text:
Talk:Sundanese language

Expansion requested
The article has sections labeled as requiring expansion already. This message is merely to bring attention to this fact and make the cleanup effort easier to track. Triddle 05:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Aksara Sunda
Sundanese has a non-Latin alphabet which is taught in the schools. This should be added to the article. Evertype 17:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Our article on the Javanese script is abysmal, and there doesn't appear to be any Unicode support. It looks like we're a few steps away from much useful information to add here. --Gareth Hughes 18:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A dictionary of the Sunda language of Java  By Jonathan Rigg (1862)
http://books.google.com/books?id=kuo-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Materials and sources on Sundanese language
Soendasch-Nederduitsch woordenboek, op last van het gouvernement van Nederlandsch-Indie (1879)

https://archive.org/details/1359609.0001.001.umich.edu

Soendaneesch-Hollandsch woordenboek (1913)

https://archive.org/details/afu8504.0001.001.umich.edu

Nederduitsch-Maleisch en Soendasch woordenboek. Benevens twee stukken tot oefening in het Soendasch; (1841)

https://archive.org/details/afu8511.0001.001.umich.edu

Pĕrdjangdjian Anjar hartosna sadajana kitab noe kasĕbat Indjil Goesti oerang Jesoes Kristoes (1877)

https://archive.org/details/aba9802.0001.001.umich.edu

Kitab Soetji: hartosna sadajana kitab anoe kasebat Perdjangdjian Lawas sareng Perdjangdjian Anjar (1891)

https://archive.org/details/kitabsoetjiharto00cool

Rajmaan (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yayat Sudaryat
The page has an in-line reference "according to.Yayat Sudaryat (1991,35)", but there is no corresponding citation anywhere. That is almost certainly this person, but there is no mention of "1991" on the page, and as I don't read Indonesian I can't search the site for a citation. Thnidu (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sundanese language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100907014837/http://sabilulungan.org/aksara/ to http://sabilulungan.org/aksara/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826135535/http://sabilulungan.org/tarjamah/ to http://sabilulungan.org/tarjamah

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

ɨ or ɤ?
The article uses Muller-Gotama (2001) /ɨ/ for the digraph ⟨eu⟩ while Hardjadibrata (1985) mentioned that it represented /ɤ/. I speak Sundanese and my ⟨eu⟩ sounds more like /ɤ/ while a Sundanese person I know speaks it like /ɨ/. Should we mention both? RXerself (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hadeu, the high-ish back-central vowel space is a muddy terrain. We have a similar discussion in Talk:Ilocano language, and User:Sol505000 can cite more examples. The best approach is probably to say that there are several approaches (+ citations) in transcribing the Sundanese "long pepet". –Austronesier (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What kind of examples would you like to see? I'm not sure if I'd be of much help here. EDIT: See this paper. Estonian also has a highly variably vowel that is most often transcribed with ⟨ɤ⟩. Sol505000 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sundanese language distribution map.svg

title: Talk:Sundanese language


text:
User talk:Wbrouwer

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jonathunder 14:51, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hello, Bill. I did a little work on the Guido de Brès article you started, but then I noticed it looks a lot like the source listed there. Drawing from references is fine -- in fact, it's encouraged -- but making a copy might not be. Wikipedia has to be very careful about violating copyright. Please comment on this source. Do you know who wrote it? If you were the author, or if the author gave you permission to copy it to Wikipedia, this may be OK. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. Jonathunder 15:28, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Protestant Reformed Church
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Protestant Reformed Church article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --BinaryTed 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Frouwe Venema
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Frouwe Venema, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Frouwe Venema. Oo7565 (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Helenius de Cock

The article Helenius de Cock has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * No indication of notability; couldn't find any through Google search.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Wbrouwer


text:
Kesh

Kesh may refer to:

Places

 * Keş, Azerbaijan
 * Kesh, County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland
 * Kesh railway station, 1866–1957
 * Kesh (Sumer), an ancient Sumerian city and religious site
 * Kesh, historic name of Shahrisabz, Uzbekistan

Other uses

 * Kesh (Sikhism), a practice of not cutting hair
 * Albanian Power Corporation (Albanian: Korporata Elektroenergjitike Shqiptare, KESH), an electricity supplier
 * Kesh, a fictional human culture and language in Ursula K. Le Guin's novel Always Coming Home
 * The Empire of Great Kesh, a nation of the world of Midkemia, in books written by Raymond Feist

title: Kesh


text: Category:380 BC deaths

title: Category:380 BC deaths


text:
Rho Cassiopeiae

Rho Cassiopeiae (ρ Cas, ρ Cassiopeiae) is a yellow hypergiant star in the constellation Cassiopeia. It is about 8150 ly from Earth, yet can still be seen by the naked eye as it is over 300,000 times brighter than the Sun. On average it has an absolute magnitude of −9.5, making it visually one of the most luminous stars known. Its diameter measures between 636 and 981 times that of the Sun, approximately 1125000000 km, or almost four times the size of Earth's orbit.

