text:
Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Biographies

Section on Abdu'l-Baha
I have changed some elements of the section on 'Abdu'l-Baha that were added by Amir. Others I have incorporated in the article slightly higher up. In particular I have removed the polemical statements about whom 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi expelled, since these state strong opinions that cannot meet the Wikipedia criterion of a neutral point of view, and are not completely accurate. 'Abdu'l-Baha did not excommunicate all the members of Baha'u'llah's family; he expelled Mirza Muhammad-Ali. 'Abdu'l-Baha's position on this is recorded in his Will and Testament, which can be found here:. If one is looking to find edicts of 'Abdu'l-Baha that expel from the Baha'i Faith by name the many people that this contributor is claiming, they will not find them.

Also, there is no indication that this expulsion "turned out to hurt the entire Bahai movement in a much greater dimension." If that was the case, one would expect its effect to be seen. However, despite internal opposition and external attacks, the growth of the Baha'i Faith only increased. The statement made in the article is an unsupported opinion only.

There is no shortage of published material available on this aspect of the Baha'i Faith, but to include it both out of context and as such a large element of a very small section about 'Abdu'l-Baha has the effect of distorting the history of the Baha'i Faith for the audience of the Wikipedia. If the contributor is able to incorporate this information in a way that is balanced, that conveys accurately the intricacies of the issue at hand and at a scale that does not distort the article, then I am sure no one here would oppose his posting this material here in the talk page so that we can discuss it and come to some general agreement, in the spirit in which the Wikipedia is meant to operate.

Furthermore, I cannot find any source for the comment that Shoghi Effendi expelled Diya Khanum, his mother, from the Faith. If this is the case, no doubt there will be decisive documentary evidence provided by the contributor.

Wives and children of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
Recent additions have included paragraphs concerning the wives and children of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. I find that these paragraphs do not fit in very well in an article about the Baha'i Faith, which to me should be more focused on the religion. Inserting paragraphs about the wives and children of Baha'u'llah seem to detract from this purpose. Perhaps these paragraphs are better suited to the pages of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha respectively. I have not, as yet, removed these paragraphs, because I want to see what others think. So, what are your thoughts? --oazizi

I have moved the details on marriages to the Baha'u'llah article and made some adjustments, but you are right that they do not really fit here, with the way the article is currently written. However, to remove it completely would contravene some principles of Wikipedia, so I have tried to place it in as appropriate a context as I can, but the real solution is to expand the articles so they do have an appropriate place. I will work on that a bit, since the Baha'u'llah article, for example, doesn't yet have the scope to properly accommodate such information, and it should. --Jmenon 07:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The article contained two separate sections on Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha, and I contributed one small paragraph to each section about the lives of these two individuals. My contributions were factual, academically correct, and worthy of any encyclopedia article on this subject.  If you have objections to my English, feel free to improve it, in fact I will appreciate it.  But do not try to manipulate the article cunningly in that process to favour a certain perspective.  --Amir 11:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * no one (maybe you) is trying to manipulate the article, the article is about the RELIGION not the individuals, as such, details as "wifes" and "marriages" should be in their respective articles of the individuals not in the religion article since they have to relevance. just because something you write may be factual, it can still be removed if its inrelevant/unnecessary to the current article and as a more suitable place to be (such is the case).
 * i will rv again, and please please do not revert again until this is discussed here WITH consesus achieved. - --Cyprus2k1 11:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I am restoring it. You cannot just delete correct information out of articles just because YOU don't approve of them.  This is a wikipedia article about the Bahai Faith, the article already contained sub-sections about bahaullah and abdul-baha, and i simply added some correct and useful (maybe not useful to you) information to those sections.  You have no right to just decide on your own that you want to remove them.  If you cannot respect wikipedia's stated policies, please feel free to go somewhere else.  If you have decided to use wikipedia, please first read the stated policies of wikipedia, and then abide by those rules, otherwise, it will be a chaos here.  --Amir 11:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * yes of course, and you can put information because YOU aprove it? :)
 * im sorry but, you just arent being constructive. reasons(oazizi,Jmenon,Cyprus2k1) have been given, and you just seem ignore them and keep saying the same thing.
 * i was kindly asking you not to revert again until a consesus could be reached, i will not follow your example and revert it again, instead i will wait that you discuss with something constructive... (besides, i have to go study calculus ;) ) --Cyprus2k1 11:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Amir, I do not object to the content of your additions (for the most part, anyways). Its seems from an encyclopedic point of view, however, that these facts should be listed under the articles of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. For example, the wikipedia page for Islam does not mention anything of the wives of Muhammad. The facts related to Muhammad's family are contained within the Muhammad article. That is the sort of organization that makes sense, and should be followed in this article as well. I am not suggesting the information you have added to be thrown away, just to be organized into the appropriate article. --oazizi

 * I think a brief mention of their family and marital status is well placed. Why would you want to exclude the women and the significant role they played in the lives of these Bahai leaders? The article already has separate sections for biographical synonpsis of their lives, what's a few additional lines to mention their wives as well? I am sure our Bahai friends would not appreciate the exclusion of the wives of these two Bahai leaders as the Bahais take pride in  equality of men and women in their faith. I also think perhaps a mention of Shoghi is also not a bad idea.  Why is he not included? --Amir 02:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * A summary of other religious pages and how they deal with their history and specifically the history of personnages.
 * Hinduism: No history, no history of the founder
 * Zoroastrianism: History of where it was spread and how it declined. No history of the founder.
 * Islam: just pointers to the History of Islam and Muhammad, brief mention of Islam today.
 * Christianity: Link to History of Christianity and Jesus and then briefly (one paragraph) talks about who Jesus was (stating he was a descendent of Judah) and how he was persecuted. No mention of His mother Mary.
 * Buddhism: Large section on the Life of the Buddha (4 large paragraphs), one mention of his family "He decided to abandon his worldly life, leaving behind his wife and child"
 * Judaism: Gives history from Jacob to Moses to Samuel to David to Solomon. No mention of their family.

 * Given these standards it seems that the history of the faiths and their personages have generally been limited in the religion's main page and abrogated to other articles, and where there is history it is usually very limited. Thus that would point to limiting and possibly even removing the history of the Baha'i Faith from it's main page.  What do other people who are not already involved in this discussion think?  -- Jeff3000 03:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * It depends on the length of the article. I am guessing that the historical part of Islam was hived off because that article got long.  I noticed just now that this article is getting long (the 35k warning came up when I took Baha'u'llah's picture out), so if someone wants to do the work of refactoring it, maybe the details of the Baha'i history could be made into a seperate article too. -- PaulHammond 20:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

