text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence

The material that was on this page, in the amount of 495kb, has been moved to Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence/Full version. It is requested that those who wish to present evidence in this matter summarize their presentation following the structure and size limits of this page. Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to 1000 words and 100 diffs.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to 1000 words and 100 diffs.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence against Jayjg
The detailed evidence presented amply supports statements from the Request for Arbitration against Jayjg and more:
 * Jayjg is an extraordinarily tenacious pusher of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian POV, to the exclusion of practically any statement not added or approved by himself or his group of like-minded compatriots. Hour after hour, day after day, Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to NPOV any article related to Israel or Palestine, with almost never providing any explanation, justification, or reasoned objection to such edits (aside from regularly calling fair edits "vandalism".)
 * Jayjg is extremely biased on the subject of Israel and is unwilling to tolerate NPOV in any Israel related articles. Jayjg's discourse with NPOV editors consists largely of stubbornly reverting them and asking them to "propose changes in Talk first" for his approval. However, he does not consider himself subject to his "rule", as has never submitted his changes for pre-approval by anyone.
 * Jayjg has gone so far to even remove the "NPOV" notice from disputed articles several times.
 * Jayjg has turned his POV pushing into an organized around-the-clock effort; he leads a team of POV pushers which makes it nearly impossible to achieve any semblance of NPOV in the 400 articles which he and his team treat as their property.
 * Jayjg has been involved in numerous disputes with many editors.
 * Jayjg has on numerous occasions violated the "3-reverts max" rule; his access to the "Rollback" button has made his POV pushing much easier --- too easy: Jayjg has reverted without explanation hundreds of established users.
 * Jayjg has also abused his sysop privileges by reverting and then protecting articles.

Jayjg claims that the evidence presented is not representative of his work. However, he and his team have presented every case where Jayjg's edits appear to be less than his typical extreme POV pushing, and all those examples amount to just a handful of edits.

The evidence shows that much of Jayjg's work is concentrated on producing and preserving biased articles. And his organized POV pushing and frequent user disputes undermine the spirit of community of Wikipedia. As Jayjg is very active in one visible segment of Wikipedia, the goals of Wikipedia are likely to suffer without some modification of Jayjg's behavior, which has not changed appreciably since the start of this RFAr.

1. As Jayjg is still unwilling (or unable) to adhere to NPOV, his editing privileges in Israel related articles should be restricted for an extended period of time. Jayjg should be ordered to follow his own oft repeated mantra and "Propose changes in Talk first". Each and every one of those changes should be approved before being applied, by at least one editor who has no history of promoting Jayjg's POV.

2. Jayjg also deserves a ban for offensive behavior, which he seems to have no intention to discontinue: calling fair edits "vandalism", reverting without an explanation or justification, and bullying editors to submit changes to his preapproval.

3. As a prolific reverter and violator of 3RR, Jayjg should be banned like every 3RR violator, and placed in the "No reverts (except for true vandalism)" status for an extended period.

4. Last but not least, Jayjg has abused sysop rights and tools, but has rarely used his position for noble ends, such as mediating disputes. His admin privileges should be revoked, or at least suspended for an extended period of time.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 18:21, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC))

Response to Evidence against HistoryBuffEr
Let's review the Jayjg's Statement of complaint (bold emphasis added) in light of the: evidence against HistoryBuffEr, evidence in response to complaints and evidence against Jayjg:

 * "HistoryBuffEr has consistently insisted on completely re-writing stable articles in a highly POV way, in particular and most recently the Yasser Arafat, Ariel Sharon, Rachel Corrie, Sabra and Shatila massacre, articles, but others as well, including Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Arab-Israeli conflict." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).

 * As the evidence above shows, it is actually Jayjg who is advancing extremist POV on Wikipedia, which he treats as his private sandbox. Just like with Jayjg's disingenuous RfM, which he admitted was intended to impose his POV on HistoryBuffEr, Jayjg is essentially asking the ArbCom to help him get his way on article edits.
 * HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

 * "Most significantly, in spite of dozens or perhaps hundreds of contested edits on these pages, HistoryBuffEr has refused to discuss any of them on the relevant Talk: pages, and in most cases has never even edited the Talk: pages, ignoring many invitations and requests to do so, as the edit histories of the article pages and Talk: pages show. As you will note, he generally ignores the Talk: pages on the articles, except to occasionally bully other editors with unspecified "warnings" and threats of "bannings", and refuses to discuss the changes he wishes to make to article content." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).

 * This is a breathtaking passage, consisting of nothing but dishonest editorializing:
 * HistoryBuffEr has more Talk posts than Jayjg (relative to their total posts.)
 * Where are the examples where HistoryBuffEr refused to discussed edits? (Jayjg's requests for everyone to submit edits to his preapproval do no count as invitation to discussion.)
 * Where are the examples of HistoryBuffEr "ignoring Talk pages"?
 * Where are the examples of HistoryBuffEr "bullying with warnings and threatening with bannings on Talk pages"? Fair warnings of 3RR and NPOV violations are not bullying but required by rules.
 * HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

 * "He has also attempted to bully other editors by forcing ends to votes on VfD, in contravention of policy, even when these policies were explained to him by longstanding editors like user Cecropia." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).

 * Another bald lie by Jayjg:
 * As shown in the evidence above, it was actually Jayjg and his band bullying others to force consensus where there wasn't one. I simply pointed out that we should follow the rules which state that VfD lasts for 5 days.
 * Cecropia, who was arguing otherwise (and biased because of voting in the VfD), soon ceased objecting.
 * HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

 * "These activities are a long-standing pattern with him, present from his very first edits on Wikipedia as IP 66.93.166.174." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).
 * Yet more "solid" evidence. Where is the proof that these edits were made by HistoryBuffEr?
 * HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

 * "As a simple example of his POV, he has insisted that the only NPOV way of describing Israeli settlements (the generally accepted term) is as "occupation colonies", going so far as to removing direct links to the Israeli settlements Wikipedia article. Finally, on the few articles where he does use the Talk: pages, his comments are often highly abusive, violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies ..." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).
 * Yet another string of misrepresentations by Jayjg:
 * I did not insist on "occupation colonies" as the only way, just argued that it is more neutral. And, in a recent discussion, Gornez, who does not like the term either, agreed that the term was acceptable to include.
 * If this is a "simple example of POV because it is a generally accepted term", what about Jayjg's refusal to accept the generally accepted term "occupation of Palestine"?
 * And what is the crime of "going so far" if replacing the term necessarily replaced a wikilink?
 * Again, where are examples of HistoryBuffEr's "highly abusive comments on Talk pages" prior to Jayjg stating this? There are none, and Jayjg is guilty of yet another false accusation.
 * HistoryBuffEr 19:58, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

 * "... as are his edit summaries, referring to user Jayjg as "user Jag loser" and "user Jag vandal" and "ultra-ultra-Ortodox POV pusher Jayjg", user Lance6wins as "sneaky Lance6Loser", user Gadykozma as "vandal Gadykozma", user Humus Sapiens as "Humus doltius patheticus", user Ambi as "sophomoric redirector" and a "zealot", and in general referring to editors he disagrees with as "dolt", pest", "zealot", "childish", "agitprop troops", "Zionist dolt", "Zionist extremist", "Zionist hack", "Zionistas", and no doubt other names. He has refused mediation on this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Jayjg_and_HistoryBuffEr." (Jayjg 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)).

 * I have indeed used those terms, but as explained in the detailed reply above, context should be noted. Almost all of these were replies to incessant provocations by Jayjg and his troops, and many of these are merely descriptive of Jayjg and his POV pushing team.
 * HistoryBuffEr 05:44, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Apparently, most of the statements by Jayjg in his request grossly misrepresent the actual record. True, some of my edit comments were "colorful" and not curteous, but Jayjg's numerous revert "slaps", "vandal" calls and bullying to submit changes for his preapproval were far less polite or curteous.

Note that nearly all complaints are (greatly exaggerated) claims of discourtesy, and that none of the few POV editing related claims have been shown to be "highly POV" as claimed. On the contrary, all HistoryBuffEr's edits are fairly reasonable: most are clearly NPOV; those that appear debatable are acceptable as presentations of POV of the other side or at least fair points for debate.

So, the question is whether maintaining decorum in the back-rooms of Wikipedia takes precedence over the readers needs: the neutrality and content of articles.

As little as I have accomplished, it is far more than was accomplished in the area until I started contributing. Many had tried polite and gentle persuasion to advance NPOV in Israel related articles, but most articles were still full of unadulterated pro-Israel propaganda when I arrived. Now, at least some articles have either been revised to NPOV version, or have started moving towards NPOV. Compare these articles before and after I got involved:
 * Sabra and Shatila Massacre,
 * Munich Massacre,
 * Ariel Sharon,
 * Yasser Arafat,
 * Suha Arafat,
 * Occupation of Palestine, etc.

