text:
Talk:Kyiv Pechersk Lavra

Category:World Heritage Sites
OwenBlack, I've reverted your edit to this page because the category Category:World Heritage Sites in the Ukraine was misnamed by you. My country is called just Ukraine, not the Ukraine (which is rather insulting). Please keep this in mind and do not try to populate or link this category again. Moreover, since I couldn't delete it, your moral obligation now is to raise a deletion procedure and keep the category from filling by others.

I've created a new category with a proper name Category:World Heritage Sites in Ukraine. You can use it if you want. Best wishes, AlexPU

 * See User talk:OwenBlacker and CFD for further discussion. — OwenBlacker 20:48, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ilya Muromets
Reportedly houses the remains of Ilya Muromets. Does anyone have a reference for this? -- Sy / (talk) 21:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been there and saw the remains. Who knows if it's really his remains? the look is quite unimpressive - was he a small man? Ilya K 20:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name in Ukrainian
Since I don't know the coding of the letters, I can't do anything about it, but the Ukrainian name for it is incorrect. Києво, would be the Russian name, but using cyrillic letters, and Київо would be the Ukrainian version, would it not? --June 16, Nathan
 * Ukrainian name is correct. The noun is "Київ". But for the adjective form, the letter ї mutates є to "Києво-Печерська Лавра". Maybe I did nit explain it well. I am not an expert in linguistic terminology, but you can rest assured, that Ukrainian name here is correct. -Irpen 17:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Just adding my own two cents to this - it's kind of correct. Kind of because the English translation, (Kiev Pechersk Lavra) is not correct if doing a translation from Russian or Ukrainian. In fact, The English name seems to come more from Russian than from Ukrainian: Kiev is the Russian way to spell the city name, although it's been widely accepted internationally; Pechersk is incorrect in either language - in Ukrainian it would be Pechers'ka (the apostrophe indicates soft sounding 's') - in Russian it would be Pecherskaya (without the soft sounding 's'); I can't comment on whether Lavra is Ukrainian or Russian, because I honestly never thought of that word before. Some thought leads me to believe it's a Ukrainian word because I've never heard a church (or similar) be called a 'Lavra' in Russia, but again, I'm not sure. Now, this point is weakened by the fact that on the official website, they spell the name as 'Kiev-Pechersk Lavra'. In Ukrainian and Russian versions of the page, they spell it correctly. Another pont, it's actually the Uspens'ka Kievo-Pechers'ka Lavra (or Uspens'ka Kiyivo-Pechers'ka Lavra). Mno 6 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

 * Hi Mno, you are NOT wrong of course. There is just a convention more or less established by now that calls for this name to be used. If you have time, please read the discussion on how we arrived to where we are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions and chapters after that. You may also look at other talk pages.

 * For this particular name the possible questions are:
 * 1a. Why Kiev- rather than Kyiv-?
 * 1b. Why Kiev- (or would be Kyiv-) rather than Kyivo- ?
 * 2a. Why Pechersk rather than Pechers'k?
 * 2b. Why Pechersk rather than Pecherskaya or Pechers'ka?
 * 3. Why Lavra?

 * 1a cannot be answered to make everyone happy of course. We will get to it if we have to. 1b and 2b are because noun forms were desided to be used (at least that how it was desided for Oblasts names: (Kiev Oblast, Kharkiv Oblast, etc). Also we are using the noun form of the name that was agreed before for whatever reasons (part of the answer to 1a). Besides 2a is because in simplified UA transliteration (most commonly used BTW) the soft sign is dropped. So it is comes from UA=Pechers'k. That it is the same as RU-Pechersk is a coinsidence. Finally, "Lavra" is a term in Eastern Orthodoxy and some time ago I even created an article for it (see Lavra). There are Lavras in other countries too. I hope you will now find the name "correct". Cheers, -Irpen July 6, 2005 03:54 (UTC)

 * Hi Irpen. Thanks for the explanation. I think deep down we'll always hear people complaining about this or that, and I think the decision to use the most widely used spelling is best. As a suggestion, place all other ways to spell it as links to the most common one. I've already seen this done for some articles.

 * In all honesty, I don't really have a problem with doing it this way, especially now that I read over the discussion you linked to and (a lot of) other. mno July 6, 2005 04:16 (UTC)

English name with "caves"
Mikka, are you sure about your correction of "Kiev Monastery on the Caves"→"Kiev Cave Monastery". I think I've seen the first variant but not the one to which you corrected. --Irpen 19:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * First, google is your best friend. Second, "cave monastery" is a common term, and they exist in many places. Third, I am sure you could have seen "on the Caves" as a literal translation of the Ukrainian expression "na pecherah", but I doubt it entered any of mainstream English. Finally, I believe the opinion of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. mikka (t) 20:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Encyclopedia of Ukraine you mention is a good source of factual info, but it is not a reliable source of preferred terminology, being a rather Ukrainophile writing (for understandable reasons). Google test is useful, but it means much only when the difference is overwhelming because it has a huge statistical error. Finally, take a look at the most authoritative encyclopedia (EB, of course). From the Kiev article there:
 * At the southern end of this district is the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (Monastery of the Caves), founded in the early 11th century, one of the most famous and important monasteries in the history of the region.

 * I agree, the "on" was wrong. I will replace it by "of the caves" as per Britannica. And that's what I have probably seen and got confused with "on" because long time has passed. I hope you find this agreeable. --Irpen 20:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Current version:
 * Kiev Pechersk Lavra or Monastery, also known as Kiev Monastery of the Caves, Kiev Cave Monastery, or Kiev Caves Monastery (Києво-Печерська Лавра; Киево-Печерская Лавра), is..

I just think that so many names is too much clutter here. I would prefer to have less names. One thing is when inter-ethnical rivarlies make listing several names in row the only peaceful solution (even then there are battles for the order within the sentence). The word order between Caves/Cave and Monastery as well as the prepositions is devoid of politics. So, I don't see the reason for clutter. Google count with the results 146:209:300 is too close and not statistically significant enough. We should just choose one version based on established usage and the authority of the users and redirect the rest, I think.

Britannica and Americana use "..of the caves". LexisNexis 24-month search of major papers only (I excluded the rest to make sure I only check sources with some consistent editorial policy) gives two "K.M. of the caves" uses (THE DAILY TELEGRAPH and The Herald (Glasgow)) and one "caves monastery" in the Independent (there are some non-anglicized uses with Lavra too)

