text:
Talk:Being

Minerals
From the opening paragraph of the article:
 * there is currently no conclusive scientific evidence as to whether or not plants, minerals or viruses are conscious

What the? Minerals? Yes there is, under any realistic interpretation of "conclusive". That sentence has been around for almost two years. Well, no longer. dbenbenn | talk 04:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You let me be for these two long years--and now you revoke my being? Well, same to you partner! 8))  ---TheMineralBeing

The Power of Now
I cut the following text from this article, as it is seemingly unrelated to the ontological concept of being:
 * Eckhart Tolle in his best-selling book, The Power of Now, uses the word "Being" as a substitute and more accurate word for "God".

If that use of "Being" is important, perhaps it belongs in the Supreme Being article or in the Eckhart Tolle article or, if The Power of Now is an important enough book, in an article about that book. The Rod 05:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Film: Being There
Continuing to make this article more about a single topic (ontological being), I cut the following content from the article, as it seems unrelated to the ontological concept of being:
 * The film "Being There" starring Peter Sellers was influenced by existentialism and the works of Martin Heidegger.

If the existentialist aspect of the film is important enough, perhaps it belongs in Existentialism or perhaps the film merits its own article. The Rod 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Request: The characteristics of a being
I need the qualities or characteristics that differentiate a being from a not-being -Daëmon 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~ at the end. -Unsigned
 * That would depend entirely on which philosopher you asked. -Smahoney 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely it would be impossible to discuss the characteristics of a not-being, as having any characteristics at all would suggest beinghood, as would being the subject of a discussion.River sider ( talk ) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you folks were too much help to poor Mr. Daemon, as he went and got off of Wikipedia. He probably had in mind the "properties of being" as defined in metaphysics. We have enough articles now on WP for all of you folks to see that the concept of being has a history. It isn't just a free-for-all. I think maybe it is time to start think of writing these articles in terms of that history rather than just what any philosopher, including any of you, thinks it might be.Dave (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
There is an inappropriate mixture of definitions in this article. We start out by talking about the subjective meaning, how it is the inner self and all that. Then we start talking abouth the universal meaning of being, which is essentially objective. Which is it? The article goes on blithely speaking as if they were one and the same thing. The key to the problem is the lack of references. They seem to help clarify everything. Since the article clearly intends to cover the universal, or objective, status of being, I propose that is where we start. As this is a long-standing tagged article and everyone interested has had an ample shot at it I hope you do not mind if I turn my hand to organizing and referencing the article. There are a whole lot of articles on the same topic but they are all equally tagged and equally problematic. But, let's try to do it right and then see what we really have before we make any final decisions (if there is any such thing on WP).00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the relationship between Awareness and Being? There is no mention of it in the article? AgentSmith 21:22, 18 March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.197.103 (talk)

Name dropping
Actually the writing here as far as it goes is very good, nor have I yet found evidence of plagiarism. The name-dropping, however - well, that is something else. I know the walls of institutions, such as the Boston Public Library, have the names of great thinkers inscribed in them as a monument. This isn't a monument, however, it is an article. Nothing is said about the names, no information given, no refs, the articles do not mention this article, we are left to guess the relevance. I think what we want are the refs. The first ref I put in contains those names and gives more detail. So, I'm removing name lists, or shall we say monumental names, which are being dropped, shall we say, like names of battles invoked by people who never fought in them.Dave (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Etienne Gilson
"French Academy member Étienne Gilson wrote once that if a notion had to be universally recognized as the first of all principles of philosophy that would be being."

Try as I might I cannot find the source of this statement. Maybe he did say it, maybe not. Whatever the case may be, it appears to be out of context. However, it is signal that the editor should have chosen for this article probably the most notable Thomist of modern times, a metaphysician's metaphysician, an ontologist's ontologist. What he says is easily taken out of context because he often likes to develop the subject by going along with a given hypothesis to the point where it can't be gone along with any further, as a device for getting you to make the leap into an otherwise extraordinary realization. This method appears to imitate St. Thomas' method. The latter makes statements that have an ordinary and an extraordinary sense. He brings you along the ordinary path until you suddenly realize he cannot possibly be talking about the ordinary. Other metaphysicians abd ontologists do that also, although some prefer straight exposition. Now, I cannnot follow down any misunderstandings or statements out of context the editor may have had. I think for purpose of what he is trying to say he may dropped one name too many. However I will respect his wishes and start using Gilson as the main basis for this article! What is missing of course is about 2000 years of the philosophy of being; I presume the editor ommitted that as of no value, as he says. Well, there might be some small value. Might. There are so many articles around this topic one has to be careful to stick right to the topic, which is being and beings, as opposed to entities, ousia, existents, essences, and all the rest.Dave (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Being in Islamic philosophy
Unless differences between Islamic and non-Islamic philosophies are going to be discussed, I see no purpose on keeping that there.Glorthac (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was intrigued to hear that being is discussed in Islamic philosophy, but frustrated by the lack of any quote or discussion of what Islamic philosophy has to say about being. Rather than deletion of this section, I'd like to see more detail. River sider ( talk ) 15:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

merging is not the answer
Merging is not the answer...Any language is called a rich language, because it is rich in terms of trminology. It is noticeable clearly that the English language is shrinking lately by folloewing the method of merging (and other reasons which does not concern our subject, now)not specificaly, just an example, i.e; SOUL (Area = LIFE)while MIND (Area = THOUGHT). And now 'Existance' and 'Being'. though might be very close in SOME meanings, but never carries the same specs. Existence versus nothingness, while Being versus nonpresence. Actually what disturbes me most is the use of definitions derived from the brain understandings of the universe, especially when they don't exists as such, i.e; Time= is a sequence of moments,etc...past,present,future. Well excuse me but there is no such thing in oneness time...this is simply an understanding IN ACCORDANCE TO THE BRAIN, and not a definition of time, to be fair it might be a good understanding to the verb time, but what about time the noun? Michel Nakouzi (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Improvement/Merge
I highly recommend looking at the German wikipedia article on Being (Sein): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sein

It's much better than the English wiki one. --Caute AF (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 * There's a duplication of effort here, a redundant English article. Placed merge tag on it pointing here but I'm unlikely to have the time to perform it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Im not sure if merging is a good idea. "Existence" Refers to a very specific thing, and does so clearly. "Being" however, has many definitions; "I am a human being" "I'm being robbed!" and the like. Perhaps the "being" article could be merged into the Existence article? 74.132.249.206 (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Well this supports an Existence article, while there is no entry there for being. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Current Lede
The lede should introduce the philosophical term "being" in much the same way that the term might be introduced to a freshman philosophy class. The current version strays too far from the all ways the term is used. The definitions given have almost no connection with the traditional understanding of the term as used in classical philosophy, i.e. existence and essence, metaphysics, etc.

There is a little continental philosophy there, which is fine, but an introduction should be more even handed between Heidegger's understanding of the term and it's traditional usage. There are also several statements which are obviously false. I'm thinking of the discussion of personal experience, sentience, etc. I don't think these would be part of a traditional account of being.

I've asked over at Wikiproject philosophy if anyone else wants to take a crack at it. CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, being a signed-up editor at that Wikiproject, I am responding to the request. I am first of all removing this "synecdoche" thing. Whose idea was that? Where is it discussed, above? Where is the edit summary that explains its inclusion? Completely alienating to practically every reader.
 * I have now done it. What an embarrassing mess that was! Get familiar with WP styling for a start, gang. Read through WP:MOS. And then, think of the hapless reader. And then, ask yourself – really ask yourself! – have I truly got the ability and the knowledge to make this work as a useful Wikipedia article?
 * The rest of the article seems to be in a similar condition. But just now, I can't bear to look closely. I need a cup of tea and some quiet time alone.
 * ☺♥♫♪! N oetica Tea? 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CharlesGillingham (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is "Dasein" singled out as Heidegger's term for "being" whereas clearly "Sein" is the general term, as the title of his book suggests? Tkuvho (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See Heideggerian terminology. CharlesGillingham (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I retained the example of Dasein as a concession to something in the long substandard text that had been in place. It is explicitly presented as an example, so that we get away from reiterating mere translations or paraphrases of being such as Sein. No big deal. N oetica Tea? 23:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I restored the older version before the good-faith hatchet job by Noetica. I appreciate attempts by Wikiproject people to come in and be WP:BOLD, but some restraint is needed. I agree the synecdoche thing needs changing. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm reverting, once again to replace that embarrassing spiel, Stevertigo. Show here how it makes any sort of sense as a lead section, was ever discussed, was ever well signalled in edit summaries, or in any way deserves any respect whatsoever as a part of Wikipedia's philosophical offerings. ☺♫♥ N oetica Tea? 22:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree that Noetica's version is better than Stevertigo's. CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 * How am I supposed to argue with someone who calls the previous version an "embarrassing spiel"? That "spiel" has been in place for over two years, until Charles' recent edits, and AFAIK Noetica had never even browsed this article until his self-appointed hatchet job.