A fresh perspective
As an outsider who has no bias, and someone familiar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution, I was asked to take a look at this dispute. I looked at this page diff. It seems to me that the only substantial differences here are:
 * Whether or not to say if Bahá'u'lláh is from Persia. That sentence (as it exists in the diff) was particularly clunky, so I rephrased it without changing it in any substantial way. I don't think it's a big deal whether or not to mention his nationality, but if I had to pick I'd say that it's better to err on the informative side.
 * Bahá'u'lláh's wives and children - since this paragraph makes no mention of the religion itself (it's wholly biographical) it should be in article on the man rather than the faith. I recommend taking it out.
 * I do agree with Amir that the information about the excommunications belongs here, since it apparently did impact the religion. However, I think you need to cite a source on this before you can make the claim - preferably quoting a reputable source. →Raul654 04:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * To my knowledge, there is no hard evidence (e.g., paper document) which shows that Shoghi excommunicated his own parents. He certainly did excommunicate all his siblings and their families (in most cases, because they married, or remained married to, Covenant Breakers). However, as in Bahai religion consent of parents is required for marriage, how could they have married Covenant Breakers without their parents' (which would also be Shoghi's own parents) consent?  Therefore, logical conclusion is that Shoghi did also excommunicate his own parents, without leaving hard evidence.  Regarding his excommunicating his own siblings, I don't think any Bahai would dispute that claim. --Amir 06:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I've just read a paragraph that claims Abdu'l Baha excommunicated all his siblings, which then gets into a whole lot of non-NPOV stuff that tries to make him out to be a pretender making a power grab (which is what Muhammad Ali, who incidentally was named by Baha'u'llah as AB's successor, was claiming back in 1910ish).  In fact, Ali attempted to get him killed when he was in dangerous situations just before the Young Turks released him.  Sure, there can be a controversy over whose interpretation of the facts during these troubles was right, but I don't think the casual encyclopedia reader is that bothered about the details of the leadership controversies of the past when they have only just heard the name Abdu'l Baha.  Right now, this section reads like what it is, a piece with controversial sentences levered into it by someone who wants to argue with the mainstream Baha'i interpretation of their own history.  not the kind of thing people should expect to see in a Wikipedia featured article.  PaulHammond 20:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Finally someones said it... -- Tomhab 20:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Ahem - Cite sources. →Raul654 07:26, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Could one solutions merely be that a bit more explanation be made? Why they were excommunicated etc. That way it remains factual - they were excommunicated for a reason (which I won't go into in case I get my facts wrong :D).
 * Personally I don't think that any of Amirs comments are actually wrong and and I do feel a bit about the excommunication have a place in a section about the history of the faith, but I reckon the entire history section should be gutted and made be an article in itself. Someone wanting to know what Baha'is are all about doesn't need all this. Perhaps a mention about starting in 1863 in Persia in he first paragraph. Just an opinion heh. -- Tomhab 21:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you are right Tomhab, a seperate section on the history of the Baha'i Faith is probably the right way to given that the article is already larger than 32kB. Once I have the time, I'll take it out, if no one objects. -- Fadeaway919 22:04, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just added a few small edits (that will clear up a few things) and grammar and semantic fixes which I hope no-one will argue with. In my opinion they don't remove emphasis from any parts of the sentences. I can see its a bit of a contentious paragraph so if you do have a problem with the small edits part could you leave the grammar bits in at least! -- Tomhab 15:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Translating Baha'u'llah
I have noticed that the translation of Baha'u'llah has been changed from "Glory of God" to "Glory of Allah". I have done some limited searching and it seems to me that Allah is just just the Arabic word for God. See, for example, the comments in the following: http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=71. I also came across other websites stating the same thing, so I hope it is true. Since the purpose of the sentence is to translate the term "Baha'u'llah" to an English audience, I will change the translation back to "Glory of God". - Oazizi

I concur with Oazizi. "Baha'u'llah", in Arabic, means "Baha'u'llah". In English, it means the Glory of God, or if you like, the Glory of the Lord. This is common knowledge, so I am surprised as to why this was changed. I have also removed the Persian reference to Baha'u'llah in the first paragraph since there is scarcely a paragraph in the whole history section of the article that does not mention it, and it makes the article seem repetitive and badly written. The Baha'is of Persian descent are today a minority in the Faith, approximately 5%, although deeply revered, loved, and respected. Out of about 7 million Baha'is worldwide, there are only about 300,000 Baha'is in Iran. Overall, the largest community, in India, is of primarily Hindu background, and the next largest communities are in sub-Saharan Africa and South America. --Jmenon 04:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Jmenon, you can concur with our now anonymous friend all you want. Wikipedia is not a Bahai Faith promotional pamphlet. The articles here should be like encycolopedia articles, not written from the point of view of any particular groups, faith, party, etc.  Also, I don't know how much you are familiar with Arabic, I guess not much since you translated Baha'u'llah as "The Glory of God", there is no "The", that would have been "Al-Baha'u'llah" .. but anyway, it is Allah, and any English dictionary contains Allah.  For your information, in the Bahai Faith the proper salutation is "Allah-u Abha".  The word they use, and this has even been emphasized in Bahaullah's writing is "Allah".  Even in Persian language, in which the word for God is not "Allah", the Bahais use the word "Allah".  Let's be honest, the only reason "Allah" is being removed from this translation here, is because these days "Allah" is less marketable than "God"!!  hehe amazing how brilliant some people are!!  :-)  --Amir 11:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "Allah" is the arabic word for God, therefore the correct translation of "Baha'u'llah" is "Glory of God". - --Cyprus2k1 11:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Amir, I agree with you that Wikipedia is not to be a Bahai Faith promotional pamphlet. The articles should indeed be like encyclopedia articles. Further, it is true that Allah is a tricky word to translate (like you say, it is in the English dictionary). Having said that, I still honestly believe the proper translation for this article is God. Being a Persian, I can say with no hesitation that when Baha'is speak to one another in Persian, they refer to God as "Khoda", the Persian word for God; they do not use the Arabic word for God as you suggest. Similiarly, in English, Baha'is use the word God. It is for these reasons that I believe the correct translation is "Glory of God". - Oazizi

 * Agree with other comments here. "Allah" is arabic for "God".  "Allah" is not an English word, it is just a word that is now widely understood by English speakers because of their exposure to muslims and Arabic in history.  "Glory of God" is the correct translation.  PaulHammond 20:03, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Reference removed to Baha'u'llah as "prophet-founder" of the religion
Raul654 made an adjustment to the first paragraph that omits the mention that Baha'u'llah is the prophet-founder of the Baha'i Faith, stating only that he is a Persian whose name means the Glory of God. Was there a reason for that omission, or is it an oversight? If the former, could you please explain? If the latter, then may I propose the following wording:

"The Baha'i Faith is a monotheistic religion whose members follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah (1817-1892), the faith's prophet-founder. Born Mirzá Husayn-Ali, into a family of Persian nobility in Tehran, his name is Arabic for "the Glory of God."

Could everyone please comment. Thanks. --Jmenon 01:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Reference to him as the religion's founder was removed (incorrectly, in my opinion) serveral days ago. I have remedied it. →Raul654 03:01, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sanctioning the removal, but... I thought general consensus was that Baha'is don't see Baha'u'llah as a Prophet, because he didn't prophesise or something along those lines? Maybe all those years of Bahai class are failing me, but isn't there a distinction between prophets and Manifestations of God?
 * oh and as for the founder bit - yeah no reason to change that. Tomhab 15:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In Baha'i literature there is a difference among prophets and Manifestations of God. Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, Moses, Krishna, and some others who are not in history books, due to the amount of history the world contains, are Manifestations of God, and prophets, for example, are prophets of the Old Testament (not including Moses), among others.  The word prophet outside of Baha'i literature however, I feel, represents both the Baha'i idea of prophet and the Baha'i idea of Manifestation of God.  Since Wikipedia is supposed to be for the general populace, I think the word prophet is correct. -- Fadeaway919 22:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Definitely. "Prophet" is a good shorthand for what Baha'is mean by "Manifestation".  The general reader wouldn't understand "Manifestation" without explanation.  Baha'is definitely think of Baha'u'llah as a prophet... -- PaulHammond 20:11, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

three wives (concurrently)
OK, OK, I can see this is going to get dodgey. Is there some way we can agree on making sure it doesn't imply he was married to one wife at once without whilst keeping it neutral. I was under the impression that saying "He had three wives" would be enough (if someones divorced you'd say they were "married three times"), and seemed to me that adding "(concurrently)" was unneccessary but I guess not... How about one of these:

 * 1) According to Islamic tradition and before the Bahá'í faith came into being and introduced a ban on polygamy he had three wives
 * 2) According to Islamic tradition he had three wives

I reckon they're both neutral, factual and don't sound like they're trying to credit nor discredit the guy. Personally I prefer the second as it flows better but comments are welcome. If no-one complains I'll change it in a couple of days. Please submit an alternative if you do though.

