text:
Comillas Pontifical University

Comillas Pontifical University (Universidad Pontificia Comillas) is a private Catholic higher education institution run by the Spanish Province of the Society of Jesus in Madrid, Spain. The university is involved in a number of academic exchange programmes, work practice schemes and international projects with over 200 institutions of higher education in Europe, Latin America, North America and Asia.

History
Pope Leo XIII founded the Seminary of St. Anthony of Padua in 1890 in the town of Comillas, (Province of Santander, currently Cantabria), in response to efforts made by the Marquis of Comillas to build an institution for educating local candidates to the priesthood. At the time of its foundation, the seminary was entrusted to the Society of Jesus. In 1904, the seminary was raised to the status of a Pontifical university when Pope Pius X granted the school the power to confer academic degrees in theology, philosophy and canon law.

In 1969 the university was moved to Madrid, where it admitted a wider range of students including international students.

In 1978 the Jesuits incorporated into the university their Madrid's higher education institution ICAI-ICADE, the resultant entity of the merger in 1960 of ICAI and ICADE, two institutes established in 1908 and 1956 respectively. They are today the ICAI School of Engineering, the ICADE School of Law and the ICADE School of Business and Economics.

Several other schools, like the San Juan de Dios School of Nursing, were incorporated later on, to reach the university's present structure of seven colleges and schools:
 * Facultad de Teología (Divinity School)
 * Facultad de Derecho Canónico (Canon Law School)
 * Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (Human & Social Sciences School)
 * Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI (ICAI School of Engineering)
 * Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales ICADE (ICADE School of Business & Economics)
 * Facultad de Derecho ICADE (ICADE School of Law)
 * Escuela Universitaria de Enfermería y Fisioterapia "San Juan de Dios" (Saint John of God's School of Nursing and Physiotherapy)

Study and research centres and institutes have been created (Institute for Research in Technology, Institute for Liberalism, Krausism and Freemasonry Research, Graduate Studies Institute, Institute for Educational Science, Institute for Migration Research, Faith and Secularism Institute, Law Innovation Center, Modern Language Institute, University Institute on the Family).

title: Comillas Pontifical University


text:
Talk:Cello

New subhead for ponticello & tasto
The new subhead shares some redundant text with the tone production paragraph above it, but redundancy in technical writing is no crime, since a casual reader who misses the info in one place may catch it in the other. Does it need fixing? __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Archived
I archived the old discussion. See the archive box at the top right of the page. Magicpiano (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The playing range picture
The cello can go a lot higher than a high D, but it goes up above first position. The picture wouldn't even be correct in first position. In first position you can go one note higher than a C (the note shown as highest in the image), up to a D. Then you'd go into half position, third, etc.  moo cows rule talk to moo 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the picture shows the top of the range at 3 octaves above A440... there's a treble clef there, and a 15va sign... __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * XD I feel stupid. For some reason I didn't see the treble clef there, and thought that was a C on the bass clef...  moo cows rule talk to moo 04:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, you made me go figure for a second or two, so all is not lost ;D __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Urgh... and now it's my turn to feel ignorant-- I just mis-spelled 15ma up there. I'm willing to deny that's a grievous error, though, and call it a minor lapse. Carry on... __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The highest note on the cello is actually the E a fifth above the A shown in the current playing range picture--Faerlys (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The playing range picture has two notes for the top note. Why is this?
 * Also, both notes are incorrect, one being too low, the other too high. The C above 880A (i.e., two ledger lines above the treble clef) is rather common in intermediate/advanced work.  The A above that (1760A) can be played -- there is no "highest note" on the cello, or on any string instrument, since you can play right up to the bridge -- but notes above where the fingerboard ends don't sound too good and so are rarely called for.  On most cellos the fingerboard ends at around G, four ledger lines above the treble clef (just below 1760A).68.198.150.179 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)captcrisis

 * One is a harmonic. Hyacinth (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 * How about someone simply put the Name of the highest note, and the range, perhaps in standard English, as it is still using Notes. Many people today use instruments that do not use sheet music. -Anon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.141.30 (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep it encyclopedic : playing details?
I would take out the sections on playing specifics - stacatto etc. This section reads like a list written by an excited student and isn't cited. Spanglej (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is "encyclopedic" (whatever that means). Most of it can be cited by reference to a cello method book, but the article still wouldn't cross into making Wikipedia a "how-to" manual (one of those WP:NOTs many people here love to duckspeak). But this would: "When playing quadruple stops, first hold the bow at x angle, and while rolling the shoulder..." etc. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is too long and most of this is tangential to Cello. I have split the material into Playing the cello which compliments Playing the violin. -—Kvng 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

New Wikiproject
I have started a new wikiproject, WikiProject Stringed Instruments. I am looking for 2 other coordinators to help it get started. Apply on my talk page by answering the following questions.

1. Edit count, how long you have been active on Wikipedia.

2. '''How often you edit string-related articles. (Scale of 1-10)'''

3.  What you hope to accomplish if made coordinator.

Please post by March 1, 2009.

Ṝ ed M ark V iolinist Drop me a line 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Two "History" sections?
Is that an editing goof, or are there supposed to be two separate History sections (one near the top of the article and another one several paragraphs down)? Should they be merged? Galseven (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I think it's a goof; when the history of bowed instruments was added, it should have been merged with the other history section. I combined the two sections, but it feels a little clunky. How important do you think it is to have the general history of bowed instruments here? Should this article focus on just the history of the cello, or is that earlier history important for context? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Also - the reference to the Byzantine Age is not just inaccurate; it's completely wrong. The Lyre pre-dates Byzantinium by about 2000 years - as shon in the history of the lyre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickschuyler (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Cello" or "Violoncello"?
Sounds like a silly argument but it does matter. I strongly disagre with the idea that "Violoncello is not obsolete in enligsh usage." Thats just not true. Violoncello is used all the time as a borrowed word. "Cello" is very much an informal usage of "Violoncello" that has made its way into common language. Be that as it may, its technically incorrect to say that "Cello" is the proper name for the instrument because its not. I think it should be either revised to show "Violoncello" as the instrument's primary name, or at least as a secondary name equal to "cello". Justin Tokke (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 * See,  and , which demonstrate that cello is far from an informal usage.   I agree that saying "violoncello is obsolete" overstates the case, because it is indeed used in various contexts.  (Btw, I think you meant to say I strongly disagree with the idea that "Violoncello is not obsolete in English usage.") But that doesn't deny cello's right to be used as the primary word for the instrument, regardless of the fact that it was orignally an abbreviation for "violoncello".  It's rare to see that even acknowledged any more by way of a leading apostrophe – 'cello.  That means that it's been fully accepted as a word and that it is no longer considered an abbreviation.  Nobody insists on changing our piano article to pianoforte, so why hold out for violoncello?  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 * JackofOz, I see that you're the one who originally added the phrase about it being obsolete, but it sounds like you're willing to back off that strong claim now. Would you be OK with simply removing that clause and saying simply, "The word derives from the Italian violoncello" and ending the sentence there? Justin, I disagree with the idea that cello is informal or not the primary name, but we can acknowledge that violoncello is still in use. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm more than happy to do that. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Thats ok with me. On second thought it isn't only informal usage for sure. I'm just saying, Violoncello certainly hasn't died out yet and they can both be used interchangably.Justin Tokke (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I understand what you're saying, Justin. If I read "Concerto for violoncello and orchestra", I'd know exactly what they're talking about.  It's just that the shorter form "cello" has become fully accepted, and has replaced the longer form as the standard, normal way of referring to the instrument, including in most (virtually all, probably) formal contexts.  But sure, "violoncello" has not died out as I erroneously tried to claim.  But it's considered as old hat as "pianoforte" is.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Frankly, I was startled when I discovered that the Wikipedia article for this instrument was under "cello". It's true that "cello" is far more common in conversational usage, but in printed scores, it's almost scarce as hen's teeth.  Scores tend to use "violoncello".  Saying that it's the same as the case for "pianoforte" would require some evidence.  While similar, I'd say its not identical by any means.  It's my impression that the formal name is, to this day, "violoncello", and "cello" is simply an informal shorthand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Museslave (talk • contribs) 07:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 * This institution and many others would disagree with you; although, I acknowledge that some institutions use "violoncello". Many orchestral scores still use "violoncello"; but then, many of then use Italian names for the instruments, even where the publication is written in English in all other respects.  The Italians still use the full name, as is their right.  In program notes for symphony concerts, you'll still see overly-formal titles of works, such as "Tchaikovsky: Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor for Pianoforte and Orchestra", or "Elgar: Concerto in E minor for Violoncello and Orchestra", etc.  But they are much more commonly referred to by the shortened names of the instruments - Piano Concerto No. 1 (Tchaikovsky) and Cello Concerto (Elgar).  You'll look in vain in the latter article, or in Cello Concerto (Dvořák), for any mention of the word "violoncello".  My summary of all this is that, while "violoncello" has definitely not died out, its shorter form "cello" is fully accepted as a legitimate English word, it is not even considered an abbreviation any more, it is by far the more predominant version, and it has become, like it or not, the primary name for the instrument.  Who ever heard of the "Bach Violoncello Suites"? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I would have to say it does not matter what the article is called. Cello is the same thing as a violoncello, just like the sax and the saxophone. Saxophone is the the name of the wiki article but right after the name of the article, it says, "(also referred to as the sax)". The cello used to be called violoncello, but now the accepted name by most Americans/English people is cello. I think that right after cello it should say "(also referred to as the violoncello)". D.anderson1988 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add in my two cents 3 years later, I agree with D.anderson1988. At first I was actually surprised that the Wikipedia article for this instrument was officially "Cello", not "Violoncello", since "violoncello" is the formal and full name of the instrument. That said, I agree that "cello" is a legitimate, accepted, and recognized word, not just an abbreviation - and if you look at similar articles, "piano" is the word used for the article of the instrument formally known as the pianoforte. Stara729 (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In conversation, which is informal, I always say "cello", but in a score I always write, "vc.", which stands for violoncello of course, and off the top of my head I don't know any other abbreviation. On the first system of a score one is obliged to write the full name of the instruments, and for consistency's sake (since I'm abbreviating it as vc.) I always write violoncello. The latter may not be current standard practice--I'll check some scores and then report if I remember--, but it's certainly not my impression that cello has replaced violoncello in formal usage. My impression is that in formal usage both are current, but one is more likely in some formal contexts and the other more likely in other formal contexts. Informally, it's almost always cello. TheScotch (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Better Description?
The description, in my opinion, could be much more...well, descriptive. I see no mention of the different parts of the cello, e.g. the head, neck, bridge, and whatever the thing at the bottom of the strings is (I'm teaching myself, so I have no idea). Also, the last paragraph is about music for the cello, and has nothing to do with the description of the cello. I would change things myself, but as I said I'm not professionally taught so I don't know all the names for the cello's parts, and I'm not much of a Wikipedia guru, so I'll leave that last part up to them. Darktangent (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Also, there seems to be no mention of electric cellos.  Any stringed instrument can have the vibrations of its strings amplified, sustained, or distorted.   There seems to be a POV and neutrality problem with most of the article as it is written.   216.99.219.231 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Deliberately mis-tuning a cello
Some guitar players deliberately mis-tune their guitars, perhaps by duplicating a particular string at a particular note. This lets them perfect a musical style that is unique to themselves, and difficult for other performers to emulate.

