text:
Gold Reserve Act

The United States Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 required that all gold and gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the United States Department of the Treasury. It also prohibited the Treasury and financial institutions from redeeming dollar bills for gold, established the Exchange Stabilization Fund under control of the Treasury to control the dollar's value without the assistance (or approval) of the Federal Reserve, and authorized the president to establish the gold value of the dollar by proclamation.

Immediately following passage of the Act, the President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, changed the statutory price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. This price change incentivized gold miners globally to expand production and foreigners to export their gold to the United States, while simultaneously devaluing the U.S. dollar by increasing inflation. The increase in gold reserves due to the price change resulted in a large accumulation of gold in the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, much of which was stored in the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The increase in gold reserves increased the money supply, lowering real interest rates which in turn increased investment in durable goods.

A year earlier, in 1933, Executive Order 6102 had made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world, with exceptions for some jewelry and collector's coins. These prohibitions were relaxed starting in 1964 – gold certificates were again allowed for private investors on April 24, 1964, although the obligation to pay the certificate holder on demand in gold specie would not be honored. By 1975, Americans could again freely own and trade gold.

U.S. economic historical narrative

The United States was still suffering the negative effects of the 1929 stock market crash in 1934 when the Gold Reserve Act was enacted. President Roosevelt was challenged to decrease unemployment, raise wages and increase the money supply, but was restricted in doing so by the United States' strict adherence to the gold standard. The Gold Reserve Act, which banned the export of gold, restricted the ownership of gold and halted the convertibility of gold into paper money helped him overcome this obstacle. This act ratified the previous Executive Order 6102 which required almost all gold to be exchanged for paper currency.

Immediately following passage of the Act, the President revalued the price of gold to $35 per troy ounce. This devaluation of the dollar drastically increased the growth rate of the Gross National Product (GNP) from 1933 to 1941. Between 1933 and 1937 the GNP in the United States grew at an average rate of over 8 percent. This growth in real output is due primarily to a growth in the money supply M1, which grew at an average rate of 10 percent per year between 1933 and 1937. Traditional beliefs about the recovery from the Great Depression hold that the growth was due to fiscal policy and the United States' participation in World War II. Friedman and Schwartz claimed that the "rapid rate [of growth of the money stock] in three successive years from June 1933 to June 1936 ... was a consequence of the gold inflow produced by the revaluation of gold plus the flight of capital to the United States". Treasury holdings of gold in the US tripled from 6,358 in 1930 to 8,998 in 1935 (after the Act) then to 19,543 metric tonnes of fine gold by 1940.

The revaluation of gold referenced was an active policy decision made by the Roosevelt administration in order to devalue the dollar. The largest inflow of gold during this period was in direct response to the revaluation of gold. An increase in M1, which is a result of an inflow of gold, would also lower real interest rates, thus stimulating the purchases of durable consumer goods by reducing the opportunity cost of spending. If the Gold Reserve Act had not been enacted, and money supply had followed its historical trend, then real GNP would have been approximately 25 percent lower in 1937 and 50 percent lower in 1942.

International economic historical narrative
The international community during the depression began to shift much of its gold reserves to the United States. Foreign investors clamored over the $15 increase in value from $20.67 to $35 per troy ounce, and exported their gold to the United States in record amounts causing U.S. treasury holdings to increase. This data shows two important aspects that involved gold in the early 20th century. The first was the massive expansion of gold as a currency across the globe. This data also demonstrates the rapid increase of gold reserves to the US. Even in 1900 the U.S. only held 602 tonnes of gold in reserve. This was 61 tonnes less than Russia and only 57 tonnes more than France.

Over the next 20 years the countries' reserves grew as the amount of gold in the market increased and as normal trading occurred. However, in the 1930s there was a sudden shift up in reserves in the U.S. From 1930 to 1940, treasury holdings had tripled, mostly due to foreign investing. Another reason behind the shift of reserves to the US was the suspension of the gold standard in Britain on September 21, 1931. Gold reserves in the Bank of England also grew over ten times from 1930 to 1940, but it was still less than the amount the U.S. had. The Bank of France also saw over 200 tonnes of gold get transferred to New York following the raising of prices in America.

