text:
Herbert Butterfield

Sir Herbert Butterfield (7 October 1900 – 20 July 1979) was an English historian and philosopher of history, who was Regius Professor of Modern History and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. He is remembered chiefly for a short volume early in his career entitled The Whig Interpretation of History (1931) and for his Origins of Modern Science (1949). Butterfield turned increasingly to historiography and man's developing view of the past. Butterfield was a devout Christian and reflected at length on Christian influences in historical perspectives.

Butterfield thought that individual personalities were more important than great systems of government or economics in historical study. His Christian beliefs in personal sin, salvation and providence were a great influence in his writings, a fact he freely admitted. At the same time, Butterfield's early works emphasised the limits of a historian's moral conclusions, "If history can do anything it is to remind us that all our judgments are merely relative to time and circumstance".

Biography
Butterfield was born on 7 October 1900 in Oxenhope, West Yorkshire, and was raised a devout Methodist, which he remained for life. Despite his humble origins, receiving his education at the Trade and Grammar School in Keighley, in 1919 he won a scholarship to study at Peterhouse, Cambridge, graduating with a BA in 1922, followed by an MA four years later. Butterfield was a fellow at Cambridge from 1928 to 1979 and in the 1950s, he was a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. He was Master of Peterhouse (1955–1968), Vice-Chancellor of the University (1959–1961) and Regius Professor of Modern History (1963–1968). Butterfield served as editor of the Cambridge Historical Journal from 1938 to 1955 and was knighted in 1968.

He married Edith Joyce Crawshaw in 1929 and had three children. He died on 20 July 1979.

Work
Butterfield's main interests were historiography, the history of science, 18th-century constitutional history, Christianity and history as well as the theory of international politics. He delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Glasgow in 1965. As a deeply religious Protestant, Butterfield was highly concerned with religious issues, but he did not believe that historians could uncover the hand of God in history. At the height of the Cold War, he warned that conflicts between self-righteous value systems could be catastrophic: "The greatest menace to our civilization is the conflict between giant organized systems of self-righteousness – each only too delighted to find that the other is wicked – each only too glad that the sins of the other give it pretext for still deeper hatred."

The Whig Interpretation of History
Butterfield's book, The Whig Interpretation of History (1931), became a classic for history students and is still widely read. Butterfield had in mind especially the historians of his own country but his criticism of the retrospective creation of a line of progress toward the glorious present can be and has subsequently been applied generally. The "Whig interpretation of history" is now a general label applied to various historical interpretations.

Butterfield found the Whig interpretation of history objectionable because it warps the past to see it in terms of the issues of the present and attempts to squeeze the contending forces of the past into a form that reminds us of ourselves. Butterfield argued that the historian must seek the ability to see events as they were perceived by those who lived through them. Butterfield wrote that "Whiggishness" is too handy a "rule of thumb... by which the historian can select and reject, and can make his points of emphasis".

He also wrote about how simple pick-and-choose history misses the point, "Very strange bridges are used to make the passage from one state of things to another; we may lose sight of them in our surveys of general history, but their discovery is the glory of historical research. History is not the study of origins; rather it is the analysis of all the mediations by which the past was turned into our present". In 1944, Butterfield wrote in The Englishman and His History that,

"We are all of us exultant and unrepentant whigs. Those who, perhaps in the misguided austerity of youth, wish to drive out that whig interpretation, (that particular thesis which controls our abridgment of English history,) are sweeping a room which humanly speaking cannot long remain empty. They are opening the door for seven devils which, precisely because they are newcomers, are bound to be worse than the first. We, on the other hand, will not dream of wishing it away, but will rejoice in an interpretation of the past which has grown up with us, has grown up with the history itself, and has helped to make the history... we must congratulate ourselves that our 17th-century forefathers... did not resurrect and fasten upon us the authentic middle ages... in England we made peace with our middle ages by misconstruing them; and, therefore, we may say that 'wrong' history was one of our assets. The whig interpretation came at exactly the crucial moment and, whatever it may have done to our history, it had a wonderful effect on English politics... in every Englishman there is hidden something of a whig that seems to tug at the heart-strings."

Christianity and History
Butterfield's 1949 book Christianity and History, asks if history provides answers to the meaning of life, answering in the negative:

 * "So the purpose of life is not in the far future, nor, as we so often imagine, around the next corner, but the whole of it is here and now, as fully as ever it will be on this planet."
 * "If there is a meaning in history, therefore, it lies not in the systems and organizations that are built over long periods, but in something more essentially human, something in each personality considered for mundane purposes as an end in himself."
 * "I have nothing to say at the finish except that if one wants a permanent rock in life and goes deep enough for it, it is difficult for historical events to shake it. There are times when we can never meet the future with sufficient elasticity of mind, especially if we are locked in the contemporary systems of thought. We can do worse than remember a principle which both gives us a firm Rock and leaves us the maximum elasticity for our minds: the principle: Hold to Christ, and for the rest be totally uncommitted."