Unless, of course, anyone really insists on having all versions in one sentence, as far as I can see, "..of the caves" is the preferred one. But I will only deal with this when I get to the article with more info, hopefully soon. --Irpen 02:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * To be honest, as long as we redirect the other names to the same article, I don't really see a point for listing all of them. If there really are that many, add a subsection somewhere titled 'Other Names' or something of the sort. -- mno 04:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Other names, especially significantly differing in spelling, not just 1-2 letters, is an important piece of info for identification purposes, especially for people who have never heard about the subject. I find it a bit troubling that experienced wikipedians insist on removal of pieces of info, which are not some useless trivia, kind of "Michael Jackson is going to visit Lavra". I would understand a person with political idiosyncrasies, but in this case I would suggest to rethink your notion of editing. I do not question the idiotic transliteration "Kiev Pechersk", but removal of more correct transations, even if they are far less used, is ridiculous. mikka (t) 17:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Mikka, I removed a whole bunch of names from the lead only because the lead looked akward being too much cluttered. And I created redirects for each of them to help the "people who have never heard about the subject" get to the article. I agree with you, that simply moving other names down in the article (as you did) was a better idea. Note, though, that I acted only after the the proposal above was at talk page for a week and no one objected. The better idea of yours was not voiced and didn't reach me, so I acted accordingly. Finally, I think that having one anglicized alternative in the very top, serves some good purpose, and Britannica's "of the caves", seems preferable. I don't mind listening and following the positive ideas but I simply assumed that this was an agreeable solution because no one objected for a week. --Irpen 17:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * As for your comment on "idiotism" of "Kiev Pechersk Lavra" name for the article, I really appreciate this, thanks. In any case, the name was chosen only because it follows the convention of the most common name in English. And, BTW having "Pechersk" in the article name, rather than "caves" was chosen by you when you created this article as a stub under the Kiev Pecherski Monastery name, which I some time ago moved to "Kiev Pechersk Lavra" (after I created the Lavra article, a particular type of a monastery and a valid separate term for an article in English WP). And I miss in what way this is "idiotic". When I was writing a "Desyatinnaya Tserkov'" article, I named the article "Church of the Tithes" because the translated rather than transliterated version is more common for it. If you changed your mind since the time you created the article and want to move it under one of the "cave" names, I will not fight much for the current name. We will have to see what others would feel about that but in any case, I don't see the reason to have such a protracted dispute about names (much hotter namings were and are still being dicussed) and I don't understand the fuss. There are no politics and national sensitivities here whatsoever (that's of course until someone brings up Kyiv here with zeal and persistence) --Irpen 17:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just two cents from a random wikipedian: in English scholarly sources this establishment is best known as "Monastery of the Caves" (yes, without Kiev), in more popular writings it's usually "Pechersk Monastery" (without Kiev again). Beit Or 20:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Caves
Since it is a CAVE monastery, the total absence of the caves from the article is misleading. I realize that a separate article on the caves is planned for the future, but meanwhile, it's a stump. --dunnhaupt 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with cases like this is that its an article that has to have about 50 or so redirects, because of the different variations. Do help to create them, but for me I think Pechersk Lavra are the key terms. --Kuban Cossack 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Expand
Ladies and Gentlemen, let's expand this article? Project of the month? --Irpen 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it! There is a lot we can do... and IMO it should have been done a long time ago. I'll try and start on the Pechersk caves sometime during the week, although I may not have enough time... —dima/s-ko/ 03:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a section on museum exposition. -asmadeus 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pechersk Lavra Template cleanup
Please see a proposed cleanup of the currently bulky navigation box in Template_talk:Pechersk_Lavra. -asmadeus 23:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Official website in English, Russian and Ukrainian?
I just visited the site and it seems all (only in) Russian. Did I mis a link? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC) They don't have an official web-page, as far as I can tell. That Russian page is a page of their publisher. --Sanya3 (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting pic
There are quite a while pictures in the article how it looks now. Should we replace one of them with this pic? I would say it replaces the tirth from the bottom one. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Russian and Ukrainian transliteration should be used
Taivo keeps deleting the Ukrainian transliteration of the name, Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, even though it is the official spelling used by the Ukrainian government and major Ukrainian news agencies. http://www.rada.gov.ua/ukraine.htm http://www.kyivpost.com/news/city/detail/69789/ He has stated that he doesn't even speak Ukrainian, and then goes on to make arguments about the proper Ukrainian transliteration. He has also stated that he automatically deletes Kyiv anytime he sees it and replaces it with Kiev, so he is obviously biased in his approach. Sanya3 (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a hotly disputed issue. The US Government, UN, NATO, EU, etc., all accept the Ukrainian-language transliteration of Kyiv as normative. But most of the English-language media are still using the Russian transliteration. So, what's wrong with using both on Wikipedia? I am not saying we should replace the Russian transliteration with Ukrainian. I am saying that they should be used side by side, as they are both currently used in the media and government. It is the honest thing to do. It is dishonest to try to only post one, either Russian or Ukrainian, because they are both being used by various bodies. --Sanya3 (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, English-language media in Ukraine use the Ukrainian transliteration, and have done so since the mid-90s. eg. Kyiv Post, Kyiv Weekly, etc.

So, does the Canadian media: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-helps-ukraine-secretly-return-enough-highly-enriched-uranium-for-2-atomic-bombs-to-russia/article1853882/ (this one is actually a press release from AP, so I am assume The Globe and Mail actually changes the spelling, because AP still uses Kiev) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/canadian-coach-wants-team-to-attack-against-greeks/article1898785/ http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/926010--cellphone-keeps-ringing-in-crocodile-s-stomach http://www.nationalpost.com/Harper+expected+challenge+Ukrainian+president+human+rights/3719156/story.html

and some American media: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Clinton-Begins-Five-Nation-Central-Europe-Caucasus-Trip-in-Kyiv--97642144.html So, as you can see, it's a very real global debate and that should be reflected on wikipedia. That's all I am saying. --Sanya3 (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a referendum on whether to use "Kiev" or "Kyiv". This is a simple issue of correct transliteration.  Since you have now provided a reference that uses an incorrect transliteration of Києво as an "official" spelling, then the reference takes precedence over accuracy.  --Taivo (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone tried to change the name of this article today. I have reverted the change, as it was a controversial change made without any discussion. I have advised the editor in question that controversial moves should use the procedure described in Requested moves.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding the name used by UNESCO - "Kyiv Pchersk Lavra" in the beginning of the lede.--Ivario (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the rationale or justification for having the name in Russian? That's a separate country. Why not Polish? or Belorusan?2607:FEA8:D5DF:FEF6:285B:FA7A:DE97:F2F0 (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is English Wikipedia, so we use the form used in English. Sometimes this produces results inconsistent with the native usage.  We call the former nation on the Pyrenees Pamplona, even though that is the Castilian name form and not the native one, Iruña.  We refer to the capitol of Russia as Moscow even though a native transliteration would be Moskvá. etc.  Kiev came to be the name used in English for that place, so that is what we use.  If there comes a time when Kyiv is the predominant form used in English that is when we switch.  And then there is the issue of consistency: if a change is to be made, it should be made first and foremost on the page Kiev.  There the change you have suggested has been proposed almost a dozen separate times, and every time the move has failed to generate a consensus, most recently this July.  This page should call the city what English Wikipedia calls the city on its specific page, and there is no consensus for change. Agricolae (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiev Pechersk Lavra. 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/20150711080914/http://mincult.kmu.gov.ua/mincult/uk/publish/article/238820 to http://mincult.kmu.gov.ua/mincult/uk/publish/article/238820

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) 15:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kiev Pechersk Lavra. 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/20110307044308/http://www.kplavra.kiev.ua/cgi-bin/view.cgi?part=info&lg=ua to http://www.kplavra.kiev.ua/cgi-bin/view.cgi?part=info&lg=ua
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111150520/http://7chudes.in.ua/info/177.htm to http://7chudes.in.ua/info/177.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727035555/http://www.rada.gov.ua/ukraine.htm to http://www.rada.gov.ua/ukraine.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Choice of infobox template
There is a discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 8 about whether the template used in the infobox of this article should be deleted.

In my opinion the Geobox|Building template has produced a better result than the Infobox building. Toddy1 (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Geobox version

Infobox church

 * much of the same here as with Saint Sophia's Cathedral, Kiev. For transparency I'm going to include the same feedback here.

If you could look this over and give your feedback that would be great! Please ping me in your response to make sure I see it. Thanks! -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I currently don't have the Government or Leader values listed in the new version because I'm not really sure what they represent. Who is leader here? Is (s)he the Archbishop? The Bishop? The Provost, Dean, etc. Leader is vaugue, lets figure out exactly who they are and then put that name under the proper parameter (see Infobox church
 * Same thing goes for Government. I don't think Government really applied here. That parameter is on Geobox from when it was used for settlements. I don't feel that this has any significance on a church.
 * The "area" measurement doesn't really work here. The area of what? The whole church? The grounds? The floor area? Infobox Church has . If we can confirm an area measurement that is the floor area, then it should be included, but area in general was never intended for a structure. Area is for a geographical region. (Again this is one of the many issues with Geobox and why it is going away).
 * Landmarks was intentionally removed. This isn't information that belongs in the infobox (another one of the many reasons Geobox is going away).
 * Lastly some of the dates have been removed. The way the dates are laid out in the Geobox is rather confusing anyway. Take a look at Infobox church. There are a number of supported dates in the infobox. Any other dates belong not in the infobox, but in the article itself. I'm not saying that the information is irrelevant to the article! Just that it doesn't belong in the infobox.
 * Thanks. I will consider this (and the infobox on the other article) on Sunday/Monday.  Kiev Pechersk Lavra is a collection of buildings and has a courtyard in the centre - I think that is why the old infobox quoted the area. I assume that you have not been there.  Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely have NOT been there, no. lol. But to be honest, that isn't really relevant here. The infobox should reflect the global consensus for information displayed, not just what those who have visited it think should be shown. That being said, as a local (I'm guessing??) you definitely have some insight that will be important here. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * any update here? Been a week since you reverted the edit. I've tried to address all your concerns but haven't really heard anything back. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going ahead and implementing the change. Been trying for a week to work with you and no response. If you have additional concerns, feel free to post them here. Obviously more information can be added to the infobox if there is stuff missing. Geobox is deprecated for buildings so there is no reason to keep it here. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict over a wikilink to Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and mention of Onufriy (Berezovsky)
There is an edit conflict concerning this revision., which concerns a wikilink to Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and mention of Onufriy (Berezovsky).

Please can you provide citations to reliable sources to back up what you say. I could not see how the citation provided by Eduardogobi backed up his version - perhaps it was the wrong page. Toddy1 (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Dear you're indeed correct, the citation did not clarify who is the “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine” mentioned. Therefore, another citation from the Lavra has been added to the article. Thank you. ―Eduardogobi (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kyiv Pechersk Lavra


text: Category:Swiss alpine skiers

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

title: Category:Swiss alpine skiers


text:
Talk:Dauphin of France

Why were you moving this page? The French usage is predominant, and you should at least moot it on the talk page first (and be sure you've not mucked up any links). john k 20:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree w/ John. --Menchi 21:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In literature
I started an "In Literature" section with a note on Huckleberry Finn, but I assume that there should be a lot of other literary references that I'm not aware of. Anyone? -- 21 October 2005

There's the Dauphin in Henry V (who is, of course, a real historical figure). In a similar vein, Charles VII is normally called "the Dauphin" in the Joan of Arc legendarium. Not sure if either of those really counts. john k 17:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a disbuted theory methinks
I remember this theory not being 100% valid. Yet it's the only one presented...

