text:
Wikipedia:Goings-on/February 13, 2005

Welcome to Wikipedia's goings-on. This page is a central point for community members to collect current information about the community project and to report on recent goings-on. In a sense, it's an announcement page, but it is supposed to collect even those kinds of information that are normally not announced on pages like Announcements (e.g. arbitration progress, outspoken newcomers, amusing things, etc.). However, please notice that this page is explicitly not for discussion. When listing topics here that are being discussed or have been discussed, please link to the appropriate discussion page and discuss it there. For a project-wide update of events, see the Meta goings-on. For Votes see Current surveys.

This page is archived in a weekly digest-like fashion, every Sunday at 0:00 UTC.

{| cellspacing=3 width="100%"
 * bgcolor="#fffff6" colspan="2" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|

Goings-on in the week starting Sunday February 13 2005

 * The non-stub weekly collaboration Article Improvement Drive has been started.
 * End-user suppression of potentially offensive content - Recently, in various forums throughout Wikimedia, there has been much discussion about the appropriateness of certain content on Wikipedia, particularly sexually and medically explicit photos. There has been some agreement that, rather than participate in self-censorship, this problem could be dealt with at a technical level by allowing downstream users of Wikimedia projects to control for themselves if such content is removed, hidden (linked) or shown by default. You can contribute to this idea at End-user content suppression
 * A survey on the use of "rel=nofollow" in external links continues at Nofollow.
 * A press release is being worked on for the upcoming Wikimania 2005 conference.
 * Voting on a new Wikipedia portal has now finished.
 * The sixth edition of The Wikipedia Signpost is published.
 * A log of the open Wikimedia board meeting held on Tuesday is published on Meta.
 * A major vote opens at Talk:Gdansk/Vote to resolve the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and many other locations with a Polish/German history. Voting ends at 0:00 UTC on Friday, March 4.

 * - valign="top"
 * bgcolor="#fffff6" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|

Articles featured on the Main Page
 * Bryce Canyon National Park (February 13)
 * Mary I of England (February 14)
 * History of Russia (February 15)
 * Commonwealth of Nations (February 16)
 * Mor lam (February 17)
 * Graffiti (February 18)
 * Xenu (February 19)

 * bgcolor="#fffff6" style="border: 1px solid black;padding-left:1em;"|

Articles that gained "featured" status
 * Space Race (February 15)
 * AEJ Collins (February 15)
 * Sikkim (February 15)
 * Great Lakes Storm of 1913 (February 17)
 * Names of God in Judaism (February 17)
 * League of Nations (February 17)
 * Michel Foucault (February 17)
 * Nafaanra language (February 17)
 * War of the Spanish Succession (February 17)
 * BZFlag (February 19)

Pictures that gained "featured" status
 * Wakizashi style sword mounting (February 14)
 * Destitute pea pickers in California (February 19)
 * }

title: Wikipedia:Goings-on/February 13, 2005


text:
Talk:Casualty

Action suggested
I would suggest that the stubbed portion of the article be transwiki'd to Wiktionary. Courtland 02:37, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

removed superlative claim from description
I just WikiGnomed a bit of stuff and after deliberation, I removed the description of Casualty (TV series) as "the world's longest running emergency medical drama". It could be true now, but it might not be in the future, and if it changes in the future, the chances that anyone will think to come to this page and update are pretty small. If we try to weigh that problem against the problems with not listing that superlative on this page -- well, there aren't any. No one is going to say "Hey, I'm looking for the article about the British emergency medical drama called Casualty which is the longest-running in the world, but this can't be the article I'm looking for -- sure, it's a British emergency medical drama called Casualty, but there's no sign it's the longest-running!" -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Casualty (person) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Casualty


text:
Talk:Monk (TV series)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Monk (TV series). 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/20120214211021/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/02/26/top-cable-shows-feb-18-24-nick-is-king-of-cable/2771/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/02/26/top-cable-shows-feb-18-24-nick-is-king-of-cable/2771/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329231631/http://www.my9tv.com/dpp/e_biz/monk-to-return-to-tv-in-2-hour-movie_20120217 to http://www.my9tv.com/dpp/e_biz/monk-to-return-to-tv-in-2-hour-movie_20120217
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091227214935/http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/behindthescenes/podcast/ to http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/behindthescenes/podcast
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107013441/http://www.mynetworktv.com/shows.php?show=155 to http://www.mynetworktv.com/shows.php?show=155

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) 10:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Monk (TV series). 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/20080513082843/http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/behindthescenes/monknews/news043008.html to http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/behindthescenes/monknews/news043008.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321132053/http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/james-hibberd/2007/12/monk_psych_to_get_nbc_run.php to http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/james-hibberd/2007/12/monk_psych_to_get_nbc_run.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203091528/http://www.leegoldberg.com/monk.html to http://www.leegoldberg.com/monk.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625023318/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/813233 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/813233

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) 15:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

OCD, or OCPD?
The Adrian Monk article claimed (for the most part) that his diagnosis is obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. This article uniformly claims that it is obsessive-compulsive disorder. Hoberman is said to have OCD. I do not have access to the sources which are cited for these things; it has also been suggested to me that Mr. Monk's symptoms and behavior changed during the course of the series, and so may have features of both. Elizium23 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Monk Can't See a Thing
What is the basis for the claim that this episode is adapted from the novel Mr. Monk Goes to the Firehouse? This isn't stated in the episode's credits, the titles are different, and the only thing the episode has in common with the novel is a single plot point: the premises are completely different, the victim is completely different, the killer is completely different, the clues are completely different, the sub-plots are completely different, the story progression is completely different, etc. And we don't have a source backing the claim.

