text:
Talk:Cessair

Folklore versus Pseudohistory
It's tiring to see people devaluing folklore stories and mythologies as pseudohistory just because it's not a quantitative fact based story. folklore does not have to be a real story with archaeological facts to back it to be a historical document. society is starting to break down with this silliness. Anyone with a working brain knows the terms pseudohistory (or pseudoarcheology, etc.) is meant to be destructive of the targeted topic the term is being attached to. SeaScholar (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 * It was called "pseudohistory" because it was claimed to be history, but was crafted by monks in the Middle Ages. However, "legendary history" is probably a better term, so I've changed it to that. – Asarrlaí  (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have gone with something like 'unsupported folklore' or some term like that, but I think that is a fair compromise and a good description of the information. SeaScholar (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Thing is, we only have it as a literary tradition, so we can't call it folklore. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asarlaí I would advise against the word "legendary" if we are talking about medieval European culture. In any other context, fine, because we all know what the word "legend" means today. But in medieval Europe it had a different and much more specific meaning, which is actually its original meaning, and we medieval specialists feel the hairs rising on the backs of our knecks when medieval stories are loosely called legenda when they technically are not. The word legend actually means "reading", and applies to a spiritually uplifting account of the life of a saint. Cessair was not a saint, and if you call his story a legend, well you're not wrong, but you're using terminology in a way that shows you are not into the material. Doric Loon (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an etymological fallacy. Wikipedia is written for the modern reader, not the medieval one, and the general reader, not the specialist. Using words in a precise technical manner that only a specialist would understand defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nicknack009 It's certainly not an etymological fallacy: I mentioned the Latin origin of the word as context, not my rationale. How technical language should be is a matter of opinion. Of course, it's possible to be too technical, but in this case I don't see how using some other word like "myth" or "folklore" would mean only the specialist could understand it. In this case, the danger is the opposite, not being aware of issues. We're talking about medieval literature here, and if you don't want to be sloppy, it is a good idea to listen to what experts in that field say. Doric Loon (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do. I've done quite a bit of reading in this field, and I'm aware of how the word "legend" is used by folklorists, and it's the appropriate term for this kind of material. "Myth" is inappropriate here because it's not a myth - it has no religious or cosmological significance. It's also not "folklore", as I've said, because it's literary. See Legend. Words have multiple meanings. Your usage is specific to the field of hagiography, and is not familiar to the general reader. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cessair


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsuishui

 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. Joyous 21:26, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tsuishui
An article on the Internet nickname of someone not notable. The first edit by this user, perhaps a mistaken try at establishing a user page. JoaoRicardo 04:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete pronto. -- Hoary 05:36, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, either as a user test or as contextless platform for a link, spam, not an article. Wyss 11:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdin Tarkmani

 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) 02:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Abdin Tarkmani
Non-notable — J3ff 04:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as a user test. Wyss 11:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity rubbish --Brookie 16:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15:26, Feb 14, 2005 SimonP deleted Abdin Tarkmani (content was: ' ') —Korath (Talk) 02:19, Feb 16, 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:
Talk:Penske Truck Leasing

Comment
Not sure this article even needs to exist, but its obviously a substub, so marking as suck. - Triona 04:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I find myself wondering if that was a typo. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Penske Truck Leasing


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Himeji Castle gargoyle

Himeji Castle gargoyle
Self-nom. — Dan | Talk 04:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. — Dan | Talk 04:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Useful photo, but not quite up to featured pic, IMO; gargoyle is backlit, obscuring its details, and the sky is too white and washed out. -- Oarih 07:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agree with User:Oarih's points. Mgm|(talk) 11:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just to be a little bit harsh, I wonder why quite a few clearly unsuitable pics appear in Featured Picture Candidates, often out-of-focus or washed out or tilted? This if for Featured Pictures, not for merely Good Enough pictures. Sorry to be a little cruel but it needed to be said. This pic is drab with a washed out background. Now watch all the Accepts appear! - Adrian Pingstone 15:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -Acceptable, but not great. Perspective is not very good.--Deglr6328 18:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Enochlau 11:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bad perspective, washed out. Theaterfreak64 01:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just not striking enough. -- Longhair 20:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not promoted +1/-7 BrokenSegue 18:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:69.165.6.125

title: User talk:69.165.6.125


text:
User talk:RomeW

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JoaoRicardo 04:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WikiProject Ice Hockey
Welcome to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey project. Let me know on my talk page if I can help in any way. Kevin Rector (talk) 13:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Football AID 15-21 January
Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. UEFA Champions League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

James Blunt - Trivia
Hi RomeW - I too am from Toronto and know the story of Jane Creba; certainly it was a terrible loss. Having said that, her listening to "Goodbye My Lover" a great deal in the period before her death isn't particularly exceptional. I have heard many stories from all over the English-speaking world where that song was important to a recently deceased person. If the song is to be mentioned in the same breath as a death, I would suggest that the death of the Quebec police officer is more appropriate; that time, an extended clip of the song, being played at her funeral, was broadcast on national television news. I'm also concerned that your chosen title seems to, well, trivialize Jane's death.

There seem to be some pretty heavy hitters watching this article (it's been subject to recurrent vandalism), so I thought I'd mention my thoughts on your own talk page rather than the one for the article. I won't make any edits at this point, but will watch to see if anyone else does, or if anyone starts to add truly trivial information; if that happens, then I think it would be best if this serious piece of information is either moved or removed. I'll look forward to your thoughts. Risker 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be interesting, for good or ill, because even though it's an unfortunate event, it is nevertheless James Blunt-related. To be honest, I knew that "Goodbye My Lover" was used in her memorial at her high school too, but I couldn't find a link for that. Also, if you do a search for "James Blunt" and "Jane Creba" you're going to get quite a few hits, especially from the big hitters like CTV and Canada.com (CanWest Global)- people made a big deal about it.
 * Nevertheless, I am aware that it's not *entirely* exceptional, but not knowing that much about Blunt, I knew of no other instance of where "Goodbye My Lover" was the song of choice of a recently deceased person, hence the only reason why Creba was highlighted. Perhaps my trivia note would be better expanded to include those other references, not just Creba, because then that would be exceptional.-RomeW 07:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * How about adding this to the article on the song itself? (Sorry was sleep-keyboarding last night, should have thought of it then.) Here is a reference article to help, which was posted on a message board but is a scan of an actual newspaper article:  http://bluntygirl.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=1131397851 Also, the police officer killed in Montreal was named Valerie Gignac. That would probably make more sense overall.  Perhaps a better heading would be "Funerals" or something to that effect.  Risker 14:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)  Sorry, here is a link confirming the playing of the song at Gignac's funeral.  http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=36c8a1fe-b86b-4150-ba76-6801a9bb6e27&k=72933 Risker 14:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I added both to the trivia section. Let me know what you think- I think it looks better now. -RomeW 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Scary Movie 4
Andre Benjiman IS in the movie! Why do you need me to give a site where you can easily search "Andre Benjamin in Scary Movie 4" at google or even Yahoo! and you'll see many sites! Cigammagicwizard 23:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Government: NationStates
As I said when I changed your user page NationStates link, I hope you don't mind. There is also a category for those who play. All you have to do to join it is to type  . Please join us there. —Lady Aleena talk / contribs 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:MarkusNaslund.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:MarkusNaslund.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Khatru2 09:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ice Hockey Project discussion of hockey player notability and project scope
Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:YorkLions.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:YorkLions.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Juventus
The thing is we're trying to keep "The "Calciopoli" scandal" section trimmed down as possible with just the essentials, so it can pass a good article review without too much recentism. I mean four, big hefty paragaphs on it while the whole decade before has around about the same ammount of information is too much, expanding even more probably isn't a good idea. The reaction to Inter and the subsequent Telecom Italia scandal is sourced by people like Channel 4, and even Giovanni Cobolli Gigli has stated its essential for Juve to beat Inter next season because of this.

