text:
Talk:Armanen runes

Nazi use of Armanen runes
it is both historically and factually incorrect to state that the Nazi's used the Armanen runes. Where runic insignia were used, it was based on the Elder Futhark and the runes created by Karl Maria Willigut. See both 'The Secret King' - Stephen Flowers and Michael Moynihan, and 'The Occult Roots of Nazism' by Nicholas Goodrich-Clark. Now undoubtedly some 'wise ass' is going to come along and change it back, include the inaccurate statement and tell me I've not followed the appropriate procedure. But I'll just come back to remove the line, because it's basically wrong.
 * In Modern Heathenry as well, use of the Armanen runes is isolated to white supremacists, neo-nazi Volkisch (or "Folkish") Heathens following von List's ideologies, and those very few who are ignorant of the runes' past and creation.2001:48F8:9004:11:69ED:5367:A861:1BF9 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Untitled
I guess it needs a picture to be relevant. Evertype 23:55, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * you are welcome to add it. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't got one. Evertype 11:33, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

 * well, there's the external link. We can either grab those and argue fair use, or draw them anew in a graphics program. . dab (ᛏ) 11:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? This system is quite obviously fake. If some bonehead thinks he wants to know the pictures, let him go find them. If you had any doubts, the symbol "os" solves them. First off, by the rules of mutation, the name "os" in the younger futhorc comes from an older "ans-". So to say the original rune was "os" is absurd. Secondly, he says it means "mouth". "Os" is Latin for "mouth". To have one piece with a Latin name is absurd. These can obviously have no authority.

 * Yes, List's system is (by scholarly standards) quite obviously fake; but it is his system. As for educating boneheads, I agree, it's a fruitless task; but on Wikipedia we try to educate more than just boneheads; and an awareness of List's ersatz rune-row can certainly help tiro runemasters distinguish between it and the real Elder and Younger Futhark.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

FK0071
I would be grateful if you could edit a little more responsibly, sparing me the effort to scrutinize all your additions. How can you state nonsense like The Armanen Runes have been very influential in German-speaking countries, where they are better known than the Elder Futhark (or common Germanic Futhark)? Also, However, the Armanen Runic system is making a big impact in the English speaking Western world. is pure subjective hype, and listing a couple of internet pages does nothing to substantiate it. You would need to say "in the opinion of XY, the Armanen runes still have significance in English-speaking occultist literature", citing some study by Dr. XY. dab (𒁳) 11:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * also, you seem to be very insistent to link to Nigel Pennick from all possible and impossible places. Are you, by any chance, him? dab (𒁳) 11:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * In regard to your edit summary, I never said that ‘The Armanen runes are also known as the Elder Futharkh’, I said that in German speaking countries they are better known than. I admit, I need to cite references which I am going to do now, by studies. 3 main studies are by Dr. Stephen E. Flowers Ph.D., professor Stefanie von Schnurbein, professor Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke B.A. and Nigel Pennick. I will cite these studies. I also admit that I need to edit my edits rather a lot, it looks a mess for others to review. No, I am not Nigel Pennick. I do take on board your suggestions Dab and want to get better at this. Thanks. Also, how is this new edit? FK0071a 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * oh, I apologize, this is my fault, I didn't read properly. I have serious doubts, however, that the Armanen runes are "better known than the Elder Futhark". I appreciate you are editing in good faith, and yes, it would be nice if you'd use the preview button a little bit more. Still, try not to get too carried away; your view seems to be largely that of esoteric or occultist literature, and that mostly doesn't translate to general statements. I'll grant you the Armanen runes may be more prominent than the Elder Futhark, in occultism, but not in any more general way. dab (𒁳) 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to strongly agree with user Dbachmann on the fact, that the claim The Armanen Runes have been very influential in German-speaking countries, where they are better known than the Elder Futhark (or common Germanic Futhark) is not correct. I don't know what some wannabe-sociologists/linguists/historians write in their publications in order to get some attention, but I am from Germany and here, the armanic runes are completely unknown unless you get into a discussion with experts for nazi-occultism. The Elder Futhark on the other hand is printed in a schoolbook of my father I possess and especially in heavy metal culture, the use of elder futhark is widely common in recent years. As an example take the cover art for the latest album of american band "Manowar", in the form it is marketed in Germany. The claim for relevance of Armanen Runes in neopagan circles in Germany is giving you a good chance to be labelled a nazi, because all non-fascist german culture ignores this unhistorical runeset completely. As inhabitant of a German-speaking country, I strongly suggest to remove the above said claim completely. 84.179.205.148 12:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know about the relative familiarity of different runic systems in Germany, but since List wasn't a Nazi (he died before the party was formed), it seems likely that only uninstructed minds would associate the Armanen system with Nazism. Having said that, I've been unable to find the source of the claim in Goodrick-Clarke (2003) and it seems possible that both of the references in that statement are spurious. That doesn't mean the claim itself is completely spurious. I have the following quotes from Futhark by Edred Thorsson/Stephen Flowers (1984) which would back it up in part:

 * "p.15: 'The personal force of List and that of his extensive and influential Armanen Orden was able to shape the runic theories of German magicians...from that time to the present day.'"

 * "p.16: 'Although [Karl Spiesberger] eliminates all the racist and völkisch elements, he retains the Armanen system of runes, which by 1955 had become almost 'traditional' in German circles!'"

 * He means, of course, in German rune-occultist circles. (And, both as a scholar and as an influential rune-magician, Flowers would know better than almost anybody.) With that qualification — quite a major qualification, I have to admit — I think the statement should now be retained. Just tweak it and source it to Flowers instead. I'll do it myself if nobody else fixes it sooner. Gnostrat 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It's me, the anonymous outraged poster from above again. ;) I think if the section would point out that this rune system is influental in occultism and would not make the hilarious claim that this rune system in general is better known than the elder futhark, I will be satisfied. I am not an expert on occultism, I own only Gardenstone's Germanische Magie (don't know if an english title exists), which uses the elder futhark. So I guess among rune magicians the Armanen Runes could be influental, as I lack knowledge in the field. Just make sure that nobody gets the idea that if you pick 1000 people from the street in Germany, the three of them who can read runes will know Armanen Runes rather than Elder Futhark. That just isn't correct. 141.76.40.139 06:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. Gnostrat 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that puts it in the correct context. 141.76.40.139 06:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

alright, now a formal point, instead of repeating full bibliographic references in footnotes again and again, you should do a "Literature" section, where you list each work once, and say merely "Pennick (1995), p. X" in the footnote, this is far less bulky. dab (𒁳) 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be misrepresenting your sources. You make a specific claim, and then link to like five websites as "references", without making clear what parts exactly your claim is taken from. Listing five books isn't good for backing up a claim as specific as "the Armanen runes are better known than the Elder Futhark". This claim either is on some page in some book, or it isn't, this isn't better than citing "see Congress Library" as your reference. Likewise, the claim that the runes are used in a "non-racist, pansophical" context is attributed to like five websites. Looking at Kasen's website, far from being "pansophical", the man is insisting on a "racial folk-soul" and "Holy Odinic vastlands". This is pure racialist-facist mysticism, and nothing like "eclectic pansophy". If one of these authors claimed such a thing, say which one, and where. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * See my comments above on some of these sources, which I've now replaced with verifiable references i.e. Flowers. The "pansophical" claim is also from Flowers, and refers to Spiesberger, not Kasen, so I've put that one back in. By the way, talk of "folk-souls" may be racial-mysticism but it isn't necessarily fascist mysticism : ) Gnostrat 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Kasen
FK, I have my doubts this V.O.L. Kasen person is notable and should be mentioned among other authors. All he seems do have published is a geocities page, this might as well be some random pseudonym. Geocities pages don't really count as references. dab (𒁳) 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Writers
I have removed the following line "(Named writers)....have also disclaimed political implications, although the runes are still used in a clearly folkish context." as it is unclear as to whether you are saying that

A) the aforementioned writers are still 'folkish' in their own thinking or

B) that, despite their efforts, the Armanen runes themselves remain 'folkish' in nature?

As you are commenting on the work of others I think it needs to be clear as to exactly what it is you are saying. 90.197.138.26 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rune list
Wouldn't it be better with an image/graph of the runes with List's names on them, instead of dead links to runes not very interesting in themselves? Would anyone bother making one? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Stress
'armanen or arm'anen? --Jugydmort (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I believe the stress lies on the initial vowel.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armanen runes. 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/20061209034417/http://www.magitech.com/~runes/ to http://www.magitech.com/~runes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209034417/http://www.magitech.com/~runes/ to http://www.magitech.com/~runes/

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) 06:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for encoding Armanen runes into the Unicode runic block.
I think the Armanen runes are worth to be added to the Unicode runic block. Because someone is interested in reviving runic script for Modern German language and they will be disappointed to find out that Unicode is missing some runic characters added to Armanen runes. They should be urgently added to the next version of Unicode (14.0, I think). 94.180.44.12 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and Wiligut Runes too, maybe Slavic Runes, etc. Ultima Thulean (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

 * ^^^irony. Nuttyskin (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Armanen runes


text:
Range (music)

In music, the range, or chromatic range, of a musical instrument is the distance from the lowest to the highest pitch it can play. For a singing voice, the equivalent is vocal range. The range of a musical part is the distance between its lowest and highest note.

