text:
Talk:Death of Jeremiah Duggan/Archive 2

I have put the dispute label because the article presents no evidence that the Schiller Institute played any role at all in Duggan's death; it only presents a politically motivated conspiracy theory. --Caroline 17:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You are a sockpuppet, as was shown by the banned list of users. This version of the article was written by Herschelkrustofsky and agreed by myself to resolve the NPOV dispute, at which point the tag was removed. The article does not have to present evidence, as you put it. No original research is permitted. The article quotes from a coroner's court. I am deleting the tag because you give no good reason for it, and offer no solution. Slim 18:06, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your childish personal attacks do not do much to boost your credibility. --Caroline 16:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Slim, the matter of removing an NPOV tag is not at your discretion. It is an issue for the Wikipedia community at large. Also, you are out of line in accusing her of being a sockpuppet (didn't Weed ask you whether you were a sockpuppet for Adam? Did you give an answer?), and the ban was reversed, apparently by Jimbo. --20:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You, Weed Harper, C Colden and the notorious Usenet LaRouche activist Ralph Gibbons have all posted from within two ranges of IP addresses. I therefore believe that one or more of you are sockpuppets. I will not allow this tag suddenly to reappear. YOU wrote this version; we agreed it after a long dispute; and YOU removed the tag. The content has not changed since then. You and your sockpuppets are simply trying to waste my time, and I will not enter into any further discussions with you. Below is the Arb Comm ruling. Please stick to it. I will delete any claims you make that are not relevant or properly referenced using reputable sources. Regarding the photograph, please post the permission of the copyright holder, or don't use it. Slim 21:20, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling:

1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

2) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon LaRouche directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

3) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

4) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.

Slim, get a grip
The portions of the ArbCom ruling which are relevant to this article, and the others where you have started new edit wars, including Dennis King and Schiller Institute, are the following: "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles"; and "articles where they are highly relevant." These articles where you are on the edit warpath are indisputably articles where LaRouche is "closely related" and "highly relevant" (should it surprise you that anyone might come to the conclusion that you are an anti-LaRouche activist?), so the issue of "original research" has no bearing on these articles. Regarding the photograph, and I assume that you mean the one at Dennis King, I have patiently explained to you three times that I received permission from the copyright holder, which is EIR/Stuart K. Lewis, that I followed procedure when I uploaded it, and it is all right there at, where anyone not suffering from hysterical blindness should be able to see it with no difficulty.

Now, regarding your new tactic of starting an edit war over the NPOV tag: you should read this very carefully. --H.K. 21:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You're just confirming what a waste of time it is to deal with you. YOU wrote this version. I agreed to it only as a compromise to get the dispute over, and to have the NPOV tag removed. So you wait a couple of weeks and put it back, even though the contents have not changed. What a joke you are. You're a LaRouche propagandist, pure and simple, and it is unacceptable that you are editing these articles. Read the NPOV notice carefully yourself. There must be specific grievances that can be fixed before an NPOV notice can be used. The claim that the article provides no evidence of Schiller Institute involvement is absurd. It quotes a court of law, where evidence was presented. What more do you and your sockpuppets want? I am now certain you are Ralph Gibbons. Slim 22:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Your accusation that I am Ralph Gibbons is 1) hogwash, and 2) a pretty desperate debating tactic. It ranks up there with accusing C Colden and Weed Harper of being the same person, because they both got the same welcome message from Sam Spade on their user talk pages. --H.K. 21:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-

Wikipedia policy
Below are the principles and policies that all editors, including those editors who support Lyndon LaRouche, must adhere to, with no exceptions. No further discussion will be entered into about this by me, as enough has been said. Slim 23:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Verifiability

 * Cite sources

 * Neutral point of view

 * No original research

 * Copyrights (Images must be licensed directly from the copyright holder, who must waive the copyright so the image can be freely distributed by Wikipedia readers.)

Regarding novel narratives involving a new synthesis of information: "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one," Jimbo Wales (WikiEN-l, Dec 6, 2004)

Regarding NPOV and factual accuracy dispute tags, these must be accompanied by specific objections that are fixable. Otherwise, it is a misuse of the tag. -

NPOV objection
I ran a search on GOOGLE news this morning for Jeremian Duggan, and came up with zero results. This confirms my suspicion that the story was simply a propaganda ploy by unscrupulous members of the British establishment, seeking to harm the reputation of the Schiller Institute by preying on the grief of the poor Duggan woman. I believe SlimVirgin wrote this story to make Wikipedia a soapbox for his Anti-LaRouche campaign, which goes against Wikipedia policy. A neutral article would contain more skepticism about the story, because their is no evidence at all of "mind-control." The poor boy attended a conference, like some thousands of others who have attended Schiller Institute conferences, without going insane. --Caroline 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You are wrong on several counts as usual. First, his name is Jeremiah, not Jeremian, which could account for why you found nothing. Second, there have been several news articles on the story as you well know. Why are you trying to pretend there haven't been? Third, the Wikipedia article only repeated what was said in the British coroner's court and reported by reputable newspapers i.e. Times, Guardian, Independent and Washington Post. No reputable newspaper (and not even a disreputable one) has published any criticism of the Duggan affair. The only one that has is the LaRouche publication, which is quoted. Wikipedia is not allowed to do original research. We cannot invent our own skepticism. Fourth, many young people who have attended Schiller Institute and LaRouche Youth Movement meetings have spoken of the disturbing effect these have. You should start reading some of these accounts. You complain about the provision of references, yet clearly don't read them. Fifth, to have a legitimate NPOV objection, you must make concrete suggestions regarding how the article could be fixed according to Wikipedia policy.

You are a LaRouche recruit yourself and your sole function in Wikipedia is to cause trouble around articles that mention LaRouche negatively. You are a toxic troll. Slim 20:07, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

reorganization
I have reorganized this article, which was pretty ragged, to group the known facts together. As it was before, virtually everything about the man's death was repeated twice, esp. his phone call to his mother, his meeting with the LaRouche newspaper-man in Paris, et cetera. Also, I have eliminated many external links where we already have internal ones. DanKeshet 01:37, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Dan, thanks for your edit. I think you've improved the article a lot. I've changed a couple of very small points for flow. For example, you mentioned that Duggan told his mother that the Institute was very extreme before you'd said what the Institute was. Also, the conference was organized by the Institute, but the cadre school by LYM. I also re-inserted the biographical bit about LaRouche and the 15-year sentence, because otherwise someone reading this article alone might not know anything about him. Regarding the references and external links, I just noticed you removed some, so I'm going to put them back. Some of these references were included after much discussion: for example, supporters of LaRouche wanted the Disinfopedia article on the Tavistock, and that was agreed to. But otherwise I've left your edit as it is. Thanks for doing it. Slim 02:49, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Dan, I've just gone back and put back the references and external links you removed. I also noticed you'd removed the paragraph with the quote about the Beatles being shaped according to Tavistock specifications. Again, these were sections already agreed with previous editors. Part of the LaRouche claim is that the Tavistock is a long-term mind-control organization, so that quote speaks to that. Best, Slim 03:02, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * To the editor who keeps putting on the NPOV tag. This can only be done if you list objections that can be addressed. The only objection I have read so far is that the article does not prove that the Schiller Institute was involved in the death. Wikipedia does not do original research and cannot "prove" such a thing. All Wikipedia can do is use reputable references. The references in this case are the summing up of a British coroner's court as reported in The Times, The Guardian, The Independent and The Washington Post. The only published rebuttal by the LaRouche organization is also quoted from and referenced. Wikipedia cannot do more than that. If you keep on putting the NPOV tag on without addressing fixable problems, I will keep on removing it. If you have a fixable problem, post it. If you feel the article should not exist, post it at Votes for Deletion. But do not misuse the NPOV tag. Slim 04:16, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Slim,

Thanks for your kind words regarding my edits. The reason I removed the external links--especially the inline ones, but also the links at the bottom, was because it is usually wikipedia policy to link externally where we don't have internal links. They are distracting and break up the flow of the article. The link to the Schiller Institute here is unnecessary, because we already have an article on it with it's own external link. Where the links were in fact references, I have left them, but many of them were not references, just misplaced external links.

DanKeshet 20:01, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I'll take a look at what you've done, but the thing with this page is that it went through a lot of negotiation, the links too. Because the LaRouche organization is being accused of something, they should be allowed to have links that they feel adds to their defence. Therefore, some links that may not seem to be necessary ought to be left in. I'm writing this, though, before I've looked at what you've done, but if I revert or change anything, that'll be the likely reason. Wikipedia policy is to have a References section listing the articles, books or websites that were used by the authors while creating the article, and there should also be an inline reference. I agree with you that extra inline links (e.g. to Schiller Institute etc) are probably unnecessary if they're not references but I think most of them are, except perhaps the first two. Anyway, thanks again for your attention to the page. Best, Slim 20:43, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean: the sections had duplicated themselves. Must have been an editing glitch. Thanks for deleting it. Slim 20:56, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Alright, I've removed those first two, non-specific inline links. I would like to also remove the two non-specific external links to Schiller Institute and LYM.  You say that "[b]ecause the LaRouche organization is being accused of something, they should be allowed to have links that they feel adds to their defence".  In fact, they have several, and the non-specific links to their organizations neither 'add to their defence' nor inform readers more about Jeremiah Duggan than the internal links to those organizations do.