Names like Ibrahimovic aren't essential to the history of the club, so we don't need to be too specific with players like that. While Cannavaro a World Cup winning captain is, if you can think of a way to incorporate how it was seen as harsh towards Juventus to be relegated while non of the others were then feel free, but as I said the article is already longer than it is supposed to be so it says "This page is 69 kilobytes (kibibytes) long." at the top - The Daddy 09:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey August 2007 Newsletter
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Netkinetic  (t / c / @) 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Scary Movie 4
Ok, it has been a while editing that page...so I really do not care if he's in it or not so you can edit him out or just leave him in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigammagicwizard (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of One trillion (basketball)
An article that you have been involved in editing, One trillion (basketball), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Powers T 20:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Roughly four years ago....
You made this edit to the Jehu article (technically, you made this edit, and the previous user made this edit, but that's obviously some sort of glitch).

In particular, I'm interested in the following sentence:
 * "Some scholars have suggested that "Jehu" is a nickname for "Joram", but this claim is seen as fallicious by other scholars since it would not make sense for a nickname to be so similar to the theophoric element of a name that it would be almost indistinguishable."

Do you have a source for either part of that (either the "some scholars" who suggest or the "other scholars" who dispute)?

There's no particular urgency, but its bound to be removed from the article by someone now that I've mentioned it, unless a source can be cited for it.

I'm not saying that I dispute the first part, as I vaguely recollect reading that somewhere else (although I might be mistaken, and would definitely like some confirmation either way). But I haven't seen the second part of that before.

If you do have a source for it, can you add the reference into the article - use ref tags. Could you also then leave a note on my page?

Thanks. Newman Luke (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Ok, your source sounds to me to be fairly reliable. But Wikipedia requires it to be published. A lecture just won't do, I'm afraid (unless the transcript is published - and then it would be the transcript not the lecture that would be the source). Can you get him to write it down and publish it somewhere? Or maybe you can ask the lecturer where he got the info from (as your user page implies you are still at uni)? Or maybe you can ask him if he has already written it in a book somewhere? Newman Luke (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lido Beach, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Written in the Stars (Tinie Tempah song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TBS ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Written_in_the_Stars_%28Tinie_Tempah_song%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Written_in_the_Stars_%28Tinie_Tempah_song%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:YorkLions.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:YorkLions.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Toad Town" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toad_Town&redirect=no Toad Town] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 45.72.202.106 (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goldberg win streak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Revival. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:RomeW


text:
File:Steller sea lion bull2.png

Stellar Sea Lion bull (Mystic Aquarium, Mystic, CT)

title: File:Steller sea lion bull2.png


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's up

 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 NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 00:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's up
This page is supposedly about the 4 Non-Blondes song of the same name, but beyond that bit of information, the page says nothing more about it. Even if it did, I don't see how one moderately popular song by this particular band merits its own encyclopedia entry. Katefan0 04:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep and Cleanup. Article seems to be about the phrase which could be turned into a good article - does need a lot of work though. Capitalistroadster 07:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, etymology is not correct, dicdef of a trivial construction. Wyss 11:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone has added to it to make it even worse since I slapped the VFD tag on it. Katefan0 15:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the 4 Non Blondes album the song is from. I don't know which one that is.  RickK 22:15, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 4 Non Blondes, unless someone wants to write an article on the song. Megan1967 01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless dictdef.   — Gwalla | Talk 00:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is what's up... for deletion, and I give it an EXTREME KEEP. Agree with Capitalistroadster; this article does require some cleaning. —RaD Man (talk) 02:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Six Flags Hurricane Harbor

Hurricane Harbor is a chain of water parks that are part of the Six Flags theme park chain. Although the parks are not identical, common features include a variety of body slides, speed slides, tube slides, wave pools, lazy rivers, and shopping areas.

History
Six Flags began using the Hurricane Harbor brand in 1995 with the opening of Six Flags Hurricane Harbor adjacent to Six Flags Magic Mountain. That same year, Wet 'n Wild in Arlington, Texas, was purchased by Six Flags. It operated as Wet 'n Wild — A Six Flags Park in 1995-1996 then was rebranded as Six Flags Hurricane Harbor in 1997. The brand has since become a trademark of the Six Flags franchise. In 1999, Six Flags St. Louis was the first Six Flags park to construct its own intra-park water attractions section. As Six Flags acquired and rebranded parks in the 2000s, some existing water parks within these theme parks were later upgraded and rebranded as Hurricane Harbor.

Only one Hurricane Harbor has closed. After Six Flags Worlds of Adventure was sold to Cedar Fair in 2004, the water park was renamed Hurricane Hannah's Waterpark. It was abandoned in 2006 and most of the attractions were relocated to a new waterpark on what used to be the marine life side of the park.

Six Flags America
Hurricane Harbor Maryland  is a water park located within Six Flags America. It was known as Paradise Island until 2005 when it was rebranded Hurricane Harbor.

Six Flags New England
Hurricane Harbor is a water park located within Six Flags New England. The waterpark opened in 1997 as Island Kingdom and was rebranded Hurricane Harbor in 2003.

Six Flags Over Georgia
Hurricane Harbor is a water park located within Six Flags Over Georgia. The water park opened in May 2014.

Six Flags St. Louis
Hurricane Harbor is a water park located within Six Flags St. Louis.

Slides and attractions
Former Slides and attractions

Six Flags Great Escape and Hurricane Harbor
Hurricane Harbor is a water park located within Six Flags Great Escape and Hurricane Harbor. The waterpark opened in 1997 as Splashwater Kingdom and was rebranded Hurricane Harbor in 2019.

Six Flags Darien Lake
The water park is located in Darien, New York. It was previously named Splashtown, and while planned for 2020, was eventually rebranded as Hurricane Harbor in 2022.

Six Flags Great Adventure
Six Flags Hurricane Harbor, New Jersey is a water park located adjacent to Six Flags Great Adventure.

Six Flags Magic Mountain
Six Flags Hurricane Harbor, Los Angeles is a water park located adjacent to Six Flags Magic Mountain.

Incidents
On September 30, 2012, a 19-year-old man fell off the Venom Drop slide that was part of the Black Snake Summit slide complex. He ignored the lifeguards and went down the slide head first on his stomach when protocol is to go down feet-first on the back. He fell off halfway down and hit the concrete. He was unconscious but breathing when he was taken to the hospital.

Six Flags Over Texas
Six Flags Hurricane Harbor, Arlington is located across Interstate 30 from Six Flags Over Texas. It was originally a part of the Wet 'n Wild chain, but was purchased by Six Flags in 1995.

Six Flags Mexico
Six Flags Hurricane Harbor, Oaxtepec is located in Oaxtepec, Mexico. It was originally independently owned, but was purchased by Six Flags in 2017.

Six Flags Great America
Six Flags Hurricane Harbor, Chicago is a water park located adjacent to Six Flags Great America that opened in 2005. It opened separately to the amusement park starting in 2021.

Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Phoenix
The water park is located in Phoenix, Arizona. Originally called Wet N' Wild Phoenix from 2009 to 2018, it was rebranded as Hurricane Harbor Phoenix for the 2019 season.

Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Splashtown
The water park is located in Spring, Texas. It was previously owned by Six Flags. In 2019, it is rebranded as Hurricane Harbor.

Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Rockford
The water park is located in Cherry Valley, Illinois. It was previously named Magic Waters. It is currently owned by the Rockford Park District. The park was rebranded as a Hurricane Harbor park in 2019.

Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Oklahoma City
The water park is located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It was previously named White Water Bay, and was rebranded as a Hurricane Harbor park in 2020.

Six Flags Hurricane Harbor San Antonio
Six Flags Hurricane Harbor San Antonio is located in San Antonio, Texas.

Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Concord
Six Flags Hurricane Harbor San Antonio is located in Concord, California. It was previously named Waterworld Concord and was rebranded as Hurricane Harbor in 2018.

Six Flags Worlds of Adventure
Hurricane Harbor was a defunct waterpark located within Six Flags Worlds of Adventure.

title: Six Flags Hurricane Harbor


text:
Bright Eyes (song)

"Bright Eyes" is a song written by British songwriter Mike Batt and performed by Art Garfunkel. It was written for the soundtrack of the 1978 British animated adventure drama film Watership Down. Rearranged as a pop song from its original form in the film, the track appears on British and European versions of Garfunkel's 1979 Fate for Breakfast and on the US versions of his 1981 album Scissors Cut. "Bright Eyes" topped the UK Singles Chart for six weeks and became Britain's biggest-selling single of 1979, selling over a million copies. Richard Adams, author of the original novel, is reported to have hated the song. A cover of the song was later used explicitly in the Watership Down television series as its theme song.

