text:
Talk:Ars Technica

Requests
Any chance one of you Latin buffs (or at least someone who knows more than me) could add the correct pronunciation of "Ars Technica" to the article? Thanks! Dylanmcd 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's exactly like it looks it should be, ɑɹz tɛknɪkə. But you're right, since it is a foreign term it should have a pronunciation.  I'll add it. Hemidemisemiquaver 02:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC about Tatsuma's Reverts
I wasn't sure how to proceed, so I filed this RfC: Requests for comment/Tatsuma. I would appreciate any comments, especially from people willing to endorse the basis for the dispute so we can try to get some resolution about the revert warring. Reverts by people who aren't even willing to discuss content on the Talk page are unhelpful to everyone. Thanks. - Debuskjt 03:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. Tsetna 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw your alert and agree that this looks like the right move. Please keep discussion civil.  Also you might want to request a checkuser on the suspected sockpuppets. Durova 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

wow, the Criticism disappeared
Look at that, all the criticism disappeared. that is certainly convenient. understandable, almost, especially for a website that generates as much money as ars does. ($50,000 a month) it makes sense that tsetna would want to protect his income. El jefe04 17:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved the criticism into the article. It was not removed, but put into proper context, and was clearly documented in the edit history of the page. If you oppose that WP:Bold edit, you can discuss it in the section directly below this one, as Tsetna also disagrees with my removal of the Criticism section. - Debuskjt 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * for the record, i removed the criticism of the forum search, as the reference was from the forum. this is what we agreed on, right? El jefe04 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read some info regarding claims of plagiarism and content lifting by Ars Technica. When I come here, there is no mention of it, yet it is in the archives. I don't have the energy to read through all the archives. I read through some, but I cannot find where it was decided to remove this. Are these accusations not relevant?--Lfarmingham (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Location of Criticisms
I vote that the criticisms have their own section. This isn’t a guideline, is it? Mixing it into the article raises serious POV issues in my opinion. Tsetna 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine the way it is. Agree with Debuskjt.El jefe04 07:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It's not policy, but I think it still stands as a good guideline when discussing criticism. Doesn't keeping it separate also raise POV issues? If anything, I'd think a separate ==Criticism== section would probably provide undue weight to minority criticism, which is undesirable per WP:NPOV. In fact, I'd argue that it's a means of POV forking without actually creating a separate article, and provides a magnet for non-notable, biased viewpoints. And I have a hard time understanding how almost the exact same verbage within the text of the article proper raises any POV issue that is avoided by shunting it elsewhere. An entire subsection devoted to what essentially amounts to a handful of user gripes seems a bit much. - Debuskjt 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add, these are all attributable criticisms, too. Hannibal acknowledges the political content and moves to justify it against criticism, Caesar says himself that the Ars search performs badly, Cynthia Brumfield calls into question the editorial process at Ars, which is all in line with WP:NPOV. Better attribution to Hannibal and Caesar would help, and they could probably all be rephrased to better avoid POV, particularly "...the dissatisfaction of some readers," but that issue exists regardless of where the criticism is housed and won't change by moving it back to ==Criticism== . I hope that what I'm saying makes sense. - Debuskjt 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A separate criticism section does draw more attention to the criticisms, but that’s fine if the criticisms are accurate! The POV problems relate to the weight they are given when they are worked into the text. The first paragraph about the Ars Front Page has four sentences, three of them criticism. Tsetna 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, I just don't agree. It makes sense to me that criticism of the News section of Ars belongs in the context of a discussion of the News section. It just makes sense to me. AFAIK, Wiki has never endorsed any kind of ratio WRT criticism to non-criticism per paragraph, and the labeling of individual sentences as entirely criticism is misleading (in fact, I'd say that the defense of political coverage on Ars doesn't read like criticism at all anymore, and works quite well in the Front Page section). I still fail to see why giving specific "criticisms" even 2 out of 3 sentences in a paragraph concerning news on Ars Technica gives said criticism anymore undue weight when compared to giving it an entire subsection on the page. You can't pick and choose the content of the article like that. It all must be considered as a whole, or it's meaningless. But anyway, the answer to me seems to be to rework the article. To add and edit content until a favorable balance is met. Not to strip out "negative" statements altogether and shunt them to the bottom of the page so we can all pretend as if that changes anything. Obviously, if the consensus is against me on this, I'll yield, but I'm definitely interested to hear what others have to say. - Debuskjt 22:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am confused. First you suggest that having a separate section is undue weight, but now you are suggesting that a criticism section is just the opposite, a way to bury criticism? Maybe I am missing the point. Looking at Digg, Slashdot, Microsoft, Engadget, and many others, they all have criticism sections. Read the Talk page on the Criticism article, this is an unsettled and controversial issue. To clarify, I did not say that the criticism does not belong. What I object to is its position ino that section which gives it IMHO undue weight. Tomorrow I will try to integrate it a different way and you and others can perhaps tell me if it works or not. Tsetna 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose the issue is now moot, since El jefe04 has now forced the point by removing all content cited by forum postings (regardless of the poster or if the post is a poll), and if it follows if the letter of policy is to be followed to that extreme, the IP Democracy blog citation also has to go. - Debuskjt 20:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * All of those articles have criticism sections, yes, but there is more widespread, published criticism of Digg, Slashdot, and Microsoft than there is of Ars Technica (or Engadget; the Criticism section in that article is miniscule and barely worth keeping as a separate section). Let's consider what is said in WP:NPOV, especially what is said about "tiny-minority" views; is criticism of Ars Technica really that significant in scope?  The answer to that is what should be informing the decision to have a separate criticism section or not.

 * I'm taking a position of neutrality on the integration issue, though I will continue to revert attempts to inject tiny-minority views or factual errors by single-purpose accounts like El Jefe04 if there is no consensus to do so. -/- Warren 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding uncited information
I don't see how adding information with an uncited tag is acceptable. i see that everyone seems to agree that information that references the ars forum should not be included (WP:RS). Now, this strips out a lot of the back and forth about moderation and this and that which is fine with me, but you guys need to understand that it also applies to the rest of the article, not the criticism section. removing only criticism that is cited in the forum (even if the forum post is by a site administrator), but then leaving other information in that relies on citations on the forum is not a consistent approach. either remove both, or leave both, there is no room in the middle. El jefe04 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. And I added back nothing that referenced a forum post. Citing forum guidelines, Terms of Service agreements, FAQs, etc. isn't a violation of WP:RS since the prohibition is on posts to the forum, specifically: "posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." A lot of what you removed weren't references to forum posts. Also, while it is not okay to add content without a source, since you or I didn't add it originally, it is generally considered polite to add tags to content per Citing sources to draw attention to the error and give editors time to fix them. Also, it is not okay to remove verifiable information or information that has been added back with proper citation under the guise of WP:CITE, which you just did. For instance, the writing staff is easily verifiable from Ars, all moderators are listed on the forum front page, since all the forum names and titles are references to Latin, the list of them in the Posting Guidelines verifies that. If you had clicked on the link to the Columns and the Articles, you would have seen that they do contain overlapping articles.
 * if you look at the history, i did not remove FAQs or guidelines, I removed unverified information, uncited information, or information that relies on forum postings as a reference. just like has been done by others on the article. you can't just add whatever you want with an tag, and expect someone else to source it for you. if any of the criticism were added with an  tag, it would be immediately deleted. NPOV would mean that the same standard applies to all information in the article. El jefe04 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * if the information you are adding is so easily verifiable, then you should not have a problem finding valid, non-forum citations for it. El jefe04 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * And Ars is not a blog. Aggregate news sites and blogs are not the same thing, and posting material in similar fashion to a blog doesn't a blog make. Unless you are going to introduce evidence to the contrary, I ask that you do not state it again. - Debuskjt 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * honestly, I don't see how ars is not a blog. simply aggregating news would not be a blog, you are right, but but ars isn't just an rss feed. they post blog-style news posts, and write comments on them. just like slashdot, just like a million other blogs on the internet. slashdot does the same thing ars does, and slashdot proudly states is is a blog. El jefe04 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
Making continual extlinks to the same domain in one article in the body of the text looks like advertising. I don't see why every section needs to be directly linked from the article body. We're talking about over ten links here.

