text:
Pacific blockade

A pacific blockade is a blockade exercised by a great power for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear on a weaker state without actual war. It can be employed only as a measure of coercion by maritime powers able to bring into action such vastly superior forces to those the resisting state can dispose of that resistance is out of the question. The term was created by Laurent-Basile Hautefeuille, a French writer on international maritime law.

In that respect, it is an act of war, and any attempt to exercise it against a power strong enough to resist would be a commencement of hostilities and at once bring into play the rights and duties affecting neutrals. Here, the concept of blockade is considered to be a form of aggression or warlike and not pacific. On the other hand, since the object and justification of a pacific blockade are to avoid war, general hostilities and disturbance of international traffic with the state against which the operation is carried on, rights of war cannot consistently be exercised against ships belonging to other states than those concerned. However, if neutrals were not to be affected by it, the coercive effect of such a blockade might be completely lost. Recent practice has been to limit interference with them to the extent barely necessary to carry out the purpose of the blockading powers.

Origin
It is usual to refer to the intervention of France, Britain and Russia in Turkish affairs in 1827 as the first occasion on which the coercive value of pacific blockades was put to the test. The Greek coasts occupied by the Turkish forces were blockaded and each of these powers blockaded the coast or a portion of it while declaring that a state of peace is maintained. Neutral vessels were not affected by it. This was followed by a number of other coercive measures described in the textbooks as pacific blockades. These include a boycott so that the subject of the blockade is not only isolated but deprived of its ability to self-help.

The first case, however, in which the operation was really a blockade, unaccompanied by hostilities, and which therefore can be properly called a pacific blockade, was exercised in 1837 by Britain against New Granada. A British subject and consul of the name of Russell was accused of stabbing a native of the country in a street brawl. He was arrested and, after being kept in detention for some months, was tried for the unlawful carrying of arms and sentenced to six years of imprisonment. The British government resented the treatment as not only cruel and unjust towards Mr Russell but also disrespectful towards the British nation and so demanded the dismissal of the officials implicated and 1000 damages as some compensation for the cruel injuries which had been inificted upon Mr Russell (State Papers, 1837–1838, p. 183). New Granada refused to comply with those demands, and the British representative, acting upon his instructions, called in the assistance of the West Indian fleet, but observed in his communication to the British naval officer in command that it was desirable to avoid hostilities and to endeavour to bring about the desired result by a strict blockade only. That seems to be the first occasion on which it had occurred to anybody that a blockade without war might serve the purpose of war.

Precedent
This precedent was shortly afterwards followed by another somewhat-similar case in which from April 16 to November 28, 1838, the French government blockaded the Mexican ports to coerce the Mexican government into acceptance of certain demands on behalf of French subjects who had suffered injury to their persons and damage to their property by insufficient protection by the Mexican authorities.

The blockade of Buenos Aires and the Argentine coast from March 28, 1838 to November 7, 1840 by the French fleet, a coercive measure consequent upon vexatious laws affecting foreign residents in the Argentine Republic, seems to have been the first case in which the operation was notified to the different representatives of foreign states. The notification was given in Paris and Buenos Aires, and to every ship approaching the blockaded places.

This precedent of notification was, a few years later (1845), followed in another blockade against the same country by Britain and France, and in one in 1842 and 1844 by Britain against the port of Greytown in Nicaragua. In 1850, Britain blockaded the ports of Greece in order to compel the Hellenic government to give satisfaction in the Don Pacifico case. Don Pacifico, a British subject, claimed 32,000 as damages for unprovoked pillage of his house by an Athenian mob. Greek vessels only were seized, and they were only sequestered. Greek vessels bonafide carrying cargoes belonging to foreigners were allowed to enter the blockaded ports.

Before the next case of blockade that can be described as pacific occurred came the Declaration of Paris (April 15, 1856), requiring that blockades to be binding must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient that can prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

1860
Some ill-defined measures of blockade followed such as that of 1860, when Victor Emmanuel, the king of Sardinia, joined the revolutionary government of Naples in blockading ports in Sicily, then held by the king of Naples, without any rupture of pacific relations between the two governments; that of 1862 in which Britain blockaded the port of Rio de Janeiro to exact redress for pillage of a British vessel by the local population and at the same time declaring that it continued to be on friendly terms with the emperor of Brazil; and that in 1880, when a demonstration was made before the port of Ulcinj by a fleet of British, German, French, Austrian, Russian and Italian men-of-war, to compel the Ottoman government to carry out the treaty conceding the town to Montenegro, and it was announced that if the town was not given up, by the Ottoman forces it would be blockaded.

The blockade that first gave rise to serious theoretical discussion on the subject was that instituted by France in 1884 in Chinese waters. On October 20, 1884, Admiral Courbet declared a blockade of all the ports and roadsteads between certain specified points of the island of Formosa. The British government protested that Coubert had not enough ships to render the blockade effective and that it was therefore a violation of one of the articles of the Declaration of Paris; moreover, that the French government could interfere only with neutral vessels violating the blockade if there was a state of war. If a state of war existed, Britain, as a neutral, was bound to close its coaling stations to belligerents. The British government held that in those circumstances, France was waging war and not entitled to combine the rights of peace and warfare for her own benefit. Since then, pacific blockades have been only exercised by the great powers as a joint measure in their common interest, which has also been that of peace; and in this respect the term is taking a new signification in accordance with the ordinary sense of the word 'pacific'.

1886
In 1886, Greece was blockaded by Britain, Austria, Germany, Italy and Russia to prevent it from engaging in war with the Ottoman Empire and thus forcing the powers to define their attitude towards it. The instructions given to the British commander were to detain every ship under the Greek flag coming out of or entering any of the blockaded ports or harbours or communicating with any ports within the limit blockaded, but if any parts of the cargo on board of such ships belonged to any subject or citizen of any foreign power other than Greece, Austria, Germany, Italy and Russia and had been shipped before notification of the blockade or after such notification but under a charter made before the notification, the ship was not to be detained.

On the blockade of Crete in 1897, it was notified that the admirals in command of the British, Austro-Hungarian, French, German, Italian and Russian naval forces had decided to put the island of Crete in a state of blockade, that the blockade would be general for all ships under the Greek flag and that ships of the six powers or neutral powers may enter into the ports occupied by the powers and land their merchandise but only if it is not for the Greek troops or the interior of the island, and that these ships may be visited by the ships of the international fleets.

Since the adoption of the Hague Convention of 1907 respecting the limitation of the employment of force for the recovery of contract debts, the contracting powers are under agreement not to have recourse to armed force for the recovery of contract debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another country as being due to its nationals unless the debtor state refuses or neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration or, after accepting the offer, prevents any compromise from being agreed on, or after the arbitration fails to submit to the award (Article I). Though that does not affect pacific blockades in principle, it supersedes them in practice by a new procedure for some of the cases in which they had been employed.