Roles of the FRS and Treasury
Prior to Gold Reserve Act 1934, the Federal Reserve System was in trouble as the Great Depression had swept over the country and people looked to the Fed for solutions. Some people claim that "market failure" was not the cause of this trouble. Instead, they place the blame for the years of the Great Contraction (from 1929 to 1933) on the mismanagement of the monetary policy by the central bank. That explains why Congress handed over the Federal Reserve's powers to the Treasury. Johnson explains that the Treasury's gold policy "was an essential instrument for producing desired political aims". In other words, the Federal Reserve System had served more as a "technical instrument for effecting the Treasury’s policies", according to Johnson.

Roosevelt justified the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 by saying "Since there was not enough gold to pay all holders of gold obligations, ... the Government should in the interest of justice allow none to be paid in gold."

Since the Central Banking Act of 1935, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to purchase and/or sell U.S. government securities in the open market in order to determine the stock of money in the U.S. The Fed Board also gained its power over member bank reserve requirements as a result. Since the FOMC was determining the quantity of money in circulation, the quantity of gold in the system did not affect the stock of money in the U.S. economy. Due to the Banking Act, the secretary of the Treasury was no longer the Fed's Board of Governors. However, being a chairman gave the secretary enough power to influence the Fed.

Treasury managers wished to halt monetary expansion in 1936 by stagnating gold and increasing reserve requirements. For all intents and purposes, this led to a freeze of the monetary system and U.S. economy. The Treasury began its own gold sterilization policy in order to stop inflation from potentially increasing due to an increase in inflow of gold into the U.S. soon after the Fed enacted the same policy. Gold holdings more than doubled in the period of 1935 to 1940. This lasted for 16 months from 1936 to 1938. In more efforts, as of the end of 1936, the Treasury noted its gold purchases as part of "inactive" account. In other words, the Treasury met the price of gold through sales of government securities in financial markets in order to keep the pile of gold high but they would not be converted into currency in the Treasury.

Effect on inflation/deflation
After the act of 1934, deflation, which would sometimes be as great as −10.5% in the bust of 1921 (which was preceded by over 14% inflation for 4 consecutive years immediately prior to 1921), would never again drop below −2.1%. Before 1934, from 1914 to 1934, inflation was a (geometric) average of 1.37% per year. After 1934, from 1934 until 2013, inflation was a (geometric) average of 3.67% per year. Inflation was more stabilized, but still higher than the previous period. This may be due to leaving the gold standard, over time.

Litigation arising from GRA
The passage of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 signified that the American people could no longer hold gold, with the exception of jewelry and collectors' coins. After the passage of the Gold Reserve Act several people were indicted for violating the clauses that restricted gold ownership and trade. Frederick Barber Campbell (who was actually convicted under the Gold Reserve Act's predecessor, Executive Order 6102), was convicted of hoarding gold when he tried to withdraw 5,000 troy ounces of gold he had at Chase National Bank. Gus Farber, a diamond and jewelry merchant was arrested with his father and 12 others for illegally selling $20 gold coins without a license. The Baraban family was arrested for operating a gold scrap business under a false license. Foreign companies even had their gold confiscated. The Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, a Swiss banking company, had $1,250,000 in gold coins that were being held in the United States.

In the Consolidated Gold Clause Cases (independently known as Perry v. U.S., U.S. v. Bankers Trust Co., Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., Nortz v. U.S.), the Gold Reserve Act was subject to scrutiny by the United States Supreme Court, which narrowly upheld Roosevelt's gold confiscation policy.

The 1962 case United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster concerned the seizure of a 14-pound golden statue of a rooster. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada decided that the artistic value of the rooster weighed in favor of the statue and its owner.

Recent events
The 2008 decision 216 Jamaica Avenue, LLC vs S&R Playhouse Realty Co. established that a gold clause in contracts signed before 1933 was only suspended, not erased, and under certain limited circumstances might be reactivated.

title: Gold Reserve Act


text:
User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 1

Actual vs potential infinities in possible worlds
I added a comment on the Talk page of possible worlds; in short there is no reason to assert that the universes in the many-worlds interpretation are potentially infinite. This will certainly not be true for a continuously branching universe. CSTAR 18:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thumbs
Extended image syntax