Neither NPOV nor balance of editors in the area will be achieved by banning for decorum violations those attempting to fix highly biased articles, while excusing extremist POV pushers because they appear more polite (while being very rude in their actions.) As long as Jayjg and his POV pushing team are allowed free reign in Israel related articles, history suggests that few editors will want to waste their time and patience on futile attempts to NPOV these articles.

(By: HistoryBuffEr 18:21, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC))

13 Sep

 * 09:12, Sep 13, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr wholesale replaced Israeli-Palestinian conflict with entirely new POV version as IP 66.93.166.174 . Though he edited or reverted article 11 times over two weeks, he entered no comments in Talk.

 * 10:44, Sep 13, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr wholesale replaced Arab-Israeli conflict with entirely new POV version as IP 66.93.166.174 . Though he edited or reverted article 10 times over four weeks, his only 4 Talk entries were to insult and falsely accuse Jayjg of three revert rule violation.

2 Oct

 * 16:54, Oct 2, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr attempted major POV rewrite of George W. Bush as IP 66.93.166.174 . Though he edited or reverted article 11 times in one day, he did not propose or support any of his own changes in Talk, and instead insisted that other editors post their objections to his major changes in Talk.

5 Oct

 * 05:33, Oct 5, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr reverted Arabs and anti-Semitism 4 times in 3 hours with deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

6 Oct

 * 03:48, Oct 6, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr made substantial changes to Israeli West Bank barrier and inserted NPOV notice.  Several editors challenged him to state his POV complaints in Talk, but he only returned Oct 24 to insert TotallyDisputed notice.  Though he reverted or edited article 15 times over five weeks, his 5 eventual talk entries were to evade discussing what he specifically disputed, insisting that others read through the article edit summary history instead .  Especially note last Talk link on Nov 12.

18 Oct

 * 07:40, Oct 18, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr began editing Sabra and Shatila Massacre, working toward a complete POV rewrite . He edited or reverted article 12 times the first two days until it was protected on Oct 20.  He entered only 4 minor insulting edits in Talk , mostly involving edits by others, but none discussing dozens of changes he was attempting to make. He also insisted that others use Talk to dispute his changes, rather than him using Talk to propose them in the first place (e.g. ).  When article was unprotected Nov 8, he reverted to his version 15 more times, still refusing to use Talk page himself and insisting others post objections to his edits in Talk.

21 Oct

 * 03:15, Oct 21, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr began editing Rachel Corrie, repeating pattern of complete re-writes unaccompanied by any activity in Talk. He edited or reverted article 35 times over two weeks making only 2 comments, both personal and abusive threats toward Jayjg .  Yet he insisted that other editors object in Talk .  He subsequently reverted to his version 14 more times over the next eight weeks, continually insisting that no objections to his version had been raised (e.g. ), though they clearly had.

 * 04:00, Oct 21, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr began editing Operation Days of Penitence in which he immediately says "post objections in Talk", working toward a major re-write .  Though he edited or reverted article 32 times over four days, his 5 Talk entries were mostly threats and insults.

22 Oct

 * 04:32, Oct 22, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr reverted Rachel Corrie 4 times in 11 hours with deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

24 Oct

 * 05:03, Oct 24, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr reverted Operation Days of Penitence 6 times in 8 hours with deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

25 Oct

 * 05:28, Oct 25, 2004
 * After completely replacing Struggle over Palestine, HistoryBuffEr reverted page 10 times in 3 hours with deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts, stopping only when Proteus protected page . HistoryBuffEr then filed a Rfc (never certified) against Proteus for protecting page on the other version.

 * 05:34, Oct 25, 2004
 * After IZAK moved Occupation of Palestine to Struggle over Palestine, HistoryBuffEr reverted the contents 6 times in 37 minutes with deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

29 Oct

 * 18:17, Oct 29, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr began editing Yasser Arafat, working toward creating a new POV version . He edited or reverted article 66 times over two weeks before entering any Talk, while insisting other editors post objections in Talk .  He subsequently reverted to his version an additional 35 times over the next six weeks.

31 Oct

 * 22:36, Oct 31, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr began editing Ariel Sharon, on his way to a substantial re-write . He edited or reverted article 25 times over five weeks with 0 discussion in Talk, while insisting others post objections in Talk.

5 Nov

 * 19:41, Nov 5, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr reverted Occupation of Palestine 6 times in 23 hours with deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

10 Nov

 * 05:08, Nov 10, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr reverted Sabra and Shatila Massacre 5 times in 23 hours with deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

14 Nov

 * 05:24, Nov 14, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr reverted Yasser Arafat 4 times in 21 hours with deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts.

3 Dec

 * 06:46 Dec 3, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr reverted Ariel Sharon 4 times in 23 hours with deceptive edit summaries to hide his reverts .  For this he was blocked.

Summary of case
HistoryBuffEr has repeatedly substantially re-written or completely replaced articles with his own POV versions, in a way that makes it extremely difficult to compare to previous versions. He generally refuses to use the Talk: pages to discuss his new articles, while insisting that other editors must post any objections to his new articles in Talk: pages. Instead he often uses Talk: pages and edit summaries to abuse other editors. These actions inevitably incite edit wars, and HistoryBuffEr has repeatedly violated the 3 Revert Rule to support his new articles. He has also furthered his edit warring by inserting totallydisputed and POV templates in articles which he hasn't completely re-written, while refusing to discuss the issues he has with the articles. These actions even continued throughout the arbitration process, including on the evidence pages themselves. Finally, on the articles in question I have generally not added much original information at all, and the small number of edits I have made have been sourced and NPOV. The evidence presented here by me and others supports this summary.

16 Jul

 * 18:11, 16 Jul 2004
 * In Anti-Zionism Jayjg demonstrates NPOV; reverts insertion stating that the Catholic Church opposes anti-Zionism as a manifestation of anti-Semitism,, due to dubious nature of conclusion, though he believes some forms of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitism.  Does the same on July 19.

13 Sep

 * 10:44, 13 Sep 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr replaces Arab-Israeli conflict article, introducing the neologism "occupation colonies" in place of Israeli settlement, and phrases like "the conflict is kept on the front pages by the pro-Israeli media and business interests" and "About 2/3 of Palestinian Arabs were killed, maimed or expelled by Israeli forces or fled the Israeli terror" . Thereafter continues to replace explicit wikilinks with the neologism in various articles (e.g.  ).    Also continues using similar language in other edits or articles (e.g. "Israel's pogroms of 1948 resulted in deaths, maiming and ethnic cleansing of more than 870,000 inhabitants", "Palestine Jews then [...] began killing, expelling and terrorizing the indigenous Arab population, ethnically cleansing about 870,000 (about 80%) of native Arab population" ).

26 Sep

 * 22:15, 26 Sep 2004
 * In Israeli settlement Jayjg demonstrates NPOV; reverts insertion attempting to assert that Jerusalem is indivisible (the Israeli position), instead inserting links to East Jerusalem and pointing out that it is still distinct (the Palestinian position).

29 Sep

 * 04:40, 29 Sep 2004
 * HistoryBuffer calls Viriditas a "Zionist hack" twice.

5 Oct

 * 17:48, 5 Oct 2004
 * HistoryBuffer adds NPOV template to Israeli West Bank barrier. Adds NPOV or TotallyDisputed templates 14 more times                while refusing to meaningfully discuss objections in Talk.

12 Oct

 * 16:52, 12 Oct 2004
 * HistoryBuffer adds TotallyDisputed template to Arab-Israeli conflict.  Adds template three more times    while refusing to meaningfully discuss objections in Talk.

13 Oct

 * 21:48, 13 Oct 2004
 * HistoryBuffer adds TotallyDisputed template to Holocaust denial examined. Adds TotallyDisputed or NPOV templates 4 more times     while refusing to meaningfully discuss objections in Talk.

17 Oct

 * 07:27, 17 Oct 2004
 * In Jabalia HistoryBuffEr replaces all occurrences of Israel Defense Forces with Israel Terrorist Forces. . Thereafter continues to replace all IDF references with unlinked euphemisms in various articles (e.g., ).

21 Oct

 * 04:00, 21 Oct 2004
 * In Operation Days of Penitence HistoryBuffEr summarizes the statement "The redeployment was accompanied by warnings that the troops would be back if the rocket attacks resume - which analysts on both sides say is likely." from this source as "Analysts on both sides agree that Israel's proclamation of success is premature because the cause for attacks on Israel has not been removed and this bloody invasion has probably inspired more Palestinians to join active resistance."

22 Oct

 * 01:53 22 Oct 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr refers to Jayjg as "hopelessly mired in fantasy world agitprop hack".

 * 19:38, 22 Oct 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr refers to Jayjg as "ultra-ultra-Ortodox POV pusher Jayjg".  Similarly calls him "ultra-ultra-Ortodox Jayjg".