Louis XII
Was he ever a dauphin? Or not? The table here says no; his own page says he was, as Louis III Viennois. We need to fix these so they're consistent with each other. I know Louis XI pretty well but my area of reasonable-knowledge stops midway through Charles VIII so...somebody more educated on this subject help me out? BenesHacha 07:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he was not. The kings of France were keeping this title for their sons, grand-sons or great-grand-sons. When there is no direct heir, when the heir is a cousin, he is not a dauphin. That's the case of Louis XII and François Ier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.250.98.243 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The prestige of cetacean mammals
Is the title of "Dauphin" (literally the French word for "Dolphin") merely France's emulation of England's parallel "Prince of Whales"? That while nothing has the size and power (in terms of brute force and mass) of the British Empire (whales), France is though smaller nevertheless smarter (dolphins) and proud of it? Is this title just France's way to keep up with the Joneses ("Jones" itself being one of the most common WELSH names ever)? Why are aquatic mammals (for instance Great Seals) so important to royalty?69.86.131.64 (talk) 04:34, 01 April 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

It has nothing to do with the title 'Prince of Wales'; the rulers of the Viennois were titled 'Dauphin' (because the province is near the sea and because it has a dolphin on its coat of arms); and bequethed that province to the French King; on the condition that the heir to the throne would always afterwards use that title.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

? error in table entry for Louis-Charles, 27th Dauphin of France
Note that he is shown as heir of Louis XVII, also regnal name Louis XVII. This doesn't look possible to me. I don't have the knowledge to correct it. Comment added 20 July 2011 by Russell Crosser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.128.66 (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dauphin of France


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman powers facts

 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 15:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Superman powers facts
Incoherent catalog of Superman's powers and weaknesses at different points in the character's evolution (information already covered at Superman) written in first person. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:09, 19 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. Rhobite 20:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete — completely redundant — RJH 20:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quick, Superman! Use your super powers to send this redundant article to The Phantom Zone!. Zzyzx11 00:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Longhair 03:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, if nothing to merge to the Superman main article. vlad_mv 15:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mew and the wave guiding hero

 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 15:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mew and the wave guiding hero
Article about a future Pokemon movie. Could be a hoax or advertising for a website, but even if it isn't, Wikipedia isn't for rumors about future movies, even movies about such important Wikipedian subjects as Pokemon. Delete. --BM 20:11, 19 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. Rhobite 20:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a fortune telling machine. Zzyzx11 00:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertisement, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Eek! Delete as Poké-cruft and kiddie-wiki. - Lucky 6.9 02:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Oxymetazoline

Oxymetazoline, sold under the brand name Afrin among others, is a topical decongestant and vasoconstrictor medication. It is available over-the-counter as a nasal spray to treat nasal congestion and nosebleeds, as eye drops to treat eye redness due to minor irritation, and (in the United States) as a prescription topical cream to treat persistent facial redness due to rosacea in adults. Its effects begin within minutes and last for up to six hours. Intranasal use for longer than three days may cause congestion to recur or worsen, resulting in physical dependence.

Oxymetazoline is a derivative of imidazole. It was developed from xylometazoline at Merck by Wolfgang Fruhstorfer and Helmut Müller-Calgan in 1961. A direct sympathomimetic, oxymetazoline binds to and activates α1 adrenergic receptors and α2 adrenergic receptors, most notably. One study classified it in the following order: α(2A) > α(1A) ≥ α(2B) > α(1D) ≥ α(2C) >> α(1B), but this is not universally agreed upon.

Another study classified it with selectivity ratios in alpha 2 adrenergic receptors of 200 for a2A vs a2B, 7.1 a2A vs a2C, and 28.2 a2B vs a2C.

In 2021, it was the 292nd most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 600,000 prescriptions.

Medical uses
Oxymetazoline is available over-the-counter as a topical decongestant in the form of oxymetazoline hydrochloride in nasal sprays.

In the United States, oxymetazoline 1% cream is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for topical treatment of persistent facial erythema (redness) associated with rosacea in adults.

Due to its vasoconstricting properties, oxymetazoline is also used to treat nose bleeds and eye redness due to minor irritation (marketed as Visine L.R. in the form of eye drops).

In July 2020, oxymetazoline received approval by the FDA for the treatment of acquired drooping eyelid.

Rebound congestion
Rebound congestion, or rhinitis medicamentosa, may occur. A 2006 review of the pathology of rhinitis medicamentosa concluded that use of oxymetazoline for more than three days may result in rhinitis medicamentosa and recommended limiting use to three days.

Australian regulatory submission
Novartis recommended a five day maximum usage period, rather than three days, in a submission to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Novartis suggested that "The justification [for 3 days] was not based on evidence" and cited an extensive body of evidence, and noting a range of recommended periods from five to ten days, which coincides with the typical duration of the common cold.

Overdose
There is no specific antidote for oxymetazoline, although its pharmacological effects may be reversed by an adrenergic antagonists such as phentolamine.

Pharmacodynamics
Oxymetazoline is a sympathomimetic that selectively agonizes α1 and, partially, α2 adrenergic receptors. Since vascular beds widely express α1 receptors, the action of oxymetazoline results in vasoconstriction. In addition, the local application of the drug also results in vasoconstriction due to its action on endothelial postsynaptic α2 receptors; systemic application of α2 agonists, in contrast, causes vasodilation because of centrally-mediated inhibition of sympathetic tone via presynaptic α2 receptors. Vasoconstriction of vessels results in relief of nasal congestion in two ways: first, it increases the diameter of the airway lumen; second, it reduces fluid exudation from postcapillary venules. It can reduce nasal airway resistance (NAR) up to 35.7% and reduce nasal mucosal blood flow up to 50%.

Pharmacokinetics
Since imidazolines are sympathomimetic agents, their primary effects appear on α adrenergic receptors, with little if any effect on β adrenergic receptors. Like other imidazolines, Oxymetazoline is readily absorbed orally. Effects on α receptors from systemically absorbed oxymetazoline hydrochloride may persist for up to 7 hours after a single dose. The elimination half-life in humans is 5–8 hours. It is excreted unchanged both by the kidneys (30%) and in feces (10%).

History
The oxymetazoline brand Afrin was first sold as a prescription medication in 1966. After finding substantial early success as a prescription medication, it became available as an over-the-counter drug in 1975. Schering-Plough did not engage in heavy advertising until 1986.

Brand names
Brand names include Afrin, ClariClear, Dristan, Drixine, Drixoral, Nasivin, Nasivion, Nezeril, Nostrilla, Logicin, Vicks Sinex, Visine L.R., Sudafed OM, Otrivin, Oxy, SinuFrin, Upneeq, and Mucinex Sinus-Max.

title: Oxymetazoline


text: Category:Liechtenstein alpine skiers

title: Category:Liechtenstein alpine skiers


text:
Central Commission for Discipline Inspection

The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) is the highest supervisory organ of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCDI is under the control of the CCP Central Committee, per the principle of unified power. It is tasked with defending the party constitution, enforcing inner-party regulations, coordinating anti-corruption work, and safeguarding the core position of Xi Jinping in the CCP Central Committee and the party as a whole. Safeguarding the political position of Xi and the Central Committee is, officially, the CCDI's highest responsibility. Since the vast majority of officials at all levels of government are also CCP members, the commission is, in practice, the top anti-corruption body in China.

At its first plenary session after being elected by a CCP National Congress, the CCDI elect its secretary, deputy secretaries, secretary general and other Standing Committee members. The CCDI then reports the election results to the Central Committee, which can either approve or disapprove of the results. The CCDI Standing Committee is responsible for convening and presiding over plenary sessions of the CCDI. When the CCDI is not in session, its powers and responsibilities are delegated to the CCDI Standing Committee, which has to implement the decisions of the CCP Central Committee and the CCDI plenary sessions. It is held accountable to the CCDI plenary sessions. The secretary convenes, presides over the work and sets the agenda of the CCDI Standing Committee meetings. The current secretary is Li Xi, who was elected by the 1st Plenary Session of the 20th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and approved by the 20th Central Committee on 23 October 2022.

The modern commission was established at the 3rd Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee in December 1978. Control systems had existed previously under the name "Central Control Commission" for a brief period in 1927 and again between 1955 and 1968, and under its present name from 1949 to 1955. It was disbanded during the Cultural Revolution in 1969. In 1993, the internal operations of the agency and the government's Ministry of Supervision (MOS) were merged. However, beginning with Hu Jintao's term as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in November 2002, and especially following Xi Jinping's assumption of the party leadership in November 2012, the CCDI has undergone significant reforms to increase its autonomy.

