that there were disastrous epidemics and population losses during the first half of the sixteenth century "resulting from incidental contact, or even without direct contact, as disease spread from one American Indian tribe to another." Thornton has also challenged higher Indigenous population estimates, which are based on the Malthusian assumption that "populations tend to increase to, and beyond, the limits of the food available to them at any particular level of technology."

The European colonization of the Americas resulted in the deaths of so many people it contributed to climatic change and temporary global cooling, according to scientists from University College London. A century after the arrival of Christopher Columbus, some 90% of Indigenous Americans had perished from "wave after wave of disease", along with mass slavery and war, in what researchers have described as the "great dying". According to one of the researchers, UCL Geography Professor Mark Maslin, the large death toll also boosted the economies of Europe: "the depopulation of the Americas may have inadvertently allowed the Europeans to dominate the world. It also allowed for the Industrial Revolution and for Europeans to continue that domination."

Biological warfare
When Old World diseases were first carried to the Americas at the end of the fifteenth century, they spread throughout the southern and northern hemispheres, leaving the Indigenous populations in near ruins. No evidence has been discovered that the earliest Spanish colonists and missionaries deliberately attempted to infect the American natives, and some efforts were made to limit the devastating effects of disease before it killed off what remained of their labor force (compelled to work under the encomienda system). The cattle introduced by the Spanish contaminated various water reserves which Native Americans dug in the fields to accumulate rainwater. In response, the Franciscans and Dominicans created public fountains and aqueducts to guarantee access to drinking water. But when the Franciscans lost their privileges in 1572, many of these fountains were no longer guarded and so deliberate well poisoning may have happened. Although no proof of such poisoning has been found, some historians believe the decrease of the population correlates with the end of religious orders' control of the water.

In the centuries that followed, accusations and discussions of biological warfare were common. Well-documented accounts of incidents involving both threats and acts of deliberate infection are very rare, but may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged. Many of the instances likely went unreported, and it is possible that documents relating to such acts were deliberately destroyed, or sanitized. By the middle of the 18th century, colonists had the knowledge and technology to attempt biological warfare with the smallpox virus. They well understood the concept of quarantine, and that contact with the sick could infect the healthy with smallpox, and those who survived the illness would not be infected again. Whether the threats were carried out, or how effective individual attempts were, is uncertain.

One such threat was delivered by fur trader James McDougall, who is quoted as saying to a gathering of local chiefs, "You know the smallpox. Listen: I am the smallpox chief. In this bottle I have it confined. All I have to do is to pull the cork, send it forth among you, and you are dead men. But this is for my enemies and not my friends." Likewise, another fur trader threatened Pawnee Indians that if they didn't agree to certain conditions, "he would let the smallpox out of a bottle and destroy them." The Reverend Isaac McCoy was quoted in his History of Baptist Indian Missions as saying that the white men had deliberately spread smallpox among the Indians of the southwest, including the Pawnee tribe, and the havoc it made was reported to General Clark and the Secretary of War. Artist and writer George Catlin observed that Native Americans were also suspicious of vaccination, "They see white men urging the operation so earnestly they decide that it must be some new mode or trick of the pale face by which they hope to gain some new advantage over them." So great was the distrust of the settlers that the Mandan chief Four Bears denounced the white man, whom he had previously treated as brothers, for deliberately bringing the disease to his people.

During the siege of British-held Fort Pitt in the Seven Years' War, Colonel Henry Bouquet ordered his men to take smallpox-infested blankets from their hospital and gave them as gifts to two neutral Lenape Indian dignitaries during a peace settlement negotiation, according to the entry in the Captain's ledger, "To convey the Smallpox to the Indians". In the following weeks, Sir Jeffrey Amherst conspired with Bouquet to "Extirpate this Execreble Race" of Native Americans, writing, "Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them." His Colonel agreed to try.

Most scholars have asserted that the 1837 Great Plains smallpox epidemic was "started among the tribes of the upper Missouri River by failure to quarantine steamboats on the river", and Captain Pratt of the St. Peter "was guilty of contributing to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. The law calls his offense criminal negligence. Yet in light of all the deaths, the almost complete annihilation of the Mandans, and the terrible suffering the region endured, the label criminal negligence is benign, hardly befitting an action that had such horrendous consequences." However, some sources attribute the 1836–40 epidemic to the deliberate communication of smallpox to Native Americans, with historian Ann F. Ramenofsky writing, "Variola Major can be transmitted through contaminated articles such as clothing or blankets. In the nineteenth century, the U. S. Army sent contaminated blankets to Native Americans, especially Plains groups, to control the Indian problem." In Brazil, well into the 20th century, deliberate infection attacks continued as Brazilian settlers and miners transported infections intentionally to the native groups whose lands they coveted.

Vaccination
After Edward Jenner's 1796 demonstration that the smallpox vaccination worked, the technique became better known and smallpox became less deadly in the United States and elsewhere. Many colonists and natives were vaccinated, although, in some cases, officials tried to vaccinate natives only to discover that the disease was too widespread to stop. At other times, trade demands led to broken quarantines. In other cases, natives refused vaccination because of suspicion of whites. The first international healthcare expedition in history was the Balmis Expedition which had the aim of vaccinating Indigenous peoples against smallpox all along the Spanish Empire in 1803. In 1831, government officials vaccinated the Yankton Sioux at Sioux Agency. The Santee Sioux refused vaccination and many died.

War and violence

While epidemic disease was a leading factor of the population decline of the American Indigenous peoples after 1492, there were other contributing factors, all of them related to European contact and colonization. One of these factors was warfare. According to demographer Russell Thornton, although many people died in wars over the centuries, and war sometimes contributed to the near extinction of certain tribes, warfare and death by other violent means was a comparatively minor cause of overall native population decline.

From the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1894, wars between the government and the Indigenous peoples ranged over 40 in number over the previous 100 years. These wars cost the lives of approximately 19,000 white people, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians, including men, women, and children. They safely estimated that the number of Native people who were killed or wounded was actually around fifty percent more than what was recorded.

