text:
Talk:1992 Consensus

What Consensus?

 * According to Hsu Huei-yu, who participated the meeting of 1992, both side merely aggreed that there was a huge gap in the understanding on the issue of the "one-china" and therefore both agreed to disagree with each other. Hsu asserted in 2001 that there is no consensus has ever been reached. In 2003, Koo also publicly pointed out that there was no consensus on the "one-china" issue during the Hong Kong meeting of 1992. "However, PRC delegates accepted our proposal after the meeting to interact with mutal respect and on an equal basis in the future" says Koo. Koo suggested that the result of that meeting should be called a "1992 accord" rather than a "1992 consensus".

The consensus here is the consensus to leave the issue of exact defintions of "one China" aside, i.e., to agree to disagree. No one is realistically claiming there was consensus to agree on the meaning of "one China." Even the PRC isnt saying the "Taiwan authorities" recognized the PRC as the sole China...

so the point is? --Jiang 08:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is: There is not a single agreement on the "one-china" issue has ever being made. PRC is certainly not requesting ROC to recognize PRC as the sole China. However, PRC is pushing ROC to recognize that both ROC(Taiwan) and PRC are part of China. This is something over-extrapolating from the initial agreement to disagree each other. Especially, nowadays, both the ROC and the Taiwanese public opinions have already shifted away from the "one-china" ideology. Acknowledging the disagreement between each other must not be equated as agreeing on the issue of "one-china". Moreover, where is the evidence that ROC made an agreement with PRC to acknowledge "one-China"? Obviously, there is no such evidence.

 * The "Consensus of 1992" (Chinese:九二共識) described an agreement, reached by semi-official representatives of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, to adhere to the one-China principle.

I was actually really troubled by the statement above. Since the "one-China principle" is commonly defined as PRC's definition, this statement would mislead readers to believe that ROC did agreed on the "one-china policy" at one point but reverted later, which is totally not true. Mababa 09:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * they did agree on one china, just not its details. no, according to the KMT government that agreed to the "one-china principle", "one China" did not mean the PRC. That's Chen Shui-bian's inference and an pro-independence pov.

 * remember, it was only a year before that the ROC government issued the Guidelines for National Unification: "Both the mainland and Taiwan areas are parts of Chinese territory."

 * the controversy is whether they agreed there were differences, or did they just set those differences aside? --Jiang 09:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think youhave just brought up the core of the dispute: 1)whether they decided to put the dispute aside or 2)at least they agreed on "one-china" with the details of interpretation left with deliberate ambiguity and room for imagination.

對此，九二年親身參與香港會談的許惠祐接受訪問時做上述表示，他並強調兩岸從未有過九二共識，他怎可能呼籲政府去接受. 許惠祐表示，九二年兩岸曾在香港就一個中國問題有過討論，但雙方未能獲致共識，即使我方後來電傳大陸建議對此問題「各說各話」，對方也僅以傳真回覆表示「尊重」，而尊重和「同意」、「承認」有相當距離，更何況，九二年之後，大陸也從未公開承認「一個中國、各自表述」.

台灣日報【台灣論壇】(2003/04/23) 　四月十六日，海基會董事長辜振甫在日本早稻田大學接受榮譽博士典禮上發表演說《新時代日台與兩岸關係展望》. 辜老明確指出— 當時（一九九二）「一個中國」問題雙方意見分歧，香港會議並無共識. 真正在政治爭論打上休止符的，並不是香港會議所達成，而是會後對方接受我方提議，站在相互尊重、對等協商的原則下繼續交往. 所以是「相互諒解」，應該用Accord比較貼切，而不是「共識」.

Based on the two news reports above, Taiwanese delegates affirmed that there was no agreement being reached. All the understanding and acknowledgement were actually obtained after the meeting. Thus, IMO, the first senario seemed to be more appropriate to describe what happened.

I wonder if it is appropriate or accurate to take a totally different document to infer what has been concluded during the meeting. Even though the ROC officials has yet officially dropped their pursuit on one-china at that time, we must not make articles looklike what might have happened versus what actually happened.

For people can read the manderin Wiki on the 92 meeting which has much more detail on the meeting process, they will find out this meeting is a bargaining process where each side receive a proposal on "one-china" from an opposite and propose its own version on the agreement. PRC delegates tried hard to sell the clause "both side adhere to one-china prinicple" to be appreared in the announcement concluded in the end of the meeting. ROC delegates tried to emphasize on the differences on the interpretation, which PRC delegates firmly opposed. At the end, nothing can be concluded. Not even a "one-china" priniciple was agreed from both sides.

Sure, the ROC delegates did referred to the "Guidelines for National Unification" for the definition of one-china. However, was that definition part of the consensus? Apparently, the PRC delegates simply cherry picked the one-china thing and made it sound like part of the consensus. The ROC delegates publicly said, no consensus being made and no documents being concluded to suggest a consensus being reached. The readers should be albe to draw their own conclusion based on the evidence presented with their own judgement.

Please also note that PRC has never recognized or endorsed the so-called conclusion "one-china with different interpretation" after the meeting until recent. . 比如說，唐樹備就曾經在1997年7月表示，「一段時期以來，台灣方面把海協與海基會就兩會事務性商談中『海峽兩岸均堅持一個中國之原則』達成口頭共識，歸結為所謂『一個中國，各自表述』，這顯然不符合當時的情況」(引自李銘義 2001，2).  Mababa 02:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * no consensus on what? simply saying there's no consensus can lead to political spin.

 * unfortunately, my Chinese isnt good enough to read all that. the Chinese article should be translated. i've asked for help. let's see any arrives...ill look around for english texts in the meantime --Jiang 11:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jiang, I have noticed that wareware was kind enough to make the translation for these cited mandarin news. I am sorry that my english is not good enough and that's why I did not make all the translation on the segments I cited at the beginning.

Back to the dispute. Simply saying there's no consensus can lead to political spin. But, to say there *is* a consensus has already created political spin.

I am not trying to skew the article into a pro-ROC atmosphere. However, erasing ROC's argument does not seem to be a the way to reach a neutral point. I suggest that we can include PRC's emphasis on their one-china consensus and also present ROC's emphasis on "no-consensus" together in the article.Mababa 03:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * well, first of all i do not know if the original chinese documents are accurate enough. However, there's little talk about that "1992 consensus" right now in the political world.  However it would be obsurd to think that the Taiwanese Government would "agree" on any one-China "policy".
 * I agree with Mababa's point of view as in including both sides of the argument, as the PRC is trying to include taiwan in its territory when clearly half of the ROC people are willing to follow the ROC government. The democracies of the western world will not accept such actions.
 * anyways, when you translate one language such as Chinese into another language such as English, discrepancies are bound to happen. But i have little political background of this event to really know what happened.  To cut things short, since this 'consensus' involves both sides, then the point of view of both sides should be included equally.  LG-犬夜叉 15:33, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

ROC's officials are probably one of the most difficult public positions in this world. No one listens to them, and their rebuke on cross strait issues only appear in local news.