Before the People's Republic
The idea of a control system was inspired by Vladimir Lenin in The State and Revolution. Lenin argued that every communist vanguard party, at all levels, needed a system to supervise party-official elections, dismissals, and performance. His writings led to the establishment of the Soviet Central Control Commission. The control system and the party structure were imported to China. The importance of discipline and supervision was emphasized since the CCP's founding. The 2nd National Congress amended the party constitution, devoting a chapter to party discipline. However, no institution was established to safeguard party norms or supervise cadre behavior. Until the establishment of the Central Control Commission (CCC) at the 5th National Congress in 1927, local party committees were responsible for supervising members.

The 5th National Congress again amended the party constitution, adding a chapter on control commissions and their aims, but devoting little attention to their operations. Partly because of this, the control commissions actively participated in several party rectification campaigns during the late 1920s and early 1930s. At that time, the commissions tended to participate in political struggles, most notably the purges of Zhang Guotao and Wang Ming.

The control system was reorganized as the Central Review Committee (1928–1933), the Central Party Affairs Committee (1933–1945), and the Central Control Commission (1945–1949). Despite these changes, the duties and responsibilities of the control bodies remained vague until the amendments to the party constitution at the 7th National Congress in 1945. Although it may be argued that the 1945 amendments did little to clarify the role of a control body, the party leadership expanded on the theoretical reasons for its existence. It was argued in the party constitution that the control system "was born to serve the needs of a Leninist party for its ideological and organizational consolidation. Such a role was reinforced in the Party's frequent campaigns against its real or perceived enemies in and out of the party organization."

In 1949, the Central Committee established the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI). It differed from its predecessors in several respects. It was responsible to the Politburo, and its local organizations were responsible for their corresponding party committees, despite the committees' authority to restrict their behavior. In reality, the CCDI was established to check all party organizations except the central leadership.

Political history
During its early years, the CCDI was not a powerful institution. Although it focused on abuses by party veterans and senior officials, the CCDI rarely appeared on record at that time as investigating (or solving) those problems. The few mentions of CCDI inspectors in the press highlighted their failures. Despite the support of Mao Zedong and the central party leadership, it was often unable to fulfill its mandate in the provinces. According to a People's Daily editorial, party inspectors "gave up the struggle and proved themselves unable to persist in ... upholding the dignity of Party discipline when they encountered great obstacles." Aware of Yan'an Rectification Movement successes and CCDI failures, the party leadership used mass mobilization and ideological campaigns to tackle party corruption during the 1950s. In the wake of the Gao Gang–Rao Shushi affair, the CCDI was replaced by the CCC.

Although the CCC became a powerful political force in the following years, at the 8th National Congress in 1956, its inspectors were warned about abusing their power and becoming independent of their local party committees. Its power waned during the Great Leap Forward, but the CCC, the Secretariat, and the Organization Department became the chief weapons in the aftermath of the Great Leap to combat corruption and reverse verdicts on rightists. The CCC played its new role until the Cultural Revolution, a socio-political movement which lasted from 1966 until 1976, when it was affected by purges (partly due to its close ties to Peng Zhen, one of the first highly ranked officials purged during the Cultural Revolution). At the 9th National Congress in 1969, the CCC was abolished, removed from the party constitution, and replaced by special-case organizations (such as the Central Case Examination Group) formed under Mao and Kang Sheng. Despite its abolition at the congress, little criticism was directed at the CCC during the Cultural Revolution; although CCC Deputy Secretary Min Yifan was criticized by the Red Guards, a revolutionary youth movement independent of the party (but inspired by Mao) during the Cultural Revolution. Most of their disapproval focused on his career on local committees, rather than the CCC. Talk of an internal party-control system would not resurface until the death of Mao and the arrest of the Gang of Four in 1976.

The CCDI was reestablished at the 11th National Congress in 1977. It had three goals: removing the social influence of the Gang of Four, implementing the leadership's cadre policy, and removing "despotic" local party secretaries, and reversing poor verdicts handed down during the Cultural Revolution. Due to the power struggle between Deng Xiaoping and Hua Guofeng, the control system was not implemented in 1977–1978. The 3rd Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee in December 1978 formed a new control system under its 1949–1955 name, with responsibilities identical to those of the CCC before its abolition. After the 3rd Plenary Session, the CCDI convened its 1st Plenary Session and elected Chen Yun as First Secretary, Deng Yingchao as Second Secretary, Hu Yaobang as Third Secretary, and Huang Kecheng as Permanent Secretary. However, the election of these people (and others) was purely symbolic; the new CCDI consisted generally of people who had never been involved in control affairs, and overwhelmingly of members considered too young to be taken seriously. In its 1st Plenary Session, the CCDI stated three overarching goals: to "protect party members' rights", to enforce and safeguard the system of collective leadership "with the division of labor by the individual", and to generally oppose the over-concentration of power in one individual. It would combat corrupt tendencies in the party and handle individual complaints. Although the press and the CCDI highlighted its fight against corruption, the commission was powerless against many "local despots": leaders who ruled largely by fiat. During the early 1980s, the 11th Central Committee was forced to enact emergency measures to combat corruption. Instead of fighting corrupt officials, the CCDI's local branches focused on the rank and file. It was an organizational weapon against the "leftists" (who advanced during the Cultural Revolution or supported it) and the "rightists" (supporters of bourgeois democracy). After weakening under Zhao Ziyang, CCDI power increased in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 under the tutelage of Deng and Jiang Zemin.

Despite the commission's position as the party's – and China's – leading anti-corruption agency, its leaders have admitted serious deficiencies in its work. CCDI Secretary Wei Jianxing allegedly tendered his resignation "on the eve" of the 5th Plenary Session of the 15th Central Committee in 2000 to protest the commission's impotence. His successor Wu Guanzheng found himself in a similar situation, allegedly tendering his resignation in August 2005. Although neither resigned before the end of his term, they were unable to increase CCDI independence from the committees or end the Central Secretariat's interference in its activities.

In late 2013, Zhou Yongkang, a former member of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) and head of China's security agencies, was placed under investigation by the CCDI for abuse of power and corruption, a decision state media announced in July 2014. Zhou was the first PSC member – and the most senior-ranked official – since the founding of the People's Republic of China to be tried and convicted of corruption-related charges. Following his investigation, Zhou was expelled from the CCP. On 11 June 2015, Zhou was convicted of bribery, abuse of power, and the intentional disclosure of state secrets by the Intermediate Court in Tianjin. Zhou and his family members were said to have taken 129 million yuan (over $20 million) in bribes. He was sentenced to life in prison.

According to scholar Xuezhi Guo, "From 1992 to 2009, China brought disciplinary sanctions against approximately two million personnel". The CCDI cited similar numbers: "[B]etween July 2003 and December 2008, the CCDI had tried and closed 852,000 cases, resulting in 881,000 officials receiving disciplinary sanctions." In 2009, the CCDI imposed disciplinary sanctions on 106,626 party members and officials; 146,517 in 2010; 142,893 in 2011; 160,718 in 2012, and 182,000 in 2013. From 2012 to October 2017, disciplinary action started against 1.4 million communist party members. As of 2014, five of the 31 CDI secretaries were women: Huang Xiaowei, Hong Qiang, Zhang Xiaolan, Ma Yongxia, and Song Airong. Of these Zhang, at age 50, was currently the youngest serving CDI provincial secretary.

Founding, abolition, and reestablishment (1949–1980)
The Chinese control system was inspired by Soviet control institutions, most notably the Party Control Committee (PCC). Although, according to Lenin, the Soviet PCC was established to cure the party's bureaucratic ills, it evolved into a tool wielded by party secretaries. The CCDI system was not empowered to the same extent as its Soviet counterpart, since Mao favored mass mobilization and ideological campaigns over party disciplinary measures to curb bad behavior. Even those who shared the Soviet fascination with organizational self-correction, like Liu Shaoqi and Dong Biwu, did not share their obsession with "scientific administration".

The CCDI was cumbersome; twenty-seven separate procedures had to be completed before an official could be placed under investigation. Other problems were institutional; for example, the commission had no organization below the provincial level. In response to the CCDI's failures, the 8th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party established the CCC. Delegates noted that the CCDI's problems were its lack of independence from party committees and the lack of meaningful collaboration between a control commission at one level and those at higher levels. The institutional balance favoring party committees led some (such as Gao Gang and Rao Shushi) to pack local commissions for discipline inspection (CDI) with loyalists who had no interest in carrying out their responsibilities. The control commissions had the power to appeal committee decisions, and were required to report their work to the higher-level control commission. Unlike the CCDI, the CCC had an organization below the provincial level. It was empowered to "examine, approve, and change decisions by lower control committees", was required to verify the composition of control committees at the provincial level and below, and had the power to investigate unreliable elements at will. Bonds were forged with the Ministry of Supervision (MOS) and the Supreme People's Procuratorate to strengthen the anti-corruption agencies' control of "the rapidly expanding party organization and an increasingly elaborate state bureaucracy".

