text:
Talk:Al Gore/Archive 4

Political Slantings...
This may just be my opinion, but it seems to me that much of this page is in the format of defending Al Gore against political attacks made on him in the past. Now, I don't consider myself to be a conservative, and I'm not really that concerned about it, but it seems to have a large bias, which I don't believe is in the spirit of an encyclopedia. As random example that sort of stuck out:

"Gore left Vanderbilt Law School because he decided to run for Congress instead. It was therefore unfair to accuse Gore of being an academic failure for not completing his law degree.

Therefore, Gore advocates claimed, it was reasonable to assume that Gore was intelligent and academically successful, although perhaps not exceptionally so. "

The "unfairness" is a rather subjective term, and using, "therefore" implies the conclusion was based on pure logic. While it certainly seems as if his critics were overreacting, it is far from an airtight conclusion. In the next paragraph, at least the opinions given attributed to "Gore advocates" but it still smacks of bias, since much of the page contains opinions or accusations by opponents of Gore, but very few which are not followed up by twice as much reasoning (by Gore proponents) as to why those opinions and accusations are false or misleading. The most balanced section seems to be the Military Service section, which appears rather objective. By that I mean relating to controversy, not sections like biographical data etc.. I actually like Gore, so I agree with most everything said about him, its just that I think political leanings should be put aside for an article like this.
 * No article here is ever finished. No article here belongs to an individual. Please make the changes you feel are necessary. But also please anticipate that some of your changes will be changed by others in the future. Kingturtle 17:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kingturtle, but I'd add that an unbalanced article should be corrected through the augmentation of the POV that's missing, not through the deletion of valid information. Despite that principle, there may be places in this article where passages perceived as pro-Gore could reasonably be trimmed.  The one that occurs to me is the comment about his testimony to the 9-11 Commission.  That he testified is worth noting, but I'm undecided about the sentence, "In a statement after the three-hour session, the commission said he was candid and forthcoming, and it thanked him for his 'continued cooperation.'"  Is a politician's failure to lie and stonewall so unusual as to be worth mentioning?  JamesMLane 17:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's basically all I was talking about, mainly that some information seems extraneous, unless one is trying to promote Gore in some way.
 * We welcome you to make the changes you see fit. Know ahead of time that your changes are themselves subject to change by others. Kingturtle 00:35, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

A little context: If you inspect the edit history of this article around the time I started editing it, you will find that I added the sections regarding accusations made against Gore in response to people who lifted passages and right-wing spin from Gore attack sites and the like. I could have simply deleted these passages, but instead I did research and rewrote the article accordingly. Anybody who feels (s)he has facts that rebut those in this article should add them. Similarly, if you or anyone else has suggestions for ways to make the wording of the article more NPOV, while maintaining the current level of factual information, go ahead and edit. More power to you. The particular sentence you cite could probably stand to be rewritten in this fashion. I will, however, counter any edit that removes substantive and relevant encyclopedic content. NPOV does not mean that we give equal weight to factual presentations and non-factual ones, nor does it mean we omit relevant facts simply because people of a particular political persuasion find them distasteful. k.lee 02:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has many articles that are imbalanced because proponents of one POV have been more industrious than the other side at making sure that the facts they deem important are included. I agree with you about not trying to balance such articles by removing "substantive and relevant encyclopedic content."  I'm not sure whether the sentence I quoted meets that test, though.  If it doesn't, I don't see how it could be rewritten.  The only remedy would be to delete it.  JamesMLane 04:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Query re national debt
Chris added this item as a Clinton/Gore economic accomplishment: "Paid off $360 billion of the national debt." I think the whole list is tangential to the Al Gore article; even a President has only limited scope for influencing macroeconomic performance, let alone a VP. As to this specific item, though, it would suggest to me that the total accumulated national debt was $360 billion less in January 2001 than it had been eight years earlier. Is there support for that assertion? Clinton/Gore inherited a huge annual deficit from 12 years of Reagan/Bush. The federal budget can't be turned around on a dime; the 1993 tax increase began the process of bringing the budget into balance, and the annual deficit declined each year thereafter, but it was still a deficit until the last year (maybe last two years) of the administration. I find it hard to believe that the tail-end surpluses equaled the total of six or seven years of deficits plus $360 billion. If the statement means, for example, that a FY 1992 deficit of $280 billion became a FY 2000 surplus of $80 billion, it would be more credible, but that's covered in the next item and wouldn't constitute paying off $360 billion of the national debt. JamesMLane 06:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * How about doing some homework: http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-01.html

'''Paid off $360 billion of the national debt Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.''' ChrisDJackson 10:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * My original comment addressed this point, when I stated that the current wording "would suggest to me that the total accumulated national debt was $360 billion less in January 2001 than it had been eight years earlier." I think that's the most natural interpretation of the passage I deleted.  Your citation confirms what I thought -- that the sentence, if so interpreted, is false.  Instead, the basic patten is what I suggested -- that Clinton/Gore inherited an accumulated debt and a huge annual deficit; that the annual deficit was reduced during the first years of the Administration, but was still there, so that the accumulated debt grew rather than being paid off; that the budget moved into surplus only toward the end of the Administration, so that the reduction of the accumulated debt that occurred was less than the increase that had occurred in the first years of the Administration, i.e., Clinton left the debt larger than he found it.
 * This isn't a slam at Clinton (still less at Gore). Twelve years of unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility under Reagan and Bush couldn't be reversed in a moment.  The federal government is like a huge ocean liner that takes time to change direction.  But the correct statement of the Democrats' accomplishment is what's in the next item: "Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus."  In this context, running a surplus naturally involves paying off debt.  The $360 billion item adds nothing except confusion.
 * If, for some reason, you see value to the reader in re-inserting it, then it would have to be qualified so that the article correctly states the overall course of the debt during the Clinton/Gore years. It would read something like: "Paid off $360 billion of the national debt (although total national debt at the end of the administration was still approximately $1.5 trillion dollars higher than at the beginning)."  (You can find the change in the debt as between any two dates at http://www.publicdebt.ustreas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi -- the $1.5 trillion figure is the increase from January 1993 to January 2001.)  If you re-insert the sentence in that form, I'll defer to your desire to include it, but I think the article is better off without it. JamesMLane 15:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Facts: http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

United States National Debt - (1938 to Present)

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=139

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/3880

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus

ChrisDJackson 03:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/debtclock020711.html