If there isn't a good answer to the above question, I propose we remove the claim from the article and move the "Mr. Monk Can't See a Thing" content out of the Mr. Monk Goes to the Firehouse article and back into its own article. Alternatively, we could change the redirect target for Mr. Monk Can't See a Thing back to List of Monk episodes.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been a week with no response, so I'll assume there are no objections and proceed with the proposed changes.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sharona is missing
Sharona is missing from the list of characters 2601:282:117F:1A20:C8BD:AF02:4EF1:FCED (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks for catching that. An editor was a little overzealous in removing links to a deleted article. It's been restored. DonQuixote (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Monk and the Badge
In a sequel to the "Mr. Monk Can't See a Thing" thread, what is the basis for the claim that this episode is adapted from the novel Mr. Monk and the Blue Flu? As with Mr. Monk Goes to the Firehouse/"Mr. Monk Can't See a Thing", there seem to be no sources supporting this claim and almost no commonalities between the two works. Barring a good basis for the claim, I propose we remove it from the article, delete the "Mr. Monk and the Badge" content (which is completely unsourced) from the Mr. Monk and the Blue Flu article, and change the redirect target for Mr. Monk and the Badge back to List of Monk episodes.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 * It's been a month with no response, so I'll again assume there are no objections and proceed with the proposed changes. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Monk (TV series)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hay Shed

Hay Shed
A typical Australian Hay Shed featuring open sides. May be round bales of straw, not hay, but resolution not good enough to be certain, but colour is more in keeping with straw.
 * Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Its typical but its boring. Sorry - William M. Connolley 13:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC).
 * Oppose. An interesting picture, but sadly the highlights on the hay are way overexposed. - Adrian Pingstone 14:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Adrian. Mgm|(talk) 19:59, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Enochlau 23:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Just not interesting enough. Perhaps stand back a little :) Longhair 20:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not promoted +1/-5 BrokenSegue 18:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Baix Vinalopó

The Baix Vinalopó (Bajo Vinalopó, lit. "Lower Vinalopó") is a comarca in the province of Alicante (Valencian Community, Spain). It is bordered by the comarques of Vinalopó Mitjà and Alacantí on the north and Vega Baja del Segura on the south. Its capital is the city of Elche/Elx, with a population of 232,517 in 2019. The other major towns in the comarca are Crevillent/Crevillente and Santa Pola.

Vinalopó river flows through this comarca giving its name to it, even though nowadays is just a tiny stream more than a proper river. The territory is mostly flat except for some of the last ranges belonging to the Baetic System which appear here near the border with the neighbouring comarcas Vinalopó Mitjà, following a general southwest-northeast trend. The highest peaks are found in the Serra de Crevillent (Sierra de Crevillente), a mountain range close to Crevillent/Crevillente, being its highest the Sant Gaietà with its 816 metres, a local hiking attraction.

Its climate is dry, with scarce rainfalls—below the Mediterranean climate threshold—which happen mostly in Autumn and Spring amounting an average of 250–300 mm per year and showing relatively warm mean temperatures. Among the herbaceous species, esparto and shrub deserve to be mentioned due to their industrial value in the past. Some important natural places are the swamps in the lower part of the comarca known as El Fondo Natural Park and the Salines de Santa Pola Natural Park, both Ramsar sites.

The comarca is highly industrial, especially in its capital, Elche, and also in the town of Crevillent/Crevillente. Agriculture is also an important activity in the area. In the coastline around Santa Pola the main activity is tourism, fisheries and sea salt.

Municipalities

The comarca contains just three municipalities, listed below with their areas and populations:

title: Baix Vinalopó


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fungusicle

 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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fungusicle
No hits on google. CJCurrie 02:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is created by a user who persistently creates neologisms with "polis". I tried to talk to him, in vain. I consider this vandalism, hence speedily deleted. Mikkalai 04:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As per the explanation at Votes for deletion/Phonisicle Delete. Uncle G 02:47, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anon user has created several neologism articles. Rhobite 02:52, Feb 13, 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.


text:
User:Eaglet

--No longer active--

title: User:Eaglet


text:
Bob Buhl

Robert Ray Buhl (August 12, 1928 – February 16, 2001) was an American right-handed starting pitcher in Major League Baseball who played with the Milwaukee Braves, Chicago Cubs, and Philadelphia Phillies.

A native of Saginaw, Michigan, Buhl attended Saginaw High School. In his 15-year professional career Buhl posted a 166–132 record with 1,288 strikeouts and a 3.55 ERA in 2,587 innings. He pitched 111 complete games and compiled 20 shutouts. He was first signed to a major league contract in 1953 by Milwaukee Braves scout Earle W. Halstead.