23 Oct

 * 03:22, 31 Oct 2004
 * In Yasser Arafat HistoryBuffEr inserts a description of Said Aburish (a Palestinian Muslim biographer of Arafat) as a "Christian Lebanese journalist based in London (and holder of an American passport) who is highly critical of Arafat" . When shown to be wrong, completely removes all reference to Aburish and his findings from the article, with the edit summary "Revise POV added by Arafat's enemies (Sharon's bio is by his lovers, must be same POV pushers!)"

25 Oct

 * 05:20, 25 Oct 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr refers to those who disagree with him as "Zionistas" . Other examples:

28 Oct

 * 19:42, 28 Oct 2004
 * In Categories for deletion Jayjg demonstrates NPOV; votes to delete Category:Islamic terrorist organizations and Category:Palestinian terrorist organizations, along with all other Categories of terrorist organizations.

31 Oct

 * 02:25, 31 Oct 2004
 * In Yasser Arafat HistoryBuffEr inserts a description of Forbes magazine as "pro-Israel" in response to Forbes estimate of Arafat's personal wealth as "at least $300 million" on Forbes well-known lists of wealth.

 * 06:19, Oct 31, 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr refers to Jayjg as a “Zionist dolt”.

 * 13:06, 31 Oct 2004
 * In Yasser Arafat Jayjg demonstrates NPOV; removes an unsourced claim that Arafat's support of his wife Suha is "extravagant".

 * 19:21, 31 Oct 2004
 * In Yasser Arafat Jayjg demonstrates NPOV; removes an unsourced smear regarding Arafat's alleged homosexuality, and also removes assertion that the sources contradicting Arafat's claim he was born in Jerusalem were the "most reliable".

1 Nov

 * 03:35, 1 Nov 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr adds Ariel Sharon to Category:Jewish terrorists, a category which does not exist.

 * 18:29, 1 Nov 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr refers to Lance6Wins as "sneaky Lance6Loser" and Jayjg as "Loser Jag".

 * 21:42, 1 Nov 2004
 * In Talk:Yasser Arafat Jayjg demonstrates NPOV; argues that a claim that Arafat waved a pistol at the U.N. should be removed, and offers evidence that the claim is false.

5 Nov

 * 18:11, 16 Jul 2004
 * In Talk:Ariel Sharon, when a user wants to lower estimates for Palestinians killed in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Jayjg demonstrates NPOV; tells them that some estimates were much higher, and that it was best to include the entire range.

11 Nov

 * 22:21, 11 Nov 2004
 * Neutral third party Quadell attempts to overcome edit war on Munich Massacre by writing a compromise version. . HistoryBuffEr agrees to this, and not to revert to his own version.  However, HistoryBuffEr soon reverts to a version considerably different from Quadell's version, and, in fact, identical to his own pre-Quadell version,  claiming "There was no agreement, the so-called compromise version is almost identical to POV version)."

21 Nov

 * 05:55, 21 Nov 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr invalidates Viriditas's evidence by deliberately changing his diff links.

29 Dec

 * 04:46, 29 Dec 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr refers to Jayjg as an “agitprop”.

28 Sep

 * 01:21, 28 Sep 2004
 * An attempt to bring HistoryBuffEr into collaborative mode: ends in the blackhole User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons.

30 Sep

 * 11:55, 30 Sep 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr promotes the views of HAMAS (officially designated a terrorist group in the US, the EU, Canada, etc) in denying Israel the right to exist:

1 Nov

 * 00:08, 1 Nov 2004
 * In a single edit, HistoryBuffEr 1) engages in an ad hominem attack ("Humus doltius patheticus"), 2) removes a factual paragraph that doesn't fit his POV, and 3) inserts straw-man anti-Semitic slander.

6 Nov

 * 10:41, 6 Nov 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr's attempt to falsify the vote results: averted:.

28 November
21:43, Nov 28, 2004

HistoryBuffEr deleted from Yasser Arafat a large amount of fully referenced material about the 1972 Black September attack on the Munich Olympics in which 11 Israeli athletes died. He ignored requests for an explanation on Talk:Yasser Arafat and on his own talk page. He reverted four times in just over 24 hours.
 * 1st revert, 21:43, Nov 28, 2004 ;
 * 2nd revert, 08:20, Nov 29, 2004 ;
 * 3rd revert, 18:58, Nov 29, 2004 ;
 * 4th revert, 23:16, Nov 29, 2004

29 November
08:16, Nov 29, 2004

When asked why he was deleting, HistoryBuffEr initially did not respond, but then did respond with: "Sorry, I don't have time for someone with 750+ edits and obvious bias pretending to need an explanation of editing process. Have a nice day. HistoryBuffEr 08:16, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)."

8:32, Nov 29, 2004 When asked again, he replied: "When your repeated posts are ignored it's a hint to rethink your argument. As you keep recycling the same trash here and on my user talk, here are more clues: In view of your 750+ edits, your "question" on "removed" material is obvious trolling and will be ignored. Your assertion that 1 unsubstantiated rumor printed in a newspaper counts as 2 "disparate" sources is laughable. Your presentation of Morris, who advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and calls them "a very sick society", as "pro-Palestinian" is worse than a bad joke. Have a nice day, and stop spamming and reverting my user page. HistoryBuffEr 18:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

14 Sep

 * 03:44, 14 Sep 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr attacks Ambi on Talk:Israeli occupation of Palestine  and uses the edit sumary box to attack her twice more, accusing her of posting "propaganda" and "vandalism".

18 Oct

 * 19:43, 18 Oct 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr attacks MathKnight and calls his edits illiterate and twice accuses MathKnight of "vandalism"  ; and refers to MathKnight as part of "Jayjg's POV pushing troops"

18 Nov

 * 06:22, 18 Nov 2004
 * History BuffEr attacks Calton on Talk:Yasser Arafat when Calton comments on HistoryBuffEr's unilateral edit history.

22 October

 * 01:53, 2004 Oct 22
 * Writes on the talk page: "The dispute exists only in your extremist head. Even your Fuehrer admits it, so get over it. HistoryBuffEr 01:53, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)"

29 December

 * 04:35, 29 Dec 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr deleted the existing version of the article, which was worked out lengthy in talk by User:SlimVirgin, User:Pravda and me - with productive results - and replaced it with a wholesale rewrite of the article - which is both POV and biased and even factually disaccurate. In his edit summary he writes: "Restore the more detailed and neutral version to which no objections have been made" which is not true, as he balantly ignored this, and even this. MathKnight 10:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * 04:39, 29 Dec 2004
 * Same for Yasser Arafat article, repeated attacks, deleting the existing article and replace it with an wholesale rewrite which was proven both biased and inaccurate. For more details, please see: . MathKnight 10:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence

The earlier talk page, associated with the 495 kb version of the evidence page in this matter has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence/Full version

RE: Evidence by HistoryBuffEr
Please note that: HistoryBuffEr 19:57, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 * All the evidence has already been submitted, my presentation is complete (and was before the new format request).
 * The evidence is logically organized according to subject matter; it is unlikely that this volume of evidence would be easier to follow if it was organized differently.
 * Limiting evidence in cases like this one, with numerous claims and submitters, is questionable. Perhaps it would be better to ask users not to add meritless or duplicate claims (as Viriditas, Jayjg and many others have done here).
 * I was recently asked to add diff links, but after I have done so (having spent a considerable amnount of time on it), I am essentially asked to remove most of them.
 * The evidence format followed guidelines at the time of the RFAr. Those who want to retroactively apply the new format guideline are free to do so themselves.
 * HistoryBuffEr, while I didn't make the request you object to, I think it's reasonable. When we ask for diffs, it is so that we can assure ourselves that we are seeing the edits in contention.  If you believe that volunteer editors here have time to read and evaluate over 700 diffs (admittedly, more than half of those were posted by the opposition to you in this case), I think you have a very unusual idea of the amount of free time arbitrators have.  What we want are clear allegations backed up with several diffs -- choose the strongest evidence you have and organize it so that we can see the most serious allegations and the diffs which most clearly support them.  Arbitration isn't (can't be, given the limitations of time) an exhaustive evaluation of every questionable edit a person has made here.  It is to resolve specific and serious violations of Wikipedia policy.  Given that, I think the request to provide limited narrative and less than 100 diff links is reasonable -- I recognize the amount of time everyone took compiling that initial evidence page, but it is simply too much.  Were I a real judge with a legal staff, I could take that amount of evidence and then have my staffers boil it down into summary form for me.  As it stands, I don't have a staff, and I'm doing the best I can, but you have to help by pre-summarizing as much as you can, so that I can focus on the best possible evidence.  I do not believe that given 4 months and no other cases to arbitrate, I could adequately read half a megabyte of text and adequately evaluate over 700 diffs.  Please do what you are being asked to do, or else I fear this arbitration will drag on forever and reach unfair conclusions based on the fact that arbitrators will be forced to vote on a limited understanding of the charges and evidence in this case. Jwrosenzweig 01:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig, I agree that the request makes sense in general, it's just not reasonable at this point when my presentation is complete and contains no extraneous claims or evidence.
 * Evidence is necessary to support all the claims I made,
 * I have not submitted minor claims or extraneous evidence,
 * I have made no duplicate or meritless claims,
 * so, there is nothing that I would want to subtract from my presentation.
 * HistoryBuffEr 18:35, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

I intend to consider only the evidence you choose to present on the refactored evidence page. If you chose to present none, I will consider none. Fred Bauder 06:11, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have presented evidence on the new evidence page. If you choose to ignore the links provided, there is nothing I can do about it.
 * Also, the Arbitration policy explicitly allows requests for recusal during arbitration:
 * "3. Users who believe Arbitrators have a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process. The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response."
 * One more time, I repeat my call for recusal.
 * HistoryBuffEr 18:35, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Again, there is no basis for recusal. We have never attempted to even edit the same article; we have never quarreled; before I saw your request for arbitration I had never noticed you or any edit you made. Proposals I have made or actions I have taken during the arbitration are not grounds for recusal unless they were extremely prejducial which they are not. Fred Bauder 12:04, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Fred Bauder, that you are clearly biased in this matter is more than evident. See my previous comments for evidence.
 * You have now added more evidence of your bias and arrogance by attempting to:
 * Discard my completed presentation of evidence, which takes less than 30 minutes to read, and
 * Force me to dance to your kindergarten-level tune by imposing yet another ban.