Thanks to LG-犬夜叉 for your effort as a referee. Jiang is my BEST friend in Wikipedia and I am sure that we will have a neutral article in the end. We probably have went through discussions in every Taiwan-related topics on the neutrality issue ever since I first started my wiki-life; and almost everytime, Jiang's edits turned out to be not only neutral and but also pertinent in the end. I have learned a lot Wikiquette from him.

I just want to remind people here that the very existence of this so-called consensus is still in dispute and was publicly denied by the ROC officials. We should at least make their arguements with some visibility instead of ignoring them at all. Especially the original article would leave people the impression that ROC did agree to follow "one-china" policy, which really is not the case.Mababa 03:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the poster of the original article, I want to thank everybody for their edits and fixes. I tried to be neutral, but didn't get it quite right. I'm glad there were so many people to help correct that. (This was the first article that I posted, so I'm still getting used to things...) Tomasso

 * Don't be so modest. I have to give you big plaud and thannk you. Had you not initiated the article, we do not know when would this page be stated. Many thanks.Mababa 03:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We must remember that this has never been a two sided-issue. There's the PRC side, but the Taiwan side is divided between those supporting independence or unification. What makes this especially confusing is that people like Lee Teng-hui have made a massive migration across the spectrum--the pro-independence views Lee is espousing today could have gotten someone jailed under his own presidency! To add to this confusion, some of this migration occurred when Lee was still president.

According to the PRC : ''"For its part, the SEF insisted that "talks between the two sides on functional affairs are unrelated to political topics" and emphasized that "it is acknowledged that they differ" over the political meaning of one China. Hence during the Beijing talks, the SEF had not yet been authorized to discuss its position on stating the one-China principle, and it therefore adopted a stance of avoidance or even rejection. Because of the stalemate over this fundamental question, when the two sides began to discuss specific matters such as document usage and the tracing of and compensation for lost registered mail, obvious divergences began to emerge in areas ranging from the choice of words to ways of handling issues....The Taiwan regime unilaterally summed up the 1992 consensus as “one China, separately expressed by each side”; it avoided mentioning that it had confirmed the oral declaration of the one-China principle, the third oral formula proposed by the SEF on October 30, 1992, and the resolution of August 1, 1992,on the one-China question by the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines; it distorted the 1992 consensus as “each speaking for itself” and misled people into believing that the Taiwan regime could make an “open” interpretation of the one-China principle, thereby creating a basis for its advocacy of dividing the country. Thereafter, Lee Teng-hui’s “expressions” of one-China began to deviate more and more brazenly from the one-China principle."''

I dont see a neutrality dispute, but this article needs much more detail to make it less confusing and to avoid having people make the wrong assumptions. So when people refer to the "consensus", could they be referring to the consensus to set the issue aside? President Chen doesnt seem to be really denying the consensus existed. --Jiang 19:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Jiang has nicely summarized the core of the question where not only the initial communication between SEF and ARATS is ambiguious, but also the public opinion on the interpretation of the result is splitted. Indeed there would not be a neutrality dispute as long as more details on the ROC position is included.

 * Not only people should remember that there is opposing public opinions on the interpretation of the meeting among Taiwanese residentsm, readers should also be made aware of the ROC official position on the interpretation of the result of the 92 meeting. The ROC official position, which is the counterpart of the PRC official position, has to be distinguished from the Taiwanese public opinion since public opinion is more subjective and always changes whereas official positions represent a country's policy and is objective.

 * My doubt on the neutrality resides in previous edits where the deposition of the ROC delegates were removed and the text of the article assumes the consensus was reached at the beginning which is actually highly disputed.

 * Let me emphasize again that both the ROC delegates (Koo+Hsu) and also the ROC MAC officials denied the existence of a consensus. These people are not TI supporters and more often are regarded as people more sympathetic to unification. Moreover, they are officials and their opinions should not be seen as a change of heart as Lee, or part of the public opinions.

 * avoided mentioning that it had confirmed the oral declaration of the one-China principle, the third oral formula proposed by the SEF on October 30, 1992, and the resolution of August 1, 1992,on the one-China question by the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines

 * People should also be made aware that these guidelines and resolution and even the oral declaration on the "one-china" was proposed by SEF and was not endorsed by ARATS. Thus, it would be difficult to call a consensus reached by both side. For more details, please refer to Chinese wiki.

 * I guess we will need to include the process of the negotiation of the meeting to ellucidate whether a consensus was reached at all or not. For the time being, the article was clear that PRC insisted that a consensus was reached and ROC refused to call it a consensus.

 * Chen's vice president rejects the alledged consensus. So does Chen's mentor, Lee. I would be amazed if President Chen ever admits the existence of an alledged consensus. One should notice in his inauguration speech, he carefully chose the wording in refering to the meeting. Mababa 03:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

國民黨立委蘇起21日上午坦承，九二共識確實是他在2000年，為重新包裝「一中各表」所自創的新名詞. Kenimaru 10:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that, ROC delegates stated to the Taiwanese people that the conclusion of the 92 meeting is that "One China, different interpretation" while PRC "acknowledges the disputes over the meaning of 'One China' but is willing to NOT discuss about the meaning." Please note that the flexibility of interpretation (ROC) is not warranted by the PRC, as they are merely willing to NOT talk about it.  I believe that the "different interpretation" part is a pre-requisete for the "One China" policy to work for ROC, but this is not accepted by PRC. So, there is NO consensus, as the only agreement would be that "both sides agreed on that we have no agreement." 71.109.21.90 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This topic is so simple and straightforward. There are two well-established regimes in China, both of them co-exist in China. The so-called 1992 consensus reflect the fact that when PRC and ROC met in 1992 in HK, none of them denied the China identity, and both sides discussed the content of the Beijing China and Taipei China and came up with the different One China interpretation between PRC and ROC.

Proposed solution on the dispute
We can create sections where PRC's offical position and her demands on Taiwan regime are introduced and then a second section where ROC's official position revealed. Public opinions in Taiwan can be included in part of the ROC section. A solution repeatedly used in political status of Taiwan and also the legal status of Taiwan.Mababa 19:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah it'd be a good idea to separate the positions. Wareware 01:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

Rewrote taking into account recent events.....

 * The KMT, PFP, and CCP define 92 consensus in the same way. We'll have to wait a few more weeks to see what happens with the DPP and with the ROC government in general.

Roadrunner 06:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"Alleged"
Seems more POV, to me. Adam 16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, it IS afterall, created by Su, Chi in 2000, 8 years after the meeting. Good thing that this finally comes up.