Oh and cheers for the 14->7 mistake -- Tomhab 20:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * When he married his third wife, one of his house maids, a young girl who was the personal maid of his first wife, he was not a Muslim, he was a Babi, and according to his own claim, some 10 years before that time, he was already "inspired" by God of his new mission (implying that he was already a Bahai, waiting to declare his "mission" to the world soon.) To say that his three concurrent wives was just "normal Islamic practice" would be dishonest.  Martin2000 20:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * btw - the claim that he had three wives is controversial. He had two, and the status the the third is disputed.  I've also heard stuff about another alleged wife, Navvab, but information on her seems to be sketchy indeed.  If we are going to put this stuff in at all, we need better research on it.  Two wives was the rule that Baha'u'llah gave for his followers.  Abdu'l Baha later interpreted this law such that Baha'is can only marry one wife.  (Marrying two was meant to depends on being able to treat them equitably.  Abdu'l Baha ruled that this was an impossible condition for any normal human being to meet) PaulHammond 21:05, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Are you sure you're not mixing up with his first wife Assieh Navab? -- Tomhab 21:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, you're right. i couldn't recall if Navvab was the first wife, or the mysterious fourth.  Thanks for the correction.   Whatever the case, more and attributed research needs doing, and probably it would best for all this stuff to go into a new "History" article. PaulHammond 21:48, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Baha'u'llah did indeed had three wives. I don't disagree with that.  The point of this discussion is that should this information be in an article on the Baha'i Faith or Baha'u'llah (it's already in Baha'u'llah).  As indicated above in the talk page, all other religious pages do not talk much about the history of their founder (especially with regards to family), and instead take it to the other pages (i.e. History of Christianity).  Also for example, the the marriages of Muhammad have their own page. -- Jeff3000 21:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm talking more about keeping it neutral and factual. Don't forget that Babis are an Islamic movement not even 20 years old so talking about Islamic tradition covering it would be fair. And he didn't introduce the Bahai law for 10 years. Also as for "Normal islamic practice" the current version implies it isn't normal for a nobleman to have more than one wife. Just trying to keep it fair and neutral. If you still have a problem please submit an alternative. -- Tomhab 21:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm guessing you meant "not even 200 years old" here! PaulHammond 21:48, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * My point was between 1844 and his third marriage was less than 20 years. He was born a Muslim in a Muslim country, was a member of an Islamic movement/sect so I think saying that he is covered by Islamic law is fair. -- Tomhab 21:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * This is pure BS. He was a Babi long before he even left Persia. In Babism only two wives are allowed.  He married his third wife (a very young maid of his first wife) in Baghdad. out of his three wives, only the first one is from the time when he was a Muslim.  The second one was after he had become a Babist in Iran, and the third one in Baghdad. At the time he took his third wife, he was still officially a Babi, but according to his own claims, in his heart, he was  already inspired by God about his new "mission" long ago, while he was in a dungeon in Tehran! Martin2000 22:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Just removed my edit here as I've just realised it was unneccessary flippant and counter-productive. Sorry -- Tomhab 23:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Martin. If you can write a well-sourced paragraph discussing the history of Baha'u'llah's marriages, and the children who resulted from them, that strikes most people as being written from a neutral point of view, then I'm sure we can find a good home for it, either here, at Baha'u'llah, or in the putative "History of the Baha'i Faith" article.  Can you do that?

 * Your edit history strongly suggests to me that you would be incapable of writing such a solidly-researched, unbiased paragraph. PaulHammond 02:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Biographical articles/details
I had thought someone was removing the details and controversies around each central figure into the biography pages. Right now, it looks like someone has put the links in at the top of each section, but that there is still the same amount of detail here as ever there was. - PaulHammond 12:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * an anon user putted it back, and calls anyone who removes it a "bahai bigot" ;) - --Cyprus2k1 13:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was me who put the links up to "gently" encourage people to move biographic stuff to where it belongs or - at least - to stop people adding stuff all the time so that we re-hash everything twice or thrice on several pages. This is standard practice across Wikipedia. The trouble obviously is to cut stuff so much down to leave it meaningful without glossing things. Refdoc 13:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * So, basically the information has been copied, but the attempt to abbreviate these sections has not been made yet?  I'll have a go at it myself sometime then, maybe. -- PaulHammond 15:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Should the paragraph of Baha'u'llah (and `Abdu'l-Bahá) wives be on this page
i had removed the paragraphs based on lack of response on Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith, some anonymous users kept putting it back despite appeals to comment on the same talk section (and as "punishment" the photo of Baha´u´llah was added too..). i think a vote here could settle this and leave to room to doubt - --Cyprus2k1 08:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * no way voting is bad try and settle by disscussion firstGeni 10:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, you've got to love the politics of this all... -- Tomhab 10:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * wikipolitics does seem to be a little overcomplex but it is simple enough if you are prepared spend hours on it. Surfice to say right now would really be a bad time to hold another voteGeni 17:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Geni, i did try, the only thing i got was flamming calling me a "bahai bigot" - --Cyprus2k1 12:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * lets try again. Can anyone think of a reason why that paragraph should be in the article. It really doesn't seem to be part of the flow.Geni 17:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * My personal opinion is that this article is about "What it is to be a Baha'i" (this would be in line with Christianity and Islam). Although there should be a mention of the key figures, I'd quite like to keep it to a single paragraph or at most two. There are detailed articles on all the figures and a whole article dedicated to Baha'u'llah's family, so not strictly necessary to go into detail here. -- Tomhab 18:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK family link should work now?? -- Tomhab 18:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Biographies


text: User talk:203.199.245.10

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

title: User talk:203.199.245.10


text: User talk:82.221.24.100

title: User talk:82.221.24.100


text:
American shrew mole

The American shrew mole (Neurotrichus gibbsii) is the smallest species of mole. It is the only living member of the genus Neurotrichus and the tribe Neurotrichini. It is also known as Gibb's shrew mole and least shrew mole. It is not closely related to the Asian shrew mole (Uropsilus in Urotrichini). The reason that it is called a "shrew mole" instead of being called either a "shrew" or a "mole" is because of its fur, which is a characteristic of shrews and its large head and heavy dentition, which is characteristic of moles.