What about cellos?

Does the same thing ever happen with cello players, where a cellist deliberately removes a string (actually taking it off the cello) and replaces it with a string of his own choosing, and tuned to a particular note (being a huge departure from what would otherwise be expected, and making it impossible for any but the true owner to use, short of replacing the string and retuning it)? I heard that cellists who ply their trade in a high crime neighborhood can more easily identify their cello as the one with a particular string of a particular color, tuned to a particular note that is wildly out of order. 216.99.198.221 (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk pages aren't really for this sort of discussion. You may wish to try asking this at our reference desk. → ROUX   ₪  14:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * The main article could be improved by listing the ways a cello can be modified, and naming those illustrious cello players who went ahead and modified them.  216.99.201.92 (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the information comes from a reliable source, and is reasonably notable, then by all means include it. → ROUX   ₪  22:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Searching for: cello scordatura -bach -encyclopedia -wiki*
 * turns up some hits, such as this one. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are called alternate tunings and have been in use for centuries........Coal town guy (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the 6 Back Solo suites does call for it, I would need to crack open my copy on the shelf, I think its #2 or 3, I cant recall yetCoal town guy (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wording
I wonder about wording in this article as inspired ... dozens of composers and think dates would be more helpful than terms as "recently" or "currently". I appreciate Mstislav Rostropovich highly and loved to hear him play at the Rheingau Musik Festival (Rheingau Musik Festival ) but think one link in the article is enough. I don't dare to judge if Julian Lloyd Webber - pictured! - really belongs in the same category as Rostropovitch, Gregor Piatigorsky and Siegfried Palm.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

History Section: Violin or Viol family
There is a discrepancy between the cello article and the violin family article. The cello article states that the cello is in the viol (gambas) family, whereas the violin family article states that the cello is in the violin (braccio) family. I don't know which is correct, but one needs to be changed for continuity sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.19.131 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Image in "Strings" section
Regarding this diff, I got this message on my talk page:
 * My photo contribution shows people where to put the bow on the string. I would appreciate it if you did not delete it again. I am a cello teacher, and a lot of students do not know where to place it. The other picture on there is incorrect on where to put the bow. I did not delete it because that was not its purpose, it's purpose was for showing you where to put your fingers. I am a contributer. I see that you delete a lot of nonsense, but I consider this a contribution. I hope you understand. D.anderson1988 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 * First, I believe the image is misplaced at the "Strings" heading. Some similar image might be relevant at "Right hand technique," but more importantly:

 * I do not think that the image in question shows bow placement on the string very well. The bow does not appear to be perpendicular to the strings, and is tending toward a placement sul tasto instead of a more generally useful sounding point.

 * I will wait a day or two before removing the image again. Please comment. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The bow placement will be slightly different on every cello. I was playing a song when the photographer shot the photos, so I don't know exactly which part I was in, but I was probably in a more soft part, and moved my bow for a soft tone. I assume when you took cello lessons (or violin or viola), you would often play above the finger board. Most people do this. Some, but few, will play to close to the bridge, as the other pictures shows. My picture shows where it is supposed to be. My cello is tilted, and that is why the bow and strings are not perpendicular. You can argue with me about how small of a thing it is, but it is a contribution. That is why Wikipedia can be edited, to contribute. It was in a bad spot, so I have moved it. Explain how it is hurting the cello page. D.anderson1988 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 * If you put yourself in the place of a new cello student, does the picture look like it shows anything clearly about "good" bow placement?
 * "It does not do any harm." is not a very good argument for keeping something. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * It does help new students. And about the "It does not do any harm" statement; what is the point of deleting it, if it has no harm, and is not cluttering the page, as some might think of it as useful? 66.143.221.220 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Helps new students? How? What is the benefit of having an unclear picture showing a crooked bow placement? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * It is better then the one on there right now. It should be kept until you, me, or someone else puts a better one on there. So go ahead and put a better one on there; and if you do, I will accept it and go on.66.143.221.220 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it "better"? Which other picture are you talking about? Particulars will be more persuasive than simply stated general opinions here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The bow is more towards the middle in my picture. The picture I was referring to is the one that has the caption "A cello French bow held with the palm facing down". I've already looked for pictures with better bow placement online, but they are all copyrighted.66.143.221.220 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Middle of the bow? You mean nobody should start a bow stroke at the frog or tip? Nothing wrong with the placement in the other picture— looks like the start of a slow downbow on the A string, with heavy weight and close to the bridge. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The middle meaning between the bridge and the finger board. If you played with the bow that close to the bridge, it would scratchy. My bow is placed between the bridge and finger board where I normally start my students. A far as MB, UH, or LH, I was playing a song, so I was in the middle of a bow movement.66.143.221.220 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, that is called the "sounding point," where the hair meets the string.
 * Won't be scratchy on the A string there if the attack is confident, the bow speed low, and plenty of weight applied. I don't usually play that close to the bridge, but almost, when I want to make the most of a single bow, and get a clear tone. Not scratchy.
 * I hope you do teach your students to bow parallel to the bridge, square to the string. The picture does not show that; it shows a crooked bow. I doubt all of that can be blamed on camera angle, and even if it could, wouldn't it be better to use a picture which more clearly showed good technique? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I not just say, you can post a better picture if you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.221.220 (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should keep a so-so picture? Looks like you have got the resources to put up a better one yourself. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just removed it. Here is a better one, but it is a posed shot, and shows the hair flat on the string, or very nearly so. I would prefer to see it at a more realistic angle. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I found this Picture [[Image:Proper Bow Placement.JPG|thumb|Sul tasto]], and have added it to the article. The original picture showed my face, so I took that out, and was color, but the cello had a little bit of glare, so I made it bw to take out the glare. I believe this pictures serves it purpose. Do you agree? D.anderson1988 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a better picture, as far as square to the strings goes. I call that sul tasto, and typically keep my neutral sounding point more like 2/3 of the way from FB to bridge. My first cello lessons, in a previous century ;-) came from a world-class principal cellist, who kept after me to get closer to the bridge. (That "other picture" shows an extreme example of that, as mentioned earlier.)

