text:
Billie Jo Spears

Billie Jo Spears (born Billie Jean Moore; January 14, 1938 – December 14, 2011) was an American country music singer. She was known for a series of singles whose characters often represented women in assertive positions. Among these recordings was a song about sexual harassment ("Mr. Walker, It's All Over"), and a song about rekindling sexual desire ("Blanket on the Ground)".

Spears was raised in a working-class Texas family. She made her first recording at age 13 on the Abbott label. Singer–songwriter Jack Rhodes discovered her early music and helped her secure a professional partnership with producer Kelso Herston. Under Herston's production, she had her first top-ten song with 1969's "Mr. Walker, It's All Over" (issued on Capitol Records). Several follow-up releases were not successful, and after recovering from a vocal setback she returned to United Artists. Her second release was 1975's "Blanket on the Ground", which topped the American country chart and became a commercial pop success in several countries.

Spears followed with several more American top ten and top 20 country songs like "What I've Got in Mind", "Misty Blue", "If You Want Me", "'57 Chevrolet" and a cover of "I Will Survive". Spears continued to have success overseas, particularly in the United Kingdom where she had several more top 40 songs. In 1981, Spears left United Artists (now Liberty) and recorded several albums with British labels during the 1980's and 90's. She also continued to tour throughout, most notably in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, Spears married and divorced five times between the 1960's and 90's. In 2011, Spears died of cancer at age 73.

Early life
Billie Jean Moore was born in Beaumont, Texas and was one of six children. Her father was a truck driver, while her mother worked as a shipyard welder and waitress. Moore was usually called "BJ" during her childhood and the nickname stuck throughout her adult life. She was routinely exposed to country music throughout her childhood. Her mother spent some of her free time performing as a guitarist in a western swing band called the Light Crust Doughboys.

Moore's sister Betty first had aspirations of becoming a country artist and even signed a recording contract, but she chose a domestic life over a professional career. Moore began singing professionally at age 13. She was discovered by songwriter Jack Rhodes, who helped her land an appearance on the Louisiana Hayride television program. This brought Moore to the attention of the Abbott label. In 1953, the company released her first single while she was still a teenager titled "Too Old for Toys, Too Young for Boys". The track was issued under the name "Billie Jo Moore". According to the Encyclopedia of Music in the 20th Century, the record brought in an estimated $4,200. However, a separate statement from The Independent claimed that the record only brought Moore $2000.

Moore graduated from Beaumont's French High School in 1955. Upon graduating, she worked a series of jobs outside the music industry. This included working as a carhop for four years at Neva's, a restaurant near her hometown. She also held a position as a clerical worker for the Beaumont Bag and Burlap Company. Meanwhile, Jack Rhodes persuaded Moore to pursue a career as a country music artist. In 1964, she moved to Nashville, Tennessee. During this period, she changed her professional name to "Billie Jo Spears".

1964–1973: Initial success
Spears tried to find a recording contract after moving to Nashville. She first made several demonstration records with producer Pete Drake. In 1964, she secured a recording deal with United Artists Records. She cut several singles that were issued by United Artists but failed to become successful. Her producer at the time was Kelso Herston, who would move to Capitol Records. Believing in her musical abilities, he helped her switch to Capitol in 1968. Spears's first single for the label was the song "Harper Valley PTA". Released at the same time was a competing version by Jeannie C. Riley which became the commercially successful version. Spears's next single, "He's Got More Love on His Little Finger", became her first to make the American Billboard country chart. It was followed later in the year by her debut studio album titled The Voice of Billie Jo Spears.

Spears' next single release was 1969's "Mr. Walker, It's All Over". Its musical style and lyrical themes were said to resemble that of "Harper Valley PTA". The song told the story of a New York City secretary who confronts her boss after facing sexual harassment in the work place. The song became Spears's commercial breakout, reaching the top five of the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart, the top 80 of the Billboard Hot 100 and the top ten of the Canadian RPM Country Tracks survey. Capitol then issued Spears's second studio album of the same name, which reached the Billboard Top Country Albums top 30. The disc featured several new recordings that followed similar storylines to her top ten single and included a cover of Tammy Wynette's "Stand by Your Man".

Capitol released several follow-up singles by Spears that discussed social issues. Among them was 1969's "Stepchild", which told the story of a boy who murders his abusive stepfather. It only reached number 43 on the Billboard country chart. Another follow-up single was 1970's "Marty Gray", a song that told the story of a teenage girl who becomes unexpectedly pregnant following a sexual encounter with a high school football player. It reached number 17 on the Billboard country chart. Her third Capitol studio album, Miss Sincerity, was her second to make the Country Albums chart.

With her new success, Spears toured in the United Kingdom for the first time as part of the "Capitol Country Caravan". She would later find her greatest success overseas. Critics and writers also took notice of Spears's music for the first time. Alan Cackett of Country Music People called her "a fine singer" with "emotional styling". In reviewing her second album, AllMusic's Richie Unterberger praised Spears's assertive vocal style and song choices: "It's a quite strong set of material, hewing to the gutsier side of late-'60s country-pop, with Spears proving herself as one of the tougher, harder-edged, commercial country singers of the era."

In 1970, Spears began working alongside Capitol producer George Richey. He attempted to move her music in an orchestrated pop direction. Studio albums like With Love, Billie Jo Spears (1970) and Country Girl (1971) featured remakes of Johnny Bond's "Your Old Love Letters" and Cole Porter's "True Love". Through 1971, the singles "I Stayed Long Enough" and "It Could 'A Been Me" made the Billboard country top 40. When her next releases failed to prove successful, Capitol Records dropped Spears from their roster. Following her departure, Spears was forced to have vocal chord surgery which set her career back as well. After recovering, she returned on the independent Brite Star and Cutlass labels. However, the label made poor business choices. "Everyone involved with them should be behind bars, and some of them are," she later commented.

1974–1981: Comeback, international success and peak years
In 1974, Spears returned to United Artists Records. She was signed by producer Larry Butler, who was growing his country roster at the label. Her first United Artists release was a remake of Bobby Goldsboro's "See the Funny Little Clown". It failed to become successful and Spears began looking for her next hit. Butler brought Spears to the attention of a new song penned by Roger Bowling called "Blanket on the Ground". It had been previously rejected by several producers who thought the song's sexual themes were too controversial. "It sounded like a cheating song, and the public don't think girls should sing cheating songs!" she commented. "Blanket on the Ground" reached number one on the Billboard country chart, number 78 on the Hot 100 and number two on the RPM country chart. It also became an international crossover success, reaching number six in the United Kingdom number 11 in Ireland among other countries.

Spears's first United Artists album of the same name reached the top five of the Billboard country chart in 1975. It became a best-selling album in the United Kingdom, receiving a "Silver" certification from the British Phonographic Industry. The comeback brought Spears the Top New Female Vocalist accolade from the Academy of Country Music Awards during this time. "It sure is good to be back. I'm a different person now when I'm recording, because I'm also able to present a much better show on my personal appearances," she commented. To conclude 1975, Spears had two top 20 North American country singles with "Stay Away from the Apple Tree" and "Silver Wings and Golden Rings".

Spears's collaboration with producer Larry Butler continued through the seventies. Butler crafted an up-tempo, country pop sound that was considered both marketable and dance-able. Many of her most popular singles reflected themes of sexual desire or rekindling loves fading fires. Her next single was 1976's "What I've Got in Mind", which also hinted at sexual themes. The single reached the top five of the North American country charts and the top five of the UK pop chart. Her studio LP of the same name also reached the Top Country Albums top five and certified silver from the BPI. The album also spawned a cover of the ballad, "Misty Blue", which reached the American country top five. "Sing Me an Old Fashioned Song" was released to European countries, peaking within United Kingdom top 40 and the top ten in Ireland. Her British success later led to multiple appearances at the Wembley Arena, where she became a favorite with crowds for many years. During this period, she also collaborated with Del Reeves on the album By Request. The disc featured duet recordings by the pair and was released on United Artists in 1976.

Spears had a string of top ten and top 20 country singles during the later half of the seventies. The 1977 releases, "Never Did Like Whiskey" and "I'm Not Easy", both made the top 20 of the American country charts. They were included on her 1977 top 40 country LP, I'm Not Easy. I'm Not Easy also featured a cover of Elvis Presley's "Heartbreak Hotel", which was intended to be a single. According to the Independent, Spears cancelled the single following the death of Presley because she did not want to "exploit" his passing. Instead, the up-tempo "If You Want Me" reached the Hot County Songs top ten in 1977. Through 1978, four of Spears's singles reached the top 20 consecutively: "Too Much Is Not Enough", "Lonely Hearts Club", "I've Got to Go" and "'57 Chevrolet".