Habitat
It is found in damp, forested or bushy areas with deep, loose soils in the northwestern United States and southwestern British Columbia. In the most northern part of its habitat, it lives along streams or moist dense woods and in the most southern part of its habitat, it is found in swampy areas that are overgrown with vegetation such as sedges or shrubs.

Morphological features
Like shrews, it has a pelage with guard hairs and underfur. Its fur is dense and soft. The color ranges from dark gray to a sooty bluish-black. Its tail is about half the length of its head and body. Its tail is also covered with scales and scattered coarse hairs. It has a long, flattened snout, and a short but thick, bristled tail. It is the smallest of the American moles. It is about 10 cm in length including a 3 cm tail, and weighs about 10 g. It has a zygoma and auditory bullae, which are absent in shrews, but present in moles. The enamel that covers its teeth is white instead of mahogany or reddish-brown, like it is in shrews. It also lacks a penis bone. Its front paws are smaller and do not face outwards from the body as in more fossorial moles, and so are more similar to those of shrews. The front paws are also broad with bifurcate phalanges, which provide more support for the claws in order to dig. Also, the three middle claws of the front paws are elongated and the eyes are also completely covered by skin.

In addition to the front paws, the rest of its morphological features allow it to be highly fossorial and subterranean. It has a streamlined body that allow it to move smoothly through tunnels and short appendages that are kept close to the body. It also has no ear pinnae, which is the external part of the ear. These features reduce drag when it digs and when it moves through tunnels.

Digging and burrowing
The shrew-mole is often confused with pocket gophers, another group of fossorial subterranean mammals, because they have similar habits but they differ greatly in the methods for burrowing. Most fossorial mammals, including the pocket gophers dig with their forepaws held directly below their body, but shrew-moles dig using lateral-strokes. This method of lateral-stroke burrowing in shrew moles is an evolutionary adaptation due to the modification of the pectoral girdle and bones of the forelimbs. The pelvic girdle is small and unmodified, but the pectoral girdle contains a special joint that causes the clavicle to join with the humerus instead of the scapula. The humerus bones are unique to shrew-moles because they exist as massive rectangular shapes, unlike other fossorial mammalian groups. The humerus also has a large surface area for the attachment of well developed muscles used for digging.

The shrew-mole makes permanent tunnels by digging with its forelimbs and using its forefeet to soften the soil that will be removed to make a hollow tunnel. The tunnels form complex networks that interconnect and lead to burrows. The tunnels are rarely ever deeper than 30 centimeters below the surface, so they are not as deep as the tunnels of other mole species. The burrows are made beneath decaying leaf litter and have an opening on the ceiling that leads to the surface, which serves the purpose of ventilation. The shrew-mole also makes shallow surface runways by moving the front part of its body 45 degrees to the right and then to the left. Then back again to the right, then left, and so on. When it moves to the right, the left forepaw is thrust up rapidly lifting soil in the process and when it moves to the left, the right forepaw is thrust up to lift soil.

As the shrew-mole continues to dig through the soil, the amount of prey in the soil is significantly less than the amount present in soil that has not been dug through by them. In addition, it spends a lot of its energy to dig through the soil. Due to these factors, it is common for shrew-moles to forage through tunnels that have been dug by other shrew-moles because it is more energetically efficient and more prey might be present in tunnels that have been abandoned.

Skull and dentition
It has a long and narrow rostrum, which is the projection that forms the snout. The junction between the skull bones turns into bone early on in their age, which makes it difficult to identify their age based on looking at their skull bones. The maxillary only turns into bone in the adults and the roots of the upper molars are exposed in immature shrew-moles. The first upper incisor is flat and it does not have an elongated crown, like shrew do. It has 36 teeth, which consist of incisors, canines, pre-molars, and molars.

Diet and digestion
This mole is often active above ground, foraging in leaf litter for earthworms, insects, snails and slugs. It is also known to eat some vegetation such as mycorrhizal fungi and even salamanders, but earthworms are the most important food item in its diet. Its diet also depends on the type of available food sources, so it may eat more vegetation than anything else if there are no insects or other arthropods within its vicinity. It is able to climb bushes to forage for food, although that is not its main eating resource.

Like all shrew-moles, the stomach size of this shrew mole in inversely proportional to its body weight. Their intestinal tract is quite short and digestion occurs rapidly.

Predators
Predators include owls, hawks and mustelids such as weasels, fishers, and pine martens. Additional predators include red and gray foxes, raccoons, and skunks. Dogs and cats can kill them as well, but do not eat them. Venomous and non-venomous snakes, bullfrogs, and opossums have also been reported to hunt them.

The most common ectoparasites found on these shrew moles are fleas and mites.

The endoparasites found in shrew-moles consist of twenty species of coccidian protozoans, at least five species of nematode, two species of trematode, and two species of acanthocephalan.

Physiology
When underground shrew-moles can suffer from a low levels of oxygen, high levels of carbon dioxide, and high levels of humidity. In order to cope with these conditions, shrew-moles contain lungs that can hold large volumes and sometimes even more than 20% of their body weight.

They also experience stages of sleep that are similar to humans such as rapid eye movement sleep. It is believed that the reason why they experience stages of deep sleep is because they are subject to less danger than other mammals.

They have well developed hearing.

Genetics
The shrew-mole has 38 chromosomes. The sex chromosomes are XX in females and XY in males. The Y chromosome in males is very small and appears to be similar in all species.

Reproduction
It can have several litters annually, though no litters have been recorded between December and January. Females have litters with one to four young. Newborns are about 30 millimeters long and weigh less than 1 gram.

In females, the vagina remains sealed until follicles appear in the ovaries. Males lack a scrotum, but the testes and associated glands become enlarged, which increases their weight. These characteristics make it difficult to externally determine the sex of shrew-moles.

Social behavior
It is somewhat gregarious, which means that it lives in loosely organized communities of about 12 to 15 shrew moles. The only known type of vocalization that they produce is a faint twittering sound that can be heard for several feet. It is both diurnal and nocturnal.

Economic status
Shrew-moles usually live in areas where it is difficult to cultivate so they are usually economically neutral, but there are some cases where they do damage people's homes. There are many different methods that people use for getting rid of these moles. The most common non-commercial method is trapping because it is practical for homes with little land, but unpractical for large areas of land. Other methods include catching moles by spading where a spade is put behind the mole as it creates a surface tunnel or repairs a tunnel and is then lifted up or by hand, where the mole is picked up by its fur. Chemical control agents can also be used. Using bait is another method used to control these shrew-moles. The bait usually consists of some type of cereal grain that is treated with chemicals. The type of cereal grain and chemicals used depends on the manufacturer, but a common chemical is an anticoagulant that inhibits their normal platelet function in the blood, which causes internal hemorrhaging and leads to death. Some other approaches are to force the animal away somehow or to get rid of their food source.

There are also many home remedies that are used to get rid of these shrew-moles, but whether or not these methods are successful are usually not evident. These methods include using noisemaker devices such as placing empty soft drink bottles at an angle with the bottom in the tunnel while the neck is sticking. It is believed by some that the sound that the wind produces as it goes through the bottle scares the shrew-moles away. Materials consisting of offensive and unpleasant smells and materials that cause injury are also sometimes placed in the tunnels such as broken pieces of glass, razors, exhaust fumes, moth balls, gum, and thorns.

title: American shrew mole


text:
User talk:Bigmeuprudeboy

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Roma-v-inter2 v1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Roma-v-inter2 v1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

English rebel songs
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as English rebel songs, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Released players
In the English system, contracts end on 30 June (so players leave clubs on that date) and begin on 1 July (so players join new clubs on that date). Please wait until those dates before editing. GiantSnowman 21:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bigmeuprudeboy


text:
Capital account

In macroeconomics and international finance, the capital account, also known as the capital and financial account, records the net flow of investment into an economy. It is one of the two primary components of the balance of payments, the other being the current account. Whereas the current account reflects a nation's net income, the capital account reflects net change in ownership of national assets.