Interpetation of "one-China"
The PRC of course wants "one-China" to include both Taiwan and China. However in all the statements I've ever read of what the "1992 concensus" is, it has always been "one China with different interpretations". Given that, Xinhua seems, particularly a Chinese language article, to be the an unreliable source for the idea that "one-China" means only the interpretation that the PRC would prefer. Readin (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Existence of 1992 consensus
The fact that the DPP questioned the existence of a 1992 consensus is covered in the Taipei Times article. There is no reason to believe that they have changed their mind. This information belongs in the first paragraph because whether something is fictional or real os a fundamental thing to know about it. We shouldn't give the impression that something is well known to be real when there are serious questions about its existence. Readin (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to open the paragraph would be:

The 1992 Consensus or Consensus of 1992 is a term invented in 2000 to describe the outcome of a meeting in 1992 between the representatives of the People's Republic of China in mainland China and the Republic of China in Taiwan. The alleged Consensus is that... Readin (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a reason to believe that DPP have changed their mind. It's common in a democracy for a party to change position after an election loss. This as well as the fact that the DPP has been silent on '1992 Consensus' since the election support the view. The term '1992 Consensus' has been on media on nearly a daily basis from 22 March 2008 to early June because of a series of cross-strait events, such as Bo-ao, KMT's visit to mainland China, official talks between the two sides. It would be curious on part of the DPP that they have not objected to '1992 Consensus' if they disagree with it. The language used by those pan-green TV stations' political programmes is agreeing to the Consensus is to sell Taiwan ("賣台"). First, pan-green political programmes aren't official DPP's view. The programmes are mainly propaganda. Second, not agreeing to the consensus is different from not admitting. The pan-green political programmes' view is Taiwan is an independent country and therefore they disagree with the spirit of the consensus. But that does not mean the consensus doesn't exist.

'1992 Consensus' is a Consensus without a consensus on the definition of One China. But there is a Consensus that there is One China.

Given the fact that the '1992 Consensus' has been used as the foundation of the most recent cross-strait talks, my view is that it is immaterial to argue that the Consensus did not exist, as it is impossible to undo the agreement - the direct flights have already taken place and the mainland Chinese tourists are now in Taiwan. I do not believe that DPP would still dispute the existence of the Consensus, as this serves them very little, if any, political leverage. Therefore, they have been silent on this issue.

Also, I do not object to the mentioning of ROC's downplaying of being the sole and legitimate representative of China but I don't think it should be in the introduction, as the introduction deals with the content, interpretation and effect of the consensus. If any of the practical matter is to be mentioned, this section is an inappropriate place.

As '1992 Consensus' is a cross-strait issue, it is inevitable that the primary sources would most likely to be in the Chinese language, as it is the common language of mainland China and Taiwan. Of course, if an English source is available, preference is given to English. However, in practice English source is difficult to come by, except for some English newspapers in Taiwan, and if an official mainland China position is needed, the English version of Xinhua newspaper.--Pyl (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 * You may have reason to believe the DPP has changed its mind, but without a reference it's OR. In this case you're not just stringing facts together, you're trowing in your own assumptions and expectations about other people's behavior.  And the logic is self-contradictory.  First you say the DPP must have changed their mind because they're remaining silent.  Then you say that the DPP is remaining silent because speaking out wouldn't gain them any political leverage.  Which is it?  Are they silent because they have changed their mind, or are they silent because speaking out wouldn't help?

 * You say "and if an official mainland China position is needed, the English version of Xinhua newspaper" but that is the problem of using the Xinhua Chinese source. Xinhua is a fine source for the official PRC position, but on a contentious issue where the PRC has a clear POV, Xinhua is difficult to trust.  It is especially difficult to trust when in Chinese because the Xinhua editors know they are speaking mostly to mainland Chinese and won't get the same kind of international scrutiny as if they were writing in English. Readin (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with your view on the Xinhua issue and therefore I try not to use Xinhua source unless no other source is found. As I said, the issues that we are dealing with are inherently an issue within the Chinese speaking community and it has been quite difficult to locate sources in English.

 * In respect of the DPP, either way, they haven't expressed a view after the election and therefore I do not think it's appropriate to state that "DPP objects to the existence of the consensus" given that it is basically a statement to allege the existence of a fact, which cannot be sustantiated by sources after the election.

 * My view is simple, before the election, DPP objects to the Consensus. After the election, they have been silent. So it is fair to say that they have a change of attitude in respect of expressing their view, either they still object to it or they have changed their mind. If they don't want to say anything about it, I dont think wiki should still say "they object to the consensus".

 * It is also clear from the historical section of the article that they had a history of objecting to the Consensus and I think this serves the point of letting the readers know that at least they did object to the consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the consensus really permeate Taiwan's foreign policy?
Taiwan's Foreign Ministry often uses 'China' to refer to the PRC and 'Taiwan' to refer to itself. What foreign policy implications could this have in relation to the consensus? Ladril (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal describes lack of consensus
I haven't had as much time for Wikipedia recently as I once had. But I still think about it, like when I see this.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/08/13/taiwan-and-china-the-consensus-that-wasnt/

In the past two years, Taiwan and China have improved a once-tense relationship that is based on the so-called ‘92 consensus, a term created in 1999 for a conclusion both sides reached in the 1992 negotiations.

But whether there really was a consensus and what the consensus was became an issue this week.

It started with a senior official from China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, an organization in charge of China’s negotiations with Taiwan, talking about Beijing’s definition of the ‘92 consensus in Taipei on Wednesday, saying “Both sides insisted on the One China principle in 1992.”

Taiwan disagreed. There's more, hopefully they won't put it behind a subscription. Readin (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://th.gio.gov.tw/show.cfm?news_id=11757
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-05-25 05:59:07, 404 Not Found
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-06-24 19:34:52, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/20011024/20011024p6.html
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-05-25 05:59:08, 404 Not Found
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-06-24 19:35:14, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://th.gio.gov.tw/show.cfm?news_id=6439
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-05-25 05:59:08, 404 Not Found
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-06-24 19:35:23, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://th.gio.gov.tw/show.cfm?news_id=10260
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-05-25 05:59:08, 404 Not Found
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-06-24 19:35:45, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://th.gio.gov.tw/show.cfm?news_id=17552
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-05-25 05:59:10, 404 Not Found
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-06-24 19:35:46, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:82/bps/bps_yzyz.htm
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-05-25 05:59:26, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
 * In 1992 Consensus on 2011-06-24 19:38:11, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1992 Consensus. 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/20050405215642/http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/4-oa/20041010/2004101002.html to http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/4-oa/20041010/2004101002.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/china-taiwan%20relations/2008/09/04/173082/Taiwan-and.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405215642/http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/4-oa/20041010/2004101002.html to http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/4-oa/20041010/2004101002.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Originally the 92 Consensus was to avoid talking about sovereignty. There's no mention of this.
This article lacks some context of the evolutionary changes of the 92 Consensus. The original 92 Consensus was that both the PRC and ROC would avoid addressing the Taiwan issue while negotiating about other topics. Then in 2000, when the name was coined in an attempt to politically limit Chen Shui Bian with fears by the KMT that he'd declare independence, it was changed to both the ROC and PRC agree that Taiwan belongs to China only that they disagree who rules China. Now (post-2016) its become increasingly to mean that Taiwan belongs to a China that is ruled by the PRC. 2001:B011:2001:13AB:F8F8:1EA4:F861:E1FD (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:1992 Consensus