Butterfield and his Anglo-Catholic contemporary, Christopher Dawson, have been referred to as prominent "providential" historians.

The Origins of Modern Science
According to Brian Vickers, in the 1949 book The Origins of Modern Science Butterfield makes simplistic generalisations which "seem unworthy of a serious historian". Vickers considers the book a late example of the earliest stage of modern analysis of the history of Renaissance magic in relation to the development of science, when magic was largely dismissed as being "entertaining but irrelevant".

Prizes and accolades
In 1922, Butterfield was awarded the University Member's Prize for English Essay, writing on the subject of English novelist Charles Dickens and the way in which the author straddled the fields of history and literature.

In 1923, Butterfield won the Le Bas Prize for his first publication, The Historical Novel; the work was published in 1924.

Also in 1924, Butterfield won the Prince Consort Prize for a work on the problem of peace in Europe between 1806 and 1808. At the same time, he was given the Seeley Medal.

title: Herbert Butterfield


text:
Talk:Email authentication

Older comments
I've read through it and I do not agree with some of that is written on Email_Authentication page. While I understand that wikipedia page is designed for general person and not an email tech, it may have oversimplified the infrastruņcture that is more complex and as such it may not paint an accurate picture for person not familiar with email authentication and email security, besides that some of the details are also not right.

First lets note that what is described is what many now call path authentication, but that is not the same as general email authentication. For path authentication each email node tries to authenticate immediately proceeding node and in order to establish authentication from sender to recipient it is necessary to establish authenticated chain of trust which means each node must have verified the previous one and furthermore that

But general email authentication includes other available mechanisms such as cryptography. Cryptography works completely different and instead of trying to authentication previous source it tries to verify cryptographic data included by that previous source in email message. That is how S/MIME and PGP work (and how DomainKeys, IIM and Meta Signatures propose to do similar things, but they instead focus on MTA adding signatures where as S/MIME and PGP are primarily intended for MUAs), both S/MIME and PGP are common and used authentication methods and there is no mention about it.

Such as it is, because I do not see any way to create general email authentication information based on current text (except the first couple of paragraphs), I strongly recommend renaming that page into mail_Path_Authentication and clearly indicate that it describes only one type of email authentication. Note that references to DomainKeys should then be removed as its not supposed to be path authentication (although because of inability to deal with too many forwarding/redirection systems if it is used, it will end up being used in similar way, buts its entirely different problem and not to be discussed on that page).

Also I have serious problem with you including on that page Resent-From: [] VERIFIED You simply can not reinvent new syntax or use of existing and actively used header and Resent-From is defined as standard by RFC821, RFC2821, RFC2822 and it has only one argument - email address and header itself is used by MUAs that resend existing piece of email to new address. If you want a reference to existing header to indicate results authentication, please use SPF-Received header or Authentication-Results header with references to appropriate drafts.

Note: Above is slightly modified copy of post made spf-discuss, see http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com/200502/0082.html

03/11/2005 William,

I've made some updates to the this article, which I hope will provide a more balanced perspective on the two authentication methodologies.

Of all the available protocols, I referenced the three which seem to be most likely to be widely deployed in the next few years. There are also Category links which will lead to pages on some of the other protocols. We could add a list of links to these other specific pages. I'm concerned about the length of the article if we try to say something about each one.

As for the title, I would like to keep it short, and use the first paragraph to define the scope of the article more precisely - ensuring a valid identity on email. There are already broader topics ( see catagory Authentication Methods ) and narrower topics on individual protocols.

I took out the example header, which was intended only as illustration, not correct and detailed syntax. That also helped keep the article short. I worry that the section is now missing any concrete examples, which is always a problem for non-expert readers, but this occurs *after* we say the section is only about detail, and most readers can skip it.

Thanks again for your expert help.

-- David MacQuigg

The main issues still remain with this article:

(1) It is still too focused on the path authentication (email authentication step-step at each session mainly based on ip address of connecting mail server)

(2) It is almost 100% on MTA (email servers) email authentication where as the article has general title (email authentication) and there exist other methods of email authentication such as those done at MUA (email clients)

(3) In regards to MTA email authentication none of the 3 methods you chose to focus (SPF, SID, DomainKeys) are yet widely deployed and these proposals have been in existence often < 1 year, where as MUA email authentication methods such as S/MIME and PGP have in fact years of deployment and standardization behind them. There are also a LOT of controversy that SPF, SID and DomainKeys in their current form are not a good solution and break email system, there is no guarantee that all 3 or in fact that any of them will still be out 10 years from now (and trying to guess as you do is not a good idea - not for encyclopedia article anyway). It is also notable that in addition to those 3 proposals at least 6-10 others have been published in the same area that are also being worked on by various groups including IETF, and none has received an unconditional support of the email community

(4) In regards to 2 and 3 it seems that the article is biased and maybe trying to provide marketing support to those particular 3 proposals which are not yet even deployed widely enough in email system and not IETF approved standards. But this is wikipedia and its supposed to have only non-biased articles on the issue and issues that are well known and no guessing for the future (although historical documentation is possible and in fact wikipedia is great as historic references). I would also note that this is in fact a LIVE system and if there are any changes in email system and email authentication the article can always be changed (and I expect it will), so trying to guess the future here is bad idea, when such future comes so would wikipedia and this article evolve with it

In my opinion the only way to resolve all those issues without loosing current content (much of it is good and I praise the author of the article for it) is to move majority of the article into its own article focused on path authentication and expand it to include information on RMX, DMP and several other methods (they are together called LMAP) and then move to SPF and provide information on it as current most used system in path authentication. A new much shorter article should be written on email authentication in general that would include general information on what email security is and short paragraphs on several email authentication categories and links to specific articles for each category.