There isn't really one "proper" sounding point, in my experience. It will vary according to what the player intends to accomplish. (almost wrote "trying to accomplish," but in the words of a wise master, "There is no try. There is do, or not do.") You will see how I edited the caption in the article itself. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * In my student cellist years, I had the opposite problem; however, My students do play closer to the fb then then the bridge most of the time. Thank you for editing my caption instead of deleting it.D.anderson1988 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can some one tell me how else your palm will face when playing with a french bow on the cello?????Coal town guy (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Plural
I've seen "cello" pluralized as "celli". The article uses "cellos". Is cellos preferred? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. While the lead paragraph shows the "plural cellos or celli," previous discussion, now archived, has favored "cellos" as the English plural. As one editor put it, when ordering more than one pizza, do you ask for several pizze? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of six dictionaries consulted, only one, Merriam-Webster, lists "celli", and even then it's the second option. The other five—American Heritage, Collins, Oxford American, Oxford Concise, and Random House—don't list it at all. Fwiw, I have encountered "celli" too, but only infrequently. Rivertorch (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I played in an orchestra with a conductor who always said celli, and I always considered him to be oozing affectation (in this regard). It's possible he was trying to be funny, though. In any case, this is an English article, and it should use cellos. TheScotch (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

for recording purposes, plural cello is written as celli and this is how engineers and conductors refer to the multiple instruments. 'Celli' is a useful term for communication between control room and recording hall because it is distinctly different from 'cellos' and so there is less confusion. I think using dictionary definitions is flawed and doesn't represent how the word is used in the real world. --Callum radiator (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 * If you have a reliable source for that, it might be worth mentioning. We should take care to remember that most cel—er, well, you know...most things that look like big fiddles aren't used in recording studios, so that application of the plural would be a specialized one. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   22:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Tag
There is a reference tag that begins the "Playing Technique" section. The tag is three years old. This looks like a fine article, and that tag is just plain ugly. The article seems to be amply sourced; unless someone is questioning the validity of the information in that section (three years later) can we remove the tag? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Better not. There appears to be exactly one ref in that very long section. Most or all of the content looks valid and verifiable, though, and it ought to be sourceable for anyone with the right books or easy access to good reference material. (I, unfortunately, have neither, although I'm willing to poke around a bit and see what I can find.) As ugly as that tag is, it's preferable to several dozen inline "citation needed" tags, and those monstrosities might start popping up if you remove the big template. Rivertorch (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

MIDI
Is there any reason the sound files for the stops are MIDI? That doesn't really help anyone except for the sounds of major and minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.77.189 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Side-saddle?
Re: "In early times, female cellists sometimes played side-saddle, since it was considered improper for a lady to part her knees in public."

I'd like to see some evidence, and I'd like to know what "early times" are meant. TheScotch (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

well my teacher is female and about 55, she has told me how she was forced to learn like this for this exact reason (before she went to music college)--Callum radiator (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Posture pegs
I went to a chamber music concert a couple of days ago, and the cellist appeared to have no C or G tuning pegs on her cello. I talked to her afterward, and she told me that she had had "POSTURE PEGS" installed, which allowed her to sit up straighter and play better. Perhaps a cellist who has experience with "posture pegs" could add a section about them to this article. 96.236.213.217 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posture pegs, to the best of my knowledge, are NOT a standard in any way. Posture pegs are not posture pegs. They are bass tuners stuck on a cello......Coal town guy (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

cello banjo vs banjo cello
Bass banjo has picked up a description of this instrument. While I've got no problem including cello banjos as a form of bass banjo, I tend to think that a banjo cello is actually an oddly constructed cello and belongs in this article. Any comment before I transfer the data to this article?—Kww(talk) 15:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * While I'm unfamiliar with the banjo cello, it appears to be more like a large banjo than an oddly-constructed cello. I see it as analogous to the mandocello, which is definitely in the mandolin family, not the violin family. Consider:
 * violin - viola - cello
 * mandolin - mandola - mandocello
 * banjo - ? - banjocello

 * Rivertorch (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the primary distinction as being that it's bowed. I play the cello banjo, and, as a result, I can pick up a mandocello and get by: same tuning, similar scales, similar playing techniques. The banjo cello that is pictured in the link is designed to be played upright and has a pronounced arch to the strings to enable the use of a bow. I play all kinds of banjos and couldn't get anywhere with it. On the other hand, I suspect that a cello player could be playing it correctly in minutes.
 * Look at the difference between the image pictured at File:Item-ceb-4-1296_lg.jpg (a "cello banjo") and at http://unheardofinstruments.com/images/stefscello.jpg (a "banjo cello") and you can see what I'm talking about.—Kww(talk) 21:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Note to self for future reference: word order matters. I Googled around before replying, and I was somehow looking at banjo cellos, not cello banjos. Grrr. Sorry. You're right, of course: how it is typically played is an important distinction, and if a banjo cello is bowed, it might be considered more like a cello than a banjo. However, every definition I can find for "cello" places it in the violin family, and there's just no way that this is a type of cello. Maybe it's not a type of banjo either—it could be in a class by itself—but I'd say it's at least as much a banjo as it is a cello despite its upright stance and arched strings. Do you suppose there are enough sources to develop a separate article for the thing? Rivertorch (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's barely notable enough to get mentioned in bass banjo. My problem is that it makes an already confusing topic even more confusing. The terminology surround bass and cello banjos covers four subgroups of instruments already, and adding a fifth bowed variation doesn't help, especially when it's such a rare variant. Cellos, on the other hand, have very few variants.
 * I'd love to convince myself that it's just such a one-off that it doesn't warrant mention at all.—Kww(talk) 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't take much to convince me of that. I poked around a little more and found essentially zilch. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it. It seems to be a one-off from a single luthier. Interesting, and I'd like to have one, but not worth complicating an already confusing article.—Kww(talk) 04:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How about a REDO???
Hey Folks, can we take a look see at this article from the top down and start a re write??? I will do some work, BUT, there are some GLARING statements that have zero citations that are at best, NOT correct. As far as what I would do, IMMEDIATELY, remove all of the general statements about when the cello was in use, if darker rosin has a "better" grip and oh yes, alternative tunings etc etc....ANYONE else want to chime in here? AND my all time fave, cases, being made of "better" materials. The case ios used to transport the cello, IF a case is made of a STRONG material, dropping the case will then transmit the force of the drop therough the cello, which is BAD. Thats why we also have LINED cases, and TRAVEL casesCoal town guy (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How's the redo coming? I'm of limited use in composing new material because I don't really know much about cellos. But, I have library access and can look for sources if need be, and I can help copyedit if you want to bring it to GAN. -- Laser brain  (talk)  10:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting there AND I LOVE YOU for offering the copyedit. I took a peek at the german wiki and their cello article is a GA, I am however a tad perplexed at some of the language here on the page. Specifically, this thing reads like a how its made episode. It also has some rather bad statements that look like they were written by a new student of the cello, and that is great, but in fact, its rather factually wrong, and it was not done by intention of wanting to be wrong, it was done because of a series of edits with good intentions. I need to rework the history section and the intro paragraphs are funny. We also need to start having an agreed upon definition of the instrument and not have objections based on minutae that may or may not have been based in the 17th century. Also whoever dug up the original data for strads and their ratios, UH NO.....the years were wrong as were their interpretation of the proportions in realtion to the function of the cello. Sorry, my cello teacher would eat me alive from the grave if I did not correct some of this. I would guess, and I do mean guess, another 2 weeks. MANY thanks again for you offer for a copyeditCoal town guy (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With academic sources, like Grove and Grout and JSTOR articles? The current article is useless for college students.BassHistory (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Scordatura
How about this  alternate tuningsCoal town guy (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Damp Its
Can anyone tell me where, or what source, is stating that a damp it is a stajndard piece oif equipment for a cello? Last I recall, was my teacher screeching at me some 20+ years ago that they were a cheap way to ruin great instrumentsCoal town guy (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Concertos?
Is the accepted plural form of "concerto" "concertos"? I always thought it was "concerti." Stara729 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In English it's concertos. Say concerti only if you want to pretend to be Italian (and sound very affected). TheScotch (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oxford Dictionaries online do not entirely support this view, though they do list the naturalized plural "concertos" first. Presumably this means it is preferred.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