The article isn't currently very good as regards sourcing. Adding a real references section encourages people to add real references. Chris Cunningham 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The alternative is to have them clogging up the External links section. That's where they were originally moved from.
 * The better alternative is to not link them in the first place. Reference links should be for actual references; the old layout looked like a site map more than an encyclopedia article. Had I assumed this was in any way controversail I'd have gone that route. Chris Cunningham 19:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Linking to something being discussed isn't in itself advertising. The solution to sourcing issues would be to add uncites, I'd think, so that areas you feel are problematic can be identified and discussed.A "real" references section is no better than in-text references, and it shouldn't be classified as "wiking." That's preposterous. See WP:CITE. The first line in the list for acceptable citation styles is "embedded HTML links." If you're not going to make an effort to provide FULL citations (author, publication date, etc.), there's no point in having a references section. - Debuskjt 15:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Full citations can be added later. It seems like a bit of a waste of electrons to convert a bunch of links which probably aren't of any real value to the article into proper cites. The next time I pass through I'll have a look at expanding the most useful refs into full cites. Chris Cunningham 19:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this going to be done? If not, it was a waste of electrons to remove in-line citations for footnotes. - Debuskjt 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And your italics are inconsistent. That is distracting and detracts from the article. It should be either made consistent or reverted. - Debuskjt 15:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll tidy them just now then, thanks. Chris Cunningham 19:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronological order for talk
This talk page is far too long. I'm planning on reorganising it in order to archive another two or three chunks. Anyone is free to help of course. Chris Cunningham 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've shuffled the old talk into archive pages. A better way of presenting these would be nice. Chris Cunningham 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of ownership information and other site information
I would appreciate a valid reason for the persistent removal of this information, other than the ambiguous "it's not notable". This sort of information is clearly notable enough to be included in a range of other website articles. In addition, the terms of service is referenced in a number of places in the article already, other than the portions I added. Please provide a valid reason for your actions before removing this information. Seragenn 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The terms of use of a web site is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. How Ars Technica makes money is not that interesting.  The fact that Ars Technica outsources their subscriber billing is also not that interesting.  Wikipedia doesn't exist to replicate all the information on the Internet.  If someone wants to see what the terms of use or how subscriptions work on Ars Technica, they can read it on the web site.  A single external link will suffice for explaining that level of detail.  A good example of what en encyclopedic article about a web site should look like is LiveJournal; notice the lack of emphasis given to minute details about billing systems.

 * Look, it's clear that your purpose here on Wikipedia is singular -- to repeatedly push asinine and irrelevant information into this article. It's not the first time we've had someone attempt this, and I assure you that you're wasting your time. -/- Warren 23:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

 * What's your damage, private? If you could explain what is asinine and irrelvant about the information that would be terrific. The information is useful enough to be referenced in other parts of the article, and this type of information is useful enough to be included in other articles. The CNET page has company ownership information. I see no reason why this article should not either.  Give me a reason why neither article should have it, and I'll go with your version.  Seragenn 09:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * First of all, we don't need to say that "LLC" means "Limited Liability Company" in the lead sentence of the article. Come on, man we're an encyclopedia -- our goal is to define what "Ars Technica" IS, not who owns it.

 * So Again, I ask: WHY IS THAT INFORMATION ON THE CNET ARTICLE PAGE IF IT IS NOT RELEVANT? Seragenn 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * People reading the article really, honestly don't care that the web site is owned by a company with the same name as the web site. We also don't need to describe minute details of subscriptions or renewals; again, terms of use do not hold much in the way of encyclopedic value.  Always bear this in mind: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE INTERNET -- we don't need to collate every possible little piece of information, if it's readily available on the public web site the article talks about.  This saves us the rather onerous responsibility of updating the article when some of these minute details change.

 * People do care about the information. That exact information is included on plenty of other articles. You have not addressed this point, except to say that you don't LIKE the information I'm including. Which is a personal preference.

Your argument as to why this information should not be included is nonsensical, as you're basically saying "Don't include verifiable, referenced information." That is ridiculous. Seragenn 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * When something is interesting, and has high informative value, it belongs in Wikipedia. For example, the article on Starbucks devotes some space to their non-smoking policy because it has been controversial in some countries with a strong smoking culture... however, we don't report on what kind of cash registers Starbucks uses in their stores, because it is of low informative value.

 * And the other references to the TOS are included why? Again, your logic is flawed. Seragenn 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Anyways, if you need more examples of how Wikipedia deals with tech sites, Have a look at AnandTech, Tom's Hardware Guide, HardOCP, Blue's News, Penny Arcade (webcomic), Experts-Exchange, or any number of Ars Technica's peers.

 * Ok, I looked. The Slashdot article includes the following:

"Created in September 1997 by Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, Slashdot is now owned by the Open Source Technology Group, part of VA Software."

The CNET article includes the following: "CNET Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: CNET) is an Internet-based American media company based in San Francisco, California co-founded in 1993 by Halsey Minor and Shelby Bonnie. A publicly held company, its stock trades on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol CNET."

I REPEAT MYSELF: IF THIS SORT OF INFORMATION IS NOT RELEVANT, WHY IS IT INCLUDED IN OTHER ARTICLES FOR THE SAME TYPE OF WEBSITE? Seragenn 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * There's a further problem in that you are adding factually incorrect information, which Clintology noted below and removed. If you expect your contributions to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than this.  -/- Warren 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * This is false. Consider the reference added. Seragenn 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, new conversion topics go at the bottom of the talk page. Don't move your pet subject to the top. -/- Warren 23:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the information about "* Affiliate sales commissions." I could not find any reference to this on the site. Could someone back it up with some proof? --clintology 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I figured you guys were in cahoots. I smell a case of someone editing the article about their own website. I would have thought higher of Ars than stooping to vandalize wikipedia. Seragenn 05:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Huh? I'm not sure what you're implying here. You didn't add any sort of reference to the claim about "Affiliate Sales", so I'm going to re-remove it until you can provide some sort of proof. (See below)  Please provide a link to the page where something is mentioned about affiliate sales. --24.12.64.121 14:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I just saw the link you provided. It doesn't say anything about Affiliate sales.  Nor are there any "Sale" notices posted under the news section.  The post you reference seems to just be a post about some deals someone found at Dell.com.  This doesn't add up to "Affiliate sales" and I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.  I'm leaving it as removed. --24.12.64.121 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops didn't notice I wasn't logged in on this computer. The above two comments and the edit are mine. --clintology 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, now that I sit here and think about it, I realize you're right, you just don't provide the correct reference and don't explain what you're meaning very well. Assuming that this content belongs on this page, Ars does make some money from Dealpost affiliate sales.  Check out http://shop.arstechnica.com for a proper reference.  I'm still not sure what you mean by "Sale" links under the news section though. --clintology 14:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * It does discuss affiliate sales, that entire "news" post is an advertisement for Dell computer equipment, linked to Dell product pages, and those links include what is commonly referred to on the INTERNET as an AFFILIATE ID. When someone clicks on that LINK with the AFFILIATE ID and BUYS SOMETHING, Ars Technica makes money. Is that clear? It's pretty crystal to me.  I would hope your difficulty with this is not an intentional misunderstanding. Seragenn 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversions
As I've stated in my edit summaries, this Seragenn user continues to have a fascination with degrading the quality of the article by adding information that doesn't belong here. My reasons for continuing to remove this material are as follows:

One: Usually when I see someone come to Wikipedia and jump right into arguments over what should be included in an article, and get extremely insistent that their specific details are important -- especially if those details don't cast the subject in a good light -- they're usually doing so to promote an agenda or to vent frustration. This isn't a useful or productive way to improve an encyclopedia, and almost never results in things going the way the new user wants. Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view is required reading here. More specifically, the section on "undue weight", which states: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In our particular case here, all of Seragenn's edits revolve around very specific monetary aspects of Ars Technica's subscriber model; subscriptions are otherwise completely unmentioned in the article, so if any coverage of this subject is going to be added, it must be done in a neutral and even fashion -- and that means, at minimum, saying that they... you know... exist?

Two: We are not the Internet. This is part of the "Wiki is not paper" guidelines we're expected to follow in the process of creating better encyclopedia articles. Minor implementation details about Ars Technica's subscription model is not encyclopedia-worthy material, unless it's somehow especially notable or has generated controversy. I mean, come on, "Ars Technica reserves the right to restrict subscriber access from the site for any reason, without notice"? So? Why does Seragenn feel this is vitally important information to repeatedly ram into the article, when the article doesn't even mention that Ars Technica offers subscriptions? I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles in my time here, and I've seen text I've written appear on Wikipedia's front page as the blurb for an article of the day, so I'm pretty sure I'm a reasonably good judge of what's encyclopedia-worthy, and what's not. Again, if we're going to include information about Ars Technica offering subscriptions, then let's at least start by saying that they offer them?

Three: Regarding the lead sentence. We are -not- going to beat our readers into a bloody pulp with "LLC" and its expansion a total of three times in the space of one sentence. That's horrible English. Stating the words "Ars Technica" more than once in any short sentence should also be avoided for the same reason. We can formulate sentences better than this. A simple rule of thumb: Read a sentence aloud, with full expansions -- if it sounds bad, it's bad. -/- Warren 12:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

 * So how is removing those facts (and they are facts) a neutral edit to the article? I don't understand why you seem to think that is negative information. They are verifiable facts, and documented. What's your damage, private? Seragenn 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * If that's your reasoning, that's fine with me. We should just be sure the rest of the article holds up to it. Seragenn 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Again, fine with me, even though that goes against the example set in other articles. Seragenn 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Your behaviour is becoming disruptive -- don't remove large swaths of an article to make a point. See WP:POINT. Also, for the sake of readability, don't intersperse your comments in the middle of others'.  -/- Warren 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Warrens said: "I mean, come on, "Ars Technica reserves the right to restrict subscriber access from the site for any reason, without notice"? So? Why does Seragenn feel this is vitally important information to repeatedly ram into the article". The point is a sound one. An encyclopedia does not need information like this. Check out the AllOfMP3.com entry for a great example of an article that is constantly being updated with information that doesn't belong there. Encyclopedia readers do not need to know the day-to-day status of how to refill a balance on AllOfMP3.com just as they don't need to know the minutiae of Ars Technica's subscription terms. -- Hux 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability (web)
People interested in thie article might want to check out the guidelines on Notability (web). This article currently doesn't appear to establish that Ars Technica meets the guidelines for notability. To avoid potential future deletion this should be rectified Nil Einne 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