The main goals of these reforms were to strengthen the autonomy of the control commissions from the local ruling committees and safeguard the powers of the center, which were threatened during the Gao Gang–Rao Shushi affair. However, CCP leadership backtracked; at the 8th National Congress, the autonomy of the CCC and the control commissions was reduced. The congress was held in a conservative atmosphere, with the leadership calling for collective leadership of all institutions; the concept of the CCC and the local control commissions having "special rights" to carry out their duties was antithetical to collegial decision-making. The CCC was abolished at the 9th Congress (during the Cultural Revolution), and was reestablished at the 11th National Congress. The 11th National Congress amended the party constitution to state that the "Central Committee of the Party, local Party committees at the county level and above and Party committees in the army units at the regimental level and above should set up commissions for inspecting discipline". The system was in place by December 1978, and a corresponding control system in the military was established in 1981 as the Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Central Military Commission. The CCDI's importance was institutionalized by a party regulation that its head must be a member of the Politburo Standing Committee.

"Dual-leadership" system (1980–2002)
According to Lawrence Sullivan, during the 1980s some cadres saw the CCDI's lack of independence as problematic; they argued that it should be independent from the Central Committee, not involving itself in the committee's power struggles. This was opposed by the CCDI leadership, with Huang saying that loyalty to the Central Committee was "more important" than fighting corruption. The chief problem during the early 1980s was CCDI links to local party committees. The local committees elected the commission for discipline inspection (CDI) at their level, but the higher-level CDI could endorse – or reject – the proposed committee. This made the local CDI responsible to its party committee, rather than to the CCDI. Although the organizers of the system were aware of the danger, they believed that the CDIs (through their connection with the central leadership) would be able to carry out their assigned task despite their election by the committee they were supposed to inspect. This institutional anomaly secured the position of corrupt (or "despotic") committee members.

Because of this institutional structure, it was nearly impossible for the CCDI to carry out its mandate. On the few occasions when it attempted to investigate leading officials, it often experienced retaliation. These problems were widespread, leading the Third Secretary to say that "considerable and, in some cases, shocking obstructions in the [CCDI's] work [occurred often]." The party leadership tried to solve these problems at the 12th National Congress, in 1982, by expanding CCDI jurisdiction and authority. The amended party constitution stated that the CCDI's responsibility was "to safeguard the Party's Constitution and other important rules and regulations, to assist Party committees in rectifying Party style, to inspect implementation of the Party's line, principles, policies, and resolutions." The commission became the defender of party orthodoxy, party organization, rules and regulations, the Central Committee, and democratic centralism (defined as obeying the Central Committee). The amendment allowed local CDIs to "take their case to the next-higher party committee" if they considered the committee decision at their level faulty. The 12th National Congress introduced "dual leadership" in local CDIs; they were responsible to the party committees at their (and the higher) level and to the higher-level CDI. Although each CDI elects a Standing Committee, the 12th National Congress retained a regulation that the Standing Committee must obtain the endorsement of its party committee. That was why the CCDI, elected by the National Congress (not the Central Committee, as it was previously), remained subordinate to the Central Committee. If a Central Committee member was suspected, the CCDI would have to inform (and obtain a ruling from) the Central Committee to begin an investigation.

Unlike the 12th National Congress, the 13th National Congress in 1987 reduced the CCDI's power. Reformist general secretary Zhao Ziyang wanted to end CCDI meddling in China's legal system and reduce its scope to party-discipline issues. Forty-nine CCDI discipline-inspection groups in central ministries and party organizations were abolished at the congress (75 percent of all inspection groups), and the CCDI's chief lost his seat on the Politburo Standing Committee. In the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, Zhao Ziyang's reforms were rescinded, and the former CCDI inspection groups were reestablished. Commission power was increased, and the CCDI issued the "five forbiddens"; party members could not "(1) operate a business, (2) work in an economic entity, (3) trade in stocks, (4) accept gifts, or (5) use public funds for lavish entertainment." The 14th National Congress, in 1992, strengthened CCDI and local CDI investigative powers. According to the amended party constitution, local CDIs could initiate preliminary investigations against members of the local party committee at the CDI's level before a formal investigation began. If a full investigation was warranted, the local CDI had to obtain approval from its higher-level CDI and the corresponding party committee. In 1995, its powers were increased further, with each CDI given the responsibility to vet officials before their appointment to a post. The shuanggui system (see below) was established in 1994 by order of the CCDI. It was first officially mentioned in Article 28 of the Regulation on Dealing with Cases of Party Discipline Violations, which came into effect on 1 May 1994.

Institution-building (2002–present)
The CCDI was further reformed at the 16th National Congress in 2002. The CCDI Secretary was now the chief coordinator of all anti-corruption efforts on the mainland, a position later known as Leader of the Central Leading Group for Inspection Work. This was further codified in 2004 and 2005 with the "Internal Supervision Regulation" (ISR), institutionalizing the inner-party supervision system and the Interim Provisions on DICs' Role in Assisting the party Committees with the Organization and Coordination of Anti-Corruption Work. The terminology used in the battle against corruption was changed at the congress; "fighting corruption" became "fighting and preventing corruption". The Hu Jintao-led leadership, which lasted from the 16th–18th National Congress, saw growth in CCDI power and influence, demonstrated most clearly by the increased attendance of PSC members at CCDI plenary sessions.

Under Secretary Wu Guanzheng, the CCDI established its first central inspection teams in August 2003. These teams, led by retired ministerial-level officials and reporting to the CCDI rather than local party committees, were empowered to initiate investigations, conduct interviews, and review relevant documents. The opinion of a central inspection team was an important factor in determining whether or not an official was disciplined, and the teams played an important role in the expulsion of Shanghai party chief (and Politburo member) Chen Liangyu from the party because of corruption.

The dual-leadership system was reformed during Hu Jintao's term. In the aftermath of the Shanghai pension scandal, the central party leadership appointed the CDI leaders of the four direct-controlled municipalities (Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Chongqing) and suggested a preference for outsiders as CDI leaders in the provinces. Beginning in 2009, localities below the prefecture level began to abolish the practice of a control body in every party-controlled organization. Before the reforms, every organization (civil, party, or government) with an embedded party committee or party group had a corresponding CDI-style department. The reforms consolidated control and supervision resources (including finances and personnel) under the auspices of the prefecture- or county-level CDI, which became an "umbrella supervision organ" of all party-controlled bodies in its area of jurisdiction and those below it. The umbrella organization gave the CDI control of the staffing of party organizations it was tasked with overseeing, allowing more efficient use of CDI resources and reducing potential conflicts of interest arising from CDI staff involvement in the operations of a party committee it was supposed to regulate.

The CCDI underwent another round of reforms under general secretary Xi Jinping, elected in the immediate aftermath of the 18th National Congress in 2012. Xi and CCDI Secretary Wang Qishan further institutionalized CCDI independence from the day-to-day operations of the party, improving its ability to function as a bona fide control body. At the 3rd Plenum of the 18th Central Committee in the fall of 2013, the party declared that it would "strengthen the 'dual leadership' system [over the CCDI] by making it more defined, procedure-oriented, and institutionalised." In practice, this signaled the intention of the leadership that CDIs across the country operate separate from the party apparatus, with local CDIs responsible to higher-level CDIs in nearly all substantive respects. Beginning in 2014, CDI chiefs across the country began to shed concurrent executive positions which could create conflicts of interest (for example, a CDI chief also serving as a vice-mayor or department head); CDI personnel also began removing themselves from "leading groups" and similar policy-coordination and consultation groups. These changes were intended to free CDI resources to "solely focus on the work of enforcing discipline".

Since the 18th National Congress, the CCDI has established several new organizations, including four new discipline and inspection offices. On 28 March 2013, the Central Committee ordered the establishment of Propaganda and Organization Departments in the CCDI, the first such departments in a central-level institution other than the Central Committee. According to China scholar Willy Lam, the establishment of a CCDI Organization Department means "that the CCDI leadership can recruit cadres outside the established channels of the CCP Organisation Department, which has, since 1949, been responsible for the Party's human resources-related operations."

In 2014, the CCDI established an internal Office for the Supervision of Disciplinary System Officials. The office, an internal check on CCDI officials, ensures that officials charged with enforcing discipline operate within the rules themselves and has jurisdiction over CDI officials at all administrative levels. The CCDI intends "zero tolerance" towards CDI officials breaching discipline themselves, and they will be "exposed by name in the media" if they break the rules. That year, the CCDI set up offices in bodies directly reporting to the central committee (such as the Organization and Propaganda Departments) and State Council bodies. These offices, known as "Commissioned Bodies", report directly to the CCDI and are not responsible to the institutions in which they are located.