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism

 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism and Judaism
A good article might be written on relationships and/or similarities between Hinduism and Judaism, or failing that, an article might be written about claims that Judaism developed from Hinduism, if such claims have any following or currency among Hindu chauvinists, or New Age pseudohistorians, or whoever. This article, however, reads like an argumentative essay, lacks scholarly rigor, and cites no sources, not even for its quotations. This leads me to believe that it is just someone's pet theory, or original research, which we don't do here. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Idiosyncratic, or at least minority, views presented as fact. Josh Cherry 15:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research.  Bacchiad 17:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Philip 18:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research (fuzzy at that). Wyss 21:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Jayjg (talk)  02:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 02:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is great stuff! delete. --Zero 13:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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


text:
Carlos Baker

Carlos Baker (May 5, 1909 – April 18, 1987) was an American writer, biographer and former Woodrow Wilson Professor of Literature at Princeton University.

Baker was born in 1909 in Biddeford, Maine. He received his A.B. from Dartmouth College and his M.A. from Harvard University. He then received his Ph.D. in English from Princeton University in 1940 after completing a doctoral dissertation titled "The influence of Spenser on Shelley's major poetry." Baker's published works included several novels and books of poetry and various literary criticisms and essays.

In 1969 he published the well-regarded scholarly biography of Ernest Hemingway, Ernest Hemingway: A Life Story. However, in "Selected Letters of Martha Gellhorn," (Hemingway's third wife) Gellhorn criticizes Baker's assertions concerning her affair and marriage to Hemingway, and indicates that Baker was frequently wrong about those matters she experienced personally, and which Baker wrote about. Ernest Hemingway never met Baker, according to Hemingway's fourth wife, Mary Welsh Hemingway, who also asserts in her 1976 book "How It Was" that Hemingway deliberately chose someone who never knew him. Mary does not offer a specific reason for this choice, but Baker had published "Hemingway: The Writer as Artist" in 1952, which favorably treated Hemingway's work to that date.

Baker's other major works included biographies of Percy Bysshe Shelley and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Baker's minor work includes, 'A Year and A Day, poems by Carlos Baker'.

Baker taught biographer A. Scott Berg while Berg was an undergraduate at Princeton in the late 1960s. Berg recalled that Baker "changed my life," and convinced him to quit acting to concentrate on his thesis, a study of editor Maxwell Perkins. Berg eventually expanded his thesis into the National Book Award-winning biography Max Perkins: Editor of Genius (1978), which he dedicated in part to Baker.

Baker was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 1982. He died in 1987 at Princeton, New Jersey aged 77.

title: Carlos Baker


text:
File:Tigerensrede-01-10-04.jpg

Tiger's Nest in Gedved, Denmark

The picture is taken in autumn 2004.

title: File:Tigerensrede-01-10-04.jpg


text:
Thomas J. Wood

Thomas John Wood (September 25, 1823 – February 26, 1906) was a career United States Army officer. He served in the Mexican–American War and as a Union general during the American Civil War.

During the Mexican–American War, Wood served on the staff of General Zachary Taylor, and later joined the 2nd Dragoons. During the Civil War, he participated in many battles in the Western Theater. Wood commanded a division at the Battle of Chickamauga in September 1863, during which time he chose to obey a questionable order from commanding general William S. Rosecrans to reposition his division. In doing so, Wood opened a gap in the Union lines, which contributed to the vanquishing of the Federal forces in the battle and their subsequent retreat. Wood and his division took part in the successful Union assault during the Battle of Missionary Ridge in November during the Chattanooga Campaign. He also commanded the IV Corps of the Army of the Cumberland during the Battle of Nashville in December 1864.

Early life and career
Wood was born in rural Munfordville, Kentucky, the son of George Twyman Wood, an army officer, and Elizabeth Helm (through his mother, he was a cousin of Confederate general Benjamin H. Helm). He was an 1845 graduate of the United States Military Academy, finishing 5th in a class of 41 cadets. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

In 1846, Wood joined General Zachary Taylor's staff for a few months as the Mexican–American War erupted. He soon transferred at his request to U.S. 2nd Dragoons and was cited for valor at the Battle of Buena Vista in February 1847. After the war, he served in a succession of cavalry postings on the open frontier in the American Old West. Wood traveled in Europe from 1859 until early 1861 on a leave of absence from the army.

Civil War service
During early days of the Civil War, Wood helped organize, train, and equip several volunteer regiments in Indiana. In October 1861, he was promoted to brigadier general of Indiana volunteers. The following month, he married Caroline E. Greer of Dayton, Ohio.

Wood commanded a brigade in the Tennessee and Mississippi campaigns at the beginning of the war. He commanded a division in the Army of the Ohio, then in the Army of the Cumberland. Wood was present at the second day of the Battle of Shiloh. Wood was wounded during the Battle of Murfreesboro in December 1862. He suffered controversy at the Battle of Chickamauga, where he was blamed for contributing to William S. Rosecrans's defeat. On September 20, 1863, a breakdown in situational awareness by Rosecrans and poor staff work resulted in Wood receiving a seemingly senseless order that, if literally obeyed, required him to pull his division out of the line to the support of another division further to his left, dangerously creating an unprotected gap in the right of the line. Instead of verifying his commander's actual intent, Wood elected to regard the order as imperative and moved his division out of its position.

Historian Peter Cozzens wrote: "While Wood read the order, [Col.] Starling began to explain its intent. Wood interrupted. Brannan was in position, he said, there was no vacancy between Reynold's division and his own. 'Then there is no order,' retorted Starling. There the matter should have ended.

And with anyone but Tom Wood, it most assuredly would have. Rosecrans had upbraided Wood twice for failing to obey orders promptly. ... [including] the dressing down just 90 minutes earlier in front of Wood's entire staff. The barbs of Rosecrans's invective pained the Kentuckian. Anger clouded his reason. No, he told Starling, the order was imperative, he would move at once.'"

Less than 30 minutes after Wood moved his division, Confederate Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's men poured through the resulting gap and cut Rosecrans's army in two. Rosecrans was eventually relieved from command of the Army of the Cumberland following this Union defeat, while Wood retained his division.

Cozzens finds fault with Wood "for letting petty bitterness get the better of him" and Rosecrans for "not checking the order to make sure it reflected his intent. Rosey was tired and it showed."