Compass
Among British English speakers, and perhaps others, compass means the same thing as chromatic range—the interval between the lowest and highest note attainable by a voice or musical instrument.

Other ranges
The terms sounding range, written range,  designated range, duration range and dynamic range have specific meanings.

The sounding range refers to the pitches produced by an instrument, while the written range refers to the compass (span) of notes written in the sheet music, where the part is sometimes transposed for convenience. A piccolo, for example, typically has a sounding range one octave higher than its written range. The designated range is the set of notes the player should or can achieve while playing. All instruments have a designated range, and all pitched instruments have a playing range. Timbre, dynamics, and duration ranges are interrelated and one may achieve registral range at the expense of timbre. The designated range is thus the range in which a player is expected to have comfortable control of all aspects.

The duration range is the difference between the shortest and longest rhythm used. Dynamic range is the difference between the quietest and loudest volume of an instrument, part or piece of music.

Range limits
Although woodwind instruments and string instruments have no theoretical upper limit to their range (subject to practical limits), they generally cannot go below their designated range. Brass instruments, on the other hand, can play beyond their designated ranges. Notes lower than the brass instrument's designated range are called pedal tones. The playing range of a brass instrument depends on both the technical limitations of the instrument and the skill of the player.

Classical arrangements seldom make woodwind or brass instruments play beyond their designed range. String musicians play the bottom of their ranges very frequently, but the top of a string instrument's range is rather fuzzy, and it is unusual for a string player to exceed the designated range. It is quite rare for wind musicians to play the extremes of their instruments. The most common exception is that in many 20th century works, pedal tones are called for in bass trombones.

This chart uses standard numberings for octaves where middle C corresponds to C4. In the MIDI language middle C is referred to as MIDI note number 60.

The lowest note that a pipe organ can sound (with a true pipe) is C−1 (or CCCC), which is 8 Hz, below the range of human hearing and not visible on this chart. However, if acoustic combination (a note and its fifth) counts, the lowest note is C−2 (or CCCCC), which is 4 Hz.

In terms of recording and reproduction, many speakers have a low limit of around 40–60 Hz.

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

title: Range (music)


text:
Solanum mauritianum

Solanum mauritianum is a small tree or shrub native to South America, including Northern Argentina, Southern Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Its common names include earleaf nightshade (or "ear-leaved nightshade"), woolly nightshade, flannel weed, bugweed, tobacco weed, tobacco bush, wild tobacco and kerosene plant.

Description
The woolly nightshade is a multi-branched shrub or small tree between 2 and 4 meters high (but can grow up to 10 m tall in the right conditions). The plant has a strong odor and a life span of up to thirty years.

The simple, entire, ovate-elliptical large leaves are up to 40 centimeters long, 30 centimeters wide and are grey-green in color. The tip of the leaf is pointed, the base is wedge-shaped. They sit on 3 to 9 centimeters long petioles. They are dense, tomentose with hairy yellowish, long-stemmed, star-shaped trichomes.

Inflorescence
The slightly scented inflorescences are cymes of purple single flowers with a yellow center and sit on 15 centimeter long inflorescence axes. The sepals are fused into a 2 to 3 millimeter long calyx tube with 1 to 2 millimeter long lobes. The crown is star-shaped and measures between 1.5 and 2.5 centimeters. The five stamens sit on 1 millimeter long filaments. The anthers are egg-shaped and 2 to 3.5 millimeters long. The plant can flower year round but fruiting occurs in late spring to early summer.

After flowering, spherical yellow berries up to 2 cm in size with numerous, flattened seeds 1.5 to 2 millimeters long form.

As invasive species
Woolly nightshade has become a widespread invasive weed in the Azores Islands, Cook Islands, Fiji, Hawai‘i, Java, New Caledonia, Norfolk Island, Madeira Island, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Réunion Island, Mauritius, Madagascar, Australia, New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Vietnam, Philippines, continental Portugal, the US states of California and Florida and several sub-Saharan African countries.

It arrived in New Zealand in 1880, and is now well established and naturalized from Taupō northward. Because of its ability to affect human health and because of its aggressive and fast growing character it is illegal in all areas of New Zealand to sell, propagate, or distribute any part of the plant, under the National Pest Plant Accord. It is poisonous and handling the plants can cause irritation and nausea. The dust-like fine hairs from the plant can cause irritation to the throat, nose, eyes and skin.

This plant has also become naturalized in Australia, particularly on the east coast and in desert ranges (South Australia). In Australia this plant is known colloquially as "tobacco bush weed", although Australia possesses many species of Nicotiana, which are more correctly known as wild tobaccos. It is tolerant of many soil types and quickly becomes established around plantations, forest margins, scrub and open land.

In South Africa, biological control is being used in an attempt to manage Solanum mauritianum – the flowerbud weevil Anthonomus santacruzi is being used as a control agent. S. mauritianum is a favoured food plant of the African olive pigeon (Columba arquatrix), the Cape bulbul, the black-collared barbet, the red-eyed dove and red-whiskered bulbul. In New Zealand biological control with woolly nightshade lace bug (Gargaphia decoris) has been attempted since 2010.

Toxicity
It is alleged that all parts of the Solanum mauritianum plant are poisonous to humans, especially the unripe berries, and furthermore that human fatalities have resulted from the consumption of the berries, and cases of fatal poisoning in pigs and illness in cattle have been reported in Queensland.

However, mountain possums appear to eat it without ill effect, and stripping of bark, leaves, and terminal shoots has destroyed pure stands of S.mauritianum. Watt & Brandwijk state that horses, domestic chickens and all birds eat the fruit with impunity, and further state that no records of poisoning in children exist, casting doubt on contrary published accounts.

The main toxic compound is the alkaloid, solasodine, with the highest content in the unripe green berry (2–3.5% dry weight). Solauricine, solauricidine, and solasodamine have also been found in Solanum mauritianum.

Synonyms
The name Solanum mauritianum was applied by Blanco to S. erianthum and by Willdenow based on Roth to S. sisymbriifolium.

In addition, wooly nightshade has a number of synonyms:
 * Solanum auriculatum Aiton
 * S. auriculatum Mart. ex Dunal in DC. is S. granuloso-leprosum.

 * Solanum carterianum Rock
 * Solanum pulverulentum Salisb. (non L.: preoccupied)
 * S. pulverulentum Nutt. ex Seem. is S. puberulum. Solanum pulverulentum Pers. is S. cutervanum.

 * Solanum tabaccifolium Vell.
 * Solanum verbascifolium var. typicum Hassl.
 * Solanum verbascifolium var. auriculatum (Aiton) Kuntze
 * Solanum verbascifolium var. auriculatum Maiden (non Aiton: preoccupied)
 * S. verbascifolium L. is S. donianum; S. verbascifolium Banks ex Dunal in DC. is the same as the undeterminable S. stenorchis. Many other Solanum species (S. conglobatum, S. erianthum, S. granuloso-leprosum, S. hazenii, S. riparium, and S. stipulaceum Roem. & Schult. ) were once considered varieties of the ill-defined "S. verbascifolium" too.

title: Solanum mauritianum


text:
Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics/5

From the Nuttall encyclopedia (Project Gutenberg):

Navigation
<>

This list was merged into the unified list.

title: Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics/5


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult themes and the Scooby Gang