- I recommend following the format used by Slashdot, Engadget, and other large tech sites. Seansquared 17:57, 16 March 2007
 * I've taken a look at slashdot and it appears to me to be a good example of what NOT to follow. While there are some good things and it's probably in a better state then this article, it seems to be especially bad at establishing it's noteability. For example, there are very few inline citations or citations of any sort to sources outside of slashdot. While sections like the 'slashdot effect' does establish it's noteability, as does the notable contributors and the number of comments etc to some extent it really needs to go further then that. A fair amount of stuff which helps estabish it's noteability is not in the article. For example it's won multiple? webby awards but the only way you will know is from the external links. Similarly slashdot has obviously been referred to a lot by external reliable sources. There doesn't appear to be any real mention of this, apart from a link to a paper which mentions slashdot in the citations (but there is no use or mention of this reference in the article from what I can tell) and several external links with external sources which mention slashdot, like CNN. Nil Einne 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

tech report
should a note on the tech report be added? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyingember (talk • contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Big-Boards.com reference
Shii keeps deleting the reference to Ars Technica's ranking on Big-Boards.com, arguing that "this is not a reliable source. it purposefully excludes forums such as 2ch". There are two problems with this outlook: Imo, even if this source is not the best that it could be, it's adequate for now and should remain in the article until a better one can be found. I'm putting the info back in at this time and soliciting opinions from anyone else who is reading this so that we can hopefully reach a consensus and stop this silly reverting of what is, let's face it, a pretty minor issue. -- Hux 09:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One editor's opinion of what does or does not constitute a reliable source does not justify repeated deletion of information.
 * I can't find a better source to provide this information on where Ars ranks versus other boards, information that is surely notable for this article.
 * "One editor's opinion of what does or does not constitute a reliable source does not justify repeated deletion of information." Big-boards does not rank all boards, just a selection which they have chosen. This is a fact, not an opinion.
 * "I can't find a better source to provide this information on where Ars ranks versus other boards, information that is surely notable for this article." Then you can't include the information at all. Tough cookies. :( Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Big-boards does not rank all boards, just a selection which they have chosen. This is a fact, not an opinion." The opinion I'm referring to is your opinion that this makes it unworthy for use as a source. I'm not disputing that Big-Boards is not perfectly accurate. I'm simply arguing that it appears to be the most accurate forum ranking source and, as such, it is appropriate to include it as a reference. If perfection is judged to be required for Wikipedia sources then we wouldn't have any sources at all. For example, if we use your logic then we can't cite any song as attaining the #1 position on the British charts, since those charts are calculated based only on singles sales from major outlets and don't take into account any sales from independent music stores (or any airplay statistics, for that matter).
 * If it's a really big deal then I suppose, for the sake of complete accuracy, we could include a caveat in the text noting Big-Boards' imperfect nature, but that seems pretty nitpicky to me. -- Hux 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what the two other articles I found have opted to do, and if you insist you can do that here as well. It's just wrong to say "this is definitely the 66th largest forum on the entire Internets" when it's probably more like the 150th, when you count all the forums big-boards excludes. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, plus the actual rank is subject to regular change anyway so "66th out of 2000" is always going to be inaccurate on that basis as well. FWIW, I think that your most recent change to the article works best. -- Hux 06:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to include this reference, please explain why you consider big-boards to be reliable. I don't agree that it is the "most accurate" forum ranking source. It is not accurate at all. Just because they are the only well-known site to rank forums doesn't mean they are accurate. They aren't. --- RockMFR 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 * We've already gone through this. While it isn't a perfect source (because it doesn't include some notably popular boards) BigBoards is a good enough source to illustrate the basic fact that the Ars OpenForum is a very popular one. To draw an analogy, look around at the thousands of articles and web pages that talk about the popularity of a song based on its position on, say, the Billboard R&B chart. Is that not a reliable source because it excludes non-R&B songs? Of course not, so using it to back up a basic claim about popularity is perfectly fine, even if that source is not as good as citing its position on the Billboard Hot 100, which does not discriminate on the basis of genre. Based on this reasoning, I'm reverting your change. -- Hux (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this is "good enough"? The site has no credibility at all. Reliability is not something that is assumed. It needs to be proven. --- RockMFR 00:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's good enough because it ranks a very large number of boards and, to date, the only criticisms seem to be (paraphrased), "it doesn't rank [one really popular board], so it's not accurate", and your opinion that it has "no credibility at all", neither of which are very compelling on their own. If you have stronger evidence then let's hear it. Or better yet, if its presence on this rather innocuous page offends you that much then why not attempt to improve it by finding a higher quality reference? -- Hux (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is up to you to show that this source is reliable. --- RockMFR 21:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I already have, sufficient for the general claim it is supporting. If the source was being used to support a claim of a specific rank then it would not be reliable enough, but since it's only there to support a rough claim of popularity it's fine as is. Once again, please read the discussion above; we've already been through this. -- Hux (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what sort of claim you are trying to make with the reference. If the source is not reliable to make that claim, then it cannot be used. --- RockMFR 18:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I already established, it is reliable enough for the claim that's being made. If you'd like to take this further then feel free to make use of the dispute resolution process and I'll be happy to take part, but don't just keep deleting stuff just because you disagree. -- Hux (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete
I wish to re-nominate this article to be deleted. It is a marketing ploy with no useful information pertinent to Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kashk5 (talk • contribs).
 * What's your evidence for it being a marketing ploy? I vote that it should stay: it's one of the most well-known, tech-related sites on the Internet so it's notable enough on that basis, imo. -- Hux 13:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Marketing ploy? - It's just general information about a popular tech website. — Wackymacs 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 * This user left exactly the same comment on the talk pages for other major technology news web sites., and they have no other contributions to the encyclopedia. -/- Warren 15:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, I don't think the lack of other contributions or that the user has put a similar message on similar article talk pages should be considered a black mark. Personally, I think all the sites being complained about should stay and I've posted replies stating that to each of the requests for deletion. If anyone else agrees I suggest they do likewise. -- Hux 15:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ars?
What is the significance of the word Ars? What does it mean? In the UK it has, erm, another meaning. 77.96.240.178 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The meaning is explained in the first paragraph of the article. Also, you're thinking of "arse". ;) -- Hux (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From their web site About Us (both current as well as archived used for reference): At Ars Technica—the name is Latin-derived for the "art of technology"— Petersam (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Is big-boards.com a reliable source?
This is a dispute regarding the usage of big-boards.com as a reliable source. I believe it is not, for the following reasons: --- RockMFR 21:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The information on the site is not peer-reviewed.
 * The site is not used as a source by any other reputable sources.
 * Submissions to the site essentially require a $20 payment in order to be processed (see ).
 * The site does not appear to verify submitted statistics.
 * It is not even technically possible for the site to verify most submitted statistics.
 * Many of the stats listed on the site are clearly incorrect and/or outdated. For example, it lists gamefaqs.com as having 28848500 posts, while the true number is currently over 500 million.

 * A random website on the Internet requires some proof before it can be treated as a reliable source. I ask anyone who wants it to be included in any article on Wikipedia to provide proof that its statistics can be considered reliable for academic purposes. Shii (tock) 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Given the points above, some of which I hadn't seen before, I'm changing my mind and will support the deletion. -- Hux (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Due to the lack of peer review or fact-checking on forums, it is not practical to consider any forum a source of reliable information. Any person can pose as an expert and post using false credentials. Stick to reputable academic, print or news sources. ←  Spidern  →  13:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Big Boards isn't a forum; it's a web site that does statistical analysis on forums. We consider the research done by Netcraft and a variety of other statistical analysis companies for web browser / computer marketshare / etc. usage; Big Boards is similarly suitable for research and statistical analysis done on Internet forums.  The work they do qualifies them as a secondary source under Wikipedia's policies.   Warren -talk- 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why an internet site should automatically not be considered reliable within its domain of expertise. Martin Hogbin (talk)
 * Sweet! *runs off to found ColdFusionProven.com* Shii (tock) 02:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagline
It's kinda silly to keep updating the tagline about Ars age. I was wondering if it's possible to get MediaWiki to calculate it. I tried finding out the original foundation date they base the number on, but I think it's pretty inaccurate: --93.163.26.110 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It styles itself as "Serving the technologist for 1.0912 × 10-1 centuries." (This translates into 10.912 years, or 1.0912 decades)
I removed the last 'graph of the lead secn, for reworking:
 * It styles itself as "Serving the technologist for 1.0912 × 10-1 centuries." (This translates into 10.912 years, or 1.0912 decades)