1900s
There is always the alternative of making the blockade an act of war, which was done in 1902–1903, when Britain, Germany and Italy proclaimed a blockade of certain ports of Venezuela and the mouths of the Orinoco. That blockade was not pacific but was war with all its consequences for belligerents and neutrals (see Foreign Office notice in London Gazette of December 20, 1902).

title: Pacific blockade


text:
User talk:Tsunade

Orphaned non-free image File:ToD2battleps2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ToD2battleps2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Tsunade


text:
Rarita–Schwinger equation

In theoretical physics, the Rarita–Schwinger equation is the relativistic field equation of spin-3/2 fermions in a four-dimensional flat spacetime. It is similar to the Dirac equation for spin-1/2 fermions. This equation was first introduced by William Rarita and Julian Schwinger in 1941.

In modern notation it can be written as:
 * $$ \left ( \epsilon^{\mu \kappa \rho \nu} \gamma_5 \gamma_\kappa \partial_\rho - i m \sigma^{\mu \nu} \right)\psi_\nu = 0 $$

where $$\epsilon^{\mu\kappa\rho\nu}$$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $$\gamma_\kappa$$ are Dirac matrices (with $$\kappa=0,1,2,3$$) and $$\gamma_5=i\gamma_0\gamma_1\gamma_2\gamma_3$$, $$m$$ is the mass, $$\sigma^{\mu\nu} \equiv \frac{i}{2} [\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu] $$, and $$\psi_\nu$$ is a vector-valued spinor with additional components compared to the four component spinor in the Dirac equation. It corresponds to the $(1⁄2, 1⁄2) ⊗ ((1⁄2, 0) ⊕ (0, 1⁄2))$ representation of the Lorentz group, or rather, its $(1, 1⁄2) ⊕ (1⁄2, 1)$ part.

This field equation can be derived as the Euler–Lagrange equation corresponding to the Rarita–Schwinger Lagrangian:
 * $$\mathcal{L}=-\tfrac{1}{2}\;\bar{\psi}_\mu \left( \epsilon^{\mu \kappa \rho \nu} \gamma_5 \gamma_\kappa \partial_\rho - i m \sigma^{\mu \nu} \right)\psi_\nu$$

where the bar above $$\psi_\mu$$ denotes the Dirac adjoint.

This equation controls the propagation of the wave function of composite objects such as the delta baryons or for the  conjectural gravitino. So far, no elementary particle with spin 3/2 has been found experimentally.

The massless Rarita–Schwinger equation has a fermionic gauge symmetry: is invariant under the gauge transformation $$\psi_\mu \rightarrow \psi_\mu + \partial_\mu \epsilon$$, where $$\epsilon\equiv \epsilon_\alpha$$ is an arbitrary spinor field. This is simply the local supersymmetry of supergravity, and the field must be a gravitino.

"Weyl" and "Majorana" versions of the Rarita–Schwinger equation also exist.

Equations of motion in the massless case
Consider a massless Rarita–Schwinger field described by the Lagrangian density
 * $$ \mathcal L_{RS} = \bar \psi_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} \partial_\nu \psi_\rho,$$

where the sum over spin indices is implicit, $$\psi_\mu$$ are Majorana spinors, and
 * $$ \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} \equiv \frac{1}{3!} \gamma^{[\mu}\gamma^\nu \gamma^{\rho]}. $$

To obtain the equations of motion we vary the Lagrangian with respect to the fields $$\psi_\mu$$, obtaining:
 * $$ \delta \mathcal L_{RS} =

\delta \bar \psi_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} \partial_\nu \psi_\rho + \bar \psi_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} \partial_\nu \delta \psi_\rho = \delta \bar \psi_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} \partial_\nu \psi_\rho - \partial_\nu \bar \psi_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} \delta \psi_\rho + \text{ boundary terms} $$ using the Majorana flip properties we see that the second and first terms on the RHS are equal, concluding that
 * $$ \delta \mathcal L_{RS} = 2 \delta \bar \psi_\mu \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} \partial_\nu \psi_\rho, $$

plus unimportant boundary terms. Imposing $$ \delta \mathcal L_{RS} = 0$$ we thus see that the equation of motion for a massless Majorana Rarita–Schwinger spinor reads:
 * $$ \gamma^{\mu\nu\rho} \partial_\nu \psi_\rho = 0. $$

The gauge symmetry of the massless Rarita-Schwinger equation allows the choice of the gauge $$\gamma^\mu \psi_\mu = 0$$, reducing the equations to:

\gamma^\nu{\partial}_\nu \psi_\mu = 0, \quad \partial^\mu \psi_\mu = 0, \quad \gamma^\mu \psi_\mu = 0. $$ A solution with spins 1/2 and 3/2 is given by:

\psi_0=\kappa, \quad \psi_i = \psi^{TT}_i + \frac{\gamma^j\partial_j}{\nabla^2}\gamma_0\partial_i\kappa, $$ where $$\nabla^2 $$ is the spatial Laplacian, $$ \psi^{TT}_i$$ is doubly transverse, carrying spin 3/2, and $$\kappa$$ satisfies the massless Dirac equation, therefore carrying spin 1/2.

Drawbacks of the equation
The current description of massive, higher spin fields through either Rarita–Schwinger or Fierz–Pauli formalisms is afflicted with several maladies.

Superluminal propagation
As in the case of the Dirac equation, electromagnetic interaction can be added by promoting the partial derivative to gauge covariant derivative:
 * $$\partial_\mu \rightarrow D_\mu = \partial_\mu - i e A_\mu $$.