 * Firing off a barrage of URL's without addressing the substantive point I'm making is, IMHO, an unhelpful procedure. Nevertheless, I've now waded through all this stuff.  For the benefit of Talk page readers who don't want to waste as much time as I just did, here's what I found at each site.
 * http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
 * Chart showing annual (not total accumulated) deficits through 1996. According to my eyeball estimates of the chart data, total additional debt incurred during the first four years of the Clinton Administration was about $1 trillion, which is consistent with my comments.  Deficit spending didn’t end in 1996, but apparently the chart wasn’t updated thereafter.
 * http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
 * Graph of total national debt, which shows (eyeballing) that debt during the Clinton Administration rose by about $1.4 trillion, in line with the more precise figure I cited from the Treasury website. Text accompanying the graph refers to “Clinton, who raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year....”  Both the graph and the text are further corroboration of my statement that it would be misleading to give the impression that the net effect of the Clinton Administration was to pay off part of the debt.  Also note that footnote 1 explains the difference between proposed budget and actual (sometimes unexpected) spending, which may well explain the chronological discrepancy between the other sites each of us cited earlier.  An alternative explanation is that there are different ways of accounting for Social Security (see Hightower article from alternet, discussed below).
 * http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
 * This is the Treasury website that I relied on, only this particular page within the site restricts you to ascertaining the debt as of September 30 of each year for the pre-2003 period. I used instead http://www.publicdebt.ustreas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi because you can pick any date, so as to coincide the computation with Presidential inaugurations.  At any rate, even your citation shows the misleading nature of the current text of the article.  The debt as of Clinton’s inauguration was presumably somewhere between the figures for September 30, 1992 ($4.06 trillion) and September 30, 1993 ($4.41 trillion).  The bracketing dates for Bush’s inauguration were: September 29, 2000 ($5.67 trillion) and September 28, 2001 ($5.81 trillion).  Thus, the net increase in debt during the Clinton Administration was on the order of $1.5 trillion, as I stated.
 * http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=139
 * Article slamming Bush for lying on television about comparative growth of discretionary spending in his administration versus Clinton’s. Chart and commentary ignore receipts and nondiscretionary spending and so don’t address annual or accumulated deficits.  It’s irrelevant to our current discussion.  (It makes a good point about yet another instance of deceit by Bush, though.  It might be worth mentioning in the George W. Bush article if that article isn’t already groaning under the weight of such examples.)
 * http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/3880
 * This Jim Hightower article, from April 2000, says that the Clinton Administration’s reported budget surplus wasn’t genuine, but rather was achieved by some accounting flim-flam involving Social Security. I'm surprised you list it, because it further undercuts the challenged item in the Al Gore article about supposedly paying off part of the national debt.
 * http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus
 * This news story about a White House press announcement in the waning months of the Clinton Administration reports the claim that, toward the end of the administration, part of the debt has been paid off. Let’s assume for a moment that Jim Hightower’s criticism (previous citation) was completely wrong and that the Clinton claim is legitimate.  The press release is still not a comprehensive look at the debt during the entire eight years of the administration.  Instead, it focuses on the time period that makes Clinton look good.  I have no problem with that – it’s not an outright lie, like Bush’s comment, and the White House PR people are entitled to accentuate the positive to try to make the President look good.  Wikipedia, however, is not in the spin business.  If we’re going to address the subject of the course of the national debt during the Clinton Administration, we should give the full picture, combining good years and bad years.  (That’s a big “if,” by the way.  I still think this whole subject is pretty much worthless in an article about Al Gore.)
 * http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/debtclock020711.html
 * Article from 2002 about the debt clock in Manhattan – it comments that debt levels started to decline in 2000 but are “now” (i.e., in 2002) rising again. The only point to this article is that, by the end of the Clinton Administration, the annual deficit had turned into a surplus, which is not in dispute and which is stated in the very next line of our article.
 * In sum, the current text of the article, if left unqualified, is seriously misleading. I’ve wasted enough time on this and I don’t want to get into a revert war, given that you will apparently just keep restoring the sentence without ever explaining what it adds.  Therefore, I’ll add the information about the overall course of the debt, so that we aren't leaving a misleading impression.  Your edit summary of July 22 said, “James, quit removing facts,” so I assume you won’t violate your own advice by removing this fact. JamesMLane 06:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On why Gore lost the 2000 election.
Although I think we can all agree that ChrisDJackson has done a lot of good work on this article, I believe the most recent change (on why Gore lost) is a bad idea. I think what was there before is more NPOV. Here's why:
 * "Some contend that. . . he actually won". It would be better to say who contends this. Although I know of many celebrities who claim this, I don't know of any media outlet, think tank, or other responsible, rational group that claims Gore actually won. Gore doesn't contend this, for example. (My own POV is that Gore should have won, but didn't actually.)
 * The use of the word "technicality" is NPOV in my opinion. It's the way voting in America works. I would think a technicality would be more akin to "Massachusetts submitted its vote without signing" or somesuch. The fact that Gore received a minority of the electoral vote doesn't seem like a technicality to me.
 * "Some call this fact irrelevant". The Constitution calls this fact irrelevant. Who doesn't call this fact irrelevant?
 * "and that Al Gore should not be faulted for 'losing'". I don't like this phrase. It assumes someone else is claiming that it was his fault, and it seems a tad defensive.

Because of this, I'm reverting. I don't mean to be rude; I just think the previous version told the facts and showed multiple opinions without overstating or restating bits. Quadell (talk) 13:35, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * FYI, I have nothing to do with this section. If it needs fixing, please do so.  ChrisDJackson 01:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

External links competition among anons
Lately there's been a string of edits in which anon users delete each other's external links and aubstitute their own. I gather it's a turf war among different groups of Gore supporters.

Wikipedia is not a collection of links, but each of these sites seems to me to be an inclusion I can live with, although not with any peacock language (as in the latest addition, describing that anon's favorite site as "the largest grassroots site of it's kind on the net").

I suggest listing each of these sites in "External links" without puffery. As for the listing of speeches, perhaps the title of the speech (unlinked, but while you're at it add the date), followed by footnote-type links (number only) to each site on which it's found. That's an ugly solution but it gives readers the option and stops the incessant back-and-forthing. JamesMLane 14:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * James, apparently 207.202.146.79 is Dylan Malone from AlGoreDemocrats (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G&q=%22207.202.146.79%22) and 192.195.64.72 is another person from the same site. They are being very childish, by is everything they can do bash other Gore sites on the web.  He is going out his way to find sources of links to other Gore sites, then delete them apparently.  I would advise a ban on this person because they have nothing to contribute to Wiki except these little games, which is not helpful. ChrisDJackson

Indeed, there has been a string of edits by anon users. I was one of them. I'm deeply involved in other web projects and didn't think it would be necessary to create a WikiPedia account, I was not attempting to actually remain anonymous. (It was simplicity itself to register, so that's done). A user emailed me a week ago pointing out that while there were numerous links to another site, there were none to the principle site. We ADDED a link to the larger site.

Several times, the link was removed and has been restored. Of course, any significant Gore site should be included. As for the language describing the sites, I'm flexible... AlGoreDemocrats.com is certainly a much larger site which has generated a lot more press coverage, etc. (including visits from other Presidential candidates during the primaries!). I'd welcome brief four or five word descriptions of the major sites written by a Wikipedia enthusiast other than young Master Jackson of the "Gore Support Center". Thank you, Dylan Malone.

 * Dylan, thanks for responding. You're right that anon edits are generally OK.  On the specific point of adding external links, though, we often have anons show up to insert what are basically advertisements, so an anon who does nothing but insert a link raises an automatic red flag.  In this case, though, your site is noncommercial, which makes a difference.  In terms of a description, I think that what you've written ("AlGoreDemocrats- Organize, Discuss, Act") pretty much does the job.  This article is about Al Gore, not about any of the sites.  An encyclopedia article about Gore doesn't need to report the number of hits or VIP visits of various supporters' sites.  As for Chris Jackson, I don't always agree with him, but he's made significant contributions to this article, so I think it's reasonable for his site to be listed ahead of a similar site that doesn't have that factor going for it.  In my capacity as self-appointed arbiter, having no tie to either site, I'm putting yours below his, but I think both should stay in the list. (While I was writing the above, Chris switched the order himself, but I'm leaving my comment in to provide a neutral imprimatur to that action.) JamesMLane 22:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your reply James. Also, thanks for the support.  I have done alot of good work for this article and I feel that there should be some reconition for that.  I also use Wikipeida's article on my site, which is linked.  But this is just ludacris.  I have told him I am not in this for my reconition or any praise, I am in it for Al Gore and the spreading of his vision.  He has made comments in the past week urging all Gore sites to cease and join them because the are inferior.  However, as I have pointed out we have more members, better on GooglePageRank and Yahoo.  Now he is following me around and removing my links and inserting his which is very childish.  As I also told him, I could care less if both links are there, but when he removes my link in spite, that is vadalism.  It shouldn't be about that, however, he wants to make it a competition.  You can tell by his comments above he is in spite about something.  However, like I said this boils down to his comments earlier this week about other Gore sites.

I also don't apprecaite him coming here, incognito, and changing things. I have not only edited this Gore page extensivly, but other pages. I don't think anyone likes an anon reverting or vandalizing pages.

Again, thanks James. Like you said, we don't always see eye to eye on the issues, but we do agree that is petty and should be resolved. ChrisDJackson

 * James, thanks for your hard work on the amazing Wikipedia. As for the other comments, that sort of infighting is inappropriate for a Gore supporter, and I'm ignoring it.  I see from the other entries on this page that the author has been a controversial figure since long before this came up.  I was only attempting to restore the link to an unofficial Gore site, and choose not to challenge the ill conceived notes above.