Background
The song was written, produced and arranged by Mike Batt for Watership Down, with original director John Hubley requesting a song about death. It plays when the rabbit Hazel, the lead character in the film, almost dies after being wounded by a farmer's gun and Fiver, his little brother is led to him by the Black Rabbit of Inlé.

Batt described recording the song as "one of the most difficult sessions" of his career as he wrote the lyrics with his father in mind who was terminally ill with cancer at the time.

The pop single arrangement of the song was very successful in the United Kingdom, staying at number one in the UK Singles Chart for six weeks in 1979, selling over one million copies, becoming the biggest-selling single of the year. In the United States, it failed to reach the Billboard Hot 100. It reached No. 29 on the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart.

Personnel

 * Art Garfunkel – vocals
 * Mike Batt – arranger producer
 * Chris Spedding – acoustic guitar
 * Roland Harker – lute guitar
 * Les Hurdle – bass guitar
 * Roy J. Morgan – drums
 * Edwin Roxburgh – oboe
 * Ray Cooper – percussion

In popular culture
In 2023, the song featured heavily in the fifth episode of season six of the popular Netflix anthology series, Black Mirror, titled "Demon 79", which is set in 1979, the year of the song's release. The song serves as the episode's opening and closing theme.

title: Bright Eyes (song)


text:
Talk:List of television shows set in Los Angeles

LAPD: Life on the Beat
The mid-1990s COPS-wannabe reality TV show LAPD: Life on the Beat should be listed here.

Fakes?
How many television shows set in Los Angeles are actually filmed in other cities such as Vancouver? -- My true identity: The Depth-Challenged Throat 18:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the List
Lyght brought up a good point in wondering if we should have seperate lists for OC and LA, as opposed to one single one from the Greater LA area. As someone who's from both parts (born in Los Angeles but lived most of my life in Huntington Beach), I oppose a seperation. Here's why: Sorry if I rambled a bit, but even though OC residents live in OC, they're still a part of the Greater LA area. In the long run, this list should reflect that.--Mitsukai 00:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I currently live in a suburb of Washington DC called Reston, VA. However, if I were to go visit my parents, who currently live in Glendora (anyone outside of LA know where that is?) and my cousins and such ask where I live, I have to say DC.  Why?  Because frankly, not that many people who live outside the LA area are that familiar with the LA area.  Ask anyone where Hollywood is, they'll say "LA", and they'd be correct.  Ask anyone where "Newport Beach" or "Santa Monica" is, they'll say "LA".  Because LA county is larger than many east coast states, and county governments here are so different than what they are in LA, often people don't quite get it.  Case in point: New York City is made of the five boroughs - five seperate counties, if you take into account NY state law.  That's somewhat the norm out here, from what I can tell.
 * Second reason: Orange County itself. When people ask me where I'm from, if I don't say LA, I'll say Huntington Beach. "Where's that?"  "In Orange County."  "Oh, the one down south, you mean." (there's an Orange County in Virginia).  "No, in another state."  "Oh, the one down in Florida?" (There's also Orange Counties in other states, too).  The point is, many of these people don't think "Orange County" when you mention Huntington Beach or Irvine or whatever - they think LOS ANGELES.
 * Then the article should be "List of television shows set in Los Angeles and Orange County" or "List of television shows set in Southern California." --Lyght 03:28, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * But you can't say that, either, because then you have to take into account San Diego, and that's a distance enough away that it would merit its own article. You also have to take into account Ventura, San Bernadino, Riverside, etc. etc. etc.  I can agree on "List of television shows set in the Greater Los Angeles area" (which is LA, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino and Ventura counties) as a title or the current title, but "LA and Orange" is just mincing it, IMHO.--Mitsukai 03:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion?
Editors may be interested in Articles for deletion/List of television shows set in Connecticut. Kappa 07:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Links to Show Pages
I posted the Contender here and I can't get the link to the Contender TV Series page to work. Can someone fix this?Mvemkr 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)MVEMKR

Saved by the Bell
Saved by the Bell is NOT set in Pacific Palisades, California. It is set in the fictional town of Palisades, California and Peter Engel has stated this in many interviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyAttack (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify
Is this section for TV shows that have their fictional locations in and around LA or for shows that are shot in LA like Dexter (TV series), CSI: New York and True Blood even though they are set in other locations. Mvemkr (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect additions
Some of the shows souldn't even be listed here: for instance, We Bare Bears actually takes place in San Fransisco, and The Fairlyoddparents was in San Diego (or at least looked like it was). Some of the show listed, like The Land Before Time, never stated the location it showed, so there's no proof it took place in the city, and some like Danger Rangers only had one episode set in the city, and the characters were merely visiting it, not residing in it. The list should only have the shows and its characters residing in Los Angeles, not the characters visiting it or shows that were made in it: those don't count. A correct example would be Yotally Spies: since its characters reside in Los Angeles, the show they're in has to be set in it. Only include shows where their characters are Residing in Los Angeles. 2600:1700:6841:4980:74D7:B859:E0FA:BF6F (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


text:
User:Wegge

My primary user account is on dawiki, so if you want to contact me in a hurry, da is the place to go.

I also operate WeggeBot, a set of scripts based on the pywikipedia framework. Mostly it does interlanguage linking, but it does other tricks like automatic talk page archiving.

da:Bruger:Wegge no:Bruker:Wegge sv:Användare:Wegge

title: User:Wegge


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative content

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creative content
First of all, this isn't the right title for it, since this is a book review. Secondly, once the POV opinions about the book are stripped away, the remaining information is barely worth starting a stub with, as it amounts to just the title and the author. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete ad copied from . Gazpacho 10:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, ad, copyvio. Wyss 11:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Jacques Olivier

Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier, PC (born April 14, 1944) is a Canadian politician, businessman and labour leader. He was mayor of Longueuil, Quebec, from 2001 until 2005 and is a former Member of Parliament.

Background and early career
A hospital worker in his youth, Olivier was elected president of the trade union local at Charles-LeMoyne Hospital and treasurer of Quebec's National Federation of Hospital Employees. In 1970, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau appointed Olivier as an aide to the Canadian Cabinet on labour relations.

Election to Federal Parliament and Federal political role
In the 1972 election, Olivier was elected to the House of Commons of Canada as the Liberal Member of Parliament for the riding of Longueuil. He served as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour from 1976 to 1978.

Following the 1980 election, Olivier was elected chair of the Liberal Party's Quebec caucus. In January 1984, Trudeau appointed Olivier to the Cabinet as Minister of State for fitness and amateur sport. Olivier was dropped from Cabinet in June when John Turner became the new prime minister. He was defeated in the subsequent 1984 election.

Business associations
Following his defeat, Olivier established a Ford dealership in Saint-Hubert, Quebec, and soon joined the board of directors of the Corporation des concessionnaires automobiles du Grand Montréal et du Québec.

Longueuil municipal politics
In 1987, he ran to be mayor of Longueuil, but was defeated. He was elected mayor of the Montreal suburb in 2001, and serves as vice-chairman of the executive committee of the Montreal Metropolitan Community. During the Quebec municipal restructuring of 2002, Olivier became Mayor of the new Mega-city of Longueuil which merged the former cities of Longueuil, Boucherville, Brossard and Saint-Lambert; towns of Greenfield Park, LeMoyne, Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville and Saint-Hubert. This merger was partially reversed after municipal referendums and was seen by many to be a failure on Olivier's part to sell the new Mega-City. Olivier led his own municipal political party, équipe Olivier, which held a large majority on Longueuil's city council.