There is some disagreement among scholars about how widespread warfare was in pre-Columbian America, but there is general agreement that war became deadlier after the arrival of the Europeans and their firearms. The South or Central American infrastructure allowed for thousands of European conquistadors and tens of thousands of their Indian auxiliaries to attack the dominant Indigenous civilization. Empires such as the Incas depended on a highly centralized administration for the distribution of resources. Disruption caused by the war and the colonization hampered the traditional economy, and possibly led to shortages of food and materials. Across the western hemisphere, war with various Native American civilizations constituted alliances based out of both necessity or economic prosperity and, resulted in mass-scale intertribal warfare. European colonization in the North American continent also contributed to a number of wars between Native Americans, who fought over which of them should have first access to new technology and weaponry—like in the Beaver Wars.

Exploitation
Some Spaniards objected to the encomienda system of labor, notably Bartolomé de las Casas, who insisted that the Indigenous people were humans with souls and rights. Because of many revolts and military encounters, Emperor Charles V helped relieve the strain on both the native laborers and the Spanish vanguards probing the Caribana for military and diplomatic purposes. Later on New Laws were promulgated in Spain in 1542 to protect isolated natives, but the abuses in the Americas were never entirely or permanently abolished. The Spanish also employed the pre-Columbian draft system called the mita, and treated their subjects as something between slaves and serfs. Serfs stayed to work the land; slaves were exported to the mines, where large numbers of them died. In other areas the Spaniards replaced the ruling Aztecs and Incas and divided the conquered lands among themselves ruling as the new feudal lords with often, but unsuccessful lobbying to the viceroys of the Spanish crown to pay Tlaxcalan war demnities. The infamous Bandeirantes from São Paulo, adventurers mostly of mixed Portuguese and native ancestry, penetrated steadily westward in their search for Indian slaves. Serfdom existed as such in parts of Latin America well into the 19th century, past independence. Historian Andrés Reséndez argues that even though the Spanish were aware of the spread of smallpox, they made no mention of it until 1519, a quarter century after Columbus arrived in Hispaniola. Instead he contends that enslavement in gold and silver mines was the primary reason why the Native American population of Hispaniola dropped so significantly. and that even though disease was a factor, the native population would have rebounded the same way Europeans did following the Black Death if it were not for the constant enslavement they were subject to. He further contends that enslavement of Native Americans was in fact the primary cause of their depopulation in Spanish territories; that the majority of Indians enslaved were women and children compared to the enslavement of Africans which mostly targeted adult males and in turn they were sold at a 50% to 60% higher price, and that 2,462,000 to 4,985,000 Amerindians were enslaved between Columbus's arrival and 1900.

Massacres

 * The Pequot War in early New England.
 * In mid-19th century Argentina, post-independence leaders Juan Manuel de Rosas and Julio Argentino Roca engaged in what they presented as a "Conquest of the Desert" against the natives of the Argentinian interior, leaving over 1,300 Indigenous dead.
 * While some California tribes were settled on reservations, others were hunted down and massacred by 19th century American settlers. It is estimated that at least 9,400 to 16,000 California Indians were killed by non-Indians, mostly occurring in more than 370 massacres (defined as the "intentional killing of five or more disarmed combatants or largely unarmed noncombatants, including women, children, and prisoners, whether in the context of a battle or otherwise").

Displacement and disruption
Throughout history, Indigenous people have been subjected to the repeated and forced removal from their land. Beginning in the 1830s, there was the relocation of an estimated 100,000 Indigenous people in the United States called the "Trail of Tears". The tribes affected by this specific removal were the Five Civilized Tribes: The Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole. The treaty of New Echota, was enacted, which stated that the United States "would give Cherokee land west of the Mississippi in exchange for $5,000,000". According to Jeffrey Ostler, "Of the 80,000 Native people who were forced west from 1830 into the 1850s, between 12,000 and 17,000 perished." Ostler states that "the large majority died of interrelated factors of starvation, exposure and disease".

In addition to the removal of the Southern Tribes, there were multiple other removals of Northern Tribes also known as "Trails of Tears." For example, "In the free labor states of the North, federal and state officials, supported by farmers, speculators and business interests, evicted Shawnees, Delawares, Senecas, Potawatomis, Miamis, Wyandots, Ho-Chunks, Ojibwes, Sauks and Meskwakis." These Nations were moved West of the Mississippi into what is now known as Eastern Kansas, and numbered 17,000 on arrival. According to Ostler, "by 1860, their numbers had been cut in half" because of low fertility, high infant mortality, and increased disease caused by conditions such as polluted drinking water, few resources, and social stress.

Ostler also writes that the areas that Northern tribes were removed to were already inhabited: "The areas west of the Mississippi River were home to other Indigenous nations— Osages, Kanzas, Omahas, Ioways, Otoes and Missourias. To make room for thousands of people from the East, the government dispossessed these nations of much their lands." Ostler writes that in 1840, when Northern Nations were moved onto their land, "The combined population of these western nations was 9,000 ... 20 years later, it had fallen to 6,000."

Later apologies by government officials
On 8 September 2000, the head of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the ethnic cleansing of Western tribes. In a speech before representatives of Native American peoples in June 2019, California governor Gavin Newsom apologized for the "California Genocide." Newsom said, "That's what it was, a genocide. No other way to describe it. And that's the way it needs to be described in the history books."

Books

 * Royal, Robert. 1492 and All That: Political Manipulations of History. Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992.
 * Stearn, E. Wagner and Allen E. Stearn. The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian. Boston: Humphries, 1945.
 * Royal, Robert. 1492 and All That: Political Manipulations of History. Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992.
 * Stearn, E. Wagner and Allen E. Stearn. The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian. Boston: Humphries, 1945.
 * Royal, Robert. 1492 and All That: Political Manipulations of History. Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992.
 * Stearn, E. Wagner and Allen E. Stearn. The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian. Boston: Humphries, 1945.
 * Royal, Robert. 1492 and All That: Political Manipulations of History. Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992.
 * Stearn, E. Wagner and Allen E. Stearn. The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian. Boston: Humphries, 1945.
 * Royal, Robert. 1492 and All That: Political Manipulations of History. Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992.
 * Stearn, E. Wagner and Allen E. Stearn. The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian. Boston: Humphries, 1945.
 * Stearn, E. Wagner and Allen E. Stearn. The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian. Boston: Humphries, 1945.
 * Stearn, E. Wagner and Allen E. Stearn. The Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian. Boston: Humphries, 1945.