 * The first issue with the term "being" is that it has some different but straightforward and related definitions. We can find some of those here for example. We should start with the dicdefs first, as per the version I support. Being as an abstract and "a being" as a literal.

 * The current wording contains caveat language such as "extremely broad concept encompassing subjective and objective features" and "so broad a notion has inevitably been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy." These aren't definitions, they are cop-outs. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I think your criticisms here are actually right on target. (Although, as you know, I didn't like the old lede.) I don't know if I would go with the dictionary definitions because I think this article should deal with "being" as it has been used in Western philosophy. (Eastern philosophy has its own article, sentient beings (Buddhism).)

 * What do you think about this organization, which I think captures the historical development of the term. Four paragraphs:
 * Classical definition (in terms of existence, i.e. "something which exists"), with a statement that "being" has been re-evaluated by modern philosophy. Starting with the words "In western philosophy, being is ... " to identify this as an article about Western philosophy.
 * A few classical approaches to the "problem of being" (mention metaphysics and the major issues here)
 * Twentieth century re-interpretation by Heidegger and others, redefining "being" as subjective and critiquing classical metaphysics.
 * Analytical and postmodern reactions and arguments against mid-century continental philosophy's approach.
 * I think a "scholarly" approach like this is appropriate for Wikipedia, and this organization avoids the caveat you complained about above, by directly describing the ways that philosophy has disagreed about the term.
 * Whaddya think? CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK Charles. Go ahead and put something together along these lines and we'll see how it flows, and give you pointers - anything missing, suggested re-wording etc. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Heh. Good luck! The lead should not be an anguished and opaque survey of the whole domain: it has to be a meaningful entrée to the topic, that can then be given a full articulation in all that follows. Nothing in the present lead is a "cop-out", as you allege above. Compare this:
 * "Like many philosophically interesting notions, existence is at once familiar and rather elusive. Although we have no more trouble with using the verb ‘exists’ than with the two-times table, there is more than a little difficulty in saying just what existence is. Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry. Yet, when we say ‘Tom is hungry’ or ‘Tom is walking’, it may be news to those not in Tom's vicinity, whereas ‘Tom exists’ would be news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not. Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it like to exist, what kind of experience is that? Is it perhaps the experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom's walking, but surely Tom's existing is not something we can indicate to anyone. On the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can explain what existing is."
 * A cop-out also? Well, that is the first paragraph of the nearest comparable article ("Existence") at the professional and superb Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Take your critique of that article to its author, Barry Miller: a well-published authority on the topic.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Note that the structure I laid out is basically the structure of the paragraph you wrote, with a maybe a little more emphasis on classical philosophy, just because I think this could set up the issue in a way that is (almost) comprehensible to (at least some) people. CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 * There's simply no need for any of that in a lead, Charles. It has to be tight. It has to give the essence, and set the scene. Frankly, it would be better to put effort into the rest of the article now. The weakest links are now to be found here. N oetica Tea? 01:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC) ¿

 * Do I detect on Noetica's part an excess of zeal for terse language? Yet he defends using excessive caveats and 'there is no clear definition' style language. Noetica, good ledes are not uberterse, such that leaves all definition and meaning to "be given a full articulation in all that follows." This may not be what you prefer or are accustomed to, but good ledes get to the point. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Detect what you like; whether it's there or not is another matter. Good leads get to the point? O yes. Couldn't agree more. As I say, good luck! Read carefully that paragraph I quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia, and perhaps the ones immediately after it. Then think long and hard about our readers' needs before "getting to the point" on one of the most general and contested topics imaginable. ☺♪ N oetica Tea? 04:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Don't get me wrong, your continued input is welcome. I just may disagree with certain things you suggest and will point these out specifically. In any case, I will never do a hatchet job on anyone's work on the basis of a few generic nitpicks. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree Noetica's version is a vast improvement, but IMHO it doesn't go far enough. The article is about the philosophical concept of "being"; digressions into other meanings are not appropriate here. But why start naming philosophers in the opening paragraph, and why only the modern ones, since the piece as it stands now is a historical survey, beginning in antiquity. And Heidegger? My understanding is that there is a bit of controversy about him — many finding his ideas opaque, in spite of his ability to write zippy titles — and question whether he belongs in the pantheon at all. Can't y'all make do with Nietzsche and Sartre and existentialism?  But perhaps any further changes should be made after the final shape of the article itself is evident.  One nitpick: the word "deploy", when used for anything except military divisions and opening parachutes, is to me like fingernails on a blackboard, and clichéd besides. I first started noticing the casual use of this word in 1991, a few weeks after the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq. IMHO the everyday use of the word attempts to make something look positive by comparing it with a military operation, which many find anything but positive.  Neotarf (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

had to check if I started this thread, sounds so much like me (user:lycurgus) but apparently not. I'm retired here but have to chime in with others how risible the use of 'deploy" is in the lede. Apparently someone tried without success to wipe it. 198.255.198.157 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Write an encyclopedia article, not a paper for a philosophy class
The current version of the article is filled with pretentious, unclear writing. For example, the first sentence of the lead is:
 * Being is what one who is sentient is in the way of mind, body, spirit, and their union, and what one knows about these things and those of similar life forms.

The first sentence of the body is:
 * The deficit of such a bridge was first encountered in history by the Pre-Socratic philosophers during the process of evolving a classification of all beings (noun).

The section titled "The transcendental being" begins:
 * Some of Thomas Aquinas' propositions were reputedly condemned by the local Bishop of Paris (not the Papal Magisterium itself) in 1270 and 1277, but his dedication to the use of philosophy to elucidate theology was so thorough that he was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church in 1568. Those who adopt it are called Thomists.

I haven't read the whole article, but most of what I've sampled is similarly unclear, irrelevant, and pretentiously worded. To future editors: Please don't hesitate to delete large portions of text, even the entire article, and write from scratch. Much writing in philosophy, and especially in philosophy classes, is pretentious, unclear, and incoherent. An encyclopedia article should not follow that precedent. An encyclopedia article should summarize the main facts about the topic, in a form understandable to a nonspecialist reader.

For some guidance on writing appropriate for Wikipedia, please see WP:BETTER. WP:TONE is a good place to start. For guidance specifically about the lead, please see MOS:INTRO. The place to start editing to fix the article is probably the body, not the lead, as explained at WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. To get content to put into the article, start with leading secondary sources such as textbooks, not with the philosophers' writings, and certainly not with your own philosophical ideas (see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). Just summarize the main facts, accompanied by references to the sources. That's all there is to it. (It's much harder than it sounds, though, especially with a topic like "being".)

When all the pretentious writing is replaced with straightforward, factual writing, then it will be time to remove the tag.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi! I agree with your assessment that the article can be, in places, difficult to understand without a backing in philosophy. However, this has more to do with the subject matter of the article, than it has to do with the word choice of its authors. In order to be factually robust, this article must talk about things that could come off as complicated. If you are still unsatisfied with the article's readability, a better solution would be to tag it as needing help from an expert-- somebody with a backing in the topic, who can re-write portions of it so that they're easier to read, without compromising their educational value. Generally, the tone tag is reserved for articles which fail to meet a basic standard-- articles that are poorly written, or which are clearly biased. As this article meets those standards, I will be removing the tone tag and including a link to the relevant portion of the technical content guideline. Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  "Making articles more understandable does not necessarily mean that detailed technical content should be removed." -- Quoted from Make_technical_articles_understandable Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Shoukd there be a disambiguation page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Being&namespace=0

NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Being and Ontology
I transpose the initial paragraph in Ontology article.
 * "Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations."