In 1969, Velo and Zwanziger showed that the Rarita–Schwinger Lagrangian coupled to electromagnetism leads to equation with solutions representing wavefronts, some of which propagate faster than light. In other words, the field then suffers from acausal, superluminal propagation; consequently, the quantization in interaction with electromagnetism is essentially flawed. In extended supergravity, though, Das and Freedman have shown that local supersymmetry solves this problem.

title: Rarita–Schwinger equation


text:
Talk:Boston University

Pages for schools/colleges within BU
Some of the colleges and schools (listed in the "Colleges and Schools" category) should really have their own pages. Particularly CGS and MET (2 programs within MET have their own pages, but MET itself does not). These are important parts of BU and have notable alumni. Hbomberman (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Methodist affiliation
I'm unable to find any sources stating that Boston University has a current affiliation with the Methodist church, I can find many mentions of it historically, but several that state it isn't the case currently. Could I get some clarification?  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 00:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Sure, please check the ones that are in the article now. They are current sources. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi Anupam, every link you used is an outdated source. I will detail why the links are outdated below. The sources I use are the most up to date, from the government and, school itself.
 * Your links.
 * 3.) Separated brethren: a review of Protestant, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox & other religions in the United States". Our Sunday Visitor. These do not state the proposition that BU is affiliated with the Methodist church whatsoever. It merely suggests that there is a Methodist seminary in Boston, and makes no mention of the University itself. Additionally, the author fails to state any supporting evidence to back up her proposition.
 * 4.) "Boston University". International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities (IAMSCU). I have several complaints about this source. First, it is outdated. Second, the source does not state the proposition that BU in its entirely is methodist school. It only states that historically the school of theology within the school is associated with the methodist church. It does not go to state the entire university is affiliated with the church.
 * 5.) "United Methodist schools score high in rankings" This source is outdated from 2004. This source also does not state that BU is at all affiliated with the Methodist church. There is a major difference between being related and being affiliated with which I believe is the source of your confusion. Related means having some sort of past contact or past interaction with(Which is true in the case of BU, originally founded as a methodist seminary but this is no longer the case). Affiliation means that the school administration has officially received permission from the church to establish a school based on the church's teachings. BU does not fall under the category of being affiliated with the church.
 * 6.) "Cambridge University Student Union International 2003-2004" The author makes an assertion with no support for his assertion what so ever. He makes a statement, and does not cite any sources as to where he obtained the information to make his opinion. This can not be used as a verifiable source.
 * My Links.
 * 3.) http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=boston+uni&s=all&id=164988#general This is the official department of education report compiled by the United States government about Universities. Universities are required to submit information to the government for the government to compile their report. The government report clearly states that the University's religious affiliation is not applicable. Meaning that BU has no religious affiliation. Additionally, this source is unbiased and should be held in higher regard than the sources you state from methodist books and methodist websites.
 * 4.) http://www.topuniversities.com/institution/boston-university This website is run by QS a nonprofit that ranks universities from around the world. The website states that BU is non-sectarian which means having no religious affiliation. This report was released in 2011 which is more recent than any of the links you give for support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowjangles (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4.) http://www.topuniversities.com/institution/boston-university This website is run by QS a nonprofit that ranks universities from around the world. The website states that BU is non-sectarian which means having no religious affiliation. This report was released in 2011 which is more recent than any of the links you give for support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowjangles (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Please gain consensus for changing the version of the article from where it stands right now. The sources mentioned in the article are not outdated and delineate the fact that Boston University is affiliated with The United Methodist Church. For example, the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities lists Boston University as being affiliated with The United Methodist Church (see link). Moreover, the institution even has a School of Theology which is used to train ministers in The United Methodist Church. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Wait, who says the version you listed has a consensus? The sources you listed are biased and do not speak for the university in general. All of the sources you cite are related to the Methodist church. The sources where I get my information are unbiased,third-party independent sources. Additionally, please look at my explanation of "related to" and affiliated with. There is a difference. I think this is the source of your confusion. As a student at the  University, I know the school has a school of theology. The school of theology is a college within the larger university. The school of theology does not speak for the university as a whole.  I hope this helps. Yours truly,   bowjanglesTalk 07:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Hello User:Bowjangles, I would foremost suggest that you take heed to the warning given on your talk page and first discuss your proposed changes to the article, rather than removing information from the article. You have already been reverted by another user as well. I found an source from Boston University itself, acknowledging its affiliation to The United Methodist Church:
 * As such, Boston University states that it is affiliated with The United Methodist Church, which in turn acknowledges the same affiliation. This solves any concerns you might have had, although the previous sources adequately buttressed the statement. Moreover, the affiliation is also recognized by the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities, as well as by several reliable tertiary sources, such as The Cambridge University Student Union International. I would also like to point out that the Education Encyclopedia states:
 * Thanks for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Hello User:Anupam, I would suggest that you stop threatening people. I have discussed changes to the article and you have been unwilling to admit your mistakes. It seems you are highly biased towards including this incorrect information about the school. Why? What reason do you have for including false information about the school? To settle this dispute I emailed the school and received an answer from the admissions department. I suggest you do the same as well. "BU began its existence as a Methodist seminary, and Marsh Chapel sits at the heart of campus, but these days we do not have an official religious affiliation. For more information about religious life at BU, I encourage you to visit the Religious Life section of our Admissions website." Bode Wilson, Admissions Coordinator, Boston University Undergraduate Admissions Phone: (617) 353-2300. Admissions@bu.edu. Anupam the cites you list speak only of the school of theology not the entire university. Why are you unwilling to accept that you are wrong? :Thanks for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. With regards, bowjanglesTalk 13:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Bowjangles you have not been threatened. You have been warned. If you continue edit warring against multiple editors you will be blocked. We operate on consensus, not truth. You have not persuaded any editors to your position. I invite you to keep discussing the merits of your issue and stop edit warring. – Lionel (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with User:Lionelt's comments here - you must gain consensus to change the longstanding version of the article. Also, clandestinely removing relevant talk page banners is considered vandalism. Wikipedia operates according to the principle of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." At this time, several reliable sources, including the websites for Boston University and The United Methodist Church acknowledge the affiliation. Today, I found another link from the Office of the Provost at Boston University acknowledging its affiliation with The United Methodist Church:
 * And no, I am not wrong. This website, along with the previous website from BU that I provided is not from the seminary but is from the university in general. In fact, the link is coming from the Media Relations section of the general website. The supposed email you provided from the admissions office clerk does not qualify here as a published reliable source, while the information provided by the Media Relations as well as the Office of the Provost, does. This information is further corroborated by the fact that The United Methodist Church also acknowledges the affiliation, as does the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities. Thanks for your understanding, AnupamTalk 21:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree that editors should not change long-standing articles without consensus. However, I would not be so quick to dismiss Bowjangles' point just because his methods are questionable. The references you listed cite an historical affiliation which is not the same as a current affiliation. It has already been stipulated by all editors on this page that there is an historical connection between the Methodist Church and BU. I think we should open up a general discussion on the current status of the relationship between the Methodist Church and BU and proceed from there. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear User:Djkernen, the user in question removed the statement and references from the article completely, which was unacceptable. I would be open to a compromise by using BU's wording and inserting the word "historically" before the word "affiliated" in the article. What do you think of this idea? I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Additionally, after emailing The United Methodist Church, I received the following response:
 * When one clicks on the reference, "Boston University" is listed as a "Four Year Institution" that is affiliated with The United Methodist Church. I hope this helps, AnupamTalk 16:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When one clicks on the reference, "Boston University" is listed as a "Four Year Institution" that is affiliated with The United Methodist Church. I hope this helps, AnupamTalk 16:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 * This source demonstrates the Methodist affiliation and goes so far as to name the current president as a contact on p. 9.– Lionel (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi Lionelt. After reading you source that you recently upload does not support the proposition you state, "Boston University is listed as a Four Year Institution that is affiliated with The United Methodist Church". The link you cited only states that the school of theology at Boston University is affiliated with the United Methodist Church. See my previous posts where I explain the difference between the school of theology which is only a small college within the larger University. The University in general retains no religious affiliation. You can not support your statement with the link you cite. (bowjangles)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC).