 * More generally, I understand that this page was the subject of an edit war and a carefully established consensus, but I still want to edit it more, because I feel that we can do better. Specifically, I think that the section headlines (esp. "Mrs. Duggan's allegations") are inappropriate; I think the sentence in the lead paragraph: "The circumstances of his death are controversial" needs to be changed to describe the 'controversy' and not merely assert that it exists.  Also, I don't think it's right to only credit Jewish organizations when saying that the LaRouche organizations have been accused of being anti-Semitic and fascist.  Those allegations have come from many places.  Are these also the result of compromises? Should I tread carefully there, too? DanKeshet 22:31, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dan, it's a difficult situation. There are a couple of editors who support LaRouche and at least one of them feels the article shouldn't exist at all. The other felt it was too POV and so he wrote a version, and I wrote a version, then we compared versions, reached a compromise, and then he wrote up more-or-less the article you see on the page. I think part of the choppiness came from trying to meld the two versions together. I agree with most of your suggestions, but the others may not (and probably will not). Having said that, this page does not belong to any group of editors, so if you want to make changes, you are free to do so; just be ready to justify any reorganization and to provide references for anything new you insert, because you may be challenged. Regarding the inline links to their organizations, I don't think they put those in; I believe that was me, so feel free to remove them. The specific external links they wanted were the ones about the Tavistock. . . I can't remember the others. I'll go and take a look. Slim 03:35, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a look. Feel free to remove any inline links that are not references, because I think many and perhaps all of these were my edits, and I don't mind. Regarding links in the References section, these should probably all stay, and the External links section should probably all stay too, but in External links I believe the LaRouche supporters particularly wanted Beyond Psychoanalysis by Lyn Marcus (Lyndon LaRouche), 1973 and Disinfopedia article on the Tavistock Clinic. In the References section, they particularly wanted Full proceedings of the Schiller Institute Conference which Jeremiah attended, [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/site_packages/3125symons.html The Bizarre Case of Baroness Symons. The LaRouche response to the Duggan case] and The Tavistock Grin from LaRouche's Campaigner magazine, 1968.

Regarding your question about Jewish or non-Jewish organizations alleging LaRouche groups are fascist and anti-Semitic, no, we didn't use only Jewish sources as a compromise. In fact, I believe the other editors would probably prefer that, for example, the Anti-Defamation League not be used as a source, as they feel the ADL is biased against LaRouche. So if you can find a more neutral source, they might agree to that. But I can't speak for them. Slim 03:52, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't wish to rekindle the controversy, but I feel that the last edit by DanKeshet was more in accord with NPOV policy than the subsequent changes by SlimVirgin. Dan's version is more encyclopediac, presenting information in a neutral way, whereas Slim's changes seem intended to bolster the accusations and inflame the reader's opinion against LaRouche. I have not edited it (other than to correct a spelling error) for fear of re-starting an edit war, when I have some hope of ending the related edit war at Schiller Institute. However, I would like to go on record as preferring Dan's version. --HK 07:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Herschel, by all means say what you don't like about the copy edit. I felt some of the flow had been lost and there was some awkward phrasing. I tried very hard not to increase POV/decrease NPOV, so please let me know which bits you feel inflame the reader's opinion. I also thought you'd like it that I reduced the photo. Slim 08:03, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, for example, Dan didn't feel it necessary to include in the first sentence of the "Background" section that Jeremiah "was Jewish", nor did he include the attacks by the ADL in the first paragraph of that section. He first presented the undisputed facts of the case, and then included the allegations by the ADL, which is a controversial organization. The fact that Jeremiah was Jewish is undisputed, but to emphasize it in the first sentence looks like you are building a case for the ADL's views, and putting the ADL's views up front makes the article appear to be more of a propaganda piece than an encyclopedia article. I have no opinion whatsoever about the size of the photo. --HK 22:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Government officials at the conference
Weed, could you provide a reference for your edit that "The 82-year-old perennial American presidential candidate was himself a speaker at the two-day conference, along with economists and government officials from a broad spectrum of nations including Poland, Russia, China, India, South Korea and Nigeria."

I couldn't see any reference in the link you provided to "government officials from a broad spectrum of nations." My apologies if it's there and I missed it. Slim 01:53, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * I just checked the link at the end of that sentence, and it works fine. All the info is there. Weed Harper 14:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Weed, I checked the information. I can't see any reference to "government officials from a broad spectrum of nations." Who were they? Slim 19:00, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * Some are government officials (or former government officials), some are economists, some are both: Prof. Dr. Vladimir S. Myasnikov (Institute for the Far East, Russian Academy of Sciences), Dr. Bi Jiyao (Academy of Macro-Economic Research, State Development Planning Commission, China), Chandrajit Yadav, (Former Union Minister, India), Ambassador Kim Song-woo (Secretary General, East Asian Common Space Secretariat, Seoul, Korea), Dr. Ahn Byung-min (Director of the Department of Rail Transportation Research of the Korea Transport Institute), Markku Heiskanen (Nordic Instititute of Asian Studies), Dr. Zbigniew Kwiczak (Former Minister at the Polish Embassy in Moscow). Weed Harper 06:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Weed, I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but the burden of proof for edits is on the editor, not on anyone who asks about it. Which of the above, exactly, were government officials at the time of the conference? Slim 20:38, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * You are being something of a pain. Do you nit-pick like this on non-LaRouche articles? Because I guarantee that the formulation of my sentence would be perfectly acceptable anywhere else. But to avoid more conflict, I will now remove it, and replace it with simply a list of the speakers with their respective titles. Weed Harper 22:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I do this with non-Larouche articles and I don't regard it as nit-picking. It's Wikipedia policy that you must be able to verify your edits. If you say or imply of a conference that a number of government officials attended, you're giving the conference a certain weight that it would otherwise not have. Therefore, you have to be certain that what you're saying is true. The problem with using LaRouche publications as sources is that they tend to give certain impressions that, when checked, turn out not to be accurate. There is no need in this article for a list of everyone who attended the conference. Simply state which ones, if any, were government officials. Slim 23:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Slim, would you care to cite an example of an "impression" you got from a LaRouche publication that turned out not to be accurate? --HK 06:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Slim, I don't think one needs to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. I should think that you may assume that the ones with formal titles, like "Ambassador," are current government officials. But I'd like to point out that Weed's edit said "along with economists and government officials from a broad spectrum of nations", and I'm not certain why you seem so bent on identifying which name belongs to which category. --HK 22:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well then Weed will have no trouble doing it. Assumptions aren't enough. The article now sounds as though a number of government officials attended that conference, which I very much doubt, so it needs to be clarified or removed. Please let's have some precision in edits, with references that back them up. Slim 22:38, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jeremiah to Duggan
I noticed that in other articles about deaths, even of young people, the surname is used, so I've changed Jeremiah to Duggan throughout. I did a very light copy edit while I was there, but there was no significant content change. SlimVirgin 02:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Death of Jeremiah Duggan/Archive 2


text:
United States military seniority

United States military seniority is the method by which the United States Armed Forces determines precedence among commissioned officers, in particular those who hold the same rank. Seniority is used to determine assignments, tactical commands, promotions and general courtesy. To a lesser extent, historical seniority is used to recognize status of honor given to early United States military leaders such as inaugural holders of certain ranks or those officers who served as leadership during major wars and armed conflicts.

Modern-day seniority
The modern-day seniority system of the United States commissioned officer corps operates on two different levels. For officers of different ranks, seniority is simply determined by who holds the highest rank. For instance, Army colonel is senior to captain and captain senior to lieutenant. Seniority extends across services as for instance major in the Army is senior to captain in the Air Force while commander in the United States Navy is senior to both. For officers in the same rank or paygrade, seniority is determined by the dates on which they assumed their ranks. If officers of the same grade have the same date of rank, then seniority is determined in order by the officer's previous rank's date and so forth. If all promotion dates of ranks are the same, seniority is then determined on order of: previous active duty grade relative seniority (if applicable), total active commissioned service, and finally, total federal commissioned service or date of appointment as a commissioned officer. The secretaries of each service may establish further seniority rules if applicable.

Whenever there are two or more officers in the same grade or rank, who are on duty in the same area, field command, or organization, and who are all eligible to command, the president may assign command to an officer, without regard to time-in-rank.

A type of "positional seniority" exists for military officers who hold top leadership positions of the armed forces. For instance, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is considered the most senior officer of the entire United States military, even though it is possible that contemporaries of the same rank may have earlier dates of rank or longer time in service. Likewise, heads of various armed service branches are considered most senior within their service; unified commanders are also considered most senior in their respective regions yet not necessarily to each other.

The regular United States military hierarchy is as follows:

 * Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
 * Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

When compared to each other, seniority among the service chiefs is determined by date of when the officer assumed that particular office, from the following group:

 * Chief of Staff of the United States Army
 * Commandant of the Marine Corps
 * Chief of Naval Operations
 * Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force
 * Chief of Space Operations
 * Chief of the National Guard Bureau

The Commandant of the Coast Guard has seniority and precedence immediately after the service chiefs.