 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 merge and redirect to Scooby-Doo. Redirect is necessary to preserve edit history for GFDL. Deathphoenix 19:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adult themes and the Scooby Gang
Should be merged into Scooby-Doo and then no redirect. Thought I'd ask for a consensus since this isn't clear cut. --Woohookitty 23:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Information: The content of the article was originally a subsection contained within the article Scooby-Doo. On 7-JUL-2004, Marcus2 cut the adult themes section out and placed it into the separate article. I have invited Marcus2 to come to this discussion and explain his reasons for doing so, since this discussion is essentially about undoing his work. Kevyn 03:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No objection to merging into the Scooby-Doo article, as it could be legitimately be a subsection of the main article. Full disclosure: I am a major contributor to the article -- I am convinced that Velma is a lesbian, and Johnny Bravo is just a beard. Kevyn 00:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment How/why is Velma a lesbian? She's a cartoon character for a Saturday monring cartoon, for crying out loud! --b. Touch 03:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Scooby-Doo and Delete. Zzyzx11 00:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete as above. No redirect needed since I doubt anyone will type this particular header into the search engine. The subject matter is widely debated and worthy of being mentioned, though be cautious of POV. 23skidoo 00:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although this is not supposed to be a strictly 'family friendly' site, there is something to be said for segregating discussion of adult themes (which in this case border on fanfic) from the main content of the article. But do add something about the theory that Scrappy-Doo is the illegitimate child of Scooby and Velma. --BD2412 01:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea of segregating adult themes -- especially on an article about a childrens' cartoon -- had ocurred to me when I first responded to Woohookitty's adding this to VfD. (I suspect it was probably one of the reasons the article was created separately in the first place, before I started adding to it.) That is, I believe, the only possible reason for not merging here, and I'm not convinced it's a strong enough reason. Especially if the section on adult themes is treated encyclopedically. Kevyn 02:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and link from the article about Scooby Gang (see BD2412's comment) Tygar 02:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you guys do vote for keep, do we at least agree to change the name? I think "Adult Themes in Scooby Doo" or "Hidden Themes in Scooby Doo" are better titles...and much more likely to be searched for. --Woohookitty 02:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 *  If  the vote is to keep, then I concur with the change in name... personally I like "Adult Themes in Scooby Doo" better, but this is relevant only if the vote is to keep. Kevyn 03:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the name change (although if linked from the Scooby article the name is not as important). --BD2412 04:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge back to the main article. It's really just fan-fic type speculation--nixie 04:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * either Keep or merge. What if Daphne is a lipstick lesbian? Why is Shaggy called Shaggy? Tune in next time for another edition of Scooby Scooby-Doo!! Megan1967 06:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep separate from the main article so kids can avoid it more easily if they want to. Kappa 08:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. WP does not censor for age categories. (see WP:WIN) Radiant! 09:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yeah if we start separating articles based on age, that is one massive slippery slope. --Woohookitty 09:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. Also, I had forgotten about the specific policy relevant to this: What Wikipedia is Not: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.  Kevyn 18:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but censorship would be deleting the article altogether - having a separate article linked to the original page is hardly in the same category - more like segregation of material that (at least arguably) stands on its own as an article anyway. --BD2412 19:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cut this article from the main Scooby-Doo article because it is irrelevant to article as a whole and it had taken too much space in the article. Marcus2 19:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well since I don't think we're going to find a consensus, I think renaming might be the best thing to do once the 5-6 days have passed. I always love how minor things become life or death on Wikipedia. :) --Woohookitty 19:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to buck the trend and argue to delete this as unverifiable speculation about fictional characters. The fact that a lot of kids made similar guesses does not make them any less speculative.  The few bits that are verifiable and encyclopedic should be discussed in the main article.  Rossami (talk) 23:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Delete; do not merge. While Wikipedia is not and should not be censored for minors, this is inappropriate content for an article on a major children's television show. —Korath (Talk) 09:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's amusing, but right now it looks like a mix of original research and idle speculation.  Do we have sources for the interpretations assigned to the in-show events?  Sourced comments from the series creators?  Outraged press releases from Christian fundamentalists?  If there is supporting documentation, then we should keep this article (with an appropriate link from Scooby-Doo). Otherwise, it's just a glorified Scooby-Doo fan forum post.  --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The phenomena of reading adult subtexts into Scooby-Doo is indeed a verifiable pop culture phenomena, and a very widespread one at that. It is encyclopedic and should be covered. Here are some verifiable sources:
 * Google search for "Scooby" + "drug" returns 97,000 matches. A large number of these are joke explanations of the adult themes in Scooby, conservative bloggers decrying the moral problems of Scooby, or stoner sites celebrating the Scooby drug culture.
 * Nostalgia Central starts off it's review of Scooby-Doo with the following sentence: "Let's get one thing straight: Drugs! This show is about drugs, conceived by people on drugs, written by people on drugs and mostly watched by people on drugs."
 * Scooby-Doo Movie Drops Drug Subtext The Associated Press ran a story in 2002 on the new Scooby-Doo movie and how the filmmakers were intentionally toning down the TV show's adult themes for the big screen.
 * Entertainment Insider's DVD review of the complete first and second seasons of the TV show (1969) talks at length about the show's subtext.
 * The phenomena is so widespread and recognizable in pop culture that Kevin Smith was able to parody it in his 2003 film, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
 * So does the article need to be re-written to be more encyclopedic, with verifiable sources? Yes, I think it does. I will volunteer to do that, once a decision is made as to where the article is going: Is it going to be a subsection of Scooby-Doo, or will it be a separate article? Kevyn 17:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say Merge. I'm not too sold on keeping this subarticle seperate from the main one, and I made the Scooby-Doo article shorter on purpose (by moving the info on the various versions of the show to Scooby-Doo series guide) so that more information about the show could be listed here. --b. Touch 03:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. While interesting and valid, this information is not important enough for its own article. Psychonaut 03:49, 6 Mar 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:Articles for deletion/Monica de Bruyn

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 15:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Monica de Bruyn
Monica de Bruyn has requested deletion of the page Monica de Bruyn. No permission was given for publication; information is incorrect. monicadebruyn@newyork.com. For publication one MUST ask for permission in advance. These are the rules and everybody knows it - except Wikipedia. -- unsigned comment from 149.123.12.74, moved from VfD log page
 * keep - many (Dutch) google entries: seems interesting; if this is a copyvio it should be listed on WP:CP; if it is wrong, fix it. Mozzerati 00:13, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
 * Keep . I'll give Ms. de Bruyn the benefit of the doubt and assume she knew nothing about this absurd attempt to delete the article on the untrue premise that "one MUST ask for permission in advance".  If such a principle was actually true, no journalism could take place except by permission of the subjects.  I suspect what really happened is that someone created the article to be unilateral praise of Ms. de Bruyn and didn't realize it would be edited to NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)  Update:  changing my vote to Weak keep.  It's still of course quite ridiculous that we would delete an article just because the subject was under the mistaken impression that their permission was required.  However, a Google search only turns up about 312 hits, some of which apparently belong to an unrelated children's book author, so notability may be the actual deciding issue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as information is factual and NPOV, I don't see a problem. Cnwb 00:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was apparently created by an anonymous fan of hers.  Several of us cleaned up the puffery, but that was months ago, so I don't think the deletion request is based on the NPOVing.  Any copyvio has likely been reworded.  Notability: She's one of the columnists listed at http://www.blueagle.com/ (though I admit I don't know their criteria), and she has a nonfiction book coming out later this year, so I'd be inclined to keep even without the Dutch notability. JamesMLane 00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as it is factual, NPOV, and not copyvio. Zzyzx11 00:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the information is incorrect then Monica de Bruyn should correct it. -- RHaworth 01:01, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
 * For publication one MUST ask for permission in advance. These are the rules and everybody knows it. Sez who? Keep, minor but still notable enough. --Calton 01:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, she doesn't seem all that notable, which the article makes reasonably clear.  If this had been proposed for VfD in the normal way, I don't know that I would have voted to keep it, even though I don't think we should delete the article just because the subject objects to it.  Actually, I don't see any reason why someone would object to it, either -- unless she finds it "damning by faint praise", or in this case, non-praise.   I suspect that Antaeus Feldspar has pegged the situation pretty well.   I'm inclined to vote delete anyway because of the notability issue, but the  unreasonable demand to delete it makes me feel contrary.  --BM 03:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite this weird vfd nomination, this woman appears to be a journalist of little note, 'delete --nixie 04:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subjects of Wikipedia articles do not get the choice of whether or not they can have their articles deleted.  Though it would be a good way to get the article kept.  RickK 06:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, if her book were published would that make a difference for you? Part of my thinking is that, with the article already in place, we might as well keep it, instead of deleting and then re-creating it later this year because her book has pushed her over the bar.  My personal opinion, which I know others don't share, is that, if someone has written a serious nonfiction book, published by a genuine (non-vanity) publisher, and someone else has created an article about the author, then the article shouldn't be deleted. JamesMLane 10:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Megan and delete. It does look to me like people are voting to keep because the nomination is so weird, as BM suggests. Radiant! 09:00, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE!!! Too bad, RHaworth, I ain't going correct anything here. I was NOT born on Jan., 5, 1977. I NEVER had throat cancer. How did you get this information? This article is rubbish - no permission for publication was asked. DELETE. -- unsigned vote by 149.123.12.74, who already voted as the initiator of the VfD.
 * Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough.  De Bruyn's opinion is irrelevant, of course.  When permission was mentioned, I thought this was a copyvio, but if the info is incorrect, then it's obviously not a copyvio. Gamaliel 19:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: BM puts it very well. Neither the article nor the website make this person seem very notable. However, it's hard not to feel inclined to vote keep when you read the latest addition to Talk:Monica de Bruyn by the person claiming to be Ms de Bruyn:
 * And now remove this page or else other measures will be taken. No permission for publication was given, nor by my p.a., nor by me. CORRECT information about me - see, CORRECT information - will be published when WE say so. We are not too crazy about people who publish INCORRECT information.
 * Does this constitute a bannable offence by No legal threats? Information in the article that is claimed to be incorrect by the poster should be verified or removed, though. / Alarm 19:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Blanking the article, as User:Monicadebruyn did, will certainly constitute a bannable offense if she does it again. RickK 23:08, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete this page. -- unsigned 'vote' by Monicadebruyn; however, 149.123.12.74 is also claiming to be Ms. de Bruyn; since neither has threatened to sue the other for impersonation, it is pretty clear that they are one and the same. This then makes the third attempt to vote by 149.123.12.74.
 * Comment: I've discovered there is a children's book artist/author with the same name, born 1952, author of books including The Beaver Who Wouldn't Die. Most likely this is not the same person.  Gamaliel 20:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, despite the almost-overwhelming temptation to vote "keep," out of spite for the ill-mannered Ms. de Bruyn. P. S. Evidence for non-notability: no hits in New York Times online database, under any of these spellings: "Monica de Bruyn" or "Monica deBruyn" or "Monica de Bruijn" or "Monica deBruijn" or "Monika de Bruijn" or "Monika deBruijn". Dpbsmith (talk) 20:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep what is notable, she is notable enough in the Netherlands and this isn't the wikipedia you have to be notable in the States before you get in encyclopedia. Waerth 20:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Borderline notable, although as a journalist myself I have to find the rationale for this VFD questionable. If there are errors, correct them. If it's a copyvio, when mark it as such, or better still, write something new. If she didn't want to be listed anywhere, she should never have entered this industry. 23skidoo 02:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * One wonders what kind of journalist thinks that she has to get the approval of her subjects before she writes articles about them. RickK 05:19, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Besednjak 13:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, will the people asserting that she is notable help the rest of us understand why? The situation is confused by the existence of a childrens' book author or illustrator of the same name who is almost certainly not the same person. It's a little hard to construct a good Google search but when I search for pages a) in English, b) excluding the words udry pictures illustrator wikipedia lewinsky, I only get 84 hits. She gets zero hits in Google groups (USENET), where right-wing commentators are frequently discussed. And the New York Times knows nothing about this New York resident. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Not my strongest "keep" vote ever -- a contender for my weakest, in fact -- but I'm swayed by: the listing of her column on BlueEagle (though I admit I don't know their criteria); her registration with a European speakers' bureau (same admission); evidence of Netherlands notability; forthcoming nonfiction book. JamesMLane 06:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * BlueEagle doesn't look all that impressive to me, in fact, I got the impression it was a Geocities site. Gamaliel 17:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a big problem with people who are judging the notability of a Dutch journalist by whether she has hits in English. en.Wikipedia is specifically designed to cater to an international audience.  Checking for hits in Dutch seems obvious to me. Mozzerati 20:16, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonnotable, regardless of whether that's what the rude anonymous poster claiming to be her wants or not, because it's the right thing to do. I also would like to add that I have a big problem with the assumption that someone would be notable enough for an English language encyclopedia based solely upon Dutch notability. Google hits in Dutch are completely irrelevant for this vote. Let the Dutch language version of wikipedia vote on her Dutch qualifications for notability. DreamGuy 01:38, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarify: Dutch notability is relevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the culture-of-English-speaking-countries Wikipedia (de facto by practical considerations, perhaps, but not de iure). If, say, Dieter Bratwurst is notable enough in Austria to have an article in the German Wikipedia, he could have an article in English too, regardless of whether anyone has heard of him internationally. It's true that notability is more readily established on the Dutch Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it "irrelevant" here. 82.92.119.11 01:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Jeroenvrp 01:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems non-notable as yet to me. -- SGBailey 00:46, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * Keep out of sheer cussedness. I don't think we should be removing even a borderline article under threat by its subject of an (unjustified) lawsuit. Sets a lousy precedent. She has no case. BTW, DreamGuy's apparent claim that foreign-language articles can't establish notability seems to me to be equally ridiculous. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep because she is just above the bar of notability, and also to spite her. DaveTheRed 19:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Food pyramid (nutrition)