Olivier did not run in the 2005 municipal election and was succeeded as mayor by Claude Gladu.

title: Jacques Olivier


text:
Baugur (crater)

Baugur is the informal name of one of three volcanic craters which have appeared as of 7 September 2014 - according to the Icelandic Meteorological Office website - in the Holuhraun lava field in Iceland as a result of an eruption in August 2014.

title: Baugur (crater)


text:
Talk:Donna Cheatham

Untitled
Is this notable? This almost looks like heading straight for WP:VfD. JuntungWu 04:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donna Cheatham. 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/20061019022540/http://www.roundaboutmadison.com/Inside%20Pages/Archived%20Articles/2003/3_03BillLodgeCheatham.html to http://www.roundaboutmadison.com/Inside%20Pages/Archived%20Articles/2003/3_03BillLodgeCheatham.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donna Cheatham


text:
WHOI

WHOI may refer to:

 * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a research and graduate degree educational institute in Massachusetts
 * WHOI (TV), a television station (channel 24, virtual 19) licensed to Peoria, Illinois, United States

title: WHOI


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Four Great Inventions

 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 keep. 5 Keep votes, 3 Delete votes, 3 merge votes, 2 redirect votes. Article is kept, but no consensus between merging and redirect. Anyone can be bold and merge and/or redirect the article themselves. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, 2 delete votes. JamesBurns is a newbie... with 75% or more VFD votes.  Interesting. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Four Great Inventions
The information is definitely worthy of inclusion, but not on its own page. Merge with China Science and technology in China and delete. Katefan0 05:04, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) (Changed merge page Katefan0 19:14, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC))

 * If you want to do a merge, just be bold and do the merge. Don't invoke VFD.  Deletion is not the final step in a merger. Uncle G 05:20, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * China's achievements can be politically charged, as tied up as they are with national pride, I thought it best to put it up to consensus. But thanks for the tip, I appreciate it. Katefan0 05:37, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with China, no redirect. Megan1967 06:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not an encyclopedic classification. Wyss 11:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the use of this term seems to be incredibly common in the Chinese media (both sides of the Taiwan straits) for whatever reasons - a Google search for the Chinese term would show up 179,000 pages, see here) and, there is actually an equivalent article of the exact same name ("Four Great Inventions") in the Chinese Wikipedia see here in Chinese. --JuntungWu 18:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC). Note that I am not saying this is a strong keep and I would support a merge somewhere as well. JuntungWu 18:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is the English Wikipedia, and even if this phrase is common and notable in Chinese, that doesn't mean that is common or notable in English, and deserving of an article.   The content (that is, the fact that these four inventions originated in China) is of course important; but the inventions are more appropriately included elsewhere, such as China. --BM 21:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I doubt that this should be merged into China. Perhaps into a history of Chinese technology if there was one. Wincoote 21:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup/expand. It sounds to me like this is a culturally significant claim, frequently repeated by Chinese ethnic or cultural advocates.  The current stub has some value in making a more comprehensive article about the claim. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the point of my VfD request is being missed. Of course the information is valuable, but this is not the proper place for it.  It should be included elsewhere, like China or the articles on the inventions themselves.  Katefan0 16:19, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper. I tend to believe that this page should remain because it should ultimately be about something not entirely comprehended in China or History of China: the fact that Chinese ethnic or cultural advocates have generated a slogan, apparently fairly familiar among Chinese speakers, that these four inventions are great Chinese inventions.  There seems to be some significant investment of effort in publicising this claim among Sinophones worldwide.  If so, the phenomenon itself is significant and worthy of its own article.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point and in some ways agree with it, but I'm still not sure that this is the proper venue to air it out. It seems to me, based on your thoughts, that a more proper article could be created that would talk about this cultural phenomenon in a more big-picture way -- not only as it relates to these four inventions; something like China's Public Image or China's National Pride.  The Chinese are obviously very concerned with their public image and there are multiple examples that could be explored (their space program is one).  But of course that would require a creation effort from someone well-versed in the issue, which I am not.  And as the article stands now, it's fairly useless. Katefan0 17:11, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * PS — Actually, we do already have Science and technology in China; the article is a dog's breakfast; it contains large portions of what looks to be an unwikified PRC press release. There is a brief section on History of Science and Technology in China, which should be perhaps fronted, and the business about PRC government sponsorship of research and education heavily edited, wikified, and pared down, assuming it is not a copyvio.  Off to cleanup now.  AAR, if the consensus is not to have a separate article on the campaign, this would seem to be the place to merge and redirect this.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this article and reorganise together with Science and technology in China, with the latter rename as Science and technology in mainland China or ..in mainland China after 1949 . — Instantnood 18:05, Feb 14 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, possibly rename. Important concept to the Chinese. Kappa 23:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Science and technology in China and expand the discussion there. No merge necessary because they are already discussed in the same level of detail as the current version of this article.  Rossami (talk) 16:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Science and technology in China and expand the discussion there. No merge necessary because they are already discussed in the same level of detail as the current version of this article--Jiang 22:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, terms and phrases not appropriate for English Wikipedia. JamesBurns 07:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Black Pearl (disambiguation)

Black Pearl or Black Pearls may refer to:

Biology

 * Ennerdale black pearl, a black pearl formed in freshwater mussels found on stretches of the Ehen and Irt rivers in Cumbria, UK
 * Tahitian black pearl, a black pearl formed in the black lip oyster and primarily cultivated around Tahiti and surrounding islands

Films

 * Black Pearls (film), a 1919 German silent film
 * The Black Pearl, a 1928 American silent film starring Thomas A. Curran
 * Black Pearl (1934 film), a Polish romantic crime drama
 * The Black Pearl, a 1977 American film based on the 1967 Scott O'Dell novel
 * Black Pearls, a 1991 martial arts movie also known as Fearless Tiger
 * Black Pearl, a fictional ship in the Pirates of the Caribbean film series

Literature

 * The Black Pearl (comics), a 1996 series published by Dark Horse Comics
 * The Black Pearl (Scott O'Dell), a 1967 young adult novel
 * The Black Pearl (play), an 1862 comedy in three acts
 * The Black Pearl of the Borgias, a gem in the 1904 Sherlock Holmes story "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons"
 * The Black Pearl (Madlen Namro), a 2012 Polish book

Music

 * Black Pearl (American band), a San-Francisco-based band
 * Black Pearl (South Korean group), a South Korean girl group
 * "Black Pearl" (Checkmates, Ltd. song), 1969
 * "Black Pearl", a song on the 2013 Exo album XOXO
 * Variatio 25. a 2 Clav. adagio, known as "the black pearl" of Bach's Goldberg Variations

Albums

 * Black Pearl (Yo-Yo album), 1992
 * Black Pearl (Jimmy McGriff album), 1971
 * Black Pearl, a 1982 album by Pat Travers
 * Black Pearls, a 1964 album by John Coltrane
 * Black Pearl, a 2022 album by 50 Foot Wave

People

 * José Leandro Andrade (1901–1957), Uruguayan footballer
 * Reno Anoaʻi (active from 2002), member of the American wrestling Anoaʻi family
 * Josephine Baker (1906–1975), American dancer, singer, and actress
 * Larbi Benbarek (1914–1992), Moroccan-French footballer
 * Eusébio (1942–2014), Mozambican-born Portuguese footballer
 * Harris Martin (1865–1903), African American boxer
 * Paul McGrath (footballer) (born 1959), Irish footballer
 * Pelé (born 1940), Brazilian footballer
 * Everage Richardson (born 1985), American basketball player
 * Wilma Rudolph (1940–1994), American sprinter
 * Roger Shah (born 1972), German electronic music composer and producer

Other uses

 * Black Pearl (yacht), a sailing yacht launched in 2016
 * Black Pearl, New Orleans, a neighborhood in Louisiana, US
 * Black Pearl, a community art installation at New Brighton, Merseyside, England
 * Black Pearl, subname of Louis XIII (cognac)
 * Black Pearl, a brigantine once owned by Barclay H. Warburton III, and the restaurant named after it

title: Black Pearl (disambiguation)


text:
Anne H. Ehrlich

Anne Howland Ehrlich (born Anne Fitzhugh Howland; November 17, 1933) is an American scientist and author who is best known for the predictions she made as a co-author of The Population Bomb with her colleague and husband, Paul R. Ehrlich. She has written or co-written more than thirty books on overpopulation and ecology, including The Stork and the Plow (1995), with Gretchen Daily, and The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment (2008), among many other works. She also has written extensively on issues of public concern such as population control, environmental protection, and environmental consequences of nuclear war.

She is seen is one of the key figures in the debate on conservation biology. The essence of her reasoning is that unlimited population growth and man's unregulated exploitation of natural resources form a serious threat to the environment. Her publications have been a significant source of inspiration to the Club of Rome. By 1993, the Ehrlichs' perspective has become the consensus view of scientists as represented by the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity".

She co-founded the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University with Paul Ehrlich, where she serves as policy coordinator after being an associate director from 1987 on. She served as one of seven outside consultants to the White House Council on Environmental Quality's Global 2000 Report (1980).