The officers in charge of the Unified Combatant Commands are considered "operational officers" while the standard military hierarchy is administrative. For instance, the Chief of Naval Operations, who would most likely be senior to a naval admiral in command of the United States Pacific Command, would not be able to issue direct orders to said commander since operational chain of command is separate from regular administrative military hierarchy. Military seniority, within itself, would not be affected.

Tactical and operational seniority
Tactical seniority, also known as "battlefield seniority", is the manner in which a senior officer in command of a given tactical situation is determined. For instance, within the United States Navy, groups of ships performing exercises together will have one ship designated as the tactical senior unit. The commander of said ship is the senior tactical officer and may in fact be junior in rank to the other officers of the tactical group. For multi-national exercises, such as the Sharem event in South Korea, ships of foreign nations are sometimes given tactical seniority and thus may issue routine movement orders to United States vessels. Actual combat would fall under the Task Force system, in which a United States admiral, with clear seniority, would take command over all vessels.

Groups of Army units, especially in active combat, may be placed under tactical command of any officer, regardless of rank seniority, for completion of a single mission. During World War II, the term "mixed unit" was commonly used to denote military formations created from several other smaller units, most often "on the spot", due to operational confusion and the need for a single battlefield commander to take authority over all units physically present. Army Air Force bomber groups operated on a similar principle, in that tactical command could pass to officers who were not necessarily the most senior present, given the specific needs of the mission or casualties during the mission itself.

Operational seniority refers to the ability to issue long range orders to U.S. forces, such as deployments, general orders, and other administrative matters. Operational seniority is never granted to non-U.S. officers and usually stems from such major offices as the Bureau of Naval Personnel or the Army Personnel Branch.

Historical seniority
The only case where historical seniority has been legally established by the United States Congress is for the "super rank" of the armed forces of the United States General of the Armies. By clear precedent, the holders of this rank (three persons in all) are senior to all other officers of the United States military, past and present. By special Congressional edict, George Washington is considered the most senior officer of all time meaning he may never be lesser in seniority to any other military officer, although Washington technically shares the same rank with John Pershing and Ulysses S. Grant.

The office of general was discontinued after the Civil War, but revived in 1919 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States" when General John J. Pershing was appointed to that office on 3 September 1919; accepted the appointment on 8 September 1919, was retired with that rank on 13 September 1924, and held it until his death on 15 July 1948. No other officer has occupied this office on active duty. General Pershing held the grade of General of the Armies of the United States under the provisions of the Act of U.S. Congress of 3 September 1919 (Public Law 45). Washington was posthumously appointed General of the Armies of the United States under Public Law 94-479. Under Order 31-3, the effective promotion date was on 4 July 1976. Congress specified that no officer of the United States Army should outrank Lieutenant General George Washington on the Army list. While promoted to a lieutenant general only a year before his death, he was the most senior officer and the only lieutenant general in the army. The same is true of Ulysses S. Grant, who was the second person to permanently hold this rank. (Winfield Scott was a brevet lieutenant general for his service in the Mexican–American War.) Washington was referred to as "commander in chief" of the Continental Army, a title that since the adoption of the Constitution has been reserved for the (civilian) President.

The five star officers of World War II are technically considered the most senior officers in U.S. history (with the exception of the two "super ranks" previously mentioned), yet are often considered historically junior to the military leaders of the 19th century, especially the inaugural holders of senior military ranks. Most historical seniority lists also omit three star officers, with some rare exceptions (such as Winfield Scott), and typically avoid comparing two star ranks and below, which are permanent ranks held by hundreds of officers over the past two centuries. In these cases, standard methods of seniority are used. Since 1981, the highest rank held by any officer in the U.S. armed forces is four stars, or a pay grade of "O-10". Modern-day admirals and generals are typically not considered in lists of historical seniority, except for extreme cases such as leaders of wars or other wide scale armed conflicts.

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

title: United States military seniority


text:
Polikarpov I-15

The Polikarpov I-15 (И-15) was a Soviet biplane fighter aircraft of the 1930s. Nicknamed Chaika (Чайка, "Seagull") because of its gulled upper wings, it was operated in large numbers by the Soviet Air Force, and together with the Polikarpov I-16 monoplane, was one of the standard fighters of the Spanish Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, where it was called Chato (snub-nose).

Design and development
The design for the 14th fighter for the VVS, the I-14, started as an advanced (for the era) monoplane under the direction of Andrei Tupolev. He grew concerned that the design would not mature, and ordered two backup biplane designs as the I-14A and B just to be safe. Polikarpov had just been released from prison in August 1932, and was handed the I-14A project. When both the I-14 and I-14A were ordered into production, Polikarpov's design, a development of the I-5 fighter became the famous I-15.

The first flight was made in October 1933 with V.P. Chkalov at the controls, powered by an imported Wright R-1820 Cyclone engine. The I-15, also known by its development name TsKB-3, was a small biplane fighter with a gulled upper wing. The single bay wings were of wooden construction, while the fuselage was of mixed steel and duralumin construction, with a fabric covered rear fuselage.

Production started in 1934, initially being powered by the Shvetsov M-22, a licence-built version of the Bristol Jupiter radial engine. While less powerful than the Cyclone, the M-22 powered aircraft were still superior to the I-5 which it replaced, demonstrating excellent manoeuvrability. Production switched to the 515 kW Shvetsov M-25 engine (a license-built, metricified Cyclone) in late 1936. A total of 671 I-15s were built, 284 in the Soviet Union and a further 287 under license by CASA in Spain.

The gulled upper wing of the I-15 was unpopular with some pilots, as it was felt to restrict visibility, so Polikarpov's design bureau produced a revised version, again powered by the M-25, with a longer span un-gulled upper wing. This version, the I-15bis, commenced production in 1937, a total of 2,408 I-15bis' being delivered by the time production finished in 1940.

China
In August 1937, the Chinese Kuomintang Government signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR, and in autumn of the same year, the Soviet Union commenced to ship I-15s as a part of a programme of military aid to the Chinese Air Force (CAF) in its defensive war against Japan. More than 250 Soviet pilots volunteered to fly the 255 I-15s supplied to China in autumn 1937. By 1939, the total number of Polikarpov biplanes delivered to CAF reached 347 I-15/I-15bis. The I-15bis also saw a great amount of action in the Soviet–Japanese border conflicts along the China–Mongolia border. From 1938-1941, I-15s in the Nationalist Air Force of China, fought many major battles, and skirmishes against invading and occupying Japanese forces, including the Battle of Taierzhuang, the Battle of Wuhan, the Battle of South Guangxi, the Battle of Chongqing-Chengdu, etc. The tough biplane was quite clearly outmatched during the debut dogfight against the new Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter over Chongqing on 13 September 1940, although I-15bis pilots Maj. Zheng Shaoyu, Lt. Gao Youxin, and Lt. Xu Jixiang were able to target and damage some of the Zeroes, with Lt. Gao believing he had shot one down (all Zeroes returned to base in Wuhan, with four Zeroes suffering some damage); all three of those pilots survived the battle.

Pilot Captain Shen Tse-Liu is credited with 4 victories in his I-15bis, the most with the aircraft in the war.

Mongolia
In 1939 Polikarpov fighters were extensively used during the Battles of Khalkhin Gol fought around the Khalkha River in Dornod Province. The battles were fought during 11 May–16 September 1939, and involved more than 600 planes. When hostilities commenced, the only I-15bis in the area were 14 aircraft of 70th IAP. Their number increased in the following weeks: on 23 May, 35 I-15bis from 22nd IAP arrived from the Trans-Baikal region. However the Mongolian Polikarpov pilots had been hastily trained and they suffered heavy losses against the more experienced Japanese pilots. During this conflict, the Soviet Union, Mongolia and Japan lost more than 200 aircraft each. 10 aircraft were delivered to the Mongolian People's Army Air Force in mid-July 1939 and flight personnel were trained for rear air defence. Afterwards, they received more than 30 aircraft in March 1942.

Spain
The I-15 was used extensively in combat by the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War and proved to be one of the best fighter biplanes of its time. The Nationalists called the fighter "Curtiss", apparently believing it to be the Curtiss F11C Goshawk. The first batch of 25 Polikarpovs arrived in Cartagena, Spain, on 28 October 1936, with 15 pilots, led by future ace Pavel Rychagov. A few days later a further group of 10 pilots and 15 aircraft arrived in Bilbao.

The Soviet pilots first went into action 4 November, when I-15s shot down two Junkers Ju 52/3ms and two CR.32s over Madrid, and forced a third Ju 52 and a Heinkel two-seater to crash-land. No losses were reported among the Soviet pilots. During the next two days, Chato pilots claimed 12 more victories, at the cost of two I-15s lost.

On 16 November, while dogfighting with Fiat CR.32s over Madrid, future ace Rychagov was shot down and four days later the number of combat-ready Polikarpov in the central area had fallen to 15 aircraft: seven had been lost in combat, two had force-landed and one was undergoing repair.

In December 1936 and January 1937, two more shipments of 30 aircraft arrived in Spain, making it possible to form four full-strength I-15 squadrons. Until the spring of 1937, central Spain was the main war theatre for I-15s. And in May 1937, another batch of 31 Polikarpov landed in Spain, taking the total number of I-15s delivered to 116.

Chato losses in the Spanish Civil War were comparable to those of its principal rival, the Fiat CR.32. By 1 January 1939, 197 Polikarpovs had been lost: 88 shot down by enemy aircraft and nine by anti-aircraft artillery, 27 destroyed on the ground and 67 written off in accidents.