 * Did you read the entire Directory? BU and the BU School of Theology are both listed separately.– Lionel (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi all.

I have done some more research on the issue and have found several sources that support that the university has no religious affiliation. Additionally, I called the University and spoke with a Mr. Bode Wilson in admissions to confirm what I had found online. The new sources that I have not seen previously in this discussion are as follows, Princeton review, U.S. news and, the college board. All of the sources are independent non-biased sources who get their information directly from the University. The contact information for Mr. Bode Wilson, Admissions Coordinator, Boston University Undergraduate Admissions, Phone: (617) 353-2300.

Additionally, I don't see the reliance of having the "historically" related to the methodist church within the first paragraph of the page. If it isn't currently related why does it need to be in the first paragraph? It would be better suited to go under the historical information subsection.--Robocop729 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi Robocop729, I called Boston University to confirm that they were indeed had no religious affiliation. The person I spoke with in admissions did confirm that they had no religious affiliation. I also agree that the sources you list support the proposition that the school has no religious affiliation. Princeton review, U.S. news and, the college board . Also the sources listed by bowjangles includeing the U.S. Department of Education QS Top university's support the school not having any religious affiliation. Most of the sources that others have been using are biased in that they come from the methodist church. Independent sources and sources that come directly from the university should be valued more so than the ones coming directly from the church. I think we are getting close to a consensus on the school not having any religious affiliation, we should consider updating the home page to reflect this.--Heilanpol (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear User:Mann jess, I am posting here in order to demonstrate that three editors here have spoken in favour of retaining the sentence in the introduction of the article (User:Anupam, User:Djkernen, and User:Lionelt) and have provided several sources for their claims. Only one user has opposed the sentence and edit warred to remove it. This user is User:Bowjangles, who also used the socks User:Robocop729 and User:Heilanpol (refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Bowjangles/Archive). All three accounts are now blocked for this reason. Therefore, there is consensus for keeping the information. If you have any objections, please discuss them here rather than reverting as the article originally contained the sentence. In the mean time, I will notify the blocking administrator of this matter in order that he/she might clarify the situation here. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear User:Mann jess, the reviewing administrator has reverted the newly created sock and has left a message here, which I hope you will read. If you have any objections, please state them here. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, but even if it were, you've left out two other users (and me) who've questioned the affiliation, and we cannot simply invalidate the concerns and sources provided by bowjangles because of a likely connection with a sock. It looks like this is what we have for references:

 * Sources explicitly stating "No religious affiliation"
 * princetonreview
 * usnews
 * nces.ed.gov

 * Sources explicitly stating a "historical" affiliation
 * BU News

 * Sources explicitly stating UMC connection to "School of theology"
 * BU School of Theology

 * Other sources
 * United Methodist Church: Listed as "United Methodist-related schools". No explicit distinction from school of theology.
 * gbhem.org (Published by UMC):
 * 1: This simply puts BU in an unlabeled list. It could be "schools they support", or "places they have an active presence", or it could refer specifically to the school of theology affiliation.
 * 2: Again, no explicit mention. This could be anything.

This seems fairly clear-cut. BU backs up a historical affiliation, and an affiliation with their school of theology, but makes no statement about current affiliation with their main school. The only sources provided to support a current affiliation are published by the UMC and extremely ambiguous, often making no explicit statement. Then, we have 3 independent sources (including the National Center for Education Statistics) explicitly stating "no religious affiliation". We should move the religious affiliation in the infobox and text to Boston University School of Theology, and make mention of a historical connection in the History section. Anything more than that isn't supported by the sources presented thus far. — Jess · Δ♥ 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