Rho Cassiopeiae is a single star, and is categorized as a semiregular variable. As a yellow hypergiant, it is one of the rarest types of stars. Only a few dozen are known in the Milky Way, but it is not the only one in its constellation which also contains V509 Cassiopeiae.

Observation
Rho Cassiopeiae is the second brightest yellow hypergiant in the sky, the brightest being V382 Carinae, although Rho Cassiopeiae is mostly visible only in the northern hemisphere and V382 Carinae mostly only in the southern hemisphere.

The Bayer designation for this star was established in 1603 as part of the Uranometria, a star catalog produced by Johann Bayer, who placed this star in the sixth magnitude class. The star catalog by John Flamsteed published in 1712, which orders the stars in each constellation by their right ascension, gave this star the Flamsteed designation 7 Cassiopeiae.

Rho Cas was first described as variable in 1901. It was classified only as "pec." with a small but definite range of variation. Its nature continued to be unclear during the deep visual minimum in 1946, although it was presumed to be related to the detection of an expanding shell around the star. The spectrum developed lower excitation features described as typical of an M star rather than the previous F8 class. The nature of Rho Cas was eventually clarified as a massive luminous unstable star, pulsating and losing mass, and occasionally becoming obscured by strong bouts of mass loss.

Rho Cas usually has an apparent magnitude near 4.5, but in 1946 it unexpectedly dimmed to 6th magnitude and cooled by over 3,000 Kelvin, before returning to its previous brightness. A similar eruption was recorded in 1893, suggesting that it undergoes these eruptions approximately once every 50 years. This happened again in 2000–2001, when it was observed by the William Herschel Telescope.

In 2013, a shell ejection produced dramatic spectral changes and a drop of about half a magnitude at visual wavelengths. Weak emission lines of metals and doubled H-α absorption lines were detected in late 2014, and unusual tripled absorption lines in 2017. The brightness peaked at magnitude 4.3 before fading to 5th magnitude. In 2018 it brightened again to magnitude 4.2.

The original Hipparcos parallax publication estimated Rho Cas at around 0.28 mas, which would have corresponded to a distance around 10,000 light years and would have made Rho Cas among the farthest stars visible to the naked eye. However, more recent publications estimate Rho Cas with a much larger parallax, corresponding to a much shorter distance.

Properties
Rho Cassiopeiae is one of the most luminous yellow stars known. It is close to the Eddington luminosity limit and normally loses mass at around /yr, hundreds of millions of times the rate of the solar wind. Much of the time it has a temperature over 7,000 K, a radius around, and pulsates irregularly producing small changes in brightness. Approximately every 50 years it undergoes a larger outburst and blows off a substantial fraction of its atmosphere, causing the temperature to drop around 1,500 K and the brightness to drop by up to 1.5 magnitudes. In 2000–2001 the mass loss rate jumped to /yr, ejecting in total approximately 3% of a solar mass or 10,000 Earth masses. The luminosity remains roughly constant during the outbursts at, but the radiation output shifts towards the infra red.

Surface abundances of most heavy elements on Rho Cas are enhanced relative to the Sun, but carbon and oxygen are depleted. This is expected for a massive star where hydrogen fusion takes place predominantly via the CNO cycle. In addition to the expected helium and nitrogen convected to the surface, sodium is strongly enhanced, indicating that the star had experienced a dredge-up while in a red supergiant stage. Therefore, it is expected that Rho Cas is now evolving towards hotter temperatures. It is currently core helium burning through the triple alpha process.

The relatively low mass and high luminosity of a post-red supergiant star is a source of instability, pushing it close to the Eddington Limit. However, yellow hypergiants lie in a temperature range where opacity variations in zones of partial ionisation of hydrogen and helium cause pulsations, similar to the cause of Cepheid variable pulsations. In hypergiants, these pulsations are generally irregular and small, but combined with the overall instability of the outer layers of the star they can result in larger outbursts. This may all be part of an evolutionary trend towards hotter temperatures through the loss of the star's atmosphere.