Shouldn't there be some info on the new pyramid that the government is making right now?
It should come out sometime this year, and replace the current one. Sorry I don't have much info on it. jettofabulo 00:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) well yeah donkeys do like to eat apples — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.121.122 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the new pyramid
Click on the link below to view an image of the 2009 Food Guide Pyramid, provided by AOL Search, a division of AOL LLC, owned by Time Warner Cable Communications, Inc.

[]

Other guides
To find food guides for other countries around the world, go to AOL Search: "FOREIGN FOOD GUIDES."

 * This page appears to be about American guidelines from 2005. They are working on a new one for 2010. I think that the tag for other countries can come out and I'll remove it. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert to way back...
The "food guide pyramid only" has to do with the one back in 1992. Nothing about MyPyramid should really be here. I think [this] revision is better than the current one. Anyone? --65.8.120.47 15:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The new pyramid is actually 13 seperate dietary plans that incorperate the US NIH (National Institute Of Health) TLC Guidelines http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/cgi-bin/chd/step2intro.cgi (Exercise 30 minutes a day most days of the week consume X amount of Fat and consume less cholesterol). MyPyramid IS the new food pyramid. The old Pyramid is gone- and thankfully so as 1 set of healthy dietary guidlines is not possible with people of differing ages, heights, and physical activity levels. Under the old Pyramid if you did not exercise a miniumum of 90 minutes a week and fell within the guidlines for the average height for an US Citizen you would gain 10 pounds per week.

MyPyramid Tracker is part of the new Pyramid website that calculates your calorie needs from your weight and physical activity entries then makes serving guidlines and caloric intake recomendations along with tracking how much you eat each day and how much you exercise a day. It can track your food intake and break down your nutrient intake over a 1 year span and produces graphs with trendlines from your input. It uses 3 databases The USDA Food Nutritional Content Database http://199.133.10.140/codesearchwebapp/(t4q5rvqehn5aouikd1d1oq45)/codesearch.aspx, A Physical Activity Database, and compares those to a database of the USDA Recomendations. It is a very usefull tool- It has some problems; such as Calcium enriched Soy Milk is not a listed food (Only Non-Enriched Soy Milk which has 81 mg of Calcium where as most Soy Milk in the US Markets are Calcium Enriched and have 300-500 mg of Calcium ) and Soy Milk and other dairy analogs counts (Rice Milk, Almond Milk, Soy Cheese, Almond Cheese, Etc) as meat/bean instead of dairy.

It also figures your calories consumed vs your calories expended and can track that over a 1 year span so you can estimate your weight gain/loss.

Other than that it is a very usefull tool. Not quite as usefull as the ADA (American Diabetes Association) Rate your Plate tool (Each Plate should contain 1/2 Non-Starchy Veg, 1/4 Protien, and 1/4 Carbohydrate such as a Starchy Veg like Rice, Potatoes, Corn or Bread/Noodles) and Food Tables, but a very good tool.

-- I looked at the revision again. I think you are right except make a note saying the old pyramid is obsolete and has been replaced by the new MyPyramid guidlines.

Wikipedia pyramid
There should be no Wikipedia pyramid. Such a construct violates WP:NOR by default. Ikkyu2 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Therefore, I removed it. ikkyu2  ( talk ) 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To-do list
If we are making a Wikipedia Project, we put the to-do list on the project page, not the article itself. I've put that below.

However, this project is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Creating a new food pyramid is not editorial in scope; it is original research, which is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. ikkyu2 ( talk ) 17:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a panel of non-biased reviewers should go through this article to remove what I believe to be politically charged statements introduced in the proteins area. I believe it reads too much along the lines of "Most people have now realized that meat is bad for you, and have started to eat meat alternatives".. Vegetarian diets are fine if people choose so for their own diet, but meat diets are also fine, and should not be discouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.35.22 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Image Campaign - Battle of the Pyramids

Todo's

 * Standard serving sizes as guideline
 * Pictures for every space
 * Text - Captions for every space
 * A "plainer" colored version for print-out (black & white?)

Article degradation
I think the quality of this article has decreased significantly since, say, last December. I find it a little discouraging. Wmahan. 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Food Pyramid
The food pyramid was actually invented by Adolf Hitler, and was stolen by Swedish sailor man named Avon Bigdikon Pents, then became a Swedish invention From 1974. I have organised the orignal rocordfiles from KF: Test kitchen by myself. There are historical archivfiles wich proves the food pyramid was introduced in Sweden 18 years before it arrived to U.S. The politician in Sweden disliked the Foodpyramid because they had introduced the foodcircle. any one who dislike or distrust this facts can come to Sweden and check my points. The Swedish gooverment arciv Rosenbad has open files for anyone who is intressted.

The foodpyramid was introduced in the magasin Vi 6-7 1974. It is availeble at many Libraries in Sweden and migt exist at a Swedish institute in US.

The american foodpyramid is based on the Swedish Foodpyramid but it is not an American Invention.

 * ok, checked that and found this link: A test kitchen was experimental kitchen looks like there was a swedish pyramide before, invented by cook book author Anna Britt Agnsäter Shaddim (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fruit and Veggies before Grains?
It is my belief that they have changed the food pyramid so that fruit and veggies is under grain, not the other way. however so far I have only seen grain under Fruit/veggies. Should this be updated or have I got it wrong?

Lacking details on serving sizes
This article's "serving size" link points to a page that just talks about how hard it is to state serving size. Specific amounts should be provided.