 * No. This source clearly demonstrates BU is a Methodist school . The Affiliation must read Methodist. – Lionel (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Where? And why is gbhem.org a better source than the National Center for Education Statistics?  — Jess · Δ♥ 17:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Mann jess, the link User:Lionelt provided lists Boston University and the Boston University School of Theology separately, thus confirming both as being affiliated with The United Methodist Church. Moreover, the website from Boston University states:
 * The Office of the Provost at Boston University also acknowledges its affiliation with The United Methodist Church:
 * The United Methodist Church itself acknowledges this affiliation, as indicated in their website:
 * The affiliation is also acknowledged by The General Board of Higher Education & Ministry, to which the Office of the Provost at Boston University referred to above:
 * In addition, the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities also lists Boston University as a "United Methodist" school (also note that a search on the website for the IAMSCU yields a separate entry for the Boston University School of Theology):
 * Several other secondary sources also acknowledge the affiliation of Boston University to The United Methodist Church. For example, the Education Encyclopedia states:
 * Also, Cambridge University Student Union International speaks of the relationship as well:
 * In addition, the reference Separated brethren: a review of Protestant, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox & other religions in the United States offers the following text:
 * Of course, there are also references that state that Boston University is nonsectarian; this however, does not nullify the affiliation of Boston University to The United Methodist Church. This is why the sentence in the article states: "The university identifies itself as nonsectarian,[14][15] although it maintains an affiliation with The United Methodist Church." In addition, in your reply, you stated that "you've left out two other users." Who did I leave out? User:Djkernen, User:Lionelt, and myself (User:Anupam) all have acknowledged the affiliation. The administrator User:Courcelles stated that “Obviously, in determining consensus, the trio of sockpuppets can be ignored.” These sockpuppets are User: Bowjangles, User: Robocop729, and User:Heilanpol, all of whom are indefinitely blocked. In light of this information, as well as the several references I provided, the information will stand in the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are also references that state that Boston University is nonsectarian; this however, does not nullify the affiliation of Boston University to The United Methodist Church. This is why the sentence in the article states: "The university identifies itself as nonsectarian,[14][15] although it maintains an affiliation with The United Methodist Church." In addition, in your reply, you stated that "you've left out two other users." Who did I leave out? User:Djkernen, User:Lionelt, and myself (User:Anupam) all have acknowledged the affiliation. The administrator User:Courcelles stated that “Obviously, in determining consensus, the trio of sockpuppets can be ignored.” These sockpuppets are User: Bowjangles, User: Robocop729, and User:Heilanpol, all of whom are indefinitely blocked. In light of this information, as well as the several references I provided, the information will stand in the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Umm... what? Accusing me of edit warring and demanding I discuss the matter is unwarranted, given I have not reverted and am currently discussing. I'm not sure how to make my reply clearer, but you've apparently skipped over a good portion of it. Many of the sources you've identified state that the school has a historical affiliation, which is apparent and should be reflected in the article, but that does not indicate a current affiliation. Many other sources list BU in an unlabeled list, which is clearly not helpful. Many of the remainder fail to make a distinction between BU as a whole and the school of theology, where the latter clearly has a current affiliation that should be listed in its article. That takes out your first, second, and fourth ref.
 * You have now presented a few new sources, which are helpful. Some of those do list "Boston University" as a Methodist school, including two by the UMC (1, 2), one by stateuniversity.com, and another published by the catholic church. Only one of those distinguishes between the main school and the school of theology, but we shouldn't necessarily be quick to disregard the others just because they don't. However, that leaves us with a predicament; we have a few sources saying they are affiliated, and we have a few sources saying there's no affiliation.
 * Frankly, I am compelled to think there is no current affiliation. All but one of the sources saying otherwise are published by religious organizations, most affiliated with the UMC directly. It also seems likely some of the sources are speaking about the school of theology, or a historical affiliation, when they speak of BU generally, and the source by the National Center for Education Statistics (a part of the Department of Education specifically tasked with this sort of thing) is a very strong one. However, with these new sources, the matter is not so clear cut as it was. From prior experience, it seems this won't go anywhere between the two of us, so perhaps an RfC would be helpful?  — Jess · Δ♥ 05:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 * In your reply, you stated that "accusing me of edit warring and demanding I discuss the matter is unwarranted." If you could point out the sentence in my last reply where I did that, I would appreciate it because I find no such statements. And no, several of the major references do distinguish between the affiliation concerning Boston University and Boston University School of Theology, including GBHEM and IAMSCU. By the way the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities is not a part of The United Methodist Church, but is an independent organization. I do not think an RfC will be necessary at this time if you're willing to collaborate. Right now, in order to compromise with you, I am suggesting the addition of the word "historic" before the word "affiliation" in the following sentence of the article: "The university identifies itself as nonsectarian, although it maintains an affiliation with The United Methodist Church." How does that sound? With regards, AnupamTalk 05:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 * "I am compelled to think there is no current affiliation": what you "think" is irrelevant. Your opinion is meaningless. The encyclopedia is built with verifiable, reliable sources. You cannot pick and choose the source that suits you. All reliable sources must be reflected in the article. What part of this do you not comprehend? – Lionel (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 * @Anupam, sorry, you're right about the EW comment. In the edit view, I misread your previous Nov 29th reply to me where you made those comments as a part of this reply. That explains my bewilderment. However, as for content, "several of the major sources" don't distinguish between BU and the school of theology as you claim. One does, Gbhem, which you've linked to twice. I agree with your compromise insofar as it indicates the historical affiliation in the text I suggested. However, your suggestion doesn't address the infobox. Perhaps you have a suggestion for addressing the infobox which would incorporate all available sources. Unfortunately, I can't think of one.
 * @Lionelt, I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from on your end. I made a pretty strong case for my suggestion using sources, I didn't just throw out an opinion without content, and I certainly didn't "pick and choose the source that suits me". That does appear to be what you're doing, though; how do you plan to incorporate the nces.gov, usnews and princetonreview sources? I'll reiterate: 1) We have sources saying BU has a historical affiliation, that should be reflected in the article; 2) We have sources saying the school of theology has a current affiliation, that should be reflected in its article; 3) Then we have contrary sources saying BU has a current affiliation, and saying BU has no current affiliation. Since BU says explicitly it's only a historical affiliation, and since the sources saying otherwise are almost all directly involved with the UMC, and since the National Center for Education Statistics (seemingly our strongest source) claims there is no affiliation, it appears the "no affiliation" camp has a stronger case. I'm happy to post an RfC to get opinions from other editors, if that's necessary.  — Jess · Δ♥ 17:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 * While we certainly should mention that BU was founded by Methodistts (as were many institutions of higher learning; the Church is next to land grants in importance to the development of higher education in the US), they are fundamentally a secular school. Listing UMC as the Religious affiliation misinforms the reader. The school charter explicitly disavows any religious test for the trustees, instructors, or students (Theological Department excepted). The stylistic abomination that is the line of six references should also be fixed. FiveColourMap (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear Mann jess, thanks for your willingness to compromise; I think adding "historical" will work, as far as the article is concerned. As far as the information box, how about changing the Religious Affiliation section to "The United Methodist Church, Nonsectarian"? I think this compromise should resolve the issue. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Is "historical" the right word to use? Or should it be "historic?"  I find that the former is overused and misunderstood; it's not too often that we discuss historiography in articles. ElKevbo (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear User:ElKevbo, I am fine with the word "historic" too! We can use that word if User:Mann jess does not object. Best wishes, AnupamTalk 03:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * @Anupam, putting "UMC, Nonsectarian" in the infobox doesn't incorporate the multiple sources we have, including our strongest from the NCES, which indicate no affiliation at all. It's unfortunate, but I don't see a way we can handle the infobox without picking one or the other. I'm happy to talk about this more if you feel we'll likely get somewhere, but otherwise I think an RfC to get a broader opinion may be the best step forward.  — Jess · Δ♥ 07:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * BTW, it doesn't make sense to "maintain a historic(al) affiliation", so we'll have to do more work with the text than simply adding one word. However, I'm not too concerned with that right now since it's likely we can come up with something workable, so I think we should focus on the infobox wording for the time being.  — Jess · Δ♥ 07:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, but NCES could be inaccurate. Both The United Methodist Church and Boston University acknowledge an affiliation, as indicated by their respective websites. If you really insist, we could remove the section on religious affiliation from the infobox altogether, although I would prefer to keep it. Let me know. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * BU doesn't indicate a current affiliation. The main school indicates a historic affiliation, and the school of theology indicates a current affiliation. Anyway, removing the religious affiliation from the infobox would solve the problem. Then we can expand on this in the body, where there's room for context. Let's do that.  — Jess · Δ♥ 09:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I saw your removed the affiliation from the infobox. In the spirit of compromise, I am fine with that. As far as the lede is concerned, I would prefer to use the wording of Boston University: "Boston University has been historically affiliated with the United Methodist Church." You expressed concern about the word "maintains" in the current wording in the lede; in order to address your concerns, I think rewording the sentence to "The university identifies itself as nonsectarian, although it is historically affiliated with The United Methodist Church" will solve this issue. I look forward to your comments before I implement the change. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I actually hadn't looked at the nonsectarian sources. Since they come from BU, and are very direct, they are strong sources, and we should make use of them. How about we use your wording, including the nonsectarian bit, but swap the front and back? Your wording is fine. I'll make a few changes to shorten it up a bit, and implement it so you can see what I mean - feel free to let me know what you think.  — Jess · Δ♥ 19:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I also cleaned up the refs, as some of them did not back up the assertion of a historic affiliation. One, explicit and from BU, should be sufficient. Also, that second source backing up "nonsectarian" is, itself, referenced to Princeton Review. We should either remove that reference, or (more ideally, I think), link directly to Princeton Review instead. After all, two refs from the same place are no better than 1. I couldn't track down the original Princeton Review article, but perhaps you know of it? Anyway, that should about cover it. Thanks for the help working on this.  — Jess · Δ♥ 20:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Lastly, I added an infobox indicating an affiliation with the UMC to Boston University School of Theology. If I've made any mistakes on the details there, please feel free to correct them. All the best,  — Jess · Δ♥ 20:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear Mann jess, thanks for adding information in the infobox of the Boston University School of Theology. I restored one church reference and moved the nonsectarian reference after the punctuation following that word. Finally, I changed "has been" to "is" since the university is still in existence. Thanks for working with me through this. I hope you have a nice night. With regards, AnupamTalk 09:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Does BC suck or not?
A recent edit removed this paragraph:

 * Additionally, in the "unofficial" version of the song, often sung by students, the words "Fight! Fight! Fight!" are replaced with "BC sucks!", a nod to the ice hockey rivalry between the two schools.

Do we want to put it back in? It is an interesting tidbit, if true. BU is one of my almae matres but I have never heard that version of the song. OTH I have also never attended a BU sporting event (nor any other sporting event if I could help it). Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Article needs new pics
I just got back from visiting the campus and the pics on here do not do the campus any justice. The Eli Weisel Center for Judaic Studies and the Center for International Relations were gorgeous buildings. As was the BU Castle and the Pub underneath it.

Please add some more flattering pics to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.66.120 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

PR
Parts of this article read as if taken fr/ BU advertising brochures. Plans for future development were pared down, and peacock language has been replaced.Tapered (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

local street map
Please add a local street map highlighting the campus area and buildings.-71.174.188.32 (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Olympia Dukakis
Is there some special reason that Oscar winner Olympia Dukakis was omitted from the Arts notable Alumni section? There is somebody else who is there that I would be happy to see removed. That name will not be given. Olympia's Oscar was for Best Supporting Actress in Moonstruck. The source for me is IMDB but you probably want to cite the Oscar association pages. She is still active at about age 87 surviving her only spouse who died in early 2018. That alone is a record for people in Hollywood. hhhobbit (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Prominent Sporting Alumni of BU
1968 Olympic 400m hurdles gold medalist David Hemery was a student at BU in the 1960s, and a coach in the 1970s and 1980s.

John Thomas attended BU in the early 1960s and he won a silver medal in the Olympic High Jump. He was an assistant track coach at BU during the 1970s.

I don't have references for these athletics or I would have put them in the prominent alumni myself.

Endo999 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Boston University President Robert A. Brown.jpg

BU Trigrams Suggestion
BU has a tradition of using three-letter abbreviations (e.g. FAS, CFA, SAR, MET) for its various schools, and changing them from time to time. To make it easier to decode them, I propose adding two new columns to the table which currently lists only the dates of establishment. One column should show the current official trigram, while the other column should list any previous letter codes used, and possibly what names they once stood for. Reify-tech (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Need a campus map
A campus map is needed, showing where each college or academic program is located. A URL referencing an official BU map would be OK. Tziril (talk) 05:34, 23 September 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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Center for Intergrated Life Siences & Engineering (CILSE).jpg

Undiscussed removal of historical Methodist affiliation from infobox
Can the unregistered editor who insists on removing the (well-sourced) historical Methodist affiliation from the infobox please explain their edits? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Center of Computing and Data Science Classification
Should the CDS be added to the section about the schools and colleges? The official classification of it is an academic unit and not actually a school/college Ksirz (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 * The CDS is a building that houses the Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Department of Computer Science, the Rafik B. Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science & Engineering, and the Faculty of Computing & Data Sciences. What you mean to refer to is the Faculty of Computing & Data Sciences. I don't think it should be added as a school/college as it only offers a Data Science major. Swordfish31 (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Arvind and Chandan Nandlal Kilachand Honors College should be removed from list of schools/colleges
The Kilachand Honors College is not a degree-granting college nor is it a major program. Graduates of the Kilachand Honors College receive their degrees from one of the established colleges. Rather, it is a special program wherein students get specialized supervising, a separate residence hall, and complete a keystone project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swordfish31 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's still a college - it's right there in the name. ElKevbo (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Under BU's academics section for "Schools & Colleges," that college is listed. Pacamah (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Historic affiliation with United Methodist Church shouldn't be mentioned in beginning sentences
The historic affiliation with the United Methodist Church is already explained in the body paragraphs of the article. It is unnecessary to repeat this in the beginning. Rather, the beginning should provide details about the founding of the university, as can be seen with the introductions of peer institutions on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swordfish31 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree; it's only a few words and it seems especially important to tell readers that although the institution has historic ties to a particular religious denomination it is non-secular. ElKevbo (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree. Boston University is a secular institution. There is only one school in Boston University, the School of Theology, that "retains its historic affiliation with the United Methodist Church", which can be read further in the article. It is not important at all to tell the readers what church that 1 out of the 17 schools/colleges of Boston University is historically affiliated with in the beginning of the article. Even then, it is a weak affiliation - as can be see from the STH website, both non-Methodist Christians and non-Christians, including Muslims and the Irreligious are able to attend the School of Theology. See Princeton University, which was founded by New Light Presbytarians to train ministers dedicated to their views, and historically affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, with the Princeton Theological Seminary being the first school of Princeton University, still affiliated with the Presbyterian Church. This affiliation with the Presbyterian Church is not mentioned in the beginning sentences of the article as this is not what readers want to know from the first glance of reading about the University, rather, the simple background of the University is what the readers want to know in the beginning, its fine if you mention the church affiliation later, which it already is. Swordfish31 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I too agree with User:ElKevbo. The affiliation is not with the seminary only, but with the entire university, as the references demonstrate. It is important to leave the references in the article per WP:RS. IAMSCU lists Boston University as a member institution, as does the website of the United Methodist Church. If User:User:Swordfish31 still disagrees, he/she should respect the WP:STATUSQUO until consensus is reached. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The University is either secular, or it is a Methodist university. Boston University is listed as a member institute because of its School of Theology. The University as a whole is secular. Swordfish31 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring against consensus and will soon be in violation of WP:3RR if you continue reverting. As of now, you do not have the agreement of other editors to change long-standing information on this article. AnupamTalk 23:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you provided reliable sources supporting your assertions. ElKevbo (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments User:ElKevbo. I should add, with respect to User:Swordfish31's claim, it is impossible for a university to be "secular" and host a religious seminary and chapel at the same time. The sources state that it is nonsectarian and that there is an affiliation with the United Methodist Church—this is an accurate descriptor of the university, which has been present in this article throughout its history. AnupamTalk 03:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Anupam, respectfully, nonsectarian and secular are interchangeable. Swordfish31 (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not "impossible" by any means. See Northwestern University, they host the Garrett–Evangelical Theological Seminary, a Methodist seminary. Nobody claims that Northwestern is not a secular school. BU is definitely secular, based on your profile, you seem to have somewhat of an affiliation with the religion being discussed - it is important to remain impartial. Swordfish31 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Religious affiliation" should be removed from infobox and rather mentioned in body paragraph
Given that BU is nonsectarian, this mention of a non-existent religious affiliation in the info box is inappropriate. See Northwestern University, where the historic affiliation to the United Methodist Church was removed from the infobox.Swordfish31 (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The religious affiliation will remain in the infobox. Boston University has a United Methodist-related university as mentioned in the sources in the above section, such as the IAMSCU website. Please familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You provided a source from 2014, please provide an updated source. And what do you mean by Boston University has a United Methodist-related university? Boston University itself is a university. It's been established that BU is a nonsectarian institution, so why is there a section for "religious affiliation"? Thanks, Swordfish31 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The current IAMSCU website still includes BU as a "World Methodist School". ElKevbo (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Change of "Notable Alumni" section?
Other pages seem to have essentially a giant slew of pictures under the notable alumni section. Would this be something favorable here? I am honestly a bit more in the camp of including this, as it seems to be a bit more impactful to have pictures rather than just links. Pacamah (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