Buhl compiled an 8–1 record against the National League champion Brooklyn Dodgers in 1956, en route to an 18-win season. He repeated as an 18-game winner the following year, helping the Braves capture NL pennants in both 1957 and 1958 as the third starter behind Warren Spahn and Lew Burdette.

In 1957, Buhl led the National League in winning percentage (.720), with an 18–7 record.

In 1959, Buhl won 15 games and led the National League with four shutouts. His most productive season came in 1960, when he finished with a 16–9 record, a 3.09 ERA and an All-Star berth.

In 1962, Buhl was traded to the Cubs after appearing in just one game for the Braves. He had 12 wins against 13 losses, a considerably better percentage than the 9th-place Cubs (59–103 .364) achieved overall that year.

He was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies in 1966 in a deal that brought future Hall-of-Famer Ferguson Jenkins to Chicago.

In 1962, Buhl failed to get a hit in 70 at-bats, the worst single-season batting performance in major league history. Baseball author Bill James named Buhl as the worst hitting pitcher of the 1950s. For his career, Buhl had a batting average of .089, with just two extra-base hits (both doubles) in 857 at-bats, for a slugging percentage of .091.

Fellow pitcher Sal Maglie observed, "Buhl gets wild when he's hit a little."

Buhl died in Titusville, Florida on February 16, 2001, just two days before the death of his Braves roommate Eddie Mathews.

title: Bob Buhl


text:
User:Zoe

Jimbo accused me of having a vendetta against Mr. Pierce. Such an attack is too much for me to endure. I have loved my time at Wikipedia, but I do not feel that I can continue here. Goodbye. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User:Zoe


text:
Talk:Communist Party of Sri Lanka

Fair use rationale for Image:Cyfsrilanka.jpg
Image:Cyfsrilanka.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist Party of Sri Lanka. 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/20071128093600/http://www.marxist.com/sri-lanka-militancy280800-4.htm to http://www.marxist.com/sri-lanka-militancy280800-4.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) 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Position
The party is Far-left as they claim, regardless what other parties may say. Atleast by common sense any major communist party is considered Far-left. Kommune12 (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Communist Party of Sri Lanka


text:
Peter Frechette

Peter Frechette (born October 3, 1956) is an American actor. He is a stage actor with two Tony Award nominations for Eastern Standard and Our Country's Good, and frequently stars in the plays of Richard Greenberg. He is well known on TV for playing hacker George on the NBC series Profiler and Peter Montefiore on Thirtysomething. In film, he is known for playing T-Bird Louis DiMucci in the musical Grease 2.

Early life
Raised in Coventry, Rhode Island, Frechette is the youngest of five children. His father was an efficiency expert and his mother a nurse. Frechette earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Theater from the University of Rhode Island.

Theater
Frechette first appeared on the professional stage at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe as part of the Rhode Island Summer Ensemble, starring with Chel Chenier in the comedy Pontifications on Puberty and Pigtails in 1979.

He received high praise in 1981 for his work in two different productions of Harry Ruby's Songs My Mother Never Sang. The same year he starred in the one-act Off-Broadway production of In Cahoots, part of the Three Hopefuls MARATHON (featuring two other one-act productions). He left to work in Los Angeles, but returned in 1984 to star in Bob Merrill's Musical We're Home, and again in 1987's revised production of Flora the Red Menace (he also recorded songs for the cast album).

In 1988, he returned to live in New York City to take the lead role of Drew Paley in the Off-Broadway production of Eastern Standard by Richard Greenberg, costarring Patricia Clarkson, Dylan Baker, and Kevin Conroy. The show transferred to Broadway in December 1989 and he remained in the cast throughout the run despite filming the television series Dream Street simultaneously in New Jersey (he filmed every day and performed every night for three months).

Frechette earned the Drama Desk Award, Outer Critics Circle Award and Theatre World Award for best actor, and was nominated for a Tony Award. The same year, he starred in The American Place Theatre's Off-Broadway production of Hyde in Hollywood (he would return to the role of communist screenwriter Jake Singer for a television version of the play two years later).

In 1991, he starred opposite Cherry Jones in Our Country's Good, which resulted in a second Tony nomination for best actor. The same year he co-starred in Absent Friends as grief-stricken Colin. In 1992, he appeared in Bob Merrill's last Broadway musical (and cast recording) of Hannah...1939 and Larry Kramer's autobiographical The Destiny of Me. He also appeared on Broadway in the original productions of Any Given Day (1993) and The Play's the Thing (1995), as well as the 2005 revival of The Odd Couple as Roy (and understudy for Matthew Broderick's Felix Unger).

He's appeared at the Roundabout Theatre in three productions: The Play's the Thing (1995), Hurrah at Last (1999) and The Dazzle (2002). For The Dazzle, he and Reg Rogers were both nominated for Drama League Award for Distinguished Performance and Lucille Lortel Award for Best Actor (Rogers won); the two shared the Obie Award for best actor for their performances as the co-dependent Collier Brothers. They originated the show in 2000 at the New York Stage and Film at Vassar College's Powerhouse Theater.