 * Apparently, this is just your lame attempt to show off your "imperial" powers, ignore the evidence, and impose your preordained decision to severely punish HistoryBuffEr for merely colorful comments, which never negatively affected any articles (and, in many cases, helped to NPOV the contents); and evade imposition of any measures on Jayjg for his numerous violations of sysop privileges, reverts, bullying, and incessant organized POV pushing, which have served only to preserve and expand the strong bias in hundreds of articles, which matches your POV.

 * The good news is that other ArbCom members (aside from James F) have not rushed to join your railroad project. The bad news is that you obviously can't take the hint.
 * As you have shown no respect for the ArbCom, Wikipedia community or even your own reputation, my respect for your petulant directives and musings is less than zero, and I won't respond to any of them.

 * But, please do go on with your marsupial hanging circus, it's been a great source of amusement.
 * HistoryBuffEr 21:40, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Format question
Is the format I've used acceptable for the Arbitrators? Or would they prefer enter every item purely chronologically? I think the way I'm doing it is clearer, but I'm fine either way. Please let me know. Jayjg 19:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Purely chronologically would be better - he did this, I did this in response and/or incidentally would be, IMO, clearer, IYSWIM. We Arbitrators are capable enough of reading an action as in line with policy ;-)
 * James F. (talk) 01:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
User:Crissov

Licensing
I agree to multi-license all my Contributions, with the Exception of Talk and my Userpages, as described below:

de:Benutzer:Crissov

title: User:Crissov


text: Category:Fictional radio stations

title: Category:Fictional radio stations


text:
Tunneling protocol

In computer networks, a tunneling protocol is a communication protocol which allows for the movement of data from one network to another. It can, for example, allow private network communications to be sent across a public network (such as the Internet), or for one network protocol to be carried over an incompatible network, through a process called encapsulation.

Because tunneling involves repackaging the traffic data into a different form, perhaps with encryption as standard, it can hide the nature of the traffic that is run through a tunnel.

The tunneling protocol works by using the data portion of a packet (the payload) to carry the packets that actually provide the service. Tunneling uses a layered protocol model such as those of the OSI or TCP/IP protocol suite, but usually violates the layering when using the payload to carry a service not normally provided by the network. Typically, the delivery protocol operates at an equal or higher level in the layered model than the payload protocol.

Uses
A tunneling protocol may, for example, allow a foreign protocol to run over a network that does not support that particular protocol, such as running IPv6 over IPv4.

Another important use is to provide services that are impractical or unsafe to be offered using only the underlying network services, such as providing a corporate network address to a remote user whose physical network address is not part of the corporate network.

Circumventing firewall policy
Users can also use tunneling to "sneak through" a firewall, using a protocol that the firewall would normally block, but "wrapped" inside a protocol that the firewall does not block, such as HTTP. If the firewall policy does not specifically exclude this kind of "wrapping", this trick can function to get around the intended firewall policy (or any set of interlocked firewall policies).

Another HTTP-based tunneling method uses the HTTP CONNECT method/command. A client issues the HTTP CONNECT command to an HTTP proxy. The proxy then makes a TCP connection to a particular server:port, and relays data between that server:port and the client connection. Because this creates a security hole, CONNECT-capable HTTP proxies commonly restrict access to the CONNECT method. The proxy allows connections only to specific ports, such as 443 for HTTPS.

Other tunneling methods able to bypass network firewalls make use of different protocols such as DNS, MQTT, SMS.

Technical overview
As an example of network layer over network layer, Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE), a protocol running over IP (IP protocol number 47), often serves to carry IP packets, with RFC 1918 private addresses, over the Internet using delivery packets with public IP addresses. In this case, the delivery and payload protocols are the same, but the payload addresses are incompatible with those of the delivery network.

It is also possible to establish a connection using the data link layer. The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) allows the transmission of frames between two nodes. A tunnel is not encrypted by default: the TCP/IP protocol chosen determines the level of security.

SSH uses port 22 to enable data encryption of payloads being transmitted over a public network (such as the Internet) connection, thereby providing VPN functionality. IPsec has an end-to-end Transport Mode, but can also operate in a tunneling mode through a trusted security gateway.

To understand a particular protocol stack imposed by tunneling, network engineers must understand both the payload and delivery protocol sets.

Common tunneling protocols

 * IP in IP (IP protocol 4): IP in IPv4/IPv6
 * SIT/IPv6 (IP protocol 41): IPv6 in IPv4/IPv6
 * GRE (IP protocol 47): Generic Routing Encapsulation
 * OpenVPN (UDP port 1194)
 * SSTP (TCP port 443): Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol
 * IPSec (IP protocols 50 and 51): Internet Protocol Security
 * L2TP (UDP port 1701): Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol
 * L2TPv3 (IP protocol 115): Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol version 3
 * VXLAN (UDP port 4789): Virtual Extensible Local Area Network
 * PPTP (TCP port 1723 for control, GRE for data): Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol
 * PPPoE (EtherType 0x8863 for control, 0x8864 for data): Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet
 * GENEVE
 * WireGuard (UDP dynamic port)

Secure Shell tunneling
A Secure Shell (SSH) tunnel consists of an encrypted tunnel created through an SSH protocol connection. Users may set up SSH tunnels to transfer unencrypted traffic over a network through an encrypted channel. It is a software-based approach to network security and the result is transparent encryption.

For example, Microsoft Windows machines can share files using the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol, a non-encrypted protocol. If one were to mount a Microsoft Windows file-system remotely through the Internet, someone snooping on the connection could see transferred files. To mount the Windows file-system securely, one can establish a SSH tunnel that routes all SMB traffic to the remote fileserver through an encrypted channel. Even though the SMB protocol itself contains no encryption, the encrypted SSH channel through which it travels offers security.

Once an SSH connection has been established, the tunnel starts with SSH listening to a port on the remote or local host. Any connections to it are forwarded to the specified address and port originating from the opposing (remote or local, as previously) host.

Tunneling a TCP-encapsulating payload (such as PPP) over a TCP-based connection (such as SSH's port forwarding) is known as "TCP-over-TCP", and doing so can induce a dramatic loss in transmission performance (a problem known as "TCP meltdown"), which is why virtual private network software may instead use a protocol simpler than TCP for the tunnel connection. However, this is often not a problem when using OpenSSH's port forwarding, because many use cases do not entail TCP-over-TCP tunneling; the meltdown is avoided because the OpenSSH client processes the local, client-side TCP connection in order to get to the actual payload that is being sent, and then sends that payload directly through the tunnel's own TCP connection to the server side, where the OpenSSH server similarly "unwraps" the payload in order to "wrap" it up again for routing to its final destination. Naturally, this wrapping and unwrapping also occurs in the reverse direction of the bidirectional tunnel.

SSH tunnels provide a means to bypass firewalls that prohibit certain Internet services – so long as a site allows outgoing connections. For example, an organization may prohibit a user from accessing Internet web pages (port 80) directly without passing through the organization's proxy filter (which provides the organization with a means of monitoring and controlling what the user sees through the web). But users may not wish to have their web traffic monitored or blocked by the organization's proxy filter. If users can connect to an external SSH server, they can create an SSH tunnel to forward a given port on their local machine to port 80 on a remote web server. To access the remote web server, users would point their browser to the local port at http://localhost/

Some SSH clients support dynamic port forwarding that allows the user to create a SOCKS 4/5 proxy. In this case users can configure their applications to use their local SOCKS proxy server. This gives more flexibility than creating an SSH tunnel to a single port as previously described. SOCKS can free the user from the limitations of connecting only to a predefined remote port and server. If an application does not support SOCKS, a proxifier can be used to redirect the application to the local SOCKS proxy server. Some proxifiers, such as Proxycap, support SSH directly, thus avoiding the need for an SSH client.