History
Hello. I have made a pretty assertive edit to the History section. I found the rmvd material to be a bit misleading and even incorrect. The main problem is that for some time the downward playing position of bowed instruments (ie. as in cello and bass with the neck pointing up) was extinct in Europe, besides some Arabic instruments in Spain. Therefore, the cello is NOT descended from the Medieval viol. The info about the lira da gamba was also wrong, as several different types of bowed instruments existed, and weren't all liras. This article needs a lot of work, especially considering it's on one of the most important instruments in Western music.BassHistory (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Basshistory, good to see a chimig in on that. I have played for about 25 years and yes, I had some issues with the "standard equipment section" as well as some of the technique wording....see the section on using a French Bow...I am back from a self imposed wikibreak...Also, did you happen to note the usage of Strads and their dates as concerning the proportions of the current cello? Morbid curiosity...Coal town guy (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Check out this article: . You can also check out the wiki article I made a few years back, Bass violin. The modern size of the cello originated in Bologna around 1680. I am not sure what you mean by "chimig" and"standard equipment section".BassHistory (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I meant chiming, as to the Standard Equipment, it was indeed Accesories, which has some items, I cant quite recall as being part and parcel of any well made cello, BUT thats me. Good article link by the way, and for some odd reason, I recall 1680 as well with a few bumps in the historic road around 1730, need to look that up again. I very much agree that a college level player would probably not find much use of the data here, example, I made the chart for parts of the cello and converted the measurement table to reflect metric etc etc. We also had a large amount of data move to cello playing, which mirrors the violin article now in structure, NOT content. OF note, the German wiki has a good article rating for the cello, perhaps we can message the folks there and ask about? My German is OK and should suffice for what we need. There are still some parts about the construction and composition of the instrument which I am puzzled to see here at all. BUT again, thats just me. As far as content, for encyclopedic purposes, I dont know how in depth a person should go, I am more used to doing articles on remote places in WV.....Coal town guy (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Broken Link in Reference
http://www.academicjournals.net/2/detail.php?id=2&jid=ajcb&theme=2&issueno=4&articleno=17# - what is the best way to reconcile this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansonkao (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is really peculiar. I presume that you tried the Wayback Machine and discovered, as I did, that this particular URL is not archived, but they offer to search for the general domaine name. This search produces five results but every single one of them, when clicked, produces a "not found" error. I'm baffle.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguity
Hey guys, there's a question about this phrase:
 * Bruegel's "The Rustic Wedding" and de Fer.

What does "de Fer" mean? And for further questions about this article or others, shall I ask my qustion in the Talk section or would it be some user's personal page? Regards Princilll (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Philibert Jambe de Fer was a composer and writer on musical subjects. I have added a link to the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cello. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108101905/http://www.encyclopedia.com:80/doc/1G1-70397117.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-70397117.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
I am sorry about the recent vandalism and wanted as I my friends do it. I had made a save of the original section on etymology and was going to revert the page back to normal as it should have been but it seemed that the community was much quicker at retrieving the lost information. I am really sorry for the vandalism on this page, I should have stopped it before it happened Omnipotentunknown00 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Up bow and down bow
The section on Playing never mentions up bow versus down bow, which seems a basic aspect. I've noted a similar omission in the article on the violin and presumably in articles about other bowed instruments. The natural place to insert this information is the beginning of the section on Bowing techniques, but as a non-violinist I'm hesitant to write anything Ishboyfay (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies
— Assignment last updated by Keelytubbs26 (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by Nurbekyuldashov (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Cello range
Elfentanz goes from D on C string all the way up to 5 octaves above that D

Different harmonics are possible on the cello. Lightly press p8, p5, p4, M3, and m3 above a stopped note in just intonation produces sounding note p8, p5+p8, 2p8, 2p8+M3, and 2p8+p5 corresponding the harmonic series. The first two are limited by hand size while the others are limited by accuracy in placing the fingers in the right place. Very high notes may be achieved with some difficulty.

Subharmonics are playable on the cello (by same bowing techniques as on violin), but is not a recommended technique. The range in this way can be extended downwards by almost an octave. The exact amount depends on many factors such as bowing, the bow itself, and the instrument. 2605:59C8:37:4400:AC59:BAAD:B6AF:55 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Cello


text:
Candy Ass Records

Candy Ass Records was an independent record label in Portland, Oregon that was run by Jody Bleyle, a member of the bands Team Dresch and Hazel and of the queercore bands Family Outing and Infinite Xs.

The label is best known for the 1995 release of the double LP compilation Free to Fight. Featuring all-women bands and musicians such as The Third Sex, Rebecca Gates of The Spinanes, Fifth Column, Containe, Heavens to Betsy, Excuse 17, Lois, Cheesecake and Team Dresch, all contributing songs dealing with women's safety, defense against harassment and rape and pertinent topics surrounding these issues. The recording also featured self-defense instructions led by Anna LoBianco and Staci Cotler, which were included in a 75-page illustrated booklet accompanying the LPs/CD. As well, the booklet contained a great variety of other contributions from women such as bell hooks, Sue P. Fox and others, in the form of stories, practical advice and poems, all dealing with self-defense.

Jody Bleyle is interviewed in the documentary film She's Real, Worse Than Queer speaking about Candy Ass Records and the release of Free to Fight, along with Alice Stagg, who contributed several segments on self-defense on the recording and accompanied Team Dresch on the tour promoting the release.

Candy Ass also co-released, with Chainsaw Records, the first Team Dresch LP, Personal Best, in 1994 and the band's second LP, Captain My Captain, in 1995. Jody Bleyle also released recordings by her other band Hazel.

After the release of Free to Fight, the label planned to issue several follow-up singles by various artists under the same name as the original compilation and dealing with the same issues. The first release, called Free to Fight #1, was a split single with Sleater-Kinney and Cypher in the Snow accompanied by self-defense tips. However, this first release was also to be the last, due to the label's financial constraints.

Aside from these endeavors the label also released separate recordings by artists such as The Lookers (with Sarah Dougher), Vegas Beat, and Cypher in the Snow.

Roster

 * Cheesecake
 * Containe
 * Cypher in the Snow
 * Excuse 17
 * Fifth Column
 * Rebecca Gates
 * Hazel
 * Heavens to Betsy
 * Heavy Johnson Trio
 * Lois
 * Lync
 * The Lookers
 * Mizzery
 * New Bad Things
 * Ovarian Trolley
 * Sleater-Kinney
 * Sone
 * Surf Maggots
 * Team Dresch
 * The Third Sex
 * Thirty Ought Six
 * Vegas Beat
 * Veronica

title: Candy Ass Records


text:
ICAI (disambiguation)

ICAI is the acronym of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the national professional accounting body of India.

ICAI may also refer to:

 * Independent Commission for Aid Impact, a British public body asked with the scrutiny of UK foreign aid
 * ICAI School of Engineering, school of engineering located in Madrid, Spain
 * Innovation Center for Artificial Intelligence, a Dutch network in the area of artificial intelligence

title: ICAI (disambiguation)


text:
ICADE

ICADE is the brand name by which two schools of the Comillas Pontifical University, located in Madrid (Spain), are known. It stands for  Instituto Católico de Administración y Dirección de Empresas (Catholic Institute of Business Administration in English), the name of an Institute that merged with the Comillas Pontifical University in 1978, giving birth to two schools of the university:
 * ICADE School of Law
 * ICADE School of Business and Economics

ICADE School of Law
ICADE School of Law ranks 5th in Spain's best schools of law ranking by El Mundo.

Through the Erasmus Programme, the ICADE School of Law has students exchange programs with the University of Tübingen, the University of Göttingen and Lüneburg University.

ICADE School of Business and Economics
ICADE School of Business and Economics ranks 3rd in Spain's best schools of Business Administration ranking by El Mundo, also thanks to its membership of International Partnership of Business Schools (IPBS), a consortium in which the partner universities offer joint bachelor's and master's programs together with ICADE. With over 1600 students, IPBS is the largest integrated cooperation program between universities in Europe.

ICADE School of Business and Economics offers several undergraduate and graduate degree programs together with a number of European and non-European business schools. The most prestigious degree is the Double Degree, that includes two years of study in the same foreign institution: Northeastern University (US), Lancaster University (UK), Dublin City University (Ireland), Reims Management School (France) and ESB Reutlingen Business School (Germany).

ICADE School of Business and Economics has students exchange programs with Georgetown University (Washington D.C.), University of Michigan - Ross School of Business (Ann Arbor), Wharton Business School (Philadelphia), The Ohio State University - Fisher College of Business (Columbus, OH), Tulane University (New Orleans), Northeastern University (Boston), EMLYON Business School (Lyon) and ESSEC (Paris).

The graduate school at ICADE School of Business and Economics for professionals is called ICADE Business School.

title: ICADE


text:
User:GregRobson/Categories/Draft Project Page

This project has been set up to help manage the categories of Wikipedia and improve them.

Please direct all talke to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories if you would like to help or pass comment.