Frechette was part of the west to east coast transfer of Hurrah at Last, in the role of Laurie. He earned the Backstage West Garland Award in 1998 for his performance produced by the South Coast Repertory. He also appeared in their productions of Night and Her Stars and The Extra Man. In 2016, he returned to the theater company in the role of Joseph II in Amadeus.

Frechette was a member of the resident ensemble at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival for five years (2011–15). He has also worked with national regional companies including the Seattle Repertory Theatre, Berkeley Repertory Theatre, George Street Playhouse, Cape Playhouse, The Old Globe, La Jolla Playhouse, Mark Taper Forum, Berkshire Playhouse, and the Pasadena Playhouse as an actor and instructor since leaving New York City.

Frechette is a founding member of the New York theater company The Drama Department (along with David Warren, Cynthia Nixon, Patricia Clarkson, Hope Davis, John Slattery, Michael Rosenberg and John Cameron Mitchell).

Film and television
Frechette's made his film debut in Grease 2 (1982) as T-Bird Louis DiMucci. He appeared on the film's soundtrack (including a solo version of 'Let's Do It For Our Country', a satirical duet ballad he performed with Maureen Teefy in the film). He went on to appear in the pilot of Voyagers! (as Eddie Rickenbacker).

He appeared in two episodes of The Facts of Life which served as backdoor pilots for a series about an all-boys military academy. The would-be series would have starred Jimmy Baio with Frechette as the primary antagonist, but it was not picked up to series. He continued appearing in films, mostly horror films including The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984), The Kindred (1987), The Unholy (1988) and Paint it Black (1989).

He had a large role in the 1984 comedy No Small Affair as Jon Cryer's older brother. He made guest appearances on Taxi, The Renegades, Hill Street Blues, Hotel, It's a Living, Cagney & Lacey, Matlock, and, most notably, in two episodes of L.A. Law as Christopher Appleton, an HIV-positive gay man who claimed to have killed his lover as an act of mercy because he was dying from AIDS.

Frechette was cast as one of the three leads of 1989's Dream Street, the unofficial blue-collar spin-off of Thirtysomething (it lasted 6 episodes, airing as a mid-season replacement). In November 1989, Frechette guest-starred in the Thirtysomething episode "Strangers" (season 3, episode 6), as Peter Montefiore, a man who goes on a date with recurring character Russell Weller (David Marshall Grant). Frechette and Weller appeared in bed, seemingly naked after having had sexual relations following a first date, generating controversy. A number of advertisers refused to run commercials during the broadcast, and ABC opted not to air the episode again during summer reruns (it has since returned to the syndication schedule and was released in the season three DVD box set).

Frechette was nominated for the Emmy Award for Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series for his performance. He returned for three more episodes of Thirtysomething in season 4, a small appearance in "The Haunting of DAA" and as part of the inner-circle of friends in the episodes "New Year's Eve" and "Closing the Circle".

The same year he appeared in the first season of Law & Order as Jack Curry in 'The Reaper's Helper", an HIV positive man committing "mercy killings" for others diagnosed with AIDS. He would appear in two more episodes of Law & Order (and one episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent). In 1992, he had a recurring role in the first season of Picket Fences.

In 1993. he co-starred in the critically acclaimed Barbarians at the Gate. The following year, he starred in the Lifetime film Against Her Will: The Carrie Buck Story. In 1996 he appeared in the pilot for the NBC series Profiler as computer expert/hacker George Fraley. Between shooting the pilot and being picked up, the producers made his character a regular and would remain on the show throughout the entire run.

In 2006, he took on the substantial role of bank manager Peter Hammond in Spike Lee's heist film Inside Man. He also appeared in small roles in various films, including The First Wives Club and Miracle at St. Anna. In 2016, he appeared as a high-powered divorce attorney on the television series Devious Maids.

Personal life
Frechette's partner since 1988 is director David Warren. They married in 2017.

title: Peter Frechette


text:
Talk:Pope Linus

Untitled
On this topic as on so many others, Wikipedia reproduces the uncritical treatment of Linus in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, which was already out of date a century ago. It is agreed by modern scholarship that at this early date, and indeed well into the second century, there was not a single bishop with authority over all Christians in Rome (let alone over the 'Catholic Church' as a whole), but rather a number of 'bishops' (called indifferently 'episkopoi' or 'presbyteroi') -- as is clear from the contemporary evidence of the First Letter of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. By the latter part of the second century this had been forgotten, and a list of bishops of Rome was concocted, but it is not historical. There may indeed have been a Linus active in the Roman Church in the second half of the first century, but nothing is known about his rank or role. -- RMP, 29 July 2013.