Also I would encourage author to do further research about internet security, message security and get more familiar with various aspects, protocols and issues as well as familiarize more with terms used. For terms, I've actually created a glossary that might be of interest, its copy can be found at

"Attempts to stop spam by blacklisting sender's IP addresses have failed to reverse the worldwide growth. " is not correct. AOL's use of blacklists has reduced spam delivery attempts to their network by about 50%, and reduced the spam received much more. I'm trying to fix this.

Beginning some encyclopedia style here
I've started some basic clean-up here -- fixing the page title and headers to match the Wikipedia style guide, for one.

There's a lot of work that needs doing, though, some with form and some with content:

 * Markup style. There is excessive use of boldface throughout, and lack of use of italics to indicate defined terms, domain names, and so forth.
 * Footnotes. The footnotes are currently pieces of dumb text, not wiki markup or hypertext.
 * Tone. Encyclopedias do not address the reader as "you", and do not use a chatty or conversational style of writing.
 * Confusion of issues:
 * Spam is not the same as forged email. There is plenty of spam sent that is not forged; for instance, the spam for Gevalia coffee over which Kraft Foods is presently facing a lawsuit.
 * Forged email is not the same as email sent through a server other than the sender address's domain. This is partially addressed in the section on email forwarding; but there are many cases where legitimate persons who have (a) legitimate use of a mail server and (b) legitimate use of an email address for a different domain, might wish to send mail from that address through that server. --FOo 02:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Author Bowing Out
I disagree with some of the edits since my last participation. I was hoping to avoid the political controversy around this topic, but I can see that will not be possible. Rather than get into an edit war, I think we should go our separate ways. I'll keep my version at http://purl.net/macquigg/email

You are welcome to copy my subsequent edits, and I will copy what I like of the edits I see here. -- macquigg

Please rewrite most of the article in English and define MTA etc.

Also, please define what the political controversy is...195.38.17.129 (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FUD about SPF and CSV
Again the same horror story as in DomainKeys, where I trimmed it to a pointer to this article. Now added again here, and I reverted it. It is untrue that Sender ID's PRA is in any way better suited than SPF's Return-Path MAIL FROM to fight replay attacks against DKIM.

The SenderID PRA is not necessarily related to anything DomainKeys does, exactly like the Return-Path is not necessarily related to anything DKIM does. Besides the theoretical worst case of 112 DNS lookups requires ten mx-mechanisms, each with ten MXs (Mail eXchangers), a completely unrealistic case.

One huge ISP with twenty million customers has in fact eight MXs. So a sender policy with 80 lookups (SPF or SenderID) would directly permit the MXs of ten similar ISPs. Who is customer of ten huge ISPs, all of them organizing their MXs in such a strange way?

With the recommended way to include the sender policies of ISPs where available the worst case would be five include-mechanisms each with one mx-mechanism staying within the limit of ten mechanisms. And if the 5*1 included ISPs all in fact have eight MXs the result is 2+5+5*8 = 47 theoretical lookups.

But in practice a query for MX often gets the relevant IPs in the additional answer section. DNS tries to be cute, it's clear what you'd ask next after an MX-query, if you don't know the IPs. So in practice you might need only 2+5+5 = 12 queries for this unrealistic case.

It's also FUD to mention the worst case only for SPF but not for CSV. It's FUD to mention the almost unknown CSV without the much wider deployed SPF HELO. Admittedly CSV is smarter than SPF HELO, but in essence, for the issue at hand, get PASS for whitelisted neighbour, they are almost equivalent.

A typical SPF HELO policy is v=spf1 a -all with exactly three lookups: TXT query, SPF query, A query. And that will be very fast as soon as it is cached. No idea about the CSV details, so I grant that it's probably better than three in the typical case relevant here for HELO and DKIM replay attacks.