World War II
More than 1,000 I-15bis fighters were still in Soviet use during the German invasion when the biplane was employed in the ground attack role. Many were destroyed in the opening hours of the invasion sitting in neat rows on their runways. By November 1943, all examples still in service had been relegated to second line duties.

Variants

 * TsKB-3bis
 * Prototype.

 * TsKB-3ter
 * Prototype fitted with the more powerful M-25V radial piston engine.

 * I-15
 * First production series.

 * I-15bis
 * Single-seat fighter biplane, armed with four 7.62 mm PV-1 or ShKAS machine guns, plus up to 150 kg of bombs. The I-15bis was powered by the more powerful 570 kW Shvetsov M-25V radial piston engine. It had a straight upper wing. A total of 2,408 machines were built.

 * I-152
 * Modernised version of I-15bis. One built in 1938. Series production was not undertaken, since it was decided to build I-153 instead.

 * I-152GK
 * (Germetichyeskoi Kabine – hermetic (pressure) cabin) – One aircraft fitted with a pressure cabin.

 * I-152TK
 * (Turbo Kompressor – turbo-charged) – One aircraft fitted with two turbochargers.

 * I-15ter (I-153)
 * Development of the I-15 with retractable landing gear, see Polikarpov I-153.

 * UTI-1
 * (Oochebno Trenirovochnyy Istrebitel'  – fighter trainer) – Factory-built two-seat trainer version, front cockpit moved forwards, dual controls fitted, 20 built in 1934 but not used by VVS

 * Chung 28B
 * China product version. base on I-152,equip with 712hp Wright R-1820-F3 engine,armed with four .30 Browning machine gun,total 30 built.

Operators

 * undefined
 * Chinese Nationalist Air Force
 * Finnish Air Force (captured)
 * Nazi Germany
 * Luftwaffe (captured)
 * 🇲🇳 Mongolia
 * Mongolian People's Army Air Force- received more than 40 aircraft in July 1939 – 1942
 * Soviet Air Force
 * Soviet Naval Aviation
 * 🇪🇸 Spanish Republic
 * Spanish Republican Air Force
 * undefined
 * Spanish Air Force – Post civil war.
 * undefined
 * Spanish Air Force – Post civil war.

title: Polikarpov I-15


text:
Lachit Borphukan

Lachit Borphukan (24 November 1622 – 25 April 1672) was an army general, primarily known for commanding the Ahom Army and the victory in the Battle of Saraighat (1671) that thwarted an invasion by the vastly superior Mughal Forces under the command of Ramsingh I. He died about a year later in April 1672.

There is keen contemporary interest in Lachit Borphukan today—he has emerged as a powerful symbol of Assam's historical autonomy. Since the rise of BJP in Assam, the party has been keen to project him as a warrior against Muslim invasion instead. This communalisation of Lachit Borphukan and the Battle of Saraighat is contested by historians who claim that Lachit himself was not Hindu rather followed Tai religion, that he had Muslim commanders like Bagh Hazarika (Ismail Siddique) under him, and that he fought against a Hindu Mughal commander, Ram Singh I.

Biography
Lachit was youngest born to Momai Tamuli Borbarua, a commoner who rose to the rank of Borbarua under Pratap Singha ((r. 1545 – 1641)). His sister was Pakhari Gabhoru, a queen to the Ahom kings Jayadhwaj Singha, Chakradhwaj Singha and Samaguria Raja, and his niece was Ramani Gabharu, the Ahom princess who was given to the Mughals as part of the Treaty of Ghilajharighat. A few Buranjis give some details on Lachit's life and education. He is said to have participated in battle against Mir Jumla's forces at Dikhaumukh and rose up the ranks of Ahom officialdom—Ghora Barua, Dulia Barua, Simalugiria Phukan and Dolakasharia Barua. Following the Chakradhwaj's preparations to retake Guwahati and on the eve of the march, Lachit was appointed the Borphukan (Ahom viceroy in the west) and the commander of the Ahom forces.

Guwahati campaign
Lachit set up his base-camp at Kaliabar and then advanced on Guwahati in August 1667 in two divisions; and after a series of battles, finally retook Guwahati with the fall of Itakhuli in November 1667.

Death
A few Buranjis briefly describe Lachit's victory over the Mughal naval fleet, led by Ram Singh, in the Battle of Saraighat. He died soon after in Kaliabor and was buried at Teok in Jorhat in a maidam, which are burial grounds for Ahom royals and nobles.

Contemporary narratives
In the pre-colonial times Buranjis were not available for popular consumption. Beginning in the early twentieth century, a few localities in Upper Assam began commemorating November 24 as Lachit Dibox (trans. Lachit Day). The account of the celebrations and use of Lachit in Charingaon then were very different from those in the 1970s when Lachit had become a symbol of the Assamese. The contemporaneous burgeoning of public interest in history ensured that the legend of Barphukan had "attained an iconic status" by the first quarter of the century and Surya Kumar Bhuyan published an article comparing him with Shivaji; but Lachit was only one of the many historical icons who were appropriated by Assamese elites towards different politico-cultural ends, and his popularity was later surpassed by Joymoti Konwari and others.

In 1947, Bhuyan published Lachit's biography against the backdrop of Ahom conflicts with the Mughal Empire; not only did the work grant a veneer of "academic respectability" to the legend but also "mythologized" his exploits in the Assamese psyche. However, in state-building in postcolonial Assam, cultural heroes like Lachit were largely displaced by anti-colonial activists; Jayeeta Sharma notes the legend of Lachit to have "retired into the domain of knowledge, away from activism." Nonetheless, the legend survived in the backwaters of Assamese sub-nationalism, with the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) — a secessionist organization seeking the creation of an independent and sovereign Assam — extensively using Lachit's imagery for propaganda.

Lachit's memory would be significantly appropriated by the state only under the governorship of Srinivas Kumar Sinha; Sharma, writing as of 2004, found that it was no more the ULFA but the Government of Assam that tried the most to bring him into prominence. Coterminous to the rise of Bharatiya Janata Party in the state, Lachit has been inducted within the framework of a Hindu Nationalist grammar, as a Hindu military hero who defended against Muslim aggression which is contested by historians who claim that Lachit followed Tai religion.

His fellow commanders in the Saraighat War included Assamese Muslims, also known as "Gariya" and the most famous among them was Ismail Siddique, locally known as Bagh Hazarika. However, the Mughal forces were led by a Hindu Rajput named Ram Singh.

title: Lachit Borphukan


text:
Talk:Oni

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pandalily89. Peer reviewers: Ezahnzin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Setsubun

 * Edited to include link to Setsubun festival, and changed the translation of "Oni out, good luck in" to instead match the one on that page.

An Oni characters showed up in Arion, Lord of Atlantis.

"Oni in Modern Culture"
I removed this:

 * Oni are the demon like creatures that inhabit the Chaos Realm in the Mortal Kombat series. Mainly shown in Mortal Kombat: Deception.

Are they really that important to Mortal Kombat as a whole? A simple random appearance of an oni in something is hardly notable. It's like listing every appearance of demons in the demon article. If I had my druthers, I'd avoid any "in popular culture" section altogether (they're magnets for cruft and non-notability, and they grow like cancer), but if we add one, it ought to focus on places where oni are important to the fictional work under discussion. — BrianSmithson 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe that it Needed to be removed. Oni are Oni not just demons, specifically Japanese demons. They appear in very few places outside of Japan. Saying that its like listing any appearance of demons is incorrect. Oni are very specific. And yes it is important the Oni Warlord is the first boss in the Mortal Combat: Shaolin Monks game, and with him there was a large group of Oni. Maybe not Important to the entire series but the Oni do play a large part at least in the Shaolin monks part of the saga. I vote for re wording it and putting it back in. Jesheckah
 * Huh? The "in popular culture" section of this article is already as long as my arm. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — BrianSmithson 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ne, oni means ogre child.

How about the oni from Kamen Rider Hibiki? Neo Guyver (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Disguise
I always though that oni disguised themselves as attractive women...What mythical creature is this I'm thinking of? --Josquius 23:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Anyway if this article is really to have a list of oni from anime, shouldn't Urusei Yatsura be at the top of this list? That reminds me, there's no mention of oni in the Urusei Yatsura article.
 * There's always the succubus. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Kitsune do that sometimes, too. — BrianSmithson 18:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That must be where the term "foxy" came from, right? (^_-) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Lum is an oni isn't she, and she's cute.