Surprisingly the entire lead of the present article on Being contains no mention to Ontology. If there is no serious objection to it, I will proceed to introduce this missing connection.--Auró (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
The first two paragraphs mention Presocratics, Heidegger, William James, and W.V.O. Quine, leaving out the whole history of the development of the concept of being. Thus, the article appears to ignore the whole philosophical tradition, which resulted in the contemporary popular notion of being and enabled aforementioned recent philosophers to advance their ideas. Based on the choice of terminology and authors, I suspect that the author of the introductory paragraphs does not have an appreciation for the history of philosophy from Plato to recent times, but this makes the further sections, discussing some of the most important developments in the theory of being, look like unimportant minutiae.

Also, "Metaphysics" is the term which means "theory of being" in philosophical traditions, which continue to develop the concept of being found in Aristotle. Again, to ignore this term, even if, as it seems, ignoring it is based on Heideggerian developments, leads to a skewed perspective on the development of the theory of being, and prevents the reader from achieving an adequate understanding of the concept of being, even if the author of the introductory paragraphs thinks otherwise. A wikipedia article should be a comprehensive survey of perspectives on the concept of being, not a one sided take on it, implicitely devaluing other approaches.

To summarize, the introduction is inadequate, as it ignores the most basic common terminology and important authors in favour of a one-sided approach, based on a rather peculiar tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I couldn't agree more. The lead of this article is inadequate, misleading, skewed, false in at least some instances, and suggests to me a lack of understanding of the terms being used. (This is not an indictment of the editor[s] that wrote the lead, as I've been guilty of that kind of thing plenty of times in my editing career.  Instead, it is an observation about the content of the lead.)  For example, the sentence "Anything that exists has being" makes me shudder, and claims like these in the lead surely have led to some confusing undergraduate papers from students who sign on to Wikipedia to "research" such matters.  I don't have the patience to undertake an extensive rewriting of this but would be very happy to see another editor address some of these issues, such as the ones mentioned above.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Joke article?
This sounds like a joke article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotofnot (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No mention of "Being" in Vedanta Philosophy.
The entire Vedanta philosophy is based on the topic of "being" and is arguably the most ancient one too. It is the foundation for the Buddhist philosophy as well. Yet it is not covered (not even mentioned) in this article. Also, the introduction mentions that the very first idea on this topic came from the West, which is again biased in the light that the Vedas already contain rich discussions on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serratiamars (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Change lead sentence
.change from: In philosophy, being means the material or immaterial existence of a thing. ..change to: Phenomena of being, in philosophy means material or immaterial existence75.82.19.242 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your post here before I reverted your change. This article could be improved, but that edit is not a good start, for several reasons. Among other, 'being' is not just about 'phenonema', and google search links are not sources. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than re-post that change, you should discuss it here. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A new ref. @ https://www.encyclopedia.com/TRANSITIONAL PHENOMENA, The original concept of transitional phenomena was used by Donald Winnicott to describe the intermediate area of human experience between inner reality and the outside world....My take towards being is a Socratic approach, 'description and being are just here/there', as in before a philosophy of being, hence the request to change the lead from philosophy to phenomena in respect of reality...

Another way to put it...being is about the differences between understanding and knowledge...thanks for the challenge.Arnlodg (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)75.82.19.242 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Source of being?
167.201.243.117 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Meaning of being without a source of acknowledgment is meaningless ! If all intentions and intelligence(if there is any!) all man made words come to a play ground to just play, we can play for ever and ever !!

where is that anchor, that can give us stability of meaning without words fight !

The only answer, is if we understand and deep down we believe there is a glorious source of being ! How? who? where? we will never have any answers for these questions, if we haven't found The ONE Source of Being !

Evil(who/what ever waste human resource, physical, mental, spiritual) loves to play with words to waste our time (in reality our gifted presence, right Now!)

Being has a source, in all aspects of being , Being needs permission to fellow , permission to exist!

A fresh start
after reviewing the content of this article, it appears that almost all of it was original research, which has now been removed. I've restubbed the article and retained what little content was supported by academic, secondary sources. I'm not sure if this article even needs to exist or if any content that could be put here would be better off being covered by pages like dasein, metaphysics, ontology, and existence, but I'm creating this topic for discussion in case anyone has concerns about the removal of content. I do not think any of the removed content should be re-instated without support from secondary sources, as most of it was both inaccurate and poorly written.  - car chasm (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * looking at the article we have on ontology, it appears to already cover most of the topics an article on Being would need to. And I can't really think of anything that would belong on an article on "Being" that would not be better suited for "Ontology" as the study of being. Is there anything I'm missing here or should this maybe just redirect to that article?  - car chasm (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Being


text:
User:Anders johnson

My name is Anders Johnson. I live in Davis California. I am seventeen years old. I have two brothers and a mom and dad. My favorite hobbies are skateboard and snowboard. I have only been out of the U.S. once which was across the border to Mexico. I am a high school student at Da Vinci high school.

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

title: User:Anders johnson


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Melwing

 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. dbenbenn | talk 20:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kyle Melwing
Supposedly "of the 20th centuries most acclaimed internet tycoon figures." I'm pretty sure that anyone who actually qualifies as an Internet tycoon gets more than three Google hits, and hits from somewhere other than the website for Troop 167. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity HowardB 04:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - 3 Google hits, vanity. Megan1967 08:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, what Antaeus Feldspar said. Mgm|(talk) 09:38, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is one of the 20th centuries most acclaimed internet tycoon figures in the same way as I am one of the 13th centuries most acclaimed philosophers - i.e. not at all. Average Earthman 10:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete while Radium5 does seem to exist, it's very obscure, with some 250 Google hits, most of which are "minor" things like URL matches, and only 1 Google Groups hit. If it truly had the sort of multibillion-dollar growth as described in the article, it would be a Fortune 500 company by now, which it obviously isn't.  It's either deliberate fraud or a joke (the joke theory being supported by the final two paragraphs).  If Mr. Melwing (or whoever wrote the article) happens to read this, I would like to suggest to them that it isn't generally a good idea to publically claim to have 40+ billion dollars when you really don't, as groups like the IRS and the CIA tend to take notice of such things.  [Note: the page has since been blanked by the original author] Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  13:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, article has been blanked, too. Wyss 19:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:Matthew Platts

Orphaned non-free image File:Logox100px.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Logox100px.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Bamboozle! for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bamboozle! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bamboozle! until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Matthew Platts


text:
Kihoku, Ehime

Kihoku (鬼北町) is a town located in Kitauwa District, Ehime Prefecture, Japan. , the town had an estimated population of 9,614 in 4891 households, and a population density of 40 persons per km². The total area of the town is 241.88 sqkm.The name of the town is derived from the town's location to the north, 北, of Mt. Onigajō "鬼が城."

Geography
Kihoku is located in the Onigajō mountain range in southwestern Ehime Prefecture on the island of Shikoku. The town is composed of several villages merged into one town area. As such, it is spread out over a broad series of small valleys in the town proper. The largest town area, Hiromi, is located in a larger valley in the southwest section of the town. Other areas include Aiji in the north, Mishima centrally, and Hiyoshi in the east.

Climate
Kihoku has a humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa) characterized by warm summers and cool winters with light snowfall. The average annual temperature in Kihoku is 14.5 °C. The average annual rainfall is 2010 mm with June as the wettest month. The temperatures are highest on average in August, at around 25.3 °C, and lowest in January, at around 3.5 °C. Because of the higher elevation and surrounding mountains, Kihoku is generally cooler than Uwajima and Matsuyama, though at times it can be warmer. The area of Hiyoshi is higher in the mountains than Hiromi, and thus cooler. Snow falls occasionally in the winter, but rarely lasts in the town for more than a few days. Summers are hot and humid, with the rainy season lasting from mid-June to mid-July.

Nearby cities and towns
Ehime Prefecture Kōchi Prefecture
 * Seiyo to the north
 * Uwajima to the east
 * Matsuno to the south
 * Shimanto town to the south
 * Yusuhara to the west

Mountains

 * Mt. Takatsuki 1,228 m
 * Mt. Kakkōdake 1,010 m
 * Mt. Izumigamori 755 m
 * Mt. Tokigozen   946 m
 * Mt. Gozaisho    908 m

Rivers
There are numerous rivers running through the area, the largest of which is the Hiromi River, which is a tributary of the Shimanto River, in Kōchi Prefecture.