Naming
ρ Cassiopeiae is a member of the Chinese constellation Flying Serpent 螣蛇 (Téng Shé), in the Encampment mansion. In order, the 22 member stars are α and 4 Lacertae, π2 and π1 Cygni, stars 5 and 6, HD 206267, 13 and ε Cephei, β Lacertae, σ, ρ, τ, and AR Cassiopeiae, 9 Lacertae, 3, 7, 8, λ, ψ, κ, and ι Andromedae. Consequently, the Chinese name for ρ Cassiopeiae is 螣蛇十二 (Téng Shé shíèr, the Twelfth Star of Flying Serpent)

title: Rho Cassiopeiae


text: Category:395 BC deaths

title: Category:395 BC deaths


text:
HD-64180

HD-64180 may be:

 * HD64180, the Hitachi variant of the Z80 central processing unit (CPU), and is an embedded microprocessor with built-in memory management unit (MMU).
 * HD 64180, (CD -42°3592, SAO 219060), a star in the Henry Draper Catalogue. It is a white A-type star in the constellation Puppis and has an apparent magnitude of +9.34. It is located at 07h 50m 48.495s −42° 37′ 03.10″.

title: HD-64180


text: User talk:82.45.183.61

title: User talk:82.45.183.61


text:
Talk:Bruce Nuclear Generating Station

Quality of article??
Isn't this article missing a lot, such as:

 * Why are the reactor buildings square/rectangular/cubical as opposed to the dome shape of Pickering?
 * Function of vacuum building -- rather unique feature is it not?
 * How many turbines? done
 * Thermal efficiency?
 * Where are wastes stored? On-site or elsewhere? Capacity? sorta done
 * What about the heavy water plant? Still operating? done
 * Closing of nearby Inverhuron provincial park -- and subsquent reopening
 * How many people does it employ? done
 * Affect on local economy
 * Original cost?
 * One control room per reactor or one per station or one for both A and B
 * Why a "four pack" ... as opposed to the two-pack design currently touted? might be better covered on PickeringA page
 * Thought there was an issue with transmission lines where there really weren't enough built. sorta done, line being upgraded
 * Why Bruce was able to stay operating during the blackout, but Pickering was not? (I remember a radio interview where it was mentioned the control panel design of Bruce was different than Pickering, the operator had access to key information that let him decide to keep running)
 * The operation agreement with a private company is rather unusual for Ontario is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldercarb (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Feldercarb (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Maps
Are all these map links really needed? This is not even a geographic entry.

--Jdeboer 14:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, those links are part of a spamming of all nukes. Well, they are broken for Canadian sites, so away they go. --Jdeboer 04:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They can give very nice and detailed satellite images on US sites, unfortunately, Canada sites can hardly be seen on Google maps or Terra. --Dubaduba 19:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I saw in the news today that the Ontario Government has committed to refurbishing and reactivating Reactors 1 and 2 --dovm 23:09, 13 Oct 2005

Refurbishment
Added in a bit about the ongoing refurbishment of units 1 and 2, and a like to the Bruce Power website describing the project. Burtonpe 19:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest debacle in updating units 1 & 2. Documents left behind in a news studio by the Minister in charge of sector. Bruce 1 reactor 324 days late, and Bruce 2 reactor 433 days late.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090603/AECL_raitt_follow_090603/20090603/?hub=TorontoNewHome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.6.118 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
The statement "Bruce A subsequently lost this capability due to safety concerns with the booster rod system" is unsourced and I'm pretty sure it's wrong. The booster system was originally designed for this kind of extra maneuvering capability, but the safety concerns were raised during original construction. I don't think the boosters were ever completed or made operational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.176.194 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The booster rods were definately installed and used, but were subsequently removed due to operational difficulties with their cooling systems. They were never unsafe. This reference from the AECB describes their design and use. The were removed after the publicaton was produced, but 1993 is after the commissioning of Bruce A. The parent website for this reference has a lot of very good CANDU-related references.Alex Rauket (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly stated in the OSPE report page 7, which is and was referenced:

"The Bruce A and B stations were designed to operate through grid disturbances and were also designed to operate for at least 6 hours disconnected from the grid so they could reconnect following a load rejection or grid blackout. Unfortunately, a design decision to use booster rods to control reactor power in the Bruce A units rather than absorber rods proved to be a reactor safety concern. They were subsequently removed without installing absorber rods. Consequently, the Bruce A units can no longer operate after a load rejection or grid blackout and are currently required to shut down following those events. During the planning for the refurbishment of the Bruce A units, the capability to survive a load rejection or grid blackout was not included in the scope of the refurbishment work."

So were installed, were a safety concern, were removed. And was not unsourced. Feldercarb (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Feldercarb (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Start Class?
What does it take to move an article beyond Start Class?Feldercarb (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC) What's worse: "cheers" or "enjoy"?