In recent versions of OpenSSH it is even allowed to create layer 2 or layer 3 tunnels if both ends have enabled such tunneling capabilities. This creates  (layer 3, default) or   (layer 2) virtual interfaces on both ends of the connection. This allows normal network management and routing to be used, and when used on routers, the traffic for an entire subnetwork can be tunneled. A pair of  virtual interfaces function like an Ethernet cable connecting both ends of the connection and can join kernel bridges.

Cyberattacks based on tunneling
Over the years, tunneling and data encapsulation in general have been frequently adopted for malicious reasons, in order to maliciously communicate outside of a protected network.

In this context, known tunnels involve protocols such as HTTP, SSH, DNS, MQTT.

title: Tunneling protocol


text:
Talk:Airbus A350

Lead section
In December, I reorganized the lead section to follow the WP:LEAD guideline by summarizing the main article sections (development, design, Orders and deliveries as prescribed in WP:Aircontent). Yesterday, changed it again with the edit summary: Re-organized the lead. Format based off of the Airbus A330. I reverted the WP:BOLD change, explaining section summaries per WP:LEAD. The A330 lead should be changed to comply. It was reverted again (in contradiction with WP:BRD policy) stating Disagree. The A330 is a good article and therefore is more authoritative and should be used as a reference. The A350 XWB lead also borrows from some extent from the A380 lead as well, which is a good article as well, which is a more authoritative reference. As a result, as good articles, their leads fit WP:LEAD. Also, the A350 lead changes was requested to fulfill GA guidelines. I'll agree the A380 lead section is a good example, as I did a similar process, but the A330 lead section is not really a good example, as it has no real structure and is not really in line with the WP:LEAD guideline. I have updated the A330 lead section in a similar fashion since. Being a GA is not synonymous with prefect quality in every section, and a wikipedia-wide guideline should prime over some individual example. Note the debate is more on the organization than the content itself. Any thoughts from other editors?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 * The lead should follow the general flow of the article rather than jump around, the current lead is also a really bad example in the first paragraph jumping straight into fact and figures, they should be latter. You would expect the first paragraph to be fairly simple but introduce the main points. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I changed the lead to fit MilborneOne's preferences. Basically, since most of the first paragraph of the A380's lead started with the history part, I moved the fact and figures into the third paragraph and merged the first paragraph and second paragraph together. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 21:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I have also made changes to the lead, one that is more in common with the lead of the A380, such as:
 * It succeeds the A340 and competes with the Boeing 787 and 777 is deleted. In relation to other sentences of the lead, it just plainly sounds weird. I already mentioned a competitor in the history (development) section, which is the Boeing 787. This is like the A380 article lead, which mentions the Boeing 747 as a competitor in the development section.
 * Moved The A350 XWB is based on the technologies developed for the Airbus A380 and includes a similar cockpit and fly-by-wire systems layout. It is also the first Airbus mostly made of carbon fibre reinforced polymer. and The A350 XWB has two variants: the A350-900 and the longer A350-1000, with the former typically flying 300 to 350 passengers over a 15000 km range while the latter accommodating 350 to 410 seats over 16100 km. to the last paragraph. This paragraph would be used to summarize both the design and variant sections in conjunction with the operators section.
 * I'm trying to achieve the goal of having three beefy paragraphs as requested in the Good Article Review, while at the same time be reminiscent of the authoritative references, in which is the A380 article, as the A330 article's lead is controversial. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 22:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 * "sounding weird" is not a good reason for deletion, you should rephrase not delete. As the A350 evolved, the main competitor shifted from the 787 to the 777, and it still is the A340 successor.
 * The "A380 technologies" is vague and honestly, the A350 is barely related to the A380. Airbus have glass cockpit and fly-by-wire controls since the A320. I think there is no common type rating with the A380, but with the A330.
 * the /variants/ section are more related to the /design/ paragraph than to the /operators/.
 * The goal of "three beefy paragraphs" is vague and should be less important than being faithful to the article layout.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think with the recent new changes by Marc, I think the lead right now is fine, and better than the lead layouts in previous versions. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 12:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I wonder about the relevance of fly-by-wire in the current lead. As Marc mentions, all Airbuses since the A320 have had fly-by-wire, as do all modern airliners for that matter, so why mention it at all? Furthermore, the only mention of fly-by-wire in the body is an unsourced claim that the systems are similar to those in the A380. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree the FBW bit could be ditched. The common type rating with the A330 seems more noteworthy, as it is an incitative to all-Airbus widebody fleets - similarly to the common 777/787 rating.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * FBW May still warrant a fleeting reference, but in the body. I don’t know if all modern airliners have it? The 737MAX still has wires and pulleys driving hydro-electric actuators at the control surfaces. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Clean-sheet western mainline airliners are FBW since the A320 (intro 1988; the last conventional controls was the B757 - 1983); the regional jets since the E-Jet (2004, open loop); large business jets since the Falcon 7X (2007).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now the aircraft has already been in service for several years, how relevant is it to mention the history of earlier design in lead section? Shouldn't the A330 redesign mentioned in history section? Harshana.nadeeshan (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The opening paragraph about the A330 seems appropriate considering that it explains why the A350 became a clean sheet redesign. It should be included under History as well, in more detail, but the lede says it all really.

Revisiting the title (A350 XWB vs. A350)
This was discussed a few times in archive 1. The main arguments (simplifying; feel free to review archive 1 for details) for including XWB were (1) Airbus uses it and (2) it distinguishes from the A350 (developed from the A330) before the "wider composite design." BUT, (1) Airbus doesn't even mention "XWB" on its web site (at least not in any prominent way; it simply uses "A350" and "A350 family") and (2) there is no separate article "A350" that exclusively discusses the earlier design idea derived from the A330. It has been eight years since the last discussion about the title. I read various aviation blogs and such, and they rarely mention "XWB," and certainly not automatically as part of defining or introducing the A350. It seems that the usage "A350" without any mention of "XWB" is commonplace now. There may have been a time when "XWB" was more common, but now even Airbus seems not to emphasize it. Wikipedia no longer has a separate A350 article that discusses the earlier usage of "A350." Maybe it's time for another move discussion. Holy (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * The goal is to use the WP:COMMONNAME. Searching "Airbus A350" -"XWB" gives 3.76M results; "Airbus A350 XWB" gives 0.318M results. The "XWB" suffix should be dropped.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * The XWB part should be removed from the article title, imo. This article covers both the early A330-based A350 concept and the current A50 AWB. Removing XWB from the article title would better match common name usage and also content of the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Agree entirely, XWB should be removed. I'd even venture to say that this would be an uncontroversial move and shouldn't need a formal move request. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Agree it can be removed, it cant be considered a common name now, it was just used for marketing related to Airbus changing the design a few times so as not to confuse the original customers. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

✅ BilCat (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

New Production Standard (NPS)
There is no info I can find on this page about the NPS, which is already in service. Thanks. 88.98.85.216 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 * So fix it yourself, or at least give someone a start by posting a link to where you found this information, if there is one. BilCat (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

ACJ350 section outdated
"ACJ350" variant info says that it is based on the -900ULR though I have not been able to find any source to back this. On the Airbus site, the ACJ350 can be based off of the -900 or -1000, not the ULR.

Range is also incorrect, also from the previous link, the -900 base has a 20,550 km/11,100 nm range, and the -1000 is stated to have 19,100 km/10,300 nm range.

Apologies as I'm new here and have little / no clue on formatting and the guidelines on page editing which others here are much more experienced in, else I'd edit it myself. Mainly created an account because I noticed this error. -notbingbadaboom- (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Airbus A350


text:
Volume of distribution

In pharmacology, the volume of distribution (VD, also known as apparent volume of distribution, literally, volume of dilution ) is the theoretical volume that would be necessary to contain the total amount of an administered drug at the same concentration that it is observed in the blood plasma. In other words, it is the ratio of amount of drug in a body (dose) to concentration of the drug that is measured in blood, plasma, and un-bound in interstitial fluid.

The VD of a drug represents the degree to which a drug is distributed in body tissue rather than the plasma. VD is directly proportional with the amount of drug distributed into tissue; a higher VD indicates a greater amount of tissue distribution. A VD greater than the total volume of body water (approximately 42 liters in humans ) is possible, and would indicate that the drug is highly distributed into tissue. In other words, the volume of distribution is smaller in the drug staying in the plasma than that of a drug that is widely distributed in tissues.

In rough terms, drugs with a high lipid solubility (non-polar drugs), low rates of ionization, or low plasma protein binding capabilities have higher volumes of distribution than drugs which are more polar, more highly ionized or exhibit high plasma protein binding in the body's environment. Volume of distribution may be increased by kidney failure (due to fluid retention) and liver failure (due to altered body fluid and plasma protein binding). Conversely it may be decreased in dehydration.

The initial volume of distribution describes blood concentrations prior to attaining the apparent volume of distribution and uses the same formula.