Isn't it a bit anachronistic to refer to Linus as the "Pope" throughout this article? I mean, even the office of bishop wasn't formalized yet in the first century. It's fair to say that as the second leader of the Roman church, he is counted as the second "Pope," but he sure didn't make any claims to be the father of the entire church at that time. That came quite a bit later. Fishal 02:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why has this article been classified as a stub? It is quite comprehensive and there is not really much more information which can be added. --Funtriviafan 07:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Existence
I'm not an expert on the subject, but shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that it's Linus' factual existence is controversial? If I have time, I will look up sources and edit accordingly, but I point it out, should anyone else be eager to edit. --Clementduval 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I have just attempted to do a major edit, after wasting 90 minutes I uploaded it only to be told I needed to exit and log in again, this I did and confirmed it was my work. Nothing happened except all my work was lost. No I am afraid this is a Catholic controlled site and they dare not let the truth appear. User Zalanr 1600 hours BST 2 May 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalanr (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Preceeded Peter??
I am reverting it is probable that Saint Linus was in fact the first Pope I am reverting ''Linus was the son of Caratacus, Llyn being his Celtic name. I am unaware of any evidence for these claims--ClemMcGann 02:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Preceeded Peter??
I recommend restoring it is probable that Saint Linus was in fact the first Pope

2 Timothy 4:21 Paul is writing to Linus in Rome. Linus was active as a Bishop in Rome (on Pauls instructions) before Peter arrived at Rome, and was undoubtably one of the Christians in Rome both Peter and Paul desired to see. It is only Roman Catholic tradition that teaches otherwise. This is understandable of course, because who wants to belong to the Church Linus built. Unfortunately tradition is not factually correct. The Church made the switch in the order of Popes to ensure Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and I've heard some Roman Catholics concede as much.

Further corroboration of Linus' appointment as the First Bishop of Rome can be found in the writings of St. Peter himself. His words, preserved in the "Apostolic Constitutions" (Bk. I, Chap. 46) read: ' 'Concerning those Bishops who have been ordained in our lifetime, we make known to you that they are these; of Antioch Eudius, ordained by me, Peter; of the Church of Rome, Linus, brother of Claudia, was first ordained by Paul, and after Linus' death, Clemens, the second ordained by me, Peter.'' In another statement Peter affirms that Linus was a Briton, son of a royal king. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (Born cir. A.D. 130) and later Bishop of Smyrna, also confirms Linus' appointment. He wrote: "The apostles, having founded and built up the Church at Rome, committed the ministry of its supervision to Linus. This is the Linus mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to Timothy." (Irenaei Opera Lib. III. C.I.).

I've seen the comments that Irenaeus' comments are also disputed, however Irenaeus is not the only one who draws that connection. No one would dispute Peter's words, or else much more is in doubt than simply Linus' lineage.

Lack of awareness on your part is not sufficent, I think, to justify exclusion of the info. At least it should be mentioned that the sequence itself is in doubt.

I think it is note worthy what was brought up earlier that the role of "bishop" was still be established in the apostlic century. Still it is held by Roman Catholics that since Peter is the leader of the Church (Mt. 16:19), that his ordaining Linus as a 'Bishop of Rome' makes him a reasonable candadite for the seccessor of Peter. You could argue that he is therefore the First Bishop of Rome, but this does not change the role of Peter as the first leader of the Church (after the death of Jesus). In fact your evidence is supports claims of Papal succession. It appears there is debate of whether or not St. Clement was the fourth or second 'Pope' i.e. Bishop of Rome. Peter's seccessor of Linus as the first 'Pope' or 'Bishop of Rome' might help explain this. Depending on the expectance of Pope Saint Evaristus's exiatance or role in the Chruch of Rome also impacting the numbering. None of this changes the concept of the Church being built on St. Peter, or even the ligitimcy of the Bishop of Rome's claim to be the successor of Peter. Also worth noting even outside of Roman Catholisim Orthodox and many other Christian Churches teach of the importance and leadership of Peter in the early Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.17.88 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

--WikiRat 02:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The Timothy letter seems to be the only comtemporary source; all later accounts are apparently preceded by Irenaeus, who may not be the most reliable source since Adversus Haereses is a propagandistic text building the very case it somments upon (i.e., unbroken apostolic succession). This should be remarked in the article; although it raises doubt about some internal workings of Catholicism, at face value (or NPOV, if you will) it is as it is: we have no reliable testimony about the exact nature of relationships between Linus and the Papacy, as historical references discussing this are at least in all probability hagiographical. The utter lack about good sources about Pope Anacletus (AKA Anencletus or possibly Cletus, though not even Catholicism agrees on this) strongly suggests that much of what we "know" about the man Linus is retcon; the main difference between Anacletus and Linus is that the authority of the Papacy crucially hinges on the latter, but not the former. Dysmorodrepanis 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if Linus preceeded Peter as Bishop of Rome, that would not make him the first pope, but rather not pope at all. According to the Catholic Tradition Peter is the first pope (thought certainly not under that title) because Christ made him so. Therefore only his successors can according to Catholic belief be popes, and that because they succeed Peter as head of the Church, not simply by being Bishop of Rome. "Pope" equals "Bishop of Rome" is a Protestant concept. Had Peter say stayed in Antioch, then the Popes would style themselves Bishops of Antioch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Preceeded Peter??
I haven't read about who came first, Peter or Linus, and so can't enter the argument. It seems reasonable (though I suppose controversial), but I am fairly certain about Linus being the son of Caratacus. BTW his name was "Lleyn" - NOT "Llyn" as someone wrote above. I also read somewhere that his brother Cyllinus may have inherited the Silurian throne.