This is an overview article. It is not your DKIM options draft, and it is also not the place to rehash your issues with the next DKIM-threats-draft, for that we have an IETF WG. Here's Wikipedia, it tries to be an encyclopedia, it has some ideas about WP:NPOV and original research. Stick to the facts, and don't twist them into FUD. Omniplex 06:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

>>>
Omni, I appreciate your efforts to keep this article on track. I would go even further in limiting the scope and complexity, removing some inappropriate plugs and quibbles over arcane details. Rather than get into an edit war, however, I suggest that anyone who wants to see an alternative presentation, put it on your own website, with a link from this page. I've started the list with my own original article - see Reference {1}. I dont think it is likely the experts will ever agree on what is important in an introductory article. Maybe a second more detailed article could be written, like an extended list of footnotes, that would cover all the details and alternatives anyone would like to present. Dave 19:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It has now its own Category:E-mail authentication, and essentially I've copied the acronym table from an obscure page on my own site. Omniplex  00:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent! There is now a place for everything. I would still like to see the main article cut way back, but I think as long as we have a quick link to the "Introductory" version, it doesn't matter if this one is a little heavy. Maybe William could put in a link to his "Heavy" version. Dave 02:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Legal
Is forgeing email illegal? If so, where? Why does everyone hate Torax2? 01:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It depends! In the U.S., for instance, it is illegal to send unsolicited commercial email (spam) with forged headers, under the CAN-SPAM Act. But to forge an email for a prank is not illegal, unless some other offense (such as libel) is involved.

 * This is, of course, not legal advice. Consult a lawyer if you are planning to forge email and are worried about getting sued, arrested, or deported to Torturestan for it. Forging email may also be against your ISP's terms of service, meaning that you could lose all your internets for it. --FOo 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam
I'm highly suspicious that the main focus of this article seems to be on spam prevention. Whilst authentication will help with filtering spam, it is only a tiny part of the whole picture. The main focus of email authentication is security. Personally, I have never encountered the need for encrypting mail (except as part of trust establishment), and I very rarely need to sign my emails (although I do because I can), yet I receive thousands of spam emails per day, and email authentication would not help in 1 case, because they all come through channels that need to be open to all comers. 129.234.4.76 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I am surprised as the article as you said talks more about Spam prevention and less about email authentication. also the article nowhere speaks about phishing Kalivd (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Phishing is a more serious issue than spam when it comes to this subject. Questions:

1) Where does the authentication happen? At the sender's server or the receiver's? Can you, for instance, verify authentication or is that like verifying verification?

2) Define MTA and any other acronym in this article please.195.38.17.129 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
The second part of this quote is rather "unencyclopedic", fighting backscatter is the main goal of SPF, and if say Google or Hotmail have no FAIL-policy that's their decision. Receivers are free to treat NEUTRAL mails from these sources as "bad enough". No e-mail authentication scheme can be made mandatory, they are voluntary. SPF has that little twist to offer spammers an incentive to stay away from forging FAIL-protected addresses, as long as there are enough unprotected addresses. Remove this section, trim it to the first part, or leave it alone? --212.82.251.44 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Authentication-Results
This page should mention the existence of the Authentication-Results header fields, RFC 5451, and cover each method defined there. That's about as rewriting the whole page, but it can be done step by step. I'm late now, but I'll start that on my next occasion...

More methods, such as Vouch by Reference or PGP signatures, that are not (yet) defined in Email Authentication Parameters can also be mentioned, of course.

ale (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Iconix eMail ID
Iconix eMail ID, are there others ? -I guess they are not being mentioned to prevent promotion of software, but should the existance of browser addons etc be mentioned, or is this article too technical for most email users?? 79.66.216.62 (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Using Envelope-Content Splitting (ECS) technology to prevent e-mail address spoofing
ECS works by sending mail content independently of the mail envelope. A content server, which exists outside of the mail network, manages content and returns pointers to the content to the mail client which the client inserts into the envelope. In the implementations used by the company ChiaraMail, senders must authenticate prior to sending an ECS message and the content server enforces this. Thus, when spoofing an e-mail address, the spoofer must know the content server password of the user it is spoofing in order to send an e-mail using ECS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Uomini (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

More encyclopedic tone and content
I saw there's been little change since JD's tagging on 22 September 2010. It called for much more cleanup than the above. Rather than rewording paragraph by paragraph, I've actually rewritten the beginning of the article, copying any content that I found relevant from existing sections, but sticking to the topic of Email authentication. The most important task is to give a view of how email gets authenticated, possibly sketching what advantages that can bring about. That has to be accomplished in such a way that a casual reader can grasp it even with minimal technical skills, while an expert can read it without disappointment.

Next, I will remove those old sections, numbered 4-8 and 10 in the current version. Reasons are as follows:

 * Sender's IP verification: The basic content is explained in the added sections. Deeper explanation of phishing is off topic.
 * Blacklisting: This has nothing to do with email authentication.
 * Controlling users: This has little to do with email authentication.  Blocking port 25 can be seen as an invitation to users to configure their MUAs properly, so that authentication can take place —which was noted in an added section.
 * Authenticating senders: This is the core of the topic, and I believe it is explained more clearly in the added sections.
 * Difficulties with email forwarding: One point that will be missed is that email forwarders (or are they called forwarding services? Hm... someone proposes mediators) are crucial for the portability of email addresses.  Other parts are covered in the added sections.  The rest is so technical and confused that it looks like original research.