Wood redeemed himself during the successful assault on Missionary Ridge in November and at the Battle of Lovejoy's Station on August 20, 1864, where despite a badly shattered leg, he stayed on the field encouraging his men. At Missionary Ridge, Wood's division was the first division to reach the rebel positions atop the heights and the first division to drive defenders from their fortifications.

He commanded the IV Corps of the Army of the Cumberland at the Battle of Nashville, and pursued John Bell Hood's Confederates after the Union victory. President Abraham Lincoln appointed Wood to the grade of major general of volunteers on February 22, 1865, to rank from January 27, 1865. On February 14, 1865, the U.S. Senate had confirmed the President's January 30, 1865 nomination of Wood's appointment. Wood was mustered out of the volunteers on September 1, 1866.

Postbellum career
After the Confederates surrendered, Wood was assigned to duty in Mississippi with the occupation army. Frustrated with administrative duty with the Freedmen's Bureau and the politics of Reconstruction, he retired from the service in June 1868, having achieved the same rank in the regular army. His old war wounds prevented him from achieving his desire of returning to active duty on the frontier.

He moved to Dayton and became active in the Grand Army of the Republic, a social organization for Union Army veterans. He also served as a member of the board of visitors at the Military Academy and was a companion of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. In 1892 he became a Veteran Member of the Aztec Club of 1847.

When he died in 1906, Wood was the last survivor of his West Point class.

title: Thomas J. Wood


text: User talk:70.59.137.64

title: User talk:70.59.137.64


text:
User talk:Euronymous~enwiki

The First Black/heavy metal band has been discovered

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Euronymous. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Euronymous~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Euronymous~enwiki


text:
List of kings of Burgundy

The following is a list of the kings of the two kingdoms of Burgundy, and a number of related political entities devolving from Carolingian machinations over family relations.

Kings of the Burgundians

 * Gebicca (late 4th century – c. 407)
 * Gundomar I (c. 407 – 411), son of Gebicca
 * Giselher (c. 407 – 411), son of Gebicca
 * Gunther (c. 407 – 436), son of Gebicca

Flavius Aëtius moves the Burgundians into Sapaudia (Upper Rhône Basin).

 * Gunderic/Gundioc (436–473) opposed by
 * Chilperic I, brother of Gundioc (443–c. 480)
 * division of the kingdom among the four sons of Gundioc:
 * Gundobad (473–516 in Lyon, king of all of Burgundy from 480),
 * Chilperic II (473–493 in Valence)
 * Godomar I (473–486 in Vienna)
 * Godegisel (473–500, in Vienne and Geneva)
 * Sigismund, son of Gundobad (516–523)
 * Godomar or Gundimar, son of Gundobad (523–534)

Burgundy under Frankish kings
Gradually conquered by the Frankish kings Childebert I and Chlothar I from 532–534

Merovingian kings

 * Childebert I, 534–558 (central parts)
 * Theudebert I, 534–548 (northern parts)
 * Chlothar I, 534–561 (southern parts), eventually uniting the entire kingdom
 * Guntram (561–592)
 * Childebert II, 592–595
 * Theuderic II, 595–613

United with Neustria under one king, but a separate administration (613–751)

Carolingian kings

 * Pippin the Younger, 751–768
 * Carloman, 768–771
 * Charlemagne, 771–814
 * Louis the Pious, 814–840
 * Lothair I, 840–855, king under his father after 817

The sons of Louis the Pious divided the Frankish kingdom in the treaty of Verdun in 843. Burgundy was divided between the brothers.

 * Charles the Bald received the smaller part, west of the river Saône. This entity was officially called regnum burgundiae (Kingdom of Burgundy), but since the King of France delegated administration to dukes, the territory became known as the Duchy of Burgundy.
 * Lothair I received the larger part, east of the river Saône, which retained the name of Kingdom of Burgundy

After Lothair's death in 855, his realm was divided between his sons. The Burgundian territories were divided between:

 * Lothair II, who received the north, and
 * Charles of Provence, who received the south, including Provence, Lyon and Vienne. His realm was called the regnum provinciae (Kingdom of Provence).

Kingdom of Lower Burgundy
The Kingdom of Lower Burgundy (or Cisjurane Burgundy) was also known as the Kingdom of Provence. Its capital was first Vienne then Arles.

 * Charles of Provence (855–863) On his death, Provence divided between surviving brothers, Lothair II and the Emperor Louis II. The bulk goes to Louis.
 * Louis II (863–875), also Holy Roman Emperor from 855 On his death, as with his Kingdom of Italy, Louis's Provence goes to his uncle Charles the Bald .
 * Charles the Bald (875–877), also Holy Roman Emperor from 875
 * Louis the Stammerer (877–879) With the death of Louis the Stammerer, the nobles of Provence refused to elect his two sons and instead elected one of their own, Boso, as king. Boso married Ermengard, daughter of Louis II, to strengthen his and his son's claim.
 * Boso (879–887)
 * Louis the Blind (887–928), also Holy Roman Emperor from 901 to 905 Louis's kingdom did not pass to his children, but instead to his brother-in-law, the husband of his sister, Hugh, who had acted as his regent since 905. Hugh never used the royal title in Provence.
 * Hugh (911–933) In 933, Provence ceases to be a separate kingdom as Hugh exchanged it with Rudolph II of Upper Burgundy for the Iron Crown of Lombardy, that is, rule of Italy.

Kingdom of Upper Burgundy

 * Lothair II, 855–869

Lothair subsumed his portion of Burgundy into the Kingdom of Lotharingia and at his brother Charles of Provence's death, gained some northern districts from his kingdom. When Lothair II died in 869, his realm was divided between his uncles Charles the Bald and Louis the German in the Treaty of Mersen.

On the death in 888 of Emperor Charles the Fat, who until 884 had united all Frankish kingdoms except for Kingdom of Provence, the nobles and leading clergy of Upper Burgundy assembled at St Maurice and elected Rudolph, count of Auxerre, from the Elder Welf family, as king. At first, he tried to reunite the realm of Lothair II, but opposition by Arnulf of Carinthia forced him to focus on his Burgundian territory.

 * Rudolf I (888–912)
 * Rudolf II (912–937) In 933 Rudolph ceded his claims to the Kingdom of Italy to Hugh of Arles in return for the Kingdom of Provence, thus reuniting the two territories.

 * Conrad I (937–993)
 * Rudolph III (993–1032)

In 1032, the Kingdom of Burgundy was incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire as a third kingdom, with the Roman-German King as King of Burgundy. From the 12th century it was often referred to as Kingdom of Arles.