 * Dear Wiki Rat, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That mean that it is a repository of existing knowledge. It is not a place for original research. see Wikipedia:No original research. You have some theories. You might be "fairly certain about Linus being the son of Caratacus", but unless you can quote an authorative source, it cannot be added to Wikipedia. Your theory that Linus preceeded Peter is original. Again you need an authorative source. You can't use your interpretation of scripture. If you can find an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, then perhaps it can be added. Until then, I'm reverting.--ClemMcGann 09:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The understanding that Linus is the son of [Caradoc|Caratacus] is based on a mistranslation of Dio Cassius that called him (Caratacus) a "barbarian Christian" rather than, correctly translate: "barbarian cheiftain."L Hamm 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ClemMcGann
Thank you for pointing out the purpose of this site. I am well aware of its purpose. However lets be clear - It was 131.137.245.199 who is uncertain about Linus’ lineage, and not I (actually I was wrong - 131.137.245.199 seems unclear of the ordering of appointments, not the lineage issue).

However, on the issue of the order of Church appointments, I have cited no less than Saint Peter himself as my source. Since this is an encyclopaedia, as you point out, it should not be the subject of favoured theological doctrine. Also, I would like to direct your attention to Key Policy #2 which states: '' Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject factually and objectively.''. Feel free also to check out Key Policy #4

Peter’s words are “original source” and should weigh far better than “a peer-reviewed academic journal”. Again, check out Peter’s words in Apostolic Constitutions" (Bk. I, Chap. 46) where Peter himself, comments on the order of appointments.

If you care to dispute Peter’s words as non-authoritative than you have a much larger task ahead of you than simply reverting my contributions to this article. You’ll have to start editing all articles on Catholicism, Early Church History, or Theology that may have been influence by Peter’s teachings.

Finally, I would like to respectfully register my frustration at your tone, which conveys ever-so-slightly the implication that my contribution to this article, is nothing more than meaningless. In good faith I have provided what most reasonable people would be to consider an authority. Though you may not be famaliar with Peter's words, reasonable people have concluded, as I have, that the appointment of Linus as the first Bishop of Rome is reasonable. Furthermore, it explains some of the traditional "ordering" problems cited in this very article. Paul first appoints Linus, and upon his death, Peter appoints Clement. Also, this article (as you keep restoring it), claims that Timothy 4:21's reference to Linus is questionable, yet the relationship between Linus, Claudia (Gladys) and Pudens (not Pudens the senator, but the junior) are pretty well documented, and their position as the first Christian's also fairly well known. When Peter and Paul visited Rome they did so for the purpose of visiting Linus and Pudens (who may have been Paul's half-brother).

Again, lack of awareness on your part (or perhaps the adoption of a favoured theological slant) should not suffice for exclusion of information that is part of the public record, and presented by a fairly “authoritative source” (assuming you’d Agree that Peter’s words ought to carry some weight).

Where is the middleground therefore? I recommend that we enter a paragraph that cites Peter's words, and state no more than these words have lead some to argue that Linus may have been appointed the first Bishop of Rome by Saint Paul, however this is in dispute. Would you agree to that compromise?

 * Dear WikiRat, first it would be nice if you signed your words. This can be done by appending --~
 * While I have some sympathy for your point of view, I doubt that wikipedia is the place for it, at least as it currently stands. Just to repeat Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable from another authorative source.  See Verifiability.  Regrettably we cannot use my interpretation nor your interpretation of the writings of Peter or any scripture.  For example you doubt claims that Timothy 4:21's reference to Linus is questionable.  You were wrong, in wikipedia terms, to remove this sentence.  It has a source (actually many sources) The Catholic Encyclopaedia says that "we cannot be certain"  therefore, in wikipedia terms, it is questionable.  Even if you are certain that Timothy was referring to Pope Linus, you can't state it as a fact if an accepted source says otherwise.  You say I have cited no less than Saint Peter himself as my source., yet historians have read those same words and have concluded that Linus succeeded rather than preceded Peter.  If you want to present your theory, you need a source. If authorities differ then both views can be presented.  You said Peter’s words are “original source” and should weigh far better than “a peer-reviewed academic journal”.  Unfortunately that is not the way wikipedia works.  A view in a peer-reviewed academic journal is preferred.   If you can Cite sources then your theory can be included.  If not it will be reverted.  At best we can add that British-Israelites hold such a view. Nor can we admit long 'proofs' of a theory which is at odds with the accepted academic view.--ClemMcGann 11:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A little research shows that the above reference to the Apostolic Constitutions is innacurate. A translation is available on CCEL (ain't the internet wonderful?). The relevant passage is in Book VII, Section IV, not Book 1 Ch 46, and it says that Linus is Claudia's son, not brother. WikiRat, I've no doubt you've taken the reference in good faith from a secondary source, but it appears to be inaccurate. --Nicknack009 23:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

-- What is Reasonable?
ClemMcGann, I've looked over Cite sources, and read the Catholic Encyclopaedia links you provided. I've also read additional articles at the same source on Saint Peter, and thank you for pointing them out. The issue here is not who is referenced in 2 Timothy. Nor is the issue whose interpretation is correct (yours or mine), rather the issue here is who was appointed the first Bishop of Rome. Perhaps to Roman Catholics, the historical record is beyond examination, however to non-Roman Catholics it is not. Unfortunately there is some very subtle implications being made here, to avoid accepting a justified change.