Online sources

 * Lewy, Guenter. "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?", History News Network, originally published in Commentary.
 * Lord, Lewis., 10 August 1997.
 * Rummel, R.J. Death by Government, Chapter 3: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
 * Stutz, Bruce. Megadeath in Mexico Discover, 21 February 2006.

 * White, Matthew. "The Annihilation of the Native Americans". Amateur website, but reports data from scholarly sources.
 * Jeffrey Amherst and Smallpox Blankets "Lord Jeffrey Amherst's letters discussing germ warfare against American Indians" Retrieved February 2007

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


text:
User talk:Kade

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 00:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism of the home page
How was that done? I couldn't figure out how to revert it. Maury 00:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Bobby jr123
Please no personal attacks. Instead, be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user page (such as,  ,  ,  ). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the  tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, my multi-racial, gender-neutral friend!
Grazi! It's relatively new...for ages I had next to nothing on my user page. But then circumstances propelled PEGE into being, and inertia produced the rest. We should have a better article on Christopher Hitchens than we do presently. I'd be very sympathetic to Hitchens's point of view, but I still think I can produce NPOV material. I doubt that's true for our anonymous Georgian friend. Babajobu 18:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, with terms like "apologist" and "court jester", he's a regular AP reporter. Hell, lets just give him a fucking Peabody. Kade 03:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, it's two different people. The talk-page ranter is in Georgia, the "court jester" is in Canada. They make a great pair, though. Babajobu 03:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Are they working in collusion? I assumed it was him based on the fact that he promised to revert all your edits.  Kade 03:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * They seem to be inadvertantly working in collusion. The Georgian did revert one of my minor changes, but it was actually a reasonable revert, so I didn't challenge it. He left the substantive stuff. We'll see if that keeps up. Babajobu 03:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No. Babajobu 03:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I was going to say, that would be a really really bizarre situation, a Christopher Hitchens fan who also likes a religious lunatic.. Kade 03:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That would be a strange mix. On the other hand, I'm an animal rights Nazi as well as a Hitchens supporter. People tend to think that's a strange mix, though I don't. Babajobu 03:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I no more begrudge a man for eating steak at a dinner table than I do a lion for feasting on a Gazelle. Kade 03:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I hold the man to a higher standard than I do the lion. Babajobu 03:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * And yet you feel that the animal whose barbarism you accept should be treated on equal terms as the man? Kade 03:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I don't know anyone who thinks animals should be treated "on equal terms" with humans. You'll be waiting a long time before you see marches for "animal suffrage", and so forth. Babajobu 04:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You'd be suprised. The point I'm trying to make, and I don't doubt that you're not a koolaid drinker, is that there are varying degrees of animal rights and I require clarification. Kade 04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, there are varying degrees. The right that I believe should be extended to animals is the right to avoid being subjected to intense physical pain by human beings because it is profitable to do so. That's the right I'm interested in. Babajobu 04:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well even slaughterhouses try to do things mercifully by clobbering the poor cow in the head. Kade 04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * ...after suspending them for several minutes from a conveyor belt that shreds the tendons and ligaments in their legs...

Re: "Stop fucking posting"
Please don't antagonize users like Ceejayoz, and please pay attention to WP:COOL. Denelson83 22:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am responding to note that I did not click your link to article Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Kade 22:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this is an encyclopedia not a playground. Be civil or go home. Dmcdevit·t 04:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Stop being such a bitching baby. Would you like your blankie back? Kade 21:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Howdy
I saw your post about being a Christopher Hitchen's type when it comes to Muslim extremism. Please check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG a guild of editor's concerned about the influx of Islamist POV into wikipedia. Klonimus 07:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I thank you for the invitation, but I'm not interested in becoming a member of any organization that accepts people like me as a member. I'm not yet convinced that France is a victim of islamic extremism, unfortunately, my opinion is that the socialist ideal of a "right" to employment is their reason for rioting. When people believe that their rights, real or perceived, have been violated, they will become violent. Kade 07:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree, even if you don;t have a job, that's no excuse to riot and commit arson. That's not what civilised people do. At the end of the day, every mob action is an aggregation of the actions of individual people. I refuse to accept explanations for events which absolve people of thier personal responsibility to behave in a moral fashion. Klonimus 09:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, each of the rioter's chose to riot for thier own personal reason. Many of them are using their hatred for france/frech society as an excuse to let out an animalistic urge to destroy. IMHO if they hate france so much, they should go back to Algeria/Tunisia etc. Most of them never had it so good as to be in France. As is typical of leftists, they refuse to acknowledge the role of personal choice in this equation and instead try very hard to tolerate the intolerable. That's the real test. Can you excuse the behvior of other which completely violates your own values for the sake of "tolerance". Sadly many people on wikipedia can do so. Klonimus 09:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Socialism is all about the removal of personal responsibility from the equation. Marx's class struggle and conflict theory all absolve a person of any rational decision making, asserting that any decision made by the proletariat, of purchase or where they work, is simply an illusion of contentment perpetuated by the bourgeiouse. Notice I never said I approved of their rioting, nor that there is a right to employment, only that France, as a Democratically Socialist nation tries to propagate that myth. Kade 09:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascism
Fascism is a term with a fairly concrete meaning. What does "anti-Islamic fascism" mean? Babajobu 07:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Idiot
Two things;

 * This man broke a law which he knew carried the death penalty. IDIOT! That law might not make a lot of sense to you, but it is still the law. If the law says don't walk on the grass or you will be hanged - DON'T WALK ON THE GRASS! You don't have to walk on the grass. It's not necessary to walk on the grass. Sure, walking on the grass might shorten your journey, but you know the risk you are taking when you break the law. If you really think the law needs to be changed, campaign to have it changed before you step on the grass. But until that time, DON'T WALK ON THE BLOODY GRASS! This guy bet big in the casino of life. He put all his chips on being able to get through the airport without anyone spotting his death-sentence. He lost. Boo hoo. This shouldn't be reported as a tragedy for one idiot. It should be reported as a successful drug bust.