In 1979, United Artists released Spears's cover of Gloria Gaynor's disco hit "I Will Survive". It was a popular recording in the United Kingdom, where it charted on their pop survey. It also reached number 21 on the American country chart and number nine on the Canadian country chart. "I Will Survive" served as the name for her 1979 LP, which spawned two additional charting singles. Greg Adams of AllMusic gave the disc a four-star rating and called it "a typically fine effort". In 1980, a song about walking away from a failed relationship ("Standing Tall") returned Spears to the top 20 of the American country chart and the top ten of the Canadian country chart. Her 1981 cover of Tammy Wynette's "Your Good Girl's Gonna Go Bad" was her final top 20 country single. Spears then departed from United Artists (now Liberty) records.

1982–2011: Focus in the United Kingdom and final career years
In 1982, Spears signed with the United Kingdom-based label Ritz Records. The label received airplay on BBC Radio 2 and Spears was promised to receive airtime there. Her first label single was 1982's "Apologizing Roses". It was included on the Ritz studio album, BJ – Billie Jo Spears Today (1983). Along with new material, the disc also featured covers of "Seven Lonely Days" and John Anderson's "Swingin'". Spears also collaborated on a duet with Carey Duncan called "I Can Hear Kentucky Calling Me". In 1984, the Premier label (also based in the United Kingdom) released her next studio album titled We Just Came Apart at the Dreams. It featured new recordings, along with covers of Rosanne Cash's "Ain't No Money" and Don Gibson's "Sweet Dreams". Its title track was issued as a single in 1983. Spears's final chart appearance in the United States was a cover of "Midnight Blue", which reached the Billboard country songs top 40 in 1984. A 1986 joint venture between MCA/Dot resulted in an eponymous studio project.

In 1991, Broadland International released Spears's next studio project titled Unmistakably. The disc contained ten songs, most of which were new recordings. Its only single was the track "One Smokey Rose", which originally reached the top ten on the Canadian country chart for Anita Perras. Spears also recorded several cuts at Broadland for an intended duets project, which never came to be. "The album never got finished and I don't know what happened to the money. It's pathetic and I'm very disappointed." she told journalist Spencer Leigh. In 1996, Spears returned with the studio album Outlaw Woman. The disc was co-produced by Spears and was released in the United Kingdom by Carlton Records. Spears also recorded many of her most-popular songs for several low budget albums. Among them was a 1998 studio project distributed by K-tel.

In the final years of her career, Spears continued to perform on a regular basis. Because of her notable following in the United Kingdom, Spears did most of her concert engagements there. She would complete over 400 concerts and engagements in the United Kingdom during her lifetime. Spears hoped to record a live album at the Pavilion Theatre in Scotland, but never got around to doing so. Shortly before her passing, Spears performed regularly with Irish country artist, Philomena Begley. This included a tour in both 2010 and 2011.

Artistry
Spears's musical style was rooted in the country genre. Specifically, her early Capitol recordings embedded aspects of traditional country. Writers Mary A. Bufwack and Robert K. Oermann found that her sixties-era recordings had a "diminutive honky-tonker" style while Richie Unterberger of AllMusic found the same selections to have "harder edge" compared to other female artists. Many writers found that Spears's United Artists/Liberty recordings shifted towards country pop and country disco. Author Kurt Wolff disagreed in his book Country Music: The Rough Guide: "Though Billie Jo Spears had her biggest hits during the 1970s, she was far more earthy and grounded than most singers passing for 'country' during the decade."

Bufwack and Oermann found that her late seventies music was "some of the most distinctive pop-country fusion discs of the day." Stephen L. Betts of Rolling Stone found that Spears also had elements of country disco, highlighting 1979's "I Will Survive" in the article Country Disco: 15 Great, Wild and WTF Songs. "With the familiar piano opening by Hargus "Pig" Robbins and backing vocals from the Jordanaires, the Grammy-nominated country-meets-western-meets-Studio 54 concoction remains deliciously odd and totally irresistible," he concluded.

Writers and critics also highlighted the blues-influenced style of Spears's vocal delivery. AllMusic's Steve Huey called her "a perfect torch balladeer" with a "sultry, bluesy voice". In an AllMusic review of a compilation album, Stephen Cook called Spears's vocals "smoky and sensual". Music writers also noticed Spears's characteristic twang in her vocal performances. Bufwack and Oermann commented that she had a "Texas accent as thick as salsa and twice as tangy." Kurt Wolff commented, "Her voice was strong and confident sort of a combination of Loretta Lynn twang and the swampy soul of Bobbie Gentry." Stephen L. Betts described her as a "twangy Texan".

Legacy
Writers and journalists have remembered Spears for songs that showed women in strong and assertive positions. Following her death, Bill Friskics-Warren of The New York Times wrote, "Ms. Spears rose to prominence in the late 1960s with a string of up-tempo, socially conscious songs portraying plucky survivors." Mary A. Bufwack and Robert K. Oermann explained in their 2003 book that Spears's choice of material set her apart: "Billie Jo was unusual for a country female of the period in that she recorded hardly any 'victim' material. Almost all of the star's hit ballads are of women leaving, surviving or otherwise asserting themselves."

Spears's music has been recorded by other artists and has been considered influential to other artists. Tammy Wynette was influenced by Spears's sixties-era United Artists recordings. According to producer Kelso Herston, Wynette studied her singing style by listening to Spears's records in his Nashville office. "I still think that she was influenced some by Billie Jo. She really did like her," he told biographer Jimmy McDonough. Lorrie Morgan knew many of Spear's recordings about assertive women and cut Spears's "Standing Tall" for her 1995 compilation Reflections: Greatest Hits. Morgan also performed many of Spears's popular songs in her concerts, including "Silver Wings and Golden Rings".

Personal life and death
Spears was married a total of five times. Dates of Spears's marriages and divorces have not been published. However, several of her spouses names have appeared in books. The Insider's Country Music Handbook reported that Spears was briefly married and divorced from both Terry Bethel and Doug Walton. Both were country music musicians. The book Grassroots Music in the Upper Cumberland reported a brief marriage to Mike Edlin, another fellow musician. Finding Her Voice: This History of Women in Country Music explained that Spears married her third husband in 1975, who was fifteen years younger than she. His name was not given. Spears spoke of the age difference in the book, "I guess I just think young. If it was the other way around, no one would give it a second thought...You're only as young as you feel." From her various marriages, Spears had three children: Tim Pierce, Kevin Jones and Ronnie Jones.

In the early 1970s, it was discovered that Spears had nodules on her vocal cords. She underwent two surgeries and had to spend six months in silence so her voice could recover. "I was singing too high and straining on the high notes. It took six months of total silence to recover. I lowered all my keys and I don't scream anymore," she said. In 1980, Spears was injured in a car accident in Nashville, Tennessee. Billboard reported that she suffered a concussion, a fractured arm and multiple cuts. She was hospitalized for one day and had to cancel several concert engagements. However, she made a full recovery. In 1993, she underwent triple bypass heart surgery and made a full recovery.

A heavy smoker, Spears suffered from lung cancer in her final years. In her autobiography, singer and friend Philomena Begley spoke of how Spears became increasingly weaker and frail shortly before her death. Begley also said that Spears continued to smoke despite her diagnosis. Spears chose to spend her final days in hospice care at her home in Vidor, Texas. On December 14, 2011, she passed away at her Vidor home at the age of 73.

Discography

 * Studio albums
 * The Voice of Billie Jo Spears (1968)
 * Mr. Walker, It's All Over! (1969)
 * Miss Sincerity (1969)
 * With Love, Billie Jo Spears (1970)
 * Country Girl (1970)
 * Just Singin' (1971)
 * Blanket on the Ground (1975)
 * Billie Jo (1975)
 * What I've Got in Mind (1976)
 * By Request (1976) (with Del Reeves)
 * I'm Not Easy (1976)
 * If You Want Me (1977)
 * Lonely Hearts Club (1978)
 * Love Ain't Gonna Wait for Us
 * I Will Survive (1979)
 * Standing Tall (1980)
 * Only the Hits (1981)
 * Country Girl (1981)
 * BJ – Billie Jo Spears Today (1983)
 * We Just Came Apart at the Dreams (1984)
 * Billie Jo Spears (1986)
 * Unmistakably (1991)
 * Outlaw Woman (1996)
 * The Best of Billie Jo Spears: New Recordings of Her Greatest Hits...and More... (1998)

Awards and nominations
!Ref.
 * rowspan="2"| 1969
 * Cashbox
 * Most Promising C&W Instrumentalist
 * Won
 * align="center"|
 * Record World
 * Most Promising Female Vocalist
 * Won
 * align="center"|
 * 1970
 * Billboard
 * Top Female Vocalist – Singles
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * 1971
 * Record World
 * Top Female Vocalist
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * 1975
 * Billboard
 * Top Female Vocalist – Singles and Albums
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * rowspan="2"| 1976
 * Academy of Country Music Awards
 * Most Promising Female Vocalist
 * Won
 * align="center"|
 * Cash Box
 * rowspan="3"| Top Female Vocalist
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * 1977
 * rowspan="2"| Record World
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * 1979
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * rowspan="2"| 1980
 * Grammy Awards
 * Best Female Country Vocal Performance – "I Will Survive"
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * rowspan="2"| Record World
 * rowspan="2"| Top Female Vocalist
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * 1981
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * 2010
 * Vidor Walk of Fame
 * Inducted
 * Won
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * 1981
 * Nominated
 * align="center"|
 * 2010
 * Vidor Walk of Fame
 * Inducted
 * Won
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * }

title: Billie Jo Spears


text:
Talk:WrestleMania VI

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:WrestleMania VI


text:
Wikipedia talk:Granting work into the public domain

Appropriate tag to replace "PD-release"
I've been (mistakenly, it appears!) slapping the PD-release tag on most of my images. It now appears that this is inappropriate, or at least, doesn't do what I want. So what tag should I use to achieve the same effect? "CopyrightedFreeUse" seems like the obvious candidate, but the text there makes me nervous - it's not obvious enough for my taste that modification and commercial use are permitted. I suggest creating a tag analogous to PD-release or PD-self that is more explicit. How's this for the text?