Interestingly, the gallery option at the bottom looks appealing: I might try that.-- Etaonish 02:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi
When I saw your argument about internal and external properties on Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism, I had to let out a little squeal of joy, because it means you're a philosopher! There aren't many of us in the Wikipedia, it seems. I studied it as an undergraduate and postgraduate. I didn't even consider continuing with it though because I'd had enough. I loved it at undergraduate level but felt I was drowning doing my thesis, concentrating on ever-shrinking and (in my view) irrelevant pinheads, though with hindsight that was a consequence of how I chose to do it, and I could have chosen differently. I haven't tried to do much with the philosophy pages here, as there's a lot to do and it feels overwhelming, plus I don't have any of my books with me (all in storage from various moves around the world). I've copy-edited Immanuel Kant, which needs work, and I've just started trying to improve Ernest Gellner (nothing under the picture of Balliol is mine). Your arguments on the deletion page are good. What a depressing, shabby article that is. Someone conveniently archived a lot of the recent stuff on the Talk page, which I've just restored, so you can read the anti-Semitic nonsense is all its glory, if you want to. Anyway, welcome to the Wikipedia! SlimVirgin 23:54, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's hard to keep out original research, but I find the hardest thing is that I have no confidence. Everything I feel I could write, I want to qualify it, but I don't have my books with me, so I daren't get into detail. The other thing I noticed from your bio is that you used to teach TEFL. So did I! I did it for about four years in Europe. I experienced an intensity of boredom during those hour-long sessions, especially the one-to-one sessions, that is impossible to convey, but which taught me, more than any philosophy study could, that we are our brains, and that each brain is essentially alone in a very unfriendly universe. ;-) SlimVirgin 00:09, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Open discussion of racial differences
Mel — given the strength of your attachment to it, I'd say you have to be left-wing. Jacquerie27 11:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes — I'd noticed that when political extremists of whatever hue are faced with reasoned argument, they retreat to labelling their interlocutor with the opposite label. Easier than reflecting on the issues and trying to respond rationally I suppose. I've been labelled right-wing, left-wing, fascist, communist; all it means is: “Duh, you said something I don't agree with/disapprove of/don't understand.“ I'm only surprised that it took you so long to come up with it. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * But I'm not surprised you don't deny what I said. Jacquerie27 19:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It wans't important enough to deny. I'm a philosopher; I don't hold views because they fit a childish political label, I hold views because I've thought about them.  Sometimes they fit the 'left-wing' label, sometimes the 'right-wing' label; why should I care?  Show me that I'm wrong, by offering a sound argument, and I'll change my views.  Label me a 'little-endian' or a 'big-endian' and I just laugh derisively.  Listen to me laugh.  Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What label fits your views on race? Do you believe it exists in any significant sense? And how exactly does philosophy help you "think" about a scientific question like that? Jacquerie27 20:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I have no interest in discussing this with you. Your comments so far haven't suggested that you're up to it. If you'd care to offer an argument worth considering, fine; vague questions that have no obvious bearing on the matter at hand don't count. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If you can't understand how my questions have an obvious bearing on the matter in the hand, it's you who's not up to it. I presume you've heard the term "maieutic", so I repeat: do you believe race exists in any significant sense? And how exactly does philosophy help you "think" about a scientific question like that? And as for your "derisive laughter": Ecclesiastes 7:6. Jacquerie27 20:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It's difficult to believe that you haven't understood. I have no wish to discuss this issue with you; it's part of a course that I teach regularly, and I'm perfectly happy to discuss it in the right context.  However, it has nothing to do with issue in question, which is the appropriateness of the Jewish ethnocentrism page.  That you think that the existence of race is a purely scientific question merely serves to confirm my view of your ability to engage in a useful or interesting debate on the topic.  Please go and bother someone else, and stop cluttering up my Talk page. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That you think that I think the existence of race is a purely scientific question... But I apologize for the clutter. Jacquerie27 21:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If you know any philosophers, pass this on to them. My pooh-poohing of the value of philosophy always drives them crazy and they respond with thousands of words of closely reasoned arguments.