 * It's definitely not start class. Unfortunately the classification scale is a bit unclear (there are clearly defined minimal criteria for each classification level - but not all of the criteria are easy to assess), doesn't have as much granularity as it should (although this varies by WikiProject), and people generally don't bother updating article classifications very often (the core issue). Typically a member of the WikiProject will be the one to update the classification, I'm not sure how common it is for non-members to update the classification but since it doesn't seem to be actually prohibited (although probably somewhat discouraged, although as most WikiProjects only say that their members can modify classifications and don't say anything about non-members it's very uncertain) and since I'm also active enough in this subject area that I feel comfortable assessing it, I went ahead and updated the classification to C-class. With some more work this article could certainly move to B-class, and while it definitely merits the work required I'm not sure that it'll get done anytime soon (which, alas, is the nature of Wikipedia's volunteer-driven and work-intensive editing process).
 * If you're not familiar with assessment of articles on Wikipedia, ratings beyond B-class always require specialized assessment (GA, FA, and FL in particular require that the article/list is formally assessed by the singular centralized/Wikipedia-wide nomination process), and particular WikiProjects may have their own extra non-standard categories, special criteria for assessment, or unused default categories (most notably obvious in that many WikiProjects don't use A-class at all, although that's likely due to confusion with GA-class and the self-assessment issue).
 * Many WikiProjects allow you to manually request an independent review of an article's assessment by listing it on a certain page, but for many WikiProjects, these lists are extremely disused (for example the last entry on WikiProject Energy's assessment request list appears to be from four years ago!). Garzfoth (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

okay nice lecture, can we bump its rating up?Feldercarb (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "bump" -- can we review the class rating??Feldercarb (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Are construction costs in now dollars or 1977 dollars?
This is a very important distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.65.1 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the source it's in "dollars of the year", so presumably 1978 dollars for Bruce A and 1989 dollars for Bruce B. The cost should probably be explicitly specified as CAD if anyone gets around to firmly confirming these dates - the original source is cited in the greenpeace source but unfortunately it does not appear to be available online so someone needs to contact Bruce Power to see if they have a copy that they could scan for verification (or other citations). I'm not certain if these costs truly exclude the bruce bulk steam system and other stuff like the heavy water plant though... Garzfoth (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

OCAA Fringe?
Is the OCAA a fringe group? They are quoted in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_electricity_policy wiki article. I think I would like to have critical points of view posted/noted, and present an opposing point of view, rather than dismiss out of hand. Feldercarb (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a self-published source from a fringe advocacy group with demonstrably false claims. Citing them would give WP:UNDUE weight to a non-reliable minority source. A far better approach would be to summarize the major points of the FAO report on the refurbishment, which is an impartial third-party review from a reliable source. Maybe after that is complete we can revisit this subject and see if there are some more reliable sources representing non-minority or significant-minority opinions (both pro- and anti-refurbishment) that can be cited, but I'd like to get that FAO report summarized first (and you're more than welcome to try your hand at doing that). Garzfoth (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Cobalt 60
I think this section is overly detailed, and could perhaps be moved to the Cobalt 60 article 207.245.235.26 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Portions of it could be copied to the cobalt-60 article, but the level of detail here is quite intentional and I believe it is still quite appropriate and nowhere near overly technical (although I suppose moving it to a top-level heading within this article might possibly be a good idea at this point?). Garzfoth (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I think you have some personal connection to this topicFeldercarb (talk)

Ita, about your table
Feldercarb (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of the units were shutdown for lengthy periods. I feel this to be important information, especially if you wish to assess the cost and reliability of this plant. This information has disappeared
 * also the age at closure information has disappeared - do you really want to be operating a 51 year old nuke?
 * "Phase" doesn't make sense -- maybe "plant"
 * since all the units are PHWR and CANDU these two columns seem doubly redundant
 * "closure" -- is planned or scheduled
 * we already have an INFOBOX which lists all the units, not sure we need ANOTHER table
 * I worry sometimes about endless edits that don't add information

⚛ 2064 ?
From https://london.ctvnews.ca/mobile/first-steam-generator-arrives-at-bruce-power-for-13b-refurbishment-project-1.5098299 ➡ "Bruce Power has just started a 13-year, $13-billion project to refurbish six of their eight nuclear reactors, extending the life of the Bruce Power site until 2064."