--Jerzy•t 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The 2nd sent is patronizing and annoyingly redundant.
 * 2) The verb "style" is not what's needed, since it suggests a name rather than a slogan.
 * 3) "Styles" also suggests more prominence than it really has, apparently only near the bottom of the home page.
 * 4) It's hard to believe this info is significant enuf for the lead.
 * 5) If it's significant enuf for inclusion in the article at all, that significance needs to be explained: Who thinks it's cool, or that its obnoxiousness rises above unremarkablly pointless obnoxiousness?
 * 6) If adequate answers to each of the above are provided, a reasonable treatment of it would start with
 * The page bears a slogan suggesting a precision of a fraction of a day, "Serving the technologist for 1.0912 × 10-1 centuries." (The not quite 11-year figure is not in accord with the site's age.)
 * Ah! I did look for a section abt this, but missed it, probably bcz it is in the form of the silly formula in the section that now encloses this one. That's an even worse idea than what i removed. All right, the discussion should be more like
 * The page bears a closing slogan expressing the age of the site (since a point in 1998), implying a precision of a fraction of day, with centuries as the unit, and expressed in scientific notation.
 * Bear in mind that WP is NOT Ars Technica's bitch. --Jerzy•t 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It's a given that the exact figure stated by the site should not be in the article for the simple reason that it changes on (as far as I can tell) a daily basis and therefore the Wikipedia figure would always be out of date. But I don't think that your argument above holds much water. It's a tag line - the equivalent of "All the news that's fit to print" - and on that basis alone some kind of description of it is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Also, the verb, "to style", does not imply what you think it implies. "It styles itself as", is simply another way of saying, "It describes itself as". You're reading way too much into it. -- Hux (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the post by the poster at 93.163.26.110 above. I'd say that if there is a way to get MediaWiki to auto-calculate the correct value for the tag line on the site then we should just use that and be done with it - no complicated explanation required. -- Hux (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I was the one who first added the translation for how many years/decades the value translated to. I do not believe this to be patronizing as not everyone who would read this article would understand scientific notation. I simply added it to be thorough. As per the styling of the line in question, it could be rewritten and as per having to update it a simple example given on a date would probably suffice. In other words, give a static tagline with a statement of what date that tag line was relevant.
 * As per point number 5: The significance of the line involves the point that it is their signature as it is their tagline. For a comparison, not including some reference to this would be like an article on Homer (Simpson that is) that didn't include anything about the word "'DOH". --66.63.126.102 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

attribution criticisms
I'm going to remove two of the three criticisms in the article about attributing bloggers. The first has a semi-reliable source mentioning it, but here's why I'm removing the last two (other than no reliable sources mentioning them):

 * "istartedsomething.com": The claim here wasn't plagiarism, it was that Ars reported on a patent they they didn't "discover", in other words they "stole" someone's idea for an article. Microsoft filed a patent, a blogger wrote about it, then the next day Ars wrote about it.

—Sebquantic (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "parislemon": dead link, couldn't find any other RS on this.

expansion
I'm planning on doing a copy-edit and WP:MOS check in a day or two, but I'm basically done expanding the article for now. If you have an issue with something I removed, please let me know why here. For example, the mention of Ars's forums was reduced from one paragraph to one sentence. It's not the oldest or largest forum by far, so I didn't think it needed its own section.

Oh yeah, I wanted to put the "Serving the technologist for 1.0912 × 10-1 centuries." thing back in, but couldn't think of where it would smoothly fit. Anybody have an idea on that? —Sebquantic (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is mentioning their Mac OS X reviews worth doing? Maybe instead of the iPad review? 81.110.191.189 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't see why not. Some of the sources do hint that they're known for their OSX reviews. —Sebquantic (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's the logic?
From the article: ""Adblock Plus developer Wladimir Palant responded, stating that blocking advertisements in general is justified because websites receive revenue from them regardless of whether they are seen or ignored by readers:[28]"

"Only an ad that generates a sale (either directly because the user clicked it or indirectly via brand awareness and similar) provides value. If you see yourself being paid without providing a value than [sic] you either tricked whoever is paying you [...] or it is a temporary state where whoever is paying you didn’t adjust to the new realities yet.""

 * This doesn't make any sense. Has it been edited until it lost all logic, or what? First, it is wrong. Websites do not receive income if the ads are not seen, that was the point of the ban. Then, the quote that supports that wrong position has nothing to do with the position, if anything it argues against it. He makes an argument against blocking ads, because then the ads owner will stop paying.WTF?TheThomas (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A technology news and information website is no longer true
The website seems to have changed and now it covers politics, including elections and voting rights, and also abortion debate matters. I suggest to change the definition to is a website covering technology, politics, and society news. Yurivict (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ars Technica. 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/20090204180921/http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/05/12/daily36-Report-Ars-Technica-bought-by-Wired-Digital.html to http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/05/12/daily36-Report-Ars-Technica-bought-by-Wired-Digital.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/business/media/19carr.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/the-ad-blocking-wars.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Ars Technica does NOT mean art of technology
The notion of "technology" did not exist in the Ancient world, as far as the Greeks and Romans go. Both "Techne" and "Ars" meant "craft". Therefore Ars technica is a redundant phrase meaning "crafty craft". PERIOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.144.205 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

 * "PERIOD" isn't a convincing argument. Might want to leave that one out of your vocabulary from now on, it doesn't have the effect you want. Okay? The founders of Ars Technica have themselves said that the name is Latin-derived -- they didn't say it was a literal translation. (source)  Warren -talk- 04:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I too was going to (more politely) raise the point that this translation would seem to more accurately be the "art of technique," but for anyone else out there wondering about this, Warren is correct and his source on the About US section of their website is still unchanged (Apr 26 2018) and the quote is as follows: "At Ars Technica—the name is Latin-derived for the "art of technology"—we specialize in news and reviews, analysis of technology trends, and expert advice on topics ranging from the most fundamental aspects of technology to the many ways technology is helping us discover our world." They have simply translated it as they desired, regardless of what might technically be correct.

 * The site's owners are not and should not be considered authoritative when it comes to a language translation, though. That is to say, they are entitled to translate it however they like on their site, but we should not be presenting their translation as fact if it isn't a correct translation. (And it appears that it's not.) At the very least, the language should make clear that the translation is the site-owners' interpretation. I made a small change that I hope is sufficient. -- Hux (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ars Technica. 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/20120916220848/http://www.minonline.com/news/Maybe-The-iPhone-5-Hype-Is-Not-So-Silly-After-All_21125.html to http://www.minonline.com/news/Maybe-The-iPhone-5-Hype-Is-Not-So-Silly-After-All_21125.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I add an article into "en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Technica"
I am new to wiki and I want to author an article on a new theory that comes from the book I have written. I was wondering about the process of adding and editing an article into Ars Technica. What are the rules and what is the technical process?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperRelativity (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ad " bombing "
I've been receiving Constant multiples advertising from McAffee company to the point I get warnings of failing to pay,or my system has a virus, or need Protection, or my web page will be shut down, on everyday day basis on my desktop and my Phone. its gotten to the point that I see well over a dozen per day of any variation above and so much repeats its mind boggling. I don't minds ads on occasional basis but not this constant everyday " bombing " of it. Ad bombing has gotten out of hand and wonder if anyone else sees this happening to them or if anyone is aware of this. as I typed this just gotten another one. ( this one a " lat reminder, renew McAfee at 80% ) B.S. 38.21.216.135 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a tech support line. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 03:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ars Technica


text:
2000 in art

Events from the year 2000 in art.

Events

 * February – Opening of the New Art Gallery Walsall in the West Midlands of England.
 * 13 February – The final original Peanuts comic strip is published, following the death of its creator, Charles Schulz.
 * 9 March – The FBI arrests art forgery suspect Ely Sakhai in New York City.
 * May – Christie's withdraws a forgery of Paul Gauguin's Vase de Fleurs (Lilas) from auction.
 * 11 May – Official opening of the Tate Modern in London.
 * 7 August – DeviantART is launched in the United States.
 * 12 October – Official opening of The Lowry theatre and gallery centre in Salford, England (designed by Michael Wilford and Buro Happold).
 * 22 December – Nationalmuseum robbery: a self-portrait by Rembrandt and two Renoir paintings are stolen from the museum in Stockholm in Sweden.
 * Full date unknown
 * First publication of the Hockney–Falco thesis in art history.
 * Constantine Andreou receives the Légion d'honneur.

Exhibitions

 * Felix Gonzalez-Torres retrospective at the Serpentine Gallery, London
 * Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City
 * Excessivism exhibition at the LA Artcore Gallery, Los Angeles, CA

Works

 * Lee Bae - issu du Feu (part of an ongoing series)
 * Jake and Dinos Chapman – Hell
 * Eduardo Chillida – Berlin (sculpture)
 * Martin Creed – Work No. 227: The lights going on and off (installation)
 * Lucian Freud - After Cézanne
 * Diana Lee Jackson – Statue of Bill Bowerman (sculpture, Eugene, Oregon)
 * Leo Lankinen (died 1996) – Cross of Sorrow (memorial in Russian Karelia)
 * Lorenzo Pace – Triumph of the Human Spirit (public monument, Foley Square, New York City)
 * Tad Savinar – Constellation (sculpture series, Portland, Oregon)
 * Ian Sinclair, Jackie Staude, David Davies and Alistair Knox – Fairfield Industrial Dog Object
 * Betty Spindler – Hot Dog (ceramic sculpture, Smithsonian American Art Museum)
 * Paul Tzanetopoulos with Ted Tonio Tanaka architects – "Untitled" (kinetic light instillation, LAX, Los Angeles)
 * Rachel Whiteread – Judenplatz Holocaust Memorial, Vienna
 * Bill Woodrow – Regardless of History, for the Fourth plinth, Trafalgar Square, London
 * Makoto Yukimura – Planetes

Awards

 * Archibald Prize – Adam Cullen, Portrait of David Wenham
 * Beck's Futures – Roderick Buchanan
 * Hugo Boss Prize – Marjetica Potrč
 * Turner Prize – Wolfgang Tillmans