A surplus in the capital account means money is flowing into the country, but unlike a surplus in the current account, the inbound flows effectively represent borrowings or sales of assets rather than payment for work. A deficit in the capital account means money is flowing out of the country, and it suggests the nation is increasing its ownership of foreign assets.

The term "capital account" is used with a narrower meaning by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and affiliated sources. The IMF splits what the rest of the world calls the capital account into two top-level divisions: financial account and capital account, with by far the bulk of the transactions being recorded in its financial account.

Definitions
At high level: $$ \text{Capital Account} = \left[ {\text{Change in foreign ownership} \atop \text{of domestic assets}} \right] - \left[ {\text{Change in domestic} \atop \text{ownership of foreign assets}} \right] $$

Breaking this down: $$ \text{Capital Account} = \left[ {\text{Foreign Direct} \atop \text{Investment}} \right] + \left[ {\text{Portfolio} \atop \text{Investment}} \right] + \left[ {\text{Other} \atop \text{Investment}} \right] + \left[ {\text{Reserve} \atop \text{Account}} \right] $$

 * Foreign direct investment (FDI) refers to long-term capital investment, such as the purchase or construction of machinery, buildings, or whole manufacturing plants. If foreigners are investing in a country, that represents an inbound flow and counts as a surplus item on the capital account. If a nation's citizens are investing in foreign countries, that represents an outbound flow and counts as a deficit. After the initial investment, any yearly profits that are not reinvested will flow in the opposite direction but will be recorded in the current account rather than as capital.

 * Portfolio investment refers to the purchase of shares and bonds. It is sometimes grouped together with "other" as short-term investment. As with FDI, the income derived from these assets is recorded in the current account; the capital account entry will just be for any buying or selling of the portfolio assets in the international capital markets.
 * Other investment includes capital flows into bank accounts or provided as loans. Large short-term flows between accounts in different nations commonly occur when the market can take advantage of fluctuations in interest rates and/or the exchange rate between currencies. Sometimes this category can include the reserve account.
 * Reserve account. The reserve account is operated by a nation's central bank to buy and sell foreign currencies; it can be a source of large capital flows to counteract those originating from the market. Inbound capital flows (from sales of the nation's foreign currency), especially when combined with a current account surplus, can cause a rise in value (appreciation) of a nation's currency, while outbound flows can cause a fall in value (depreciation). If a government (or, if authorized to operate independently in this area, the central bank itself) does not consider the market-driven change to its currency value to be in the nation's best interests, it can intervene.

Central bank operations and the reserve account
Conventionally, central banks have two principal tools to influence the value of their nation's currency: raising or lowering the base rate of interest and, more effectively, buying or selling their currency. Setting a higher interest rate than other major central banks will tend to attract funds via the nation's capital account, and this will act to raise the value of its currency. A relatively low interest rate will have the opposite effect. Since World War II, interest rates have largely been set with a view to the needs of the domestic economy, and moreover, changing the interest rate alone has only a limited effect.

A nation's ability to prevent a fall in the value of its own currency is limited mainly by the size of its foreign reserves: it needs to use the reserves to buy back its currency. Starting in 2013, a trend has developed for some central banks to attempt to exert upward pressure on their currencies by means of currency swaps rather than by directly selling their foreign reserves. In the absence of foreign reserves, central banks may affect international pricing indirectly by selling assets (usually government bonds) domestically, which, however, diminishes liquidity in the economy and may lead to deflation.

When a currency rises higher than monetary authorities might like (making exports less competitive internationally), it is usually considered relatively easy for an independent central bank to counter this. By buying foreign currency or foreign financial assets (usually other governments' bonds), the central bank has a ready means to lower the value of its own currency; if it needs to, it can always create more of its own currency to fund these purchases. The risk, however, is general price inflation. The term "printing money" is often used to describe such monetization, but is an anachronism, since most money exists in the form of deposits and its supply is manipulated through the purchase of bonds. A third mechanism that central banks and governments can use to raise or lower the value of their currency is simply to talk it up or down, by hinting at future action that may discourage speculators. Quantitative easing, a practice used by major central banks in 2009, consisted of large-scale bond purchases by central banks. The desire was to stabilize banking systems and, if possible, encourage investment to reduce unemployment. As an example of direct intervention to manage currency valuation, in the 20th century Great Britain's central bank, the Bank of England, would sometimes use its reserves to buy large amounts of pound sterling to prevent it falling in value. Black Wednesday was a case where it had insufficient reserves of foreign currency to do this successfully. Conversely, in the early 21st century, several major emerging economies effectively sold large amounts of their currencies in order to prevent their value rising, and in the process built up large reserves of foreign currency, principally the US dollar.

Sometimes the reserve account is classified as "below the line" and thus not reported as part of the capital account. Flows to or from the reserve account can substantially affect the overall capital account. Taking the example of China in the early 21st century, and excluding the activity of its central bank, China's capital account had a large surplus, as it had been the recipient of much foreign investment. If the reserve account is included, however, China's capital account has been in large deficit, as its central bank purchased large amounts of foreign assets (chiefly US government bonds) to a degree sufficient to offset not just the rest of the capital account, but its large current account surplus as well.

Sterilization
In the financial literature, sterilization is a term commonly used to refer to operations of a central bank that mitigate the potentially undesirable effects of inbound capital: currency appreciation and inflation. Depending on the source, sterilization can mean the relatively straightforward recycling of inbound capital to prevent currency appreciation and/or a range of measures to check the inflationary impact of inbound capital. The classic way to sterilize the inflationary effect of the extra money flowing into the domestic base from the capital account is for the central bank to use open market operations where it sells bonds domestically, thereby soaking up new cash that would otherwise circulate around the home economy. A central bank normally makes a small loss from its overall sterilization operations, as the interest it earns from buying foreign assets to prevent appreciation is usually less than what it has to pay out on the bonds it issues domestically to check inflation. In some cases, however, a profit can be made. In the strict textbook definition, sterilization refers only to measures aimed at keeping the domestic monetary base stable; an intervention to prevent currency appreciation that involved merely buying foreign assets without counteracting the resulting increase of the domestic money supply would not count as sterilization. A textbook sterilization would be, for example, the Federal Reserve's purchase of $1 billion in foreign assets. This would create additional liquidity in foreign hands. At the same time, the Fed would sell $1 billion of debt securities into the US market, draining the domestic economy of $1 billion. With $1 billion added abroad and $1 billion removed from the domestic economy, the net capital inflow that would have influenced the currency's exchange rate has undergone sterilization.