 * This material is copyrighted, but the author has chosen to permit its use for any purpose, including but not limited to copying, modification, publication, sale, and the production of baby-mulching machines.

Well, maybe we can leave out the baby-mulching machines.

As for the name, maybe "NoRightsReserved", "Release", "CopyrightedAnyPurpose", "PD-ifonly", ... --Andrew 04:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry guys, there is already a "CopyrightedFreeUse" template, which does almost exactly what Andrew asks:

PD-release

 * Take a look at the Creative Commons public domain dedication for some wording ideas. You might want to include that link in the tag.

 * Perhaps someone should get in touch with the Creative Commons, and ask them to write an actual license. We'd call the tag cc.  dbenbenn | talk 17:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the suggestions. I'm afraid CopyrightedFreeUse was a pre-existing image template currently in use, and we really don't want to rename it or have duplicate templates, so the name will probably have to stick. The text I'll certainly update to clarify things — in fact, I proposed just this on Template talk: CopyrightedFreeUse to no apparent response. I'm do find the copyright symbol a little scary, even if it is a calm green colour, but I'll leave that I think. Deco 22:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "and we really don't want to rename it"—you realize the "move" feature works for templates just like for articles? It leaves a redirect at the old name, which allows the old name to continue working.  dbenbenn | talk 01:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, cool, I didn't realise that. Maybe it's worth renaming it then. Deco 03:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction?
These two statements seem contradictory:
 * Once this irrevocable act is complete, they are still, legally, the copyright holder, but this gives them no power over how the work is used.

 * The owner still retains all rights to the work, and has the legal right to prosecute people who use the work under the false impression that it was in the public domain.

If the owner no longer has power over how the work is used, what is an example of a way someone could use the work that would violate the copyright? Rad Racer | Talk 00:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * These are talking about two different situations. The first is where the author has made a statement releasing all rights. The second is where the author has made a statement releasing the work into the public domain. Because the second statement has no legal effect, the result is that no rights have actually been released. I hope this clarifies things — feel free to reword the text to help clarify it for others. Deco 00:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Can someone please cite sources demonstrating that a statement releasing all rights has a different legal effect than releasing the work into the public domain? Is there any case law about this? It seems weird that the intent of the copyright holder would not matter. Rad Racer | Talk 03:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I did. That's pretty much exactly what the sources I cited at the bottom of the page say. I don't believe this has ever come to court, so there's no precedent. The intent does matter, and would definitely affect the outcome of the case in the end, but does not make reusing the work legal. Deco 23:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What bullshit
I'm glad I created a personal template for all my images back when I uploaded them, so I just had to add a line to the template. Someone should offer up a bot to do the conversions automatically for people who agree. --SPUI (talk) 00:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. In fact, it might be helpful just to have a bot to contact all the people who have released their images and/or text into the public domain, because there are an awful lot of them. Deco 00:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn. I should have done that.  (Personal image template.) - Omegatron 03:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Come on
We had this debate half a year ago in de-Wikipedia and we decided after much FUD not to change anything as this is really of no relevance. We still tag images of our own we want give all rights away with the PD-tag and of course according to EU copyright law you can also give away the right beeing namend as author (you can demand from others not beeing namend as author). PD effective means "Do what you want but please name the source" so viewed from this point there is really no difference. For real public domain as expired copyright we have a second template called "pd-old" so this never has lead to misunderstandings. So please don't change everything but only change your public domain template sentences somewhat. Arnomane 09:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that this has come up before. Neither PD nor free-use require either naming the source or not naming the source, though (you can make no requirements at all). I wish we could merely change our templates. Unfortunately I don't think this is possible, because we'd be effectively changing the legal content of the template without the permission of those using it, which might lead to trouble. Deco 23:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I think there is no trouble in doing that. Your actual PD-template is:
 * PD
 * Our template in de-Wikipedia can be found at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:PD and has this content:
 * {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=3 style="border: 1px solid #E0E0E0; background-color: #F8F8F8"

 * style="font-size: 90%" | Dieses Bild wurde von seinem Urheber zur uneingeschränkten Nutzung freigegeben oder erreicht nicht die nötige Schöpfungshöhe, um geschützt zu sein. Das Bild ist damit gemeinfrei („public domain“).
 * }
 * Translated in english:
 * {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=3 style="border: 1px solid #E0E0E0; background-color: #F8F8F8"
 * {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=3 style="border: 1px solid #E0E0E0; background-color: #F8F8F8"

 * style="font-size: 90%" |This image has been released by its copyright holder for unrestricted usage or does not achieve the required minimum work for beeing copyright protected. This image is thatfor Public Domain.
 * }
 * I think changing the PD-text into that direction of "unrestricted usage" and simply keep it for all own images of people using the PD tag this is enough. Only if one person demands the naming of the author we should use a template similar to CC-BY instead (I see someone has done that a little bit down). Arnomane 12:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think changing the PD-text into that direction of "unrestricted usage" and simply keep it for all own images of people using the PD tag this is enough. Only if one person demands the naming of the author we should use a template similar to CC-BY instead (I see someone has done that a little bit down). Arnomane 12:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carrying over from the VP....
Remember that every time you upload text or media to a Wikimedia site, you are also agreeing to distribute it under the GFDL in addition to any license tag you add. If evil Wikipedians are lurking out there waiting to jump in later and demand 99 cents for every page view because hey, putting a public domain tag was just an evil plot all along, they will have to explain that bit about agreeing to the GFDL. --iMb~Meow 10:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a few images, and although I "agreed" to licensing it under GFDL, I assumed that releasing it in the public domain superseded the GFDL. In other words, I didn't intend for the GFDL to be some sort of fallback license. --jag123 14:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. If someone released some stuff here within the Public Domain how can he exclusively claim money for that within Wikipedia later? The public domain release is inrevocable. Of course he can embedd PD stuff within another proprietary project that wants to see money for every single kind of usage and copying and so forth which is not possible that way with GFDL-only stuff. But what has this to do with Wikipedia? Arnomane 14:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone says that they released a work into the public domain and really meant to do that, then none of this really matters because the original copyright owner isn't going to object that the material is being used. The only way any of this "are PD grants real?" business would have any practical implication is if the original copyright holder had a change of heart and decided "ha ha, only kidding, I found a loophole and the work is still MINE ALL MINE MUAHAHAHAHA!", in which case Wikipedia can smugly point back at that GFDL grant and say "Neener neener, you gave us this license at the same time, so go ahead and keep your stinky little copyright, you mean poopyhead!"
 * That's what I mean by "fallback." Even it in the future it turned out that all those PD grants were null and void, Wikipedia is still clear because the uploaders agreed to let their work be published under the Wikipedia license too.
 * If the original author is worried about this public domain thing, and wants to make sure that others who don't want to be bothered with GFDL can still freely use their work elsewhere, that's the author's problem, not Wikipedia's. --iMb~Meow 19:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * With your text and image contributions of your own creation, the GFDL is a fallback, albeit a strong copyleft one. However, uploads of works that others have claimed to place in the public domain are still at issue. Also don't forget that derivative works of a public domain work can be licensed under proprietary terms; if a person did this with a work that turned out to be GFDLed, they could be in big trouble. Deco 23:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this proposal
What is the point of this proposal? To protect people who use PD images (or whatever) in case the author actually slapped a PD tag on it with the intent to sue someone later over the legal ambiguity of it? Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous? --jag123 14:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the only practical difference I can see, that an author or heir might want to play loophole games in the future. Wikipedia has done things smartly and put big scary warnings about only uploading material with permission. If the material was uploaded by its author, that author is going to have to explain both the supposed ambiguity and agreeing to that disclaimer. --iMb~Meow 19:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer has loopholes just as big. It says "By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright" (emphasis mine). You just have to get a friend to upload it. Deco 23:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and then the friend is taking the responsibility for having permission to upload the file under the GFDL. That's just business as usual around here. --iMb~Meow 00:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The full statement is: "By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." If you don't hold the copyright, you have fulfilled these terms vacuously, and so you are not responsible. It used to be different, but they changed it because it contradicted our policy on fair use images. Deco 03:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's even not too big a deal, because even if an uploader deliberately does that, Wikimedia can always fall back on OCILLA, which pretty much pushes the liability back on the uploader (provided that the image is deleted when a takedown notice comes in). --iMb~Meow 03:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's true, except for the paper Wikipedia and other offline derivative works. There are other potential dangers though (like paranoid content reusers and other Wikipedians uploading derivative works under less strict licenses). I think at least a small change like a warning seems justified. Deco 04:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