Films

 * Pollock

Deaths

 * 17 January – Norman Blamey, British painter (b. 1914)
 * 19 February – Friedensreich Hundertwasser, Austrian painter, architect and sculptor (b. 1928)
 * 26 February – Louisa Matthíasdóttir, Icelandic-American painter (b. 1917)
 * 31 March – Gisèle Freund, German-born French photographer (b. 1908)
 * 15 April
 * Edward Gorey, American illustrator (b. 1925)
 * Todd Webb, American photographer (b. 1905)
 * 16 April – Henry Bird, British muralist (b. 1909)
 * 26 April – Gregory Gillespie, American magic realist painter (b. 1936)
 * 8 May – Stanley Boxer, American painter (b. 1926)
 * 3 June – Leonard Baskin, American sculptor, book-illustrator, wood-engraver, printmaker and graphic artist (b. 1922)
 * 9 June – Jacob Lawrence, African American painter (b. 1917)
 * 2 July - Constance Howard, English textile artist (b. 1910)
 * 10 July – Gertrud Arndt, German photographer (b. 1903)
 * 17 July – Aligi Sassu, Italian painter and sculptor (b. 1912)
 * 5 August – Tullio Crali, Italian Futurist painter (b. 1910)
 * 25 August – Carl Barks, American illustrator and comic book creator (b. 1901)
 * 19 September – Anthony Robert Klitz, English artist (b. 1917)
 * 19 October – Hans Moller, German born American painter
 * 3 December – Frank Roper, English metal sculptor and stained glass artist (b. 1914)
 * 4 December – Ansgar Elde, Swedish ceramic artist (b. 1933)

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

title: 2000 in art


text: Category:Prince Edward Island electoral districts


text:
The Farm (British TV series)

The Farm is the British version of the international TV format The Farm, produced by Strix. The show had a number of celebrities appear on it during its two series run on Five between 2004 and 2005. After the completion of the second series in 2005, Five revealed that they would not be airing any further series of the show.

In 2018, a revamped version of the show titled Celebs on the Farm premiered on 5Star.

Format
In the UK version of The Farm, the show puts a group of celebrities on a farm where they live together for a short period of time. On the farm, the contestants must do typical farmer work involving agriculture and animal rearing. At regular intervals, one of the contestants is evicted from the farm by way of a public telephone vote. This process is continued until only one contestant remains, and then they gain the title of "Top Farmer".

Series 1 (2004)
Series one was announced in the summer of 2004, and eventually went to air from 26 September 2004, presented and narrated by Ed Hall. The show's first series broadcast in a nightly 10pm slot from 26 September to 17 October 2004.

The show's first series caused plenty of controversy for Five when in October 2004 it showed Rebecca Loos masturbating a pig and collecting a semen sample from it. This incident among others also caused outrage from the RSPCA.

The winner of the show by viewers' votes was Jeff Brazier.

The celebrities that took part were:

Series 2 (2005)
Series two was announced soon after the completion of the first series. The second series aired from 9 May 2005 for a total of eighteen days, and was now presented by Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan. The show's second and final series was broadcast in a nightly 10.30pm slot (half-an-hour later than the timeslot during the first series) between 9 May and 26 May 2005.

The winner of the show by viewer's votes was Keith Harris and Orville the Duck.

The celebrities that took part were:

Ratings
The show's first episode managed 1.16 million viewers for Five, and overall, the first series was a success for the Channel, managing an average of 1.4 million viewers in its 10pm nightly timeslot. The first series received an increase in viewers thanks to the incident involving Rebecca Loos, and for the series one finale scored a peak of nearly 2.3 million viewers, and a 15.2% audience share for Five.

The show's second series began in May 2005 with a new nightly timeslot of 10.30pm, with the first episode taking 1.17 million viewers and a 9.2% audience share. The second series did not rate as well as the first however, and overall managed an average of 1.19 million viewers in its timeslot.

title: The Farm (British TV series)


text:
Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana: Poems

Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana: Poems is a book of poems written by Eli Siegel, founder of the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism. It was one of 13 finalists in the poetry category of the National Book Award in 1958, the year its author was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry.

The title poem first received national attention in 1925, when it won The Nation's esteemed annual poetry prize. The magazine's editors described it as "the most passionate and interesting poem which came in—a poem recording through magnificent rhythms a profound and important and beautiful vision of the earth on which afternoons and men have always existed." "In Hot Afternoons," Siegel later explained, "I tried to take many things that are thought of usually as being far apart and foreign and to show, in a beautiful way, that they aren't so separate and that they do have a great deal to do with one another." The poem begins:

 * Quiet and green was the grass of the field,
 * The sky was whole in brightness,
 * And O, a bird was flying, high, there in the sky,
 * So gently, so carelessly and fairly.
 * Here, once, Indians shouted in battle,
 * And moaned after it.
 * Here were cries, yells, night, and the moon over these men,
 * And the men making the cries and yells; it was
 * Hundreds of years ago, when monks were in Europe,
 * Monks in cool, black monasteries, thinking of God, studying Virgil...

For the full text of this poem see aestheticrealism.net. The poem has been translated into Italian and French. In 2005 it was made into an award-winning film in 2005 by Ken Kimmelman.

After the publication of the title poem in 1925, the author devoted much of his time to developing the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism. Consequently, Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana: Poems was the first volume of his poems to be published. It contained, among other poems, what has been called "the shortest poem in the English language," a two-word poem which first appeared in the Literary Review of the New York Evening Post in 1925, although it was later anthologized without proper attribution to the author. The poem is:

Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana: Poems includes a letter written in 1951 by William Carlos Williams to Martha Baird, the wife of Eli Siegel, in which Dr. Williams wrote, "I can't tell you how important Siegel's work is in the light of my present understanding of the modern poem. He belongs in the very first rank of our living artists." See full text of Williams' 1951 letter.

Reviewing this book of poems in the Saturday Review, Selden Rodman wrote of Eli Siegel, "He comes up with poems like 'Dear Birds, Tell This to Mothers,' 'She's Crazy and It Means Something,' and 'The World of the Unwashed Dish' which say more (and more movingly) about here and now than any contemporary poems I have read." See full text of Rodman's 1957 review.

In 2005, the title poem, as read by the author, was made into an award-winning film by Ken Kimmelman.


text:
User:Csernica/Sandbox

/Flemington Circle

/Canon (hymnography)

/List of popes by length of reign

/Victor Sokolov

/Aerial tollhouses

/Infobox Saint

/Small gallery code

/time experiment

/Orthodoxwiki

/Orthodoxwiki talk

/Labelled map

/Sumo

/Biblical canon

/Video templates

/Infobox Album

title: User:Csernica/Sandbox


text:
Giovanni Carafa

Giovanni Carafa may refer to:

 * Giovanni Pietro Carafa (1476–1559), became Pope Paul IV from May 1555 until his death
 * Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Paliano (died 1561), mercenary captain; nephew of Pope Paul IV; executed under Pope Pius IV
 * Giovanni Carafa della Spina (1671–1743), Italian soldier and imperial field marshal
 * Giovanni Carafa di Noia (1715–1768), producer of the Map of the Duke of Noja

title: Giovanni Carafa


text:
G. Schneider & Sohn

G. Schneider & Sohn is a weissbier brewing company in Bavaria, Germany.

History
The brewery was founded in 1872 by Georg Schneider I and his son Georg Schneider II, after they acquired the Weisses Brauhaus in Munich, the oldest wheat beer brewery in the city. In 1927 the owners, under Georg Schneider IV, expanded their brewing operations into Kelheim and Straubing. After the breweries in Munich were destroyed in 1944 by aerial bombardment by the Allies of World War II, the entire production was relocated to Kelheim. In occupied Germany, a few weeks after the end of World War II, the Third United States Army granted G. Schneider & Sohn permission to continue production of their wheat beers and deliver them to Munich. However, they added the caveats that they could only produce lower alcohol beer and it could only be sold to military personnel. To this day, the owners are descendants of Georg Schneider I.

Today, the brewery employs around 100 people and distributes its products across Germany and 27 other countries. The annual output is about 300,000 hectolitres, of which about 25% is sent outside of Germany.

Owners
The brewery has remained in the Schneider family since its conception in 1872.

Beers
The entire product line consists of top-fermented wheat beers; Aventinus and Original are also bottle conditioned. The wheat comes from the upper Altmühltal, lower Bavaria, and Upper Palatinate regions. The malting barley is grown in the Kelheim and Riedenburg areas. Hallertau hops are used to give the beers their bittering and aromatic properties. The core product is TAP 7 Mein Original (formerly Schneider Weisse Original), which is brewed according to the origin recipe of 1872. Georg Schneider VI renamed the Schneider Weisse product range in 2009, so as to draw attention to the fact that the brewery also produces the products TAP 1 to TAP 6.

Aventinus
Aventinus is a strong, dark, wheat doppelbock introduced in 1907 by Mathilde Schneider and named after Johannes Aventinus, a Bavarian historian. It has an original gravity of 18.5 degrees Plato, and an abv of 8.2%.

Tap 6 Mein Aventinus
In 1907, Matilde Schneider created Aventinus, the first weizenbock of Bavarian history. In 2014, Mein Aventinus won gold in the 'South German-Style Weizenbock' category at the US Brewers Association's World Beer Cup and in 2018 the beer won silver in the same category.