ale (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"Widespread use"
I've moved the less/never used items into their own heading. There have been a truckload of proposals over the last 20 years, but I believe that it's important to readers of this article to be able to differentiate between those that are actually in widespread use, and others that are not - whether because they failed or that they've not yet gained traction. - Snori (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Email authentication


text: Category:Elementary schools in California


text:
Hilton bombing

Hilton bombing may refer to:
 * London Hilton bombing, 1975.
 * Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing, 1978.

title: Hilton bombing


text: Category:Elementary schools in New York (state)


text: Category:Elementary schools in Texas

title: Category:Elementary schools in Texas


text: Category:Elementary schools in Ohio

title: Category:Elementary schools in Ohio


text: Category:Elementary schools in Florida

title: Category:Elementary schools in Florida


text:
Festival marketplace

A festival marketplace is a European-style shopping market in the United States. It is an effort to revitalize downtown areas in major US cities begun in the late 20th century.

Festival marketplaces were a leading downtown revitalization strategy in American cities during the 1970s and 1980s. The guiding principles are a mix of local tenants instead of regional or national chain stores, design of shop stalls and common areas to energize the space, and uncomplicated architectural ornament in order to highlight the goods.

List of festival marketplaces

 * Aloha Tower Marketplace — Honolulu, Hawaii
 * Arizona Center — Phoenix, Arizona
 * Bandana Square — Saint Paul, Minnesota
 * Bayside Marketplace — Miami, Florida
 * Cambridgeside Galleria — Cambridge, Massachusetts
 * Canalside — Buffalo, New York
 * Catfish Town — Baton Rouge, Louisiana
 * Church Street Station Exchange — Orlando, Florida
 * The Continent — Columbus, Ohio
 * Cray Plaza — Saint Paul, Minnesota
 * Faneuil Hall — Boston, Massachusetts
 * Festival Market — Lexington, Kentucky
 * Fountain Square — Nashville, Tennessee
 * Ghirardelli Square — San Francisco, California
 * Harborplace — Baltimore, Maryland
 * Harbour Island - Tampa, Florida
 * Jack London Square — Oakland, California
 * Jackson Brewery — New Orleans, Louisiana
 * Jacksonville Landing — Jacksonville, Florida
 * Mercado Mediterranean Shopping Village — Orlando, Florida
 * Navy Pier — Chicago, Illinois
 * Old Post Office Pavilion — Washington, D.C.
 * Pier 39 — San Francisco, California
 * Portside Festival Marketplace — Toledo, Ohio
 * Riverwalk — New Orleans, Louisiana
 * Sixth Street Festival Marketplace — Richmond, Virginia
 * South Street Seaport — New York City, New York
 * Saint Anthony Main — Minneapolis, Minnesota
 * St. Louis Union Station — St. Louis, Missouri
 * Station Square — Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * Tower City Center — Cleveland, Ohio
 * Trolley Square — Salt Lake City, Utah
 * Underground Atlanta — Atlanta, Georgia
 * Union Station — Indianapolis, Indiana
 * Union Station — Washington, D.C.
 * Water Street Pavilion — Flint, Michigan
 * Waterside — Norfolk, Virginia
 * West End Marketplace — Dallas, Texas
 * Westfield Horton Plaza — San Diego, California