 * Oh yea Dylan, everything is so ill conveived about what I said. Well, here is your little vendettative post about how you wish all the other Gore sites would just stop and join you.  It also proves you have motive for your actions:

"Actually, the issue of "other" Gore sites brings up mixed feelings for me. This site - when launched years ago as AlGore04.com (renamed now for obvious reasons), was the combination of two other sites - AlGore-04.com and Al-Gore-2004.org. That was progress, in my opinion... the goal was to create something bigger and more organized than individuals could realistically do on their own. We approached other websites at the time, but most didn't respond.

Strangely, every now and then, somebody creates a site with it's own "news" and message boards. It takes a fair bit of time to do that, which would have been better spent chipping in here -- we have a list of at least a dozen projects we'd love to have competent help with. It's a fool's errand in some ways to launch these mini-sites... they've only a fraction the traffic we do, and they're only re-inventing the wheel.

There's no human way you could improve on the job Janet Hessert does with the news here-- she tracks Gore's every move with better precision and accuracy than Tipper does! LOL And our fourms, chat rooms, etc. are as good as web tech can offer... so why bother?

Anyhow, the redesign is very close now, and when it's done I intend to renew my call to unite anyone with a shred of interest in contributing to the Gore web. I'll be adding a place to check in and look for volunteer opportunities. Gore needs a large, unified, and organized community of support. That's what we offer, and hope to expand dramatically in the years ahead." Now, do you want me to add in all the emails you have sent me saying the same thing among other things? ChrisDJackson 00:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Al Gore's views
There was a separate article on Al Gore's views, with a cross-reference in the main Al Gore article under "Views and controversies". On August 26, Poccil edited the other article by inserting the "merge" template ("This article should be merged with Al Gore"). On August 27, Jiang turned Al Gore's views into a redirect here, without merging any of the content. CDN99 then edited this article to remove the cross-reference, which had become a self-reference.

I hope this link will show the Al Gore's views article as it was immediately before it was converted to a redirect.

There are three main alternatives here:
 * 1. Restore the separate article on Al Gore's views, with a link to it from Al Gore.
 * 2. Leave Al Gore's views as a redirect but incorporate much of its content into this article.
 * 3. Status quo -- all the material that was in Al Gore's views is essentially gone.

These three are listed in my order of preference. I favor the general approach described in Summary style of having a "top-level" article (like Al Gore) with general summary information, and more detailed treatment of subtopics included in daughter articles (like Al Gore's views). I don't see a good rationale for the change that's been made here. Before reverting it, though, I'd like to hear others' comments. JamesMLane 11:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Al Gore's views is just a bullet point list and not an article. Unless someone can immensely improve it, it doesnt deserve to stand alone. That said, I didnt do my job and failed to merge the content (not the bullet point list). The views section should be at least a couple paragraphs long. Ill try to get to it... --Jiang 11:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is that if you merge in every point, it will clutter the main article, and if you select a few, the rest of the information will be lost. I think that even a collection of bullet points, with a link from the main article, is acceptable as a way of making the information conveniently available. Virtually no one would come upon Al Gore's views except by following the link from Al Gore, and, for those people, a bulleted list is much better than nothing. JamesMLane 15:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Readers of an encyclopedia are interested in the summary, not every single fact on a subject. The political views should be probably integrated into the various time periods (mention what policies Gore helped enact or advocated for). Gore is no longer running for public office. Politicians tend to flip-flop over time so a bullet point list like the one in the article is not helpful. Compare: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553525/Gore_Al.html --Jiang 19:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Al Gore/Archive 4


text:
Togo (disambiguation)

Togo is a country in West Africa.

Togo may also refer to:

Japan

 * Tōgō, Aichi, a town in Aichi Prefecture
 * Tōgō, Kagoshima, a dissolved municipality of Kagoshima Prefecture
 * Tōgō, Miyazaki, a town in Miyazaki Prefecture
 * Tōgō, Tottori, a town in Tottori Prefecture
 * Lake Tōgō, Tottori Prefecture

Other

 * Togo, Saskatchewan, a small village in Canada
 * Togoville, a town formerly known as Togo, in the southern part of Togo
 * Togo Mountains, Togo
 * Lake Togo, the largest part of a lagoon in Togo
 * Togo, Kansas, United States, a ghost town
 * Togo, Minnesota, United States, an unincorporated community
 * Togo, Texas, United States, an unincorporated community

People

 * Tōgō Heihachirō (東郷 平八郎), Japanese admiral
 * Tōgō Masamichi (東郷正路), Japanese admiral
 * Togo Murano (村野 藤吾), Japanese architect
 * Seiji Togo (東郷 青児), Japanese painter and artist
 * Shigenori Togo (東郷 茂徳), Foreign Minister of Japan
 * Togo Yamamoto (山本 冬郷), Japanese actor
 * Jonathan Togo (born 1977), American actor
 * Togo Mizrahi (1901–1986), Egyptian director, actor, producer, and screenwriter
 * Togo Palazzi (1932–2022), American retired National Basketball Association player
 * Togo D. West Jr. (1942–2018), African-American lawyer and Secretary of Veterans Affairs
 * Togo (comedian), stage name of Filipino entertainer Andres Solomon (1905–1952)
 * Togo Igawa, stage name of Japanese actor Yoshiyuki Baba (born 1946)
 * Dick Togo (ディック 東郷), ring name of Japanese professional wrestler Shigeki Sato (born 1969)

Transportation

 * Air Togo, an airline headquartered in Togo which operated between 1998 and 2000
 * Togo station (Saskatchewan), Canada
 * Tōgō Station, Munakata, Fukuoka, Japan

Other uses

 * Togo (film), a 2019 American film
 * Duke Togo (デューク・東郷), the main character of Japanese manga Golgo 13
 * Togo (dog) (1913–1929), a famous sled dog
 * TOGO, a Japanese builder of roller coasters
 * German minelayer V 5908 Togo
 * German night fighter direction vessel Togo
 * Togo's, an American fast-food chain

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

title: Togo (disambiguation)


text:
Template talk:Commons category

 * See also Sister projects

nowarn
I suggest to add a parameter yes or no where preview warnings can be turned off. That would make previewing pages like List of numbered streets in Manhattan, where dozens of helpful templates are used, much easier. As it is, the preview warnings distort the placement of images. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Placement of template
The documentation says "In articles, this template should be placed at the top of the last section on the page.". Fair enough ... except ...

Surely this is not intended to put it above reflist in the section "References", ie between the heading and the single-line content of the section? Please can we amend the text to say so. is currently moving it with comment "per its documentation, commonscat goes at the top of the last section", but I am sure this is not what is intended.

Or is there some reason why commonscat should not go after reflist? Pam D  09:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Why do you think this is wrong, or should be changed? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the heading "==References==" and the template Reflist are like a pair of conjoined twins and seeing the heading, not immediately followed by the template, is disconcerting and suggests a problem. Pam  D  10:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And looking at [] shows that while "References" is part of the "Appendices", commonscat has much more in common with the items listed under "End matter", and should be placed with them. If it comes between the heading and template in "References", and someone then adds a "Further reading" section, they should not have to move commonscat further down the page while they do so.  Pam  D  10:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 * This isn't simply a matter of wikitext aesthetics - it's an end-user rendered-page visible change. Putting the commonscat template by itself defeats the purpose of its floating right - to make better use of whitespace and make for a more compact and accessible layout in the final rendered article. It seems that your objection is that it makes the wikitext look unfamiliar. That may be so - wikitext can be scary spaghetti sometimes. But finally it's the comfort of the reader, over that of the editor, that we must prioritise. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that I look at the two versions of Bleaberry Fell I can see exactly what you mean, and agree that the placement makes sense. I asked "Or is there some reason why commonscat should not go after reflist", and you've now replied and shown me that there is indeed a good reason. Thank you. Pam  D  11:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now WP:BOLDly added an explanation to the statement about the location of the template, in case anyone else is puzzled in future. Pam  D  11:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Preview warning at Ambassador Theater (Baltimore, Maryland) does not appear to be described in the documentation
At Ambassador Theater (Baltimore, Maryland), I'm seeing "Preview warning: Commons category does not match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata – please check". I looked at the documentation, and I don't see an applicable error condition. The link works fine. Is it possible that the article does not have a corresponding Wikidata item, and that is what is causing the preview warning? If so, an addition to the documentation might be needed, advising editors how to create (or find) a matching Wikidata item. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed at Wikidata Q122918735. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

|italics=no not working
For example... RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Commons_category/doc&diff=prev&oldid=1220828596
 * I think I fixed it. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Commons category


text: Category:Ranger program

title: Category:Ranger program


text:
Talk:Al Gore/Archive 5

Patriots for Al Gore
An anon keeps adding stuff about this organization. I've been deleting this: "However, Patriots for Gore then launched an effort to have superdelegates place their votes for Gore at the Democratic National Convention, and are continuing their efforts to support an Al Gore Presidency."