Aventinus Eisbock
Eisbock is a style said to have been 'invented' by accident in the late 19th Century, when during a particularly cold winter, a cistern full of bock beer froze. The water contained in the beer turned into ice; the remaining liquid was in effect of bock concentrate, with more powerful aromas, flavours and alcohol content. This method of freezing beer to increase strength and richness has been duplicated by many breweries, with Schneider first brewing their Aventinus Eisbock in 2002. Schneud In 2017, Aventinus Eisbock won gold in the 'wheat beers' category at the Stockholm Beer and Whiskey Festival.

Inns
The company includes three guesthouses. They are located in the former headquarters in Munich (Tal), in the Munich district of Berg am Laim, and on the brewery site in Kelheim. In early 2016, they were renamed from Weisses Bräuhaus to Schneider Bräuhaus.

title: G. Schneider & Sohn


text:
Dawn Clark Netsch

Dawn Clark Netsch (September 16, 1926 – March 5, 2013) was an American professor of law at Northwestern University and an Illinois politician. A member of the Democratic Party in the United States, she served in the Illinois State Senate from 1972 to 1990, and as the Illinois Comptroller from 1991 through 1994. In 1994 she was the first woman to be nominated by a major political party to run for Governor of Illinois. She co-authored the legal textbook, State and Local Government in a Federal System.

Early career
She was born Patricia Dawn Clark in Cincinnati, Ohio. Her father, William Keith Clark, was a manufacturer of building materials until his business failed during the Great Depression. Her mother, Hazel Dawn Clark (née Harrison), was a social worker. Netsch graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Northwestern University in 1948. She was selected for membership in Mortar Board National College Senior Honor Society in her junior year. She then attended the university's law school, where she was the first woman to earn the school's Scholar’s Cup for the highest grade-point average in the first-year class. When Netsch graduated in 1952 she was the only woman in her class. When she joined the Northwestern Law faculty in 1965, she was the school’s first female faculty member.

She worked on Adlai Stevenson's 1952 presidential campaign and then at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Covington & Burling. Returning to Chicago, she was in private practice from 1957 to 1961 and then joined the staff of Gov. Otto Kerner.

In 1969, she was elected to serve as a delegate to the 1969–70 Illinois Constitutional Convention, at which the fourth and current Constitution of Illinois was drafted.

Illinois State Senator
In 1972, she was elected to the State Senate as a Democrat, first representing the 13th district, then the 4th district.

For a decade, she was the chair of the Senate Revenue Committee.

Illinois Comptroller
In 1990, she ran for and won the Democratic party's nomination for Illinois Comptroller and went on to win the general election, beating Republican Sue Suter 54% to 46%.

Gubernatorial race
Four years later, in 1994, she won an upset victory in the Democratic primary for Illinois governor, beating Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris and Cook County Board President Richard Phelan, winning by more than 10 points ahead of Burris. Netsch had been behind in the polls a few weeks earlier. During the primary, she aired a campaign ad showing her playing (and winning) a game of eight-ball pool, reflecting a lifelong hobby of hers and also playing on her reputation as a "straight shooter." The effectiveness of this ad, in contrast to the far more flashy ones aired by her much better funded opponents, was seen as contributing to her surge in the polls in the final weeks of the primary campaign. Adding to the historic nature of her candidacy was her pairing with Illinois State Senator Penny Severns of Decatur as her Lt. Governor candidate on the gubernatorial ticket. This was, and remains, the only time in Illinois history two women have headed the party ticket.

Netsch's campaign slogan was "Not just another pretty face." She proposed increasing the state income tax rate from 3% to 4.25% to pay for educational funding and reduce property taxes, a plan which was attacked by her Republican opponent, Governor Jim Edgar. Netsch, a social liberal who lacked strong support of the Cook County Democratic Party, was unable to overcome Edgar's popularity in a year when the Republican party was successful nationally, and received only 34% of the vote.

Later career
In 1995 Netsch was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame as a Friend of the Community for her support of issues of importance to the LGBT community. She participated for years in Chicago's Gay Pride parade, riding in a convertible bearing a sign that read, "I'm Not Running for Anything."

Netsch was a professor of law, and then professor emeritus, at Northwestern University School of Law. She was a prominent opponent of holding a new constitutional convention in Illinois. She co-authored with Daniel Mandelker and Peter Salsich, Jr. State and Local Government in a Federal System, the preeminent law school casebook on local and state government law.

Netsch remained involved in politics after her electoral career by backing candidates for elected office, such as Jan Schakowsky's winning bid to replace Congressman Sidney Yates, representing Illinois's 9th congressional district, in 1996, and John Schmidt's failed gubernatorial bid in 2002. In 2010, Netsch endorsed Dan Hynes in the Democratic primary for Illinois Governor, Julie Hamos in the 10th congressional district primary, David H. Hoffman in the US Senate primary and Toni Preckwinkle in the Cook County Board President primary. All but Preckwinkle failed to win the party's nomination.

Netsch was married to architect Walter Netsch, best known for his design of the Cadet Chapel at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, for 45 years until his death in 2008.

Netsch died in Chicago, Illinois, on Tuesday, March 5, 2013, at age 86. She had publicly acknowledged shortly before, in January 2013, during a discussion on Illinois priorities (given the state's well-known fiscal situation and reform needs), that she was suffering from the degenerative neurological condition Lou Gehrig's disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS). Governor Pat Quinn gave the order to fly all Illinois flags at half-mast until sunset, March 16, 2013, in her honor.

Awards
Dawn Clark Netsch was inducted as a Laureate of The Lincoln Academy of Illinois and awarded the Order of Lincoln (the State’s highest honor) by the Governor of Illinois in 2011 in the area of Government & Law.

title: Dawn Clark Netsch


text:
Art Themen

Arthur Edward George Themen (born 26 November 1939) is a British jazz saxophonist and formerly orthopaedic surgeon. Critic John Fordham has described him as "an appealing presence on the British jazz circuit for over 40 years.... Originally a Dexter Gordon and Sonny Rollins disciple ... Themen has proved himself remarkably attentive to the saxophone styles of subsequent generations."

Life and career
Themen was born in Manchester, England, where he was involved with the traditional jazz scene in the late 1950s as a self-taught musician, having started playing clarinet as a schoolboy at Manchester Grammar School.

In 1958, he began his medical studies at the University of Cambridge. There Themen started playing jazz with the Cambridge University Jazz Band – with bandmates including Lionel Grigson, Dave Gelly, Jonathan Lynn, and John Hart – the group under pianist Grigson's leadership achieving "near professional standard with a swinging hard-bop style that swept the board in the fiercely contested Inter-University Jazz Band Competitions".

In 1961, Themen went to complete his studies at St Mary's Hospital Medical School, Paddington, where he qualified in 1964; specialising in orthopaedic medicine, he eventually became a consultant. In London, he played with blues musicians Jack Bruce and Alexis Korner, and was a member of Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated. Themen has said: "I had pretty much decided that I could continue to practise medicine and play saxophone, and Alexis, being heavily into blues as well as taking in jazz influences like Charles Mingus, furthered my knowledge of music quite a lot." In 1965, Themen played with the Peter Stuyvesant Jazz Orchestra in Zürich, going on to play with such English luminaries as Michael Garrick, Ian Carr, and Graham Collier's Music.

In 1974, Themen entered on what was to be one of his central musical relationships when he started playing with Stan Tracey, and he has played with all of Tracey's groups, touring with him all over the world as well as around the UK. Themen has also played and toured with visiting US musicians, including Charlie Rouse, Nat Adderley, Red Rodney, George Coleman, and Al Haig.

He was featured in a profile on composer Graham Collier in the 1985 Channel 4 documentary Hoarded Dreams

In 1995, Themen formed a quartet with pianist John Critchinson.

Themen's style originally owed much to the influence of Dexter Gordon and Sonny Rollins, but later influences included such disparate saxophonists as Coleman Hawkins, Evan Parker, and the "sheets of sound" John Coltrane.

In November 2014 Julian Joseph interviewed Themen on BBC Radio 3's Jazz Line-Up, to celebrate the saxophonist's 75th birthday. Themen recalled that his musical career had begun with the clarinet which, due to a missing page in the instruction manual, he had originally played with the mouthpiece upside-down. He turned to the saxophone aged 16, after attending a concert by the Dankworth Seven, with a female cousin. The well-groomed saxophonist Danny Moss had winked at her, and the impact this had convinced Themen that his future was with the saxophone.

Following his retirement as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, Themen has been focusing on his jazz career.