Equations
The volume of distribution is given by the following equation:

 * $${V_{D}} = \frac{\mathrm{total \ amount \ of \ drug \ in \ the \ body}}{\mathrm{drug \ blood \ plasma \ concentration}}$$

Therefore, the dose required to give a certain plasma concentration can be determined if the VD for that drug is known. The VD is not a physiological value; it is more a reflection of how a drug will distribute throughout the body depending on several physicochemical properties, e.g. solubility, charge, size, etc.

The unit for Volume of Distribution is typically reported in litres. As body composition changes with age, VD decreases.

The VD may also be used to determine how readily a drug will displace into the body tissue compartments relative to the blood:

 * $${V_{D}} = {V_{P}} + {V_{T}} \left(\frac{fu}{fu_{t}}\right)$$

Where:

 * VP = plasma volume
 * VT = apparent tissue volume
 * fu = fraction unbound in plasma
 * fuT = fraction unbound in tissue

Examples
If you administer a dose D of a drug intravenously in one go (IV-bolus), you would naturally expect it to have an immediate blood concentration $$C_0$$ which directly corresponds to the amount of blood contained in the body $$V_{blood}$$. Mathematically this would be:

$$C_0 = D/V_{blood}$$

But this is generally not what happens. Instead you observe that the drug has distributed out into some other volume (read organs/tissue). So probably the first question you want to ask is: how much of the drug is no longer in the blood stream? The volume of distribution $$V_D$$ quantifies just that by specifying how big a volume you would need in order to observe the blood concentration actually measured.

An example for a simple case (mono-compartmental) would be to administer D=8 mg/kg to a human. A human has a blood volume of around $$V_{blood}=$$0.08 L/kg . This gives a $$C_0=$$100 μg/mL if the drug stays in the blood stream only, and thus its volume of distribution is the same as $$V_{blood}$$ that is $$V_D=$$ 0.08 L/kg. If the drug distributes into all body water the volume of distribution would increase to approximately $$V_D=$$0.57 L/kg

If the drug readily diffuses into the body fat the volume of distribution may increase dramatically, an example is chloroquine which has a $$V_D=$$250-302 L/kg

In the simple mono-compartmental case the volume of distribution is defined as: $$V_D=D/C_0$$, where the $$C_0$$ in practice is an extrapolated concentration at time = 0 from the first early plasma concentrations after an IV-bolus administration (generally taken around 5 min - 30 min after giving the drug).

title: Volume of distribution


text:
Stephen Maxwell

Stephen Maxwell (11 October 1942 – 24 April 2012) was a Scottish nationalist politician and intellectual and, from the 1980s, a leading figure in the Scottish voluntary sector.

Early life
Born in 1942 in Edinburgh to a Scottish medical family, he was brought up in Yorkshire, England, where his father, John, accepted a job as a surgeon on return from service in India during the Second World War. Maxwell was educated at Pocklington School, Yorkshire, and at 17 won a scholarship to study Moral Sciences at St John's College, Cambridge. After graduating from Cambridge he made an unsuccessful attempt to move into journalism before going on to study for an MA in International Relations at the London School of Economics. On completion of the MA (for which he was awarded a distinction) he spent two years working on a PhD thesis on the irrationality of nuclear deterrence, also at the LSE.

Life
In the late 1960s he abandoned academia in England and returned to Scotland, where he balanced his work at the University of Edinburgh with campaigning for the Scottish National Party (SNP). In 1973, at the age of 31, he was appointed Head of Press for the SNP. His friend Owen Dudley Edwards, an Irish-born Edinburgh historian, remembers his press briefings as unique: "Hostile journalists were staggered to hear him explain that their objections to this or that in the party were not really rewarding subjects but that a more useful question to raise would be this other."

During the 1970s Maxwell played a formative role in developing the SNP's industrial and defence policies and became known as one of the most radical and articulate figures in the party. In 1979 he directed the SNP's campaign for a Yes vote in the referendum on Scottish devolution. The campaign was ultimately unsuccessful and heralded the start of a period of decline in the SNP's fortunes.

In 1979 Maxwell, together with Margo MacDonald, Owen Dudley Edwards and a number of younger nationalist activists (including Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill) established the 79 Group, a left-wing faction within the SNP. Maxwell stood as the group's candidate in the 1979 Scottish National Party leadership election, taking a distant second place. In 1981 Maxwell wrote and published a pamphlet, The Case for Left-Wing Nationalism, which became the 79 Group's defining statement. Later that year, the 79 Group was expelled by the party leadership, partly because of its alleged affiliations to Irish republicanism.

Throughout the 1980s Maxwell wrote extensively for periodicals, including The Bulletin of Scottish Politics, Cencrastus and Radical Scotland. Following a second failed attempt to move into journalism, he became involved with the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations (SCVO).

He worked for the SCVO until he retired from his post as Associate Director in 2009. Between 2010 and his death in April 2012 he chaired the Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum and worked on a book, Arguing for Independence: Evidence, Risk and the Wicked Issues, which examines six cases for Scottish independence: the democratic, the economic, the social, the international, the cultural and the environmental. It was published in September 2012.

Upon his hearing of Maxwell's death, Scottish First Minister and SNP leader Alex Salmond said, "During Stephen’s long career he made an immense contribution to the national movement in Scotland, and was a key figure in the development of the modern SNP. But Stephen’s loss will be felt much more widely than just politics. Over a quarter of a century with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Stephen was a tireless campaigner for the third sector in Scotland, helping it through the difficult days of the 1980s and establishing it as a major force in post-devolution Scotland. Above all, I will remember Stephen’s courtesy to all, his extraordinary intellect combined with gentle persuasiveness, and his lifelong service to others."

Death
He died on 24 April 2012, aged 69. He is survived by his wife Sally, his children Luke, Katie and Jamie and his brother Peter.

Reviews

 * Carty, Tony (1982), review of Scotland and the Multinationals, in Hearn, Sheila G. (ed.), Cencrastus No. 10, Autumn 1982, p. 44,

title: Stephen Maxwell


text:
Wireless device radiation and health

The antennas contained in mobile phones, including smartphones, emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation (non-ionizing "radio waves" such as microwaves); the parts of the head or body nearest to the antenna can absorb this energy and convert it to heat. Since at least the 1990s, scientists have researched whether the now-ubiquitous radiation associated with mobile phone antennas or cell phone towers is affecting human health. Mobile phone networks use various bands of RF radiation, some of which overlap with the microwave range. Other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks, produce similar radiation.

In response to public concern, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International EMF (Electric and Magnetic Fields) Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. They have stated that although extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum, all reviews conducted so far have indicated that, as long as exposures are below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, which cover the full frequency range from 0–300 GHz, such exposures do not produce any known adverse health effect. In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the WHO, classified wireless radiation as Group 2B – possibly carcinogenic. That means that there "could be some risk" of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of wireless devices needs to be conducted. The WHO states that "A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use."

International guidelines on exposure levels to microwave frequency EMFs such as ICNIRP limit the power levels of wireless devices and it is uncommon for wireless devices to exceed the guidelines. These guidelines only take into account thermal effects, as non-thermal effects have not been conclusively demonstrated. The official stance of the British Health Protection Agency (HPA) is that "there is no consistent evidence to date that Wi-Fi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population", but also that "it is a sensible precautionary approach ... to keep the situation under ongoing review ...". In a 2018 statement, the FDA said that "the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of Radio-frequency energy exposure".

Mobile phones
A mobile phone connects to the telephone network by radio waves exchanged with a local antenna and automated transceiver called a cellular base station (cell site or cell tower). The service area served by each provider is divided into small geographical areas called cells, and all the phones in a cell communicate with that cell's antenna. Both the phone and the tower have radio transmitters which communicate with each other. Since in a cellular network the same radio channels are reused every few cells, cellular networks use low power transmitters to avoid radio waves from one cell spilling over and interfering with a nearby cell using the same frequencies.

Mobile phones are limited to an effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) output of 3 watts, and the network continuously adjusts the phone transmitter to the lowest power consistent with good signal quality, reducing it to as low as one milliwatt when near the cell tower. Tower channel transmitters usually have an EIRP power output of around 50 watts. Even when it is not being used, unless it is turned off, a mobile phone periodically emits radio signals on its control channel, to keep contact with its cell tower and for functions like handing off the phone to another tower if the user crosses into another cell. When the user is making a call, the phone transmits a signal on a second channel which carries the user's voice. Existing 2G, 3G, and 4G networks use frequencies in the UHF or low microwave bands, 600 MHz to 3.5 GHz. Many household wireless devices such as WiFi networks, garage door openers, and baby monitors use other frequencies in this same frequency range.

Radio waves decrease rapidly in intensity by the inverse square of distance as they spread out from a transmitting antenna. So the phone transmitter, which is held close to the user's face when talking, is a much greater source of human exposure than the tower transmitter, which is typically at least hundreds of metres away from the user. A user can reduce their exposure by using a headset and keeping the phone itself farther away from their body.