 * So in your myopic little world the state has the final say? Jesus, I can see you were paying attention in Government class.  Newsflash: Legitimate governments can only govern in compliance with natural human rights...I.E. - Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Kade 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Your definition of non-violent is skewed. According to this, 1 gram might be worth US$150. 400 grams of heroin - do the math. Do you think it found its way into his possession without any violence occurring along the way? The guy had 26,000 doses on heroin on him. Do you think no further violence would come from that amount of heroin hitting the streets? Do I want that crap near my kids? No. Do I want that crap in the possession of people who might come near my kids? No. Do I want it to make people so addicted that they commit violent crimes to fund their habits? Of course not. Saying that this is a non-violent crime is blinded, lefty tosh. What he was involved with was despicable. I'm glad he's dead. I mean, really glad. I'm gonna throw a party for the occasion. I'll invite all of the people who's lives have been trashed by someone's use of 'non-violent' heroin. I'm gonna dance on his grave. It's just one more scummer out of the way. I'm sick of my world being dumped on by people who just want to take, take, take. What is not to be happy about? Really? --User:JohnOw 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The crime he was convicted of was drug possession, NOT murder, assault, etc. If you're an adult (as you claim to be, since you assert you have children), you should know that simply asserting a guilt-by-association notion of "if drugs are involved, therefore violence must be involved too! Q-E-D! HO HO! I am an absolute genius!" is a rather asinine assertion.  From your vernacular, I don't know where you come from, though it's certainly not my country.  My objections to this punishment is not "lefty tosh", they are hard-coded into my country's constitution.

 * Amendment VIII, United States Constitution

 * Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 * Also, I have deleted your ugly excesses from your sig. That stupid stuff may be tolerated elsewhere, but this is my talk page, not yours.   Trust me, I have medical reasons - Your sig in its original form makes me want to vomit.   If you wish to continue your little railfest of manly-man beating your breast and praising that your odes-to-abortions now have safe school zones in a country you're not even from (or are you? That might explain a lot), be sure to leave the tacky sig out.  Thanks. Kade 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have considered the various arguments employed by both sides, and declare that the winner of this exchange is Kade. Congratulations, sir. Better luck next time, JohnOw Babajobu 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA
I am not quite sure what we're arguing about, and I wonder if it's gotten more quarrelsome than necessary because I was confused at some point. So let me make two completely separate comments on the general idea of calling someone a fascist: If you'd like to discuss this further, please let me know definitively which case we're arguing about. -- SCZenz 22:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Case 1: referring to a user. This is what I said don't about, and I mean it.  Calling a user a fascist is never productive and it is a duragatory term (to almost everyone in society).  It will only make things more heated, and it will not solve any disagreement that I can think of.  This is why WP:NPA exists.
 * Case 2: in an article. WP:NPA doesn't apply here.  If a historical figure is a fascist, someone must have written that in a reputable source somewhere.  If they haven't, I don't see how it makes our encyclopedia more credible to include that you think so.  Even were you a full professor with expertise in fascism, others might still disagree with you, so citing a source (and any disagreeing sources) would still be appropriate.  My point is, I agree with WP:NOR, even when it's a pain for me to deal with (I've had to cite things that I knew were facts too).  You don't have to cite every little thing, unless it's disputed, and then you do.  Whether you like it or not, No original research is part of the Five pillars, and it will not change.
 * Case 1 was the only thing I was referring to, I'm keenly aware about Case 2 and its context. Hell, I don't even think that the NPA rule has any basis in an article itself, but hey I just thought that was assumed.  Kade 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Is there a circumstance you can think of where it's productive to call a user a fascist? -- SCZenz 00:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When the shoe fits, of course. Kade 08:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, there are some statements you can make that, even if true, do not contribute to our goal of making a better encyclopedia. Warning other users that someone habitually violates the rules is helpful; warning other users that someone is trying to push a particular POV into articles is helpful; stating that the person is a fascist is never going to be as far as I can tell. I'm not sure I have more to say than that. -- SCZenz 09:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

L. Paul Bremer speech at Clark University
The edit summary you put when you excised a passage from the L. Paul Bremer article said:
 * "Struck comment with no other form of reliable quotation except Indymedia. It's Indymedia, for godsakes."

You seem to think it is sufficient to imply you have a good reason for your edit, rather than actually supply a good reason. I have a big problem with implying stuff is so obvious it doesn't need to be explained. In my experience this is precisely the stuff that it is most important to try to explain.

So, what, exactly, did you have a problem with that the passage you excised?

How closely did you read the paragraph you excised? It contains several cites from the Indymedia. I added the initial citation from Bremer's speech Clark University. Another wikipedian, who wants the Paul Bremer article to be a hagiography, added the passage about how many protestors were present at the talk. That you clipped just one reference from the Indymedia strongly suggests that it was not really the messenger you had a problem with, but rather the message.

Did you bother to follow the link? It is a reprint from the student newspaper. Bremer had been lecturing all over the USA. It is unreasonable to expect big newspapers to cover every talk. Further, the article says that Bremer's agreement with the Universities was that no press would be allowed.

EDITOR'S NOTE: STRAWMAN FOLLOWS.

I've met two kinds of American patriots. Some American patriots give their loyalty to the high principles America is famous for -- things like free speech, freedom of association, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Other American's who identify themselves as patriots give their loyalty to patriotic symbols of America... The flag, the anthem, the President, the Statue of Liberty. These outward symbols are not really America. You can always get a new anthem. You have gone through a dozen different flags. The Statue of Liberty might corrode away. Or, heaven forbid, might suffer some other kind of disaster. They are just symbols. America would endure fine without them. But take away those high principles -- and what you have left isn't really America, even if you keep the flag, anthem, etc.