Obsession
You'll find the Wikipedia attracts obsessives, Mel, but I promise I didn't intend to edit any more of your articles. I was annoyed at being patronized by a Guardianista, and correcting your articles seemed a good way of simultaneously working that off and improving the Wikipedia. Please correct whatever solecisms you spot (there's at least one bad one in the Churchill, Oxfordshire article). And apologies again for clutter. Jacquerie27 18:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lentienses
Hello Mel Etitis, Thank you for your kind works on the Lentienses. Please loock at Talk:Lentienses I have tried to explain the confusing issues. Please let me know in case you need mor informations. May you also check my other contributions mentioned on my user page? Thank you again and I hope to hear from you agian. Andi Bullenwächter 20:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Mel Etitis, I think it is right now. There are still some other details on my German article about the Lentienses which I would like to bring into the English version. May I send my translation to you for a check? But this will take some view days. Andi Bullenwächter 10:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mel Etitis; Thank you for your kind support on my articles. It seems to me you have made a good job. There is only one translation which i am not sure if it is correct on the page Juthungi. The roman castle in Regensburg (castra regina) - i am not sure if this has to be translates as castle or an fort or any other... In this times castra regina has been the roman capital of the province and one of the bigest roman military camps in south Germany with massive stone walls and a village. What do you think castle or fort?
 * This looks good on the Juthungi. Can you also please check the Francisca and Iller article as i have done some major changes on it? - Thank you again.

Checking the delete voters for sockpuppets
Yes, I've been checking the delete voters, and many of them, in fact, are admins. Most of them are long time editors with hundreds, and usually thousands of edits, though a small number are fairly recent editors. I even checked the one anonymous IP "delete" voter, and it has 30 edits. If I find any that "delete" voters that have 5 or fewer votes, I'll highlight them as well. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope the vote is over soon. I was going to say it seems to be bringing out the worst in some people, but I think I could more accurately say it is showing their true natures. Jayjg (talk)  20:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article is part of a series listing all Australian ministries since Federation. I agree it doesn't mean much to people who have not come to it via a link from the Australian Commonwealth ministries 1901-2004 article, but I can't imagine any other way people would come across it anyway. There's really no reason why it should be expanded, since it will only be of interest to specialists, who will know what it means. In any case, if you are going to change one of the series, you will have to change all of them, which will be a big job, and to no good purpose. So I suggest you leave it alone. Adam 10:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You really want to make work for yourself, don't you? I did warn you not to. Wikpedia dates do not go like this: 3rd November 1980, they go like this: 3 November 1980. So now you will have to go back and redo all the articles. Adam 12:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not intending to be hostile. I am intending to convey my desire that people who edit articles I have created should know what they are doing, so as to not make work for themselves and others. When you back and fix the dates, as I'm sure you will, you might also agree with me that "ran from" is a very imprecise formulation. Ministries hold office, not run. The phrasing should be: The First Smith Ministry held office from 1 January 1901 to 10 February 1902. Adam 13:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes they do. Adam 14:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me with my spelling on my user page. q;-) Beta m (talk)

re: Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism
That nomination was made on 31 Jan 2005. It stayed on the VfD discussion page until 5 days went past. Now that it's moved over to the VfD/Old page, it's dependent on some admin volunteering time to do research, make the official decision and close the discussion. As you can see, we are always, several days behind - usually closer to a week. Please be patient. I tend to work from the top down so it might be another week or so before this discussion gets closed. (Other admins start from the bottom up, some close only the least controversial and some just close the ones that grab their interest.) The best thing you could do, if you are so inclined, is to read through the Deletion process and join in. I don't know if you are an admin yet or not but anyone can close out the really obvious "keep" decisions - leaving less for the rest of us to wade through. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 18:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gosford
Hi Mel

re: your query on my talk page: Gosford is just outside Kidlington... well adjoining really, I suppose. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure where Kidlington ends and Gosford begins.. Assuming you know where Water Eaton is (as you added it to the List of places in Oxfordshire), they're both in the parish of Gosford & Water Eaton, if that helps! --hooverbag 19:40, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Page moves
Hi Mel,

Just to let you know that when moving pages from one location to another the page history has to go with it in order to abide by the GNU Free Documentation Licence. When you cut and paste a page move it needs an admin to undo it and it's a lot of unnecessary work.

Somewhere on your page (depending on your screen resolution etc) there should be a link saying "Move this page". Next time you want to move an article to a new location, press that button and follow the onscreen instructions. Cheers!