Central level
The secretary, known as the First Secretary during Chen Yun's term (1978–1987), is head of the CCDI. Elections of its secretary, deputy secretary, and secretary-general are held at its 1st Plenary Session, held immediately after a national congress. The CCDI proposes an elected secretary to the 1st Plenary Session of a central committee, which can approve or reject them. The CCDI Secretary has a number of elected deputies. Currently, there are eight deputy secretaries. Each CCDI Secretary since 2003 has concurrently headed the Central Leading Group for Inspection Work.

Since 1978, all CCDI heads have been members of the PSC, although Wei Jianxing was a member from 1997 to 2002, but not from 1992 to 1997. The 12th National Congress required that the CCDI head serve concurrently on the PSC, but this was rescinded by Zhao Ziyang at the 13th National Congress in 1987. Although most of Zhao Ziyang's reforms were later themselves rescinded, concurrent PSC membership was not reintroduced until the 15th National Congress in 1997.

The Standing Committee is the highest body when the CCDI is not convened for a plenary session. Elected by the 1st Plenary Session of the CCDI, it requires approval from the 1st plenary session of the Central Committee to take office. The Standing Committee presents a report to the CCDI at every plenary session; the latter is the only national-level organization, with the National People's Congress and the Central Committee, which holds at least one plenary session a year. CCDI plenary sessions, which discuss its past and future work, are usually held in January. The 18th Standing Committee has 19 members, one of whom (Huang Xiaowei) is a woman.

The CCDI employs about 1,000 people. Since the 1993 merger of its internal functions with the MOS, it has grown to 27 bureaus and offices. Of these, the Office for Discipline Inspection and Supervision, the Case Hearing Office, and the Office for Circuit Inspection Work are the most important. ODIS and its ten divisions are responsible for investigating breaches of party discipline and unlawful acts by party members. Of the ten divisions, four investigate cases at the vice-ministerial level and above; the remaining six investigate "officials at the level of provincial governor, vice-governor, chair and vice-chair of provincial standing committees of the National People's Congress, chair and vice-chair of provincial Political Consultative Conferences, city mayors, and deputies." In addition, there are twelve institutions which are directly subordinate to the CCDI.

Lower levels and inspection teams
Below the central level, there are several commissions for discipline inspection (CDI). The CDI's composition is decided by the CDI a level above it, and endorsed by its party committee and the committee superior to it. The establishment of discipline commissions at the local level is decided by the upper-level party committee. The main duties and responsibilities of local CDIs are to educate party members on their duties and rights, preserve party discipline, uphold party decisions, see that party members exercise their duties in accordance with the party constitution, examine cases, and investigate corruption. It is expected to report its findings regularly to its corresponding-level party committee. If a member of the local party committee is involved in corruption, the local CDI should ask the party committee at the corresponding level and the CDI at the level above to approve a full investigation. Before the 2014 reforms, it was difficult for the CDIs to carry out their responsibilities. Although they no longer needed approval from the secretary of the corresponding-level party committee, CDI officials were often appointed to positions of power within the institutions they were tasked to supervise (see above). The 2004 reforms increased CDI independence from the party committee. They were previously elected by the corresponding-level party committee but beginning in 2004, CDI membership was selected by the upper-level CDI. The 3rd Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee in 2013 again reformed the CCDI's structure, with each CDI directly responsible to the CCDI.

The Office for Circuit Inspection Work sends inspection teams throughout the country to help the local CDIs. In 2003, there were five inspection teams, and by 2013 the number had grown to twelve. In 2010, the CCDI was authorized to send inspection teams to the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Despite this, there are several weaknesses to its institutional design in the sense that certain informal aspects of CCP rule compete with formal procedures (that the CCDI and its lower-level organs are tasked with supervising) for hegemony. Examples are, as outlined by Xuezhi Guo, "vague institutional positions, incrementally declining effects as time goes by, vulnerability to patron-clientelism or guanxi network at the grassroots level, and the dilemma of 'open' or 'undercover' investigation". The CCDI and its inspection teams initiate ordinary and intensive inspection of party organizations at all levels and, in the eyes of many in the provinces, are a "tribunal of justice": handing down verdicts to the guilty and exonerating the innocent.

Inspection teams are not empowered to initiate formal investigations, make arrests, or mete out punishments. If an inspection team gathers on wrongdoing and corruption in general, the information is passed on to either the Organization Department or the CCDI. When an investigation is completed, they need to submit a report to the Central Leading Group for Inspection Work, to the region it inspected, and the individuals who were the targets of the investigation. The report is then uploaded on the CCDI's website and made public. The regulations which govern inspection team conduct states that they must: "Learn from the reports from local party committees; Participate in party disciplinary meetings; Manage whistleblower letters, phone calls, and visits; Regarding issues of party members or officials; Organize forums to understand public opinions of local leaders; Communicate with individuals; Review relevant documents and records; Conduct surveys and evaluate the opinions of the public; Visit the local bureau or individual department; and Consult with other government departments to gain better understand[ing] of the issues."

Central Military Commission
The military has its own discipline-enforcement body, known as the Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Central Military Commission (CDICMC) and is modelled on the CCDI. The CDICMC has "dual responsibility" to the CCDI and the Central Military Commission, and its membership is selected by the Central Military Commission. The first military disciplinary organization was established in 1955 and was dissolved during the Cultural Revolution. The modern incarnation of the CDICMC was formed in January 1980 under the direction of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Since 1990, the CDICMC's work has largely been carried out by the PLA's General Political Department, the military's highest political body. The head of the CDICMC is customarily also deputy chief of the General Political Department, and (since the 16th Party Congress in 2002) a concurrent Deputy Secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.

Occasionally, the CCDI has directly intervened in cases involving high-ranking officers of the PLA. Direct CCDI involvement has only been cited in high-profile cases, such as Vice Admiral Wang Shouye in 2005 and Lieutenant General Gu Junshan in 2012. When the CDICMC completes such an investigation, the case is usually given to military prosecution authorities for court-martial. Unlike CCDI cases (whose conclusions are generally announced in press releases), details of CDICMC cases are rarely publicly recorded. The CDICMC will occasionally conduct an "initial investigation" of alleged wrongdoing by a military officer, then hand the case over to the CCDI for "further investigation".

National Supervisory Commission
The Ministry of Supervision (MOS) was established by the State Council in 1987 to supervise in "government departments, state organs and public officials, and maintaining administrative discipline." Since its inception, the MOS' jurisdiction was unclear. Most government personnel, as party officials, were under the purview of the CCDI. Before 1987, the CCDI was responsible for issuing administrative sanctions to public officials. Since it enforced party discipline and the MOS enforced state law, in theory "the two agencies operated in separate spheres". The reality was less clear-cut. Most public servants were party members, and the MOS and CCDI customarily began separate investigations of the same person. In these dual investigations, the CDIs (and sometimes the CCDI) claimed primary jurisdiction over cases involving important party figures and tried to prevent the MOS from doing its work. To solve this problem, the MOS and the CCDI were effectively merged in 1993–1994. Although their organisational identities remained separate, the internal offices of the MOS merged with the CCDI. Since then, the CCDI has conducted the work of the MOS. The Minister of Supervision customarily held the concurrent post of Deputy Secretary of the CCDI, and the organizations shared a website.

On 13 March 2018, as part of a broader reorganization of party and state bodies, the MOS was abolished and replaced with the National Supervisory Commission (NSC); unlike the MOS, which was under the State Council, NSC is directly responsible to the National People's Congress. The NSC is co-located with the CCDI, and has effectively functioned as the state arm of the CCDI, with its first director Yang Xiaodu serving as the Deputy Secretary of the CCDI.

Inner-party supervision
The CCDI (and its local affiliates) enforces the inner-party supervision system. Although the system's history dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, it was not formalized until the 2004 "Internal Supervision Regulation" (ISR). The ISR reaffirmed the powers of the CCDI, institutionalized the central inspection teams, and clearly separated the party's decision-making institutions from its supervisory ones. With the ISR, the CCP issued a list of member responsibilities subject to oversight by the CCDI and its local affiliates. Member supervision was not new. However, information on what was supervised (and explanations for why things were under supervision) was novel. Every party member is subject to supervision, but the ISR emphasizes that leaders would be its focus. This was probably in reaction to the fact that no institutions, except the central party leadership (including the local CDIs), had the de facto ability to supervise lower-level party institutions.

The ISR defines three forms of inner-party supervision: top-to-bottom, bottom-to-top, and peer-to-peer. Of the three, bottom-to-top is the least institutionalized and was presented as the moral – but not institutional – responsibility of ordinary party members. The mechanism for lodging complaints against higher-level party officials or proposing their dismissal was unspecified. According to Ting Gong, the main problem is that if an ordinary party member lodges a complaint or accuses an official of corruption, "there is no guarantee that personal petitions will be accommodated or even processed as they are subject to further investigation and the approval of higher-level authorities".