Demographics
Per Japanese census data, the population of Kihoku has decreased steadily since the 1950s.

History
The area of Kihoku was part of ancient Iyo Province. During the Edo period, the area was part of the holdings of Uwajima Domain ruled by the Date clan from their seat at Uwajima Castle. The villages of Yoshida and Asahi (旭村) were established with the creation of the modern municipalities system on October 1, 1889. Asahi was raised to town status on November 10, 1941 and was renamed Chikanaga (近永町). Chikanaga merged with the neighboring villages of Yoshifuji, Aiji, Izumi and Mishima to form the town of Hiromi (広見町) on March 31, 1955. On January 1, 2005 Hiromi and the village of Hiyoshi (日吉村) merged to form the town of Kihoku.

Government
Kihoku has a mayor-council form of government with a directly elected mayor and a unicameral town council of 12 members. Kihoku, together with Uwajima and Matsuno, contributes four members to the Ehime Prefectural Assembly. In terms of national politics, the town is part of Ehime 4th district of the lower house of the Diet of Japan.

Economy
Forestry and agriculture are the main industries in Kihoku; however, forestry is in decline. Agriculture is dominated by rice cultivation. Additional products include Shiitake mushrooms, chestnuts, yuzu, chickens, bancha tea, wasabi, melons, strawberries, Japanese yams, cucumbers, turmeric, milk, miso, trout, fish products, crabs, wood products and pottery.

Kihoku residents are especially proud of their pheasant meat, which is a town delicacy. In addition to pheasant meat, pheasant sake is also produced. One of the main highlights of the Dechikonka festival is the massive pheasant nabemono, or pheasant stew, which is made for the festival and given away.

Education
Kihoku has six public elementary schools and two public middle schools operated by the town government. The town has two public high schools operated by the Ehime Prefectural Board of Education.

Railways
Shikoku Railway Company - Yodo Line
 * Izume - Chikanaga - Fukata

Local attractions

 * Jōmon Ruins — The remains of a 3,000-year-old Jōmon Period community are located near the eastern section of the Hiromi River. The ruins are composed of a small formation of stones, which are protected by an enclosure and have been designated as a historical site.
 * Narukawa Valley — A valley in the southwestern part of the town popular for its beautiful nature. The area offers a multitude of activities, including camping, fishing and hiking. In summer there is a sōmen noodle shop. There is also a scenic lodge that serves pheasant dishes, and an onsen.
 * Morinosankakuboushi — A roadside station in Hiromi with a large statue of an oni, named "Onioumaru (鬼王丸)". The shops sell seasonal produce as well as local specialities and products such as miso paste, pheasant, and boar curry. Hosts farmer's markets and other local events. There is also a restaurant that serves pheasant and other dishes.
 * Yumesanchi — A roadside station in Hiyoshi with a large statue of a demon, named "Yukihime (柚鬼媛)", who is Onioumaru's mother. Sells locally grown rice, vegetables, local souvenirs, and food products. Hosts farmer's markets and other local events. There is also a restaurant and bakery.
 * Yasumoridō Sōmennagashi —"Yasumori River Sōmen Restaurant" operates from the middle of July to the end of August each summer. The primary attraction here is the nagashi sōmen restaurant, where clumps of sōmen are sent flowing down a metal trough for customers to pluck out with their chopsticks. The noodles are then dipped in a sauce seasoned with yuzu, green onions, sesame, and other ingredients. Also at the restaurant are the Yasumorishōnyu Cave, a small cave which is very cool even during the hottest time of the year, and a small pond stocked with numerous trout for fishing.

Events

 * Dechikonka — The town's main annual festival. In the town's old dialect it means "Won't you come out?" The festival usually takes place on the third weekend of October, starting off with taiko performances Saturday evening. On Sunday there are various dance and musical performances on a bandstand by local groups, as well as a performance by a nationally-known singer or entertainer. As in most Japanese festivals there are also numerous vendors and stalls selling a variety of food and other products.
 * Kawanobori Ekiden — "River-climbing Relay," an annual event at the beginning of August where teams of runners race up the Hiromi River. Although running in the shallows is permitted, runners must land in the water with every step, making the race very slippery and difficult. There is also a "tetsujin," "iron-man," race for individual participants.
 * Buzaemon Furusato Festival — The largest festival held in Hiyoshi. Takes place in mid-August to commemorate a local revolt in 1793 and its leader, Buzaemon. A costumed procession travels through the town to reenact the revolt, and the festival involves bon odori dancing, taiko drumming, and fireworks.

Notable people from Kihoku

 * Tadashi Hyōdō, one of the first female pilots in Japan, and the first Japanese woman to attain a pilot's license.

title: Kihoku, Ehime


text:
Ciudad Madera

Madera, also known as Ciudad Madera, is a town and seat of the municipality of Madera in the mountains of the northwestern Mexican state of Chihuahua. As of 2010, the city of Madera had a population of 15,447, up from 15,267 as of 2005.

It is a logging town, located in the mountains and the lumber industry is still very important. Madera is Spanish for "wood", and there used to be a large U.S. company with large lumber mills, there is still a section of the city called "barrio americano" where some American-style wooden houses still survive. New manufacturing industries have created new employment for the residents.

It is at 2,112 metres (6,929 ft) above sea level and was founded in 1906.

The town is located 276 kilometres northwest of the state capital, Chihuahua, and 536 km southwest of Ciudad Juárez on the U.S. border.

History
Madera has been the starting point of the Cabalgata Binacional Villista (see cavalcade).

Madera is also the place where on September 23, 1965, a guerrilla attack on the military took place; this gave the name to the "Liga 23 de Septiembre," an urban socialist guerrilla group that took the name to commemorate what they considered their martyrs. Chihuahua governor Práxedes Giner Durán ordered the bodies to be buried in a mass grave.

Religion
From 25 April 1966 it was the seat of the Territorial Prelature of Madera; after that was promoted to Diocese of Cuauhtémoc-Madera, with a cathedral in its new see Cuauhtémoc, Madera's San Pedro church, dedicated to Saint Peter, was given the status of co-cathedral.

Geography
Madera is surrounded by the great Sierra Madre mountains (southern stretch of the Rocky Mountains in Canada and USA).

Climate
Madera’s high altitude gives it a subtropical highland climate (Köppen climate classification: Cwb), characterised by warm, wet summers and dry winters with cold nights. Frost occurs most mornings from October to April, but daytime temperatures rise to double digits Celsius. Snow falls on about 7 days per year on average (more often on mountain peaks).

title: Ciudad Madera


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grutness

Grutness
(44/0/1) ending 04:27 15 February 2005 (UTC)

Grutness has been a tireless contributor of articles on New Zealand geography since he joined Wikipedia in October 2004. He has gone on to produce articles on Pacific Island geography since, and is now sorting out Canada. He's played a major role in sorting out categorisation in these areas, and in organising geo-stubs. In Danny's second competition, he entered four articles. Grutness has an edit count of almost 13,000.-gadfium 04:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I humbly accept Gadfium's kind nomination! Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 06:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Neutralitytalk 04:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) gadfium 04:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong contributor. Antandrus 04:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Rhobite 05:37, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I had been watching, wondering when Gadfium would re-extend the offer. 'Glad the wait is over.  SWAdair | Talk  06:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Slowking Man 07:59, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Jordi·✆ 08:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Onco p53 09:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Noisy | Talk 09:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) jni 11:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) utcursch 11:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Joyous 11:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Rje 15:11, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) I remember reading your articles as a judge in Danny's contests, and was sufficiently impressed. You will make a good admin. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:06, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
 * 16) Definitely yes -- Ferkelparade π 19:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Sure. - RedWordSmith 22:52, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Wow. 13,000 edits! Definitely support. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  22:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Wow. Why isn't he an admin already?  Bart133 (t) 00:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Very much so. — Dan | Talk 03:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) He has not only organized the stub situation, but managed to gently cajole me into using the new more specific geo-stubs, despite my grumpiness about being slowed by having to learn a bunch of new stuff--clearly not only a good contributor and organizer, but also good people skills; excellent combination for an admin. Niteowlneils 05:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Michael Snow 06:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Strong support. --JuntungWu 17:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Golbez 18:04, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Francs2000 | Talk 02:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Kingturtle 04:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 27)  AllyUnion (talk) 06:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Apollomelos 08:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Very much "yes" from me. —Stormie 11:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) I was very impressed (well) with Grutness participation in Danny's Contest. muriel@pt 11:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Wonderful editor.  — MikeX (talk) 12:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Well, obviously. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 16:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Wonderful editor. Strong support. Darwinek 17:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) First class. Made a couple of small early mistakes and learned from them and never looked back. Great example of international cooperation. Robin Patterson 21:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) One of the few, the fine, the crucial. Phils 23:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Most definitely support. Blank Verse / ∅  14:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Support, not that you need another though. Keep up the good work, and cite your sources :) - Taxman 14:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) R yan!  |  Talk  17:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Convinced me! User:Marine 69-71
 * 40) Yes. -- Hoary 02:35, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * 41) Nichalp 18:43, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Ganymead 19:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) older ≠ wiser 20:50, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Will support at 14,000. --Golbez 18:04, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) Yes, I'm kidding.
 * 2) He accepted humbly. He shouldnt be humble. muriel@pt 11:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) I am also kidding