@IMeowbot: No this problem will never happen. Although you haven't used the exact right terms you gave all usage rights away. The only problem with this PD-stuff is the authorship versus Copyright: In continental european copyright law the emphasis is on the authorship and the give away of usage rights so you can't give the authorship to someone else in contrast to the anglo-americian copyright laws. So there is a difference between "copyright"-law (anglo-american law tradition) and "authorship"-law (french-continental-european law tradition). This is the deeper and only reason for this academic PD-problem. But as I pointed it already out this has no real effective relevance as you can give according to the continental euroean laws all usage rights away and can also deny beeing named as author. So there is no real difference to the anglo-american public domain release. This is simply semantic stuff for bored law people nothing else. So please calm down and I would suggest to change the PD template in direction on the emphasis of "usage rights" and use the other template sugested below if people want you to be named as author. Arnomane 12:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Live free or die
It's true, isn't it? There is no public domain anymore. People will own things whether they want to or not. You now have to understand legal intricacies regarding your rights as an author even if you don't want those rights. It seems the reversal is complete: as an author, you now have the duty to protect your work from the evil profiteering horde who would use it without duly compensating you, and only the most careful of legalese will absolve you from it.

This is where I really draw the line. If I can't legally give up my rights and people are worried I will use them to sue them even after I say I intend to give up my rights and never exercise them again, then that's too bad for them. I'm done with it all. I hereby give anyone permission to slap any license whatsoever on all my contributions. You take care of it, then. JRM 16:46, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

 * Then put the "PD-Release" tag on your images:
 * PD-release Bobburito 02:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I guess it is possible someone who doesn't want to exercise the rights may still see his/her copyrights abused by others.

 * By death, bankruptcy or some unthinkable "gotcha" contract clauses, one's copyrights may transfer to another guy. That guy could be an evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet. That's the problem.

 * You may easily abandon a pencil. You may even abandon your title to a real property by doing nothing while another person is using it for many years (see adverse possession). The Copyright Act of the Evil Empire is a gift directly from the Prince of Darkness. -- Toytoy 17:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Can't even give up your rights anymore
This is exactly the kind of legal crap I was trying to avoid when I used a public domain licensing template in the first place. Now I find I didn't even give up my rights properly? <expletive deleted>... - dcljr 21:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's say Tom "released" his copyrights of his mouse trap article to the "public domain" so every cat on earth could use it. Jerry used Tom's article in his book "How to Fool Cats". After Tom dies, his slutty wife wants to sue Jerry for some quick money. A @#$% copyright lawyer found a way to prove Tom did not "release" that article into "public domain" thanks to the satanic Copyright Act of the Evil Empire.

 * What should Jerry's lawyer say? What should a judge say?

 * Personally, I think any reasonable judge may dismiss the case if Jerry proves Tom did "release" that article into "public domain". The statement itself constitutes an estoppel. It takes a wise decision. -- Toytoy 17:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Patent nonsense
Just ignore this article. It is patent nonsense -- even if highly-paid lawyers repeat it. Remember, lawyers eat bullshit for breakfast and spend their entire lives cranking out more bullshit. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that legal nonsense is reality.

If you put a work of yours into the public domain, it is there, in fact. Anybody can use it for anything. If later you make a claim, you can drag a user of the work into court; and he can drag in his lawyer; and they can fight it out, and "earn" large fees. This is always true, so really nothing has changed. Putting a clear notice on your work stating release into public domain knocks the issue so far into the gray area that nobody can say what a given judge will decide, let alone a jury full of unemployed housewives, welfare drones, manual laborers, and the occasional confrontational jerk eager to serve a duty from which he could escape.

IANAL, thank all the gods. Don't get sucked into this Black Hole. — Xiongtalk 02:45, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * You're right that, in all likelihood, no one could succeed in suing somebody for infringing a copyright on a work that they claimed to place in the public domain, but I'd hate to see some unfortunate soul dragged into court for days or weeks because they didn't know about this issue, when a simple additional free-use license statement and/or a warning in the public domain tag could eliminate this possibility. Despite what you say, you'd really have to be a rich idiot to sue someone after putting a tag like this on your image:
 * This wouldn't be an issue at all if the original public domain statement contained similar language. It might seem pedantic, but the potential danger seems real to me.
 * Besides this, it's also about intent — people who donate their work to the public domain want to release all rights to it, forever. They don't want some potential future court decision to reverse that, perhaps after they're dead. Adding a free-use statement helps guard against this. Deco 03:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that when I'm burning in the eternal fires of hell, what happens to the legal status of some pictures I uploaded on Wikipedia will be the least of my concerns. I think bringing up legal issues surrounding PD is a waste of time, because most of the people who release as PD couldn't care less what happens. If they did care about legal issues, or copyright, or anything like that, they'd pick one of dozens of other licenses, or make their own. Having that said, anyone who wishes to change the license on my images can go ahead and knock themselves out, but I'm not bothering; I think my intent is crystal clear. --jag123 05:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am a person who releases as PD. I released all my images under PD. This is exactly why this came to concern me. But you know, never mind, fuck it. I just wanted to help, I'm not going to fight about this anymore. Deco 06:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry for overreacting above. I really just need to remove myself from this issue, I've been feeling too strongly about it. All of your objections are reasonable, and I trust the community to do whatever is best for Wikipedia. Deco 07:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry for overreacting above. I really just need to remove myself from this issue, I've been feeling too strongly about it. All of your objections are reasonable, and I trust the community to do whatever is best for Wikipedia. Deco 07:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shortcut
Does anyone else think it might be a good idea to change the shortcut from WP:PDWTF to something else that isn't an abbreviation of an expletive? Dar-Ape 02:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just created WP:GPD and will eventually get rid of WP:PDWTF unless someone objects. Dar-Ape 01:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this page and others still correct
This page and the seem Image copyright tags page to suggest you should use additional tags other then PD-self in your images. However it seems to me with it's current wording:

 ''I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.'' In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. you don't have to since you explicitly say if you can't release it into the PD, you allow others to do anything with it. Indeed it seems a bit strange/contradictory to me to say it's in the PD then also say it's copyrighted but you release all rights as if it's in the public domain. Better to say it's public domain but if it's not, I've released all rights. Nil Einne 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


text: User talk:12.220.91.187

title: User talk:12.220.91.187


text:
Sandalphon

Sandalphon (Hebrew: סַנְדַּלְפוֹן Sandalp̄ōn; Σανδαλφών Sandalfón) is an archangel in Jewish and Christian writings, although not in scripture. Sandalphon figures prominently in the mystical literary traditions of Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity, notably in the Midrash, Talmud, and Kabbalah and is generally seen as gathering prayers and passing them on to God.

Origin
Although not explicitly referenced in scripture, some of the earliest sources on Sandalphon refer to him as the prophet Elijah transfigured and risen to angelic status. Other sources (mainly from the midrashic period) describe him as the "twin brother" of Metatron, whose human origin as Enoch is similar to the human origin of Sandalphon.

Meaning of name
The name Sandalphon, which may be related to the Hebrew sandek, godfather (thereby corresponding to the tradition of a station held by Elijah with regard to evocation of the prophet in his capacity being protector of unborn children ), may also be derived from the Greek prefix sym-/syn-, meaning "together", and adelphos, meaning "brother"; thus approximately meaning "co-brother", since the modern Greek word for "co-worker", synadelfos (συνάδελφος), has these roots as seen in the Book of Revelation, chapter 19, verse 10. This probably refers to Sandalphon's relationship to Metatron, although this derivation shows uncertain Semitic influences.

Descriptions and functions
Physical descriptions of Sandalphon vary depending on the source. He is uniformly depicted as extremely tall—he exceeds Hadraniel in height by a 500-year foot journey. During Moses' visit to the Third Heaven, he is said to have glimpsed Sandalphon and called him the "tall angel", though this legend dates to much later than the time of the Torah. The Babylonian Talmud Hagigah 13b says Sandalphon's head reaches Heaven, which is also said of Israfil and of the Greek monster Typhon, with whom Sandalphon seems to have similar mythological roots. He is also described as being a member of the śārim (שָׂרִים "princes"), and a Hazzan (חַזָּן master of heavenly song).

In the Greater Key of Solomon, Sandalphon is designated "the left-hand feminine cherub of the Ark of the Covenant". In the liturgy for Sukkot, he is credited with gathering the prayers of the faithful, making a garland of such prayers, and then "adjuring them to ascend as an orb to the supreme King of Kings". In the Zohar he is "chief of the Seventh Heaven". As Michael does, he carries on a ceaseless battle with Samael (perhaps Satan), angel of evil.