 * Up to 26 servings a day!!!! Were they trying to double the turnover of the food industry overnight or what? Carina22 01:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for fun
A couple of years ago I started fooling around with the idea of a "food pyramid" as it might apply to the notoriously-bad dietary habits of fans at a convention. (I'm a US-based science fiction fan and I speak mostly from my experience there - but by reputation the same things applies to other regions and to other sorts of fans at their conventions.) A reduced-resolution version of my final pyramid appears on the Con*Stellation convention web site  if you want a giggle. YMMV of course. The relative "importance" of the various "food groups" on this parody pyramid is subject to debate and at least in part a matter of personal experience/preference. Mikek999 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Off topic. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Update?
Shouldn't we have this here? — Supuhstar  *  §  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to delete the bullet points right under where it talks about the new food pyramid- someone wrote examples like "thongs, dead bodies, recces puffs" Its funny but shouldnt be there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.255.66 (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Harvard proposes alcohol for health?
"the Healthy eating pyramid, which includes calcium and multi-vitamin supplements as well as moderate amounts of alcohol, as an alternative to the Food Guide Pyramid"

O RLY? I wasn't sure if this was vandalism or not, because I've heard a glass of red wine at dinner can be good for you, but I assume "moderate amounts" must be too much, and this summary which just talks about vitamin supplements and alcohol certainly can't be a good representation of the main article, which doesn't at all mention alcohol, and doesn't seem to primarily focus on supplements, or give extra weight to calcium supplements.Mister Magotchi (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Food Groups
Why does "Food Groups" redirect here, but "food groups" goes to the Food groups page?--Pokélova (Pokémon Lover) (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge sections to MyPyramid?
Am I correct in my understanding that the subject of this article is food guide pyramids in general, while the MyPyramid article covers the USDA's pyramid in particular?

If so, it seems much of the information in this article duplicates the MyPyramid article and can be merged there. The "Controversy" section, in particular, covers criticism of the USDA's pyramid much more completely than the MyPyramid article does -- a section merge would benefit that article. A merge could also fix some neutrality and undue weight problems, such as references to the USDA's pyramid as "the" pyramid. The section on alternative pyramids is solid; I'll see if I can help expand and de-weasel it. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see that merging would help some people to understand more about nutrition generally, but what you're talking about is like merging a universal item with a local, branded one which isn't exactly the same thing. It'd be like merging the burger page with the big mac page.

I know the food pyramid originated in America, but then it was used worldwide. The new MyPyramid doesn't represent food portions in the same way as the old one and therefore doesn't teach the same values as the old pyramid. The old pyramid clearly represented that more carbs be eaten and so on up the pyramid (I'm not even sure why the MyPyramid bothers to use a pyramid to represent, since it's not utilising the ready-made graphic representation of portions). So, even if the old pyramid is wrong by the standard of new science it definitely isn't the same as the new MyPyramid. What would probably be better is just having links back and forth to ensure all discussions are noticed by people on both pages. Smangesable (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section
I wonder if there has been any published evidence that the old pyramid, with its emphasis on eating huge amounts of carbohydrates in the form of bread rice and pasta has actually contributed to the fattest generations in US history? --MichaelGG (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, see Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories. Paul Studier (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "Controversy" section include at least a little bit of information regarding what the USDA and others say about how the current one was developed, how the studies were financed, and what interest groups have how much to say about what it ends up looking like. If the USDA insists that their stuff is scrupulously independent and science-based without a shred of sympathy for US agribusiness and food industry commercial interests, then let's at least have that voice heard with a link to the supporting evidence/write-up. Parl2001 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Very, very US-centric
As someone who have grown up with the food pyramid in the 70's, I think this article is a bit to US-centric and leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. It only presents US-made food pyramids and they are very different from tried-and-proved food pyramids used in other countries decades before any US food pyramid was constructed. (And is it just me, or are the US ones also unhealthy to follow?)

"Since 1992, the first well known pyramid by the USDA, several other countries and organizations published nutrition suggestions in pyramidal representation as well."

Yeah, right. Northern Europe (including Iceland and Greenland, the food pyramid have been in widespread use in the Nordic countries since the 70's and other Germanic language countries since the early 80's), a lot of Africa and Asia (spread to Africa and Asia by humanitarian aid from N. European countries and by former Asian and African students and refugees returning from N. Europe) don't exist. USA was a late adopter, but try to get the glory, as usual.

And isn't that MyPyramid just stupid. The original food pyramid (Kooperativa föreningen), illustrate the importance of eating different proportions of different food groups, even I could understand it as a 5 yr old (the concept of the food circle was a bit harder to understand), as do most of the other food pyramids. What the heck illustrates MyPyramid? It is impossible to understand at a glance. A food circle would be better if you don't stick with the original idea of a pyramid with food you need less of in the top, food you need more of/every day at the base (because the human mind is not made to understand different sized bands of colour forming complicated patterns). A food circle combined with the one third rule (or any of the analogue food rules used with other food circles then the Swedish one), is also easier to visualise on your plate as you eat, the food pyramid (a real one) is easier to use when you cook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.238.151 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To be replaced in the US by food plate icon
Article needs to be updated to reflect recent news reports http://smartabouthealth.net/diet/2011/05/29/fda-to-trash-food-pyramid-use-food-plate-as-new-symbol/ Smiloid (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, could you please hold on until Thursday when the government plans to release it? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Note that any updates here should be minimal. When the new food plate icon comes out, it should get it's own article. Changes to this article should probably be limited to adding short paragraph that the pyramid was replaced with the reasons leading to its replacement, and minor copyediting to change tenses from present to past. - Wikipedia has an unfortunate recentism bias, and occasionally guts articles that are no longer current. That shouldn't happen. All the information on this page will still be relevant to the topic of "Food guide pyramid" in a week, just in a historical context rather than a present context. (I'm ranting a bit because the extent of Wikipedia's information on the "Four Food Groups" program that ran for close to forty years is apparently three sentences and a list in a subsection of this article. Just because a program is no longer current doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it. Although I realize that's more of a case that WP never had a decent article about the program, rather than having an article that was gutted.) -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

USDA 1992. Really?
It is not that I doubt that the USDA published their first food pyramid in 1992, it is that I am wondering: Where, then, did my early food pyramid education come from in the U.S.? I was in elementary school from 1975 to 1982 and I remember learning the food pyramid as pretty standard education during that time. Well before 1992. Sure, I also remember the "Basic Four" food groups that the USDA apparently was teaching at the time but I also remember fitting those groups into the pyramid (plus desserts and junk food at the top).

Does anyone else remember this? Should it not be noted when the food pyramid became prevalent in the U.S. education system if did indeed happen before 1992? I was in California for K through 3 and it was likely there I learned the pyramid but it might have also been in New Mexico after that. Perhaps the cereal companies were pushing it after Sweden introduced it? I did a Google Image search for food pyramids and I see a few that look simplistic and old enough to predate 1992. They are somewhat familiar but I cannot be sure. It is also possible that I learned this in Sunday School at an early age and got the source of it mixed up. While my church has taught food-pyramid-compatible doctrine since 1883, I believe it unlikely certain early memories of the food pyramid are from Sunday School.

juanitogan (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was in grade school from 1982 to 1989 and I definitely learned about the food pyramid in school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.111.150 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 September 2012

The food pyramid discussed here did not exist prior to 1992, as reliable sources indicate. You either remember something else, misremember learning about it in high school or something else. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't be so condescending. There was certainly some type of food pyramid long before the 1990s.  I learned a version of the food pyramid in elementary school in California in the 1970s.  My parents still have some of my elementary school artwook hanging in their basement.  One of them is a food pyramid I painted with watercolors from ~1978.   108.16.253.48 (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the current entries
I have seen evidence that the pyramid was developed in the 1950's by the USFDA. One of the key drivers was, not population health directly, but to promote eating more grains, as industrial agricultural methods had begun to create huge surpluses. I don't have the book in front of me, but I am pretty certain the notion that it was first developed in the 70 or even 80's is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.38.224 (talk • contribs) 13:42, April 11, 2014
 * We'll need to see some strong sources for that. Claims that the pyramid was influenced by various interest groups are reasonably well documented and discussed in reliable sources (e.g. <5% free sugars vs. <10%). Claims that huge changes contrary to the underlying science (e.g. your grain idea) are not documented in reliable sources and are at odds with the well-sourced information we do have. As such, they would be WP:FRINGE claims WP:MEDRS applies in this article in any case).
 * Independent reliable sources date this pyramid to 1992 for the reasons stated. Every dietary guideline you would care to mention is the subject of rumors and conspiracy theories that vary by the source: Vegan sources will point to a pro-dairy conspiracy, "all natural" sources will claim margarine is part of an anti-dairy conspiracy, vegetarians see a pro-meat conspiracy and so on and so on. As independent academic sources do not find material to support these claims (and often refute them), it becomes necessary for them to be part of the conspiracy. Any conspiracy theory threatened by data will grow the conspiracy to discredit the data. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Content from DAB page
The following is taken from the disambiguation page "Food pyramid". It does not belong on a DAB page and so I have deleted it there and moved it here. It should probably be merged into the content of this page.

 * ... for example:
 * MyPyramid, the USDA's 2005 version of the food guide pyramid.
 * MyPlate, replaces the MyPyramid and was introduced by the USDA in 2011.

There are several well known food pyramids that are supposed to suggests the types and frequencies of foods that should be enjoyed for health. Food pyramids give a proportional representation as to the volume (by servings, or calories, or daily/weekly) of food from each of the various food groups a person should aim to eat, starting at the base that represents the majority of food to be eaten and progressing to the apex with the smallest area containing foods to be consumed sparingly. Food pyramids are simple messages on healthy eating aimed at the general public. Food plates are touted as an improvement over the food pyramid concept because plates are supposedly easier for non-readers to understand. The plate became the new USDA icon following criticism by the food industry and others of its original USDA food pyramid and revisions that followed. The USDA’s pyramids were criticized by nutritionists for being too heavily influenced by the meat and dairy industries and scientifically outdated. Others attacked the pyramids for being vague and confusing.