She is a senior research scientist emeritus in conservation biology in the Department of Biology at Stanford University.

Career
From 1952 to 1955, Anne Ehrlich attended the University of Kansas and performed scientific research on population biology, publishing numerous scientific articles. She began her scientific collaboration with Paul Ehrlich in the late 1950s through research on butterflies as a test system for answering key questions of biological classification, ecology, and evolution.

Since 1987, Anne Ehrlich has worked as associate director and policy coordinator of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University.

In 1994 she received the United Nations Sasakawa Environment Prize with Paul Ehrlich and in 1995 they received the 1st Annual Heinz Award in the Environment.

In 1994 and 1995, she served on a task group for academics and scientists for the President's Commission on Sustainable Development.

She has served and serves on the board of a wide range of organizations: Friends of the Earth (1976-1985), Conferences on the Fate of the Earth (1981-1984), the Center for Innovative Diplomacy (1981–1992), Redefining Progress (1994–1996), the Ploughshares Fund (1990-2003) and the Sierra Club (1996-2002). She chaired the Sierra Club's Committee on Military Impacts on the Environment from 1985 to 1994. Until 2003 she sat on the board of advisors for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

For ten years she was a member of the board of directors at the Center for Innovative Diplomacy, Pacific Institute, Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (1989-1999). she served on the board of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Environment, Development, and Security and as of 2002 of the New-Land Foundation.

Ehrlich is involved in the Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior (MAHB) which she co-founded with husband Paul and Professor Donald Kennedy.

From 1994 on she published a series of newsletters titled "Ecofables/Ecoscience," using science to debunk myths about humans' relationship to the environment.

Personal life
Ehrlich was born in Des Moines, Iowa, the daughter of Virginia Lippincott (Fitzhugh) Howland and Winston Densmore. Throughout her childhood she was fascinated by nature, preferring to be outside learning about wildflowers and geography. As a teenager she read Our Plundered Planet by Fairfield Osborn, Columbia University professor of zoology, member of the wildlife conservation organization Boone and Crockett Club and fossil collector. She was influenced by his critique of humankind's poor stewardship of Earth and its environmental destruction by humans.

She married Paul R. Ehrlich in 1954. The couple has one daughter, Lisa, born in 1955. The Population Bomb has been devoted to Lisa, and The Population Explosion to their grandchildren.

The Population Bomb (1968)
The phrase "population bomb" was first used in a 1958 pamphlet by advertising professional and entrepreneur Hugh Moore. The original edition of The Population Bomb began with this statement: "'The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate ...'" The Ehrlichs argued that the human population was too great, and that while the extent of disaster could be mitigated, humanity could not prevent severe famines, the spread of disease, social unrest, and other negative consequences of overpopulation.

By the end of the 1970s, this prediction and many others throughout the text proved to be wildly incorrect. However, they continued to argue that societies must take strong action to decrease population growth in order to mitigate future disasters, both ecological and social.

The Population Explosion (1990)
In their sequel to The Population Bomb, the Ehrlichs purport to describe how the world's growing population dwarfs the Earth's capacity to sustain current living standards and why overpopulation is a number one environmental problem. The book calls for action to confront population growth and the ensuing crisis: "'When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated.'" While the Ehrlichs concede that consumption and technology must also share the blame for environmental crises, priority should be given to achieving population control as a means of stopping further destruction. "Rapid population growth in poor nations is an important reason they stay poor, and overpopulation in those nations will greatly increase their destructive impact on the environment as they struggle to develop,".

Optimum Human Population Size (1994)
In this paper, the Ehrlichs discuss their opinion on the 'optimal size' for human population, given current technological realities. They refer to establishing "social policies to influence fertility rates."

The Stork and the Plow (1995)
A well-reasoned book of how poverty forces unsustainable use of natural resources, with proposals how food production might stay ahead of population growth, together with Gretchen C. Daily. The authors look at the interaction between population and food supply and offer a strategy for balancing human numbers with nutritional needs. Their proposals include improving the status of women by giving them equal education, reducing racism and religious prejudice, reforming the agricultural system, and shrinking the growing gap between rich and poor. "This generation faces a set of challenges unprecedented in their scope and severity and in the shortness of time left to resolve them. . . . The Stork and the Plow sets these out thoughtfully [and] accurately. . . . We can all hope this urgent message is carefully heeded."

One With Nineveh (2005)
The title refers to Rudyard Kipling's 1897 poem "Recessional", "Lo, all our pomp of yesterday / Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!", alluding to the arrogance that went before the fall of historic Mesopotamian civilizations. Named a Notable Book for 2005 by the American Library Association, Ehrlich offers a lucid synthesis of the major issues of our time: rising consumption, still-growing world population, and unchecked political and economic inequity. Grounded in science, economics, and history, she puts political and environmental debates in a larger context and formulates a range of possible solutions for improving our future prospect, from local actions to reform of national government to international initiatives.

The Dominant Animal (2008)
The Ehrlichs in this popular book explore in a unique way how humans have evolved from vulnerable creatures clawing nourishment from Earth to a sophisticated global society manipulating every inch of it: they have become the dominant animal. They question why we are creating a world that threatens our own species and offer suggestions what can we do to change the current trajectory.

Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? (2013)
This report reminds of how the collapse of numerous civilizations have, in the past, been caused by the degradation of nature, and how that process in present times makes a global collapse appearing likely. Overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich and poor choices of technologies are major drivers; dramatic cultural change provides the main hope of averting calamity.

Awards and honors

 * Raymond B. Bragg Award for Distinguished Service, Honorary Life Member 1985
 * Named to Global 500 Roll of Honour for Environmental Achievement, United Nations, 1989
 * Honorary Degree Doctor of Law, Bethany College, 1990
 * The United Nations Sasakawa Environment Prize (jointly with Paul R. Ehrlich and shared with M.S. Swaminathan), 1994
 * The 1st Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (with Paul Ehrlich), 1995
 * Nuclear Age Peace Award (with Paul Ehrlich) honored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation of Santa Barbara, California (1996).The awards were presented to them by ocean environmentalist Jean-Michel Cousteau.
 * 1998 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement (with Paul Ehrlich) - The Prize has been awarded for exemplary scientific contributions to understanding the environmental consequences of species extinction, habitat destruction and nuclear war, individually and jointly, and for raising public awareness of and shaping public opinion on resource depletion and environmental degradation. "They were among the first to effectively communicate how to apply science to the solution of society's problems,"
 * Fellow of the American Academy Arts & Sciences, California Academy of Sciences (honorary)
 * Honorary Doctorate of Oregon State University, 1999

title: Anne H. Ehrlich


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xvala

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xvala
Nothing more than an ad for a vintage clothing store. Katefan0 05:06, 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.
 * Delete, Advertising. Inter 10:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, spam in a can. Wyss 11:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete --Brookie 16:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xvala


text:
Category talk:Lakes of Asia

Discussion from Categories for deletion
This category was listed for deletion on January 15, 2005 but consensus was to keep.

Would it be worthwhile to delete Category:African lakes and Category:Asian_lakes and put the country subcategories in Category:Lakes by country? Articles about lakes that cross international boundaries could be added to multiple countries there, too. -- Beland 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the question is, is it useful for us to have categories of landforms for each continent? For Category:Mountains, there is the same categorization by continent, except for North America. Some of us in WikiProject Mountains, decided to drop that category quite a while back, I think primarily because there are several hundred mountains in NA that now have articles while other continents (except for Antarctica) have substantially less. This is probably due to the fact that the project has primarily a North American base of members at the moment. The continent categories also allow us to put mountains in categories where the Mountains of XXXX does not currently exist due to lack of articles. I think our decision was to only create such a category when there were at least 5 articles for the country's mountains. So for mountains, the continent categories are holding categories until the country specific category is created RedWolf 02:18, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Lakes are natural geographical features that often cross multiple countries. Most continents (Europe arguably being an exception if one regards it as a peninsula of Eurasia) are clearly physically/geographically dilineated rather than separated by often arbitrary (when one considers the physical landforms) political borders. As physical features, it is useful to see lakes within continent categories. —Lowellian (talk) 22:10, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Lakes of Asia


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1755 Lisbon earthquake/archive 1