The ancient sages also referred to him by the name Ofan (אוֹפַן "wheel"), a reference to the "wheel within the wheel" from Ezekiel's vision of the heavenly chariot in the Book of Ezekiel chapter 1. Sandalphon is also said to be instrumental in bringing about the differentiation of sex in the embryo.

Ibn Hazm describes Sandalphon as an angel "who serves the crown". He further states that the Jews, though regarding Metatron as an angel, celebrate him as a lesser god for 10 days in each year (probably a reference to Rosh Hashanah in connection with Merkabah mysticism - in which Metatron is conceived actually to have played a part in the creation of the world).

In Kabbalah, Sandalphon is the angel who represents the sefirah Malkuth and overlaps (or is confused with) the angel Metatron. He is said to appear before the feminine presence of the Shekhinah and to receive human prayers and send them to God.

In literature
Sandalphon is the eponymous subject of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem "Sandalphon".

In the Japanese light novel series Date A Live, Sandalphon is the name of a spiritual weapon (referred to as Angels within the series), belonging to Tohka Yatogami. Sandalphon takes the form of a large broadsword stuck in a gilded throne. The sword has the power to send out waves of Spirit Power that can cut through objects. At full power, Sandalphon can cut virtually anything, including the fabric of spacetime.

title: Sandalphon


text:
Talk:British Forces Rangers

Special Reconnaissance Regiment
Is there a relationship with this article to a Ministry of Defence announcement regarding the 'Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR)?' Clue 04:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The SRR is a different unit, specialising in covert surveillance. It is part of the  special forces group, and presumably thus subject to the same conditions of secrecy and anonymity as the  SAS and  SBS, while the new 'Rangers' would appear to be a more conventional unit. — Franey 12:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for clarifying. Despite the differences in terms / purpose I was thinking there was a slight possibility that they were one and the same. Clue 03:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joint Special Forces Support Group
If the Telegraph story is confirmed, this page should be moved to Joint Special Forces Support Group. — Franey 14:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC).

 * It seems the title has been mentioned in Hansard in answer to 'Defence Reductions.' Clue 06:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It's now officially confirmed on the MoD's site for 16 Brigade: 1 PARA will leave 16 Brigade in 2006 when they take up their new role as the Joint Special Forces Support Group, based at St Athan in South Wales. I'll update the article, which should be moved to Joint Special Forces Support Group (with the "Rangers" page as a redirect): anyone know how? — Franey 11:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Presumably 'Changing a redirect' to edit JSFSG and move the article there. British Forces Rangers should be made a redirect if still relevant, although I do not think it is. Clue 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it not now Special Reconnaissance Regiment? This seems to be assigned the roles mentioned in the 'ranger' hype. Perhaps brit army rangers article should be deleted now -max rspct 13:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * No. They are different units. SRR = 14 Intelligence Company, JSFSG/"Rangers" = 1 Bn Parachute Regiment. See above, and Talk:Special Reconnaissance Regiment. — Franey 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:British Forces Rangers


text:
Talk:Software development life cycle

This should be merged into software engineering, as most of this article is already covered in that entry. DDerby 05:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Merge it only if searches that were conducted for either term seperately will still succeed after the merge. Combine the title?

I disagree
I disagree

The software design life cycle is an independent topic, contained under the general software development lifecycle topic. In general the SDLC will include requirement gathering, analysis, _design_, implementation, testing, deployment.. etc.

Merger
See Talk:Software development process. -- Zondor 03:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Software development life cycle


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buo

 * 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 speedy delete --Carnildo 23:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Buo
Delete Nonsense. 141.211.138.85 04:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete buo is not a word AFAICTell DDerby 05:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - looks like patent nonsense to me. Firebug 07:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Golly, I wasn't aware that Christians generally believed in Odin. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  08:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense. Dsmdgold 09:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete complete nonsense. Eric119 15:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Buocruft. -- 8^D gab 15:33, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete using the "patent nonsense" criterion. -- Karada 16:28, 8 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buo


text:
Designer baby

A designer baby is a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected or altered, often to exclude a particular gene or to remove genes associated with disease. This process usually involves analysing a wide range of human embryos to identify genes associated with particular diseases and characteristics, and selecting embryos that have the desired genetic makeup; a process known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Screening for single genes is commonly practiced, and polygenic screening is offered by a few companies. Other methods by which a baby's genetic information can be altered involve directly editing the genome before birth, which is not routinely performed and only one instance of this is known to have occurred as of 2019, where Chinese twins Lulu and Nana were edited as embryos, causing widespread criticism.

Genetically altered embryos can be achieved by introducing the desired genetic material into the embryo itself, or into the sperm and/or egg cells of the parents; either by delivering the desired genes directly into the cell or using gene-editing technology. This process is known as germline engineering and performing this on embryos that will be brought to term is typically prohibited by law. Editing embryos in this manner means that the genetic changes can be carried down to future generations, and since the technology concerns editing the genes of an unborn baby, it is considered controversial and is subject to ethical debate. While some scientists condone the use of this technology to treat disease, concerns have been raised that this could be translated into using the technology for cosmetic purposes and enhancement of human traits.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD or PIGD) is a procedure in which embryos are screened prior to implantation. The technique is used alongside in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to obtain embryos for evaluation of the genome – alternatively, ovocytes can be screened prior to fertilisation. The technique was first used in 1989. PGD is used primarily to select embryos for implantation in the case of possible genetic defects, allowing identification of mutated or disease-related alleles and selection against them. It is especially useful in embryos from parents where one or both carry a heritable disease. PGD can also be used to select for embryos of a certain sex, most commonly when a disease is more strongly associated with one sex than the other (as is the case for X-linked disorders which are more common in males, such as haemophilia). Infants born with traits selected following PGD are sometimes considered to be designer babies.

One application of PGD is the selection of 'saviour siblings', children who are born to provide a transplant (of an organ or group of cells) to a sibling with a usually life-threatening disease. Saviour siblings are conceived through IVF and then screened using PGD to analyze genetic similarity to the child needing a transplant, to reduce the risk of rejection.

Process
Embryos for PGD are obtained from IVF procedures in which the oocyte is artificially fertilised by sperm. Oocytes from the woman are harvested following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), which involves fertility treatments to induce production of multiple oocytes. After harvesting the oocytes, they are fertilised in vitro, either during incubation with multiple sperm cells in culture, or via intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), where sperm is directly injected into the oocyte. The resulting embryos are usually cultured for 3–6 days, allowing them to reach the blastomere or blastocyst stage.

Once embryos reach the desired stage of development, cells are biopsied and genetically screened. The screening procedure varies based on the nature of the disorder being investigated.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a process in which DNA sequences are amplified to produce many more copies of the same segment, allowing screening of large samples and identification of specific genes. The process is often used when screening for monogenic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis.

Another screening technique, fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) uses fluorescent probes which specifically bind to highly complementary sequences on chromosomes, which can then be identified using fluorescence microscopy. FISH is often used when screening for chromosomal abnormalities such as aneuploidy, making it a useful tool when screening for disorders such as Down syndrome.

Following the screening, embryos with the desired trait (or lacking an undesired trait such as a mutation) are transferred into the mother's uterus, then allowed to develop naturally.

Regulation
PGD regulation is determined by individual countries' governments, with some prohibiting its use entirely, including in Austria, China, and Ireland.

In many countries, PGD is permitted under very stringent conditions for medical use only, as is the case in France, Switzerland, Italy and the United Kingdom. Whilst PGD in Italy and Switzerland is only permitted under certain circumstances, there is no clear set of specifications under which PGD can be carried out, and selection of embryos based on sex is not permitted. In France and the UK, regulations are much more detailed, with dedicated agencies setting out framework for PGD. Selection based on sex is permitted under certain circumstances, and genetic disorders for which PGD is permitted are detailed by the countries' respective agencies.

In contrast, the United States federal law does not regulate PGD, with no dedicated agencies specifying regulatory framework by which healthcare professionals must abide. Elective sex selection is permitted, accounting for around 9% of all PGD cases in the U.S., as is selection for desired conditions such as deafness or dwarfism.

Pre-implantation Genetic Testing
Based on the specific analysis conducted:

PGT-M (Preimplantation Genetic Testing for monogenic diseases): It is used to detect hereditary diseases caused by the mutation or alteration of the DNA sequence of a single gene.

PGT-A (Preimplantation Genetic Testing for aneuploidy): It is used to diagnose numerical abnormalities (aneuploidies).

Human germline engineering
Human germline engineering is a process in which the human genome is edited within a germ cell, such as a sperm cell or oocyte (causing heritable changes), or in the zygote or embryo following fertilization. Germline engineering results in changes in the genome being incorporated into every cell in the body of the offspring (or of the individual following embryonic germline engineering). This process differs from somatic cell engineering, which does not result in heritable changes. Most human germline editing is performed on individual cells and non-viable embryos, which are destroyed at a very early stage of development. In November 2018, however, a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, announced that he had created the first human germline genetically edited babies.