International Monetary Fund
The above definition is the one most widely used in economic literature, in the financial press, by corporate and government analysts (except when they are reporting to the IMF), and by the World Bank. In contrast, what the rest of the world calls the capital account is labelled the "financial account" by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations System of National Accounts (SNA). In the IMF's definition, the capital account represents a small subset of what the standard definition designates the capital account, largely comprising transfers. Transfers are one-way flows, such as gifts, as opposed to commercial exchanges (i.e., buying/selling and barter). The largest type of transfer between nations is typically foreign aid, but that is mostly recorded in the current account. An exception is debt forgiveness, which in a sense is the transfer of ownership of an asset. When a country receives significant debt forgiveness, that will typically comprise the bulk of its overall IMF capital account entry for that year.

The IMF's capital account does include some non-transfer flows, which are sales involving non-financial and non-produced assets—for example, natural resources like land, leases and licenses, and marketing assets such as brands—but the sums involved are typically very small, as most movement in these items occurs when both seller and buyer are of the same nationality.

Transfers apart from debt forgiveness recorded in the IMF's capital account include the transfer of goods and financial assets by migrants leaving or entering a country, the transfer of ownership on fixed assets, the transfer of funds received to the sale or acquisition of fixed assets, gift and inheritance taxes, death levies, and uninsured damage to fixed assets. In a non-IMF representation, these items might be grouped in the "other" subtotal of the capital account. They typically amount to a very small amount in comparison to loans and flows into and out of short-term bank accounts.

Capital controls
Capital controls are measures imposed by a state's government aimed at managing capital account transactions. They include outright prohibitions against some or all capital account transactions, transaction taxes on the international sale of specific financial assets, or caps on the size of international sales and purchases of specific financial assets. While usually aimed at the financial sector, controls can affect ordinary citizens, for example in the 1960s British families  were at one point restricted from taking more than £50 with them out of the country for their foreign holidays. Countries without capital controls that limit the buying and selling of their currency at market rates are said to have full capital account convertibility.

Following the Bretton Woods agreement established at the close of World War II, most nations put in place capital controls to prevent large flows either into or out of their capital account. John Maynard Keynes, one of the architects of the Bretton Woods system, considered capital controls to be a permanent part of the global economy. Both advanced and emerging nations adopted controls; in basic theory it may be supposed that large inbound investments will speed an emerging economy's development, but empirical evidence suggests this does not reliably occur, and in fact large capital inflows can hurt a nation's economic development by causing its currency to appreciate, by contributing to inflation, and by causing an unsustainable "bubble" of economic activity that often precedes financial crisis. The inflows sharply reverse once capital flight takes places after the crisis occurs. As part of the displacement of Keynesianism in favor of free market orientated policies, countries began abolishing their capital controls, starting between 1973–74 with the US, Canada, Germany and Switzerland  and followed by Great Britain in 1979. Most other advanced and emerging economies followed, chiefly in the 1980s and early 1990s.

An exception to this trend was Malaysia, which in 1998 imposed capital controls in the wake of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. While most Asian economies didn't impose controls, after the 1997 crises they ceased to be net importers of capital and became net exporters instead. Large inbound flows were directed "uphill" from emerging economies to the US and other developed nations. According to economist C. Fred Bergsten the large inbound flow into the US was one of the causes of the financial crisis of 2007–2008. By the second half of 2009, low interest rates and other aspects of the government led response to the global crises had resulted in increased movement of capital back towards emerging economies. In November 2009 the Financial Times reported several emerging economies such as Brazil and India had begun to implement or at least signal the possible adoption of capital controls to reduce the flow of foreign capital into their economies.

Notes and references
Conto dei movimenti di capitale

title: Capital account


text: User talk:200.35.86.44

title: User talk:200.35.86.44


text:
Neurotrichus

Neurotrichus is a genus of shrew-like moles. It is classified, together with the fossil genus Quyania, in the tribe Neurotrichini of the subfamily Talpinae. The only living species is the American shrew-mole (N. gibbsii) of the northwestern United States and British Columbia. A fossil species, Neurotrichus columbianus from the Hemphillian of Oregon, was placed in the genus in 1968, but this animal is now thought to be more closely related to the Chinese fossil genus Yanshuella.

Two fossil species from the Plio-Pleistocene of Poland known as Neurotrichus polonicus and Neurotrichus skoczeni were placed in a new genus, Rzebikia.

Literature cited

 * Carraway, L.N. and Verts, B.J. 1991. Neurotrichus gibbsii. Mammalian Species 387:1–7.
 * Hutterer, R. 2005. Order Soricomorpha. Pp. 220–311 in Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2 vols., 2142 pp. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0
 * Zijlstra, J.S. 2010. Neurotrichus skoczeni, new name for Neurotrichus minor Skoczen, 1993, preoccupied. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30(6):1903.