The top-to-bottom system requires party committees at higher levels to supervise lower-level committees. According to the ISR, the central party leadership should regularly send central inspection teams to regions, state organizations, and state-owned enterprises. The central inspection teams' structure was reformed by the ISR. Before it, they were ad hoc institutions in the fight against corruption. The ISR introduced formal criteria for joining a central inspection team and empowered its investigative authority.

Peer-to-peer supervision is defined as regular "democratic life meetings" and the duty of standing committees to report their work to the party committee to whom they are responsible. The primary goal of peer-to-peer supervision is to strengthen party members' subjective responsibility by making them feel collectively responsible for the party as a whole. This system is supervised by the party committee and the CDI at the next higher level.

Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the party discipline inspection system mirrors that of the MOS, with the CCDI responsible for cases involving breaches of party discipline and state law by party members. Like the MOS, the CCDI lacks judicial authority and is limited to investigating allegations of corruption and breaches of party discipline. Since the CCDI does not have the power to prosecute, it is supposed to transfer cases (after investigation) to the Supreme People's Procuratorate or the Supreme People's Court. Despite this, its formal jurisdiction is loosely defined. The CDI's ability to begin investigations and administer party sanctions has often led to the slow transfer (or sometimes no transfer) of cases to the Supreme People's Procuratorate.

According to Graham Young, the CCDI's "responsibilities deal with four types of offences: [w]ork mistakes, [p]olitical mistakes, [l]ine mistakes, [and] [c]ounter-revolutionary actions". Andrew Wederman wrote that by looking at the "offences based on annual reports by provincial DICs contained in provincial yearbooks", its responsibility includes 20 types of offences; "[a]rbitrary and dictatorial exercise of power, [a]narchism, [f]actionalism, [f]avouritism, [i]nsubordination, [h]eterodoxy (such as bourgeois spiritual pollution, leftism), [p]rivilege seeking, [n]epotism and use of Party authority to advance their families, friends and relatives, [b]ureaucratism, [a]dministrative inefficiency, [c]ommandism, [h]oarding, [p]etty corruption, [f]raud, [e]mbezzlement, [t]heft, [s]muggling, [b]ribery, [i]llegal acquisition of and dealing in foreign exchange, [and] [w]asting and squandering public funds". According to Jeffrey Becker, "CDIC handbooks and regulations typically list six general types of mistakes (cuowu); political, economic, organisational, dereliction of one's duty, opposition to the party's socialist morals, and violations of integrity laws and regulations." Although the CCDI overlaps the MOS, it has more responsibilities since it is obligated to prevent breaches of party rules, norms, and other non-criminal behaviour. The party constitution vaguely defines the CCDI's jurisdiction: "Resolutely implement the Party's basic line, principles, and policies ... correctly exercise the powers entrusted to them by the people, be honest and upright, work hard for the people, make themselves an example, carry forward the style of hard work and plain living, forge closer ties with the masses, uphold the Party's mass line, accept criticism and supervision by the masses, oppose bureaucratism, and oppose the unhealthy trend of abusing one's power for personal gain."

Petition system, investigative procedures, and Shuanggui
For a case to be investigated, a person needs to petition the CCDI. Although the main petition office is the Complaints Office, petitions are usually sent to other offices and institutions (such as the Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, the National People's Congress, and party leadership as high as the PSC) as well. Petitions may also be filed on the CCDI website, and the commission receives cases through the Office for Circuit Inspection Work (which sends inspection teams throughout the country). In a case handled by former ODIS Third Division director and Case Hearing Office director Li Huiran, a petition was sent to all department heads in the ministry employing the petitioner, several offices of the CCDI and PSC members Jiang Zemin, Li Peng, Zhu Rongji, and Wei Jianxing.

An investigation has eight steps: "preliminary evidence and complaint management, preliminary confirmation of disciplinary violations, approval for opening the case, investigation and evidence collection, case hearing, implementation of disciplinary sanctions, appeal by the disciplined official, and continued supervision and management of the case". The first step begins with the receipt of a petition, which is formally accepted when the CCDI has proof (or suspicion) of wrongdoing. This process depends on the position of the accused; if the person has a vice-ministerial or deputy-gubernatorial rank, the investigation must first be approved by the CCDI Standing Committee. If approved, the CCDI Standing Committee will request permission from the PSC for a full investigation. An investigation of a provincial party leader must be accepted by the Politburo. To investigate a member of the Politburo or the PSC, the full backing of the PSC and retired high-level leaders is required. When a case is approved, the subject enters Shuanggui ("double designation") and must appear at a "designated location at a designated time." During Shuanggui, the subject is questioned about specific disciplinary violations. The length of Shuanggui is unspecified, and the subject is not protected by the state legal system. This system gives the CCDI precedence over the legal system in the investigation of party leaders. According to Chinese media, Shuanggui was instituted to prevent a subject's protection by his patron or a network (guanxi) and scholars such as Ting Gong and Connie Meaney agree that guanxi is a genuine threat to CCDI investigative teams. The suspect is then subject to "off-site detention" "to prevent interference from 'local protectionism' and 'factionalism (guanxi), preserving the investigation's integrity.

The subject is detained in an unspecified location under a 24-hour suicide watch by a team of six to nine "accompanying protectors" (as they are officially called), working eight-hour shifts. Shuanggui does not condone corporal punishment and the accused is, in theory, respectfully treated until proven guilty. Despite this proscription of force, according to Flora Sapio it "can easily occur because all basic procedural guarantees are removed as soon as shuanggui begins". Problems with Shuanggui, such as forced confessions, have occurred with inadequately-trained officials in areas controlled by local CDIs.

Regulations
CDIs at every level have, as one of their most important duties, the authority to issue and interpret regulations. In recent years, the CCDI has issued several regulations on behalf of the central committee, including "Internal Supervision Regulation" in 2004; "Regulations on Inner-Party Supervision", "Provisions on the CCP's Disciplinary Penalties" and "Provisions About Establishing the Responsibility System for Party Construction and Clean Government" in 2005, and "Interim Stipulations: Leading Cadres' Integrity Report" in 2006.

The importance of law in the struggle against corruption has been emphasized since the early 1980s. Deng pointed out in 1980 that the anti-corruption effort was a political struggle which, to be successful, must be fought in an institutional environment. At the 4th Plenary Session of the 15th CCDI in 2000, Jiang drew a similar conclusion: "The most important thing is to uphold and improve a system of institutions which can guarantee the Party's strong leadership and socialist prosperity, and make sure that the system is functioning by means of laws, regulations, policies, and education." Despite this, until the 16th National Congress, the CCP's anti-corruption system was based on campaign-style events rather than formal procedures (partially due to the 1940s Yan'an Rectification Movement and its legacy). The idea that campaigns – not institutions – were the best weapon against corruption predominated under Deng, and is best seen in the establishment of the Central Party Rectification Steering Committee during the 1980s. This was the CCP central leadership's preferred way to combat corruption, since its enforcement depended largely on the leadership. However, the sharp increase in corrupt activities during the 1990s led the party to change course.

Under Wei Jianxing, the 15th CCDI reviewed an estimated 1,600 corruption-related party regulations and documents in the run-up to the 16th National Congress. Of these, an estimated 1,100 were still considered viable. During this period, it published "Plan for Building Honest Morals and Controlling Corruption from 2004 to 2007" and the six-volume "Complete Regulations on Building Honest Morals and Controlling Corruption Within the Party" in an effort to institutionalize the party's anti-corruption system. To formalize its procedures, the 16th CCDI Standing Committee passed regulations requiring all local CDIs to combat corruption with lawful methods. Signaling their serious intent, the CCDI, the CCP's Organization Department, the MOS, and the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission issued joint "Regulations on Honestly Conducting Business by Leaders of the State-Run Enterprises" in 2005. According to CCP analyst Shao Daosheng, "The pace of institutional anti-corruption [development] by the CCP has been unprecedented."


text: Category:Liechtenstein sportspeople

title: Category:Liechtenstein sportspeople


text:
Oxide & Neutrino

Oxide & Neutrino are an English DJ and MC garage duo from London, consisting of Alex Rivers (Oxide), and Mark Osei-tutu (Neutrino).

Musical career
Their first single "Bound 4 da Reload (Casualty)" entered at the top of the UK Singles Chart in April 2000. It is known for sampling the theme music to the BBC medical drama series Casualty, ITV police drama The Bill and also contains samples of dialogue from the 1998 film Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

Their track "Shoot to Kill" appears, played from car stereos, in the film Ali G Indahouse. It is also featured on the original soundtrack CD.

Oxide & Neutrino are members of UK garage group So Solid Crew. Oxide also produced tracks on Lisa Maffia's debut album, First Lady, and the track "Industry Lady" on Face's mixtape Sign 2 the Block.

The duo made a return to the music scene in 2007, first with new single "What R U" released on 14 May, and then with their fourth album 2nd Chance following on 11 June. An interview with Darker Romello of Mayhem TV entitled "The Return of Oxide & Neutrino" appeared on Grimedaily, announcing new material set to be released in the summer of 2011.