Frankly, I thought I was being generous just leaving their website in the "External links" section. That some people urged delegates to vote for Gore, without any indication that any of them actually did so (my guess is that none did), doesn't seem like a notable event in Al Gore's life, however notable it may have been in the lives of those making the effort. If anyone sees a reason to leave it in, please speak up. JamesMLane 17:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * James it is sad but it yet another competing site/organization that is doing this. They see that I put in all the work on this article and I have my site's link at the bottom so they figure "why not put our groups' name in the article and put our link above theirs?"  It is pitiful.  Why all these groups would continue to act like children is beyond me.  I have tried to make this article very articulate and factual, yet folks keep adding non factual things for personal gain.  The person's name is Jan Moore, the "chair" of this group.  She is a double banned user from our site who is at odds with the staff at our site and other sites.

Just letting you know who is doing this vandalism this time. ChrisDJackson 05:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't consider this vandalism. An edit dispute isn't vandalism.  The repeated edits do, however, reflect a wildly inflated view of the importance of the draft-Gore activities that occurred in the latter phase of the race.  I let the link stay because the "Patriots" site does have some legitimate content on it.  I'm glad to see you're still watching the article so that there's more than one person to deal with persistent re-insertions of the inappropriate passages in the text, though. JamesMLane 05:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * To James: First of all, I had absolutely no idea who wrote this article. I assumed it was put here by people who work for this site as I came upon it in a search. Secondly, I am not at odds with anyone on Chris's site but him because he is jealous of our PAC. I have absolutely no problem with anyone else. Thirdly, PFG is a legitimate Federally regulated PAC, and I do believe our efforts while not earth shattering, did have an impact. You have no idea of how many letters we sent out to Congressional members, superdelegates, etc. We did much work in a very short space of time with limited resources, and it was all done from our hearts. I also find it very unprofessional of others to badmouth others for personal reasons on a public website like this, simply because I decided to leave their forum. You do not know me, James, but let me just say, that there are two sides to every story. I would very much like to leave what I interjected into the paragraph, as I did it to note what had happened after Draft Gore ended. But now that I know who wrote this, it is no wonder that the link to Draft Gore was not even put into this. It is a shame that this person deigns himself to be the ONLY Gore supporter, and uses such nasty tactics to discredit others.We are also still going as a PAC, as is Al Gore Democrats, and we are all still supporting Al Gore, and will hopefully be involved in any future endeavors of his. I see nothing wrong with the way this was worded, and I assure you, it was put here to simply give credit to our organization because we have and will continue to support Al Gore, as he also knows about us. And while that may not be important to others, it is to us. The constant berating of this PAC by the same person who claims to support Al Gore is simply unfair. Who are any of you really to say what is and is not important to Al Gore's life here? ALL who support him are important. And Chris, I really thought you had more couth than this. To badmouth me on a site like this is really unbelievably low. However, if this is how legitimate PACS are treated here, I will simply open my own account here and insert it on my own page. And don't think that those who believe you to be so nice Chris, won't know about this.

Jan

 * Jan, thanks for joining the discussion here. Just to fill you in on how Wikipedia works, the content isn't written by people who work for the site (in the sense of getting paid).  We're all volunteers.  Chris has been a very active contributor to this article but many other editors have also been involved.

 * As for what goes into the article, our basic standard is that this is an encyclopedia. Typically, an encyclopedia article doesn't try to convey every bit of available information about the subject.  Particularly on a major figure like Al Gore, it wouldn't be hard to write 500 pages about his life and career.  We have to be selective.  You write, "Who are any of you really to say what is and is not important to Al Gore's life here? ALL who support him are important."  All who support him have some importance, but some events are more important than others.  Wikipedia does not have a policy of just letting in any true statement about the subject of the article.  That would be a disservice to our readers.  We do have to make judgments.  When there are disagreements, we discuss them on this page.

 * I can well believe that you put a lot of work into your campaign. I've put in my own share of time mailing out multiple letters, phone-banking, leafletting, etc.  I'm not trying to deprecate your work.  You're certainly correct to say: "And while that may not be important to others, it is to us."  The problem is that, for purposes of this article, we have to figure out what is important to others.  My judgment is that the draft-Gore movement was certainly worth mentioning for the period before he endorsed Dean; was borderline from then through the early primaries; and was not a significant factor once it was obvious that Kerry had nomination wrapped up, and Gore joined other top Democrats in uniting behind him.  I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but no matter how much effort you put into sending letters to superdelegates, that campaign didn't have a notable effect on Al Gore's life.  This article has to restrict itself to events that meet that standard.

 * As for the different PACs, they're not mentioned in the text of the article. We've left in the link you added to your website in the "External links" section, which is how all the PACs are treated.  Some readers will want more information about Al Gore than an article of reasonable length can convey, which is why we include such external links in many of our articles.  It's the accepted method for making available details that don't belong in the main article.  If you continue to update your website with information about Patriots for Gore, then it will be accessible to Wikipedia readers who want that kind of additional information. JamesMLane 19:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chris, this isn't about you, so please, get a grip. I will no longer respond to your vitriol against me. You damn sure think you are the only Gore supporter worthy of notice and think everything everyone does is copying you. With all due respect, I truly think you need help. You don't get along with the people at Al Gore Democrats either. You don't get along with anyone you see as honing in on YOUR TURF. I am FINISHED with you about this. You have proven through your actions that you are an immature jealous person, and I will no longer entertain your attacks on me. I don't take my ball and go home, BTW. YOU BANNED ME for speaking my mind and sticking to my political convictions. Now gee, how aftaid of me are you? As I stated, I will open my own account here and put work into providing a section over time on what our PAC represents and does, which includes more than supporting Al Gore. I surely then hope as someone who doesn't hold a grudge, that you will then stay out of it. To James: Thank you for your adult and civil response in explaining how this works. I thank you for keeping our link here, and understand your explanation. And as I have stated, I will start my own account when I can find more time. Thank you again. Jan
 * Jan, when will you stop your lying. You my friend are the one who is power hungry and jealous.  You try to copy everything our site does.  You first got the same type forum we had a while back, now since we get a new one, you get the same type.  It is getting old.  You are a lonley old sole who has nothing better to do than lie and try to promote yourself and your site.  Wikipedia is not a site for that.  I have spent more time than anyone on this Al Gore page and I won't let you ruin it with your spamming.  James is right on all points.  Also, if you try to create a Patriots For Gore page on Wikipedia it will be put of the Vote For Deletion page immediatley.  You need to learn when to be serious and when not to be.  This is getting old.  I know, you are a self sufficent woman with your own views, and that is why you left.  Big deal.  But your continual lying, copying of our group, and spamming is unnerving to anyone with a brain.  GROW UP!  And for you to say that I think I am the only Gore supporter out there is false.  And to say that our site does not support Gore because we acutally took his advice in endorsing John Kerry, is wrong.  Your constant use of the word berating is just childish.  I have done nothing but give my opinion on things you put out.  I will not sit back and allow you to call DNC members republicans.  I will not sit back and allow you to try to tell people that Al Gore really didn't want to endorse John Kerry.  The list goes on and on.  I admire your dedication and work, however, I hate your attitude that it is everyone against us.  Ask anyone that used to work with you and they will tell you the same.  If you have beef on one small thing, you take your ball home and become cold and bitter.  It just isn't good.     ChrisDJackson 20:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Lie after lie after lie. You are the one who doesn't get along with AGDEMS.  You have left and been banned from there before.  Again you are lying about me banning you.  You left after we had a forum dedicated to Senator Kerry.  You then came back as a guest questioning our loyalty to Al Gore and our cause, and that is when I banned you.  Yet you still keep coming back and saying you will report our site for not letting your post, yet you don't understand no one cares and nothing can be done.  I am the administrator and you have broken the rules.  I don't know when you will stop.  I just want you to stop messing with my work on here, our site, our forum, and our members.  Just stop and I will not say another word to you.  ChrisDJackson 20:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's try and keep all talk page discussion directly relevant to the article, folks. If you must flame each other/defend yourselves, please do it through e-mail or something. Does anyone have any qualms with the way Patriots for Gore info is currently incorporated in this article? Tuf-Kat 21:00, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, I'm not messing with YOUR work and this site isn't YOURS, Chris, and I will come here any damn time I wish to come here. It is a public site where anyone can have an account, and this isn't the first time I have been here, nor is this the only topic I have read. Not everything revolves around YOU. I mean it really, you need to get help for your obsessions. I also have no defending to do. It is YOU who proceeded to attack me here first and lie to complete strangers here about me to discredit me from the outset, and I truly doubt many care here about you airing your dirty laundry. Not very mature, but as I said, it is par for the course with you. Anyway, to answer the question of TUF-KAT, as Chairperson of PFG, I have no problem with the information included here and made sure it conformed to what James told me in regards to how it should be worded. Thank you.
 * Jan