Neutral
 * 1) A question: The Wikipedia community expect to trust their administrators. Can we trust you (Grutness) to only make editing changes by your editorial judgement, and not as an artefact of your browser configuration, and to refrain from editing Wikipedia if you are ever not in a position to guarantee this? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is true that I have had problems with Eastern European character sets, due to unsafe characters. Since learning of this problem I have, where necessary, been changing these characters (which do cause problems with my browser) to unicode characters which should be safe for all browsers. Where even that is not possible, I try to find another editor whom I know to be working on articles of this type, and ask him or her to make the necessary changes that I wish to see made. See, for example, my message to User:Romanm on his user page. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]]

Comments
 * (from Grutness) The edit-count looks very high, and many of them are minor (as is understandable, since I'm working on categorisation and stubsorting). I have contributed some 500 new articles, though. I'm also a frequent contributed to the discussions on and . One thing that could count against me is that I know little of the mechanics of HTML and the like (although I'm a willing learner).

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Well, I've already been involved in finding and reverting vandalism, and have acted once or twice as a form of referee (or at least calming influence) during edit wars. I believe that both of those tasks would be easier as a sysop. I'd also probably pester people at the Village Pump (technical) page less about fixing minor problems I've found!
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Frankly, the New Zealand geography section was a bit of a mess before I started sorting it, and I think I played a large part in getting it running more smoothly. Also, two months ago there were 4200 geo-stubs in one general category. Now all but 150 of them have been put in country-specific subcategories, making them easier for editors to find (this task accomplished with the help of others, notably users Aranel and Romanm). In terms of individual articles, I still feel happy about the four I entered in Danny's second contest.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. I've been in a few minor conflicts, and found that compromise is the best way most of the time. If you like, to put it in terms, if one party says "keep" and another says "delete", then "rewrite" or "redirect" will often keep both parties moderately happy. I must admit there are occasions when I'm a bit hard-headed, but in those cases a few hours away from the keyboard usually allows me to see the light!

Grutness|hello? 06:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mooshnai

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mooshnai
Unverifiable, non-notable, and/or prank. Zero hits for Mooshnai and zero hits for "Darq Saga". Orphan, and sole contrib of an anon, so unlikely to get any further info or references. Niteowlneils 04:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Well-detailed, but a hoax. - Lucky 6.9 17:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP not the place for fiction, however well-written. Wyss 20:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-07/Arbitration report

The Arbitration Committee wrapped up a busy week by confirming the imposition of a ban on Wik (also known as Gzornenplatz) for running a vandalbot in May and June of 2004. Along with closing three other cases, the Committee disposed of more than half its remaining caseload.

Gzornenplatz is Wik
In a decision issued early on Monday, the Arbitration Committee pronounced that Gzornenplatz and Wik were the same person and should be banned. The ruling cited only the vandalbot as the reason for the ban, without mentioning the earlier arbitration cases brought against both accounts for engaging in edit wars without adequate discussion. Both accounts were quickly blocked after the ruling was made.

This marked the culmination of several months during which many people became increasingly convinced that Gzornenplatz and Wik were identical, but until recently no one had taken action on the matter. Even when it came up in previous requests for arbitration involving Gzornenplatz, the arbitrators had avoided addressing the question directly.

Part of the uncertainty in the case was whether statements by Jimbo Wales last June should be interpreted to mean that Wik was banned indefinitely for the vandalbot attack. Wales had announced that Wik claimed responsibility for the vandalbot, and said, "In my opinion, when a banned user makes direct threats of a "war" including elaborate proclamations as to how he's going to use a large number of proxies, sock puppets, whatever, it would be best for me to firmly and immediately declare that this is an extraordinary case and that the ban is extended indefinitely until appeal is made to the arbitration committee."

After consulting with Wales via IRC, the arbitrators determined that this amounted to a hard ban on Wik. They extended the ban to Gzornenplatz as well, based on technical evidence provided by the developers that the two were the same person, and also finding that they had "on numerous occasions exhibited identical editing habits."

Some users expressed dissatisfaction that Wales and the Arbitrators had dallied for so long on the issue of Gzornenplatz being Wik, when it had been increasingly obvious to those involved. John Kenney was particularly vocal about this, asking why the treatment of Gzornenplatz suddenly shifted, when neither the Arbitration Committee's knowledge of the facts nor the actual situation with Gzornenplatz had changed.

In response, Arbitrator mav explained, "The reason this has been brought up now is due to the fact that different factions in the community are fighting over it" (see archived story). The ruling also cited an explanation from Wales that "I long suspected this was Wik, and ignored evidence to the contrary out of a spirit of goodwill and a hope for reform."

The arbitrators did note, citing the precedent of Michael, that "all banned editors are theoretically redeemable." The possibility of an appeal using non-Wikipedia channels of communication was left open.

Other cases
In other matters, the Arbitration Committee started off its week last Monday by ruling that Antifinnugor was banned from editing on Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages for one year, for failing to work cooperatively with other editors. He was also placed on personal attack parole for the same length of time. By Thursday he had already been given a 24-hour block for violating the order when he reinstated a fork of the Finno-Ugric languages article that had been redirected.

The next case to be resolved, with a decision issued on Thursday, resulted in equal bans on different grounds for Adraeus and Vfp15. Adraeus received a one-month ban for several personal attacks during the dispute, with the arbitrators particularly noting some attacks directed at Neigel von Teighen, an AMA advocate who had attempted to intervene and help represent Vfp15's interests.

Meanwhile, Vfp15 was banned for a month for disrupting the Charles Darwin article, based on failing to work with other editors and seek consensus about the inclusion of a trivia item (Darwin's shared birthdate with Abraham Lincoln). Arbitrator David Gerard commented, "Most ArbCom cases revolve around someone doing something stupid, but this one is a particularly stupid case."

On Sunday, the Arbitrators closed their one remaining holdover case from last year, involving Chuck F. Chuck F had previously been under a temporary injunction in the Reithy case, and the Arbitrators found that he had blatantly violated the injunction. For this, as well as vandalism and attempts to evade previous blocks, they imposed a two-month ban. To address underlying complaints about revert warring and failure to abide by the Neutral point of view policy, the ruling also banned him from articles "related to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology," imposed a limit of one revert per day on an article, and added a general parole for three months.

These actions left the Arbitration Committee with only two pending cases, both opened within the past two weeks. Jayjg congratulated the Arbitrators on the mailing list for clearing their backlog.

New Mediation Committee chair
Also, in other dispute resolution news, Jwrosenzweig was installed Sunday as the new chair of the Mediation Committee, after two weeks had passed with no objections to his nomination (see archived story).


text:
Talk:Petition to reschedule cannabis

Okay, now it's okay to delete. I got rid of the red links.

title: Talk:Petition to reschedule cannabis


text:
Underwater habitat

Underwater habitats are underwater structures in which people can live for extended periods and carry out most of the basic human functions of a 24-hour day, such as working, resting, eating, attending to personal hygiene, and sleeping. In this context, 'habitat' is generally used in a narrow sense to mean the interior and immediate exterior of the structure and its fixtures, but not its surrounding marine environment. Most early underwater habitats lacked regenerative systems for air, water, food, electricity, and other resources. However, some underwater habitats allow for these resources to be delivered using pipes, or generated within the habitat, rather than manually delivered.