Next generation 5G cellular networks, which began deploying in 2019, use higher frequencies in or near the millimetre wave band, 24 to 52 GHz. Millimetre waves are absorbed by atmospheric gases so 5G networks will use smaller cells than previous cellular networks, about the size of a city block. Instead of a cell tower, each cell will use an array of multiple small antennas mounted on existing buildings and utility poles. In general, millimetre waves penetrate less deeply into biological tissue than microwaves, and are mainly absorbed within the first centimetres of the body surface.

Cordless phones
The HPA also says that due to the mobile phone's adaptive power ability, a DECT cordless phone's radiation could actually exceed the radiation of a mobile phone. The HPA explains that while the DECT cordless phone's radiation has an average output power of 10 mW, it is actually in the form of 100 bursts per second of 250 mW, a strength comparable to some mobile phones.

Wireless networking
Most wireless LAN equipment is designed to work within predefined standards. Wireless access points are also often close to people, but the drop off in power over distance is fast, following the inverse-square law. However, wireless laptops are typically used close to people. WiFi had been anecdotally linked to electromagnetic hypersensitivity but research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity has found no systematic evidence supporting claims made by affected people.

Users of wireless networking devices are typically exposed for much longer periods than for mobile phones and the strength of wireless devices is not significantly less. Whereas a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) phone can range from 21 dBm (125 mW) for Power Class 4 to 33 dBm (2W) for Power class 1, a wireless router can range from a typical 15 dBm (30 mW) strength to 27 dBm (500 mW) on the high end.

However, wireless routers are typically located significantly farther away from users' heads than a phone the user is handling, resulting in far less exposure overall. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) says that if a person spends one year in a location with a WiFi hot spot, they will receive the same dose of radio waves as if they had made a 20-minute call on a mobile phone.

The HPA's position is that "... radio frequency (RF) exposures from WiFi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones." It also saw "... no reason why schools and others should not use WiFi equipment." In October 2007, the HPA launched a new "systematic" study into the effects of WiFi networks on behalf of the UK government, in order to calm fears that had appeared in the media in a recent period up to that time. Michael Clark of the HPA says published research on mobile phones and masts does not add up to an indictment of WiFi.

Blood–brain barrier
A 2010 review stated that "The balance of experimental evidence does not support an effect of 'non-thermal' radio frequency fields" on the permeability of the blood–brain barrier, but noted that research on low frequency effects and effects in humans was sparse. A 2012 study of low-frequency radiation on humans found "no evidence for acute effects of short-term mobile phone radiation on cerebral blood flow".

Cancer
There have been rumors that mobile phone use can cause cancer, but this is a myth. The CDC states that no scientific evidence definitively answers whether mobile phone use causes cancer.

In a 2018 statement, the US Food and Drug Administration said that "the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of radiofrequency energy exposure".

A 2021 review found "limited" but "sufficient" evidence for radio frequencies in the range of 450 MHz to 6,000 MHz to be related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas in humans, however concluding also that "... the evidence is not yet sufficiently strong to establish a direct relationship". Conclusions could not be drawn for higher frequencies due to insufficient adequate studies.

Fertility and reproduction
A decline in male sperm quality has been observed over several decades. Studies on the impact of mobile radiation on male fertility are conflicting, and the effects of the radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted by these devices on the reproductive systems are currently under active debate. A 2012 review concluded that "together, the results of these studies have shown that RF-EMR decreases sperm count and motility and increases oxidative stress". A 2017 study of 153 men that attended an academic fertility clinic in Boston, Massachusetts found that self-reported mobile phone use was not related to semen quality, and that carrying a mobile phone in the pants pocket was not related to semen quality.

A 2021 review concluded 5G radio frequencies in the range of 450 MHz to 6,000 MHz affect male fertility, possibly affect female fertility, and may have adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Conclusions could not be drawn for higher frequencies due to insufficient adequate studies.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Some users of mobile phones and similar devices have reported feeling various non-specific symptoms during and after use. Studies have failed to link any of these symptoms to electromagnetic exposure. In addition, EHS is not a recognized medical diagnosis.

Glucose metabolism
According to the National Cancer Institute, two small studies exploring whether and how mobile phone radiation affects brain glucose metabolism showed inconsistent results.

Effects on children
A report from the Australian Government's Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) in June 2017 noted that:

"The 2010 WHO Research Agenda identified a lack of sufficient evidence relating to children and this is still the case. ... Given that no long-term prospective study has looked at this issue to date this research need remains a high priority.

For cancer in particular only one completed case-control study involving four European countries has investigated mobile phone use among children or adolescents and risk of brain tumour; showing no association between the two (Aydin et al. 2011). ... Given this paucity of information regarding children using mobile phones and cancer ... more epidemiological studies are needed."

Other organisms
Low-level EMF does have some effects on other organisms. Vian et al., 2006 finds an effect of microwave on gene expression in plants.

Base stations

Experts consulted by France considered it was mandatory that the main antenna axis should not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 metres. This recommendation was modified in 2003 to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the city scape and was not included in a 2005 expert report. The Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale,, says that there is no demonstrated short-term effect of electromagnetic fields on health, but that there are open questions for long-term effects, and that it is easy to reduce exposure via technological improvements. A 2020 study in Environmental Research found that "Although direct causation of negative human health effects from RFR from cellular phone base stations has not been finalized, there is already enough medical and scientific evidence to warrant long-term liability concerns for companies deploying cellular phone towers" and thus recommended voluntary setbacks from schools and hospitals.

Safety standards and licensing
To protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonize the different standards in existence.

Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation.

Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities.

The safety standards in the US are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) a Congressionally chartered scientific organization located in the WDC area and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety".

Switzerland has set safety limits lower than the ICNIRP limits for certain "sensitive areas" (classrooms, for example).

In March 2020, for the first time since 1998, ICNIRP updated its guidelines for exposures to frequencies over 6 GHz, including the frequencies used for 5G that are over 6 GHz. The Commission added a restriction on acceptable levels of exposure to the whole body, added a restriction on acceptable levels for brief exposures to small regions of the body, and reduced the maximum amount of exposure permitted over a small region of the body.

Lawsuits
In the US, personal injury lawsuits have been filed by individuals against manufacturers (including Motorola, NEC, Siemens, and Nokia) on the basis of allegations of causation of brain cancer and death. In US federal courts, expert testimony relating to science must be first evaluated by a judge, in a Daubert hearing, to be relevant and valid before it is admissible as evidence. In a 2002 case against Motorola, the plaintiffs alleged that the use of wireless handheld telephones could cause brain cancer and that the use of Motorola phones caused one plaintiff's cancer. The judge ruled that no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation was proffered by the plaintiffs, accepted a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts, and denied a motion to exclude the testimony of the defendants' experts.

Two separate cases in Italy, in 2009 and 2017, resulted in pensions being awarded to plaintiffs who had claimed their benign brain tumors were the result of prolonged mobile phone use in professional tasks, for 5–6 hours a day, which they ruled different from non-professional use.

In the UK Legal Action Against 5G sought a Judicial Review of the government's plan to deploy 5G. If successful, the group was to be represented by Michael Mansfield QC, a prominent British barrister. This application was denied on the basis that the government had demonstrated that 5G was as safe as 4G, and that the applicants had brought their action too late.

Precautionary principle
In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case. It follows the recommendations of the European Community for environmental risks.

According to the WHO, the "precautionary principle" is "a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research." Other less stringent recommended approaches are prudent avoidance principle and as low as reasonably practicable. Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased popularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern. They involve recommendations such as the minimization of usage, the limitation of use by at-risk population (e.g., children), the adoption of phones and microcells with as low as reasonably practicable levels of radiation, the wider use of hands-free and earphone technologies such as Bluetooth headsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth. Overall, public information remains a challenge as various health consequences are evoked in the literature and by the media, putting populations under chronic exposure to potentially worrying information.

Precautionary measures and health advisories
In May 2011, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified electromagnetic fields from mobile phones and other sources as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" and advised the public to adopt safety measures to reduce exposure, like use of hands-free devices or texting.

Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria, France, Germany, and Sweden, have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples of the recommendations are:

 * Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head.
 * Keep the mobile phone away from the body.
 * Do not use telephone in a car without an external antenna.

The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000, as they believed that exposure was increased. However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry and others for the French showed substantial reductions. In 2005, Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.

Several nations have advised moderate use of mobile phones for children. An article by Gandhi et al. in 2006 states that children receive higher levels of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). When 5- and 10-year-olds are compared to adults, they receive about 153% higher SAR levels. Also, with the permittivity of the brain decreasing as one gets older and the higher relative volume of the exposed growing brain in children, radiation penetrates far beyond the mid-brain.

5G
The FDA is quoted as saying that it "...continues to believe that the current safety limits for cellphone radiofrequency energy exposure remain acceptable for protecting the public health."

During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation circulated claiming that 5G networks contribute to the spread of COVID-19.