1755 Lisbon earthquake
A very readable, succinct, and highly syncretic Wikipedia feature. Reads like a thriller. Self-nomination. Sandover 05:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * support. i hahahaha like sandover's self nomination very much indeed. i tweaked it a bit a removed a funny section about skin colour. if considered useful, i can make a compreensive list of buildings that were destroyed and buildings that survived. muriel@pt 10:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The article looks pretty good, but: 1) The lead section says: "The earthquake had a strong impact on 18th century society.". First of all, I think this should be appended with "in Portugal". Second, I think the "Social implications" section doesn't quite give information. It mentions religious, philosophical and political implications, but doesn't quite get to the actual social implications. For example: " For the religious minds of the 18th century, this manifestation of the anger of God was difficult to explain." -> how did this manifest? Did people become less (or more) religious? Did they convert to other religions? 2) In the "The birth of seismology" section misses a reason why the query was conducted and what was done with it in the 18th century. Also, this section needs some explanation of geological terms (tectonic plate, subduction zone). An illustration with the plates near Lisbon might offer a good help here. Jeronimo 11:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "The earthquake had a strong impact on 18th century society." - Thats correct because it was not only in Portugal; the social implications section shows this. Now maybe you are right about this section. It does not deal exclusively with social things, also with philosophical implications. Maybe rename it? And if so to what? As for the geological terms (cf. your comment on Battle of Alesia :) ) i'll make them more clear. A drawing will be difficult because there is still hot debate about this theory. Scientists agree is a proto-subduction but the whereabouts of this is still not consensual. muriel@pt 11:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a few small changes, which satisfy (I hope) Jeronimo's relatively minor objections. Sandover 14:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement, and I consider 1) fixed. As for 2), I still miss "a reason why the query was conducted and what was done with it in the 18th century". Also, I still think an image would illustrate the situation well. If there is debate, an image would be exceptionally interesting, since it could explain the debate more clearly. Jeronimo 07:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The Lisbon earthquake has traditionally been regarded as something of a philosophical/religious watershed in Enlightenment thought (something separate from the aesthetic concept of "the Sublime"). This may well be a simplified notion, but it needs to be acknowledged and somehow engaged with—I was quite taken aback to find only the sentence "Thinkers of the European Enlightenment drew varied inspiration from the Lisbon earthquake". I should think shockwaves from the earthquake can be traced in the philosophical/cultural/literary history of every European country. For the important "Enlightenment criticism of religion" aspect, the single sentence "For the religious minds of the 18th century, this manifestation of the anger of God was difficult to explain", which Jeronimo mentions, is still holding the whole theodicean fort alone (actually even doing so in a weakened state, from an addition that looks strangely irrelevant to me). That's far from enough—for one thing, the non-religious minds of the 18th century seized on the earthquake as proof that God was either dead or bad. Please get a philosophy student in there, if at all possible. (This is a "wanted" ad! I'd read up and make the addition myself, but I just don't have the time.) Otherwise a very interesting and well-written article which I would like to see featured. Bishonen | Talk 18:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Support. Bishonen | Talk 07:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I hardly understand your objection! :/ I'll see what i can do to help... muriel@pt 19:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, this earthquake was seen by most contemporary philosophers as an evil occurrence, since it had so many terrible consequences. For those who believed in God, it was difficult to find any theory which could satisfactorily explain "what sort of a God could allow this to happen" (I think that was Voltaire's Candide).  I think this may have been the start of the idea in the insurance industry for "acts of God" being a synonym for natural disasters (but I'm not sure).  'Evil acts' like the Lisbon earthquake could not have been done by men or caused by sin (it was thought), therefore philosophical and religious theories of the time which had held that people were the cause of all evil were questioned very severely.  The concept of 'natural evil' came up, even for atheistic philosophers.  WhiteC 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with WhiteC above - that's broadly my understanding of the quake's philosophical impact. Voltaire's reaction is the most noted. Wombat 09:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object though I like this article a lot too. Bishonen is right; a truly comprehensive article on the quake would have a lot more on its philosophical and theological ramifications, which were extensive (and also much more on the social and political aftermath). I've added a little bit, but this is not a topic I know very much about. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak object, if Bishonen is satistied you can strike mine, too. I'm amused that Bishonen and Jeronimo have opposite objections! I'm with Bishonen here, and think the article needs to be fleshed out to the point where this will be clear enough that no one will make Jeronimo's objection. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object because of the issue regarding the Washington Post article. (See Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia). Let that die down first. --JuntungWu 14:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey! What is this got to do with the article?? It had something unreferenced, this Theresa made a fuss, i informed her (politely i guess) of wikipedia procedures, namely that it doesnt have to be me to correct something and that the article isnt mine but ours. She did nothing and now apparently is holding that back against wikipedia. The thing is not even in the article anymore. You can follow the thing in the talk page (which is very messed thanks to Theresa, btw). muriel@pt 16:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how The Washington Post issue provides valid grounds for an actionable objection. I don't see how this issue has anything to do with this article being an FA (It might not be politic to feature the article any time soon on the Main Page, but that's another matter, and I think we can let Raul be the judge of that). Paul August ☎ 20:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am interpreting the "no controversy" and "no edit war" stipulation for an FA in a very broad sense. I find this very unfortunate and I object with great reluctance but I would think it would be better to delay consideration of this. Raul can be the judge on if my interpretation is correct: if he believes there's no problem I'll withdraw my object and change my vote to support because I actually like the article. JuntungWu 12:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought more about this and digged through the talk pages. I guess it would be okay. I withdraw my object. JuntungWu 12:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks like the issues have been resolved and this is well referenced. - Taxman 16:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

the Theresa Carpanelli/Washington Post controversy
I had no idea that misinformation deleted a month ago from the 1755 Lisbon earthquake entry ("roving priests" who exacted vengeance in the streets of Lisbon) appeared in the Washington Post, nor that Wikipedia was being blamed for originating the error. Thank you, Michael Snow, for writing it up, and for providing the links to the two online columns from a vigilant homeschooling parent in Canton, Ohio, Theresa Carpanelli (who apparently appears on her own religious radio show, "Truth Matters"). All of this yet another curious ripple effect of a sublime event which occurred just shy of 250 years ago. Just Fascinating.

According to Michael Snow, the offending Washington Post piece was published on December 31, 2004. (Theresa Carpanelli says December 30th in her article.) I only saw the 1755 Lisbon earthquake entry in the days following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (I confess I was much more preoccupied with contributions to the tsunami article, which was little more than a stub at the time of the Dec 26 tsunami).

By the time I made my first edit, on January 19, the discussion page already raged with Carpanelli's (anonymous) objections. She altered the entry itself only to make a request for footnotes, but never troubled herself to actually delete the offending Wikipedia material on her own. The offending line was deleted on January 20th (and never restored). Carpanelli continued to rage about the line on the discussion page until January 29th.

If there's one thing that really troubles me about Carpanelli's seemingly well-researched complaint, it's the way she wilfully misrepresents the Wikipedia editing process. "I requested of Wikipedia that a source be cited for this allegation. The person with whom I was corresponding claimed not to have written the line, that it was a 'remnant' from a previous version; but she left it in anyway. She writes: 'i dont have a reference though i dont find the allegation strange, considering the power of the Jesuits at the time and the religious fanatism of the time' [sic]." Carpanelli doesn't mention the fact that this exchange occurred on the discussion page (where informal, uncapitalized language is commonplace) and that she herself was able (and, in fact, invited repeatedly) to delete the reference if she objected to it.

 * "Willfully misrepresents the Wikipedia editing process." How did I "misrepresent the Wikipedia editing process"? And how do you know it was "willfull"?  I stated earlier, very clearly, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute.  Why have you (willfully?) left that out of your quotes of me? As for your charge that I don't "mention" where the exchange took place - that will be corrected in a part-three article I will be doing.  I made an assumption - that my readers would be able to find their way to the discussion page when they found their way to the article, which they could easily do as I did  - a search for "1755 Lisbon priests etc" brought the Wikipedia article up as the first google hit.  As for my "continuing to rage" until January 29th, I am seeking a source for the original assertion - and that is made clear in my so-called "rages."  Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An uninformed reader of Carpanelli's column (and I would surmise that the vast majority of Ms. Carpanelli's readers are unfamiliar with Wiki practices, and Carpanelli did nothing to enlighten them) would draw the conclusion that this exchange occurred with a spelling-challenged gatekeeper of some sort, someone in a formal administrative capacity at Wikipedia, someone with a grudge against Catholics, someone who refused to make a change, rather than with another contributor (a well-meaning one at that) who was actually trying to resolve the problem and help get to the bottom of the truth and the origins of the allegation.