This document serves as a 'mission statement' and details the goals and objectives of this project.

Project outline

 * Name: Wikipedia Categories
 * Why start this project? "After hitting difficulties when trying to categorise Category:Education in the United Kingdom I realised that there was no visible efforts to standardise the category system or manage it's growth on Wikipedia. Hopefully this project will go some way to help Wikipedia to become an extremely useful resource" Greg Robson 21:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vital stats

 * Created: 21:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Timescale: 6 - 18 months
 * Project founder: User:GregRobson
 * Current status: Seeking volunteers

Project log
A summary of any achievements this project achieves :)
 * Project founded Greg Robson 21:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The big picture"
Largely these ideals should be in the back of people's minds when working on the project:
 * Brevity - Keeping things concise
 * Usefulness - Making sure that what we do will be valuable to others
 * Accuracy - Making sure all that we do is as accurate as possible
 * Completeness - Ensuring that as little as possible slips through the net
 * Standardisation - Developing and upholding standards to make Wikipedia authoritative

How will this be achieved

 * Brevity
 * Clean up of catergories (especially high level ones)
 * Maintain optimal sizing of categories

 * Usefulness
 * Cross-referencing of related categories
 * Assigning helpful and appropriate descriptions to categories
 * Assist in categorising certain aspects of Wikipedia management
 * Adding descriptions to categories

 * Accuracy
 * Assist in arbitrating categories for deletion

 * Standardisation
 * Create standards for time, the labelling of places etc
 * Encourage the Wiki-community to help in maintaining the category namespace

 * Tidying up
 * Removal of unnecessary "Lists of ..." articles
 * Standardising the use of countries/regions
 * Standardising sort order for names, places etc

 * Reducing maintenance
 * Attempt to map the category namespace in some visual way
 * Redirection to avoid duplication

Scope
A definition of all the areas of wikipedia this project aims to cover to begin with - although people should feel free to get stuck in and help wherever possible!

 * On the English Wikipedia...
 * All pages in the category namspace
 * Articles that are "Lists of..."
 * The category declarations of all articles
 * Categorising the 100,000+ images that Wikipedia has.

Similar Projects

 * All those working on standardising an aspect of wikipedia (countries, elements, albums)

Participants
If you would like to take part then add your signature here using ~ and a description of any areas you may be interested in.
 * Greg Robson 21:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Project founder
 * Pioneer-12 22:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skills required

 * 1) Attention to detail
 * 2) Desire to learn about new fields of interest
 * 3) No fear of doing grunt work - many of the alterations will take time

Structure
This is not set in stone - but I believe it's a good start at least.

 * 1) The project will be trying to establish common themes in the structure that are repeated (countries/regions, naming schemes) that need to be standardised.
 * 2) Tidying of categories (with reassignment of articles as required).
 * 3) Assigning of all articles to an appropriate category.

Useful Pages
Feel free to add sub-categories and new links to those pages that you believe will assist those helping with this project.
 * Browse
 * Category schemes
 * Categories for deletion
 * Browse by overview
 * Category:WikiProjects

Category:WikiProjects


text:
User:MarkU

2005-02-17: started

title: User:MarkU


text:
Talk:Isabel Hilton

What is MI5's Christmas Tree List?
Sounds interesting. tharsaile 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It comes from an emblem placed on the files of BBC employees which resembled a Christmas tree and was intended as an indication that the subject had failed the vetting process. Basically it was a euphemism for a blacklist. Philip Cross 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you find this link useful may you please add it to the article’s external links: Interview with Isabel Hilton on China’s Environmental Crisis Thank you, Anon111 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Anon111
 * Not done This account only seems to exist for the purpose of getting this link into Wikipedia. See WP:LINKSPAM.  Them  From  Space  20:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I put an edit request for this link to avoid conflict of interest. I started make other contributions, not only fivebooks.com links. This interview is directly relevant to Isabel Hilton, because she even got OBE For services to promoting environmental awareness in China (according to reference 3 of this article: http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/59090/supplements/25). I hope for your objective opinion, as this interview on on China’s Environmental Crisis  related to Isabel Hilton. Thank you, Anon111 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Anon111.

Biography as editor of chinadialogue
Before removing links, the person should check whether it is relevant or not. I changed "biography as editor of chinadialogue" to chinadialogue because not only does the original link not lead to her bio (which is not even on the website) it does not even go to the right place where her name is. On the main page of chinadialogue, however, it mentions isabel hilton founded the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inadr3am (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

More recent references =

https://chinadialogue.net/en/business/happy-lunar-new-year-from-our-founder-and-new-acting-ceo/ "A message from our founder, Isabel Hilton".

https://chinadialogue.net/en/author/isabelhilton/

JDE 94.126.214.24 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isabel Hilton


text:
Talk:Helical antenna

Equations needed
It would be nice to add design equations for each antenna type. This stuff is great reference material that usually has to be looked up all the time Madhu

I added an external link to a project we're working on. In the coming days, I'll be able to add images and possibly a polar plot diagram to better help visually explain the Helical Antenna. User:jimijames

Polarization
What is the polarization of this type of antenna in the broadside mode? I would expect it to be linearly polarized along the axis of the antenna, but I would like some confirmation.--SkiDragon (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The broadside helical is polarized in the circular mode. It can be right hand or left hand depending on the direction of the linear windings. Most common is windings with a left hand radiation pattern as typified by the Mobile One DX160SH "Superhelical" design. In reality a left hand helical radiating to a right hand helical will see some attenuation due to the phase difference, with this being detectable only with sensitive milivolt field strength measurements. In practical situations the difference is not detectable by the end user in normal use. (124.186.65.252 (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

You have this backwards: It is the axial mode which is circularly polarised. In the Broadside mode the antenna behaves like a normal (loaded) dipole. Gutta Percha (talk)

Teminology
It is unfortunate that this article conflates the true "Helical Antenna", with what in engineering terms is referred to as a "Continuously Loaded Antenna". The two types of antenna are radically different in both form and function.

A true Helical uses the Travelling Wave principle to produce gain and directivity. Its width is a wavelength or so. It is mainly used at UHF.

A Continuously Loaded antenna has a loading coil wound along the insulated support in order to shorten the antenna. Its width is a tiny part of one wavelength. It has no gain and is mainly used at HF.

I think this confusion is caused by CB manufactures using the term Helical Whip to describe what should really be called a "Continuously Loaded" whip antenna. Gutta Percha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject banner removal
How come this article under the project WikiProject Professional sound production? I removed that banner.

R!j!n (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Right handed vs Left handed Polarisation of Axial Mode Antenna
Has the terminology for polarisation of this type of aerial been settled ? As a teenager I can remember the debacle which emerged when the Telstar communications satellite was demonstrated for the first time on UK television. This was the first transatlantic television transmission, and was a complete failure. The reason given later, when the problem was sorted out, was that engineers on opposite sides of the Atlantic did not agree about what 'right hand circular polarisation' means. Consequently someone used the wrong kind of antenna. A bit like the Mars probe that failed because someone confused kilometers with miles (only more easily sorted).

I find the discussion of this in the main article, with its reference to the 'right hand rule' unsatisfactory and ambiguous. Are we now agreed that a helical ant in the form of a right handed screw emits right-handed circular polarised waves ? It might not be as simple as that.

For example look here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

g4oep

It has been difficult, but I have now settled the question of helical form and sense of circular polarisation. The solution depended on finding two authoritative references. I have amended the text accordingly. I have also deleted the link to the right hand rule. The target of the link in the original text did not help the reader to decide whether a particular helix is left or right handed. If anyone wants to reinstate the link, it will be necessary to add some information which indicates how the rule may be applied to helices. g4oep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4oep (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The call for a citation for endfire coil spacing
I am not sure that a citation is needed where it is annotated. The quarter wavelength (0.25) approximation follows directly from the 0.23 figure stated in the same sentence. If a citation is needed anywhere it should be after the 0.23 figure 123.208.225.247 (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Helical antenna


text:
Rabbiting

Rabbiting (also rabbit hunting and cottontail hunting) is the sport of hunting rabbits. It often involves using ferrets or dogs to track or chase the prey. There are various methods used in capturing the rabbit, including trapping and shooting. Depending on where the hunting occurs, there may be licenses required and other rules in regards to methods being used.

Hunting
The primary environment for hunting rabbits consists of forests. This specific habitat is favored by rabbits because of the elevated and soft grounds that make for effortless burrowing and suitable dens. In the United Kingdom, ferrets can be used as hunting companions due to their "natural hunting skills." Depending on the preferred method of the hunter, ferrets can either be trained to flush out a rabbit from its burrow or to down it. In the United States dogs are used as hunting companions due to their natural hunting abilities, as well illegality of using ferrets for hunting.