School Colors
The current infobox has BU Red and White, but the source it links to says it is BU Red and black for its official colors? I feel like red and white are obviously the most prominent colors, but the official site says red and black, so I'm not sure what to do. I guess we can either change it to red and black, or add black to the mix. Pacamah (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Boston University


text: User talk:151.202.116.23

title: User talk:151.202.116.23


text:
Girl in Gold Boots

Girl in Gold Boots is a 1968 crime/drama film about the seedy underworld of go-go dancing, directed by Ted V. Mikels, who also directed The Astro-Zombies. It was Mikels' first movie for his own company, Gemini.

Plot
Michele is a young woman working with her abusive father at a diner. She quits her waitressing job when she meets a patron, Buz, who initially came in to rob the place at gunpoint instead invites her to Los Angeles where he promises Michele his sister, the famous Joan Nichols, can land her a job as a dancer at a Hollywood nightclub. The two drive off to L.A. and pick up a traveling musician, Critter. Once in Hollywood, Michele immediately lands a job as a go-go dancer, Critter as a janitor, and Buz as a drug dealer. Michele soon discovers Buz is heavily involved in the underbelly of the club scene and she becomes witness to the club's drug trade and prostitution connections.

Cast

 * Jody Daniels as Finley 'Critter' Jones
 * Leslie McRay as Michele Casey (as Leslie McRae)
 * Tom Pace as Buz Nichols
 * Mark Herron as Leo McCabe
 * Bara Byrnes as Joanie Nichols
 * William Bagdad as Marty
 * Victor Izay as Mr. Casey
 * Harry Lovejoy as Harry Blatz
 * James Victor as Joey
 * Rod Wilmoth as Officer
 * Chris Howard as Chris
 * Mike Garrison as Station Attendant
 * Michael Derrick as Car Attendant
 * Sheila Roberts as Store Clerk
 * Dennis Childs as Jail Inmate

Home media
In 2001, Image Entertainment released the Region 1 DVD of Girl in Gold Boots. This version is now out-of-print. In 2007, a Region 0 DVD of the movie was released by Alpha Video.

Appearance on MST3K
Girl in Gold Boots was obscure for many years after its release, until it featured as a Season 10 episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Apparent skips in the print used in the television program led to some amusing continuity problems, including a scene in a diner in which Buz suddenly appears in his seat next to Michele and Critter as if he teleports in during their conversation. One DVD release (from MMI Image Entertainment, using a print from Geneni Film Distributing Company), shows the scene without the unintentional "teleport" skip but has its own continuity breaks, suggesting two different prints of the original film were used.

Soundtrack
Nearly half of the songs in this music-laden movie, including the title song, were written by singer-songwriter and sound engineer Chris Howard, who appears as himself and is backed by a band called "The Third World" in the credits (not to be confused with the reggae band Third World). One scene features bongo player Preston Epps, who had achieved some fame a decade earlier with his 1959 pop hit, "Bongo Rock". In fact, Epps is listed in the opening credits as "that Bongo Rock man."

title: Girl in Gold Boots


text:
User talk:Ypacaraí

Subpages

 * /Fuss on Tsushima
 * /2005

deletion of Korea Scout Association from South Korea
Why did you remove Korea Scout Association from South Korea? It is related, it is not vandalism, and you gave no reason as to why you removed it. Chris 03:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think such article is suitable to keep a link on South Korea. If you think Korea Scout Association need s a link on South Korea, please put the link again. I will never remove it. I think someone else will remove it. -- Ypacaraí 04:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Verification for #wikipedia-en-vandalism
Hi, sorry, I can't verfiy your request when you're not online. I have verified that you're on the list and that you were identified, but I can't invite you now. Ask me (or any of the other people on this list) when you're online and we'll do it for you. Sorry about the inconvenience! --Joann e B 16:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't realised I wasn't opped in those channel when I tried to invite you. You shouldn't have any trouble getting into the channels now. --Joann e B 16:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