Salian (Frankish) dynasty

 * Conrad II, king 1032–1039, emperor after 1027
 * Henry III, king 1039–1056, emperor 1046–1056
 * Henry IV, king 1056–1105, emperor 1084–1105
 * Henry V, king 1105–1125, emperor 1111–1125

Supplinburger

 * Lothar III, king 1125–1137, emperor 1133–1137

Staufen (or Hohenstaufen dynasty)

 * Conrad III, king 1138–1152
 * Frederick I Barbarossa, king 1152, emperor 1155–1190
 * Henry VI, king 1190, emperor 1191–1197
 * Philip of Swabia, king 1198–1208
 * Otto IV of Brunswick (House of Welf), king 1208–1215, emperor 1209–1215
 * Frederick II, king 1212, emperor 1220–1250
 * Conrad IV, king 1237–1254 (until 1250 under his father)

Rectorate of Burgundy
Under the kings Conrad I and Rudolph III, royal power weakened while local nobles, such as the counts of Burgundy, gained prominence.

After the early death of Emperor Henry III, his widow Agnes of Poitou acted as regent for his young son Henry IV. She made Rudolf von Rheinfelden duke of Swabia and also conferred on him the regal powers over Burgundy. However, when Rudolf was elected anti-king, Henry IV in 1079 stripped him of his powers and delegated them to the Prince-bishops of Lausanne and Sitten.

When William III, Count of Burgundy was assassinated in February 1127, Lothar III supported the claims of William's uncle Duke Conrad of Zähringen, grandson of Rudolf von Rheinfeld, to the countship, and conferred on him the regal powers over Burgundy.

Lacking a proper title, the Zähringer called themselves dukes and rectors of Burgundy, to give themselves the status of the dukes of Burgundy. The royal chancellory however consistently avoided this term and the effective power of the rector (in Roman law, a generic term for provincial governor) was restricted to the possessions of the Zähringer east of the Jura.

Any attempts to enforce the Zähringer's claims and to extend royal authority into the western and southern parts of the kingdom failed, most notably a military campaign in 1153. After these failures, Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa gained a firm hold of the western districts in 1156 by marrying Beatrice, heiress to the countship of Burgundy. This confined the Zähringer between Jura and Alps, where they used their regal powers to expand their possessions. In 1218, Berthold V, Duke of Zähringen died without issue.

After this, King Frederick II conferred the title of the rector of Burgundy on his young son Henry, to keep the Zähringer heirs from the regal powers associated with that title. This appointment was of only momentary importance, and after Henry had been elected King of Germany in April 1220, the title disappeared for good.

Also, the decline of royal power inside the Kingdom of Burgundy remained irreversible.

title: List of kings of Burgundy


text:
Talk:Orpington railway station

Bridges
I'm puzzled how the railway station mentions bridges over the A21 which is several miles away. The only bridge by the station is over the A232, and very ugly!

This has been corrected. CarolGray 19:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Station extension
I have used this station a fair amount for over 20 years, If I remember right the station was expanded I think from 5 platforms to 8 at a point in the mid 1990s maybe 1994. Platforms 6, 7 & 8 the dead end platforms are the new platforms I think. The bus station is also a fairly recent addition added at the same time or after, before this there were 3 small stops on the road for the different buses they had no shelters or seats. Does anyone have a better memory than me or can find a source for this. Carlwev (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Orpington railway station. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110717124708/http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/app/webroot/files/cache/Station%20Access%20Guide.pdf to http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/app/webroot/files/cache/Station%20Access%20Guide.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like Southeastern have withdrawn the original pdf. I've linked to their latest offering, though I don't know whether it supports the claim that Orpington is step-free access. Dr Sludge (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Orpington railway station


text: User talk:210.159.148.76

title: User talk:210.159.148.76


text:
Talk:California sea hare

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California sea hare. 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/20070927203348/http://www.mondomarino.net/ricerca/index.asp?view=ico&genere_opt=contiene&genere=aplysia to http://www.mondomarino.net/ricerca/index.asp?view=ico&genere_opt=contiene&genere=aplysia

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) 08:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History
— Assignment last updated by Mars134340 (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:California sea hare


text: Category:Pakistan National Shipping Corporation cricketers


text:
User talk:Lion Kuntz

You'll have to change your User name. This one is unacceptable. RickK 09:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Couldn't help noticing. Why would "Lion Kuntz" be unacceptable? --Wetman 09:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Lion Kuntz = Lying C*nts. Carrp 09:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lion Kuntz


text:
Johann Nikolaus Hanff

Johann Nikolaus Hanff (25 September 1663 – 25 December 1711) was a North German organist and composer. Hanff was born in Wechmar in Thuringia and worked in Eutin, Hamburg and Schleswig.

In 1696 he became organist and conductor to the Bishop of Lübeck. Hanff’s style, with the melody moving slowly but with rich ornamentation above a slow-moving and not very clearly individualized accompaniment, was favored by Buxtehude.

While in Hamburg, Hanff taught harpsichord and composition to the young Johann Mattheson for four years. Mattheson was to become a composer, music theorist and close friend of George Frideric Handel (who almost killed Handel in a duel).

After the death of Bishop August Friedrich and the dissolution of the court in 1705, Hanff probably returned to Hamburg, where in 1706 and 1711 two children were born to him. On 26 August 1711 he took over the organist position at Schleswig Cathedral but died a few months later.

In 1997, the asteroid (7902) Hanff was named after him.

title: Johann Nikolaus Hanff


text:
User:Aaroamal

User name: Aaroamal Gender: Male Occupation: Management consulting. Previously partner in a big four global consulting firm. Currently investor and executive director in a technology firm based in Dubai Internet City. Interests: Buddhism, Social history of Kerala, metaphysics, race relations, temple architecture, antiques, art Contact email: aaroamal[at]gmail.com

title: User:Aaroamal


text:
Fabio Cudicini

Fabio Cudicini (born 20 October 1935) is an Italian former professional footballer who played as a goalkeeper from 1955 to 1972. Standing at 1.91 m, he was one of the tallest goalkeepers of his time. Despite never playing for the Italy national football team, he is regarded as one of the best goalkeepers of his generation, and as one of Italy's best ever goalkeepers. Cudicini is mostly remembered for his highly successful and dominant stint with A.C. Milan, and he is one of the most celebrated goalkeepers in the club's history, helping them win the 1969 European Cup Final in particular, among other domestic, European, and international titles.

Club career
Born in Trieste, Cudicini began his professional career with Udinese in 1955, making his debut during the 1955–56 Serie B season, and obtained promotion to Serie A with the club. In his first season in the Italian top division, he collected 13 appearances throughout the season, and marked his Serie A debut with a clean sheet in a 2–0 home win over Palermo on 2 December 1956. In 1958, he joined Roma. After two seasons as the team's back-up goalkeeper behind Luciano Panetti, he was promoted to the team's starting goalkeeper in 1960, and retained the position for the next six seasons, collecting 166 league appearances, and winning the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in 1960–61 and a Coppa Italia in 1964. He spent the 1966–67 Serie A season with Brescia, helping the club avoid relegation. In 1967, at the age of 32, he joined Milan, where he remained until his retirement in 1972, making 127 league appearances for the club and 183 appearances in all competitions under manager Nereo Rocco; he achieved notable domestic and international success with the club, winning the Serie A title and the Cup Winners' Cup in his first season, followed by the European Cup and the Intercontinental Cup in 1969, and finally the Coppa Italia in 1972. He is Milan's seventh-most capped keeper of all time, behind only Christian Abbiati (380), Sebastiano Rossi (330), Dida (302), Lorenzo Buffon (300), Enrico Albertosi (233), and Dario Compiani (221).