 * Once again, I happily will provide a link to the discussion page, now that it has been placed in chronological order as the discussion ensued. They will see for themselves that I was invited to make the change myself, but that I did not wish to alter the claim, just to find a source for it. Space was limited for me, and my beef was with the Washington Post, not with Wikipedia, except for noting how many people have used the unattributed (and seemingly false) allegation.  Part of the problem also was that I did not feel the person I was corresponding with was not "trying to resolve the problem and ... get to the bottom of the truth of the origins..."  I felt I being asked simply to delete it and forget about it - after it had been published in virtually every major newspaper that picked up the Washington Post and CBS News articles, and picked up all over the Internet and even in a school curriculum.  For me, getting to the truth would have included giving me the original source.  Why do you conclude the readers would draw the conclusion you outlined?  I concluded that they would be smart enough to check out the Wikipedia article for themselves, and to read the discussion page.  I do regret not providing a link for that purpose, but it was, at the time,  the first hit one came to for those interested in reading it. And many did find it, without my adding a link.Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, truth matters. But if Carpanelli really cared about the truth, she would have resolved the matter on her own and edited the line out (as suggested to her). Instead, it's obvious that she preferred to see the error stand as long as possible. (Or should I say possible error -- because she has by no means proved the original allegation of "roaming priests" false. To my mind, Carpanelli's calculated misrepresentation of Wikipedia's editing process only shows me that she is capable of distorting a lot of other facts as well.  Given how interesting this debate about "roving priests" has become, I intend to fully examine the allegation going back two and half centuries and incorporate them into the entry. It's obviously quite relevant to the social implications and effects of the 1755 earthquake, which continue to this day.  It's interesting to note that the Portuguese Inquisition, which raged for centuries against suspected crypto-Jews or marranos, continued past the earthquake until 1765, and there's no doubt that the 1755 earthquake and tsunami affected the dynamic involved in Church authority.  It's also interesting that Voltaire's Candide has a character who, yes, is hanged after being overheard discussing the earthquake outside of an orthodox religious context. "This was not customary", Voltaire writes, obviously in full satirical flourish -- though whether he is simply satirizing priests' actions, or exagerrating those actions for satirical effect, is something I've yet to determine. Perhaps Voltaire to blame for this anti-Catholic slur against priests; Carpanelli suggests as much. We'll see.)

 * Now they are "calculated misrepresentations." Perhaps you think you see that because you are calculating? I am not.  I simply state things as I see them, and unfortunately, leave things out that you think I should have put in.  I will try to correct that in Part Three.  You make an erroneous, derogatory, and wholly unknowable allegation about my intentions, then conclude that I am capable of "distorting" other facts as well. This strikes me as quite convenient for one who might like to believe the allegation is true, and would like to stretch the truth to make it so. Witness your "eagerness" at finally being shown the about.com picture, and what you, with no source cited, allege in your caption that it shows, yet when I attempted to edit the caption to say it was looters being executed, you state there is no "proof" they were looters. Yet the Kozak collection's caption, which your article links to, states: "Lisbon a few days after the earthquake. Camping outside the damaged town, executions of robbers and looters. (Copper engraving, Germany, 1755) Lisbon, Portugal."  You seem to prefer about.com's wholly unsourced allegation, over Kozak's caption.  I have cited several sources for my claims in the discussion page of the Lisbon article which state that looters, murderers, and arsonists were executed by hanging, by order of the civil, not Church, authorities.  Witness also your decrying the fact that I wouldn't edit the allegation out. Because you would have edited the line out, and I didn't, you feel you can doubt my care for the truth?  Why do you believe, in MY search for the truth,  I would have tried to hide the fact that priests were hanging people, by deleting the allegation, if in fact it happened?  Then you might have accused me of hiding the ugly truth?  You practically state my real motives in the rest of your statements - I haven't proved the allegation false, and cannot. It is precisely because I do not know for sure that it was erroneous, unless the person who wrote it cannot provide a credible source, that I was not willing to delete it.  I can prove only that there is no credible source for it that I have seen. The onus is on the person who wrote it to provide a source that makes it possible that it did happen. In my search for the truth, I was asking for a source, from the original author, but did not know how to do that due to my inexperience with Wikipedia's protocols.  I am not a contributer, just a user. Somehow, that translates to you as "calculating" and "willfully distorting" Wikipedia protocol.  I have checked a great many books and articles, (more detail in the discussion page), including many, many eyewitness accounts. None of them mention this event, and I believe, had this happened,  ONE of the eyewitnesses would have mentioned it, or at least one original source book would have mentioned it. I freely admit that my research has not included every book written on the subject, and one cannot "prove" a negative - that it didn't happen. My assumption was that possibly the originator of the Wikipedia article might have a source. I doubted it, but I sincerely was asking for his/her source, and would be interested to see one. In Part Three, I will discuss the "source" the Washington Post put forth. If you think you can find a source, and I would prefer a credible one, I would be happy to see it. Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carpanelli cannot prove that Wikipedia was the reporter's source. Her addendum to the article, which summarizes a conversation with the Washington Post reporter, reveals that he used other sources as well.

 * I did not claim to have "proved" anything. I outlined my suspicions, and why I drew them in Part Two - perhaps you should have read it.  I based my suspicion that it MIGHT have been Wikipedia for these reasons:  1).  The article originated in October 2003, while the Post article, to which I was mainly objecting, originated in December, 2004, with many other more recent articles I listed showing up in January. 2).  The language was very similar to the Wikipedia article, and I found other articles on the Internet, using the same language, even to the use of the misplaced modifier, most of them listing Wikipedia as their source. 3).  Mr. Vargas told me he used Wikipedia, and noticed that the other sites he used, which he named, also used the same language as the Wikipedia article.  I had already confirmed that some of the sites he named, which included the allegation, listed Wikipedia as their source. In addition, my Part Two article states clearly that Wikipedia was one of other sources Vargas used, but I believed, that since Wikipedia dated to October 2003, and was listed as the source for many of the other articles, it MIGHT have been the original source.  That is precisely what I am still trying to discern, but cannot unless the originator of the article will come forward with his source - if he had one. This is speculation, but it's entirely possible he assumed it - one might do that after seeing the caption under the about.com picture, reproduced now in the Wikipedia article. If priests were "supervising" the hangings, which assumes, (contrary to what credible source materials state), that they had authoritative involvement, and it's not a far stretch to say they  "roamed the streets" looking for people to hang.

And by the way, I was not, prior to this, affiliated in any way with Catholic Exchange, so my correspondence with Ms. Gottrop had no motive other than a search for a credible source. I asked CE them to help me get this information corrected, since it has proliferated so widely since the Post article came out, but had no idea of that during my corresponsence with Wikipedia. My beef was with the Post, and my intention for writing the Part Three article is to conclude with my discussion with the Washington Post. But now that I have read such ad hominem and hostile accounts of my alleged "intentions" with regard to Wikipedia, and the unjust charges to which I have been subjected, simply because I am trying to obtain the truth of the allegation, I feel I must spend some time discussing that, as well. Ms. Gottrop has apologized for offending my Faith, and it was probably my ignorance and frustration in how to ask for what I wanted on Wikipedia that led to her irritated reply to me. But as I have stated elsewhere, Wikipedia users - and that is what I was - NOT a contributer - should not have to go through this to get a simple question resolved. Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was completely unaware of any of this controversy until I opened my Wikipedia homepage this morning. It's funny to see my username cited in it, and to be given credit as the one who finally deleted the objectionable material. To be honest, I didn't give it too much thought. I deleted it merely because the discussion was getting hot, because Carpanelli's (anonymous and unsigned) objections on the entry itself were beginning to take over the page (nb: I never had any exchange or dialogue with Carpanelli myself). It was obvious -- although Carpanelli doesn't say this in her own article -- that no one seriously defended the allegation about roaming priests, apart from the one offhand comment (which Carpanelli quotes). On deleting the citation, I figured that if someone was going to re-insert that slur into the article, they could only do so only with supporting information. That's normal Wikipedia procedure, and the slur has not reappeared.