Discography

 * 1975: Captain Adventure - Stan Tracey Quartet
 * 1976: Under Milk Wood - Stan Tracey Quartet
 * 1976: The Bracknell Connection - Stan Tracey Octet
 * 1979: Expressly Ellington - Al Haig, Jamil Nasser and Art Themen
 * 1980: South East Assignment - Stan Tracey Quartet
 * 1981: The Crompton Suite - Stan Tracey Sextet
 * 1982: Bebop "Live" – Al Haig, Peter King and Art Themen
 * 1984: The Poets' Suite - Stan Tracey Quartet
 * 1985: Now - Stan Tracey
 * 1985: Live At Ronnie Scott's - Stan Tracey Hexad
 * 1987: Genesis - Stan Tracey Orchestra
 * 2008: The 3 Tenors at the Appleby Jazz Festival – Art Themen, Mornington Lockett and Don Weller (featuring Mark Edwards, Andrew Cleyndert and Spike Wells)
 * 2019: Thane & The Villeins - Pete Whittaker, Art Themen, George Double
 * 2022: Hanky Panky - Art Themen/Dave Barry Quartet (Trio Records)
 * 2023: Off Piste - Greg Foat and Art Themen

With Graham Collier
 * New Conditions (Mosaic, 1976)
 * Symphony of Scorpions (Mosaic, 1977)
 * The Day of the Dead (Mosaic, 1978)
 * Hoarded Dreams (Cuneiform, 1983 [2007])

title: Art Themen


text: User talk:209.213.254.137

title: User talk:209.213.254.137


text:
Parker Dam

Parker Dam is a concrete arch-gravity dam that crosses the Colorado River 155 mi downstream of Hoover Dam. Built between 1934 and 1938 by the Bureau of Reclamation, it is 320 ft high, 235 ft of which are below the riverbed (the deep excavation was necessary in order to reach the bedrock on which the foundation of the dam was built), making it the deepest dam in the world. The portion of the dam above the foundation stands 85 ft tall, making it the only dam in the world that stands more underground than above ground. The dam's primary functions are to create a reservoir, and to generate hydroelectric power. The reservoir behind the dam is called Lake Havasu and can store 647000 acre.ft. The dam straddles the Arizona-California state border at the narrows the river passes through between the Whipple Mountains in San Bernardino County, California and the Buckskin Mountains in La Paz County, Arizona.

Power generation
The power plant has four Francis turbines with a combined capacity of 120 MW. Each turbine weighs 60,000 lb. The head is 72 ft. It produces electricity at 97 percent efficiency. Half of the electricity the plant produces is used by the Metropolitan Water District to pump water along the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the rest is sold to utilities in California, Arizona and Nevada. The generation of power is limited by a requirement to keep the water level of Lake Havasu between 440 and 450 ft above sea level for proper operation of pumping plants for the Central Arizona Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct.

Water supply
Lake Havasu is the water source for the Colorado River Aqueduct. The aqueduct is operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which supplies water to almost all cities in the greater Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego areas. The district paid for nearly the entire cost of the dam, but it is owned and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Lake Havasu is also the water source for the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct (CAP). The project is designed to provide water for irrigated agricultural areas, as well as municipal water for several Arizona communities, including the metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson.

Controversy
Construction of the dam was a contentious issue for Arizona. Built as part of the larger Colorado River Compact of 1922, several political groups, their members and privately owned utility companies in Arizona were not pleased with the plan in general and refused to sign it until 1944. Even then Arizona continued to dispute its water allotments until a 1963 Supreme Court decision settled the issue. The court has had to adjust the agreement several times since, most recently in 2000. As recently as 2008 Arizona Senator John McCain called for a renegotiation of the plan.

In 1935, when Arizona Governor Benjamin Baker Moeur sent 6 members of the Arizona National Guard to observe the dam's construction, they reported back that there was construction activity on the Arizona side of the river. Arizona Attorney General Arthur La Prade concluded that the Metropolitan Water District had no right to build on Arizona's territory, which prompted Governor Moeur to send a larger National Guard force to halt construction. The troops were recalled when Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes halted construction until the issue had been settled.

The Department of the Interior took Arizona to court over the issue hoping to end the state's interference. To the Department of the Interior's surprise, the Supreme Court sided with Arizona and dismissed the injunction. The court concluded that the dam had never been directly approved by Congress and that California was not entitled to build on Arizona's land without Arizona's consent. Arizona eventually agreed to allow the dam in exchange for approval of the Gila River irrigation project.

title: Parker Dam


text:
Talk:Sevendust

Untitled
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT 7D RIGHT HERE..... http://eastwest.ilgpress.com/sevendust/media/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.197.44 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for an article on actual sevendust. i've heard of this band, but i'm more interested in finding something to help me with my garden. How come there's no information about the pesticide here?

Sevin dust and Sevin liquid are the pesticides. "Sevendust" was an adaption of this word to use a band name. --Ironcladben 17:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe this band origanlly formed in 92 under the name rumblefish...in fact, they have a song named rumblefish...I know someone who played with the band when they were still local...

 * I don't believe that it is terribly accurate to say that Morgan's screaming on the album is just a 'rumor'. It is pretty obvious by watching the videos and the DVD's that he IS the screamer.

 * I've seen them live, and I can attest that at least in that situation, Morgan does do the screaming. --Greyduk 23:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: UGLY IS NOW AT #12, LOOK AT BILLBOARD.COM!!!
 * I updated the singles :D -Xanarki

 * Everything I've heard about Sevendust implies they were originally called "Crawlspace". DMighton 14:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That is correct. I have a cassette tape of the Crawlspace release somewhere and remember seeing them live here in Atlanta. Also, there was another founding member not listed: Lee Banks was an original guitarist.

Rumblefish vs. Assdrop
I've never heard any clarification on this. Why did they change the name of the song from Rumblefish to Assdrop? I never even heard of this until I bought the Greatest Hits package.

dildo It was originally titled "Assdrop" and they changed it to "Rumble Fish" but I don't know why.

Stillrain...?
Anyone know the history with a couple of the guys and the band Stillrain? Might have just been Clint, I know he reformed with those guys to create Dark New Day. This could be important to the article.

DELETION?
If someone finds the articles used before 4/29/07, will the page not be deleted? I might try to find it, but if it's just going to be deleted it's no use in trying. Please tell me before it's too late! Indie -0 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Separate Articles?
I haven't seen any discussion on this, so I'll ask. Why is the Sevendust Discography page separate from their main article?--Greyduk 23:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Discography not on page
There's no discography on this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.92.47 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Era
Why does every album titled section contain "Era" after the years? 2007 is not an "Era". —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffHCross (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew I forgot something. JeffHCross (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre
I'll dispute the "heavy metal" and (to a lesser degree" the "alternative metal" tags here. Sevendust really aren't metal at all. Which isn't a put down, I like them. Just a statement. So, can anyone give a reliable source for these tags, as allmusic isn't reliable on heavy metal genres (see reliable source noticeboard for that). Cheers Prophaniti (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Added a reference from MTV.com categorizing them as heavy metal. Akerans (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Financial troubles
Does anyone else find the whole "Financial troubles" section a bit too one-sided and overly detailed?

-Hsxeric (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's overly detailed, but appears to be copied word for word from Revolver Magazine. If anything, should be rewritten. Will rewrite, it's on my to do list.  What do you mean by one-sided? Akerans (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

musicmight.com
"Musicmight is a Rock database established online by Garry Sharpe-Young in 2001. Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!"

Considering they are a site similar to wikipedia.org, removed this reference. They are not a reliable source since they may contain original research. Akerans (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nu metal
There has been an editor who has championed taking away the application of the term nu metal to this band. The subtraction of the nu metal genre has been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors. The person has not given a reason on any talk page or otherwise as to why he or she is deleting this description of the band. I had told this person that he or she can bring it up on a talk page to discuss, but the person has not done that yet. However, (s)he had some recent invisible messages which involved stating to discuss the issue on a talk page. Therefore, I decided that I would take the initiative to bring it up on here. Genre feuding and genre warrioring are activities that I loathe, and I would like there to be some sort of end to this pending predicament. Also, I would like an explanation from the anonymous editor as to why (s)he wants the genre of nu metal to be removed from here and why there is other genre changing activity lacking explanation on other pages. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, wouldn't mind some sort of explanation for the constant removal as well as the addition of invisible notes, asking others to discuss in the talk page first, without (s)he doing it themselves first. I went ahead and added a source for nu metal within that articles body (using sources in the infobox is usually discouraged), so any further removal if it will have to be justified here. HrZ (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Source
here' a pretty handy source i found it elaborates by saying that sevendust are mainly an alternative metal band, but it also says they've had run ins with other labels like nu metal and industrial metal I call the big one bitey 12:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sevendust. 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/20100522231320/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKAeyUS91I8 to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKAeyUS91I8&fmt=18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Sevendust. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090122102147/http://hitmanyr2k.com:80/Creativity8.htm to http://hitmanyr2k.com/Creativity8.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071129230321/http://www.ultimate-guitar.com:80/news/press_releases/diecast_kick_off_sevendust_tour.html to http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/press_releases/diecast_kick_off_sevendust_tour.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 00:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

infobox image
There are two images as of today
 * Sevendust_2010.jpg
 * Sevendust.jpg

In the first image, which was in the infobox until a few hours ago an editor changed it without explanation, you can see the lead vocalist, two guitarists, a bass player and a drummer. They are clear, in focus, but guitarist standing to the right of the vocalist is somewhat obscured by the vocalist, but otherwise everyone is seen clearly. It is compact and effective. In the second image you see a vocalist, both guitarists a bass player with his right shoulder to the camera, and a drummer. No faces can be seen clearly. They are spread out. The grainy nature of the image makes it difficult to see anything. There are other subjects in the image (possibly a roadie and a security person) who are at the same scale as the members. The lighting is poor and no one can be seen clearly. They are spread-out and it is far from effective. The first image is the better one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sevendust


text:
Body Language (game show)

Body Language is an American game show produced by Mark Goodson Productions. The show aired on CBS from June 4, 1984, until January 3, 1986, and was hosted by Tom Kennedy. Johnny Olson announced until his death in October 1985; Gene Wood and Bob Hilton shared the announcing duties afterward, having substituted on occasion before then.