International career
Despite his reputation and club achievements, Cudicini never played for the Italian senior national team, mainly because of the contemporary presence of several other notable players in his role throughout his career, such as Lorenzo Buffon, Giorgio Ghezzi, Dino Zoff, and Enrico Albertosi. He represented Italy at youth level, however, and during his time with Roma, he was called up to the Italy B team on 8 May 1963; although he never played for the Italy senior team, he was called-up on several occasions, in particular as a back-up to Zoff during Italy's qualifying campaign for the 1970 FIFA World Cup.

Style of play

A spectacular goalkeeper, who is regarded as one of the best goalkeepers of his generation, and as one of Italy's and Milan's greatest ever goalkeepers, Cudicini was known for his agility, reactions, and shot-stopping ability as a goalkeeper, as well as his large reach, and his tall, slender build and long limbs, which aided him in coming off his line to collect crosses, but also occasionally limited his speed and mobility at times. Although he often stood out throughout his career for his athleticism in goal and ability to produce acrobatic dives and decisive saves, he was also known to be an extremely efficient rather than flamboyant goalkeeper, who possessed an excellent positional sense. A precocious talent in his youth, Cudicini also stood out for his consistency and longevity throughout his career, and had a highly successful spell with Milan even in his later years; despite his ability, however, he often struggled with injuries throughout his career. Cudicini frequently wore all-black goalkeeping attire, which along with his long limbs and goalkeeping abilities, earned him the nickname Il Ragno Nero ('The Black Spider'), a nickname which also belonged to legendary Soviet goalkeeper Lev Yashin, who was also known for wearing all-black goalkeeping attire. Before becoming a goalkeeper, Cudicini initially played as a right winger in his youth.

Personal life
Fabio Cudicini is the father of former Chelsea, Tottenham, and Los Angeles Galaxy goalkeeper Carlo Cudicini. He is also the son of ex Ponziana Trieste defender Guglielmo Cudicini (deceased).

Club
Roma
 * Coppa Italia: 1963–64
 * Inter-Cities Fairs Cup: 1960–61

Milan
 * Serie A: 1967–68
 * Coppa Italia: 1971–72
 * European Cup: 1968–69
 * European Cup Winners' Cup: 1967–68
 * Intercontinental Cup: 1969

Individual

 * A.C. Milan Hall of Fame

title: Fabio Cudicini


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-07/Main page protection

A new outbreak of vandalism on the Main Page led to all of its components being protected from editing by non-administrators, as attempts to maintain security through obscurity were set aside indefinitely.

One instance of vandalism happened Wednesday on the In the news template, whose content was briefly replaced with a penis image. This template, which easily has the quickest turnover of the main page templates in terms of editing its content, has frequently been targeted by vandals in the past as a high-profile target.

Perfect storm of vandalism
However, the most dramatic vandalism happened on Thursday, when the template listing Wikipedia's sister projects was vandalized with the infamous goatse.cx image. The vandal used HTML to spread the image across the entire main page. The Recentchanges header was also vandalized in similar fashion.

Compounding the problem was the fact that the servers were responding extremely slowly at this time. According to developer Jamesday, this was because a script was being used to create the downloadable database and image dumps. As a result, it took 29 minutes to revert the vandalism of Recentchanges and 35 minutes before someone was able to restore the sister projects template.

History of main page protection
Protection of the entire main page is not an entirely new practice, as it had been regularly in place as early as 2002 in response to similar problems. The introduction of the current design last February, with much of the content being moved to templates, was accompanied by making the content open to general editing.

Before last week's events, the most recent instance of vandalism of this nature last November prompted the protection of images being used in the templates on the main page. Protecting an image prevents the file from being overwritten by another file, a technique that had been used to get offensive images substituted for the correct picture while it was being featured.

With that tactic prevented, vandals have simply resorted to uploading and editing in new pictures, as in the current situation. This led people to again revisit the question of whether any unprotected editing of the main page should be allowed. Ultimately, all images and templates used on the main page were protected, even the in the news and did you know templates, which in the past have relied considerably on participation from non-administrators. "In the news" has now adapted a subpage where non-admins can make suggestions for items to be included on the template—a system which has been in use at "Did you know" a lot longer.


text:
Central Otago wine region

The Central Otago wine region is a geographical indication in New Zealand's South Island, and the world's southernmost commercial wine growing region. While Central Otago is best known for Pinot Noir, many white wine varieties are also popular.

History of the wine region
Significant European occupation in this region started with the Otago Gold Rush in the 1860s. French immigrant gold miner Jean Desire Feraud soon started planting vines and embarking upon small-scale commercial wine production, even winning medals in Australian wine competitions. Late in the nineteenth century, the New Zealand government hired Romeo Bragato to survey the country. While this early experimentation showed the wine-growing potential of the region, the wine industry did not survive for long on a commercial basis.

From the 1950s through to the late 1970s, there were many small-scale trial plantings of vines by private individuals and under the auspices of the New Zealand Department of Agriculture. By 1980 enough experience and confidence had been gained for commercial plantings to start.

Vineyard planting and production remained modest until the middle of the 1990s when the industry began to expand rapidly. In 1996 there were just 11 wineries in the Central Otago region, according to New Zealand Winegrowers, accounting for 4.6% of the national total. By 2020 this had risen to 133 wineries and 18.5%. Over the same period, the area planted with vines rose from 92 to 1,930 hectares, a more-than twentyfold increase. Reflecting this rapid expansion, the long lead-time for planting to come into production, and the focus in Central Otago on quality wines rather than bulk wines, actual wine production accounted for only 0.5% (376 tonnes) of the New Zealand total in 1996, increasing to 3.0% (11,868 tonnes) in 2019.

Climate and soil
At around 300 m elevation, Central Otago's vineyards are protected from New Zealand's characteristic maritime climate by high mountains up to 3700 m high. They thus have the only true continental climate zone in the country, with large daily and seasonal temperature extremes. Rainfall averages around 375-600 mm: summer is hot and relatively dry, and often accompanied by the Nor'wester foehn wind; autumn is short, cool and sunny; and winter is cold, with substantial falls of snow. Heavy frosts are common throughout winter and, indeed, frost can occur at any time between March and November. One of Central Otago's warmest wine growing areas can be found just north of the Lowburn Inlet area.