RfD
On 22-Jan, you tagged the redirect Sea of korea for deletion, but you did not list it at Redirects for deletion. I have added it to that page for discussion. You may wish to add a comment there if you still wish to see this redirect deleted. In the future, if you nominate a redirect for deletion, please list it. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. -- JLaTondre 02:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh I forgot to add. Thank you for your help! --Ypacaraí 00:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Momoe Yamaguchi
My source stated that her father is a Korean, and her mother is Japanese. The alternative source I have provided shows that she is of mixed Zainichi descent (cached version, I have highlighted her name, and other Zainichis also included Akiko Wada, an undisputed Zainichi in your eyes. Please show me a source to support that she is not a Zainichi, and that it is a rumour, if you strongly believe otherwise. And I would once again urge you not to critcise my efforts as "useless", it is against Civility. I have already explained. Thanks. Mr Tan 02:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * No, you must show us a reliable source if you insist. Sources you have presented are almost worthless and not more than gossips. --Ypacaraí 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Here they are, yahoo search results and sources. If you are still unconvinced, I think you better personally read The Straits Times article yourself or WP:RS, by whatever extreme means, even coming to Singapore yourself just to see it, I don't care. Add it back, or remove it if you wish, for I have nothing more to give. To me, I have proven my own point to the best, and I have no more reservations. Happy? Mr Tan 12:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm just helping you not to waste your time. As usual sources you brings are worthless. Stop messing up my talk page and that article. --Ypacaraí 13:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not for you to judge what I should or should not do. You are the one wasting my very own precious time and blood, not the reverse. And I am very astonished of your crude and hostile attitude of yours, for I do not understand where and why I have offended you. I have no more to say. Full stop. Mr Tan 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, Show valuable source at article's discuttion page or keep reverting. Do not bring here worthless trash anymore. --Ypacaraí

I will not revert nor will I show any sources, at least for now. I have lost interest on this for now, thanks to you. And one more crude words out from you from now on, such as using the words trash in such contexts, I will not hesitate to send you to RfC on the basis of Civility. I can work with you only if you at least change your basic etiquette. I am really beginning to get pissed off by your inflamatory remarks. Mr Tan 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry about my words but I'm really fed up with your discussion manner. You don't learn what is valuable source in Wikipedia and what is not.  You have lost interest on this?  Well, unlike geographical and political problem between Japan and Korea, I really don't care whether she has korean ancestry or not. I've neven been a fan of her.  But I believe that I've seen much information about her ancestry in Japanese and your claim is laughable.  Clinging her ancestry theme is waste of your time and I wanted to let you know about it. --Ypacaraí 03:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright, would you like me to scan out the article and show it in front of your own eyes? I agree that I do not wish to harp anymore on this minor matter, especially in view of the doubt about her ancestry you spurred up. However do take note that my way of citing sources is inspired by User:Johnleemk, who uses national newspapers to cite sources. Perhaps you can check out how he cite sources using newspapers. I have asked initially asked him on the verifiability of newspapers as sources, and here was his reply:. Perhaps this might enlighten you on how I judge upon what are reliable sources (see WP:RS). Mr Tan 05:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Hi,, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either:  (which will add this user box) or   to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Gl e n 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tsushima Island
Konbanwa ! I dont understand your comments : rv such surrrender doesn't appear in Japanese and Korean history books http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsushima_Island&diff=104715360&oldid=104635137

Zenzen wakarimasen !

On June 19, 1419, the recently-abdicated King Taejong of Joseon ordered his trusted general Yi Jong Mu to clear the island of the Wokou pirates, using a fleet of 227 vessels and 17,000 soldiers. So Sadamori surrendered to Joseon Kingdom, on September 29, 1419 and Tsushima became a Korean tributary island. Are you sure about what you've written above? 1) Look at the picture then : We can clearly see that Japanese peoples were kneeling down to General Yi Jong Mu and his officers.
 * General Yi Jong Mu
 * and have a look on the following Link : They wrote : "The war that ensued cost more than 3,800 lives on the both parties, and ended with the surrender of the Tsushima lord on Sept. 29."

2) Why have you deleted informations concerning Tsushima written in a Korean book calledSamguk Sagi?? According to the Samguk Sagi, in February 408 (7th year of Silseong Maripkan), the king of Silla heard that the Japanese had set up a base in Tsushima, so as to invade the Korean kingdom, . You don't have a NPOV, slightly pro-Japanese and i can understand that. Regards. Mata kondo !Whlee 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo RM poll
Hey, could you participate in a new poll for Dokdo? The candidates include Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima, and the new Takeshima/Dokdo variations suggested by user:Macgruder. I'm informing you because you voted on the last poll. Thanks. (Wikimachine 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ypacaraí


text:
Philip Huntoon

Philip Huntoon (c. 1664 – May 10, 1752) is said to be the ancestor of all persons in America bearing the name "Huntoon." Philip Hunton, as he was first called, signed his name (or made his mark) on 20 Feb 1688/89 below a humble Addresse of the Inhabitants and train soldiers of ye Province of New Hampshire to the governor of Massachusetts. We can suppose, therefore, that Philip was born before 1668. He was granted land in Exeter, New Hampshire in 1697. He removed to Kingston a few years later, where he lived for the rest of his life.

He was one of many New England farmers captured by Indians. Jeremy Belknap, the first New Hampshire historian, quoted a letter from Ward Clark to someone named "King":

"The same day that Colonel Winthrop Hilton was killed, a company of Indians who had pretended friendship, who the year before had been peaceably conversant with the inhabitants of Kingston, and seemed to be thirsting after the blood of the enemy, came into the town, and ambushing the road, killed Samuel Winslow and Samuel Huntoon. They also took Philip Huntoon and Jacob Gilman, and carried them to Canada; where, after some time, they purchased their own redemption by building a saw-mill for the governor after the English mode."

Philip died May 10, 1752, having fathered six children, four of them surviving to adulthood, and two of them sons who had many descendants.

For reasons now lost, during his lifetime he became called Philip Huntune, or more commonly Philip Huntoon. In the 1790 census, just a century after his first appearance, twenty-five families - containing 141 people in all - were headed by someone named Huntoon. Each head was a descendant of Philip. None of Philip's descendants listed in the census were called Hunton.

authors: Я сошла с ума

title: Philip Huntoon


text:
Siren (magazine)

Siren was a bimonthly Canadian magazine, published in Toronto, Ontario, for the city's lesbian community.

History and profile
The magazine was launched in 1995 by a women's collective of volunteers. Its popularity increased in late 1996, around the time the lesbian monthly magazine Quota ceased publication. It underwent a controversial editorial revamp in 2002, ending its association with its regular contributors in favour of a more freelance story and contribution structure. The magazine was quoted in a discussion paper released by the Ontario Human Rights Commission about extending rights for transsexuals. One of the columns that appeared regularly in the magazine was titled "Dykes n' tykes".

Noted contributors to the magazine included Sheila Cavanagh, Debra Anderson, and Billie Jo Newman.

The magazine ceased publication in 2004 due to financial problems.

title: Siren (magazine)


text: User talk:203.192.141.157

title: User talk:203.192.141.157