Genetic engineering relies on a knowledge of human genetic information, made possible by research such as the Human Genome Project, which identified the position and function of all the genes in the human genome. As of 2019, high-throughput sequencing methods allow genome sequencing to be conducted very rapidly, making the technology widely available to researchers.

Germline modification is typically accomplished through techniques which incorporate a new gene into the genome of the embryo or germ cell in a specific location. This can be achieved by introducing the desired DNA directly to the cell for it to be incorporated, or by replacing a gene with one of interest. These techniques can also be used to remove or disrupt unwanted genes, such as ones containing mutated sequences.

Whilst germline engineering has mostly been performed in mammals and other animals, research on human cells in vitro is becoming more common. Most commonly used in human cells are germline gene therapy and the engineered nuclease system CRISPR/Cas9.

Germline gene modification
Gene therapy is the delivery of a nucleic acid (usually DNA or RNA) into a cell as a pharmaceutical agent to treat disease. Most commonly it is carried out using a vector, which transports the nucleic acid (usually DNA encoding a therapeutic gene) into the target cell. A vector can transduce a desired copy of a gene into a specific location to be expressed as required. Alternatively, a transgene can be inserted to deliberately disrupt an unwanted or mutated gene, preventing transcription and translation of the faulty gene products to avoid a disease phenotype.

Gene therapy in patients is typically carried out on somatic cells in order to treat conditions such as some leukaemias and vascular diseases. Human germline gene therapy in contrast is restricted to in vitro experiments in some countries, whilst others prohibited it entirely, including Australia, Canada, Germany and Switzerland.

Whilst the National Institutes of Health in the US does not currently allow in utero germline gene transfer clinical trials, in vitro trials are permitted. The NIH guidelines state that further studies are required regarding the safety of gene transfer protocols before in utero research is considered, requiring current studies to provide demonstrable efficacy of the techniques in the laboratory. Research of this sort is currently using non-viable embryos to investigate the efficacy of germline gene therapy in treatment of disorders such as inherited mitochondrial diseases.

Gene transfer to cells is usually by vector delivery. Vectors are typically divided into two classes – viral and non-viral.

Viral vectors
Viruses infect cells by transducing their genetic material into a host's cell, using the host's cellular machinery to generate viral proteins needed for replication and proliferation. By modifying viruses and loading them with the therapeutic DNA or RNA of interest, it is possible to use these as a vector to provide delivery of the desired gene into the cell.

Retroviruses are some of the most commonly used viral vectors, as they not only introduce their genetic material into the host cell, but also copy it into the host's genome. In the context of gene therapy, this allows permanent integration of the gene of interest into the patient's own DNA, providing longer lasting effects.

Viral vectors work efficiently and are mostly safe but present with some complications, contributing to the stringency of regulation on gene therapy. Despite partial inactivation of viral vectors in gene therapy research, they can still be immunogenic and elicit an immune response. This can impede viral delivery of the gene of interest, as well as cause complications for the patient themselves when used clinically, especially in those who already have a serious genetic illness. Another difficulty is the possibility that some viruses will randomly integrate their nucleic acids into the genome, which can interrupt gene function and generate new mutations. This is a significant concern when considering germline gene therapy, due to the potential to generate new mutations in the embryo or offspring.

Non-viral vectors
Non-viral methods of nucleic acid transfection involved injecting a naked DNA plasmid into cell for incorporation into the genome. This method used to be relatively ineffective with low frequency of integration, however, efficiency has since greatly improved, using methods to enhance the delivery of the gene of interest into cells. Furthermore, non-viral vectors are simple to produce on a large scale and are not highly immunogenic.

Some non-viral methods are detailed below:

 * Electroporation is a technique in which high voltage pulses are used to carry DNA into the target cell across the membrane. The method is believed to function due to the formation of pores across the membrane, but although these are temporary, electroporation results in a high rate of cell death which has limited its use. An improved version of this technology, electron-avalanche transfection, has since been developed, which involves shorter (microsecond) high voltage pulses which result in more effective DNA integration and less cellular damage.
 * The gene gun is a physical method of DNA transfection, where a DNA plasmid is loaded onto a particle of heavy metal (usually gold) and loaded onto the 'gun'. The device generates a force to penetrate the cell membrane, allowing the DNA to enter whilst retaining the metal particle.
 * Oligonucleotides are used as chemical vectors for gene therapy, often used to disrupt mutated DNA sequences to prevent their expression. Disruption in this way can be achieved by introduction of small RNA molecules, called siRNA, which signal cellular machinery to cleave the unwanted mRNA sequences to prevent their transcription. Another method utilises double-stranded oligonucleotides, which bind transcription factors required for transcription of the target gene. By competitively binding these transcription factors, the oligonucleotides can prevent the gene's expression.

ZFNs
Zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) are enzymes generated by fusing a zinc finger DNA-binding domain to a DNA-cleavage domain. Zinc finger recognizes between 9 and 18 bases of sequence. Thus by mixing those modules, it becomes easier to target any sequence researchers wish to alter ideally within complex genomes. A ZFN is a macromolecular complex formed by monomers in which each subunit contains a zinc domain and a FokI endonuclease domain. The FokI domains must dimerize for activities, thus narrowing target area by ensuring that two close DNA-binding events occurs.

The resulting cleavage event enables most genome-editing technologies to work. After a break is created, the cell seeks to repair it.

 * A method is NHEJ, in which the cell polishes the two ends of broken DNA and seals them back together, often producing a frame shift.
 * An alternative method is homology-directed repairs. The cell tries to fix the damage by using a copy of the sequence as a backup. By supplying their own template, researcher can have the system to insert a desired sequence instead.

The success of using ZFNs in gene therapy depends on the insertion of genes to the chromosomal target area without causing damage to the cell. Custom ZFNs offer an option in human cells for gene correction.

TALENs
There is a method called TALENs that targets singular nucleotides. TALENs stand for transcription activator-like effector nucleases. TALENs are made by TAL effector DNA-binding domain to a DNA cleavage domain. All these methods work by as the TALENs are arranged. TALENs are "built from arrays of 33-35 amino acid modules…by assembling those arrays…researchers can target any sequence they like". This event is referred as Repeat Variable Diresidue (RVD). The relationship between the amino acids enables researchers to engineer a specific DNA domain. The TALEN enzymes are designed to remove specific parts of the DNA strands and replace the section; which enables edits to be made. TALENs can be used to edit genomes using non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homology directed repair.

CRISPR/Cas9
The CRISPR/Cas9 system (CRISPR – Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, Cas9 – CRISPR-associated protein 9) is a genome editing technology based on the bacterial antiviral CRISPR/Cas system. The bacterial system has evolved to recognize viral nucleic acid sequences and cut these sequences upon recognition, damaging infecting viruses. The gene editing technology uses a simplified version of this process, manipulating the components of the bacterial system to allow location-specific gene editing.

The CRISPR/Cas9 system broadly consists of two major components – the Cas9 nuclease and a guide RNA (gRNA). The gRNA contains a Cas-binding sequence and a ~20 nucleotide spacer sequence, which is specific and complementary to the target sequence on the DNA of interest. Editing specificity can therefore be changed by modifying this spacer sequence.

Upon system delivery to a cell, Cas9 and the gRNA bind, forming a ribonucleoprotein complex. This causes a conformational change in Cas9, allowing it to cleave DNA if the gRNA spacer sequence binds with sufficient homology to a particular sequence in the host genome. When the gRNA binds to the target sequence, Cas will cleave the locus, causing a double-strand break (DSB).

The resulting DSB can be repaired by one of two mechanisms –

 * Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ) - an efficient but error-prone mechanism, which often introduces insertions and deletions (indels) at the DSB site. This means it is often used in knockout experiments to disrupt genes and introduce loss of function mutations.
 * Homology Directed Repair (HDR) - a less efficient but high-fidelity process which is used to introduce precise modifications into the target sequence. The process requires adding a DNA repair template including a desired sequence, which the cell's machinery uses to repair the DSB, incorporating the sequence of interest into the genome.

Since NHEJ is more efficient than HDR, most DSBs will be repaired via NHEJ, introducing gene knockouts. To increase frequency of HDR, inhibiting genes associated with NHEJ and performing the process in particular cell cycle phases (primarily S and G2) appear effective.

CRISPR/Cas9 is an effective way of manipulating the genome in vivo in animals as well as in human cells in vitro, but some issues with the efficiency of delivery and editing mean that it is not considered safe for use in viable human embryos or the body's germ cells. As well as the higher efficiency of NHEJ making inadvertent knockouts likely, CRISPR can introduce DSBs to unintended parts of the genome, called off-target effects. These arise due to the spacer sequence of the gRNA conferring sufficient sequence homology to random loci in the genome, which can introduce random mutations throughout. If performed in germline cells, mutations could be introduced to all the cells of a developing embryo.