The climatic contrast between Central Otago and the more humid, warmer wine regions of the North Island can be illustrated by the difference in the timing of the grape harvest. In the more northerly vineyards, picking generally takes place in late February or early March, while in Central Otago the harvest begins in mid to late April — a difference of some six to seven weeks.

The structure of the soil also differs considerably from other wine growing regions of the country, with heavy deposits of rough-edged mica and other metamorphic schists in silt loams. This soil drains easily, and given that most vineyards are positioned on hillside slopes, artificial irrigation is generally essential.

Central Otago's wines
Pinot noir is the leading grape variety in Central Otago, estimated to account for some 70% of plantings. The other 30% of production comes from Chardonnay, Sauvignon blanc, Riesling, Pinot gris, and Gewürztraminer. Sparkling wine is made in the traditional style from Pinot noir and Chardonnay grapes.

Sub-regions
The Central Otago wine region is broken into multiple sub-regions, each with its own climate and characteristics.

 * Bannockburn is a small Geographical Indication on the southern banks of the Kawarau River near Cromwell and is a very warm area that was known by gold miners as "the Heart of the Desert". Grapes ripen early on sandy, silty loam soils. The elevation ranges from 220 to 370 m.

 * Bendigo lies east of the Clutha River / Mata-Au and Lake Dunstan, with grapes planted at both medium elevation (220 m) and high elevation terraces (330 to 350 m). This warm area has semi arid soils at variable depths, with free draining soils at the lower levels and shallower soils at higher elevations. The Bendigo sub-region includes the vineyards at Tarras and Maori Point.
 * Gibbston is a tight valley enclosed by mountainous terrain. About 250 hectares of vines are planted on sloping land on the southern bank of the Kawarau River. Gibbston is the coolest and highest of the sub-regions with vineyards between 320 and 420 m altitude. It is sometimes referred to as the Queenstown subregion.
 * Wānaka, the smallest of the sub-regions, has vineyards planted between the banks of Lake Wānaka and the town of Luggate to the east. Ranging between 290 to 320 m above sea level, the vineyards have a similar but slightly warmer climate than those at Gibbston.
 * The Alexandra Basin is surrounded by the Clutha River / Mata-Au and Manuherikia River and regularly records New Zealand's hottest summer temperatures. Schist outcrops dominate the arid landscape. A wide diurnal shift moderates the high temperatures.
 * The Cromwell Basin contains the highest concentration of vines, in an area bounded by the Kawarau River, Lake Dunstan and the Pisa mountain range. It is a warm district characterised by semi arid, high terraces and moraines and gently sloping fans.

title: Central Otago wine region


text:
Sanlando Springs, Florida

Sanlando Springs is a second magnitude freshwater spring and an unincorporated community in Seminole County, Florida, United States, just west of Longwood, Florida. Originally named Hoosier Springs by early settler Ingram Fletcher, the springs were later renamed for its location between the cities of Sanford and Orlando. From the 1930s through 1970, it was a privately owned and operated recreation area and park that was open to the general public for an entrance fee.

In 1970, the property was sold for conversion into a private residential development to be known as The Springs.

The spring itself is located behind the clubhouse of The Springs, a gated community. Although managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District, it is a private recreation and swimming area for residents of the community and respective guests and is no longer open to the general public.

The main swimming area formerly boasted a diving platform over the spring, approximately 6 ft (1.8 m) above the waters' surface until removed by the community board. There is also a floating man-made dock, approximately 40 ft (12.2 m) from the shoreline, to which guests may swim. The waters of the main spring eventually empty into the Wekiva River and from there into the St. Johns River. Sanlando Springs, along with nearby Rock Springs, Wekiwa Springs and Palm Springs, form the headwaters of the Wekiva River.

During times of heavy rain, such as the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season, the springs have been known to flood dramatically and certain areas of the spring during these times may be hazardous.

Near the main spring are several sulfur springs, which are generally unfit for swimming due to foul odor and possible presence of potentially dangerous wildlife, such as alligators.

title: Sanlando Springs, Florida


text:
File:Enigma Le Roi cover.jpg

Summary
Album cover of Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi! (1996) by the musical project, Enigma.

Fair use in Le Roi Est Mort, Vive Le Roi!
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It's a low resolution copy of a CD/album cover.
 * 2) It doesn't limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD/album in any way, in fact, it may encourage sales.
 * 3) Because of the low resolution, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
 * 4) The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article or used in the infobox thereof.
 * 5) The image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist.

Source

 * 1) Derived from a digital capture (scan/photo) of the album/CD cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the record company or the artist Johann Zambryski. Claimed as fair use regardless.

title: File:Enigma Le Roi cover.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streblo

 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Streblo
More non-notable band vanity. Apparently, the non-notable Zak Norlyn went on to be a member of the non-notable Shawn of the grateful dead. --Zarquon 09:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, non-notable. Rje 13:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Chotchki
 * Delete, adolescent band vanity, no evidence of anything going on with them. Wyss 21:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 02:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 16:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Edeans 05:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another bit of bandcruft from this same anon. - Lucky 6.9 22:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:32, 10 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streblo


text:
VSM

VSM may refer to:

Organisations

 * Varanger Sami Museum, a museum in Varangerbotn, Norway
 * Veluwsche Stoomtrein Maatschappij, a Dutch heritage railway
 * Vickers, Sons & Maxim, a British armaments and ammunition manufacturer of the early 20th century
 * Villa Sainte-Marcelline, a private school in Westmount, Canada
 * VSM Group or Viking Sewing Machines, a Swedish company
 * Vysoká škola manažmentu or City University of Seattle in Slovakia, a private college

Science and technology

 * Variance shadow map, a process by which shadows are added to 3D computer graphics
 * Vascular smooth muscle, a type of muscle found in blood vessels
 * Vector space model, an algebraic model for representing objects as vectors of identifiers
 * Vena saphena magna, a vein of the leg
 * Viable system model, a model of an autonomous system capable of producing itself
 * Vibrating-sample magnetometer, a scientific instrument

Other uses

 * Value-stream mapping, a product management method
 * Vietnam Service Medal, a military award of the United States Armed Forces
 * Vishisht Seva Medal, a military award of the Indian Armed Forces
 * Voluntary Student Membership, a policy for New Zealand university student organisations

title: VSM


text: User talk:70.25.134.20

title: User talk:70.25.134.20


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Times

 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Education Times
Isn't Education Times a supplement of The Times of India? --GatesPlusPlus 09:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sandeep Manudhane is a writer for Education Times so I'm guessing a copyvio at the very least, so Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:42, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes; it should go to Copyright problems. Samaritan 13:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, content is interesting but it's an essay, original research. Wyss 21:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV original research. Megan1967 02:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. utcursch 04:18, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this essay, whether or not it actually appeared in The Education Times. Edeans 05:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:32, 10 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.