An underwater habitat has to meet the needs of human physiology and provide suitable environmental conditions, and the one which is most critical is breathing air of suitable quality. Others concern the physical environment (pressure, temperature, light, humidity), the chemical environment (drinking water, food, waste products, toxins) and the biological environment (hazardous sea creatures, microorganisms, marine fungi). Much of the science covering underwater habitats and their technology designed to meet human requirements is shared with diving, diving bells, submersible vehicles and submarines, and spacecraft.

Numerous underwater habitats have been designed, built and used around the world since as early as the start of the 1960s, either by private individuals or by government agencies. They have been used almost exclusively for research and exploration, but, in recent years, at least one underwater habitat has been provided for recreation and tourism. Research has been devoted particularly to the physiological processes and limits of breathing gases under pressure, for aquanaut, as well as astronaut training, and for research on marine ecosystems.

Terminology and scope
The term 'underwater habitat' is used for a range of applications, including some structures that are not exclusively underwater while operational, but all include a significant underwater component. There may be some overlap between underwater habitats and submersible vessels, and between structures which are completely submerged and those which have some part extending above the surface when in operation.

In 1970 G. Haux stated: "At this point it must also be said that it is not easy to sharply define the term 'underwater laboratory'. One may argue whether Link's diving chamber which was used in the 'Man-in-Sea I' project, may be called an underwater laboratory. But the Bentos 300, planned by the Soviets, is not so easy to classify as it has a certain ability to maneuver. Therefore, the possibility exists that this diving hull is classified elsewhere as a submersible. Well, a certain generosity can not hurt."

Comparison with surface based diving operations
In an underwater habitat, observations can be carried out at any hour to study the behavior of both diurnal and nocturnal organisms. Habitats in shallow water can be used to accommodate divers from greater depths for a major portion of the decompression required. This principle was used in the project Conshelf II. Saturation dives provide the opportunity to dive with shorter intervals than possible from the surface, and risks associated with diving and ship operations at night can be minimized. In the habitat La Chalupa, 35% of all dives took place at night. To perform the same amount of useful work diving from the surface instead of from La Chalupa, an estimated eight hours of decompression time would have been necessary every day.

However, maintaining an underwater habitat is much more expensive and logistically difficult than diving from the surface. It also restricts the diving to a much more limited area.

Pressure modes
Underwater habitats are designed to operate in two fundamental modes.
 * 1) Open to ambient pressure via a moon pool, meaning the air pressure inside the habitat equals underwater pressure at the same level, such as SEALAB. This makes entry and exit easy as there is no physical barrier other than the moon pool water surface. Living in ambient pressure habitats is a form of saturation diving, and return to the surface will require appropriate decompression.
 * 2) Closed to the sea by hatches, with internal air pressure less than ambient pressure and at or closer to atmospheric pressure; entry or exit to the sea requires passing through hatches and an airlock. Decompression may be necessary when entering the habitat after a dive. This would be done in the airlock.

A third or composite type has compartments of both types within the same habitat structure and connected via airlocks, such as Aquarius.

Components
Habitat: The air filled underwater structure in which the occupants live and work Life support buoy (LSB): The floating structure moored to the habitat which provides energy, air, fresh water, telecommunication and telemetry. The connection between Habitat and LSB is made by a multi-core umbilical cable in which all hoses and cables are combined. Personnel transfer capsule (PTC): Closed diving bell, a submersible decompression chamber which can be lowered to the habitat to transfer aquanauts back to the surface under pressure, where they can be transferred while still under pressure to a decompression chamber on the support vessel for safer decompression. Deck decompression chamber (DDC): A decompression chamber on the support vessel. Diving support vessel (DSV): Surface vessel used in support of diving operations Shore base station: A shore establishment where operations can be monitored. It may include a diving control base, workshops and accommodation.

Excursions
An excursion is a visit to the environment outside the habitat. Diving excursions can be done on scuba or umbilical supply, and are limited upwards by decompression obligations while on the excursion, and downwards by decompression obligations while returning from the excursion.

Open circuit or rebreather scuba have the advantage of mobility, but it is critical to the safety of a saturation diver to be able to get back to the habitat, as surfacing directly from saturation is likely to cause severe and probably fatal decompression sickness. For this reason, in most of the programs, signs and guidelines are installed around the habitat in order to prevent divers from getting lost.

Umbilicals or airline hoses are safer, as the breathing gas supply is unlimited, and the hose is a guideline back to the habitat, but they restrict freedom of movement and can become tangled.

The horizontal extent of excursions is limited to the scuba air supply or the length of the umbilical. The distance above and below the level of the habitat are also limited and depend on the depth of the habitat and the associated saturation of the divers. The open space available for exits thus describes the shape of a vertical axis cylinder centred on the habitat.

As an example, in the Tektite I program, the habitat was located at a depth of 13.1 m. Exits were limited vertically to a depth of 6.7 m (6.4 m above the habitat) and 25.9 m (12.8 m below the habitat level) and were horizontally limited to a distance of 549 m from the Habitat.

History
The history of underwater habitats follows on from the previous development of diving bells and caissons, and as long exposure to a hyperbaric environment results in saturation of the body tissues with the ambient inert gases, it is also closely connected to the history of saturation diving. The original inspiration for the development of underwater habitats was the work of George F. Bond, who investigated the physiological and medical effects of hyperbaric saturation in the Genesis project between 1957 and 1963.

Edwin Albert Link started the Man-in-the-Sea project in 1962, which exposed divers to hyperbaric conditions underwater in a diving chamber, culminating in the first aquanaut, Robert Sténuit, spending over 24 hours at a depth of 200 ft.

Also inspired by Genesis, Jacques-Yves Cousteau conducted the first Conshelf project in France in 1962 where two divers spent a week at a depth of 10 m, followed in 1963 by Conshelf II at 11 m for a month and 25 m for two weeks.

In June 1964, Robert Sténuit and Jon Lindberg spent 49 hours at 126m in Link's Man-in-the-Sea II project. The habitat was an inflatable structure called SPID.

This was followed by a series of underwater habitats where people stayed for several weeks at great depths. Sealab II had a usable area of 63 m2, and was used at a depth of more than 60 m. Several countries built their own habitats at much the same time and mostly began experimenting in shallow waters. In Conshelf III six aquanauts lived for several weeks at a depth of 100 m. In Germany, the Helgoland UWL was the first habitat to be used in cold water, the Tektite stations were more spacious and technically more advanced. The most ambitious project was Sealab III, a rebuild of Sealab II, which was to be operated at 186 m. When one of the divers died in the preparatory phase due to human error, all similar projects of the United States Navy were terminated. Internationally, except for the La Chalupa Research Laboratory the large-scale projects were carried out, but not extended, so that the subsequent habitats were smaller and designed for shallower depths. The race for greater depths, longer missions and technical advances seemed to have come to an end.

For reasons such as lack of mobility, lack of self-sufficiency, shifting focus to space travel and transition to surface-based saturation systems, the interest in underwater habitats decreased, resulting in a noticeable decrease in major projects after 1970. In the mid eighties, the Aquarius habitat was built in the style of Sealab and Helgoland and is still in operation today.

Man-in-the-Sea I and II
The first aquanaut was Robert Stenuit in the Man-in-the-Sea I project run by Edwin A. Link. On 6 September 1962, he spent 24 hours and 15 minutes at a depth of 61 m in a steel cylinder, doing several excursions. In June 1964 Stenuit and Jon Lindbergh spent 49 hours at a depth of 126 m in the Man-in-the-Sea II program. The habitat consisted of a submerged portable inflatable dwelling (SPID).

Conshelf I, II and III
Conshelf, short for Continental Shelf Station, was a series of undersea living and research stations undertaken by Jacques Cousteau's team in the 1960s. The original design was for five of these stations to be submerged to a maximum depth of 300 m over the decade; in reality only three were completed with a maximum depth of 100 m. Much of the work was funded in part by the French petrochemical industry, who, along with Cousteau, hoped that such colonies could serve as base stations for the future exploitation of the sea. Such colonies did not find a productive future, however, as Cousteau later repudiated his support for such exploitation of the sea and put his efforts toward conservation. It was also found in later years that industrial tasks underwater could be more efficiently performed by undersea robot devices and men operating from the surface or from smaller lowered structures, made possible by a more advanced understanding of diving physiology. Still, these three undersea living experiments did much to advance man's knowledge of undersea technology and physiology, and were valuable as "proof of concept" constructs. They also did much to publicize oceanographic research and, ironically, usher in an age of ocean conservation through building public awareness. Along with Sealab and others, it spawned a generation of smaller, less ambitious yet longer-term undersea habitats primarily for marine research purposes.