Jackie Chan Adventures
The Oni were the topic of an entire season of Jackie Chan Adventures, season 4, where the king of the Oni was named Tarakudo. Is this significant enough to add?PokeHomsar (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Origins
The Gaki and Ushi-Tora theories seem sensible, but I always heard that Oni were the Asian interpretation of caucasian people, whom they might have met on extremely rare occasion... Being extremely tall, having wild colorful hair, big round eyes, big ears and noses, etc. Even the metal clubs... well no, I think they had gunpowder before Europeans did.. but still. I can't cite the source, but I think it was an old version of Momotaro with an appendix in the back theorizing about the origins of Oni.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Not without a reputable source. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Not what without a reputable source? God, Wikipedia nowadays. In any case, the source ~exists~ I just don't remember for sure what it was. Someone's publication of Momotaro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Since I assume both good faith and reasonable intelligence from folks, I therefor assumed that you were know I meant "what" to be "statements that Oni are Asian interpretation of Caucasian people", also known as "the entire point of your posting in its entirety." It's not something that I personally feel like hunting down to find out if there's even any merit to it; you are the one that brings it up, so it falls to you to do the initial legwork if you want to include something that is going appear as ridiculous without sourcing.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Oni also means demon in Ainu, doesn't this indicate that the concept was passed down from the Jomon? Could also be that the Ainu adopted the Japanese word, if someone knows that is the case please reply, I couldn't find anything in my research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F2:88A:FA1B:6C3B:4111:8854:9001 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 * A Japanese article from 2013 entitled "Formation of the Demon of Pestilence and its Influence in Japan: －Etymology of the Word 鬼 (Oni or Ogre) and its Relationship with Onryo (Grudge-Bearing Spirits) and Goryo (Evil Spirits)" had proposed an alternate etymological root for oni and why the Chinese character for dead spirits was the one adopted for it, found here with an English abstract and here in the full original Japanese. Though I don't know how much has been discussed since on the topic, it may be something worthwhile to note in the Origins section of the article. 82.73.224.206 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Why an "in popular culture" section?
Literature about oni stretches back 1500 years, what makes "popular culture" particularly important? Shii (tock) 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 * For the same reason that many articles have an equivalent, be it "popular culture" or something like this. It's relevant information.  The information is too focused for a disambiguation page, but it's still valid mentioned and even better to have it in a non-list form.  I try to prune additions to this category since it is used too loosely, but removal just isn't in the cards. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Venture brothers
There was an episode of the Venture Brothers where Doctor Venture is being followed by an oni. This should be in the pop culture section--67.86.120.246 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oni in Little Kings story
Oni's are in little kings story, so we should add that in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.228.81 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

move to the northeast
What does the capitol moving have to do with the oni's relationship to the northeast?--Slowlikemolasses (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture items
I disagree with completely removing this section. However, I agree the list was far too bloated and should be trimmed to a few select entries. Here is the list that was removed: Which ones should be kept? Please include references that support keeping the entry. since they removed the list. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) In Capcom's video game saga Onimusha where the protagonist wields the power of the Oni, and retells the History of Japan with supernatural elements.
 * 2) In Rumiko Takahashi's Urusei Yatsura, the female lead, Lum Invader, is an oni alien depicted wearing a tiger-skin bikini and the entire alien race to which she belongs is fashioned after the classical concept of oni.
 * 3) Chie Shinohara's manga Ao no Fuuin uses oni as a main theme when the female protagonist is a descendant of a beautiful oni queen who wants to resurrect her kind.
 * 4) Japanese symphonic/progressive rock band Shingetsu (新●月) included a piece titled "Oni" (鬼) in their first album. According to Akira Hanamoto, the writer of the song, the oni depicted in this piece is more spirit-like and has no features that would distinguish it as a separate physical entity. While it appears to retain some of the grisly traits of its physical counterparts—enough to make a goat tremble—it is also revealed to be quite timid as it "takes flight" apparently at the sight of a hissing cat.
 * 5) Takahashi's Ranma 1/2 features a story in which one of the characters, Kasumi Tendo, is possessed by an oni, causing her to behave in uncharacteristically "evil" (yet humorous) ways.
 * 6) The Touhou Project series of shoot-'em-up games has a character named Suika Ibuki, an oni with a massive gourd on her back capable of producing an endless amount of sake; legend has it that no one has seen her sober in her 700-year life. A later game in the series marked the appearance of Yuugi Hoshiguma, Suika's oni associate from a group of four incredibly powerful oni that they both belong to, called the "Four Devas of the Mountains." Yuugi, despite being as great a drinker as Suika while being just as cheerful, is even less of a lightweight than Suika, being able to enter into a fight without seeming intoxicated or even spilling any of the sake in her sake dish.
 * 7) In the Mortal Kombat universe, the denizens of the Netherrealm (the series' equivalent of hell) are called Oni (though they represent a drastic deviation from the Japanese concept, being primitive ape-like demons), and the oni character Drahmin's right arm is replaced by a metal club. Another Oni fighter of the series is Moloch.
 * 8) In Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, an Oni called King Yemma runs the Check-In Station in Other World, where he decides which souls go to Heaven and which to Hell.
 * 9) The Onis are featured in Season 4 of Jackie Chan Adventures. Tarakudo (voiced by Miguel Ferrer) is the King of the Onis. There are 9 other Oni masks that when worn, the demon trapped in the masks can take over the users well-being and able to control their own tribe of the Shadowkhan.
 * 10) In Hellboy: Sword of Storms, Hellboy fought a giant Oni. Before the final blow can be struck with the Sword of Storms, the Oni fades away so that Hellboy can break the Sword of Storms on the statue releasing the brothers Thunder and Lightning.
 * 11) Kamen Rider Hibiki, a Japanese tokusatsu series, uses Oni (which is what the Kamen Riders here are referred as) as a main theme of the series. It tells the story about ancient battle between the Oni and the Makamou. In another popular tokusatsu, the Ultra series, it is not uncommon for Oni to appear and do battle with an Ultraman.
 * 12) Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger, Ogre Tribe Org is the main antagonist to fight the Gaorangers and Power Animals.
 * 13) In the popular Japanese manga series One Piece, one of the four emperors Kaido shares similarities with an Oni in both appearance and power.
 * 14) In Pokémon, Electabuzz shares similarities with the oni. Sawk and Throh are meant to resemble the blue oni and the red oni, respectively.
 * 15) In The Venture Brothers season two episode "I Know Why the Caged Bird Kills", Dr. Venture is haunted by a floating Oni which has followed him from Japan.
 * 16) In the video game Muramasa: The Demon Blade, Oni are one of the various enemies the main characters battle.
 * 17) In Rumiko Takahashi's manga InuYasha, Oni are common Yokai in the series.
 * 18) In the first-person shooter series Shadow Warrior, the protagonist is fighting demonic entities that bear a strong resemblance to Onis.
 * 19) The 'Oni' are a form of Samurai inspired NPCs (Non Playable Characters) in Crystal Dynamics' 2013 video game release 'Tomb Raider'
 * 20) In the MMORPG "Onigiri" the player's character is an 'Oni'
 * 21) In Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition a more powerful "unleashed" form of Akuma is named Oni and features claws, fangs, and horns similar to classical depictions of oni.
 * 22) In Yo-kai Watch, many of the creatures found are based on oni. Oni themselves appear as a class of boss enemies. They are distinct between each other, but all have horns. Some also have either claws, horns, or both.
 * 23) In the MTV television show Teen Wolf, the Oni were a primary villan, aiding to both Noshiko Yukimura and the Nogitsune during Season 3 part 2.
 * 24) In the Supernatural novel Rite of Passage, an oni is the main enemy, terrorizing the town of Laurel Hills, New Jersey and causing a chain of disasters that kills hundreds of people. Eventually its realized that the oni is after the three children it sired with human women eighteen years before. At the end of the story, the oni is killed by Bobby Singer with a rifle shot through its third eye after its separated from its kanabo, the thing that makes it invincible.
 * 25) In the video game "Toukiden: Kiwami" the main character is called a slayer, or "demons that hunt demons" and the character's main purpose is to defend the village from a variety of Oni.
 * 26) Heavy Metal band Trivium's seventh studio album Silence in the Snow contains an Oni mask on the front.
 * 27) WWE At the WWE Network special beast in the east, live in Tokyo Japan. Finn Bálor appeared in war paint that resembled a oni on his back. And Aswell as Spider-Man eyes.
 * 28) Oni is the name of a video game for Mac OS, Windows and PS2 released in 2001 by Bungie Software.
 * 29) In the tabletop RPG Dungeons & Dragons, onis, also called ogre mages, is a relative of ogres. They are massive blue humanoids with large, tooth filled mouths. They are also experienced magic-users, and can fly, turn invisible, disguise themselves as other humanoids, and turn into mist. They are often depicted as boogeymen.
 * 30) In the game Overwatch the character Genji can use a skin that depicts him as an oni
 * I've replaced the item regarding Hiroshi Aramata's novel (and removed it from this list) because it has a reference that indicates why it's important. I also numbered the items in the list above to make them easier to reference while discussing them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the following items are too trivial to include: 1, 4-10, 12-16, 18-28, and 30. That leaves 2-3, 11, 17, and 29 as ones which I think might be able to be included. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Oni are so ubiquitous, I could add a new appearance in pop culture to this list almost every day. Trying to identify one as being more notable than the other is a waste of time. So there must be a third-party source that discusses the importance of the portrayal beyond a simple mention that e.g. "this new manga is based on oni". The entry currently in the article, with a quote from a university professor, is a good example of what should be required. I can't see why any one of those numbered above should be included. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What AtHomeIn神戸 said. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 * In the cases where Oni is the name of a character or a class of characters, these would be placed in Oni (disambiguation) anyway. I don't know if it's worth making a list of oni like with list of vampires. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a long list of completely inane anime and video game pop trivia. Why would readers care about this? How does this help a reader better understand the concept of an Oni? It's only of interest to an incredibly small niche of people. Also Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious scholarly encyclopedia for all time. Imagine someone reading this in the year 3000. Would any of them care about these examples? It's just 20 to 21st century pop culture nonsense. They would care about the actual Japanese mythology. And if you were to read a serious physical encyclopedia, they wouldn't be listing such trivial infromation. So is Wikipeida supposed to be a serious scholarly academic endeavour, or does it serve to make list of pop culture nonsense?