 * My "anonymous and unsigned" objections were corrected when I learned, through Ms. Gottrop's help, how to do that. I didn't see the point in stating a negative - that no one defended the allegation.  Once again, I didn't do what you think I should have done, but I don't feel the need to state the obvious. Polycarp7 10:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to let this issue die down now before reconsidering the article for FA. But the feature status shouldn't depend on whether at one point there was false information in the article (if, indeed, that information was false). The obstacle to feature status, as pointed out by a number of observers, is that the philosophical implications section needs to be fleshed out in a much more thorough way; since I haven't received other complaints, this section is going to be my future focus. I (and I hope others) will have to do a bit of homework on it. I also want to track down an image of the Marquis of Pombal and perhaps other illustrations.

I hope the entry keeps its quirky, concise character. One of the things I most admire about the 1755 Lisbon earthquake is that it manages a complex and varied topic with brevity: it has benefited from the surgical intervention of (among others) an amateur historian, geologist, a tourist who loves Lisbon (that would be me), and several philosophers, none of whom decided to make it their own magnum opus. I hope the entry stays that way and never becomes bloated. Notwithstanding my rather extended comments here, quantity is not quality. Thanks, everyone, for the good advice. Sandover 18:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sandover 20:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [revised] Sandover 02:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) [revised]]

 * I agree that the story alone is not a legitimate reason to keep this from being a featured article. It would be like rejecting an article just because of some vandalism in its history. The state of the article now is what's important. In this situation, the incident is a reason to be especially careful and thorough, making sure that facts are checked and references provided. But it shouldn't be a barrier to featuring, and it would be great to be able to say, "Yes, there was this mistake, but not only were we able to fix it, we improved the article so much that now it's one of our showcase products".

 * With respect to the timing of this nomination, it might still be possible to do the needed work relatively quickly, but that's for those involved in writing the article to determine. If all reasonable objections are addressed, whether now or later, the surrounding controversy shouldn't matter. --Michael Snow 18:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've fallen in love with the page, but I look at the necessary improvements requiring some significant reading and research. It's going to take a few months for me to circle around to this project again.  Unless someone else wants to jump in and go rah-rah on it right now, let's just table the feature consideration for now.  By all means, read the entry in its present form.  It will be all the better later on when we remember the evolutionary process, and to voice support when this pops up in time for the 250th anniversary (which is November 1st this year).  Sandover 18:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the person directly involved with Ms. Carpanelli i have to say a couple of things: i was never impolite (despite the hysterical, slightly irritating tone of her notes) and i tried to motivate her to edit the article, i even left welcoming message at her talk page. The whole affair can be followed in Talk:1755 Lisbon earthquake. I am quite amazed with what is said about her article. She acted in absolute bad faith with me and with the project and i'm finding very strange that the acts of a biased scandal-seeking person are depriving the article from feature status. I agree with Bishonen et al. objections about the philosophical section and i'm only sorry that my knowledge is not enough to answer their requirements. These are valid objections and I hope Sandover is successful in his attempt to clarify them. Ms. Carpanelli's article is not a valid objection and i cant believe that this will be held against the article in the future. muriel@pt 21:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Please read my response to Ms. Gottrop's above statements on the Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation on Wikipedia at this address: (Not sure how to do the link - please spare me the criticisms for my ignorance in your protocols). Polycarp7 16:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

encyclopedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia

Back to the philosophy

 * Update: I think that leaves only my objection—not sure about Jeronimo's second one. I've hung back because I'd pick several arguments with WhiteC's version if it were offered in the article—a modern distinction between belief in God versus atheism just doesn't seem to me to enhance our understanding of how these issues were thought of in the 18th century—but Rbellin's additions to the article are excellent, and seem to be in process. I'm in two minds whether to strike my objections or not, because I would very much like to see just a little more from Rbellin first. Still, as Sandover says, the whole article has a pleasing quality of conciseness. OK, I'll strike my objections, provided only that the phrase "religious minds of the 18th century" goes, I do think it's anachronistic. Still hoping for a little more from Rbellin, but I won't insist on it. (Incidentally, not of course an objection, the copper engraving is fantastic, I'd make it a bit bigger if it was me.) Bishonen | Talk 09:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've now run out of sources on, and exhausted my own knowledge of, the quake's philosophical consequences. I guess it would be undecorous to continue my own objection until someone more knowledgeable than me showed up, so I'm striking it.  The article is pretty good now, and can continue to improve later.  Bishonen, thanks for the kind words; you can decide if this looks good enough for a featured article in its current state. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * maybe I put too much emphasis on that (God/atheism), but the problem was really trying to find the ultimate cause of this evil thing that happened, viz the earthquake killing people, etc. The modern viewpoint that natural disasters just occur without anyone being to blame for them (for whatever reason, including but not limited to divine punishment) developed as a result of lengthy arguments about the causes and blame for this earthquake.  It is impossible to discuss this without delving into controversial philosophical and religious issues--this is why it generated so much discussion, because it WAS controversial.

 * Perhaps that is why I am reluctant to get involved here... I would have to describe C17 religious and philosophical viewpoints and arguments in a correct historical context, remain neutral, explain that they were historical views, and deal with people who took offense. In my opinion, the article would need to do these things in order to be completely successful, which is a tall order. WhiteC 20:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, even though this entry is my baby, I'm going to object for now, because I believe it should be made much better on a number of levels, including the historical and philosophical. Thanks, everyone, for putting those references onto the page; I have a little background myself in philosophy and look forward to following the syllabus. It will be a project of mine over the coming months. The Theresa Carpinelli controversy (described above) has piqued my interest and directed me to other resources I didn't know existed. Because Wikipedia is the second hit when a person googles "Lisbon earthquake", we deserve better before the 250th anniversary (November 1). Stay tuned.

I'm not the best with images and layout, and agree that the one added yesterday deserves to be a) larger and b) outfitted with a frame and caption. Perhaps -- even -- the central part of the image should be expanded as a "cameo." There are more images on the way. Also, if there are any Portuguese readers who can have a look the newly-published November 2004 book by Joao Duarte Fonseca (ISBN 972-8479-32-8, published by Argumentum in Lisbon under a UNESCO grant), I'm told its an excellent resource. Sandover 16:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object but this should be actionable. This has nothing to do with the Washington Post controversy, where I withdrew my object after studying it carefully. Two issues: (1) the intro's prose is weird: The 1755 Lisbon earthquake took place on November 1, 1755 at 9:20 in the morning. It was one of the most destructive and deadly earthquakes in history, killing well over 100,000 people". (2) What were the actual answers to those questions at the "The birth of seismology" section? If the answers are somewhere they should be alluded to in the article. JuntungWu 06:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Update 2: Sandover, I'm glad to hear it, though I'm ready to support now. I did an emergency "religious minds"-ectomy myself, leaving a rather childish sentence that does not well introduce the next paragraph, please improve it. I actually meant the top image, I've enlarged it a little now. Please see what you think. Note that while the image is PD under the principle, the description on the image description page shouldn't be used unchanged for the image, because I think it's a copyvio (lifted from here, probably shouldn't be on the image description page either). Juntung, the prose you quote isn't weird in any obvious way (except it needed a comma, now supplied), could you specify what's wrong with it? Bishonen | Talk 07:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It is most certainly not a copy-vio. The image comes from NISEE/Berkeley, not the site you pointed to, and I had a long telephone conversation with the head librarian there (as well as confirmation e-mail) before posting it to Wikipedia.  Sandover 08:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello, Sandover...? The image is PD according to our policy, you don't actually need any permissions or head librarians for it. Let me expand the tag for you:

 The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. This photograph of the work is also in the public domain in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.).

 * (Click on the Bridgeman link, it's very encouraging! :-)) The description on the image description page would seem to be a copyvio, that's all I was trying to say. It's taken verbatim from about.com. I was tempted to use the nice wording in it myself, but checked it out and saw it was a steal, that's why I thought I'd just caution others against improving my caption with it. Sorry it was confusing. Bishonen | Talk 10:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. Also, I was talking about the top image. Lisbon burning as seen from the tsunami-stricken harbor. I see that you're probably referring to the other one, the one that you uploaded, with a reference to NISEE. I haven't messed with that. The engraving of the harbor is the one I enlarged. Anyway, both of them are PD. Bishonen | Talk 11:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)