Conshelf I (Continental Shelf Station), constructed in 1962, was the first inhabited underwater habitat. Developed by Cousteau to record basic observations of life underwater, Conshelf I was submerged in 10 m of water near Marseille, and the first experiment involved a team of two spending seven days in the habitat. The two oceanauts, Albert Falco and Claude Wesly, were expected to spend at least five hours a day outside the station, and were subject to daily medical exams.

Conshelf Two, the first ambitious attempt for men to live and work on the sea floor, was launched in 1963. In it, a half-dozen oceanauts lived 10 m down in the Red Sea off Sudan in a starfish-shaped house for 30 days. The undersea living experiment also had two other structures, one a submarine hangar that housed a small, two-man submarine named SP-350 Denise, often referred to as the "diving saucer" for its resemblance to a science fiction flying saucer, and a smaller "deep cabin" where two oceanauts lived at a depth of 30 m for a week. They were among the first to breathe heliox, a mixture of helium and oxygen, avoiding the normal nitrogen/oxygen mixture, which, when breathed under pressure, can cause narcosis. The deep cabin was also an early effort in saturation diving, in which the aquanauts' body tissues were allowed to become totally saturated by the helium in the breathing mixture, a result of breathing the gases under pressure. The necessary decompression from saturation was accelerated by using oxygen enriched breathing gases. They suffered no apparent ill effects.

The undersea colony was supported with air, water, food, power, all essentials of life, from a large support team above. Men on the bottom performed a number of experiments intended to determine the practicality of working on the sea floor and were subjected to continual medical examinations. Conshelf II was a defining effort in the study of diving physiology and technology, and captured wide public appeal due to its dramatic "Jules Verne" look and feel. A Cousteau-produced feature film about the effort (World Without Sun) was awarded an Academy Award for Best Documentary the following year.

Conshelf III was initiated in 1965. Six divers lived in the habitat at 102.4 m in the Mediterranean Sea near the Cap Ferrat lighthouse, between Nice and Monaco, for three weeks. In this effort, Cousteau was determined to make the station more self-sufficient, severing most ties with the surface. A mock oil rig was set up underwater, and divers successfully performed several industrial tasks.

SEALAB I, II and III
SEALAB I, II, and III were experimental underwater habitats developed by the United States Navy in the 1960s to prove the viability of saturation diving and humans living in isolation for extended periods of time. The knowledge gained from the SEALAB expeditions helped advance the science of deep sea diving and rescue, and contributed to the understanding of the psychological and physiological strains humans can endure. The three SEALABs were part of the United States Navy Genesis Project. Preliminary research work was undertaken by George F. Bond. Bond began investigations in 1957 to develop theories about saturation diving. Bond's team exposed rats, goats, monkeys, and human beings to various gas mixtures at different pressures. By 1963 they had collected enough data to test the first SEALAB habitat.

Tektite I and II
The Tektite underwater habitat was constructed by General Electric and was funded by NASA, the Office of Naval Research and the United States Department of the Interior.

On 15 February 1969, four Department of the Interior scientists (Ed Clifton, Conrad Mahnken, Richard Waller and John VanDerwalker) descended to the ocean floor in Great Lameshur Bay in the United States Virgin Islands to begin an ambitious diving project dubbed "Tektite I". By 18 March 1969, the four aquanauts had established a new world's record for saturated diving by a single team. On 15 April 1969, the aquanaut team returned to the surface after performing 58 days of marine scientific studies. More than 19 hours of decompression were needed to safely return the team to the surface.

Inspired in part by NASA's budding Skylab program and an interest in better understanding the effectiveness of scientists working under extremely isolated living conditions, Tektite was the first saturation diving project to employ scientists rather than professional divers.

The term tektite generally refers to a class of meteorites formed by extremely rapid cooling. These include objects of celestial origins that strike the sea surface and come to rest on the bottom (note project Tektite's conceptual origins within the U.S space program).

The Tektite II missions were carried out in 1970. Tektite II comprised ten missions lasting 10 to 20 days with four scientists and an engineer on each mission. One of these missions included the first all-female aquanaut team, led by Dr. Sylvia Earle. Other scientists participating in the all-female mission included Dr. Renate True of Tulane University, as well as Ann Hartline and Alina Szmant, graduate students at Scripps Institute of Oceanography. The fifth member of the crew was Margaret Ann Lucas, a Villanova University engineering graduate, who served as Habitat Engineer. The Tektite II missions were the first to undertake in-depth ecological studies.

Tektite II included 24 hour behavioral and mission observations of each of the missions by a team of observers from the University of Texas at Austin. Selected episodic events and discussions were videotaped using cameras in the public areas of the habitat. Data about the status, location and activities of each of the 5 members of each mission was collected via key punch data cards every six minutes during each mission. This information was collated and processed by BellComm and was used for the support of papers written about the research concerning the relative predictability of behavior patterns of mission participants in constrained, dangerous conditions for extended periods of time, such as those that might be encountered in crewed spaceflight. The Tektite habitat was designed and built by General Electric Space Division at the Valley Forge Space Technology Center in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. The Project Engineer who was responsible for the design of the habitat was Brooks Tenney, Jr. Tenney also served as the underwater Habitat Engineer on the International Mission, the last mission on the Tektite II project. The Program Manager for the Tektite projects at General Electric was Dr. Theodore Marton.

Hydrolab
Hydrolab was constructed in 1966 at a cost of $60,000 ($560,000 in today's currency) and used as a research station from 1970. The project was in part funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Hydrolab could house four people. Approximately 180 Hydrolab missions were conducted—100 missions in The Bahamas during the early to mid-1970s, and 80 missions off Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, from 1977 to 1985. These scientific missions are chronicled in the Hydrolab Journal. Dr. William Fife spent 28 days in saturation, performing physiology experiments on researchers such as Dr. Sylvia Earle.

The habitat was decommissioned in 1985 and placed on display at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., the habitat is located at the NOAA Auditorium and Science Center at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Edalhab
The Engineering Design and Analysis Laboratory Habitat was a horizontal cylinder 2.6 m high, 3.3 m long and weighing 14 tonnes was built by students of the Engineering Design and Analysis Laboratory in the US at a cost of $20,000 or $187,000 in today's currency. From 26 April 1968, four students spent 48 hours and 6 minutes in this habitat in Alton Bay, New Hampshire. Two further missions followed to 12.2 m.

In the 1972 Edalhab II Florida Aquanaut Research Expedition experiments, the University of New Hampshire and NOAA used nitrox as a breathing gas. In the three FLARE missions, the habitat was positioned off Miami at a depth of 13.7 m. The conversion to this experiment increased the weight of the habitat to 23 tonnes.

BAH I
BAH I (for Biological Institute Helgoland ) had a length of 6 m and a diameter of 2 m. It weighed about 20 tons and was intended for a crew of two people. The first mission in September 1968 with Jürgen Dorschel and Gerhard Lauckner at 10 m depth in the Baltic Sea lasted 11 days. In June 1969, a one-week flat-water mission took place in Lake Constance. In attempting to anchor the habitat at 47 m, the structure was flooded with the two divers in it and sank to the seabed. It was decided to lift it with the two divers according to the necessary decompression profile and nobody was harmed. BAH I provided valuable experience for the much larger underwater laboratory Helgoland. In 2003 it was taken over as a technical monument by the Technical University of Clausthal-Zellerfeld and in the same year went on display at the Nautineum Stralsund on Kleiner Dänholm island.

Helgoland
The Helgoland underwater laboratory (UWL) is an underwater habitat. It was built in Lübeck, Germany in 1968, and was the first of its kind in the world built for use in colder waters.

The 14 meter long, 7 meter diameter UWL allowed divers to spend several weeks under water using saturation diving techniques. The scientists and technicians would live and work in the laboratory, returning to it after every diving session. At the end of their stay they decompressed in the UWL, and could resurface without decompression sickness.