Let Gore have his umlauts!
I am shocked, shocked, shocked that the Wiki-cabal has decided to rob Gore of his rightfully earned umlauts. Surely no one can deny that Gore is among the most heavy metal-spirited politicians of our age. We don't need no stinkin' recounts! Let's all coöperate and give Göre back his ümlauts! -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Who do you think you are, questioning my right to remove ümlauts! If we let this sort of thing continue, we'll soon have díåçrìtîcs ëvèrÿwherê. Mateo SA 00:27, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Photos
I disagree with replacing this photo with.

It is customary to use images in the bio box with the subject facing forward. The new image not only has Mr. Gore facing to the left, the illumination makes it look like propaganda. We want simple direct head shots for the profile in the box, not elaborately lighted and posed ones. --Jiang 03:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It shouldn't be about whether the person's face is slightly tilted or what have you, it should be about what is more attractive. The Gore photo on the left was from the early White House years, while the one of the right was issued in 2000.  This photo is a head shot, and does not present a propoganda effect.  That is just ludacris.

Again, this is a head shot which is more recent and looks better.

ChrisDJackson 05:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have a recent photo for this purpose. The box is for the VP of the United States so we should use a photo that represents him halfway through his terms. Besides, the guy hasn't aged as much for it to matter. And even then, this photo is from 4 years ago. If you've seen him recently, you'd notice that he's gotten a bit fatter. Age aside, I think the one on the left looks better but we won't be able to agree on that. --Jiang 06:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the one on the right looks a little better but the one on the left looks a little more "official" as a portrait of Gore as VP. That's probably because, even though they're both apparently from the White House, the one on the left has the flag in the background.  I'll admit my bias here: I don't like the way the Republicans act as if the U.S. flag has become a symbol of their party.  Bush's picture has a flag in the background and he's wearing a flag lapel pin, so let's let Gore have at least one flag visible.  JamesMLane 07:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"He is also considered by many political pundits to be a front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination if he decides to run." - Name five. Varitek 10:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Just a note of caution -- Chris seems (and I may be wrong here) to be ignoring requests to provide copyright information for his uploaded photos. Certainly he's uploaded images of Gore without tags recently.  I just wanted to leave a ntoe here since Chris has blanked his talk page once recently in response to a request for image tags -- I figured we should have a note somewhere other than buried in Chris's talk page history to note that those images need tags soon, or else we need to get rid of them. Jwrosenzweig 22:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe I missed something, but I did tag these images. ChrisDJackson 19:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photos 2
Mr. Jackson, I don't see why you keep editing out and removing photos you don't happen to like. The photo is relevant; his speech is mentioned in this very article! How can a photo of the speech possibly be irrelevant? On the same note, how could you then justify a photo of Al Gore's signature relevant? May I add that you usually do a very good job on wikipages but there is something you just have against this photo?--David Foster 06:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Al Gore/Archive 5


text:
Kurdistan Islamic Movement

The Kurdistan Islamic Movement (بزووتنه‌وی ئيسلامی له كوردستان, in the Kurmanji dialect ) is a Kurdish Islamist party founded in 1987 by mufti Osman Abdulaziz and several other Kurdish Islamic scholars who were all part of the non-political "Union of Religious Scholars" group. The party's main support comes from in and around the town of Halabja.

In the 1992 Kurdistan Region parliamentary election, the party received 5.1% of the vote, the third largest after the PUK and KDP. In 1993 the PUK ceded control of territory around Halabja, Tawella and Panjwin to the party after heavy fighting, and the party controlled Halabja from 1998 to 2000. In 1998, Osman Abdulaziz moved to Erbil with a number of supporters. After his death in 1999, the leadership of the party passed to his brother, Ali Abdulaziz Halabji, who has his office in Halabja.

There were reported clashes, which resulted in deaths between the PUK, Islamic Groups, PKK, and the KDP. The heaviest fighting began in September 2001, when a newly created Islamist group, Ansar al-Islam, seized control of some villages near the Iranian border and created the Islamic Emirate of Byara.

In 1994, KIM carried out a series of bombings in Istanbul, which resulted in the deaths of 20 people and injured more than 120 others. The Turkish government responded by launching a major crackdown on the group, arresting hundreds of its members and supporters. KIM was designated as a terrorist organization by the Turkish government in 2005.

According to press and opposition reporting, the Ansar al-Islam attacked PUK fighters near Halabja, killing dozens of people. Intermittent fighting between the PUK, Ansar al-Islam, and other Islamic groups continued until late November, when the Iranian government imposed a ceasefire agreement between those involved.

As of 2005, the Kurdistan Islamic Movement holds two ministerial posts in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan-dominated government. This cooperation appears to be principally a temporary coalition dictated by pragmatic considerations. Kurdistan Islamic Movement is receiving aid from Iran and is also said to receive money from other Islamic countries. The Kurdistan Islamic Movement has offices in various cities in Northern Iraq, including Sulaymaniyah and Erbil.

During the 2010 Iraqi elections the party won some 40 thousand votes.

A Saudi cable leak from WikiLeaks revealed that Saudi Arabia donated over half a million dollars to the party.

Splits
In May 2001, Ali Bapir, a former leader of the Kurdistan Islamic Movement and a former deputy of the Islamic Emirate of Byara left the party with his followers and founded a new party. This party, initially called Kurdistan Islamic Group was later renamed to Kurdistan Justice Group. Bapir's party has since surpassed KIM in terms of political influence.

On 16 March 2024, another faction led by Kamîlî Hacî Elî founded the Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement, after having left the party following the party's congress in October 2023. On the foundational congress in Silêmanî, where about 1,100 people were present, the new party decided to prepare to participate in the upcoming 2024 Kurdistan Region parliamentary election.

title: Kurdistan Islamic Movement


text:
Candidate of Philosophy

Candidate of Philosophy can refer to the US degree or status of Candidate in Philosophy (C.Phil. or Ph.C.) granted to Ph.D. students who have been accepted as candidates for that degree, or (as a direct translation) to degrees or former degrees at bachelor's or master's level from some Scandinavian countries.

United States
In the United States, it is normal for graduate students working toward a doctorate to take coursework followed by examinations (known variously as candidacy examinations, comprehensive examinations or qualifiers) after which they become candidates for the doctorate. At a few institutions, this status is officially recognized either by a degree or some other official title. This is normally intended to be an interim status, prior to the award of a doctorate, not to be confused with the terminal master's degree awarded by some programs to those who leave after their candidacy examination. Some universities grant a Master of Philosophy degree to students who have been accepted for candidacy. During the 1960s, the University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, Yale, and Rutgers all granted MPhil degrees to students who were ABD, while Indiana University, the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, along with the University of California and the University of Washington (described below) awarded the Candidate of Philosophy degree.