Alternatively, hunters can use specialized equipment in lieu of hunting companions. This can consist of shotguns, bolting cages, bulldog rabbiting spades, and purse-nets. As for other hunting methods, hunters can also hunt in groups. With this method, each group members relies on creating noise to trigger the rabbit's flight response. If successful, the fleeing rabbit is usually killed with shotguns or captured with nets. In other instances, with a small caliber, a hunter can also down a rabbit while it remains in its burrow.

Ferreting
Rabbiting is most commonly associated with ferrets due to their extensive history of being used for rabbiting. Preferences can vary for either males (hobs), or females (jills), due to their supposed strengths and weaknesses. Some believe jills are more agile and less head-strong, but physically weaker. Others believe hobs are physically stronger, but more head-strong and less agile.

Such of these preferences come down to whether a ferret may be more likely to perform a lay-up. Upon performing a lay-up, the ferret remains in the burrow and consumes the downed rabbit, usually falling asleep. Ultimately, individuals of this belief may view hobs as being more prone to performing a lay-up due to their head-strong nature. Therefore, some may prefer to use jills to decrease this likelihood. On the other hand, others may prefer to use hobs for their increased strength.

Aside from these theorized strengths and weaknesses of the hob or jill, modern-day ferreting involves technological devices. One of these is the locator collar that a ferret wears so its location can be tracked when it is within rabbit burrows. Simultaneously, the hunter uses a locator that is connected to the ferret's collar to locate the proximity of the ferret's location. The more frequent pulse of the beeps, the closer the hunter is to the precise location of the burrowed ferret. If it is discovered that the ferret has successfully caught and downed a rabbit, the hunter commonly uses a spade to dig up the ferret and caught rabbit. Alternatively, ferrets can also chase rabbits out of their burrows into purse nets or long nets.

Some hunters now rely on firearms or dogs to take the prey, rather than laying down nets. Three or four hunters with shotguns will attempt to shoot the rabbit as it bolts from the burrow while being chased by the ferret.

Hunting with hounds
When rabbiting, hunting dogs can be useful in a variety of ways; they can be used to track, flush, or retrieve the animal. The use of hounds for hunting can be dated back to ancient Egyptian times. The most common breeds used for rabbit hunting include sight hounds, lurchers, scent hounds, retrievers, spaniels, settlers, and pointers. Hunting of rabbits involving dogs (usually beagle or basset hounds) is called beagling. In the United Kingdom, hunters are allowed to use dogs as long as they don't use more than two and they have the landowner's permission.

Spotlighting
Spotlighting or lamping can refer to any form of rabbit hunting performed at night with the aid of powerful hand-held, rifle mounted or vehicle mounted search lights. The light is often used in conjunction with a dog such as a sighthound, (or lurcher) alongside an air rifle, or some other firearm such as a .22LR.17 HMR The rabbit is illuminated by the light and then shot, or a dog will chase and capture it. Most often lurchers are used to catch the prey, the most popular crosses involve greyhounds, border collies and salukis.

Using a vehicle is a very popular method of spotlighting. Pick ups and 4×4 are preferred modes of transport. ATVS are also popular vehicles for rabbiting. They provide rapid acceleration making it easy to chase down rabbits.

Trapping methods
There is a large variety of different traps that are used to capture rabbits and can be divided into categories. A lot of traps are typically used for pest control. When hunting for sport, long netting is the most common method of trapping. Many traps are illegal.

Spring based traps
These traps have a high rate of success and are very easy to set up. The springs inside the trap are triggered by the weight of the rabbit, causing them to shorten and the door to shut behind the animal, leaving it safely enclosed. Homemade traps such as these do not have a great success rate, as the effectiveness depends entirely on the trap's quality. The way the traps operate vary, but ultimately the rabbit's movement is what triggers them to close.

Pit traps
These traps are quite advanced because they are able to capture a large number of rabbits and automatically reset themselves. They are buried into the ground and usually have a type of tunnel that lures the animal to a spring-loaded trap, which will then drop the rabbit into an enclosure once it is triggered by weight.

Long netting
A long net is used (similar to the purse nets used when ferreting) to catch rabbits that have been scared across a field. Long netting was the primary method of catching farmed rabbits in England before they become a major pest. This method is still used today when ferret or shooting isn't an effective method due to hedgerows or large warrens. There are many different types of nets including the trammel, ditch net, and the quick set. It is important to make sure the correct type and length of net is used for the location and that it is set up correctly. Typically, long nets are placed around burrows so that a bolting rabbit (that is, one leaving its burrow) will become ensnared, allowing the hunter to dispatch it. The act of scaring rabbits towards the net is called flushing and is done by using hunting animals, lamps, ropes, or noise.

Purse Nets
One of the most commonly used nets is purse nests. These can either be made of nylon or hemp, and range from small to large sizes. Draping the net over the rabbit hole, the hunter then secures the net by pegging its top and bottom loops. Upon dashing into the net, the rabbit triggers its drawstring string mechanism which results in the net pulling together. Afterwards, the hunter usually dispatches the rabbit

Historic rabbiting
In medieval times, a hawk or falcon would have been used to catch the rabbit as it exited the warren burrow. For this type of hunt, an albino ferret would typically be used, allowing the bird-of-prey to more easily recognize it. While this hunting style is still occasionally used, especially in the UK where it remains popular (see Falconry), the methods above have almost entirely replaced it.

Also around this time, the popularity of hare coursing sport was growing. Back then, two greyhounds would be released at the same time in pursuit of the rabbit and the one that kills it is declared the winner of the game; people typically placed bets on which dog would be the victor.

In sixteenth-century Britain, hunting rabbits typically involved two hunters either on foot or horseback, a group of hounds, and a horn. The hunter leading the hounds used the horn to encourage them to chase after the rabbit, while the other stayed at the back of the group to motivate any dogs that fell behind. When the rabbit was caught, its death would be marked by a ritual dissection of its body following a blow of the horn. After the actual hunt, the meat would be taken home by the hunters, and the leftovers were given to the dogs as a reward. The rabbit's meat was not highly rated during this time period; huntsman still collected the meat, but the hunt was ultimately a form of entertainment.

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom it is not required for a hunter to have a game license to kill and take rabbits. The hunting season for rabbits runs through the entire year from January 1 to December 31.

On the Isle of Man, a game license is required to shoot rabbits and a dealer's license is required for dealing any type of game; they can be obtained from the Treasury Office. The hunting season also runs throughout the entire year.

In Jersey, no license is required because there is no hunting season for rabbits.

Guernsey's laws require a shotgun or firearm certificate rather than a hunting license.

In most of these places, it is considered an offence to kill any type of game on a Sunday.

United States
In the United States, every person wishing to hunt must have a state hunting license (few states have exceptions to this). Some national wildlife refuges may have separate permits required. Each state has different hunting seasons for rabbits. In Virginia, the season lasts throughout November, December, and January.

title: Rabbiting


text:
Straton

Straton or Strato may refer to:
 * Strato I, Indo-Greek king
 * Strato II, Indo-Greek king
 * Strato of Lampsacus (c. 335 – c. 269 BC), Greek philosopher
 * Straton of Sardis, Greek poet and anthologist
 * Abdashtart I (Straton I, 365–352 BC), king of Sidon
 * Straton of Alexandria, ancient Greek wrestler and pancratiast (fl. c. 68/64 BC)
 * Straton of Alexandria, ancient Greek runner (fl. c. 77 AD)
 * Strato AG, a German hosting provider

People with the surname

 * John Roach Straton (1875–1929), pastor
 * Taya Straton (1960–1996), Australian actress

Fictional characters

 * Straton of Stageira, a fictitious Greek philosopher invented for video game The Talos Principle
 * Strato, character in Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar
 * Straton, character in The Sacred Band of Stepsons novels

title: Straton


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Maximowicz

 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. —Korath (Talk) 07:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Carl Maximowicz
What makes this 19th century Russian botanist notable amongst other botanists in his domain? (Notability is not established in this article.) 31 hits on google. GRider\talk 22:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and expand. Notable botanist - first to introduced a number of previously unknown plant species to the West from Japan and East Asia. The orange tiger lily, maximowiczii is named in his honour. Megan1967 08:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notable botanist and explorer of the Amurland with Leopold von Schrenck. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. The article could do a much better job of establishing why he is notable. Carrp | Talk 06:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - but this notable botanist and naturalist deserves a better article  JoJan 12:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have considerably expanded the article. You can remove now the request for deletion. JoJan 10:21, 23 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:
Talk:Paul Johnson (writer)

Catholicism
Why is his religion so important that it needs to be mentioned on the first line of the article? It looks awkward and out of place. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