I hope someone can have a look and merge the appropriate information into this article. YBG (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Food pyramid (nutrition). 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://archive.is/20150309/http://www.mersmak.kf.se/Toppmeny-startsida-/KFBibliotek/Kooperativ-kronika-startsida/Sok/KF-Kronika---Visa-artikel/?articleid=641 to http://www.mersmak.kf.se/Toppmeny-startsida-/KFBibliotek/Kooperativ-kronika-startsida/Sok/KF-Kronika---Visa-artikel/?articleid=641
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929023533/http://www.coop.se/Globala-sidor/OmKF/Kooperativ-samverkan/Var-historia1/Tidslinjen/1960-19901/1973/KF-Provkok-lanserar-iden-om-basmat/ to http://www.coop.se/Globala-sidor/OmKF/Kooperativ-samverkan/Var-historia1/Tidslinjen/1960-19901/1973/KF-Provkok-lanserar-iden-om-basmat/

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) 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

was it created do to food shortages then industry lobbying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDJ-wVNbaIs One usually creditable researcher on YouTube claims things not currently listed in this article. What nations agree on what? What research do they have showing their information?  D r e a m Focus  20:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Food pyramid (nutrition)


text:
Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics/6

From the Nuttall encyclopedia (Project Gutenberg):

Navigation
<>

This list was merged into the unified list.

title: Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics/6


text:
Raptor: Call of the Shadows

Raptor: Call of the Shadows is a vertically scrolling shooter developed by Cygnus Studios and published by Apogee Software. Its working title was "Mercenary 2029". It was released on April 1, 1994 for MS-DOS compatible systems. The first episode of the game, "Bravo Sector", was distributed as shareware. The other two episodes were sold commercially.

Plot
The game sees a mercenary flying the advanced Raptor, sent on interplanetary missions to destroy top competitors of MegaCorps.

Episodes

The game is divided into three "sectors": Bravo Sector, Tango Sector, and Outer Regions, all of which have sub-missions called "waves", making for a total of 27 levels (9 per sector). The full version of Raptor allows players to start out in any of the three campaigns, though playing them in order helps the player to more easily accumulate money for weapon and shield upgrades.

Once a player beats a sector, they can replay it with all the money and weapons that they have accumulated. The difficulty is increased when the player does this however, e.g. if the player beats the sector on Rookie and replays it, the difficulty will be set to Veteran.

The Bravo Sector is the most "generic" episode, with few features distinguishing each level. Starting at the coast and then moving inland, most of the targets are military bases and installations, and much of the terrain is barren land, with the occasional forests and rivers. Large oil silos feature prominently in the early waves, and a refinery (tank farm) is found in the second-last wave. In the final wave, the player flies offshore to destroy the Lithos Petroleum rig. However, there is no background on why Lithos is the enemy, other than being suggested as a competitor of MegaCorps.

The Tango Sector is more distinctive, with each level following a different theme. These include a large water/chemical plant, farmland, jungle, city, and airbase. At the end, in the jungle after destroying an ancient temple, the player has to defeat a huge aircraft which splits into three modules.

In Outer Regions, the player travels from different planets; they consist of a lunar body (moon), a red planet similar to Mars, an ice world, a volcanic world, and finally a space station.

Tango Sector and Outer Regions each have a special "night wave" with its own theme music. The night level in the Tango Sector is a well-illuminated city in Wave Eight, while the Outer Regions' is the "dark side" of the lunar body in Wave Three.

Enemies and credits
Enemies are destroyed purely for money. Most enemies move in pre-determined paths. Some enemies will try to crash into the player. Turrets also aim to hit the player. There are no obstacles to avoid (except the enemy ships themselves). While flying enemies are the most numerous, many ground targets (buildings, ships, vehicles, turrets) can be destroyed as well.

Bosses appear at the end of each wave or even halfway through the later, more difficult waves. In the Outer Regions, the bosses are ground bases where the player has to take out their various component weapons.

For each target destroyed the player earns credits. The amount of credits earned per enemy destroyed is usually proportional to how tough or dangerous it is, with some of them dropping additional credit bonuses.

The Raptor jet is particularly durable compared to player-controlled craft of other scrolling shooters, which can be destroyed with a few hits. However, there are no "lives" so the game is over when the player dies, although the player can reload a recently saved game.

The player can decide to end a level prematurely, in which case they will lose all the money acquired since starting the level. Damage sustained will remain though, as will collected weapons - as such, one technique to rapidly collect money is to start a level that has an expensive, collectible weapon at the start, collect the weapon, quit and start over. After a couple dozen iterations or so, selling the gathered weapons will provide enough cash to buy most "equipped" weapons, at least the basic auto-tracking turret, and a couple of phase shields - enough to handle most levels as a Rookie.

Weapons and shields
The player (there are four playable characters) starts out with only the default machine guns, and will eventually be able to buy or collect more weapons using a credit and purchase system menu before starting or after finishing a wave.

There are two major categories of weapons: the first type is always active (all carried weapons of this type will always fire simultaneously whenever the player shoots), and the second type is selectable. During gameplay, when firing, only the currently selected selectable weapon will fire, though the currently selected weapon can be dynamically switched to deal with the appropriate situation. Some selectable weapons can only hit airborne targets, others only ground targets, while a few can hit both.

Some of the more original weapons in Raptor, compared to other shoot 'em ups, are the two types of selectable auto-tracking turrets. Other notable weapons are three selectable cannons with expensive prices, that fire continuous instant beams capable of penetrating and destroying multiple targets in one shot.

In its own category is the megabomb, a one-time use weapon which destroys everything on the screen including enemy projectiles, except for the toughest enemies (such as bosses) in which case it will damage them. It can either be picked up or purchased; a maximum of 5 megabombs can be carried at any given time.

The Raptor jet is protected by 100 points of regular shielding, which regenerate extremely slowly, when the player is not firing (except in the Elite difficulty, where it does not regenerate). There is also another kind of shield, called the phase shield, that adds another 100 points of shielding. Unlike regular shielding, phase shields do not recharge (unless the player collects a regular shield power up). Up to 5 layers of Phase Shields can be purchased in the shop, but it is possible to go beyond 5 layers if Phase Shield powerups are picked up in-battle. When the regular shielding goes lower than 25%, the ship starts taking "physical" damage: each enemy weapon impact will cause an equipped weapon to be destroyed, starting with the currently equipped selectable weapon.

Last but not least, the player can purchase a single utility, the Ion Scanner to measure the energy and damage meter of any boss confronted.

The craft's firepower cannot be upgraded gradually, the best the player can do is pick up or buy cheaper weapons and hope to save up for the expensive ones. Since selling a weapon will only earn back half of its credits, this means that many players try to hold out until they can afford the most expensive weapons, instead of buying medium weapons as a stopgap.

Ports
In 1999, Mountain King Studios re-released Raptor as a native Windows program. The original Windows version of Raptor features slightly improved graphics and audio, force feedback controller support, plus minor changes. The game itself remains the same between both versions, and many of the glitches and secrets are retained. However, when using the keyboard in the Windows version, the player ship's mobility is restricted to half of its normal speed, which makes gameplay much more difficult. If the player chooses to use the mouse to control their ship, it cannot be moved to the extreme right side of the screen.

A version of the game, ported by DotEmu, is compatible with Windows XP, Vista, 7, 32 and 64 bit. A new version was released on in January 2015 on Steam. It is based on the previous 2010 Edition, with the addition of achievements and cloud saving.

Raptor was released for iOS on December 20, 2010 by BlitWise Productions. A Mac version was published through the Mac App Store on January 19, 2011 by DotEmu. It is no longer available.

There was also at one point a Linux version offered for sale.

Reception
Computer Gaming World's Chuck Miller in December 1993 described Raptor as "Apogee's most professional and competent release" since Wolfenstein 3D, with "exceptional" VGA graphics, concluding that "action aficionados will find it a holiday treasure". He again praised the game in June 1994, reporting "I have not been as hooked on an action title since Sidewinder" in 1988 and concluding that it was "the best shareware title to arrive since" Doom. Scott Miller estimates that the game eventually sold between 80,000 or 90,000 copies.

The game was reviewed in 1994 in Dragon #208 by Sandy Petersen in the "Eye of the Monitor" column. Petersen gave the game 4 out of 5 stars. Gametrailers.com and ScrewAttack have labeled it as one of their "Top Ten 2-D Shooters".