Let me therefore comment;

Peter's words found in "Apostolic Constitutions", comment on the appointment of Rome's first Bishop and give useful information about Saint Linus. Peter is a far better authority on the matter, than even the Catholic Encyclopaedia, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia itself treats Peter's words in the "Apostolic Constitutions" as authoritative. Both the reference you cite, and other experts, therefore, treat Peter's words, as authoritative. You can hardly justify, then, the exclusion of Peter's word as non-authoritative. You indicate your belief, that his words are being interpreted to justify a “theory”, implying that the acceptance of Peter's word at face value, are nothing less than unjustified acceptances of speculation. If we accepted Peter's words as authoritative, as the source you provide (the Catholic Encyclopaedia) does, than clearly there is nothing speculative about it. They clearly indicate Peter's opinion that Saint Linus was appointed first Bishop of  Rome by Saint Paul.

You argue that historians accept Peter as the first Bishop of Rome. This is not quite correct. Catholic historians consider the matter settled perhaps, however there is less consensus than you state. Historians (protestant, agnostic and otherwise) disagree on the matter and have debated who was the first Bishop of Rome, and what are the facts surrounding the establishment of the first Church.

In trying to objectively sort out who was appointed first Bishop of Rome, and how were the first Christians related,  many historians have dared venture beyond the arguments cited in  the Catholic Encyclopaedia. There may be a theory here, but if there is one, it is the popular Catholic theory that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. FromCatholic Encyclopaedia (again your source not mine), the reference for this idea is theological interpretation of [Matt 16:17-19] that holds Christ instituted the supreme head of the Catholic Church. If we accept that, we cannot dispute what is being disputed here. Of course we could argue that the Bible is not an authoritative source because it is neither peer reviewed nor universally accepted, however, for the sake of argument let's accept its credibility.

“Rome” appears 20 times in the Bible (10 in the Old Testament, 10 in the New Testament), and Peter is never mentioned in connection with it. Reading Peter's epistles, we do not even see a single allusion to Rome. Yet Paul's journey's to Rome monopolizes all of Acts 27 and Acts 28. There is no evidence in the New Testament, or any historical proof that Peter was even ever in Rome, but I am sure you would not argue we remove that from Wikipedia based upon a lack of evidence. There is probably not an “expert” alive that would dispute Paul was the first to visit Rome.

Considering the validity of Peter's words, the evidence alone justifies keeping the proposed changes that have been added as reasonable (and authoritative). Please stop trying to imply that Wikipedia is being used as a proving ground for theories, when in fact it is being used to support theological interpretations (Catholic if anything). Also, there is no need add that this is a British-Israelite view (whether it is or not). I am neither interested in Catholic nor British-Israel theology.

This edit is being made to improve the article on Saint Linus by contributing additional (and verifiable) knowledge about the intended subject by citing a reliable source. Having said all that, the proposed changes have considered the popular view, have not changed the order of the Popes, as taught by the Church, or otherwise molested what is known about Saint Linus. These edits have merely commented on and included the words of a Roman Catholic Saint and Church Father, that contradict the popular view of Saint Linus' roll in Church History.

PS Thanks again for teaching me about useful Wikipedia tricks (see immediately below)

--WikiRat 04:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

When did he become pope
I've read over all the points put forward by both sides concerning who was first mentioned in apostolic letters and who first was in Rome, however, in the gospels it clearly says that Christ told Peter to "lead my sheep", Linus isn't mentioned in the Bible until after Christ's death, where Peter is mentioned in the gospels. Also, one would have to ask how if Linus was not an apostle in the sense of the 12 apostles how h could have become leader of the faith without receiving it from one of the original apostles, who would therefore predate him as the first pope in the sense of leading the Christian community. Lastly, Paul's letters were written in the 50s and 60s, traditional theory holds that Peter was pope from somewhere in the 30s until the 60s, so Pauls letters would be looking back and might assume the reader is familiar with the Peterine leadership. Lastly, while I recognize that few people would want a church built on Linus, the Gospels written in the 60-90s clearly show the primacy of Peter and are probably a better source then later documents. Mbisanz 00:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Linus was no pope. Peter was no Pope, period. The papacy is an institution that was made up far later. --154.69.0.125 (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Trivia
1., Local religious book says Linus was a negro.

2., Linus was either the first or the second pope depending on definiton: a., pope = "heir to Peter" b., pope = "the guy who sits on Peter's throne"

Now, reading all this wisdom plese stop arguing nonsense whether Linus preceded Peter. (This commonet made by an anon editor from IP 195.70.48.242 at 10:57, 29 August 2005, llywrch)

Dates
Many dates with lower numerals and higher are preceded or succeded by AD/BC dates. To me any number under 4 digets should have on or the other by it...otherwise it looks funny. As for the Era system I believe since this is about the Catholic Church and in extention Christianity it should have the BC/AD. Your opinions? Chooserr
 * Is there a widespread precedent for your stylistic preferences on other articles dealing with 1st-century topics? If so, then I agree that adding CE/BCE markers to this article is appropriate.  Otherwise, let's stick with the status quo.  IMHO it's obvious when one is referring to dates. —Psychonaut 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine I'll wait...but if it gets either it should recieve the BC/AD dates because it is a christian article and that is the standard dating system. Chooserr