There are developments to prevent unintended consequences otherwise known as off-target effects due to gene editing. There is a race to develop new gene editing technologies that prevent off-target effects from occurring with some of the technologies being known as biased off-target detection, and Anti-CRISPR Proteins. For biased off-target effects detection, there are several tools to predict the locations where off-target effects may take place. Within the technology of biased off-target effects detection, there are two main models, Alignment Based Models that involve having the sequences of gRNA being aligned with sequences of genome, after which then the off-target locations are predicted. The second model is known as the Scoring-Based Model where each piece of gRNA is scored for their off-target effects in accordance with their positioning.

Regulation on CRISPR use
In 2015, the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was held in Washington D.C., hosted by scientists from China, the UK and the U.S. The summit concluded that genome editing of somatic cells using CRISPR and other genome editing tools would be allowed to proceed under FDA regulations, but human germline engineering would not be pursued.

In February 2016, scientists at the Francis Crick Institute in London were given a license permitting them to edit human embryos using CRISPR to investigate early development. Regulations were imposed to prevent the researchers from implanting the embryos and to ensure experiments were stopped and embryos destroyed after seven days.

In November 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had performed the first germline engineering on viable human embryos, which have since been brought to term. The research claims received significant criticism, and Chinese authorities suspended He's research activity. Following the event, scientists and government bodies have called for more stringent regulations to be imposed on the use of CRISPR technology in embryos, with some calling for a global moratorium on germline genetic engineering. Chinese authorities have announced stricter controls will be imposed, with Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping and government premier Li Keqiang calling for new gene-editing legislations to be introduced.

As of January 2020, germline genetic alterations are prohibited in 24 countries by law and also in 9 other countries by their guidelines. The Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, also known as the Oviedo Convention, has stated in its article 13 "Interventions on the human genome" as follows: "An intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and only if its aim is not to introduce any modification in the genome of any descendants". Nonetheless, wide public debate has emerged, targeting the fact that the Oviedo Convention Article 13 should be revisited and renewed, especially due to the fact that it was constructed in 1997 and may be out of date, given recent technological advancements in the field of genetic engineering.

Lulu and Nana controversy
The Lulu and Nana controversy refers to the two Chinese twin girls born in November 2018, who had been genetically modified as embryos by the Chinese scientist He Jiankui. The twins are believed to be the first genetically modified babies. The girls' parents had participated in a clinical project run by He, which involved IVF, PGD and genome editing procedures in an attempt to edit the gene CCR5. CCR5 encodes a protein used by HIV to enter host cells, so by introducing a specific mutation into the gene CCR5 Δ32 He claimed that the process would confer innate resistance to HIV.

The project run by He recruited couples wanting children where the man was HIV-positive and the woman uninfected. During the project, He performed IVF with sperm and eggs from the couples and then introduced the CCR5 Δ32 mutation into the genomes of the embryos using CRISPR/Cas9. He then used PGD on the edited embryos during which he sequenced biopsied cells to identify whether the mutation had been successfully introduced. He reported some mosaicism in the embryos, whereby the mutation had integrated into some cells but not all, suggesting the offspring would not be entirely protected against HIV. He claimed that during the PGD and throughout the pregnancy, fetal DNA was sequenced to check for off-target errors introduced by the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, however the NIH released a statement in which they announced "the possibility of damaging off-target effects has not been satisfactorily explored". The girls were born in early November 2018, and were reported by He to be healthy.

His research was conducted in secret until November 2018, when documents were posted on the Chinese clinical trials registry and MIT Technology Review published a story about the project. Following this, He was interviewed by the Associated Press and presented his work on 27 November at the Second International Human Genome Editing Summit which was held in Hong Kong.

Although the information available about this experiment is relatively limited, it is deemed that the scientist erred against many ethical, social and moral rules but also China's guidelines and regulations, which prohibited germ-line genetic modifications in human embryos, while conducting this trial. From a technological point of view, the CRISPR/Cas9 technique is one of the most precise and least expensive methods of gene modification to this day, whereas there are still a number of limitations that keep the technique from being labelled as safe and efficient. During the First International Summit on Human Gene Editing in 2015 the participants agreed that a halt must be set on germline genetic alterations in clinical settings unless and until: "(1) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and (2) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application". However, during the second International Summit in 2018 the topic was once again brought up by stating: "Progress over the last three years and the discussions at the current summit, however, suggest that it is time to define a rigorous, responsible translational pathway toward such trials". Inciting that the ethical and legal aspects should indeed be revisited G. Daley, representative of the summit's management and Dean of Harvard Medical School depicted Dr. He's experiment as "a wrong turn on the right path".

The experiment was met with widespread criticism and was very controversial, globally as well as in China. Several bioethicists, researchers and medical professionals have released statements condemning the research, including Nobel laureate David Baltimore who deemed the work "irresponsible" and one pioneer of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, biochemist Jennifer Doudna at University of California, Berkeley. The director of the NIH, Francis S. Collins stated that the "medical necessity for inactivation of CCR5 in these infants is utterly unconvincing" and condemned He Jiankui and his research team for 'irresponsible work'. Other scientists, including geneticist George Church of Harvard University suggested gene editing for disease resistance was "justifiable" but expressed reservations regarding the conduct of He's work.

The Safe Genes program by DARPA has the goal to protect soldiers against gene editing war tactics. They receive information from ethical experts to better predict and understand future and current potential gene editing issues.

The World Health Organization has launched a global registry to track research on human genome editing, after a call to halt all work on genome editing.

The Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences responded to the controversy in the journal Lancet, condemning He for violating ethical guidelines documented by the government and emphasising that germline engineering should not be performed for reproductive purposes. The academy ensured they would "issue further operational, technical and ethical guidelines as soon as possible" to impose tighter regulation on human embryo editing.

Ethical considerations
Editing embryos, germ cells and the generation of designer babies is the subject of ethical debate, as a result of the implications in modifying genomic information in a heritable manner. This includes arguments over unbalanced gender selection and gamete selection.

Despite regulations set by individual countries' governing bodies, the absence of a standardized regulatory framework leads to frequent discourse in discussion of germline engineering among scientists, ethicists and the general public. Arthur Caplan, the head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University suggests that establishing an international group to set guidelines for the topic would greatly benefit global discussion and proposes instating "religious and ethics and legal leaders" to impose well-informed regulations.

In many countries, editing embryos and germline modification for reproductive use is illegal. As of 2017, the U.S. restricts the use of germline modification and the procedure is under heavy regulation by the FDA and NIH. The American National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine indicated they would provide qualified support for human germline editing "for serious conditions under stringent oversight", should safety and efficiency issues be addressed. In 2019, World Health Organization called human germline genome editing as "irresponsible".

Since genetic modification poses risk to any organism, researchers and medical professionals must give the prospect of germline engineering careful consideration. The main ethical concern is that these types of treatments will produce a change that can be passed down to future generations and therefore any error, known or unknown, will also be passed down and will affect the offspring. Theologian Ronald Green of Dartmouth College has raised concern that this could result in a decrease in genetic diversity and the accidental introduction of new diseases in the future.

When considering support for research into germline engineering, ethicists have often suggested that it can be considered unethical not to consider a technology that could improve the lives of children who would be born with congenital disorders. Geneticist George Church claims that he does not expect germline engineering to increase societal disadvantage, and recommends lowering costs and improving education surrounding the topic to dispel these views. He emphasizes that allowing germline engineering in children who would otherwise be born with congenital defects could save around 5% of babies from living with potentially avoidable diseases. Jackie Leach Scully, professor of social and bioethics at Newcastle University, acknowledges that the prospect of designer babies could leave those living with diseases and unable to afford the technology feeling marginalized and without medical support. However, Professor Leach Scully also suggests that germline editing provides the option for parents "to try and secure what they think is the best start in life" and does not believe it should be ruled out. Similarly, Nick Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher known for his work on the risks of artificial intelligence, proposed that "super-enhanced" individuals could "change the world through their creativity and discoveries, and through innovations that everyone else would use".

Many bioethicists emphasize that germline engineering is usually considered in the best interest of a child, therefore associated should be supported. Dr James Hughes, a bioethicist at Trinity College, Connecticut, suggests that the decision may not differ greatly from others made by parents which are well accepted – choosing with whom to have a child and using contraception to denote when a child is conceived. Julian Savulescu, a bioethicist and philosopher at Oxford University believes parents "should allow selection for non‐disease genes even if this maintains or increases social inequality", coining the term procreative beneficence to describe the idea that the children "expected to have the best life" should be selected. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said in 2017 that there was "no reason to rule out" changing the DNA of a human embryo if performed in the child's interest, but stressed that this was only provided that it did not contribute to societal inequality. Furthermore, Nuffield Council in 2018 detailed applications, which would preserve equality and benefit humanity, such as elimination of hereditary disorders and adjusting to warmer climate. Philosopher and Director of Bioethics at non-profit Invincible Wellbeing David Pearce argues that "the question [of designer babies] comes down to an analysis of risk-reward ratios - and our basic ethical values, themselves shaped by our evolutionary past." According to Pearce,"it's worth recalling that each act of old-fashioned sexual reproduction is itself an untested genetic experiment", often compromising a child's wellbeing and pro-social capacities even if the child grows in a healthy environment. Pearce thinks that as technology matures, more people may find it unacceptable to rely on "genetic roulette of natural selection".