title: Festival marketplace


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Neopets

 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Neopets
This page is unencyclopedic and seems a lot like self-advertising for the websites mentioned there. Josh 03:15, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, dictionary definition, forum advertisement. Megan1967 04:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not an advertisement since the forum is a common place for Anti-Neopians. Also, the "dictionary definition" is because it is, as of right now, incomplete. This page, when it has more content, will provide more valuable information and I believe it is important to users concerned with this topic. --Tezeti 05:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertisement for obscure forum. Foobaz · ✐  05:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is more like an ad. Zzyzx11 05:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This deffinately isn't an ad. It is info on a fast growing web movement.Blackdove
 * Note: User's second edit.
 * Note: Blackdove has made no edits outside of voting on this VfD (His/her first edit was to mistakenly vote to keep on the Talk:Anti-Neopets page).
 * Note: The above isn't relevant to the voting process and should not impact anyone's vote
 * Question. Why should Anti-Neopians have its own article when it can be put on Neopets? Zzyzx11 06:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gamaliel 06:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Patently silly, and not a valid meme. Delete Radiant! 09:44, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any useful information could be included on Neopets. Carrp | Talk 14:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you read carefully, you will find that Anti-Neopets is an organization, and does NOT deserve to be in Neopets Controversy and Criticism. Nemmy 17:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Forum not large enough to warrant an article. Xezbeth  17:29, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the article will not be kept otherwise, I am removing all external links from the article. Please adjust your votes accordingly. --Tezeti 17:59, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're missing the point here. It's not about the external links, it's about the organization not being notable enough for inclusion (if somebody hated apples and started the Anti-Apple Action, we wouldn't include that either). Radiant! 19:35, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see the post tezeti made to the 26-member forum advertised in the article pleading for users to come here and create an account to vote keep and push their POV agenda. Blatant attempt to cheat the VfD process. Something to consider while deciding whether to vote keep or delete.
 * Comments
 * I have fixed the article considerably since it was proposed as a candidate for deletion. Regarding Reene's prior comments, the forum is the main forum, so it is a valuble external link and not just an advertisement. Please see the post Reene made on the forum and you can determine yourself which post has more POV. --Tezeti 16:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, No-More-Neopets.tk is owned by Mae_Noelle and the forum is basically owned by a group of Administrators. I agree that maybe the geocities link should not have been there, so I removed it. However, I believe this article is written in a neutral manner and contributes information to Wikipedia. --Tezeti 16:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would not make self-promotion pages on Wikipedia, since it is an online encyclopedia and not a forum or blog. This is a group of people, of which there were over 100 of at one point, and I am simply stating their beliefs and history of the movement. --Tezeti 16:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know of at least 10 other Antineopian sites, however I chose to include the most viewed ones in this entry, which excludes my own web page. --Tezeti 16:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining this all, but this whole movement still doesn't seem very notable to me. You say there were over 100 people at one point, which indicates that the movement was never that large to begin with, and is already on its decline. Checking the Antineopian forum, I find 26 members only. That's not much for an internet forum.Radiant! 21:00, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * The membership is not declining, the reason that the membership has been reduced is that the original forum has been shut down for unknown reasons. Therefore, many of the members could not find this new one. The forum was started about one month ago and already has 26 members. I know of over 10 websites made by different users that are dedicated solely to Anti-Neopets. --Tezeti 21:41, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which indicates a whole 10 people are pissed off enough about being frozen to create a hate website and rant about how much Neopets sucks, the claims they make varying in veracity and some of them being outright false and slanderous. Even then, 100 members is not a lot when you consider how many users use Neopets. I could whip up 10 good looking anti-Tezeti websites in under a day (and wouldn't need to use free web hosts like Geocities to do it, as most/all of these so-called anti-neopets websites do). So could we then add the Anti-Tezeti article to the 'pedia? (note that I'm being facetious.)
 * Delete. This isn't even noteable in the sphere of Neopets. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The grand finale: The current forums were made by Tezeti and are less sucessful, having only 26 members at the moment. They wouldn't be notable if they had ten times the number. One hundred times the number, and I might wake up. Non-notable. Delete. -- Hoary 07:45, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
 * Keep: I only say this because I have cleaned up the article in question. It was too much like an advertisment. I do think the subject deserves an entry but not to the extent that it advertises other websitses. Wikipedia is not for that. I have no username at the moment, but i have made numerous positive additions to many articles involving the city of Vancouver. D.
 * Note that the above user has only six edits, five of which are in this VfD.
 * Delete. A 28-user forum with less than 2000 posts is not notable --Carnildo 08:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 09:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Idea: the now cleaned up article would merge in great with the original Neopets article under contreversy. D. 9:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Maybe once they kill a Neopet or two... Longhair 14:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Question: Why are only the "Keep" voters getting unsigned negative notes put under their name? Isn't this an attempt at POV? Besides, the number of edits they have made is not relevant to the voting process. Thank you for cleaning the article, though shouldn't it have the history of the movement as well? unsigned comment from User:Tezeti
 * Those aren't "negative votes", people are merely pointing out the history of the user. The number of edits they have made is very relevant to the voting process, as it is standard procedure here to allow the tallying administrator to discount the votes of new users if in his/her judgment these users appeared on Wikipedia merely to influence a particular vote and do nothing else. This applies to both keep and delete votes. Gamaliel 17:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. unencyclopaedic, lack of references, advertising suspicious & all reasons explained above. --Neigel von Teighen 17:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to point out that the forum and movement is growing considerabnly. One example is that it has gained two new users today, suggesting rapid growth. Also, regarding the above comment, there was never intended to be any advertising and I have removed all external links which could be interpreted as 'advertisements'. --Tezeti 02:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * For comparison, a moderately active forum I'm on has 53,000 registered members, and as of right now (4 AM Eastern US time), has 219 people looking at the boards, and gained two members in the last five minutes. I consider this to be borderline notable. --Carnildo 09:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- pne 14:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. ComCat 08:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Oberiko 12:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Has legitimate information and is in sync with other articles. ...at 01:16, 2005 Feb 28, 70.178.75.237 forgot to press the twiddle key.

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.


text:
Clearwater, Manitoba

Clearwater is an unincorporated community recognized as a local urban district in south central Manitoba, Canada. It is located in the Municipality of Louise. It plays host to the Harvest Moon Festival, a music and organic farming event held each September. Clearwater is also the site of an annual July 1 Canada Day baseball tournament.

Transportation
The community has access to other towns in Manitoba via MB Provincial Highways 3A and 342. The community has access to Winnipeg via Highways 3A and 3.