I'm citing several policies here:

1. WP:Fancruft - It's just info about anime/games/tv that doesn't belong here. 2. WP:Trivia - It's just inane pop culture trivia. It is by definition unimportant, tangential, trivial information. 3. WP:Recentism - The mythology of Oni has existed for a long time. Yet much of the article focuses on pop-culture depictions in the last 20-30 years? Why does this get to be nearly half the article?

Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those are policies. Two are essays (okay, one is an "explanatory supplement" that specifically states it is neither a guideline nor a policy, but that basically means it's an essay) and one is a guideline. And I don't see anyone advocating placing every possible mention of oni into the article. If you're seeing that, please point it out specifically.
 * What I wrote in my initial comment is that "I disagree with completely removing this section." I then followed up by pointing out that the vast majority of what was on the list was too trivial for inclusion. I then listed only five of them might merit inclusion. That would, of course, be only if there were sources which indicated why they were important to include. I see nothing wrong with including a few carefully curated examples of oni in popular culture as long as they have solid refs that support their cultural impact. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 * The Concept of Oni has existed for thousands of years. Why focus at all on media that has been released in the last few decades? Why is it important? There's thousands of stories that include Oni. Just because it has third party sources, does not mean it needs to be included at all. Did this media radically alter how the public sees Oni? Maybe in that case. Otherwize, it's just trivia and completely off topic. And even then, it might not warrant inclusion because of its recent nature. Again, Wiki is supposed to be a timeless encyclopedia. There's nothing special about the last few decades at all. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The rest of the article deals with everything else about oni. And again, you're reading way too much into what I'm writing here. I never said that "just because it has third party sources" that it should be included. Not even once. Whether it is recent or not is really irrelevant if it can be shown through reliable sources (since there are obviously no first party sources for oni) that it has had a significant impact (as is the case with the one I replaced into the article).
 * Your view that all "In popular culture" sections are bad (at least that's how you are coming across) is far too extreme. I agree with you that many (if not most) entries in such sections are not worth keeping there due to being merely trivia. However, there are cases where it is good to have a particular entry. Any such entries should have a strong reliable source giving a solid reason why it should be included. That's all I'm saying. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see a single item in the list that could be justified. They're all fluff. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Now, the last remaining example is the Hiroshi Aramata novel. Now, in the thousands of years of Oni mythology, why should this be singled out? What is so special about it? I argue it should also be removed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's there because the reference it has specifically explains why it's relevant and important to this page. Apparently you missed that part up above. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm a few years late, but I do think that pop culture is important in that it changes people's perception of a given thing. To you (Harizotoh9), it doesn't seem to merit scholarly attention, but to me, it seems very worthwhile, because it's a study of yet another facet of human society. But if we were to say that pop culture is just "nonsense" or "fluff", then we should just delete every single article about a pop culture product on Wikipedia, shouldn't we? But that's not how Wikipedia operates, because it's exactly as you said, Wikipedia is for all of time. So what makes pop culture unfit for this definition? Why is "recent" not included in "all of time"? Both these contradictions in your suggestions and the way you're looking down on pop culture just because you personally think it's "inane" and "nonsense" are grounds enough that your reasoning does not hold water. At any rate, I do agree completely with Nihonjoe and his list of pop culture entries that should be included in the article. Something like Urusei Yatsura, in particular, is extremely popular and well-known in its homeland of Japan (less so outside of Japan, admittedly). I don't have any sources for this, though, or for the pop culture list for that matter. Oh well! Hulkhogan121212 (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103183952/http://www.waw.ne.jp/youkai/9802/trad.DBindex.html to http://www.waw.ne.jp/youkai/9802/trad.DBindex.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture

 * The Unicode Emoji character U+1F479 (👹) represents an oni, under the name "Japanese ogre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by WATANABE Satoshi (talk • contribs) 05:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Weren’t Oni once humans
I’m not entirely sure if this is true but I have read sources claiming that Oni in folklore were once humans corrupted by evil things. I’m not entirely sure if this is based on actual folklore or merely a modern day view.CycoMa (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is true that there are some stories where humans are described as turning into oni (e.g. Shuten Dōji, the Hashihime of Uji), but as a whole there's really no single answer as to what oni exactly are. I mean, they might be characterized as evil in some folktales (Momotarō comes to mind) but there are certain stories and places where they are considered to be benevolent beings and even worshiped as gods. Pat457 (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oni&action=edit“The Book of yōkai : Mysterious Creatures of Japanese Folklore : Foster, Michael Dylan, 1965- Author : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming.” Internet Archive, Berkeley : University of California Press, 1 Jan. 1970, archive.org/details/isbn_9780520271029. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oni&action=editChiba, Kotaro. Tales of Japan: Traditional Stories of Monsters and Magic. Chronicle Books, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oni&action=editFujita, Hiroko, et al. Folktales from the Japanese Countryside. Libraries Unlimited, 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oni&action=edit“Japanese Demon Lore : Oni, from Ancient Times to the Present : Reider, Noriko T : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming.” Internet Archive, Logan, Utah : Utah State University Press, 1 Jan. 1970, archive.org/details/JapaneseDemonLore/page/n3/mode/2up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oni&action=edit“Oni.” Handbook of Japanese Mythology, by Michael Ashkenazi, ABC-CLIO, 2003, pp. 230–233. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oni&action=editReider, Noriko T. Seven Demon Stories from Medieval Japan. Utah State University Press, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oni&action=editRoberts, Jeremy. Japanese Mythology A to Z. Chelsea House Publishers, 2010.Pandalily89 (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology
— Assignment last updated by Rockethound (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

An idea for a redirect
From "Japanese ogre" to Oni (because of the emoji). 195.187.108.130 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology
— Assignment last updated by Mythgirlie23 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" possibly missing a popular instance of Oni
Genshin Impact (2020) has a playable character that is an oni, Arataki Itto, with his being an oni being important to his character; as well as his character being an important one to the game as a 5 star character with a role in several events. AverageLinkEnjoyer (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 * If you have a reliable source discussing the character and his ethnicity, please feel free to add him. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Oni


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeena LLC

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 09:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adeena LLC
42 Google hits for this, very few for a computer-related company. JoaoRicardo 07:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 11:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ad for a non-notable computer company. --Deathphoenix 14:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Currently the article ends with "Vinit Bhansali is a partner at Adeena LLC." Of course, Vinit Bhansali is also currently marked as vfd... Zzyzx11 20:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Proposed decision

Apparently RK is very biased against many people and will resort to any means including misusing wikipedia to achieve what he wants. His recent biased POV edits to chabad have proven this.--203.84.85.137 07:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't even know who RK is and suddenly out of the blue I get this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Halakhic-Jews-Only&diff=11670369&oldid=11670306 in response to one posting on Netzarim (I admit was a bit harsh but not factually inaccurate) and two postings about the origins of Hasidism which I thought were very polite. I assume RK's reaction was to my comments about Nazarenes' misuse/abuse of the term netzarim.

Dear RK, I am sorry you feel most wikipaedian contributors consider themselves netzarim, but this really is a misuse of the term. Only halakhically Jewish descendants of David HaMelech can be called netzarim and everyone else using that term is creating a fantasy. "Nazarenes" really do have no right to use it. It is exactly the same as groups of people begining to call themselves the royalty of Britain without having any blood descent from that royal family. Anyone who did this would simply be ignored as crazy. In Britain I think it might even be a crime. If you are indeed descended from David HaMelech, then you have my respect. I have not and will not make any personal attacks on anyone. It is not my intention to do so. My username simply reflects my POV. I can not lie and say I have no POV. But I can make it clear what my POV is without any discussion. A Jew is only a Jew as defined by Halakhah. This had been the traditional standpoint of Judaism for thousands of years and is still held by millions of Jews all over the world today. No-one should try to sweep this POV under the carpet. To be sure there are many more POVs than this one. But from my perspective there is no difference between a Messianic Jew and Conservative Jew or anything in between. I am not anti science nor anti history nor anti archaeology. I am very pro NPOV. But I think it is wrong to suppose some holistic political compromise is NPOV when in fact it is simply another POV. True Neutrality can only come through honest reportage of the plethora of POVs surrounding a subject. The number 1 will always mean one, this is a fact, there may be many POVs surrounding this fact. If the POVs are too numerous perhaps it is best to omit them in favour of the facts. The fact is if it is not Halakhic Judaism it is anti-Halakhic Judaism and can never be considered the same. It is a lie to pretend there is one united view on this. There are many POVs but the fact will always remain the same.Halakhic-Jews-Only 22:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before this is closed
It's not clear from the votes what length the personal attack parole will ultimately be. --Michael Snow 19:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * With the current majority of 5, this isn't clear - I've asked the other arbitrators to express a preference to sort this out -- sannse (talk) 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I switched from 6 to 12 - David Gerard 22:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Jungfrau Park

Hello
Hello RickK !