In my experience those two kinds of patriots react differently to news stories that might reflect poorly on American officials or their policies.
 * The first kind aren't going to accept any old critical story without some scrutiny. But if it holds up to initial scrutiny, they openly examine it, even if it is painful.  Their loyalty is to American principles.  If there is a real problem, if an official is betraying American ideals, with, lets say, torture, or allowing an occupied country to be stripped of $9 billion by foreign carpetbaggers, they want to fix the problem.  They want to restore America's reputation by getting to the bottom of problems, and rooting them out.
 * In my experience, the other kind of patriot, the patriot who is loyal to the surface facade of America, and who isn't really concerned with principles, aren't really interested in getting to the bottom of instances that could be interpreted as reflecting poorly on America's reputation. Since their loyalty to America is just a surface loyalty, to the surface appearance of America, actually fixing the problems isn't necessary.  Since they are only interested in preserving America's reputation, obfuscating, denying or covering up instances they think reflect poorly on America's reputation is easier for them, and they are just as satisfied with the result.

So, do you think my breakdown of American patriotism holds any merit? And, if so, which kind of patriot do you want to be?

One doesn't have to be an American to honour the same principles as America's founding fathers. In writing about this "war on terror" I get challenges from American patriots. I have written, in several places, about the policy of treating captive in the war on terror as if they were not protected by either the Geneva Conventions or the US Constitution. I have called this a "Bush administration policy". And I have had a number of different American patriots change that to "US Government policy", calling the previous wording "anti-American". I reply to those edits by pointing out that the US government has three branches. The three branches each have oversight responsibilities over the other two branches; provide checks and balances on the other two branches; and their are instances where they can over-rule them. The judicial branch of the US Government has already over-ruled the executive branch. Additional aspects of the detainee policy are before the courts now, and could also be over-ruled. Further, there are initiatives, in Congress, to modify the detainee policy. So, calling the detainee policy a US government policy is simply incorrect. It is the expression that represents a biased POV. EDITOR'S NOTE: END OF STRAWMAN.

I don't blame Americans who want to preserve America's reputation. I don't blame them for not accepting accounts of incidents that may appear to reflect poorly on America's reputation, without question. But, after reading the link you cut, do you really have doubts that Bremer uttered the phrase the Indymedia article attributed to him? Are you -really- accusing the student author of simply making that quote up, out of whole cloth? -- Geo Swan 12:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Too long; didn't read. If the quote is from a student newspaper, link to the student newspaper, not Indymedia. The idea that protesters were present at Bremer's speech is not an outlandish thing to assume.  The idea that Paul Bremer said such a crazy thing and you have only Indymedia to support your claim IS an outlandish thing, however.  The burden of proof is higher, and if you weren't too busy writing 15 pages on how I'm clearly a rose-tinted glasses "patriot", you would understand that.

 * A student newspaper would have things like, you know, an Editor. Somebody who says "What the fuck?" when he reads shit like "Paul Bremer said something which would likely piss off a huge amount of people".  Indymedia does not have that, and refuses to have that.  Going there for any form of media coverage that isn't absurdly ludicrous is an exercise in futility.  All media outlets have biases, I'm aware, but there's slants, and then there's just knocking the entire wall over.  Either find something more corroborating or let it slide, you have more than enough evidence on Bremer to call him a douchebag without having to rely on places which have no interest in objectivity.  Kade 16:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fascism 2
You suggested you might like to research the relationship of fascism and socialism, and that you had a rather serious misunderstanding regarding it. Fascism would be a good place to start, followed by Fascio, Fascism and ideology, and Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts. Socialism_and_Fascism might also be useful, if only to underscore the point in a humorous fashion. Let me know if you'd like to discuss the various particulars, or would appreciate more assistance. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC

 * My mistake, I thought you were trying to establish that Socialism and Fascism were very similarly linked in more than just they were both authoritarian. Kade 18:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course, have you reviewed the 1st link above, Fascism? Fascism and socialism are closely related indeed. Sam Spade 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Only in coincidental ways. I'm sorry Sam, and I hope you know I'm approaching this in the most polite way I can, but I strongly disagree with those notions.  Fascism and Socialism are at diametrically opposed ends, practically everything about them screams opposites.  Fascism advocates the people as working for the benefit of the state, Socialism advocates the state as working for the benefit of the people completely.  Fascism constantly portrays itself as striving to restore greatness (Mussolini's Rome, the Third Reich, Japanese references to the old empire, and use of the old Bushido code), while Socialism paints things in terms of the future and the utopian ideal.  Etc., etc., etc...I could go on and on at length.  At the same time, I don't think you can lump them under the same category and therefore profess a similarity simply because both were totalitarian, absolutist states.  So was the Athenian Republic, even though it was democratic.  Socrates' philosopher king method of government also would fall under this heading.  So as you can see, I mean, it's just bad from a categorical standpoint, when you can see that Socrates' technocracy and the Athenian Democracies are somewhat benevolent, even if authoritarian. Kade 22:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * And I often do ;) Hitler and Mussolini were very modern, restoring little. Of course you are partially correct about differences of propoganda, but it is far more subtle than you might think. Both Stalin and Mussolini experimented w modern art style propaganda before realising that hitlers Populist approach was more successful. It wasn't long into the war that Stalin gave up any pretense of opposition to nationalism, clearly encouraging his soldiers to fight for mother russia. This is all just politics tho, intentionally distracting glamor. Have a long hard look at the roots, the economics, the strategy of seizing power. Sam Spade 22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Between you and I? I wouldn't mind ceding that kind of an argument.  They're both the same in practice, fine, it's only the ideology that's different. TECHNICALLY we're confusing two forms of political thought with their real-world counterparts, but even I don't pretend that's something I ever respect.  Political ideologies are built on the state, so it's the only resource you have for judging the pros and cons of each one.  But I digress....we could go at length in how all political ideologies are ultimately self-serving to the entity of the state, rather than of the individual (or the people, if you're more of a socialist).  But I don't like to confuse people as soon as they meet me, so I just say they're different.  Kade 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a look @ Paleoliberalism. Thats something I might be interested in. Sam Spade 23:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam pointed me to this discussion, and I'd like to chime in. The ideological differences between fascism and socialism (class collaboration vs. class struggle, idealism vs. materialism, "triumph of the will" vs. economic determinism, and, most of all, hierarchy vs. equality) are very numerous and, I hope, well known to you. It has been pointed out that fascism in practice was somewhat similar to Stalinism in practice. This idea has some merit, but since when is Stalinism the model of socialism? Do not ignore the existence of Libertarian socialism, Democratic Socialism and Trotskyism, among others. Comparisons of fascism and socialism often give the impression that the two are clearly defined monolithic movements, when in reality fascism is a vague concept and socialism is riddled with cracks and schisms. On a final note, I must point out that a state controlled economy is not a defining feature of socialism, because (1) not all socialists endorse it, and (2) state controlled economies were around thousands of years before socialism. The defining feature of socialism is economic egalitarianism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * How can that egalitarianism be achieved without control? It's like apologizing for autocracy by saying your ideology can't be executed any other way. Kade 18:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Some socialists argue that equality is the natural state of man, and control is required to achieve inequality. As such, they see it as their role to eliminate that control from society. See libertarian socialism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And hence the Libertarian query: If I, right this second, redistribute the wealth of the world to everybody equally right this second, then 500 people all buy tickets to a music concert, then suddenly those rockers are the wealthiest people in the world.  What then? More coercive force? "Libertarian Socialism" is a euphemism, at best. Kade 00:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to refer you both to comments I made here. I think we can agree that in its rhetoric socialism emphasises egalitarianism (despite barbarically rejecting it in practice), while fascism, however populist, never suggests a complete lack of hierarchy. Sam Spade 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no universally agreed upon "socialism in practice". Some say that welfare states are socialist. Other say that communist states are socialist. Yet others say that socialism has never been applied in practice. In any case, since equality is the very heart and soul of socialism, saying that socialism rejects equality in practice is like saying that socialism rejects socialism in practice. If X rejects equality, then X is not socialist. End of story. All socialists agree with this. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

equality is not the heart and soul of socialism. Lies are. And socialism does not reject lies in practice ;) Sam Spade 21:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Nor does it necessarily reject lies in theory. The notion of honesty is sometimes considered a relic of "bourgeois ethics," which revolutionaries are right to reject. --Christofurio 15:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re your messages on Talk:Main Page
I can empathise with the whole British v American spelling thing, but there are better ways of putting things. FOOTBALL NOT SOCCER YOU STUPID YANKS, AND IT'S COLOUR, NOT COLOR could have been better worded, could it not? -- Francs2000 18:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It was a joke. Hyperbole, if you will. Kade 18:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes... Just be careful because you don't know who else has taken that seriously and exactly what that's going to spur them to do. -- Francs2000 18:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I've edited my post to reflect this fact. Thanks! Kade 18:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping w that impatient 7th grader... I have to sleep sometime! Anyways, about fascism and socialism, the only way I think we can put socialism on the left and fascism on the right is if we define the terms based on ideological differences regarding egalitarianism vrs. hierarchy. Fascists clearly believe in hierarchy, wheras socialists claim not to. While social democrats lean a bit towards egalitarianism in practice, the results (even in sweden or etc...) are actually far from it. And of course state communism isn't much different from feudalism when you ignore the rhetoric and look at the lives of its citizens. Sam Spade 15:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * A point sometimes neglected is that both fascism and Marxist forms of socialism are derivatives of Hegelianism. Hegel, as you probably know, idealized the Prussian state of his own day, believing in to be the synthesis of authority and liberty to which history had been leading. It has been too easy for subsequent generations, trained by Hegel in this combination of boot-licking with dialectical lingo, to show that whatever structure of power they idealized was likewise the synthesis of those partial theses that came before it, so that opponents aren't just critics, they are objectively backwards, working against human history itself, and ought to be consigned to the "dustbin of history" (to use Trotsky's phrase). In all this, the brown Hegelians and the red Hegelians are close akin. --Christofurio 21:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * And like so many of those who are "close akin" (Orange and green Irish, Jews and Arabs, Greeks and Turks, etc...) they hate each other bitterly. There seems to be something about people nearly exactly like ourselves (to outsiders), but with some "significant" difference by insiders perceptions that drives people to acts of extraordinary barbarism. Sam Spade 16:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Timothy Noah
I have removed your comment at Talk:Timothy Noah, as it was uncivil and didn't add anything constructive to the discussion on how to improve the article. Please mind Wikipedia policies regarding civility and not resorting to personal attacks. JDoorjam    JDiscourse 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:KISSMYASS. Kade 06:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated incivility. JDoorjam    JDiscourse 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn, guess I'll go outside then. By the way, may I ask why you blanked my user page as well? There's nothing uncivil on there, just a link to a little known website  Kade  18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, zing... HalfShadow 06:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you again? Kade 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:Essjay
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. PTO 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Personally I thought I was fairly clear on what content of his I was criticizing. Calling him shit for brains was an afterthought. Kade 05:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Next time you want to go on a childish personal attack parade, consider that this is an encyclopedia you are contributing. Considering your history of personal attacks, and your few productive edits, your next block is likely to be indefinite. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an encyclopedia. Brittanica is an encyclopedia. Brittanica doesn't choose to employ lying pissants as a reward for their duplicitous behavior.  This online "encyclopedia", you self-righteous inbred piece of shit, is a caricature.  It's what an encyclopedia would look like if the Soviets had won the Cold War, complete with disappearing paper trails and mass-deletion of information that those in charge consider double plus ungood. Kade 06:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comments are worthy of an indefinite block.--MONGO 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you quit because you were sick of "trolls". You should have stayed gone.  Kade 06:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary...I have started over 40 articles in the last month or so...trolling never wins.--MONGO 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Troll is a cute word used to describe anybody who criticizes you or any of your e-friends. Jimbo Wales is using it on people who are criticizing Essjay's blatant bullshit, and so are you. Kade 07:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kade, on what grounds do you allege that Essjay has not put forward an accurate resume this time around? If you have diffs or sound reasoning, make it plain. John Vandenberg 07:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