-- Francs2000 | Talk 22:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes I noticed the talk page. It's all as you left it, just with the history in the right place this time.  If you want to let me know where you've done it before, I'll go and check if it needs undoing there. -- Francs2000 | Talk  23:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Right, those other three are now sorted. If you remember any others you've done, let me know. -- Francs2000 | Talk  23:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * We all learn somewhere. By the way one of your first edits back in December 2004 was a page move done the right way... (Peter King to Peter Edward King) -- Francs2000 | Talk  23:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't knock senility, it's a good excuse for misbehaving. I'd use it myself but I'm only 30. -- Francs2000 | Talk  23:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello. Please, add your message of copyvio concerning an article about Nelli Kim to the page Copyright_problems, as written there. So, that it could be discussed and administrators could see it. Cmapm 01:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conscious evolution
You may be interested to know that User:Dnagod has created an article on Conscious evolution, a stream-of-consciousness piece of pseudo-philosophy, which has been proposed for deletion at Votes for deletion/Conscious evolution. Best, SlimVirgin 05:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there's a been a deterioration since I wrote the above. I think I take back that it even has the status of pseudo-philosophy. SlimVirgin 05:20, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dnagit. LOL SlimVirgin 20:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Concorde
Hi Mel! First an apology for the use of the word "clumsy" in my Edit Summary of Concorde. What you did wasn't perfect but without I would have had nothing to improve! It's a doddle to improve other peoples stuff but much harder to write it (as you did) from scratch. Keep up the good work. Just for interest, one of my two sons took first year Philosophy at the University of Essex (at Colchester) but his real interest was Politics so that's what he continued with in his second and third years (getting a 2.1), Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 09:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possible worlds revisited
A bit over a week ago, I wrote on the Talk:Possible worlds page:
 * I've thought a bit about the dispute between CSTAR and Mel, and I think I know what's going on. Mel has a very tight conception of what the alethic modalities are, which I think means he thinks S5 is the right axiomatisation of possibility: given this then the two disputed points that Mel reinstated from the possible worlds/ many worlds comparison are seen to be valid.  I've deleted them again, because I think as it stands Mel is using a conception of modality that is itself disputed, so his points are POV.

I'd like to revisit the possible worlds article, and I'd like to know where you stand, because I think you have a valuable take on the question. I guess the question is: where do you stand on the question of acceptable axiomatisations of alethic modalities? Did I read you aright? Charles Stewart 22:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I guess what I would like to say about the status of S5 is that, if we accept Dummett's claim that bivalence about truth is realism in semantical form, so we should say that asserting S5 to be the correct alethic modality is modal realism in analogically semantical form. Charles Stewart 02:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(I've incorporated the above into User talk:Chalst) In fact, Crispin Wright, in "Anti-realism and revisionism", criticised Dummett's thesis on the grounds that there are both realists who reject principle of the excluded middle, and non-realists who accept it. With modal realism, I can see how a modal anti-realist might nonetheless argue that S5 is the right alethic modality, I would guess that most people who hold this position would also be happy with the idea that one can embrace PEM and reject bivalence; the reverse implication seems to me to be very strong, though: pace your idea that modal realists ought to reject S5, I don't see how they can. Roughly, my argument is that: There's little holes in the above that devious theories can wriggle through, but I guess the wriggling is not very confortable. Charles Stewart 12:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For sake of simplicity, let us say that we modalities are modalities of a normal modal logic. This isn't a triviality, but it makes the argument easier to phrase;
 * It appears that the modal realist is then committed to there being a right alethic modality: the modality is characterised by (i) the set of possible worlds the modal realism posists, and (ii) the truth-values of sentences involving althetic modalities will tell us what the accessibility relation is;
 * Any alethic modality is committed to the T-axiom: []p -> p; what must further be the case for an alethic modality to be S5-like is that (i) it is not degenerate (so []p is not the same as p), and (ii) it is Euclidean, ie. any worlds accessible from here are accessible from each other. It's a standard result that S5 is maximal, ie. you if you add new axioms of propositional modal logic, parametric in their propositional letters to S5, either these axioms were theorems already or the resulting logic is degenerate.
 * Modal realism, to be non-trivial, isn't degenerate;
 * What's real can't depend on what's actual, so what's accessible from here should be accessible anywhere, so we have Euclideanity.