University of California
The first Candidate in Philosophy degree was first awarded at UC Berkeley in June of 1968. Seven of the ten University of California campuses offer the Candidate in Philosophy (C.Phil.) degree to those who have passed the candidacy exam for the PhD in some programs. On some campuses it is only awarded to those leaving without a master's or a doctorate, however at UC San Diego such a practice seems forbidden.
 * University of California, Berkeley
 * University of California, Davis
 * University of California, Los Angeles
 * University of California, Riverside
 * University of California, San Diego
 * University of California, San Francisco
 * University of California, Santa Barbara

University of Washington
The University of Washington awards a certificate of Candidate in Philosophy (Ph.C.) to those admitted to candidacy for the Ph.D., alongside the Candidate in Education (Ed.C.) and Candidate in Musical Arts (C.M.A.) for those admitted to candidacy for the degrees of Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) and Doctor of Musical Arts (D.M.A.). These are designations for candidate status rather than degrees.

Denmark
The candidatus/candidata philosophiae degree (cand.phil.) was a master's-level first degree. It was awarded after four years' study and included a dissertation. As part of Bologna Process of degree reforms, it was abandoned in 1995/6.

Sweden
In Sweden, sv:filosofie kandidat (fil.kand. or FK) is the title for the holder of a bachelor's degree (filosofie kandidatexamen).

Finland
In Finland, the filosofian kandidaatti (fil.kand. or FK) was a graduate degree awarded until 1994. Holders can proceed to a Master of Arts degree without further examination.

title: Candidate of Philosophy


text: User talk:81.79.82.41

title: User talk:81.79.82.41


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New anti-Semitism

 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 but cleanup (overwhelming consensus to keep) -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism
This article is POV by nature. "Modern anti-Semitism" or "New anti-Semitism" is the Zionist concept that, in the olden days, there was crude anti-Semitism like gas chambers, and that we nowadays are confronted with sneakier anti-Semitism involving such heinous acts as criticising Israeli government policy.

 * I have never heard of a Jewish group which holds that criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism. In fact such a claim is a classic strawman attack.  People should not make claims up about the Jews, when the Jews in fact have no such beliefs. RK 23:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are Jews who believe that. She references in the article. Chamaeleon 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the article were simply about anti-Semitism in modern times, then it would be great. However, it is about something the article itself admits is a neologism ("The term The New anti-Semitism was coined at the outset of the 21st century"). The article does not even pose the question of whether this non-existent phenomenon is reality or not: it simply explains how bad it is, subdividing it into varities etc. The entire article pushes the POV that such a thing exists.

 * Again, this is untrue. The article was never solely about what is called "the new anti-Semitism".  From the very beginning this article was about anti-Semitism since the end of World War II.  You are attacking something that isn't there. RK 23:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * That comment is not in accordance with the facts. Chamaeleon 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If there were an article called New anti-Americanism that said "The new anti-Americans are those people who attack our democratically-elected President and show themselves up as unpatriotic by failing to support our army in its liberation of other countries" we would quickly zap it, salvaging any sensible content for merging into Anti-American sentiment or some such article.

We must do the same with articles such as this, which push a Zionist POV. There are several pieces of notable information in it, and these should be salvaged for the article Anti-Semitism and/or Anti-Zionism. That is where they belong, along with the (notable, though false) claim that some special, new form of anti-Semitism (which, incidentally, is a bad thing) exists. Chamaeleon 15:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I initially just turned it into a redirect, but then thought that someone might revert that change, so a VfD entry is probably necessary. NB: I'm not asking for any article deletion or censoring, just making it a redirect and merging any NPOV content into Anti-Semitism and/or Anti-Zionism. Chamaeleon 15:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * We do not snip of controversial bits of articles and put them in separate ones. It is well known that this leads to the separate article being a POV playground.  For this reason, we try to avoid articles such as criticism of CNN, and just put the criticism in the main article. Chamaeleon 16:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Merging the New Anti-Semitism article into the anti-Semitism article is a bad idea for two reasons. First, the information was removed from the anti-Semitism article 9 months ago because it was more controversial than the rest of the article, and therefore it was hoped it would bring some semblance of peace to the main article by moving it elsewhere. Second, this article is already 44K in size, and adding it back will make it closer to 60K, thus requiring an inevitable hiving-off of a sub-article anyway, as has been done with many other sections. The article itself should be improved by bringing published and cited views from both sides of the debate; VfDs should not be used to solve NPOV issues. Jayjg (talk)  16:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Mrfixter 16:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. MathKnight 16:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. RK 23:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Many of your claims were addressed in the article.
 * "The article does not even pose the question of whether this non-existent phenomenon is reality or not ... The entire article pushes the POV that such a thing exists." The article includes links to various reports that show a dramatic increase in antisemitic attacks in Western Europe, starting from 2002 and still lasting in 2003 and 2004. So it does exists.
 * "Modern anti-Semitism" or "New anti-Semitism" is the Zionist concept that, in the olden days, there was crude anti-Semitism like gas chambers, and that we nowadays are confronted with sneakier anti-Semitism involving such heinous acts as criticising Israeli government policy." See the section "straw man antisemitism". I hardly see our burning a synagouge in France by radical Muslims is criticising the Israeli government policy.
 * Since the new or modern antisemitism is what you call an "ongoing event" and still contraversial, it is good to seperate it as a sub-topic from the "antisemitsm" article, which deals with the past (which is much more static than the present).
 * MathKnight 16:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a straw-man argument. Perhaps I should have waited until Jayjg renamed it New anti-Semitism so that the issue would be clear.  Nobody is saying there is no longer any anti-Semitism in the world.  I even recently wrote a little about modern neo-nazis in the anti-Semitism article.  The point is that this article is not about anti-Semitism in recent times (I would not be against such an article), but rather it is explicitly about something called "New anti-Semitism", which is a way of saying that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.  We would not accept this on another topic, so why accept it here? Chamaeleon 17:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, perhaps less precipitous action in general, say, by using the Talk: pages to try to propose changes, might have resolved this more amicably. Regardless, the only strawman argument here is the claim that "New anti-Semitism" is just a way of saying "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic".  The article itself is reasonably careful to distinguish between anti-Zionism and the New anti-Semitism.  If the distinction is not clear enough, it can be made more clear. Jayjg (talk)  17:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep whether you agree that the things described in the article are valid anti-semitism or not, it's hard to deny that modern anti-semitism does exist in some form or another. This article should be kept, though if you disagree with it theere are ways of dealing with that, preferably through well-documented edits.  VfD isn't a cleanup method.  Also, article should not be merged, for reasons described by Jayjg above. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  16:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Straw man. Nobody is saying there is no anti-Semitism in modern times, but in that case the article should be called Anti-Semitism since 1950 or some other date.  The article has now been moved to New anti-Semitism, in line with its contents and in agreement with Jayjg and others who agree with its content.  Now no one can use that straw-man argument. Chamaeleon 17:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Certainly a very touchy, loaded subject, I agree that it needs extensive review for NPOV. It may also need some kind of title change. But I think it should remain an article in its own right, and will leave any possible changes it may need to wiser and less biased heads than mine. HyperZonk 19:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with jayjg. It needs NPOV but deletion is not appropriate. Rhobite 19:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you agree with Jayjg, then you don't think it needs NPOV. He is the one responsible for the current state of it, and fully defends it.  All you people who are saying "keep", what do you actually mean by that?  Turn it into an article on recent anti-Semitism?  That would entail deleting all the text and moving information from Anti-Semitism into it.  Turning it into an NPOV discussion of the "new anti-Semitism" slur, making it like Creationism?  OK, but that would be a total rewrite, and does not address the issue whether we believe it is good to put the controversial bits of articles into separate articles.  Keep it much as it is?  Untenable. Chamaeleon 19:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. I do think it needs NPOV, I am not "responsible for the current state of it", nor have I "fully defended" its current state.  On the contrary, I have welcomed NPOV additions, so long as they are not original research. Jayjg (talk)  19:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You made the last edit before it was made a redirect. That edit was not part of a re-write.  You were content to keep it as a Zionist page.  So, you are one of those responsible for the state it was in.  You clearly are against a re-write. Chamaeleon 20:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My last edit was a minor preparation for a re-name, and removal of small amounts of off-topic stuff, as part of a proposed re-write; here it is:. Also see the Talk: page for a number of suggestions I made along those lines, which other editors agreed with. You claims are erroneous or disingenuous. Jayjg (talk)  21:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a very tenuous accusation - you're saying that all edits which do not solve a POV problem are implicit approvals of the POV. Rhobite 22:19, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment. At the moment, the article strikes me as a very poor one.  However, VfD is not generally about content but about whether the topic is encyclopedic and (in conjunction with other articles) is a reasonable way of dividing up a larger topic.    What distinguishes "New" anti-Semitism from "Old" anti-Semitism?    If the anti-Semitism article had simply grown so large that the decision was made to split out recent contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism into a separate article, then it seems to me the title of that article should have been something like "Anti-Semitism since (some date)", and that "New anti-Semitism" is a confusing title.   If the concept of "New anti-Semitism" is a new one that has been put forward in articles, books, etc,  and those represent a notable development in thinking about anti-Semitism, then the article should present the argumentation of those books in an NPOV manner, with citation of sources.  I would want to see some evidence that "New" anti-Semitism is a concept that exists outside the mind of the editor who started this article because in the latter case, it is original research.  --BM 20:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * BM, here are a couple of links regarding a book of essays about the new anti-Semitism, not written by extremists incidentally.   SlimVirgin 12:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, this "new" anti-Semitism does indeed exist beyond the mind of the editors. There are extremist groups that do actually parrot this nonsense.  This is why I think it should be mentioned, but in the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism articles.