The UWL was used in the waters of the North and Baltic Seas and, in 1975, on Jeffreys Ledge, in the Gulf of Maine off the coast of New England in the United States. At the end of the 1970s it was decommissioned and in 1998 donated to the German Oceanographic Museum where it can be visited at the Nautineum, a branch of the museum in Stralsund.

Bentos-300
Bentos-300 (Bentos minus 300) was a maneuverable Soviet submersible with a diver lockout facility that could be stationed at the seabed. It was able to spend two weeks underwater at a maximum depth of 300m with about 25 people on board. Although announced in 1966, it had its first deployment in 1977. [1] There were two vessels in the project. After Bentos-300 sank in the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk in 1992, several attempts to recover it failed. In November 2011 it was cut up and recovered for scrap in the following six months.

Progetto Abissi
The Italian Progetto Abissi habitat, also known as La Casa in Fondo al Mare (Italian for The House at the Bottom of the Sea), was designed by the diving team Explorer Team Pellicano, consisted of three cylindrical chambers and served as a platform for a television game show. It was deployed for the first time in September 2005 for ten days, and six aquanauts lived in the complex for 14 days in 2007.

MarineLab
The MarineLab underwater laboratory was the longest serving seafloor habitat in history, having operated continuously from 1984 to 2018 under the direction of aquanaut Chris Olstad at Key Largo, Florida. The seafloor laboratory has trained hundreds of individuals in that time, featuring an extensive array of educational and scientific investigations from United States military investigations to pharmaceutical development.

Beginning with a project initiated in 1973, MarineLab, then known as Midshipman Engineered & Designed Undersea Systems Apparatus (MEDUSA), was designed and built as part of an ocean engineering student program at the United States Naval Academy under the direction of Dr. Neil T. Monney. In 1983, MEDUSA was donated to the Marine Resources Development Foundation (MRDF), and in 1984 was deployed on the seafloor in John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Key Largo, Florida. The 8 by shore-supported habitat supports three or four persons and is divided into a laboratory, a wet-room, and a 1.7 m transparent observation sphere. From the beginning, it has been used by students for observation, research, and instruction. In 1985, it was renamed MarineLab and moved to the 30 ft mangrove lagoon at MRDF headquarters in Key Largo at a depth of 8.3 m with a hatch depth of 20 ft. The lagoon contains artifacts and wrecks placed there for education and training. From 1993 to 1995, NASA used MarineLab repeatedly to study Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELLS). These education and research programs qualify MarineLab as the world's most extensively used habitat.

MarineLab was used as an integral part of the "Scott Carpenter, Man in the Sea" Program. In 2018 the habitat was retired and restored to its 1985 condition and is on display to the public at Marine Resources Development Foundation, Inc. Key Largo, Florida.

Aquarius
The Aquarius Reef Base is an underwater habitat located 5.4 miles (9 kilometers) off Key Largo in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. It is deployed on the ocean floor 62 ft below the surface and next to a deep coral reef named Conch Reef.

Aquarius is one of three undersea laboratories in the world dedicated to science and education. Two additional undersea facilities, also located in Key Largo, Florida, are owned and operated by Marine Resources Development Foundation. Aquarius was owned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and operated by the University of North Carolina–Wilmington until 2013 when Florida International University assumed operational control.

Florida International University (FIU) took ownership of Aquarius in October 2014. As part of the FIU Marine Education and Research Initiative, the Medina Aquarius Program is dedicated to the study and preservation of marine ecosystems worldwide and is enhancing the scope and impact of FIU on research, educational outreach, technology development, and professional training. At the heart of the program is the Aquarius Reef Base.

La Chalupa research laboratory
In the early 1970s, Ian Koblick, president of Marine Resources Development Foundation, developed and operated the La Chalupa research laboratory, which was the largest and most technologically advanced underwater habitat of its time. Koblick, who has continued his work as a pioneer in developing advanced undersea programs for ocean science and education, is the co-author of the book Living and Working in the Sea and is considered one of the foremost authorities on undersea habitation.

La Chalupa was operated off Puerto Rico. During the habitat's launching for its second mission, a steel cable wrapped around Dr. Lance Rennka's left wrist, shattering his arm, which he subsequently lost to gas gangrene.

In the mid-1980s La Chalupa was transformed into Jules' Undersea Lodge in Key Largo, Florida. Jules' co-developer, Dr. Neil Monney, formerly served as Professor and Director of Ocean Engineering at the U.S. Naval Academy, and has extensive experience as a research scientist, aquanaut and designer of underwater habitats.

La Chalupa was used as the primary platform for the Scott Carpenter Man in the Sea Program, an underwater analog to Space Camp. Unlike Space Camp, which utilizes simulations, participants performed scientific tasks while using actual saturation diving systems. This program, envisioned by Ian Koblick and Scott Carpenter, was directed by Phillip Sharkey with operational help of Chris Olstad. Also used in the program was the MarineLab Underwater Habitat, the submersible Sea Urchin (designed and built by Phil Nuytten), and an Oceaneering Saturation Diving system consisting of an on-deck decompression chamber and a diving bell. La Chalupa was the site of the first underwater computer chat, a session hosted on GEnie's Scuba RoundTable (the first non-computing related area on GEnie) by then-director Sharkey from inside the habitat. Divers from all over the world were able to direct questions to him and to Commander Carpenter.

Scott Carpenter Space Analog Station
The Scott Carpenter Space Analog Station was launched near Key Largo on six-week missions in 1997 and 1998. The station was a NASA project illustrating the analogous science and engineering concepts common to both undersea and space missions. During the missions, some 20 aquanauts rotated through the undersea station including NASA scientists, engineers and director James Cameron. The SCSAS was designed by NASA engineer Dennis Chamberland.

Lloyd Godson's Biosub
Lloyd Godson's Biosub was an underwater habitat, built in 2007 for a competition by Australian Geographic. The Biosub generated its own electricity (using a bike); its own water, using the Air2Water Dragon Fly M18 system; and its own air, using algae that produce O2. The algae were fed using the Cascade High School Advanced Biology Class Biocoil. The habitat shelf itself was constructed by Trygons Designs.

Galathée
The first underwater habitat built by Jacques Rougerie was launched and immersed on 4 August 1977. The unique feature of this semi-mobile habitat-laboratory is that it can be moored at any depth between 9 and 60 metres, which gives it the capability of phased integration in the marine environment. This habitat therefore has a limited impact on the marine ecosystem and is easy to position. Galathée was experienced by Jacques Rougerie himself.

Aquabulle
Launched for the first time in March 1978, this underwater shelter suspended in midwater (between 0 and 60 metres) is a mini scientific observatory 2.8 metres high by 2.5 metres in diameter. The Aquabulle, created and experienced by Jacques Rougerie, can accommodate three people for a period of several hours and acts as an underwater refuge. A series of Aquabulles were later built and some are still being used by laboratories.

Hippocampe
This underwater habitat, created by a French architect, Jacques Rougerie, was launched in 1981 to act as a scientific base suspended in midwater using the same method as Galathée. Hippocampe can accommodate 2 people on saturation dives up to a depth of 12 metres for periods of 7 to 15 days, and was also designed to act as a subsea logistics base for the offshore industry.

Ithaa undersea restaurant
Ithaa (Dhivehi for mother of pearl) is the world's only fully glazed underwater restaurant and is located in the Conrad Maldives Rangali Island hotel. It is accessible via a corridor from above the water and is open to the atmosphere, so there is no need for compression or decompression procedures. Ithaa was built by M.J. Murphy Ltd, and has an unballasted mass of 175 tonnes.

Red Sea Star
The "Red Sea Star" restaurant in Eilat, Israel, consisted of three modules; an entrance area above the water surface, a restaurant with 62 panorama windows 6 m under water and a ballast area below. The entire construction weighs about 6000 tons. The restaurant had a capacity of 105 people. It shut down in 2012.

Eilat’s Coral World Underwater Observatory
The first part of Eilat's Coral World Underwater Observatory was built in 1975 and it was expanded in 1991 by adding a second underwater observatory connected by a tunnel. The underwater complex is accessible via a footbridge from the shore and a shaft from above the water surface. The observation area is at a depth of approximately 12 m.

title: Underwater habitat