In 2013, the duo appeared alongside many other garage pioneers in a documentary exploring the legacy of UK garage, Rewind 4Ever: The History of UK Garage.

The duo signed a new record deal in January 2021 with New State Music and released the track "Where Do We Go" featuring Leo the Lion.

title: Oxide & Neutrino


text: Category:Swedish alpine skiers

title: Category:Swedish alpine skiers


text:
User talk:MrDrew508

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 20:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Lucky 6.9 20:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, after looking over your "contributions," you, my friend, are toast.  You're being reported for vandalism. - Lucky 6.9 20:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I like toaster streudel. I don't like vandals.  We have too many as it is.  If you wish to continue editing here, please do the right thing. - Lucky 6.9 20:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't vandalize. It's just silly. And you'll just get blocked. Gkhan 20:31, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Image:WestMass.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:WestMass.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:ShopWorldpicnum1.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:ShopWorldpicnum1.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pucker UP.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Pucker UP.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 12:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Socialpyramid.JPG

The file File:Socialpyramid.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Orphaned diagram; no clear encyclopedic value"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Logan Talk Contributions 04:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:MrDrew508


text:
LGAT

LGAT may refer to:

 * Large-group awareness training, activities which are usually offered by groups with links to the human potential movement
 * LGAT, the ICAO code for Ellinikon International Airport, a defunct airport in Athens, Greece

title: LGAT


text:
Talk:Doordarshan

Move
"Doordarshan has lots of different domain names, but this has the highest Google rank"

Moved the quoted line above (originally a comment on the main Doordarshan page) to this talk page after replacing http://www.ddindia.net/ with http://www.ddindia.com/ which seems to be the real Doordarshan homepage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.90.127.102 (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2005 (UTC)

Citation needed
We need a citation for this text:  DoorDarshan has also been criticised by some, as state media and hence not completely free. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * the complete text of the criticism section will be mercilessly deleted unless supported and attributed to reputable sources. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

name
The name is "Doordarshan" not "DoorDarshan", I think. deeptrivia (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is "DoorDarshan" purely a name, or is it composed of words that can be translated into English? If so, the translation would be helpful.

Also, is the double "oo" a long "o", or is it the distinctive English spelling for "u" that sometimes shows up in older transcriptions? Hcunn (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 * hi 2409:4050:DC4:4195:0:0:EACA:F40D (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Unjustified comment
'' sadly the information on picking up this channel is other countries is pretty weak. '' I may be only guessing here but passing any personal comment is not exactly upto wikipedia's standards. I hope the "sadly" can be removed:):)::(:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekmathur (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Doordarshan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061017205609/http://www.passionfortruthtv.com/Mediawatcher.html to http://passionfortruthtv.com/Mediawatcher.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with DD Kisan
DD Kisan may not be individually notable. However instead of deletion, merging the content may be a better option ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

no need to merge
there is no need to merge doordarshan with dd kisan, it should be noted that DD kisan has became a popular channel and is a subsidiary of doordarshan itself. Hence i am waiting for an objection from any editor within 72 hours, i will remove the tag of merge from doordarshan. i welcome any discussion. Lollitol (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/meet-the-nid-student-who-made-the-doordarshan-symbol-soon-to-be-history/story-owFIcYbSZe5OfmWIet7GiO.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Indian English or American English more appropriate for this article?
The article seems to have been written in Indian English, with words like "organisation" appearing in lieu of "organization" and "colour" instead of "color." Additionally, some grammar seems to be off relative to the standard of American English. One specific example of this is "These channels are relayed by all terrestrial transmitters in India" under the Channels section.

Can someone please advise as to what is more appropriate within the scope of this article? Thanks!

Sidhu-jas98 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Although my response is very late, both should do. Most people will understand the differently spelled words intuitively.SenatorLEVI (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, articles that are connected to a specific English-speaking country should use the varity of English used in that country, whether it is Indian English, Standard British English, American English, Australian English, or some other variety. In this article, there would be no reason to use American English grammar, spelling, or vocabulary. --bonadea contributions talk 17:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See MOS:ENGVAR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. SenatorLEVI (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Doordarshan


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of conservation of information: First law of information Theory

 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 17:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Law of conservation of information: First law of information Theory
Original research and junk science; see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html - Fredrik | talk 20:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It currently reads as a technical research paper -- something that Wikipedia is not. Zzyzx11 00:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless better sources provided. Probably personal essay/original research. The apparent sources are very flawed. The first link, which contains a typo, becomes http://members.aol.com/jmtsgibbs/infothry.htm when the typo is corrected. Although the contributor gives this link the title "Quantum Conservation of Information Theory," the actual page is entitled "Quantum Information Theory." Neither it nor any of the six pages it links to mention any "law of conservation of information;" in fact, they do not contain the word "conservation" anywhere. It is disturbing that this link does not actually reference the topic it is said to reference. The second reference is to http://www.oridream.com which does not appear to have any significant English-language content. The article itself refers solely to "information theory," presumably the body of work created by Claude Shannon. Shannon's work contains no such conservation principle. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 20 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 The most fundamental discoveries in Information Theory were made by Claude Shannon in 1948 and 1949, which say, more or less, that good compression, good error-control coding, and good cryptography are all possible, but that there are limits on their effectiveness. These are sometimes called "Shannon's Theorems" and if anything deserves to be called "First Law of Info Theory," it's the first of these.  This is non-mathematical junk. Crunchy Frog 03:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


text:
Ralph Camargo

Ralph Jaime Camargo (February 27, 1912 – January 15, 1992) was an American actor, best known for his work in theater. He was also well known for being "the voice of Dynamic," narrating many short films in the 1950s and 1960s for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.

Camargo was an actor in the soap opera Guiding Light in the era of old-time radio. He acted on the television version of that program and on The Edge of Night, Playhouse 90, The United States Steel Hour and other TV programs.

Camargo's Latino ethnicity limited his opportunities in acting. His grandson said, "He had to hide behind radio because they typecast him as an evil person or 'the Indian.'"

In the 1930s Camargo "was prominently identified" with stage productions on the West Coast. His theatircal work included directing Hay Fever for the Lakewood Players in Tacoma, Washington, in 1939.

Personal life
Camargo was a member of The Players social club for actors in New York.

He was married to actress Florence Skeels. Their daughters are actresses Victoria Wyndham and Felice Camargo. His grandson is film and television actor Christian Camargo.

title: Ralph Camargo


text:
U.S. Route 164

U.S. Route 164 may refer to:
 * U.S. Route 164 (Texas–Oklahoma) from Amarillo, Texas to Enid, Oklahoma; became part of US 60 in 1930
 * U.S. Route 164 (Arizona–Colorado) from near Tuba City, Arizona to Cortez, Colorado; became part of US 160 in about 1970

title: U.S. Route 164


text:
Shadows (Gordon Lightfoot album)

Shadows is Canadian singer Gordon Lightfoot's fourteenth studio album, released in 1982 on the Warner Bros. Records label. It peaked at #87 on the Billboard charts.

The album marked another significant turning point in Lightfoot's musical evolution. He moves further away from his acoustic roots through greater use of synthesizers and electric organ.

The album is softer in composition than its immediate predecessors with a return to slower, more introspective ballads as compared to the faster, country style of Lightfoot's mid-1970s albums.

Although a commercial failure (Lightfoot referred to it as "the music industry's best-kept secret"), the critical reception of the album was positive.

"Baby Step Back" peaked at number 17 on the US Adult Contemporary chart and #50 on the Billboard Hot 100. It also reached number six on the Canadian Adult Contemporary chart.

Track listing
All songs composed by Gordon Lightfoot

 * 1) "14 Karat Gold" – 3:56
 * 2) "In My Fashion" – 3:05
 * 3) "Shadows" – 3:02
 * 4) "Blackberry Wine" – 3:05
 * 5) "Heaven Help the Devil" – 3:14
 * 6) "Thank You For the Promises" – 2:53
 * 7) "Baby Step Back" – 3:59
 * 8) "All I'm After" – 3:23
 * 9) "Triangle" – 4:10
 * 10) "I'll Do Anything" – 3:25
 * 11) "She's Not the Same" – 3:11

Personnel

 * Gordon Lightfoot – vocals, harmony vocals, rhythm guitar
 * Rick Haynes – bass guitar
 * Terry Clements – lead guitar
 * Barry Keane – drums, percussion
 * Michael Heffernan – keyboards, synthesizer
 * Pee Wee Charles – steel guitar, dobro
 * Dean Parks – electric guitar
 * Dennis Pendrith – bass guitar
 * Robbie Buchanan – synthesizer
 * Victor Feldman – percussion
 * Herb Pedersen – harmony vocals
 * Patrick Miles – electric guitar

title: Shadows (Gordon Lightfoot album)