 * It seems nobody accepts the idea that controversial sections are not supposed to be shunted out into separate articles. OK, I'll modify my proposal then.  Should we keep the article at the location New anti-Semitism (or perhaps Allegations of "New anti-Semitism") and report people claiming it exists instead of asserting that it does?  or should we zap this content and instead have an article called Anti-Semitism since 1945 with factual content? Chamaeleon 20:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As discussed and agreed to on the Talk: page, the undisputed incidents of Anti-Semitism should stay in the Anti-Semitism article, while this more controversial phenomenon should remain in the New anti-Semitism article. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. The phenomenon exists, regardless of ostrichism .--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh God, the flip side of Jewish ethnocentrism emerges, and like the previous article an attempt to carve out an idiosyncratic version of the main term. This is propaganda that ought to be zapped just as hard. Delete. --Calton 21:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, sorry to bug people, but I again have to ask what that means. The content as it stands should clearly go, but I think we can't avoid reporting on the belief in "new anti-Semitism".  So, are you voting to totally zap this, or to merge an NPOV version of it into Anti-Semitism, or to zap this and make an Anti-Semitism since 1945 article?  I don't think "delete" and "keep" really mean much in this context.  Chamaeleon 21:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Since when is writing about anti-Semitism in the last 50 years somehow Jewish propaganda? Is writing about homophobia "Queer propaganda"? Is writing about spousal abuse "Feminist propaganda"? No, it ain't. RK
 * No, they are not. However, there are people who are ready to claim that writing about homophobia is "gay recruitment" and that articles about spousal abuse always have "feminist bias". I am not quite sure what they mean, aside from the fact that the articles would disagree with their attitudes, but those claims do exist. No vote - Skysmith 09:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment. "New anti-Semitism" seems to exist as a claim made by some authors that criticism of Zionism and Israel (sometimes) represents a new form of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this article is not only about those claims, but despite the title seems to be also about "Modern Anti-Semitism". Indeed that is the title of an article which has been redirected here. This blending of so-called "new" and "contemporary/modern" anti-Semitism makes the article a bit of a mish-mash. Regarding "new anti-Semitism", criticism of Zionism and Israel are quite common, but I don't know how widespread is the claim that this criticism represents anti-Semitism. It seems to me that most prominent Jews are at pains to deny that they equate criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism. (Indeed, the article cites Alan Dershowitz making precisely this point, and claiming otherwise is described as setting up a "straw man" and itself anti-Semitic. --BM 21:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You have summarized the issues perfectly, and this is why I had been working for days on the Talk: page to get agreement to clean it up. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Jayjg here - Skysmith 09:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep the article but it needs some serious NPOV work. --Angr 23:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the article but it needs some serious NPOV work. The definition of attacks needs to be limited or defined - currently "attacks" would seem to include even "attacks" on the article itself. ==SV 01:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV flame war material. Megan1967 03:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete -- unless... I hate this article. The subject itself is a valid topic for Wikipedia, but its treatment is appallingly one-sided.  The article is structured so as to preclude differing points of view and is presided over by a coterie of individuals who seemingly have no intention of allowing both sides to be represented.  It should be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up, perhaps with guidance from some senior Wikipedia editors w/regard to structure and content.  Wiki needs to stop being such wimps and intervene on this one.  It really is appalling. deeceevoice 04:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Probably a valid topic, so I can't say delete, but the present article is deeply POV, and I agree with deeceevoice that the POV is even in the structure of the article. The article seems to start by assuming the truth of what is, in fact, an extremely controversial thesis. I don't think it would hurt to delete the present content and start over. This article needs major attention. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Non-controversial areas of modern anti-semitism (i.e. anything not directly relating to controversial anti-zionist views or critisms of Israel) should probebly be addressed under the original anti-semitism artlicle. -Cab88 11:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Check for NPOV but keep. Capitalistroadster 11:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs to find more scholarly sources, but it seems clear there is a new type of anti-Semitism on the rise, with anti-Zionism used (by some, not all) as an excuse — as the article says, as a Trojan horse — to attack Jews, and as such it has given a cover of respectability to anti-Semitism, to the point where, in Europe certainly, the views of leftwing activists and the far right seem to converge. This is a new phenomenon. Because of the newness of it, the article has to be careful to avoid original research, but that's just a matter of being careful about attribution. SlimVirgin 07:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept of "New Anti-semitism" has some prominent proponents as well as some prominent critics. Thus it is worthy of a article but the article has seriouse NPOV issues as it stands. The article should probebly adhare to the following structure if it is to be NPOV:
 * In the opening paragraph the article should make it clear that the concept of "new anti-semitism" is one being pushed by some Zionists and summerize how they define it. The opening paragraph should also make it clear that the definition and even in some cases the very validity of the concept/term is controversial.
 * It should then present the views those who support the concept and as to how they define it.
 * It should present the views of Israeli critics who disagree with the who concept of "New anti-semitism".
 * Keep. Real phenomenon with upsurge in anti-Semitism in Europe and where you have prominent leftwingers Ken Livingstone the Lord Mayor of London comparing a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard and refusing to apologise.
 * Let's be clear, Livingstone compared a reporter for the Daily Mail, a paper notorious for its Nazi/Mosleyite views in the 1930s, with a kapo. AndyL 20:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL Ken Livingstone an anti-Semite -- even the people who have started this campaign against him say clearly that they don't think he's an anti-Semite. Livingstone has in fact been campaigning against racism all his life, and he has become a target for the right-wing press precisely because he opposes the current racist wave against Muslims and because he favours dialogue with the Muslim community and their leaders. He has made it abundantly clear that he compared the reporter to a concentration camp guard because both adhere to the same amoral attitude towards their work i.e. "I'm just following the rules and I'm doing it because I get paid for it". The New anti-Semitism has at about the same level as this comment by Capitalistroadster: just don't let facts get in the way.
 * Keep. Duuuh. Gzuckier 18:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, is Anti-Semitism really "dead" in the 21st Century??? IZAK 08:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, important topic: even if one-third of 31,900 google hits are relevant non-dups, it is worth an article.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, delete the contents. What a disgrace!  --Zero 12:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Deleting the contents of the article is basically asking for a rewrite. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and work towards an NPOV version as Jayjg and others have described--Josiah 18:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Misrepresentation or singling out for obloquy Zionism, a political movement of Jewish self-determination" -- This article is very POV and yes, I know of a number of those who have described virtually any criticism of Zionism has been treated as tantamount to anti-Semitism. Some anti-Zionists are also anti-Semites and use codewords to disguise their anti-semitism but not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites (I'd say only a small minority are anti-Semitic) it's also true that a number of Zionists dismiss any criticism as anti-Semitism and use the spectre of a "new anti-Semitism" as a silencing device. Both sides need to be told here. AndyL 20:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that, merely by saying that, the definition as it stands in the article would actually count you as a new anti-Semite. It is going to take a lot of us to fight against Jayjg if we want anything approaching an NPOV version of the article.  Chamaeleon 01:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep and NPOVify. JFW | T@lk  21:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep and expand. --Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and exapand. 172 10:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would delete it. It's all POV. See for example the beginning: "Zionism, a political movement of Jewish self-determination". But things are not so simple. Zionism is not just a political movement of Jewish self-determination. Zionism is a doctrine which affirms that Jews have to return to Israel, a land that most of them have left centuries ago, and that they have to found a state there that has to be a Jewish State, which is a little bit as to say that Italy would have to be a Catholic state. The best Israelian, as Abraham Yehoshua, thinks that Israel has to become a ordinary State, not a Jewish state. Israel has repetly violated international law and UN resolutions. Of course its existence is now a state of fact and it's not in question, but I don't think that it has born in the good way, and I don't think to be antisemitic in saying this. One could oppose Zionism and be antisemitic, but could even oppose Zionism and not be at all antisemitic. Jews are not Israel, and who claims the contrary is not doing them a good service! We could talk of modern forms of antisemitism in the article antisemitism or question if some forms of anti-Zionism are antisemitic. There is not the need for this article.--Juliet.p 11:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete and merge any relevant information into anti-Semitism. At the moment, this is an empty uniformative non-article about a neologism. -- The Anome 13:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see an emerging consensus that an article of the name or similar should stay, but that the content is very POV and needs either a lot of editing or a total re-write. I have starting writing the article from scratch, and would like everyone's input, especially from impartial people who did not previously have the page on their watchlist.  I am having a hard time because Jayjg and MathKnight are reverting back to the POV version.  Please all come and help write a balanced, rational discussion. Chamaeleon 15:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't "write an article from scratch" in the existing article, especially when that involves deleting everything but the information you like. The general protocol is to start with a new Temp version and invite other editors to edit there. Jayjg (talk)  15:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your version is so offensive that it needs to go immediately. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.  The new one has a neutral opening, and then a section for each point of view.  You fill in your section, and we'll fill in ours. Chamaeleon 16:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not "my" version, and what it needs are lots of cited opposing views, so that it will be NPOV. And the "we" you refer to in this case seems to consist of you alone. Jayjg (talk)  18:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You're just talking crap and you know it. I'm tired of arguing patiently with people like you.  I will not let you spread lies in Wikipedia and that is the end of the matter.  I'll not communicate with you any further. Chamaeleon 19:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I know nothing of the kind, I don't recall you ever arguing patiently with anyone, and I recommend reviewing the Civility and Assume good faith policies. And if you don't communicate, you'll find it hard to get consensus for proposed changes to the article. Jayjg (talk)  20:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notwithstanding the current controversies surrounding this article, the term "new anti-Semitism" has been used frequently in recent years and merits an online definition.  CJCurrie 00:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete At best redundant considering anti-semitism, at worse just a fellow on a soapbox.
 * Delete, uninformed POV neologism. JamesBurns 09:54, 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:
Robert Fleming & Co.