title: Neurotrichus


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchess of Cornwall

 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) 20:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Cornwall
Certainly a valid topic, but shouldn't we wait until this is settled? Wikipedia is not a news source. Many things can happen to prevent her from actually becoming the Duchess of Cornwall. Until then, we can add to Camilla Parker Bowles. JoaoRicardo 12:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not believe the reason provided by the VfD proposal submitter is valid. Maybe redirect to Camilla Parker Bowles, but anything else would be erasing valid information. Phils 12:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, don't redirect, and expand to discuss history of the title. Samaritan 12:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let me remind you that we already have a Duke of Cornwall article. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the same title? Is there such a great diference on the gender of the title holder to justify two diferent articles? JoaoRicardo 13:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I second Samaritan's views above. Berek 13:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has no value at all. There's no point in having an article on various Duchesses of Cornwall, they were already Princesses of Wales! The history of the title should be on a page called "Duke of Cornwall", not this one! The info in this article should be, and is, in the article on Prince Charles, so deleting this article will not eliminate info. And on 8 April, this can redirect to what should then be the newly moved article "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall", jguk 13:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A quick google for "Duchess of Cornwall" reveals a long history of apparently independent use as well. Heck, Regan, Duchess of Cornwall is King Lear's daughter in the Shakespeare play! Samaritan 13:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Samaritan's comment. James F. (talk) 14:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not an independent title; and its history is already in Duke of Cornwall.  The factoid in the article is already in Camilla Parker Bowles, where it belongs.    When they marry, we can all argue about the appropriate title for the article about her.  At present, her name is Camilla Parker Bowles.  --BM 15:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Historically valid article, although it needs to be expanded to discuss the history of the title. (And I don't consider Duke of Cornwall and Duchess of Cornwall to be the same thing, any moreso than Prince of Wales and Princess of Wales, and both title has its historical figures). I think this article should also explain why Camilla is receiving this title instead of Princess of Wales. 23skidoo 15:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'd be fascinated to learn what, exactly, the reasoning is to strip her of her rightful title as wife of the Prince of Wales. :-) James F. (talk) 16:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Because allowing her to become Queen would, righly or wrongly, damage the monarchy as it would be unacceptable to many people in Britain. It is simply pragmatism, a modern version of morganatic marriage. Philip 16:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Philip 16:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Should be expanded to help people fully understand the complications the relationship between Charles and Camilla brings to the monarchy and the reaons behind the decisions they and the monarchy make!
 * I've expanded it a little. It turns out that there is already an article about morganatic marriage, of which this is a variant. PS, you need to sign your votes or they don't count. Philip 16:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep --Neo 17:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.  As I said above, this is not an independent title.  The Duke of Cornwall is always the eldest son of the British monarch; it is not a hereditary title.   Duchess of Cornwall is a courtesy title only ever given to the wife of the Duke of Cornwall.  The eldest daughter of the sovereign and heir to the throne is not the Duchess of Cornwall.   There is already discussion of the complications related to Camilla Bowles title if she marries Prince Charles -- in both the articles on her and on the prince.   There is no need for an article on a courtesy title. --BM 18:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important topic especially as the Prince of Wales is now officially engaged to Camilla Parker-Bowles. The Shakespeare reference is an important reference as well. Capitalistroadster 18:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Duke of Cornwall seeing as when she actually receives the title by wikipedia naming standards her article will be moved to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall making this article redundant once more. -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this has got to be kept as a disambig at least. Kappa 18:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Duffman 19:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap, and the courtesy title flows directly from the Duke of Cornwall. After Charles and Camilla marry, then we can have an article on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall—assuming that's how the titles are worked out. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and merge any useful content from the current Duchess article, of course. Perhaps add a section to the Duke's article, and add a column to the table of Dukes to list their corresponding Duchesses...? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since posting, it's been wonderfully expanded, so far by Pcpcpc, Neo and Jdforrester. Samaritan 19:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's helpful, even if it is boring. Wyss 19:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Redirect to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall after the wedding.--Centauri 21:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term is soon going to become much talked about. As mentioned above, all the article needs is some expansion on the history of the title. -- Old Right 21:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please don't think I am picking on some people's votes, bu I still don't understand what is the reasoning here. The history of the title is already covered in Duke of Cornwall. Category:Dukedoms shows that the format Wikipedia has adopted is to have articles about Dukedoms in the masculine form, covering both the Dukes and the Duchesses. Are there other articles like this one? Why should this standard be broken now? And many things can happen until the date of the wedding, she is not Duchess now. I am sorry, but I am completely lost on this one, and I would like to understand better the arguments of people who are voting "keep". JoaoRicardo 21:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia is for the general public, not academics who are already away of all the semantic finesses. Relevant information should be made available in the most convenient possible way providing that the article does not break any policies. The background to the new use of this title is more accessible in a specific article than in an article which also covers many other issues. Philip 15:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I don't understand what you mean when you said "semantic finesses". Do you mean to say that Wikipedia users might not be aware that "Duchess" is the feminine of "Duke"? I find it hard to believe, but if that is so, how about a redirect to Duke of Cornwall? The story of the title is already there. Princess redirects to Prince, Empress redirects to Emperor, Duchess redirects to Duke, Countess redirects to Count etc. Category:Dukedoms shows that this has been the standard, and I believe this is more pratical than having a fork for every feminine form of the title. This would be like having an article for actor and another for actress. JoaoRicardo 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Or indeed one for First Lady as well as President, or even Second Lady as well as Vice-President? --Neo 23:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "First lady" is not the feminine form of "president". These are diferent concepts. However "duke" and "duchess" are not diferent concepts; they are diferent words for one same concept. JoaoRicardo 00:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The Duchess of Cornwall is the wife of the Duke, not the femenine form, the First Lady is the wife of the president, not the femenine form... don't seem so different to me... --Neo 10:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NOTE:- DUCHESS OF YORK NO LONGER DIRECTS TO SARAH, DUCHESS OF YORK, IT HAS BEEN EXPANDED BY ME TO A FULL ARTICLE. STRONG keepThere is a seperate article for 'Princess of Wales' which is no more than a courtesy title of the wife of the Prince of Wales (which by the way, Camilla will be, whether she is styled so or not). If you delete this article I STRONGLY SUGGEST you delete the article on the courtesy title 'Princess of Wales' as there is already a 'Prince of Wales' article.--jcuk
 * Your comment is even more apropos given the special characteristics of the title Duke of Cornwall. There is never a Duchess of Cornwall in her own right.  Duchess of Cornwall is a style, a courtesy title, not an actual title.  Indeed, until the Camilla Bowles situation developed it has generally been a secondary courtesy title, since the wife of the heir to the throne is entitled to use the style Princess of Wales, which is a higher title.   We have several articles already explaining British peerage and titles, courtesy titles, styles, etc.   We also have a couple of articles which include the same material as in this article covering the Camilla Parker Bowles situation.  --BM 22:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * BM, I guess I missed something in this discussion. People just come here and vote based on an argument which I contested on the first few minutes of the VfD vote: that the history of the title is already covered in Duke of Cornwall. It seems people are giving their opinion without even bothering to read what others have to say on this topic. Am I being ignored for violating some Wikipedia policy or guideline? I am truly amazed at this vote! JoaoRicardo 08:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, this is getting ridiculous. Take a look at the newly created articles on the Countess of Wessex and Duchess of York, done by an annonymous user. Aoi 10:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep She will be the Duchess in April - like it or not and so of historical importance Brookie\talk
 * Delete. As many people have noted, the Duchess of Cornwall is a courtesy title, nothing more. If anything, this should redirect to the article on Camilla Parker Bowles (as "Duchess of York" redirects to Sarah, Duchess of York) or Duke of Cornwall. Either that, or follow what Centauri suggested above. --Aoi 01:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make clear what I meant. Camilla isn't a duchess in *her own* right, she will be using the title because her future husband is the Duke of Cornwall. Aoi 04:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, historical. Duchess of Cornwall is a title that will no doubt be gaining more news momentum in the forthcoming weeks. Megan1967 02:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Spinboy 02:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Change When I'm bored I tend to read a lot of the articles on nobility and so forth, this article is inconsistent with Wikipedia's general practices. As the actual Dukedom of Cornwall can not be held by a woman  in her own right (or any man who is not the heir to the British throne for that matter) it would seem very inconsistent to keep this as a seperate article from the Duke of Cornwall article.  I would support keeping it as an article on "Regan, Duchess of Cornwall" or as a disambiguation page with links to "Camilla Parker-Bowles", Duke of Cornwall" and "Regan, Duchess of Cornwall" but as a stand alone article about Mrs. Parker-Bowles it doesn't make much sense. (Just realized somebody else said this!  Oops!) Gabe 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 09:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --BM 13:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. Charles is the Duke of Cornwall and Charles is going to marry Camilla a couple of weeks after Easter, so Camilla is destined to become the Duchess of Cornwall - and one day give it the same autonomy that Scotland and Wales have. Scott Gall 10:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Before you vote on the basis of Cornwall autonomy you might actually bother to read the articles. The lands of the Duchy of Cornwall are in Devon.  Apart from the name, the Duchy doesn't have anything to do with Cornwall. --BM 13:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The Duchy owns land in many counties, including Cornwall. Philip 15:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the bulk of the property is in Devon. The small acreage the Duchy holds in Cornwall does not make it relevant to Cornish autonomy.   The title was first used in the 14th century in just the way it is used now: for the English monarch's eldest sone and heir.  --BM 15:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep I wonder if this is the same Camilla who was Gonzo's muppet girlfriend. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 13:25, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not a news source, it is instead a valuable electronic knowledge base of varying sorts of information.  GRider\talk 19:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The above comment explains a lot.  GRider, of course you're entitled to your point of view that Wikipedia is an "electronic knowledge base" of miscellaneous information; but many people think it is, or should be, an encyclopedia.  Indeed What Wikipedia is not says specifically that Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. --BM 13:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * K. JuntungWu 04:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article presents useful information not given at other articles. --Angr 10:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is important enough to be here, and unique enough to have its own article.  -- James Teterenko (talk) 17:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, it has been formally announced. If Camilla is run over by a bus prior to the wedding we can deal with it then. AndyL 01:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Keep". It should, however, be expanded. The style of "Duchess of Cornwall" has had usage in the 20th century. After the accession of Edward VII to the throne on the death of Queen Victoria, his son, Prince George, the Duke of York, was not immediately created Prince of Wales. There is some thought that Queen Alexandra was a driving force behind it because she did not want someone else known as the Princess of Wales given her long connection with the title. Prince George and Princess May were, therefore, known as TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York until he was created Prince of Wales late in 1901. User:GaryR 12:07, 14 Feb 2005 (EST)