 * http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/NEWS01/703060446/1008 Kade —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.148.71.40 (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

 * Point well taken. It is starting to look like the revised profile had issues, but that article has only confirmed that "Ryan Jordan" didnt study at U of L and hasnt worked at United States Trustee Program.  He could have worked at a private trustee under their jurisdiction, and/or "Ryan Jordan" may be a pen name with all the other details 100% accurate (in spite of the wolf). I guess what I am saying is that there are other explanations for the discrepancies, and that we need to exercise caution in order to not be guilty of false accusations. John Vandenberg 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
I give you this barnstar:

~ *  ~

for having the most amusing talk page on wikipedia, among other things hehe. friggen hilarious. keep up the good work Maîtresse  01:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Virginia Tech massacre, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. W guice 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Iamunknown 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Blow me, fascist. Kade 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
Continuing personal attacks and incivility ("Blow me, fascist." ?) right after your last month-long ban for personal attacks and incivility had ended is not conducive to remaining a Wikipedia project contributor. You're blocked for 3 months to prevent further such attacks. You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Georgewilliamherbert 00:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 * You are one goddamn ugly Nazi son of a bitch. Kade (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Man Murray (2nd nomination). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 * When you look down in the shower, can you see your penis? Kade (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Kade, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Enough is enough. Period. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kade


text:
Pop-Tops

Pop Tops (or Los Pop-Tops) were a vocal/instrumental band, formed in 1967 in Madrid, Spain, with Phil Trim from Trinidad and Tobago as lead singer. Their sound was a blend of baroque pop with the soulful vocals of Trim.

Members
Original set-up included
 * Phil Trim (born January 5, 1940, in Trinidad and Tobago) – lead singer
 * Julián Luis Angulo – guitar, vocals
 * Alberto Vega – saxophone, clarinet, vocals
 * Enrique Gómez – bass, trumpet
 * Ignacio Pérez – organ, piano
 * José Lipiani – drums
 * Ray Gómez – guitar

Some changes occurred in members:

 * Francisco Urbano Romero – drums (replacing José Lipani)
 * Rafael Guillermo Gertrudis – keyboards, piano (replacing Ignacio Pérez)

Hits
Their first release to gain attention was "Oh Lord, Why Lord" (1968), written by Jean Marcel Bouchety and Phil Trim. It was the first pop song to incorporate the melody of Pachelbel's Canon in D. That single's b-side, "The Voice of the Dying Man" (based on a Johann Sebastian Bach composition) was also recorded in Spanish as "La Voz del Hombre Caido".

They are best known for their 1971 hit "Mamy Blue", referring to a son's poignant song addressed to his departed mother about his childhood memories and life in general, sometimes spelled "Mommy Blue", "Mammy Blue" or "Mummy Blue", which was a Top 10 hit throughout much of Europe, Japan (#2), and Canada (#42), and a minor Billboard Hot 100 chart hit in the United States (#57). It was covered in the US by the Stories peaking at No. 50 in 1973. It sold over one million copies, and was awarded a platinum record. The composer and lyricist of the French song "Mamy Blue" was Hubert Giraud. English lyrics were written by Phil Trim. The Pop Tops also recorded Italian and Spanish versions, with lyrics by Gefingal.

As follow-up singles they released "Suzanne Suzanne" (early 1972) and "Hideaway" (mid 1972), which were only minor hits in some European countries.

Spanish releases
Barclay, Spain

 * 1967: Con su blanca palidez / I Can't Go On
 * 1967: Viento to otoño (Autumn Winds) / Cry
 * 1968: Somewhere / The Voice of the Dying Man (La voz del hombre caido)
 * 1968: Oh Lord, Why Lord / Beyond the Sea (El mar)
 * 1968: Oh Lord, Why Lord (in Spanish) / El mar
 * 1968: Esa mujer (That Woman) / Adagio cardenal
 * 1968: That Woman / The Man I Am Today
 * 1968: Pepa / Junto a ti
 * 1969: Dzim-dzim-dzas (Love and Care) / Young and Foolish
 * 1969: Soñar, bailar y cantar (She's Coming Back) / Anytime

Explosion, Spain
 * 1971: Dios a todos hizo libres (Road to Freedom) / Movimento de amor
 * 1971: Road to Freedom / Who Will Believe
 * 1971: Mamy Blue (span.) / Love Motion
 * 1971: Mamy Blue / Grief and Torture
 * 1972: Suzanne Suzanne / Happiness Ville
 * 1972: Suzanne Suzanne (in Spanish) / Walk along by the Riverside
 * 1972: Hideaway / What a Place to Live In
 * 1973: My Little Woman / Girl, What's on Your Mind?
 * 1973: Happy, Hippy, Youppy Song / Where Can I Go
 * 1973: Happy, Hippy, Youppy Song (in Spanish) / Angeline
 * 1974: What a Way to Go / Baby I Will Cry

German releases
Bellaphon, West Germany

 * 1971: Mamy Blue / Road to Freedom
 * 1971: Oh Lord, Why Lord / Walk Along by the Riverside (Remake)
 * 1972: Suzanne Suzanne / Happiness Ville
 * 1972: Hideaway / What a Place to Live In
 * 1973: My Little Woman / Girl, What's on Your Mind?
 * 1973: Happy, Hippy, Youppy Song / Where Can I Go
 * 1973: What a Way to Go / Baby I Will Cry

title: Pop-Tops


text:
Talk:Abramowitz and Stegun

"The notation used in the Handbook is the de facto standard for much of applied mathematics today."
Seems a little bogus. It was published as late as 1964. Having looked at the scans, I'm not aware of any major innovations in notation in this work.
 * I don't see a contradiction between the quote and what you're saying. The notation in A&S was indeed not new, as a matter of fact I think very little in the handbook was new. Nevertheless, the writers had to pick one notation for the various special functions out of several alternatives, and the notation they chose has largely stuck. -- Jitse Niesen 00:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

De facto vs De facto
Hi Jitse. Sorry to revert your edit, but I believe that the phrase de facto has a very very specific definition, and furthermore that this was the intended sense in the article. I think it's used appropriately in the article, and that it adds to the meaning of the sentence. AMS-55 is a de facto standard, and I believe that many readers will be interested in this precise use of language. The de facto article describes it nicely; the subtle nuance of this nice little piece of language would otherwise be lost on many readers, I suspect.