Notable people

 * Mary Riter Hamilton, painter who was raised in Clearwater.

authors: ایور ہیپی بیجر

title: Clearwater, Manitoba


text: Category:Elementary schools in Pennsylvania


text: Category:Elementary schools in Virginia

title: Category:Elementary schools in Virginia


text:
Jean-François Revel

Jean-François Revel (born Jean-François Ricard; 19 January 1924 – 30 April 2006) was a French  philosopher, journalist, and author. A prominent public intellectual, Revel was a socialist in his youth but later became a prominent European proponent of classical liberalism and free market economics. He was a member of the Académie française after June 1998. He is best known for his book Without Marx or Jesus: The New American Revolution Has Begun, published in French in 1970.

Early life and education
Jean-François Ricard was born in Marseille in 1924 into a prosperous middle-class family. During the German occupation of France in World War II, the adolescent Ricard participated in the French Resistance. He would later note that his reaction against the disgraceful, officious manner of French collaborators had an impact on his approach to writing. Ricard began to use "Revel" as a literary pseudonym, eventually adopting it as his legal surname.

Revel moved to Lyon to prepare at the Lycée du Parc for the competitive entrance examination to the École normale supérieure (ENS), where he was admitted in 1943. At the ENS, Revel studied philosophy and in 1956 passed the rigorous agrégation that qualified him to teach the subject in French public secondary schools.

Career
Revel began his career teaching philosophy in French Algeria and in French secondary schools in Italy and Mexico, before settling in Lille. He quit teaching in 1963 and embarked on his career a journalist, author, and public intellectual. Among other positions in the press, he was chief literary editor for France Observateur and later for L'Express.

A socialist until the late 1960s, Revel was a speechwriter for socialist politician François Mitterrand. Revel ran as a socialist candidate in the parliamentary elections of 1967, which he lost. Later, however, Revel became known, particularly in the context of the Cold War, as a champion of classical liberal values such as liberty and democracy at a time when many pre-eminent European intellectuals praised Communism or Maoism. The publication of his 1970 book, Without Marx or Jesus: The New American Revolution Has Begun signalled the transition of his views to liberal "philosopher of freedom in the tradition of Raymond Aron." In 1973, he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto II.

In 1975, he delivered the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden, Netherlands, under the title La tentation totalitaire (The Totalitarian Temptation). In 1986, Revel he received an honorary doctorate degree from the Universidad Francisco Marroquín, in Guatemala, for his commitment to individual freedom. From 1998 to 2006, he was president of the Institut d'Histoire Sociale. His successor is Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie.

A year after the September 11 attacks of 2001, Revel published Anti-Americanism, a book in which he criticized anti-Americanism and Europeans who argued that the United States had brought the terrorist attacks upon itself by misguided foreign policies: "Obsessed by their hatred and floundering in illogicality, these dupes forget that the United States, acting in its own self-interest, is also acting in the interest of us Europeans and in the interests of many other countries which are threatened, or have already been subverted and ruined, by terrorism."

Personal life
He was survived by his second wife, Claude Sarraute, a journalist, and has three sons from two marriages. His first marriage to painter Yahne le Toumelin ended in divorce.

One of his sons, Matthieu Ricard, is a well-known Buddhist monk who studied molecular biology at the Pasteur Institute before converting to Tibetan Buddhism. Father and son jointly authored a book Le moine et le philosophe (The Monk and the Philosopher) about the son's conversion and Buddhism. Another son, Nicolas Revel, is a high-ranking functionary in the French civil service, and as of 2020 the director of the cabinet of the Prime Minister of France.

Accusation of pedo-criminality
In June 2024, Jean-François Revel was named in an investigation by the French newspaper Libération into the "men of rue du Bac". According to the daily, on October 23, 2023, the Paris public prosecutor's office opened a preliminary investigation into accusations that these "men" had repeatedly sexually abused Inès Chatin over several years when she was a child (aged 4 to 13).

The abuses and rapes were allegedly committed by a pedocriminal network, between 1977 and 1987, on her and other children during secret ceremonies16. This network is said to have included her adoptive father, Jean-François Lemaire, and several of his friends.

Thought
Belgian-Australian essayist and sinologist Simon Leys notes that "...what strikingly set [Revel] apart from most other intellectuals of his generation was his genuinely cosmopolitan outlook", as "on international affairs, on literature, art and ideas, he had universal perspectives that broke completely from the suffocating provincialism of the contemporary Parisian elites."

Of Revel's political thought, Clive James wrote that while he was "always characterized by the bien pensant left as a die-hard right-winger", he was "in fact a liberal democrat who was genuinely concerned that doctrinaire gauchiste measures would leave the underprivileged less privileged than ever."

Reception
In his book Cultural Amnesia, Clive James writes that "no political commentator anywhere is so consistently entertaining on such a high level", arguing that Revel writes in a style that is "gratifyingly clear in its structure, memorable for its vivid imagery, and consistently funny".

Legacy
In 2006, journalist and former editor-in-chief of Lire Pierre Boncenne published Pour Jean-François Revel ("In Defense of Jean-François Revel"), which received the Renaudot Prize for Essays.