Regarding the edits about "He went as far as grossly forge "proofs" (see Von Däniken" and " The overal impression is quite cheap ", I understand that the formulation is not appropriate... Do you think that there coud be alternative formulations which could save these ?

The part about Von Däniken might sound a little bit tendencious, but his claim to "educate" the population would probably be better presented with at least a lmited background on the fellow.

For the "cheap" part... I think you'd have to be there to judge -- it's hardly believable. I remember the badly adjusted projectors, the ridiculous flying saucer coming down from the ceiling "Ed Wood"-like, the lack of animations, ... I'm not even talking about the content of the message, but the mere means of commnication were really sub-standard compared to things like "Futuroscope" in Poitier. You se that there is even a press report which addresses this... (even in the context of "is expected to provide a boost for the stagnant local economy. The park has created 120 new jobs and the company expects to attract half a million people a year." -- now that say somehting). So again, do you think that a better formulation is possible ?

Thanks and cheers ! Rama 07:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it open now?
The official page link doesn't work for me, and I cannot find out. Does anyone know for sure? Kelisi 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To Alli_jayne321
The entry has some serious style problems that could be resolved with better copyediting.Hoopes (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jungfrau Park


text:
Talk:Evonne Goolagong Cawley

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis
There is a long, ongoing discussion at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found in tennis articles on English-language Wikipedia (e.g., this type of table). The discussion is about whether the "official sponsored name" of a tournament - such as Pacific Life Open - or another tournament name without the sponsor - such as Indian Wells Masters - must be used in those articles. Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible additional References
For anyone interested in expanding the article: Mentions Evonne traveled with her brother Ian to Timor Her Brother Ian who played with her in mixed doubles in Wimbledon: Can not find any mention of Evonnes other siblings 114.76.85.3 (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1108680/index.htm
 * http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1012909/index.htm
 * http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1093463/index.htm
 * http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/barellan-makes-a-racquet/1637320.aspx
 * http://www.womenaustralia.info/biogs/IMP0070b.htm
 * http://www.eniar.org/news/sport2.html
 * http://blog.taragana.com/sports/2009/09/14/evonne-goolagong-cawley-grand-slam-winning-mom-congratulates-kim-clijsters-on-us-open-win-28684/
 * http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/goolagong-cawley-finally-a-world-no1/2007/12/27/1198345162454.html
 * http://www.dsf.org.au/learningchoices/expo_speakers.php
 * http://bleacherreport.com/articles/263244-thank-god-for-tennis-goolagong-cawley-evert-borg-and-mcenroe-too
 * http://www.smh.com.au/news/SPORT/Goolagong-Cawley-takes-tennis-to-Timor/2005/12/06/1133829587279.html
 * http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/story/83883
 * http://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/content/content.asp?cnid=4009
 * http://www.toptenn.com/venue-burwood.htm
 * 122 Ian Goolagong
 * Ian Goolagong is available for tennis coaching

Siblings names in goolagong article as well as name meaning
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.73.71 (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Goolagong means "tall trees by still waters"
 * Siblings names:
 * (younger brother)Ian 19, plays tennis in Texas State Collage
 * (2 younger brothers) Kevin and Martin are sheep shearers who live in Barellan,NSW
 * (2 younger sisters) Gale and Janelle who live in Barellan,NSW
 * older brother Larry (married and lives in Sydney)
 * older sister Barbara (married and lives in Sydney)
 * Ian's A Goolagong By Name, Not By Deed. The Age - Jul 2, 1982
 * 19 year old brother Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.73.71 (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How the Daughter of an Ancient Race Made It Out of the Australian Outback By Hitting a Tennis Ball Sweetly and Hard; Evonne Goolagong, By HARRY GORDON, August 29, 1971, Sunday, Section: magazine, Page SM10 ,home court as often as possible with her two-years-older brother Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.73.71 (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Goolagong Fools Coach---Wins at Wimbledon, Teen-Ager Upsets Defending Champion in 61-Minute Rout GOOLAGONG WINS, Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif. Date: Jul 3, 1971 There could he another Goolagong around the ten nis circuit in a few years time Evonne has a 12 yearold sister Janelle who has tennis talent too  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.73.71 (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Evonne Seen Next World Net Queen, Reading Eagle - Apr 4, 1971 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.73.71 (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenneth Goolagong Dead at 44; Tennis Star's Father Hit by Car; Part-Time Fruit-Picker, October 6, 1974, Sunday, Section: GN, Page 65, 302 words Kenneth Goolagong, father of the tennis champion Evonne Goolagong, was struck by a car and killed here today in this town 450 miles west of Sydney. He was 44 years old. 114.76.73.71 (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: Ian and Martin: How could her siblings be in their teens if she's in her 60s? 97.116.52.160 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Goolagong or Goolagong- Cawley?
Is there a reason why this article is not called "Evonne Goolagong- Cawley"? In media nad other sources, that seems to be her name nowadays. I can shift it, just wanted to check that there isn't a reason this hasn't happened already.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You said it. "nowadays". Wikipedia has no obligation to rewrite history and create a new reality by effectively changing how she is addressed according to some recent "fashion" that is here today and gone tomorrow. That would amount to WP:RECENTISM. It would have been relevant only if there was any indication that she has actively changed her name at some point in time, which she hasn't. --Loginnigol 12:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginnigol (talk • contribs)
 * --Loginnigo, I hate to break the news to you, but women using their married name as their full name is not a "recent fashion"... of a trend "here today and gone tomorrow"... Welcome to the 21st century. Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 1 one external link on Evonne Goolagong Cawley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151006054223/http://www.usopen.org:80/en_US/about/history/wschamps.html to http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/wschamps.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Religious connection
One of the teachings of the religious group, The Family International, is that there is a demon named "Hong Kong Goolagong". Although founder David Berg claimed the name was revealed to him during a coughing fit, numerous commentators believe the true source of the name is Cawley's. Berg himself eventually acknowledged the possible connection in his own correspondences (but continued to express belief in the demon). Given the fringe nature of this religious group (which Cawley has no links to), I'm not sure if it's notable enough to include here or not. 97.116.52.160 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Evonne Billabong
Can anyone find a reference for this humorous and affectionate nickname? I can remember her being called that in UK during her years of greatness in the 70s.