Robert Fleming & Co., known as Flemings, was an asset manager and merchant bank founded in Dundee, Scotland, in 1873. In 1909, the firm moved its headquarters to London, England. It was sold to Chase Manhattan Bank for over $7 billion in 2000. Flemings was a 50% partner in the Asian investment bank Jardine Fleming.

History
The firm of Robert Fleming & Co. was founded in Dundee, Scotland in 1873 by Robert Fleming, a successful manufacturer of jute fabrics used for sandbags in the American Civil War. The firm was originally formed as a series of investment trusts, pooling money from Scottish investors into overseas ventures, and later moved into merchant banking. In 1909, the firm moved its headquarters to London.

In 1873, Robert Fleming cofounded the Scottish American Investment Company for the purpose of investing in high risk, high return American railroad bonds. Flemings assumed a central role in the 1886 battle with Jay Gould for control of the Texas & Pacific Railway, in which the Flemings bondholder group ultimately triumphed. Overall, Flemings claimed to have made a 40% return on investments in US railroads.

In 1970, Flemings entered into an investment banking joint venture with Hong Kong-based Jardine Matheson, forming Jardine Fleming. Despite restructuring, Flemings saw its investment banking and asset management market share decline in the 1990s as global investment banks like Morgan Stanley and Lazard moved into their markets. The Fleming name was tarnished by a scandal in 1996, when Jardine Fleming was ordered to pay $19 million to fund investors for alleged abusive and unsupervised securities allocation practices by its asset management division.

In April 2000, Robert Flemings Holdings was sold to Chase Manhattan Bank for $7.7 billion. Although the sale came about as partially as a result of Flemings’ weakened position, it was part of two larger trends: consolidation in the financial services industry as large U.S. commercial banks acquired investment banks upon the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, and the sale of U.K. merchant banks to foreign banks. Flemings, with almost no U.S. assets, was considered a particularly good fit for increasingly globally minded Chase, whose assets lay largely in the United States. In the sale, about 130 Fleming family members pocketed approximately $2.3 billion for their 30 percent stake. When Chase merged with J.P. Morgan & Co. in 2001, the Flemings asset management business was rebranded J.P. Morgan Fleming, and Fleming Premier Banking was sold to Abbey National's Cater Allen subsidiary.

Members of the Fleming family set up an asset management company, Fleming Family & Partners, which in November 2014 merged with Stonehage Group, an international family office with its roots in South Africa, to create Stonehage Fleming Family and Partners.

title: Robert Fleming & Co.


title: File:Bruges2004.JPG


text:
Nascent hydrogen

Nascent hydrogen is an outdated concept in organic chemistry that was once invoked to explain dissolving-metal reactions, such as the Clemmensen reduction and the Bouveault–Blanc reduction. Since organic compounds do not react with H2, a special state of hydrogen was postulated. It is now understood that dissolving-metal reactions occur at the metal surface, and the concept of nascent hydrogen has been discredited in organic chemistry. However, the formation of atomic hydrogen is largely invoked in inorganic chemistry and corrosion sciences to explain hydrogen embrittlement in metals exposed to electrolysis and anaerobic corrosion (e.g., dissolution of zinc in strong acids (HCl) and aluminium in strong bases (NaOH)). The mechanism of hydrogen embrittlement was first proposed by Johnson (1875). The inability of hydrogen atoms to react with organic reagents in organic solvents does not exclude the transient formation of hydrogen atoms capable to immediately diffuse into the crystal lattice of common metals (steel, titanium) different from these of the platinoid group (Pt, Pd, Rh, Ru, Ni) which are well known to dissociate molecular dihydrogen (H$2$) into atomic hydrogen.

History
The idea of hydrogen in the nascent state having chemical properties different from those of molecular hydrogen developed the mid-19th century. Alexander Williamson repeatedly refers to nascent hydrogen in his textbook Chemistry for Students, for example writing of the substitution reaction of carbon tetrachloride with hydrogen to form products such as chloroform and dichloromethane that the "hydrogen must for this purpose be in the nascent state, as free hydrogen does not produce the effect". Williamson also describes the use of nascent hydrogen in the earlier work of Marcellin Berthelot. Franchot published a paper on the concept in 1896, which drew a strongly worded response from Tommasi who pointed to his own work that concluded "nascent hydrogen is nothing else than H + x calories".

The term "nascent hydrogen" continued to be invoked into the 20th century.

Reducing agents at low and high pH
Devarda's alloy (alloy of aluminium (~45%), copper (~50%) and zinc (~5%)) is a reducing agent that was commonly used in wet analytical chemistry to produce in situ so-called nascent hydrogen under alkaline conditions for the determination of nitrates after their reduction into ammonia.

In the Marsh test, used for arsenic determination (from the reduction of arsenate and arsenite  into arsine ), hydrogen is generated by contacting zinc powder with hydrochloric acid.

So, hydrogen can be conveniently produced at low or high pH, according to the volatility of the species to be detected. Acid conditions in the Marsh test promote the fast escape of the arsine gas (AsH3), while under hyperalkaline solution, the degassing of the reduced ammonia (NH3) is greatly facilitated (the ammonium ion being soluble in aqueous solution under acidic conditions).

title: Nascent hydrogen