The show pitted two teams against each other, each consisting of a contestant and a celebrity guest, in a game of solving word puzzles; the words in said puzzles were relayed by playing charades, which followed the game play of the earlier game show Showoffs while adding an element seen in the more recent Password revival series of the time.

Main Game
Two rounds were played, with each team receiving one turn per round. On a team's turn, one member stood behind a podium while the other was shown a series of five words or phrases, one at a time, and had to get their partner to guess as many of them as possible in 60 seconds. The clue-giver was not allowed to speak or use any props, including their own clothing, but had to use gestures to communicate the target words/phrases; any violation of this rule forfeited the rest of the team's time. The clue-giver could pass on a word and return to it after playing through all five if time allowed.

Each word puzzle consisted of seven blanks, two of which stood for words that were not shown to the clue-giver. Each correctly guessed word was placed into the puzzle and the guesser was given a chance to guess. A correct answer awarded money to the team.

If the guesser did not solve the puzzle, the guesser on the opposing team chose a blank to reveal and then offered a guess. The teams alternated in this manner until one guesser solved the puzzle. If neither of the guessers solved it after all seven blanks were filled, the clue-givers were then allowed one guess each. If neither of them could solve it, the solution was revealed and the money carried over to the next puzzle. If, after time ran out, the original clue-giver revealed a word that had not been guessed, the opposing team received the first chance at the puzzle.

In the first round, each puzzle was worth $100, and the celebrities gave clues while the contestants guessed. The team members traded roles for the second round, with the puzzle value increased to $250. The first team to reach $500 won the match. If neither team had reached $500 after the fourth puzzle, a $250 playoff puzzle was played with no clues acted out. The two contestants took turns revealing one blank at a time and offering a guess. Contestants again took turns revealing a chosen blank and guessing the puzzle until one guessed correctly, won the extra $250 and the match.

Beginning with the sixth week of the series, parentheses were placed around the two words in each puzzle that were not available to be acted out. Starting on September 3, 1985, and continuing for the rest of the run, any contestant who got their celebrity partner to guess all five words during the second round won a $500 bonus, which did not affect the scores.

Bonus Round (The Sweepstakes)
In the first half of the bonus round, one team member had 60 seconds to act out up to 10 words or phrases. Originally, the celebrity gave the clues; starting on June 10, 1985, the champion decided whether to give or receive the clues. As in the main game, the clue-giver could pass on a word and return to it if time allowed. The champion received $100 for each correct word. An illegal clue eliminated only the current word instead of ending the round.

For the second half, the clue-giver had to act out three new words or phrases in 20 seconds. Guessing all three multiplied the first-half total by 10, for a maximum bonus of $10,000; a failure awarded the first-half total to the player. Any illegal clue ended this half of the bonus round immediately.

Champions/Returning players rule
Originally, defending champions remained on the show until losing once in the main game, in the sweepstakes five times, or reaching the $25,000 winnings limit that was in effect for CBS game shows at the time, whichever came first. On September 24, 1984, the rules were changed to allow a contestant who are defending champions to stay on the show until they either have two losses in the main game or have been in the sweepstakes six times. The winnings limit was increased to $50,000 on October 22 of that year.

Tournaments
In the summer of 1985, Body Language had a two-month-long "Teen Week". The teens played the standard game; any winnings up to $2,500 were awarded in cash, while anything over that amount went into a savings bond that matured on the player's 18th birthday. During the two-month-long Teen Week, getting all five words in the second round won the team a bonus prize. The prize/ticket cue for the show was reworked and later used as the Classic Concentration theme.

Pilots
Three pilots for the series were made on October 9, 1983. The only change in the front game was the scoring, with puzzles worth $100–$200–$300–$400, and $500 was needed to win the main game. Future actress Anne-Marie Johnson, was a contestant on one of the pilots; Johnson had also appeared as a contestant on Goodson-produced Child's Play earlier in 1983.

The endgame was called "7 Chances". Two puzzles were shown with the requisite 7 blanks. The celebrity chose the blank to be revealed, and the contestant tried to guess the puzzle. If the contestant got both puzzles, they won $7,000 + $1,000 per leftover chance. If they got one puzzle, that contestant won $500.

Other differences include the set, which looked much greener, and the use of the theme song. The theme song was Working Girl March by Dave Grusin, from the 1982 film Tootsie. In addition, the theme was also later used for other unsold Goodson-produced game show pilots of Star Words in 1983 and On a Roll in 1986. Also, the win cue from the endgame "7 Chances" was also used from Mindreaders and later on, the 1980 pilot of Puzzlers and the 1983 pilot of Star Words.

One of the three pilots later aired on Buzzr as part of their "Lost and Found" week on September 11, 2015.

Development
The idea for the TV series Body Language originated with the Milton Bradley board game of the same name, which was created by Dr. Cody Sweet, the first platform speaker on nonverbal communication (body language), in 1974.

Mark Goodson and Bill Todman had previously used the format on the short-lived game show Showoffs, which aired on ABC in 1975.

Broadcast History
Body Language replaced the second version of Tattletales at 4:00 pm (Eastern)/3:00 pm (Central/Mountain/Pacific). Although its sole network competition on ABC, The Edge of Night, was nearing the end of a long run, the show struggled nonetheless because many CBS affiliates had for years preempted the network feed at that time in favor of syndicated programming, which likely brought in larger advertising revenues.

Although some stations tape-delayed the show for broadcast the next morning, Body Language still managed only a fraction of the audience that daytime games such as The Price Is Right and The $25,000 Pyramid did. As such, CBS cancelled the show in December 1985 and aired its last episode on January 3, 1986. Body Language was then replaced on January 6 by a revival of Goodson's Card Sharks, which occupied the 10:30 am timeslot, forcing a move of Press Your Luck to 4:00 pm at the same time; CBS would return the 4:00 pm timeslot to its affiliates after Press Your Luck aired its last episode on September 26, 1986.

Miscellaneous
All episodes of Body Language were taped in studio 33 at CBS Television City in Hollywood.

Near the end of Body Language's broadcast run, host Tom Kennedy also hosted The Nighttime Price Is Right. His hair had visibly grayed by the time Body Language began production, and he dyed his hair brown to host Price (as daytime host Bob Barker was still doing at the time; Barker reverted to his natural white hair in 1987). Kennedy can be seen with his hair dyed brown in Body Language's later episodes.

Episode status
All episodes are intact. Game Show Network has aired the show at various times since 1994.

Body Language was also seen in select markets on Fremantle's Buzzr station, beginning on June 1, 2015, and again on January 19, 2020. The show continued to air until September 24, 2021. The series returned to BUZZR’s daily lineup on April 15, 2024.

In popular culture
Two clips of an episode featuring Betty White as a celebrity partner were shown on a third-season episode of Hot in Cleveland in 2012 titled "How Did You Guys Meet, Anyway?" The footage was digitally altered to include a nametag on White that read "Elka", to make it appear that White's character, Elka Ostrovsky, was appearing as a contestant.

title: Body Language (game show)


text:
User:Spanish lullaby

Spanish lullaby (born May 3, 1989, in North Carolina, United States) is an American university student, occasional fanfiction writer, and Wikipedia user of the WikiOgre variety. After using Wikipedia since late 2004, Spanish lullaby became a registered user of Wikipedia on April 18, 2005, under the name of Charity McKay, an Internet-only alias that she adopted at the age of thirteen. Since reaching the legal age of majority, she has attempted to slowly abandon this pseudonym and thus changed her user name to Spanish lullaby on February 11, 2008. She currently answers to "Beth", but will also respond to "Spanish lullaby", "Charity", and "Hey, girl".

After contributing in mostly a grammatical nature for a few years, Spanish lullaby began participating in WikiProject Soap Operas and working to improve the overall quality of the articles pertaining to her favorite soap opera and own personal brand of crack cocaine, Passions, as well as various Latin American telenovelas. Because of her affinity for the character of Fancy Crane and the relationship between Fancy and Luis Lopez-Fitzgerald, she tends to devote particular attention to those two characters' articles, along with Children of Passions. Spanish lullaby is also slowly editing, revising, and revamping all of the Passions character pages, though it is an extremely long process and she has been quite busy of late. However, she still compulsively corrects sloppy grammar and spelling mistakes.

In real life, Spanish lullaby is sadly not really Spanish, but rather just a really, really big fan of Madonna and her work, including "La Isla Bonita". Spanish lullaby's real name is, if the conclusion was not already drawn, Beth, and she is a women's studies major at Mr. Jefferson's University. Her interests include feminism, social inequality, Spanish language and culture, and television programs that feature good characterization.

Contrary to popular belief, Spanish lullaby is not insane and does not always refer to herself in the third person.

Category:WikiProject Soap Operas participants

es:Usuario:Spanish lullaby

title: User:Spanish lullaby


text: User talk:81.158.104.155

title: User talk:81.158.104.155


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Hauch

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Brad Hauch
Looks like vanity to me. David Johnson [ T|C ] 22:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, it seems like that to me too. (LittleDan forgot to sign)
 * Delete "Looks like?" I think even Brad would agree that it is!---Isaac R 00:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established. -- Egil 04:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, undergraduate vanity. Average Earthman 10:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: User talk:81.67.166.140

title: User talk:81.67.166.140


text: User:RachelBrown

title: User:RachelBrown