Ah, OK, yes I missed the ambiguity. Charles Stewart 13:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism
FYI SlimVirgin 21:38, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Name suffixes
Hi--I'm just seeing your note. Give me a few minutes and I'll reply at my page. Quill 23:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Re spelled->spelt. I quite understand.  I think the policy is to leave Brit or Amer as the author wrote it, unless the change is important (an article about something English would take British English, (what a term!) e.g.)  If you haven't already, check out those TALK pages for some really good fights!
 * Quill 23:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's more at my page. Quill 22:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Honeysuckle Weeks
Yes, I was monitoring Special:Newpages and it drew my attention. You must admit it's kind of an unusual name. I had an edit conflict window as well, so I guess we were editing at the same time.

Nice little article. :) Mgm|(talk) 18:31, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

link to month
Why'd you remove the link to a month on the article on Jehangir Karamat: ? —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the link because it was red — that is, there was no article to link to. (In general I don't like links to non-relevant parts of an article, but I don't delete them any more, except in cases like this). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I put it there (I think it was me; doesn't matter, tho) because that seems to be tradition/official Wikipedia procedure. Ithink it helps index events that happened on a certain date, etc. And putting it in articles that are, for most people, obscure helps in the struggle to overcome systemic bias. I might have done it in the wrong way, tho. Lemme see if I can correct it. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I think that you did it correctly, but that there wasn't a relevant article. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion
Just read about this at your user page--you're not kidding.

How about the oft-quoted excuse used for VfD--"I 'googled' it and there's no..." Quill 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dresden
Mel, if you have any time, I'm looking for comment at Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Another editor is inserting what I see as his personal opinion (original research) regarding a section on whether Dresden was a war crime. The section, called "Points of view", subsection "The bombing was a war crime", begins: "Günter Grass, the German novelist and Nobel laureate for literature, and Simon Jenkins, the former editor of The Times, have both referred to the Dresden bombing as a "war crime"." I have no objection to that. It's the subsequent sentence I object to:

"This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime."

It's not currently in the article though it may be back by the time you look at it, if you do. Here's a link to the edit.

I see the above as personal commentary. The editor is saying what he believes the quotes imply, then is arguing that that implication would be legally incorrect. So it's orginal research and a strawman at the same time, and it also (almost) contradicts itself in that it makes a legal argument, but then concludes there is no legal precedent. I've asked for a reference. He says a reference is unnecessary because the above is as true as "the Thames flows through London." I say that it's an argument and needs attribution or should be removed. See here for the latest attempt at having the discussion. Ed Poor has put out a Request for Comment.

Regarding the man in the pink shirt, best not to find out who he is. ;-) I meant only that I was looking forward to checking with him that it was ok to use his pic for the article. If he's not the person in question, I wouldn't e-mail him . . . "Hey, I saw your photograph on the Internet and . . ."  And what though?  SlimVirgin 03:08, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Prometheism
Hi Mel, I've nominated Prometheism for deletion, as it's promoting Dnagod's websites. See Votes for deletion/Prometheism. Best, SlimVirgin 08:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

avant-gardening
Your edit summary made me smile. Thanks - Solipsist 18:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Killian
As you have recently demonstrated interest in this article, please see Talk:Killian_documents. Wolfman 18:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PRC, ROC, mainland China, Taiwan, etc.
Hello Μελ Ετητης. Thank you for joining the discussion over the titles of China-related topics articles. Would you mind help explain to the contributors who opposed renaming because they thought the new titles are confusing, that how these terms differ from each other, and how the choice of one of these terms as a title is important. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 18:08, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You're right. But I also suggested some other renamings, and the result contradicts with that string of discussion. :-D — Instantnood 18:31, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Dembski
Good change. I'm not happy with the lead as it stands, but I doubt I can make much improvement. If you feel you can by all means make bolder edits. Stirling Newberry 23:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just reviewed your user page, and if what you say is true (and I'll assume good faith ;) than I thank you for the opportunity of speaking with an oxford proffessor. Unfortunately, despite us seeming to agree on a great many things in theory (according to your user page again) we don't seem to agree on much in practice. In any case, please have a look at Talk:William A. Dembski, we seem to have had some misunderstandings. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Do you have any interest in a discussion about the use of American/Canadian versus British English? A philosopher's input would be helpful at Talk:Manual of Style; the latest incarnation of the discussion is here. Everyone agrees that articles should be internally consistent in terms of style. The discussion concerns whether the Manual of Style should propose the "first-major-contributer rule" or the "closely-related-topic rule." The former says that the first editor to make a substantial contribution, not counting stub creation, should write in whichever style s/he chooses, and subsequent editors should follow suit, regardless of subject matter. This is the rule I favor, because it's clear, and it avoids instruction creep and nationalism. The closely-related-topic rule says that topics closely related to a particular country should be written in the style used in that country. "Closely related" is not defined, and I feel will lead to arguments. The rule reduces to absurdity because it means that articles about Malta are to be written in Maltese English (British with slight local variation) etc. Some editors are proposing that the world be divided into "spheres of influence" with AE to be used in some places, BE in others, which smacks of Yalta. No worries if you're not interested. SlimVirgin 02:01, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you; your comments were very helpful. If we could define "appropriate" in the suggestion you made, we might have the issue resolved. If you have any interest in trying to do that, I've left that query for you. Best, SlimVirgin 00:32, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Signature fix
Thanks for pointing out the error in my signature. It is all fixed now. I like your user page ... I am going to use some of your ideas on mine. I will happily answer your personal questions offline ... just email me at the address on my talk page. --Theo (Talk) 09:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