Legacy
Original Raptor creator Scott Host is planning on releasing a new REMIXED Version. It will initially be available on Nintendo Switch, PC, Mac, Xbox, PlayStation, Android, Apple TV and iOS. Raptor, Kraptor and RafKill are all free software clones of the game. The open source Chromium B.S.U. was also inspired by frustrations with the Linux version of Raptor, while AstroMenace was inspired by the game's successor DemonStar.

title: Raptor: Call of the Shadows


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Plan

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Scratchpad

 * Kill CitationNew parameter
 * Change citation auto-linking to no longer auto-link with newer volumes (past 540)
 * Templates outline
 * History --> subtemplates --> #switch
 * With advice + consent of the WikiProject...
 * More test cases
 * More discussion --> kill it entirely and use decide date
 * Chiefs list / compare with SCOTUS list
 * Redirect talk pages of /Reports, /Plan, etc.
 * Clean up WP:SCOTUS and talk page (archive)
 * Write /Plan
 * Style guide... foolish consistency is the hobgobblin...
 * Guide, not the Truth; it's a goal
 * Old plan banished to page history
 * Intro paragraphs
 * 2013 expand start?
 * Start an article wizard from case indices
 * Thank you for volunteering to ...
 * Generate reports to monitor and check articles
 * Meta-work
 * Alphabetize members list
 * Infobox template work
 * Slip opinion
 * Supreme Court Reporter (S. Ct., S.Ct.)

General work

 * Create redirects (write tool to do this?)
 * Improve categorization (by volume, by Court, by area of law, etc.)
 * Cross-reference lead cite with infobox cite
 * INFOBOX PARSING
 * Look for anomalies
 * All cases should have FullName, etc.
 * Standardize parameter input
 * Build private database for this...
 * Typos, etc.
 * Clean up indices
 * Standard article titles
 * Standardize article headers
 * Standardize external links
 * Add infobox to all articles
 * Kill cat! --> now on all articles
 * Move volume lists to better titles?
 * Link to Wikisource for case law...
 * Implement a feature similar to how we treat ISBN links
 * This will need a bug in Bugzilla
 * Magic linking is discouraged/deprecated these days, but a parser function could be employed
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&oldid=528514667#.22Standardizing.22_article_ledes
 * Create two lists of all SCOTUS-related categories somewhere (mark talk pages?)
 * Article-related categories (Fifth Amendment, by Court, etc.)
 * Maintainence-related (A Class, Top importance, without an infobox, flagged, etc.)

Writing

 * Bolster arguments for inherent notability of all SCOTUS cases
 * Document these arguments somewhere

Preservation
Please help keep this list up-to-date by adding, moving, and removing items as appropriate!

Requested review:
 * Schmerber v. California --Notecardforfree (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Just passed a GA review -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Giglio v. United States; I rewrote this from a stub a year or so ago.  I'd like to have it reviewed and see any suggestions for improvements.  Please also see my query on the talk page about an apparent inconsistency in the opinion (and in the article). TJRC (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Assessed as C/low, I don't see any way to reconcile the inconsistencies since they apparently are in the primary sources.  GregJackP   Boomer!   19:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent (First SCOTUS article I've created. I plan to do more, and would appreciate feedback so that I can use best practices now instead of re-learning later) Manumitany (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
 * Girouard v. United States
 * Bilski v. Kappos (Stub; Needs Impact, copyediting, etc to resemble quality of lower court decision discussion in In re Bilski) [as of 04:23, 4 July 2010]
 * 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (Substantially added to previous stub. Mlschafer)
 * Draft:Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (Needs copyediting and moved out of the draft, I created the article and only had the source documents from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals a newer editor placed in drafts and it is stuck in the loop. Could uses some help getting out. Thank you) jsgoodrich)

Organization
 * List of case articles which have not yet been added to one of the appropriate Lists of United States Supreme Court cases

Assessment:
 * Category:Unassessed U.S. Supreme Court articles
 * Tucker v. Texas It has been significantly revised. Please reassess.

Infobox issues:
 * Need to mark articles without an infobox with *Category:United States Supreme Court case articles without infoboxes.
 * Swap out SCOTUSCase templates on non-SCOTUS cases from volume 1 and volume 2; maybe make extra templates: see Talk#A question on USR.

Need work:
 * Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler Needs attention to issues identified in AFD underway
 * Cohen v. California - flagged with Expert-subject since March 2011

Project
Since this project is obviously a large task, it will be ongoing. The main source used to find the articles involved is the Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. These lists are used and dealt with by the project.

Project phases
The phases or "waves" of the project are easier to accomplish in a certain order, but there are no set rules; any Wikipedian can work on any phase at any time.

 * Infoboxes All Supreme Court cases should have infoboxes created using Infobox SCOTUS case (instructions for its use at the same link). This infobox template is included in the template for creating a new article see our article creation guide.
 * You can use SCOTUS-Case to create a new article with a basic infobox from scratch. If you only want to add an infobox to an article, you can use it on your Sandbox and copy the result from there.
 * A general guide to creating infoboxes for cases is here.
 * Infoboxes effectively replace a defunct "The bench" section. (Example here.)
 * Case citations: If we don't have an article about a case, we'd still like to direct readers to useful information. For any references to cases without Wikipedia articles, create case citations as follows:
 * Proper format- Name v. Name, ) See case citation for more information. Googling the case name is usually enough to find its citation. Check the result to be sure the link functions—URLs for recent cases must be added manually instead.

 * External link to text: Every article should have an external link section with at least one link to the full text of the decision. The easiest and probably most reliable place to link to is Justia. Opinions can be found by searching at http://supreme.justia.com/index.html. A link to Justia can be created by using:.
 * Section headers: As articles expand, it is a good idea to add section headers to organize the information. A suggested outline for articles is listed below.
 * Categorize: Every article should be put into the category of United States Supreme Court cases, but also can be put into proper categories regarding the type of case law.
 * Example: Category:United States copyright case law

 * Copyedit: Make sure everything that should be linked is linked. Proofread for grammar, style, etc.
 * Lists: Finally, every case should be listed on the appropriate list by Chief Justice at Lists of United States Supreme Court cases page. Sort the case by its citation and copy the formatting for other entries.

Wikisource

 * Wikisource: If you're so inclined, please help with the importation of cases on our sister project, Wikisource. A bot is currently in the process of importing every Supreme Court decision from bulk.resource.org's collection of the United States Reports. The project is in need of people to assist in proofreading, editing, and disambiguating decisions added by the bot.  WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases on Wikisource has information about formatting and other guidelines, as well as a to do list.


text:
Template talk:Infobox Railroad

Why the move?
Why was the template moved from Railroad to Infobox Railroad? I can understand consistency with Infobox Biography, but who's going to update all of the train articles that use the template over the old name? slambo 00:03, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

They don't have to be changed; the old name can still be used. --SPUI (talk) 13:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rail gauge vs. track gauge
I don't think rail gauge is the correct term for the infobox. When I see "rail gauge" I think of the weight of the rail itself (i.e. 70 pound per foot) while "track gauge" refers to the distance between the rails. slambo 20:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) Okay, the article is titled "rail gauge", but it still doesn't sound quite right. slambo 20:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the above comment, I almost missed that due to the misleading edit summary and the edit being marked as minor. I think we should either use "track gauge" or maybe just "gauge" (although the latter might be ambiguous).  JYolkowski 21:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since no-one's disagreed, I'm reverting. JYolkowski 23:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

System map?
I've been thinking it might be helpful to add a system map parameter to the template. It would appear in the section just below the logo image and would look something like the example shown here. Thoughts? slambo 11:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * You can always hack it into the logo caption with a horizontal rule separating it. --SPUI (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but that seems a bit klugey. It seems to me that a route map should be included on all articles about railroad companies. slambo 15:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Infobox Railroad


text:
Talk:Heather Has Two Mommies

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 15 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amycazares.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Proposed Revisions for Article

1. I am going to break the articles into sections and add four sections according to Wikipedias criteria. The sections will be lead section, summary, analysis and reception sections. 2. For the analysis I plan on adding some information from scholars that elaborates upon both the negative and positive consequences of having this book in the classroom. The article currently has no analysis section. 3. For the reception section, I am going to write about the author's hard time trying to get the article published as well as how people felt about the release of the article. The article currently has no reception section. 4. I also plan to change the ranking of the novel on the ALA's most challenged book from 1990-1999 because it is listed incorrectly.

Bibliography for Sources I am using

Works Cited

BERNSTEIN, MARGARET. "Children's Books on Gay Lifestyles are Causing some People to Squirm." THE SEATTLE TIMES, 1991, NewsBank. Web.

Esposito, and Jennifer. "We'Re here, we'Re Queer, but we'Re just Like Heterosexuals: A Cultural Studies Analysis of Lesbian Themed Children's Books." (2009)Web.

Leo John. "Heather Has a Message." US News & World Report. August 17, 1992. Web.

Miller, Alyson. "Unsuited to Age Group: The Scandals of Children's Literature." College Literature 41.2 (2014): 120-40. Education Database. Web.

Newman, Leslea. ""Heather" and Her Critics." 1997: 149+. Literature Resource Center; Gale. Web. .

---. "The More Things Change ... Heather has Two Mommies Turns 20." 2009: 58. Biography In Context; Gale. Web. .

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sac304.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

May 2005 discussion
Revised "parents are lesbians" to "mother and mother's partner are lesbians". IF her parents were lesbians, then her Dad would be a lesbian!

 * Sorry cowboy, this is an international encyclopedia, not some U.S. red state. —Christiaan 00:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No personal insults, please. That especially includes edit summaries. Thank you. -Willmcw 00:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I encourage the anonymous user to see one of J.J.'s new cartoons and learn the dangers of over-politicizing:. —Sesel 20:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sesel, heal thyself. Apologies to Hippocrates.