Best wishes, Robinh 08:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Hello. I think that if the phrase "de facto" is likely to be misunderstood, it shouldn't be used. If you do want to link, then a link to de facto may be more appropriate. But it's such a minute detail that I don't want to spend more time on this. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation of Abramowitz and Stegun
A template is available to make it easier to cite this work within Wikipedia. See Template:Abramowitz Stegun ref and its talk page. The template will link to a copy of the text which is freely available on line. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dover 9th printing
The 9th Dover printing long pre-dates 2005 (contrary to the note in the current version of the article). Inside my copy it says This ninth Dover printing conforms to the tenth (December 1972) printing by the Government Printing Office, except that additional corrections have been made on pages 18, 79,..., but on the back cover it has only a ten-digit ISBN. Also it's been on my desk since about 1983. --catslash (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks a lot for pointing this out. I take it that your ninth Dover printing lists the same nine additional corrections already listed in the article, right? If so, there must have been (slightly) different versions of the ninth Dover printing over the years. I wished we could track down the exact dates of all print runs (and the corresponding errata fixes). Does your copy feature any designations (such as a printer's key) which could be interpreted as print date? My (blue paperback) copy (with ISBN-13), which I bought new around 2010, does not, unfortunately. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some online errata running up through August 2015 at . They appear to be fixes that the government has applied to their online function library that will some day be propagated to the physical book. It says that the book was last updated in 2010.  That 2010 edition was based on Abramowitz and Stegun but is now called 'NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions'. It has a different set of authors on the cover. For details see the Amazon description. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, same nine corrections, no, no printer's key or other clues. It has the same illustrated pale blue paper cover (white back cover) as a copy I have at work which was bought much more recently (probably this century). After Easter I will compare these copies to see if I can discern any differences. It seems likely that Dover gave up updating the colophon after their ninth printing. On the back cover of my home copy, after the ten-digit ISBN, it says $17.95 in U.S.A., whereas this copy at Google Books, which is also the 9th Dover printing and also has a ten-digit ISBN was $34.95 IN USA (and gives a web-address, which my copy lacks of course). catslash (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, my copy with 13-digit ISBN states $39.95 USA. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Abramowitz and Stegun. 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/20150811110538/http://www.nrbook.com/abramowitz_and_stegun/ to http://www.nrbook.com/abramowitz_and_stegun
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909202127/http://dlmf.nist.gov:80/ to http://dlmf.nist.gov/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abramowitz and Stegun


text:
9XI

9XI may refer to:

 * KUOM, a college radio station operated by the University of Minnesota Twin Cities
 * Minolta 9xi, a 35mm SLR camera designed and manufactured by Minolta

title: 9XI


text:
Talk:Blackwell's

Comments
I just removed this:

 * "The 50 Broad Street shop, traditionally known as the Big House, is a bit rubbish now."

This bald statement is POV. Some explanation and justification should be given for such a claim. Molinari 00:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fantasy & SF Stores
The article says that one of Blackwell's specialist shops sells F&SF. I can't find any mention of this on their website. Can anyone confirm? Rojomoke 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it's the Reading store, the manager there is a bit of a SciFi nut Jenny 11:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (Blackwell employee)
 * The Reading store has now closed, so I'm removing the reference to specialist fantasy & SF stores. Rojomoke (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackwell - Wiley
I've noticed that Amazon (U.S.) has changed "Blackwell" to "Blackwell-Wiley." Should this article be renamed? 70.131.131.41 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Both the web site and the stores are still trading as just "Blackwell's", so I would say not. Rojomoke (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You are probably thinking about Blackwell Publishing, which is a defunct publishing company formerly owned by the same family, but now an imprint of Wiley. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

improving this article
Hi! If anyone is interested, I shall be pottering around the article over the next few weeks, doing a lot of copyediting etc to try and bring this article up to standard, even Good Article standard if possible. If you're interested in helping, do let me know on here or here, it will be much appreciated! Ta, Ran dom Articles || Talk  13:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Blackwell UK. 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/20121204004015/http://www.wired.co.uk:80/news/archive/2012-09/26/barnes--noble-nook-launch to http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/26/barnes--noble-nook-launch

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blackwell UK. 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/20110702063215/http://headington.org.uk/oxon/broad/buildings/north/48%2C49%2C50%2C51.htm to http://www.headington.org.uk/oxon/broad/buildings/north/48%2C49%2C50%2C51.htm

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) 16:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2018

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

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Blackwell UK → Blackwell's – While "Blackwell UK" is the official company name, as per WP:COMMONNAME the article would be better situated at 'Blackwell's" as this is the trading name as used in their logo, website etc. Jellyman (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 * A quick look at their website confirms that this would be a sensible move BeckySharpp (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Support seems reasonable, as Blackwell's seems to be WP:COMMONNAME. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Still an academic bookstore?
While it does have academic books, its website frontpage lists more or less all popular fiction. - 73.88.59.121 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not been to the Oxford shop for a long time. Then the ground floor was popular books, but the basement was where undergraduates bought the books they needed for their study. I doubt it has changed. Blackwells have opened shops elsewhere, and the London shop has more popular fiction although it also serves part of London Universiy. --Bduke (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Blackwell's


text: Category:Italian airliners

title: Category:Italian airliners


text: Category:Italian patrol aircraft

title: Category:Italian patrol aircraft