I can also remember, I regret to say, a drawing (disgusting to decent-minded people and publicly condemned at the time) in a UK tabloid newspaper in the 70s of what she might have looked like playing tennis naked :-( Very unpleasant; but if it can be documented, it should be. Narky Blert (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No it should really not be if it's one drawing from a 70 tabloid. If it made worldwide news maybe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Playing Style
A playing style section would be helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.54.158 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the title conform to Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME)?
The subject of the article seems to be widely known as Evonne Goolagong, even in the article she is referred to as "Goolagong", not "Goolagong Cawley". In accordance with WP:COMMONNAME should that be the title of the article? Park3r (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This nomination was clearly made in good faith and some of the opposition didn't give it the respect that a good faith nomination deserves, but there is a clear consensus against the proposed move. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 16:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Evonne Goolagong Cawley → Evonne Goolagong – In accordance with WP:COMMONNAME and the "Recognizability" principle in WP:CRITERIA, Evonne Goolagong seems to be the better name for this article. The article text itself refers to her as "Goolagong" rather than "Goolagong Cawley" Park3r (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  09:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Looking over the previous 20 years, most awards and recognition credit the subject as "Evonne Goolagong Cawley", including Sport Australia Hall of Fame, Companion of the Order of Australia, National Museum of Australia, ITF Philippe Chatrier Award and Australia Post. WWGB (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Massive Keep - I don't see why we would rewrite history and change how she is addressed. WP:RECENTISM comes into play. Is there any indication that she has actively changed her name. Even the National Museum of Australia uses Cawley. The Olympics and Encyclopedia Britannica use Goolagong Cawley. Sorry but his seems like a strange request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to be split. Here's the Sydney Morning Herald calling her Evonne Goolagong. Her foundation is called the "Evonne Goolagong Foundation" and her Twitter account (admittedly not active) uses "Evonne Eoolagong". So does the Australian National Portrait Gallery in the header at least. . Her autobiography is titled "Home!: The Evonne Goolagong Story". There's another book called "Sunshine Super Girl: The Evonne Goolagong Story" and few other biographies that call her Evonne Goolagong. The article text itself calls her "Goolagong" and not "Goolagong Cowley", and that's her name in the infobox. It's a legitimate question (not "strange"), but obviously not an entirely settled one, otherwise I would have attempted the move myself, without consultation. Park3r (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You mentioned her foundation being called the "Evonne Goolangong Foundation" but when that same foundation explains who it is named after they say "ABOUT EVONNE GOOLAGONG-CAWLEY Evonne Goolagong Cawley, AC, MBE is a Wiradjuri Aborigine." Tennis Australia uses Evonne (Goolagong) Cawley. The two ruling bodies of tennis use Evonne Goolagong Cawley, the ITF and the WTA. The twitter account you talked about is not a verified twitter account so it could be made by fans considering goolagong isn't even capitalized. The portrait gallery photo of course uses Evonne Goolagong for it's header. The submitted photo was taken in 1970 when she was 19 years old and not married (till 1975). But in the detail section of that portrait gallery where it says who the photo is about it says "Evonne Goolagong Cawley AC MBE." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The point was to illustrate that this is not a “strange” request, but one that should be considered. Secondly, this seems to be the mirror image of the discussion on Ash Barty. If say, Steffi Graf were to start using the name “Steffi Graf Agassi” would we retitle the Wikipedia article? I think not. That’s the reason why I referred to  “Recognizabity” in WP:CRITERIA; which is the policy for determining article names. Would the average person looking for information on the subject search for “Evonne Goolagong Cawley” or “Evonne Goolagong”? I would argue the latter, and this is bolstered by the fact that the article itself uses “Goolagong” in its text. This also bolsters the case for “Goolagong” fulfilling the “naturalness” requirement in WP:CRITERIA. Furthermore, the “Concision” criterion is met by the shorter form of the name. EDIT: Also the International Tennis Hall of Fame uses "Evonne Goolagong". Park3r (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that. And the Australian Tennis Hall of Fame, her home country, uses Evonne Goolagong Cawley. Oh and the New South Wales Sports Hall of Fame, where she was born, uses Evonne Goolagong Cawley.. And if you go to the town she was raised, Barellan, Australia, you can visit Evonne Goolagong-Cawley park.. I just don't see the point in changing this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: To form a clearer consensus echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  09:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Support per nomination. Subject achieved international fame as Evonne Goolagong and that is indeed her WP:COMMONNAME in the rest of the world, outside of her native Australia. International Tennis Hall of Fame lists Margaret Court as Margaret Smith Court because she achieved international notability as both Margaret Smith and Margaret Court, although she achieved the greatest portion of her notability as Margaret Court. Evonne Goolagong, on the other hand, achieved her entire international notability not as Evonne Goolagong Cawley, but solely as Evonne Goolagong and is thus listed as Evonne Goolagong in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did this falsehood come from? It is complete balderdash. Goolagong Cawley played from 1967 through 1983. She married Mr Cawley in June of 1975. She won four major titles pre-marriage and three major titles after her name change. In January of 1976, after she won the Australian Open the press was pretty universal in saying that Evonne Goolagong Cawley won the championship... whether it's the San francisco Examiner, the Chicago Tribune, or the Miami Herald. On January 9 of 1976 there was a tennis battle of the sexes on tv (filmed in October of 1975) with the heading in tv Guide of "The Challenge of the Sexes - Evonne Goolagong Cawley and Elie Nastase." Goolagong won. Much of Goolagong Cawley's career took place after her name change. The tennis Hall of Fame doesn't use Cawley but the Australian Tennis Hall of Fame does! I can certainly see someone having an opinion that differs and wants to drop Cawley, but base it on facts not fiction. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In view of those facts, I am striking my above "Support" vote and am replacing it with Neutral. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment WP:CRITERIA remain unaddressed by the side that wants to keep the name. Unless there’s some other policy for tennis players that overrides general article naming policy. Park3r (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that at all. There are reasonable criteria for either version of her name. Both versions are quite common in every day usage. Both are common in the context of the governing bodies of tennis. She went by both versions during her long career (about 3/5 to 2/5 with just Goolagong). The press has used both versions. I think you were incorrect with your original conclusions on common-name and I simply don't see a reason to change it. Sure if 30 editors overwhelmingly think just Goolagong is a better fit we'll move it, but this is in your court to provide overwhelming evidence that Goolagong Cawley is not used much. Had you done so then editors would have rightly jumped onto your ship. I think using Cawley is the most popular but even if it's 50/50, it's not a reason to change without a heap of consensus to do so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I'm perplexed as to why the instigator of this proposal thinks there's any evidence for the shorter version being the common name, or there being a "recognisability" argument is not using a name that she's primarily known by. We understand the policy perfectly well; we're just pointing out that you've got your facts wrong and as such you're trying to incorrectly apply the policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In which four Grand Slam Events did she miss the Finals?
Paragraph two of the Career and Grand Slam tournament success section has the following text:

From her first Grand Slam singles final appearance in January 1971, to December 1977 when she won her last Grand Slam title of the 1970s, she played in 21 Grand Slam events. Her only four defeats prior to the finals came at the 1972 US Open in the third round; 1974 Wimbledon, where she was defeated in the quarterfinals; and at the semifinal stage at Wimbledon in 1973. To start the decade, she was defeated at the 1970 Australian Open in the quarterfinals and in the second round of the 1970 Wimbledon. In 1971, 1975, 1976 and 1977, Goolagong reached the final of every Grand Slam championship in which she competed.

That lists five different tournaments. Anyone able to determine which four to keep? Bro rick (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The one line says "...and at the semifinal stage at Wimbledon in 1973." It should say "...and at the semifinal stages of the French Open and Wimbledon in 1973." That would make four. I fixed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see that I could have fixed it and saved both of us a little time. Bro rick (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Evonne Goolagong Cawley


text: User talk:4.246.96.241

title: User talk:4.246.96.241


text:
Talk:Diversfied Communications Tower

Diversfied?
I give up, is this right, or should it read either Diversified or Diversfield? Grutness|hello? 07:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Diversfied Communications Tower


text:
Talk:Nob Hill, San Francisco

Untitled
Is this list of movies featuring nob hill complete and just awaiting completion, or could it perhaps be integrated more fully into the prose of the article? As it sits now, it's a list of one item which seems unlikely to expand. Any ideas/feelings/preferences? --ABQCat 07:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Please expand it; I'm certain there are more. I'll add ((listdev)) to the list.

 * Atlant 13:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pacific Union Club
The part about Pacific Union Club was taken from directly from SFGate wasn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jame5T (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * yes it is from sfgate
 * "Belonging to a club like this says a lot about who you are. Tell someone you're a member of the Pacific-Union Club, and you are saying you made it through a rigorous vetting to filter out the "not us."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.33.176 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

York Hotel
The link to the York Hotel doesn't link there. How does this get fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredzena (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wall that surrounded the Stanford and Hopkins mansions
It's incorrect to state that the entire neighborhood burnt down in the 1906 fire--I've put in a phrase about the impressive, faux-medieval wall that once surrounded the large Stanford and Hopkins properties. That wall is still standing--in fact, I'm looking at it out my fourth-floor window right now. We've owned a vacation condo near the top of the hill for seven years now and the local history is quite fascinating. But this is not original research--if anyone wants a citation for it, I can find one easily. The neighborhood's history is very well documented. Qworty 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Location of Nob Hill Hotels
The section describing the hotels on Nob Hill has no citation and does not accurately describe the location of the hotels. The article says:

"The intersection of California and Powell streets is also the home to the illustrious hotels in San Francisco: the Fairmont Hotel, the Mark Hopkins Intercontinental Hotel, the Stanford Court, and the Huntington Hotel."

Of those hotels, the Stanford Court is the only one that is at the intersection of California and Powell. While the Fairmont occupies a full city block, it's entrance is on Mason. Likewise, the Mark Hopkins entrance is at the intersection of Mason & California, a block up from Powell street. The Huntington is two blocks away from Powell at California & Taylor. The Ritz Carlton is not mentioned, but it's also one block away (in the opposite direction) on Stockton between California and Pine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmalone (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Window Grill pic?
Can someone fix this please? --72.65.122.51 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of "Nob"
The slang word "Nob" meaning rich or wealthy is a shortened version of the word nobility,a word used in Britain to describe the Titled Class.94.197.187.244 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you. This should be in the article. -lifeform (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Curious: when did the first building go up?
-rudyard (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Boundaries
Mention official(?) boundaries (used in area calculation) and legal status.Jidanni (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nob Hill, San Francisco


text:
User talk:Bubbatoo

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -gadfium 07:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bubbatoo


text:
Talk:General Products

GP hulls vs. hullmetal
Terminology error: GP hulls and "hullmetal" refer to two different things. The GP hull is the "artificially generated giant molecule with inter-atomic bonds artificially strengthened by a small power plant". "Hullmetal" is a human-produced material used for ships after the Exodus (like the Sinclair yacht Beowulf doesn't want to use), and occasionally other things (Louis's fake cabinet in Ringworld Engineers).--Christopher Thomas 07:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed in text. --Christopher Thomas 16:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ringworld discrepancy
This article states that both a #2 and #4 hull were used in Ringworld. I believe this is incorrect. Perhaps the #4 is supposed to refer to Ringworld Engineers? - Frankie

Ringworld Engineers showed only one ship: Needle, in a #3 hull. Ringworld had Lying Bastard in a #2, Long Shot in a #4 and the unnamed #3 hull that transfered the landing party from the Long Shot to the fleet of worlds. --KevinK 14:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Galactic Core
Galactic Core under General Products' #4 hull links to a Star Wars article. I think this should be mended... maybe with a new article describing the galactic core explosion from the known space series...

Hmmm.... maybe I should create an account... 69.91.52.42 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Thanks for catching the error. --Christopher Thomas 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Allusion to General Motors?
Question: Is the name "General Products" a reference to the real life car company "General Motors"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.71.7.193 (talk • contribs) on 19:23, 12 August 2006.

 * Beats me. If it was, we'd need a statement from Mr. Niven to be in print somewhere before the article could say so, due to verifiability requirements. If he's said something like this in one of his books, by all means post the citation so that this information can be added. --Christopher Thomas 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

pictures needed
This article needs a pic of the 4 hull types. I'd do it, but I'm unsure of how to paste pics into the article. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:General Products