 * As far as I know, "parent" is not synonymous with "biological parents". Should a child conceived through sperm donation refer to his mother and his mother's husband?  Parenting is about raising children - hence terms like "foster parent", "step-parent" etc.  Does the book delve into the biological relatedness of Heather to her "mommies"?  If not, then this distinction is not only irrelevant, but inaccurate (I can't say, I haven't read many modern children's books).  I assume that 155.84.57.253 has read the book and can answer this question?  In the assumption of good faith I will also assume that 155.84.57.253 is on a mission to clarify the relatedness of all fictional characters in Wikipedia articles, and isn't just here to push a POV.  I eagerly await them all appearing on his/her user contributions.  Guettarda 20:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:155.84.57.253 claims that because the author uses the term "partner" at some point then we should replace "parents" with partner etc. Apart from the fact that there is nothing inaccurate about using "parent" and that using "parent" reads far more easily and that "whose mother and mother's partner" is silly political correctness, the author actually uses the term "partner" when talking about one in relation to the other, just like people often refer to a father or mother as a "partner" in relation to each other. This article is talking about them both in relation to the child, i.e. parents. Further more, just to push the point home about how ridiculous User:155.84.57.25's edit is, the title of the book is called Heather Has Two Mommies (my emphasis) —Christiaan 23:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to show how ridiculous Chrissy's edit is, "he?" thinks he knows more about the book than the author. What am arrogant and utterly foolish edit. 155.84.57.253, 4 Mar 2005

 * You should read what you link to. Both usages exist in that webpage.  More importantly, in talking about an author's book, the author is not the final authority on language in that discussion.  Hence your link, while interesting, has no bearing on this revert war.  Can you cite usage from the book which details the relationship between the two parents, which "Mommy" is the birth mother, etc.?  Can you find something in the Wikipedia MOS which defines that "parent" should only be used for biological parents and that bans terms like "step-parent", "foster-parent", etc.?  It's a simple enough thing to do, if you are so confident that this is the accepted style.  And if it isn't, and you feel strongly, you should make a reasoned argument, supported by usage in English (broadly) that supports that usage and get the MOS changed.  Simple enough.  Guettarda 16:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mothers vs. Parents
LesbianLatke - please discuss reverts and don't call them vandalism. And before you call Christiaan a vandal, have a look at the history of this page. Guettarda 19:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christian didn't consult with me, so I didn't consult with him. And I didn't call (him/her) a vandal - I called the action antifeminist vandalism. Is Christian a male or a female? LesbianLatke 9 Mar 2005

 * Christiaan explained his edits in the edit summary. Usage has been discussed here at length.  You cannot call an explained edit vandalism.  Vandalism is a serious charge.  If you call the edits "antifeminist vandalism" then you are implying that he is an antifeminist vandal.  It's a personal attack, especially based on what he says on his User page.  Given that he (and others) have put a lot of effort into defending this page from someone trying to inject what appeared to be a right-wing POV, it's totally undeserved.

 * In his edit history he said: "I think parents is more accurate, as mother, according to Wikipedia, is typically biological". If you disagree with the reasoning presented, then you should present your argument, and back it up with evidence if possible.  Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view.  We just had a long argument here with someone trying to change this page to "mother and mother's partner".  "Parents" was accepted as superior wording - "parents" is widely used for non-biological care-givers, and so was readily defensible.  It is more neutral than "mothers" or "mother and mother's partner".

 * To quote from Wikipedia policy:
 * A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

 * The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

 * Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make.

 * 1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

 * 2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

 * Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

 * --Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

 * Hope this clarifies things. Guettarda 20:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It's my belief that User:LesbianLatke, User:155.84.57.253, User:Can'tStandYa and more are all sockpuppets. Is it bad manners to suggest such things? I think I could make an interesting case based on comments by these users and their similar edit history. —Christiaan 22:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It is bad to casually throw around accusations. However, in this instance there are good reasons to believe that a single user is employing multiple names fraudulently. Sock puppets are not, in and of themselves, bad. But when they are used to give the impression of a consensus, or otherwise skew the editing process, then that counts as abuse and is viewed harshly. The user was already warned about that on the talk:List of political epithets. If the behavior continues there are official procedures for dealing with it. -Willmcw 22:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Since a few of you boys are so defensive, I will stay out of your little clubhouse. Happy now? LesbianLatke 9 Mar 2005

Massachusetts Law
Joint adoption by unmarried couples (heterosexual or homosexual) was illegal in Massachusetts until 1993. This is well after the publication date of the book. Prior to 1993, only married couples or a single individual could adopt a child. Two single individuals could not adopt the same child prior to 1993. Therefore, Heather's "parent was a lesbian" rather than "parents", because the other partner had no legal rights to the child under late 1980s Massachusetts state law. See   155.84.57.253, March 11 2005

 * So with what word do we replace "foster-parent"? Guettarda 18:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Apart from not giving a rats ass about authoritarian Massachusets law (the book was written in Massachusets, not this international encyclopedia) "parents" is not some lawyer's jargon but a term to refer to the primary carers who involve themselves in the task of raising a child to an independent adult. I must say I feel sorry for the half of American citizens who have to live with this kind of bullshit every day. -Christiaan 19:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Massachusetts at the time had, and continues to have, some of the most liberal and "gay friendly" laws in the United States. Hardly authoritarian. Chris, perhaps you should restrict your comments and foul language to topics you actually know about. 155.84.57.253, March 14 2005

 * And as I've pointed out on a number of occasions this is an international encyclopedia and I really could care less the relative nature of laws in the U.S. Telling someone they can't adopt a child because of their sexual arrangement is authoritarian. It appears many people agree or the law would still exist. Sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps you should stick to comic books and ethnic slurs? —Christiaan 14:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice cover for your ignorance - going ballistic. You seem incapable of maintaining a civil discourse. By the way, what's an ethic slur? 155.84.57.253, March 14 2005

Since you won't fess up to your own quote - I will have to requote you here for the record. Otherwise this exchange makes no sense. "It appears many people agree or the law would still exist. Sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps you should stick to comic books and ethic slurs?" 155.84.57.253, March 14 2005

List of Banned books
Atlant, I agree that it's relevant that the book is banned, but why is it "merely having that as a cat is not sufficient"? It seems to me that the way to discuss that a book is frequently challenged and banned is to discuss it in the article text and include it in the category -- which itself links at the top level to the list of banned books. I haven't noticed any of the other banned books linking to the list, and I don't see why the list of other banned books is relevant to the fact that this particular book is often banned, especially since the catrgory makes that information available. Deborah-jl Talk 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Tenth anniversary edition
It might be worth noting that this edition (which is the one you'll get from the Amazon link) doesn't mention artificial insemination, or indeed anything about the way Heather was conceived or born. The Wednesday Island 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WTF?
How is classified as a childrens book?!?24.144.137.244 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Just a reminder: the purpose of Wikipedia "talk" pages is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. And your use of "What the Fuck", even hidden behind the fig leaf of "WTF", doubtless violates WP:CIV.

 * Atlant 02:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 * well seeing as wiki it self classifies it as such, id say hes right (the first guy, the one with no name) p.s. WTF could mean "Wheres The Fudge" he might just be hungry Д narchistPig (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Political Ramifications
This book, and the politics behind it, became an issue during the 1992 Presidential campaign and 1994 congressional campaign. It was frequently lampooned and, in 1994, possibly contributed to the perception that the Democratic Party was out of touch with mainstream values and to the Republicans' sweeping success (that was the Gingrich 'Contract w/ America' election). It would be worthwhile to add a short section on the book's use and possible impact on 1990s electoral politics-- if that can be done without constant, dueling POV issues.169.253.4.21 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Texxasfinn

 * I certainly agree-- and we have an existing example in the use of the book Jenny lives with Eric and Martin by the political movement that created Section 28. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heather Has Two Mommies.gif
Image:Heather Has Two Mommies.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Heather Has Two Mommies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050314154442/http://www.glsen.org:80/cgi-bin/iowa/educator/library/record/27.html to http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/educator/library/record/27.html

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 23:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I just corrected source #8, which was broken. Sac304 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From the Wrong Side of Town.jpg

Proposed Edits
Hello All! I am a student and my final project for class is to revise a lower ranking article and try to revamp it. For this article I will be: 1. Adding onto the lead section to encapsulate more information about the book as a whole. 2. Adding more information about the overall reception about the book to show more case by case details 3. Adding various sources to the analysis section since there is only one source cited. 4. Fixing minor grammatical issues and working to facilitate the flow of the overall article. Please let me know if there is something I should be aware of! Amycazares (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heather Has Two Mommies


text:
Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics/7

From the Nuttall encyclopedia (Project Gutenberg):

Navigation
<> Done!

title: Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics/7


text:
Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics/8

From the Nuttall encyclopedia (Project Gutenberg):

Navigation
<>

This list was merged into the unified list.

title: Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics/8


text:
C4ISR

C4ISR may refer to:

 * the C4ISR concept of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, the U.S. term for C4ISTAR
 *  C4ISR Journal, a journal published by the Defense News Media Group
 * the C4ISR architectural framework (C4ISR AF), now known as Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF)

title: C4ISR