Bogus products
Products have been advertised that claim to shield people from EM radiation from mobile phones; in the US the Federal Trade Commission published a warning that "Scam artists follow the headlines to promote products that play off the news –and prey on concerned people."

According to the FTC, "there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from electromagnetic emissions. Products that block only the earpiece –or another small portion of the phone –are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves." Such shields "may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation." The FTC has enforced false advertising claims against companies that sell such products.

title: Wireless device radiation and health


text:
List of Ryanair destinations

Irish low-cost carrier Ryanair serves the following 229 year-round and seasonal destinations in 37 countries as of April 2022.

Map

Map showing all destinations served by Ryanair as of November 2021.

title: List of Ryanair destinations


text:
Talk:O Holy Night

What about the music?
To me, as some-one not well-versed in music theory, the song has some interesting and unusual patterns. Could some-one in the know add a discussion of the music of this song? If nothing else, at least give its tempo. Kdammers (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also just came here for this.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   00:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

First music on radio?
There's some argument at Reginald Fessenden as to the first music broadcast on radio. It's agreed that Fessenden was responsible, and that it was his violin solo. However what was the music? The only source so far says it's Gounod's composition  'O Holy Night ' ,http://earlyradiohistory.us/1940fes2.htm one editor is arguing that it's this piece instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , you're right, the reliable source states it was Gounod's piece. Those popular Stories of the Best Loved Songs books are often unreliable re-hashes of popular myths (like the myth of the organ being broken when "Silent Night" was written). I've removed the misinformation. Softlavender (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 * More info I've found out: On the first radio broadcast in 1906, Fessenden actually played on his violin a song by Gounod called "Adore and Be Still", and sang the last line of it as well. He later misremembered the title as "O Holy Night", but it was clearly "Adore and Be Still":, , . The incorrect myth that it was Adam's "O Holy Night" (which Fessenden never even said or wrote) has been perpetuated over the years by various pop-culture publications, but it's just a myth. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK
In order to prevent these sorts of articles from turning into WP:COATRACKs, most such articles avoid cover lists; see for instance Silent Night, which has none. I have removed all of the noncited cover material. You'd be hard-pressed to find a singer who has recorded a Christmas album and not recorded this carol; therefore cover lists are inappropriate unless the cover achieved some sort of cited milestone. Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't heard of WP:COATRACKs. Thanks for pointing it out since some of the nonsense was my fault. Ckruschke (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Unattributed Version
We have had since 2007 a version of the lyrics which begins "O! Holy night! The stars, their gleams prolonging". I can't find any evidence that this is a notable version of the song. It seems to have originally been a slightly different version of the normal English lyrics, which was then edited into a rather more different version by a number of edits (interspersed amongst others) by User:Skrooball:. In the absence of any source or justification, I've removed these lyrics. If any one can actually provide a source - which does not itself derive from Wikipedia - where these lyrics appear, feel free to put them back with appropriate attribution. TSP (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge from O Holy Night (Ladywell Primary School song)
I attempted to merge into this article material from the article O Holy Night (Ladywell Primary School song) but was reverted. My understanding of the consensus on song articles is that multiple notable versions of the same song should be included in the main article and not in separate articles. The Ladywell Primary School version is a charting version, and the material is referenced to multiple reliable sources (two newspaper sites and the Official Charts Company). I believe the Ladywell Primary School information should be merged into O Holy Night.— Shelf Skewed  Talk  06:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not apply to classical music and traditional songs. Just add one sentence about it in the "Recordings" section. And if you like, add it to the "Charts" and/or "Certifications" sections. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does apply to traditional songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Christian hymns. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored and trimmed the content. Marking the other version a redirect here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trimming it further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you got that. Hymns (Christian or otherwise), non-hymn religious songs, national anthems, commercial jingles, wacky parodies, etc. are all songs. They aren't set aside from every other song in the world because of what we feel about them. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See "Amazing Grace", for instance, or any other Christian hymn or classical song ("Nessun Dorma") or national anthem that has had charting version(s). Judy Collins recorded "Amazing Grace" in 1970 and it reached #15 on Billboard Hot 100, #5 in the UK, #5 in New Zealand, and #12 in Ireland, but we don't have a separate subheading and section on it, or an infobox, cover art, etc. Now this article on "O Holy Night" is in the absurd position of having most of its text being devoted to a minor cover that no one outside of Scotland remembers, whereas the actual noteworthy and highest-charting covers (Carey's and Groban's) have nothing of the sort. This violates WP:UNDUE. It also violates WP:SONGCOVER, since the Ladywell Primary cover does not have sufficient independent reliable-source coverage in its own right. The only citation about it says nothing significant about the version itself, but only about the boy and his illness and death and how the proceeds were to be spent. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Starting from the end, it does not violate SONGCOVER as it is notable on its own. Notability does not rely on the presence of independent reliable sources. Those sources should be supplied though. If other hymns or classical songs have notable covers, the current guideline is to merge them into the primary article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "If other hymns or classical songs have notable covers, the current guideline is to merge them into the primary article." For hymns, classical music, national anthems, etc., charting or notable covers do not get section headers, infoboxes, cover art, or charts tables. See "Amazing Grace", "Nessun Dorma", "The Star-Spangled Banner", etc. – all notable covers are simply mentioned in the body text, they do not get highlighted with section headers, infoboxes, cover art, or charts tables. Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your objection is noted and we can clearly fix the articles you refused to break back-links on. The way they are mentioned is up to the editors. If there is enough information about the version, and it has its own cover, it makes sense to use an infobox with the cover. It also makes sense to give it its own heading as there is likely a redirect from somewhere to it, although an anchor can be created without a heading. If there is only charting information, a table probably isn't necessary, just a one-liner, but since COVERSONG states that a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), if is noteworthy in its own right and could stand as its own article it makes sense that there's enough information for it in the separate article and it should have its own section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I can't help but agree with that excessive mentions of pop music recordings bring UNDUE weight on these. Something topping the charts doesn't make it "notable", only "popular". Most of the recordings in the article don't have any secondary source to support how they are "significant", just the chart number. I've added actual information about that from an actual secondary source which drastically trims the listing from a WP:INDISCRIMINATE one to something more significant. The criteria for inclusion of a specific version here should be the usual "secondary source which notes its significance OR article about it" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no undue weight on them. Removing them just because they're pop covers of a traditional song violates WP:COVERSONG. There are many articles on singles that simply remain because they charted and no other reason. We keep the article from becoming a WP:COATRACK by only allowing songs that charted into a section where they are addressed. You can address the and UNDUE weight by expanding the rest of the prose on the traditional version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't do that when you keep reverting it ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And WP:COVERSONG is a Wikiproject guideline (from a project that is basically about modern popular [in the broad sense] music). Basically WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and hardly valid advice for something like this. Doesn't even hold a candle when compared to UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor does COVERSONG say that songs which charted can be included. Short of having an article, the Wikiproject advicee page says "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right." Being in a chart (which is a statistical source which offers zero significant coverage) is not being "discussed by a reliable source showing that it is noteworthy"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:SONGCOVER isn't just a guideline, it is commonsense. If a song is worthy of an article then the history of the song should be all in one place for the reader to read, subject to the usual guidelines. Whether editors approve of the the style, the artist, the commerce or any other aspect of any particular version, there is no valid reason for the application of segregation on different versions of the same song. Other problems can be discussed separately. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I added this:

"The song has been recorded by numerous well-known popular-music, classical-music, and religious-music singers. It makes a frequent appearance in the annual performances of the Choir of King's College, Cambridge. Notable recordings include a classical crossover version by Josh Groban and Andrea Bocelli in My Christmas, and a version by Mariah Carrey, alongside the chart-topping 'All I Want For Christmas is You', in Merry Christmas (1994). In French-language churches, it is commonly used at the beginning of the Midnight Mass."

 * Which adequately covers notable renditions of the song without spending an UNDUE two thirds of the article on it. Being on a chart is not an automatic pass (there's no such thing), as NSONG clearly states: "this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." - if particular cover versions are noteworthy and significant in the context of discussing this song (and not simply because they're part of a notable album), then please provide secondary sources which give credence to this proposition. If particular versions charted as singles, that can and should be mentioned first at the relevant album page. As to here? Maybe give a textual mention for the most significant ones (something like what I wrote above, or heck even Pachelbel's canon would be a half decent example), but excessively detailed tables about that are UNDUE and COATRACK here - they should go on the more relevant pages first. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A section of prose is welcome, but does not remove the usefulness of the tables for individual charting versions. It keeps it visually organized.
 * traditional songs will have many cover versions, and this is an appropriate way to represent their appeal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Walter Görlitz in part - traditional songs such as this are so ubiquitous that showing the few covers that actually chart is needed. However, showing charting of covers in actual charts seems to go both ways on Wikipedia (see Unchained Melody and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (song) as examples of each). I like the physical charts, but that's just my POV. Ckruschke (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:O Holy Night