 * Keep, given that, from April, a senior member of the royal family will hold this as their main title in use, it is appropiate for it to be an article. Astrotrain 21:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep It will be a royal title soon. --Arbiteroftruth 22:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

jcuk
 * It just occured to me that naming an article 'Duke of wherever' is invalid anyhow, unless that title has been held by just one person. If all the 'Duke of...' articles were renamed 'Duchy of....' you could have a history of the Duchy (which most of the 'Duke of' articles seem to be anyhow) plus internal links to individual Dukes AND Duchesses of wherever.

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: Template:Sicily

title: Template:Sicily


text:
List of cities and towns in the North West (South Africa)

This is a list of cities and towns in the North West Province of South Africa.

In the case of settlements that have had their official names changed the traditional name is listed first followed by the new name.

Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality

 * Amalia
 * Bray
 * Ganyesa
 * Mareetsane
 * Morokweng
 * Motlhabeng
 * Reivilo
 * Schweizer-Reneke
 * Setlagole
 * Stella
 * Taung
 * Tosca
 * Vryburg
 * Setlopo

Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

 * Babelegi
 * Beestekraal
 * Brits
 * Broederstroom
 * Derby
 * Hartbeespoort
 * Hekpoort
 * Jericho
 * Kosmos
 * Koster
 * Kroondal
 * Legogolwe
 * Maanhaarrand
 * Manamakgoteng
 * Mmakau
 * Mogwase
 * Mooinooi
 * Mathibestad
 * Mononono
 * Ramokokastad
 * Rooikoppies (Marikana)
 * Rustenburg
 * Skeerpoort
 * Swartruggens
 * Tsitsing

Ngaka Modiri Molema District Municipality

 * Biesiesvlei
 * Coligny
 * Delareyville
 * Ganyesa
 * Groot Marico
 * Itsoseng
 * Lichtenburg
 * Mareetsane
 * Mafeking (Mahikeng)
 * Mmabatho
 * Ottosdal
 * Ottoshoop
 * Sannieshof
 * Welbedacht (Lehurutshe)
 * Zeerust

Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality

 * Bloemhof
 * Christiana
 * Hartbeesfontein (Lethabong)
 * Klerksdorp
 * Leeudoringstad
 * Makwassie
 * Orkney
 * Potchefstroom
 * Stilfontein
 * Ventersdorp
 * Wolmaransstad


text:
Talk:Bell inequalities

I've moved the section on Bell inequalities from the Bell test experiments page where CSTAR had recently put it. It was originally part of the Bell's Theorem page (the edition current at the beginning of 2005). I trust the move will not be regarded as controversial. Caroline Thompson 12:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In fact, I consider it to be a very bad idea to split off just another page. --Pjacobi 20:57, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

 * The material here was perfectly OK as part of the previous version of Bell's theorem, but CSTAR did not want it in his new one and shifted it into Bell test experiments. Some of the inequalities are known to be unsuitable for use in real experiments, though, and, besides, the details of the derivations are not essential reading for someone interested only in the experimental tests. This was not the right place for them. Caroline Thompson 22:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * CT is doing it again. She is slowly splitting the Bell pages with the view to insertion of her biased POV.  This can be seen by recent edits, some of which I just eliminated.  She is hoping that we will lose track of this page.  As Pjacobi states, there is no reason for yet ANOTHER Bell related page that simply states much the same as the existing one.  There are plenty already, and the addition of another means more for us to watch for CT's shennagins.  CT, you are being deceptive as to your intentions, and I will probably delete this page if someone doesn't beat me to it.  The only question is what to do with CSTAR's material first; there are also a few links that will need to be changed back.  As has been stated previously, CT's edits amount to vandalism.--DrChinese 17:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dr Chinese, to regard my latest edits as vandalism is absurd. If anything, it is CSTAR's revision of the Bell's Theorem page that is vandalism! If you don't want a separate Bell inequalities page, I suggest you persuade CSTAR to put the central part -- the actual inequalities -- back in the Bell's Theorem page.

I notice (from CSTAR's talk page) that Pjacobi regards all my latest edits as unnecessary and a waste of time for the "experts". For his information, all I have been doing is attempting to rationalise the pages, in line with CSTAR's edits. They were formerly a consistent set -- one on which I had expended considerable thought and time.

As for my POV view being biased, I suggest that all I am doing is presenting facts. What is "biased" about the sentences you have just deleted? I had said:

 * It has been assumed, though, that the sample of detected pairs is representative of the pairs emitted by the source. That this assumption may not be true comprises the "fair sampling" loophole. From a local realist point of view, this and other loopholes mean that the matter remains open.

This is purely a matter of fact. How can you deny that local realists think (one might even say know!) that the matter is open? When you look into the question you find (as witnessed by the continuing stream of "loophole-free" proposals) that the quantum theorists know this too.

Incidentally, I trust you have recognised that my present edits cannot be construed as "self-promotion". I am not making any attempt to re-introduce references to my own work. As I've said, all I'm doing is presenting facts. I thought you had agree that wikipedia should be not be presenting disinformation -- it should not, for instance say without qualification that violation of the CHSH inequality necessarily means that local realism has been refuted?

Anyway, I feel the inclusion of the sentences you have just deleted is justified to counter the confusing and irrelevant material that is now included in the Bell's Theorem page.Caroline Thompson 18:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion
This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Bell inequalities. The final result was Redirect to Bell's inequalities. --Deathphoenix 14:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Make that a redirect to Bell's theorem. The Bell's inequalities article is itself a redirect to Bell's theorem. --Deathphoenix 15:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, but what about the material in Bell inequalities, and what about the link in Bell's theorem to Bell inequalities, which now goes nowhere useful? Is the idea that we now take the material on the Bell inequalities and insert it into the Bell's theorem page? As it stands, the page tells us next to nothing.  I still think, incidentally, that a better solution would have been to revert the whole set of pages to those of about January 3, 2005, before CSTAR destroyed their structure. Caroline Thompson 18:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (CCed from Caroline Thompson's talk page)

 * If the notation used in Bell's theorem is inconsistent with the notation used in other inequality articles, then the best thing to do is to change the notation on Bell's theorem to match the notation used in the other articles. As for merging the information from the deleted article into the redirected article, the VfD consensus is to redirect the article without merging its contents, so that's what I did. Cheers --Deathphoenix 19:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * In addition, I removed the recursive link to Bell's inequalities from Bell's theorem. Thanks for the heads up. For some reason, it didn't show up under the What links here page. --Deathphoenix 19:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bell inequalities


text: User talk:193.60.199.36

title: User talk:193.60.199.36