POV?
There seems to be a gross amount of propaganda within the article for the supposed argument of certain protestant scholars. The main point is that, traditionally, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and most Protestants alike will accept that Linus succeeded Peter and was succeeded by Cletus. The article should reflect this. Discussion of the minority viewpoint should be placed under another heading. The article should be modified accordingly. --- posted by 70.144.54.19

 * I know. So, if you have the time, why don't you correct it?  I tried.  You might have more persistence and success ClemMcGann 10:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Who was the first pope?
Though it is probable that Linus was the first Pope, the position of Supreme Pontiff (being the leader of the Roman Catholic Church) ought to be defined by the religion the position is applicable to. Since the Roman Catholic Church defines Peter as the first Pope it would be right to state it as such. The reason would simply be because the official position of Supreme Pontiff did not come into effect until later after both Peter and Linus thus all Popes who reigned before the time of the first official pope would have to be named Pope by the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, it is right to list Peter as the first pope.

This idea does not favor any religion. However, it is the right of the Roman Catholic Church to state who was the first Pope as the office of Pope is of the Roman Catholic Church. There are some beliefs that the apostle John was the first Pope and that Peter was appointed by him but the fact that some believe this does not make it correct. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first Pope does not make that teaching correct either, but it does make that belief right.

The Bottom Line is it is the right of the Roman Catholic Church to define who was the first Pope. I doubt there is a soul alive who truly knows but if the Roman Catholic Church teaches something about themselves, it should be respected.--Mellar (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Mellar, I wish you well. You might find that in matters of religion and politics, there are those who would rather avoid being logical and consistent.  ClemMcGann (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Mellar, your statement it is the right of the Roman Catholic Church to define who was the first Pope is not at all logical. Truth is not something that belongs solely to a certain group of people. Yes, they have the right to believe what they want, but they have no right to demand that the rest of the world must follow their delusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.199.85 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I've added the statement that he "was an early Christian leader who is believed by the Roman Catholic Church to have been pope," which I think more neutrally-worded. Until we can invent a time machine and check this stuff out, it's conjecture. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

96.252.17.88 (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Logically. since the Roman Catholic Church created the potistion and term and very word of 'Pope' they do have the right to decide who is the first, being Peter. As for the first 'Bishop of Rome' that could be desputed chiefly by Orthodox Christians such as Eastern Orthodox (who reconized the Bishops of Rome as being an important part of their history and therefore their religion and the Chruch as a whole). Historians could interpret literally which bishop was first to have Rome as it's providance or even which person being titled Bishop first tuaght in Rome. For the most part this still leaves Peter as the first 'Bishop of Rome' since even the word "Rome" could be refering to the city or empire (of which the enirity of Christianity was founded in. Jesus having never left 'Rome' the empire in his 3 years preaching). As is obivious the semantics can be argued into complete pointlessness. Nevertheless the pratical reality is that the Catholic Church's teaching of Peter as the First Pope, is most widely excepted as both true and the very meaning of the defintion of the word 'Pope'.96.252.17.88 (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Linus's grave?
It mentions on Find A Grave's page on Pope Anencletus that "He was buried near Saint Linus, where his relics remain." I have not, however, found info on the actual grave of Linus himself. (Not counting the incorrect one found in the 17th century) So either:

A. It was a symbolic grave (with no actual body) like funerals with empty coffins today.

B. Some damage was done to the extent that Linus's body doesn't actually exist anymore.

C. Linus's body actually does exist but seemingly no one notes it on Google. --Mrdie (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Administrators Read this Please You want to See this!
Back the English name Please Because the Infobox Name of The Old Changes of this Page is Becomes Bad,The Infobox Name and the Page Name is Similar.For Sample, The Page Name is Pope Paul I and the Infobox Name is Pope Paul I Too but the Orginal is, The Page Name is Pope Paul I and The Infobox Name is Paul I Not Pope Paul I and You See that the Deletion of English Name is Making English Wikipedia Pages So Bad Simple Lang Ako (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pope Linus


text:
Talk:Fenian Cycle

I think that this article has progressed beyond stub status, so I'm removing it. Arbadihist 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Where should I read it? When was it composed? And when was it written? --Leonardo T. de Oliveira 17:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded - and does anyone have a relevant ISBN? Cheers --Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.41.50 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

This link is very nice but does not seem to have any Fenian Cycle content, so I have moved it to here:
 * Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrumStrumAndBeHanged (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

CFORK with Finn
In the edits up to current the "Plot Summary" section WP:CFORKs with Finn mac Cumhaill, so it needs to be dismantled and remade as a discussion around the individual works in the cycle. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fenian Cycle


text:
Talk:IBM ViaVoice

Subscan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM states that viavoice has been sold (or is sub-licenced ?) to subscan. anyway, the two external IBM web pages are dead.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on IBM ViaVoice. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111027020810/http://www-142.ibm.com:80/software/products/gb/en/viavoice to http://www-142.ibm.com/software/products/gb/en/viavoice/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sebutkan nama kota di dunia
Nama kota 182.2.173.178 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:IBM ViaVoice