 * It is a significant part of Johnson's outlook and writings. Philip Cross (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No Criticism Section to this biography
Its worth pointing out that this biography of Johnson reads more like a promotional piece and not like a fair and balanced overview of this extreme right wing (and obscure) author. There should be a section on the article devoted to generally held critiques of his positions. Defending Nixon and loving Thatcher and Reagan are really lame positions, ones not held by many people. Even Hitchens thinks Johnson sucks–and Hitchens is fairly conservative. Like so many Wiki biographies, a little possie of "fans" of the author make sure any valid criticisms of the subject are nowhere to be seen. This is why Wikipedia is such a low quality online encyclopedia. Pathetic, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.19.62 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I am surprised Johnson is "obscure" in British Columbia (where the IP address is located); he had a much higher profile internationally a few decades ago. The problem with a criticism section would be the liklihood that it might violate the neutral point of view rule which all WP editors are advised to observe. Admiring Thatcher and Reagan is not an uncommon position one would have thought, I am not a "fan" of Johnson either incidentally,.and the contributor might track down a work like Prepared for the Worst: Selected Essays and Minority Reports (1988) to establish that (Christopher) Hitchens has not always been "fairly conservative". Philip Cross (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to above– 1988 Hitchens is 23 years ago! Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but Hitchens has since then hugely changed his political perspective swinging way to the right, and even with his becoming a Bush toady he recently roasted Johnson in this article to wit- http://www.salon.com/media/1998/05/28media.html

Further the so-called "neutral point of view" you mention is never adhered to if the biography is of a liberal person, say Noam Chomsky. There is ample criticism of Chomsky on his biography, or other progressive thinkers in Wiki are also vigorously criticised and put down. Why is nobody deleting the section criticising Chomsky on his Wiki article? Why does Chomsky get a critique section on his Wiki bio and not Johnson? This is a fine example of the double standards one finds so often on this rubbish online Wiki encyclopedia, that is of little use beyond getting basic information such as birthdate/death/where born/etc. Right wing trolls cry "foul! this violates NPOV! Delete it at once" if anybody dare criticise their Johnsons, Bushs, Cheney's etc–but they insist on having criticism sections on Chomsky, Zinn, Greenwald, et al. Welcome to Wiki biographies: biased, white-washed biographies that read more like self-promotional advertisements, guarded by on-line armies of trolls with political axes to grind. Meh, Wiki deserves no respect until such glaring failings are fixed. This Johnson biography is written by his admiring minion conservative trolls who will of course refuse to have a section exposing the bigotry, bullying, and hollow self-righteousness of Paul "spanker" Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.19.62 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, you know Umberto Eco said wikipedia is o.k for the educated because they can sift what they read, but its not good for the ill-educated, and I think that's kind of fair comment. overall from looking at articles over a couple of years I think the Right have done a pretty good job of making wikipedia an almost joke on a lot of politics and history articles - like you say, get quick, basic info, then thats about it Sayerslle (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Traditionally Wikipedia has been as or more critical of conservatives than others. Although it does look like many of those articles were removed. Still within articles there's Pete Sessions, John Boehner, Tea Party movement I am a bit surprised Criticism of Noam Chomsky survived when Criticism of George W. Bush didn't, but that could be temporary.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * In fact, much of the 1988 Hitchens book dates from some years before, so it is worse than you think. Chomsky self-describes as a "libertarian socialist" or anarchist rather than liberal, so he isn't a good example for your argument. I haven't looked at the Chomsky or Zinn articles for some time, and can only assume a consensus has been arrived at as to the need for a criticism section. Editors who make constructive contributions here are not trolls, whatever their politics might be. Online commentators more often tend to assume Wikipedia has a liberal or left-wing bias in my experience, not that I give conservatives preferential treatment you understand.

 * As an editor who worked heavily on the Johnson article a few years ago, it was difficult to find reliable sources online which are critical of Johnson. The bulk of the journalism which did criticise him will predate newspapers (or journals) being online. The Guardian newspaper of London had a long run in with Johnson in the 1990s, and it is unfortunate I have not paid to access their pre-internet material in order to ascertain whether any of it can be used to improve this article. Philip Cross (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is 'he is now a conservative historian' not sufficient, why are 'prominent' and 'popular' there? can that be referenced. more like 'obscure', and as for 'popular?' does he sell like jamie oliver? Or david starkey? i doubt it. Peacock-y right wing crap. Sayerslle (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When last I read his journalistic work he could rightly be described as a "Conservative" in a political sense but that is not the same as "conservative historian" which implies something else. The last book I read of his was "The History of Christianity" which remains one of the best single volume works on the subject - he has a propensity for telling the truth even if it doesn't reflect well on the Church of which he is a member. I gather he is sympathetic to the economic improvements that the Franco regime brought to the Spanish middle-class but he doesn't miss out that Francos hands were covered in blood in the process. As regards being "popular" this may indeed be so but it is commonly used as a put down as well. Johnson is an independent scholar and doesn't have to treat "sensitive" issues the way academics often do to maintain a quiet life and income. I don't share his faith or political views but based on his books, mainly from the seventies and early eighties, I rate him highly. ma'at (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well maybe I should have left it as it was as I haven't read his work, 'prominent' and 'popular' looked a bit o.t.t. to me - considering how little he is heard of - what is better - 'independent Conservative historian?' Is he really a  prominent historian? maybe he is - I just go by listening to the radio, watching t.v kind of thing - and I never hear of him .Sayerslle (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection to dropping the peacock words but what is "conservative historian" meant to convey? ma'at (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 'prominent conservative popular historian' was there already o.k - what did it mean then? - well thats what it means now. Reactionary I  imagine .And Pfistermeister,  on wp it says 'popular history', history 'that takes a popular approach aimed at a wide readership' - - look at David Starkey top 3 titles - sales rank on amazon, Crown and Country, 3,700, elizabeth 9,793, 6 wives of henry VIII, 12, 762 - paul johnson - 'brief lives' sales rank 135,064 modern times -216,959, jesus -342,586 .So he 'takes a popular approach' to little effect. Read by writers of splenetic edit summaries, - you cretin, yourself P.S.  I just saw your latest edit summary on 'id ego, and something o rother' and your edit summary was 'idiot, keep your clueless hands off'- you seem to be the kind of ranter that drives away editors from wp. especially if they might be new and aren't used to the rough and tumble. I'd suggest you tone down your edit summaries - no need to destroy makers of poor edits , nobodys perfect - 'the fallibility of all human endeavour' and all.Sayerslle (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Reactionery"? Depends on the benchmark used. Taking the RCC article talk page as an example then I guess he would definately react against the hagiographical style of writing that once prevailed amongst its editors - his book on Christianity would never have appeared in their reference works because he is no whitewasher. "Read by writers of splenetic edit summaries" well Malcolm Muggeridge poured out lavish praise on Johnsons "History of Christianity", but then Malcolm had a gift of invective as well! ma'at (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did Muggeridge rate him? Well, I love Muggeridge, so maybe Johnson isn't so bad. I wish I'd stayed off the article -, but I haven't the heart to restore 'prominent conservative popular historian' myself, - it looked too much to me, I remember something about a book he wrote on the Jesuits, but I shouldn't have let my very subjective - 'havent heard him talked about for ages' to lead me to interfere with the lead, I couldn't 100% rule out a bit of political sectarian feeling in my action, but I know the rules, NPOV, and all, naughty, - anyway,  it's easy for pfistermeister to restore the old wording, and he can leave some more abuse in his edit summary. Sayerslle (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look out tonight M's comments on the book mentioned and post it to your talk page tomorrow. He, like Evelyn Waugh, early in his career could review books for the press he had never actually read but in this case (1976) I'm sure he did read this one and the book in question still attracts well deserved praise (see amazon.com) which is hard to do on anything relating to religion. It's a while since I read MM but he was one of the authors who could make me laugh out loud with his pointed humour. Like you I don't particularly like flowery descriptions but I'm not always consistent - it depends on the subject and if somebody is likely to object about the person status as a reliable source. ma'at (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

From The Weekend Interview with Paul Johnson: Why America Will Stay on Top by Brian Carney (Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2011): 'Frank judgments like these are a hallmark of Mr. Johnson's work, delivered with almost child-like glee. Of Mahatma Gandhi, he wrote in "Modern Times": "About the Gandhi phenomenon there was always a strong aroma of twentieth-century humbug."

'Socrates is much more to Mr. Johnson's liking. Whereas, in Mr. Johnson's telling, Gandhi led hundreds of thousands to death by stirring up civil unrest in India, all the while maintaining a pretense of nonviolence, Socrates "thought people mattered more than ideas. . . . He loved people, and his ideas came from people, and he thought ideas existed for the benefit of people," not the other way around.