Conversely, several concerns have been raised regarding the possibility of generating designer babies, especially concerning the inefficiencies currently presented by the technologies. Green stated that although the technology was "unavoidably in our future", he foresaw "serious errors and health problems as unknown genetic side effects in 'edited' children" arise. Furthermore, Green warned against the possibility that "the well-to-do" could more easily access the technologies "..that make them even better off". This concern regarding germline editing exacerbating a societal and financial divide is shared amongst other researches, with the chair of the Nuffield Bioethics Council Professor Karen Yeung stressing that if funding of the procedures "were to exacerbate social injustice, in our view that would not be an ethical approach".

Social and religious worries also arise over the possibility of editing human embryos. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre, it was found that only a third of the Americans surveyed who identified as strongly Christian approved of germline editing. Catholic leaders are in the middle ground. This stance is because, according to Catholicism, a baby is a gift from God, and Catholics believe that people are created to be perfect in God's eyes. Thus, altering the genetic makeup of an infant is unnatural. In 1984, Pope John Paul II addressed that genetic manipulation in aiming to heal diseases is acceptable in the Church. He stated that it "will be considered in principle as desirable provided that it tends to the real promotion of the personal well-being of man, without harming his integrity or worsening his life conditions". However, it is unacceptable if designer babies are used to create a super/superior race including cloning humans. The Catholic Church rejects human cloning even if its purpose is to produce organs for therapeutic usage. The Vatican has stated that "The fundamental values connected with the techniques of artificial human procreation are two: the life of the human being called into existence and the special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage". According to them, it violates the dignity of the individual and is morally illicit.

A survey conducted by the Mayo Clinic in the Midwestern United States in 2017 saw that most of the participants agreed against the creation of designer babies with some noting its eugenic undertones. The participants also felt that gene editing may have unintended consequences that it may be manifested later in life for those that undergo gene editing. Some that took the survey worried that gene editing may lead to a decrease in the genetic diversity of the population in societies. The survey also noted how the participants were worried about the potential socioeconomic effects designer babies may exacerbate. The authors of the survey noted that the results of the survey showed that there is a greater need for interaction between the public and the scientific community concerning the possible implications and the recommended regulation of gene editing as it was unclear to them how much those that participated knew about gene editing and its effects prior to taking the survey.

In Islam, the positive attitude towards genetic engineering is based on the general principle that Islam aims at facilitating human life. However, the negative view comes from the process used to create a designer baby. Oftentimes, it involves the destruction of some embryos. Muslims believe that "embryos already has a soul" at conception. Thus, the destruction of embryos is against the teaching of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Shari'ah law, that teaches our responsibility to protect human life. To clarify, the procedure would be viewed as "acting like God/Allah". With the idea, that parents could choose the gender of their child, Islam believes that humans have no decision to choose the gender, and that "gender selection is only up to God".

Since 2020, there have been discussions about American studies that use embryos without embryonic implantation with the CRISPR/Cas9 technique that had been modified with HDR (homology-directed repair), and the conclusions from the results were that gene editing technologies are currently not mature enough for real world use and that there is a need for more studies that generate safe results over a longer period of time.

An article in the journal Bioscience Reports discussed how health in terms of genetics is not straightforward and thus there should be extensive deliberation for operations involving gene editing when the technology gets mature enough for real world use, where all of the potential effects are known on a case-by-case basis to prevent undesired effects on the subject or patient being operated on.

Social aspects also raise concern, as highlighted by Josephine Quintavelle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics at Queen Mary University of London, who states that selecting children's traits is "turning parenthood into an unhealthy model of self-gratification rather than a relationship".

One major worry among scientists, including Marcy Darnovsky at the Center for Genetics and Society in California, is that permitting germline engineering for correction of disease phenotypes is likely to lead to its use for cosmetic purposes and enhancement. Meanwhile, Henry Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University in California, states that "almost everything you can accomplish by gene editing, you can accomplish by embryo selection", suggesting the risks undertaken by germline engineering may not be necessary. Alongside this, Greely emphasizes that the beliefs that genetic engineering will lead to enhancement are unfounded, and that claims that we will enhance intelligence and personality are far off – "we just don't know enough and are unlikely to for a long time – or maybe for ever".

title: Designer baby


text: User talk:24.0.250.186

title: User talk:24.0.250.186


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Eran Scott

 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul Eran Scott
Vanity/Not notable. Written by User:ThePaul, so Delete.--Matteh (talk) 05:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

deletesubject is non-notable --DDerby 06:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Kevin Rector 06:16, Apr 8, 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:
Alhassane Keita

Alhassane Keita Otchico (born 26 June 1983), known as Keita, is a Guinean footballer who most recently played as a striker for American club Jacksonville Armada FC.

Club career
Keita was born in Conakry. After beginning his professional career in Morocco with Olympique Khouribga, he moved to Switzerland in 2001 joining FC Zürich; during his five-season stay he scored goals at an extraordinary rate, including 20 in 2005–06 as the club emerged champions and the player was crowned league top scorer.

Keita started the 2006–07 campaign still in Zürich, netting four in as many games, but signed with Saudi Arabian side Ittihad FC, in Jeddah. In late June 2008 he joined Spain's RCD Mallorca on a five-year link, being irregularly used in his first year – he did manage, however, to score twice as a second-half substitute in a 2–0 La Liga home win over Real Valladolid.

In July 2009, Keita was initially banned for four months after it was found out he signed with Umm-Salal Sports Club in Qatar after he had already committed to Mallorca. As the appeals begun, though, he was able to start the new season with the team, appearing in several matches from the bench; in late January 2010, the situation was resolved favorably to the Spaniards.

Keita was loaned to Valladolid in the second division, initially in a season-long move. However, in late January 2011, he cancelled his loan agreement, terminated his contract with Mallorca and joined Al-Shabab Riyadh from Saudi Arabia until 2013.

In August 2011, Keita left Saudi Arabia for Emirates Club in the UAE Arabian Gulf League, following a short spell. The same month in the following year, he moved to Dubai CSC.

In early January 2015, Keita moved clubs and countries again, signing with Jacksonville Armada FC from the North American Soccer League. He left two years later, as their all-time leading scorer.

In July 2017, Keita joined Prince Mohammad bin Salman League's Al-Watani. On 28 March of the following year, he returned to the Armada.

International career
Keita was part of the Guinean squad at the 2004 Africa Cup of Nations as they reached the competition's quarter-finals, with an exit against Mali. He did not play in the tournament, however.

Honours
FC Zürich
 * Swiss Cup: 2004–05
 * Super League/Nationalliga A: 2005–06

title: Alhassane Keita


text: User talk:65.27.242.182

title: User talk:65.27.242.182


text:
Alnus nepalensis

Alnus nepalensis is a large alder tree found in the subtropical highlands of the Himalayas. The tree is called Utis in Nepali and Nepalese alder in English. It is used in land reclamation, as firewood and for making charcoal.

Description
Alnus nepalensis is a large deciduous alder with silver-gray bark that reaches up to 30 m in height and 60 cm in diameter. The leaves are alternate, simple, shallowly toothed, with prominent veins parallel to each other, 7–16 cm long and 5–10 cm broad. The flowers are catkins, with the male and female flowers separate but produced on the same tree. The male flowers are 10 to 25 cm long and pendulous, while the female flowers are erect, 1 to 2 cm, with up to eight together in axillary racemes. Unusually for an alder, they are produced in the autumn, with the seeds maturing the following year.

Distribution
It occurs throughout the Himalaya at 500–3000 m of elevation from Pakistan through India, Nepal and Bhutan to Yunnan in southwest China. It grows best on deep volcanic loamy soils, but also grows on clay, sand and gravel. It tolerates a wide variety of soil types and grows well in very wet areas. It needs plenty of moisture in the soil and prefers streamside locations, but also grows on slopes.

Uses
The tree grows quickly and is sometimes planted as erosion control on hillsides and for land recovery in shifting cultivation. It has nodules on the roots which fix nitrogen. The wood is moderately soft. It is occasionally used for making boxes and in light construction but is mainly used as firewood, when it burns evenly but rather rapidly, and for making charcoal. Currently, this tree species is preferred by different indigenous ethnic groups such as H'mong, Nung and Thu Lao in Simacai district, Lao Cai province, Northern Vietnam to regreen and enrich the forest by local knowledge (SPERI, CENDI).

title: Alnus nepalensis


text:
Abdallah Bah

Abdallah Bah (born 30 November 1975) is a retired Guinean footballer. He played as a goalkeeper.

During his professional career, Bah played in France, Spain, England and the United States. Internationally, he was part of the Guinean 2004 African Cup of Nations team, who finished second in their group in the first round of competition, before losing in the quarterfinals to Mali.

title: Abdallah Bah