In 2018, Jean-François Revel was included by Mario Vargas Llosa in his essay The Call of The Tribe, which explores liberalism and the works of liberal thinkers that influenced Vargas Llosa.

title: Jean-François Revel


text: Category:Politics of Korea

title: Category:Politics of Korea


text: User talk:12.214.179.99

title: User talk:12.214.179.99


text:
Talk:Visiting card

Copyvio
Moved from Copyright problems: End moved text
 * Visiting card partially from
 * The problem seems to go back to the earliest revision of Business card. No copyvio notice on either page yet. --rbrwr± 07:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The offending paragraph has been removed. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Business card
A Visiting card was (is) a quite another thing than a Business card. The articles should not be merged. /B****n (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur; they are distinctly different documents used for different purposes. Ray Trygstad (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Visiting cards are distinctly different from business cards. An explicit protocol for using visiting cards for both male and female evolved during the 18th and 19th centuries was described in etiquette books of the time. Visiting cards could be used to invite, announce, or snub, depending on how the card was given out. Please keep the two pages separate.vsanborn

They are similar, but distinctly different and should not be merged. Business cards are given to advertise a business or provide contact information to an existing client. Visiting cards are much more an aristocratic etiquette ritual than a simple dispensing of information. With this consensus, I am removing the merge suggestion. TransUtopian (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition?
What is a visiting card? A definition is needed for this article. Explorer09 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I added the following definition to the first sentence:
 * A visiting card, also known as a calling card, is a small paper card with one's name printed on it. They first appeared...

 * Jeff Muscato (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My correction of grammatical number (i.e. "their" to "his" and "her")
I changed this: Visiting cards became an indispensable tool of etiquette, with sophisticated rules governing their use. The essential convention was that one person would not expect to see another person in their own home (unless invited or introduced) without first leaving their visiting card with the person at their home. Upon leaving the card, they would not expect to be admitted at first, but might receive a card at their own home in response. This would serve as a signal that a personal visit and meeting at home would not be unwelcome. On the other hand, if no card was forthcoming in return, or if a card were sent in an envelope, a personal visit was thereby discouraged.

to this: Visiting cards became an indispensable tool of etiquette, with sophisticated rules governing their use. The essential convention was that one person would not expect to see another person in her own home (unless invited or introduced) without first leaving his visiting card with the person at her home. Upon leaving the card, he would not expect to be admitted at first, but might receive a card at his own home in response. This would serve as a signal that a personal visit and meeting at home would not be unwelcome. On the other hand, if no card was forthcoming in return, or if a card was sent in an envelope, a personal visit was thereby discouraged.

My corrections were not just for correct use of grammatical number (i.e. singular pronouns for singular nouns) but also for specific clarify: By using one masculine character and one feminine character, we make the writing clearer by distinguishing whose card and whose house we're discussing at each point.

Confusion
Can someone do something about a confusion in interwikis with the followings: Thank you. Bertrouf (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Carte de visite
 * visiting card
 * Business card

Misleading use of feminine pronouns
In the history section, the use of feminine pronouns leaves the reader with the impression that women often left visitor cards, or as frequently as men.

There is no support given in the article for the bottom that women of the time period engaged this kind of etiquette at all, and Victorian society had very different norms along gender boundaries so there is no reason to give this impression without evidence. This feels like inappropriate and possibly misleading use of politically correct language.

title: Talk:Visiting card


text:
Mexsana

Mexsana is an antiseptic medicated powder. It is used to relieve itching and chafing, to protect against perspiration odor and discomfort, while also keeping the skin's pH balanced. The product is also used to treat severely chapped skin, minor burns, and other minor skin irritations. Currently Mexsana medicated powder is produced by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) Laboratories.

Not to be confused with "Mexana" medicated powder, sold in the Dominican Republic.

Active Ingredients: Zinc oxide, kaolin, benzethonium chloride.

Also contains: Camphor, eucalyptus oil, fragrance, lemon oil.

Process
The product's elaboration process stands out for the strictness in its safety measures and also in the precise measures for weighting its components. The powder, mineral of less hardness in the Mohs scale, is the source that gives the name to the generic product used for personal hygienic purposes, and forms around 85% of the composition of the brand.

Initially, packages filled with huge amounts of this material, arranged in sacks of 25 kilograms each, are placed in warehouses that technically isolate the daily contamination, due to a sophisticated air flow mechanism.

In popular culture
A can of Mexsana brand heat powder can be found on the back of the Greatest Hits album of Mötley Crüe.

Products available in Colombia
Currently the brand has both powder and spray products available in the Colombian market (Made by Bayer Andina):

Powder

 * Talcos Mexsana
 * Lady Mexsana
 * Mexsana Avena

Sprays

 * Mexsana Pies
 * Lady Mexsana Antibacterial
 * Mexsana Pies Antiperspirant
 * Mexsana Pies Ultra
 * Mexsana Pies Avena

title: Mexsana