'In the popular imagination, Socrates may be the first deep thinker in Western civilization, but in Mr. Johnson's view he was also an anti-intellectual. Which is what makes him one of the good guys. "One of the categories of people I don't like much are intellectuals," Mr. Johnson says. "People say, 'Oh, you're an intellectual,' and I say, 'No!' What is an intellectual? An intellectual is somebody who thinks ideas are more important than people." ' Asteriks (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fascinating that a supposedly "neutral point of view article" has a bigger section on the criticisms of an author than the author himself. How can people seriously say that Wikipedia has a "right-wing bias"- perfect example of Wikipedia's takeover by snotty arrogant lefty college freshmen and amateur "historians". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58A:8200:89E0:B503:4158:56CC:F6EE (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnson's affair exposed in 1998
User:Leothomasalfred keeps removing this passage, but offers no explanation for doing so. As the majority view is to retain this section (see the first archive page), I have reverted, but added further citations for verification. I removed "alleged" because it seems less risky from a legal point of view. The Independent article, as reproduced on the newspaper's website, begins with a comment fromn the interviewer: "LEGAL NOTE: - Do not repeat un-corroborated allegation that Paul Johnson said Gloria Stewart had told lies. Deborah Ross". Johnson is not quoted as making any such claims in the more recent Telegraph interview cited in this passage, and appears to acknowledge the affair. I would suggest using "alleged" contravenes the spirit of the legal notice. Philip Cross (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Johnson has never corroborated Stewart's story. Stewart received money for it. I am surprised Philip Cross is so sure she is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcyncha (talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The disclaimer at the beginning of The Independent article from November 1998 (quoted above) regards a comment by Johnson: "No. It was all lies, lies, lies. Pure invention". The full passage from The Daily Telegraph interview by Elizabeth Grice in 2010 is as follows: "There were testing times for them both [Johnson and his wife] in 1998 when a former mistress, Gloria Stewart, told the papers of her 11-year affair with Johnson. Not good for a man who had written about the anchor of marriage in the public prints. It seems a shame, and possibly dangerous, to bring this up in the middle of a pleasant morning, but he does not maul or pounce. After a moment of diplomatic amnesia, he growls: “If you acquire any kind of fame, that’s the kind of thing that’s liable to happen. You just put it out of your mind. It’s what Shakespeare called 'the dark backward and abysm' of the past." Not exactly a denial, and the source material is from the 'serious' end of the British press. Philip Cross (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly an admission, either. Since neither of us know whether Stewart's story is at all accurate, it seems to me reasonable to change "revealed" to "alleged". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcyncha (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Erotic Spanking?
I understand the importance of having a "personal life" section on Paul Johnson's page, but really, how important is the bit about him liking "erotic spanking"? I deleted this pointless blurb as it in no way gives readers any important information about the writer and historian (not porn star) Paul Johnson. This article does not need such an insignificant detail. Uriah is Boss (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The majority opinion is to retain the material properly cited from an RS. See past discussions on this talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The majority opinion is that there is no bias behind writing that Paul Johnson had an affair. I do not see what intimate details of this affair have to do with him as an historian. Like I said before, even if he does like erotic spanking or vanilla ice cream or flossing his teeth or any other insignificant thing, it is a pointless blurb in an article on an important contemporary historian and need not remain. Uriah is Boss (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Rightly or wrongly, this incident has been much recounted in newspapers at the top end of the market in the UK (The Guardian, Independent, and the Conservative Daily Telegraph) and this article would read oddly if it were omitted. Johnson is not treated with the level of reverence in the UK he often receives in the USA, and the three listed newspapers are not 'tabloid' in the downmarket sense of that term.

 * While it true that applying a category to this article concerning this detail, on say sado-masochism, would require Johnson to have been wholly open on this topic according to Biographies of living persons, we find this in the section on 'public figures' in the WP:BLP article:"'In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it [my emphasis]. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.)'" I contend that this applies to the detail regarding Johnson's affair. Philip Cross (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP says the article "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgement." The question here is not bias or the quality of the sources but about "regard for the subject's privacy". What else is the inclusion of a subject's preferences in the bedroom other than titillation? Just because newspapers discuss it doesn't mean we should. We are not a newspaper. Span (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any record here of 'consensus' on this issue. Span (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Johnson's privacy in this area has long gone; his sexual preference has regularly been repeated in the British press, so it is not ephemeral information, as most news is, and has been in the public domain since 1998. It had previously been hinted at by Christopher Hitchens and Francis Wheen on the basis of passages in Johnson's two novels. Therefore, this article isn't the primary source for what are more than "claims" - the Deborah Ross article from The Independent in 1998 has a legal notice not to repeat Johnson's denial. Philip Cross (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, the question is not whether or not there is significant documentation of Johnson's sexual tastes, the question is whether or not his sexual taste contributes to an understanding of the historian and his body of work. It is a moot personal detail, whether or not it is well documented. If it could somehow be proven that his enjoyment of erotic spanking contributed to his philosophical outlook in his written body of work then it would be significant enough to keep. As it is, I agree with User: Spanglej that the "inclusion of a subject's preferences in the bedroom [are nothing] other than titillation". Uriah is Boss (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 * WP:BLP is clear in what is and is not fair game. The Independent's article is linked plainly enough if anyone wants to enquire further. Span (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A los yankees
¿Por que no se ocupan de la villa miseria de Fresno? ¿O de las villas de Camdem y Detroit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.82.43 (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Paul Johnson (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313132312/http://www1.salon.com:80/media/1998/05/28media.html to http://www1.salon.com/media/1998/05/28media.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Johnson (writer). 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 tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/29/165231.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704133355/http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/3388016/and-another-thing.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/3388016/and-another-thing.thtml
 * Added tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199712/ai_n8772986

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) 18:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Johnson (writer). 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/20160314073128/http://booknotes.org/Watch/102205-1/Paul%20Johnson.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/102205-1/Paul%2BJohnson.aspx

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) 21:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Fact In Wrong Section?
Currently, the following sentence appears in the "Honours" section: "On the BBC programme Desert Island Discs in January 2012, Johnson professed himself unimpressed by Nelson Mandela."

The statement appears (at least at a glance) to be well-sourced, but I fail to see what this tidbit has to do with the subject of "honours," in a section principally describing Johnson receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom and being appointed appointed CBE.

Perhaps it should be moved to either the "Shift rightward" or the "Early life and career" section.

2001:CF8:0:6C:0:0:0:203 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paul Johnson (writer)


text:
File:Hristos128.jpg

Hristos of Prizren, Prizren, Kosovo and Metohia, Serbia, Fresco in Church Bogorodica Ljeviska (Our Ledy of Ljeviška, Orthodox Church), 1309

Copy from: Predrag. R. Dragić Kijuk: Anthology of Medieval and Renaissance Serbian Poetry, Belgrade, 1987 with permission of Author.

title: File:Hristos128.jpg


text:
Category talk:Jokes

Untitled
I think this category and all the articles in it should be deleted, an encyclopedia is not the place for jokes! --145.94.41.95 22:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The jokes in the artiles: are very funny, maybe we could start funny-pedia for jokes and funny stuff (images, etc.). --145.94.41.95 22:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Radio Yerevan
 * Russian joke

I can't find Chinese wise man jokes, is there a way to add them? Oh, and the user who posted on 17 Feb, 2005, jokes are part of the English language and world culture. The jokes posted are there to show examples of the categories mentioned. Let me see you try to explain a knock- knock joke to someone without using an example.

title: Category talk:Jokes


text:
Category:Dental organizations

 * This category gathers together all nonprofit organizations, for-profit organizations (e.g., businesses), educational organizations, etc., relating to dentistry.

de:Kategorie:Organisation (Zahnmedizin)

title: Category:Dental organizations


text: User talk:68.31.180.110

title: User talk:68.31.180.110


text:
Bégard

Bégard (Bear) is a commune in the Côtes-d'Armor department in Brittany in northwestern France.

Population
Inhabitants of Bégard are called Bégarrois.

Breton language
The municipality launched a linguistic plan through Ya d'ar brezhoneg on 25 October 2004.

In 2008, 5.89% of the primary school children attended the bilingual schools.

Twinning
Bégard is twinned with St Asaph in Wales.

title: Bégard


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ty Janzen

 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 10:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ty Janzen
It was speedy delete, but it doesn't fall into that category. I propose delete because it's vanity and unencyclopedic. Enochlau 22:44, 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.
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I placed it for speedy because it seemed to be basic nonsense to me. However, I agree, and thus vote for deletion.  -- Cabhan 03:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ty who? BenSamples 04:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:81.153.184.34

title: User talk:81.153.184.34