17th century philoosphy
I will be making a first pass at edits later today after completing my assigned tasks. Hope you will take a look and offer input, don't be afraid to be bold. Stirling Newberry 17:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Erik Satie
Sorry for losing out of sight the Erik Satie article and its talk page for a few days. Most of the malformed sentences you mention are mine, and I do apologise for butchering the English language (being no native speaker myself). I appreciate your rewriting efforts, and your questions are entitled an answer, which I'll try to give on the talk:Erik Satie page. --Francis Schonken 13:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Communication breakdown
I don't know what the situation is, but I've never had such a complete failure of communication outside of language barrier and outright trolling. Nothing I say seems to be understood by your self, and while I think I understand what you’re saying, I don't understand why you’re saying it. We either need to change our paradigm utterly or cease communicating entirely, the present circumstance is untenable. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Learning from previous similar experiences
The problem you are presently experiencing with a particular editor at Talk:William_A._Dembski is nothing new. Please have a look at the archives of Talk:Atheism covering the last 11 months to see how we dealt with the same editor behaving in the same way. A visit to my user talk page and it's archives would also provide some insight to see how out of hand this situation can become.--FeloniousMonk 18:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If you folks over at atheism figured out how to keep this user at bay please don't keep it a secret. He has been ransacking the anarchism and related pages for more than a year now, and not surprisingly when a good discussion of the article gets going between various parties who disagree his arrival inevitably signals imminent disaster.  Frankly, people have gotten so tired of responding to his constant repetition of the exact same POV pushing that they have ceased to even try to debate at all.  Kev 05:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It takes those editors who are aggrieved to temporarily agree to only edits to the article that are reached by consensus/majority opinion until the troublemaker moves on. It's not particularly easy, as it takes cooperation of parties that often have little else in common in the article other than their difficulties in dealing with the obstructionist behavior of one particular person. This worked well for us at the atheism article. Each of us also began citing credible outside support for our arguments in reply to his objections. We built consensus as to page content working paragraph by paragraph, always editing the content in the article only after a majority opinion is reached. Anyone who didn't provide credible support for a particular argument or repeatedly obstructed progress was not able expect anything near majority support for their opinion or enjoy the assumption of good faith indefinitely. Someone will need to step up on the talk page to get a majority to agree to put this into action. Keep in mind obstructionism or constantly repeated edits that ignore consensus need not be tolerated indefinitely, particularly when it prevents progress, and if the editor in question insists on flaunting consensus the group always has a good case for a request for arbitration or request for comment.--FeloniousMonk 07:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dembski
If it's specifically the pseudoscience word that SS objects to, would a sentence like this do instead: "Dembski's views are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community." Or could you quote someone to this effect, or someone calling his work pseudoscience? However, note the quote from Dembski that I pasted on the talk page: he says he's not looking for God. I can't see a date on the paper though, so it may not be recent. SlimVirgin 19:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Omplos/Omblos
There is no Greek article about Omplos but this article is in English. The English here is mainly understandable. Pumpie, 19:31 Feb 21, 2005 (UTC/PMST)

Do you have any photos from Greece?, Have you ever been to Greece? And I have fixed some parts Which language do you know the most? Pumpie, 21:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC/PMST)

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

title: User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 1


text: Talk:List of destroyers of the United States Navy