Security and safety section
This edit has been made at least 12 times by IPs (11 times by the same IP). It has been undone by various named accounts, and I agree with their edit summaries stating that "the plant suffered another PR blow" is WP:POV. I've warned the main IP for edit warring. Meters (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Broken map
Lakes Huron and Erie and Ontario are missing. -- Beland (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bruce Nuclear Generating Station


text:
User:Logan eric5

hey whats up

title: User:Logan eric5


text:
Khovd (city)

Khovd (Ховд, ), formerly known as Kobdo or Khobdo, is the capital of the Khovd Province of Mongolia. It is the administrative seat of the Jargalant sum.

Geography and climate
Khovd is situated at the foot of the Altay Mountains, and is bisected by the Buyant River. The Khar-Us Lake is located approximately 25 km (15.5 mi) east of Khovd and is the site of a Strictly Protected Area (Mongolian Government designation), called the Mankhan Nature Preserve.

In 1992, as the result of the Mongolian government passing a series of administrative and land reforms, Khovd was integrated as part of the Jargalant sum created in the area. The total city area is 80 km2 (30.8 mi2.)

According to the Köppen climate classification, Khovd has a cold desert climate, marked with long, dry, frigid winters and short warm summers. Precipitation is minimal and very heavily concentrated in summer.

History
The city was established by Galdan Boshogtu Khan of Dzungaria in the 17th century on the bank of the river Khovd in what is now Erdenebüren sum. Horticulture was developed around city Khovd using the land cultivating experience from Taranchi and Central Asian captives. The city was 'moved' by the Qing administration after destruction of the Dzungar Khanate after 1757 on to the bank of the river Buyant. On 7 August 1912, the Mongol troops under leadership of Manlai Baatur Damdinsuren, Khatanbaatar Magsarjav and Ja Lama Dambiijantsan captured the city of Khovd, destroyed all the Manchu-Chinese garrisons and abolished the governance of the Qing-appointed amban.

Population
The city had a population of 26,023 in 2000 (2000 census), 30,479 in 2003 (est.) and 28,601 in 2007. The 2010 population was recorded at 29,046.

In 2005, Jargalant sum (the centre of Khovd Aimag) had 32,351 inhabitants (6,675 households), belonging to more than ten ethnic groups and nationalities such as Uuld, Khalkh, Zakhchin, Torguud, Uriankhai, Myangad, Dörbet, Bayads, Kazak, Chantuu and Üzemchin.

title: Khovd (city)


text:
Carlos Amigo Vallejo

Carlos Amigo Vallejo, O.F.M. (23 August 1934 – 27 April 2022) was a Spanish prelate of the Catholic Church who served as Archbishop of Seville from 1982 to 2009. He was made a cardinal in 2003. He was archbishop of Tangier in Morocco from 1973 to 1982.

Biography
Born in Medina de Rioseco, Valladolid Province, Amigo Vallejo studied medicine in Valladolid before joining the Franciscan order, later studying philosophy in Rome and psychology in Madrid. He was ordained a priest in 1960.

He became Archbishop of Tanger in Morocco in 1973 and then became Archbishop of Seville on 22 May 1982. Instead of going to Rome to receive his pallium from Pope John Paul II, he received the pallium from Antonio Innocenti, Apostolic Nuncio to Spain, on 29 June 1982 during his installation mass at the metropolitan cathedral of Seville.

He was decorated with the Orden al Mérito de los Padres de la Patria Dominicana, the highest decoration granted by the Dominican Republic in February 1995.

Pope John Paul made him Cardinal-Priest of Santa Maria in Monserrato degli Spagnoli in the consistory of 21 October 2003.

He participated in the Papal conclave in 2005, which elected Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI.

On 5 November 2009, Pope Benedict XVI accepted his resignation as Archbishop of Seville.

On 22 September 2012, Amigo Vallejo was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to serve as his Special Envoy to the closing celebrations of the fifth centenary of the arrival of Puerto Rico's first Bishop, Don Alonso Manso, set to take place in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on 19 November 2012.

He participated as a cardinal elector in the papal conclave in 2013 which elected Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis.

Amigo Vallejo died on 27 April 2022 from heart failure following lung surgery.

title: Carlos Amigo Vallejo


text:
German–Japanese industrial co-operation before and during World War II

In the years leading up to the outbreak of World War II in Europe in 1939, there was some significant collaborative development in heavy industry between German companies and their Japanese counterparts as part of the two nation's evolving relations. This was one major factor in Japan's ability to quickly exploit raw materials in the areas of the Empire of Japan that had recently come under their military control.

Lurgi group plants
Nippon Lurgi Goshi KK was a Japanese company of the period involved in Japanese-German cooperation. The Lurgi AG German industrial group was a partner, and it was the Lurgi office in Tokyo. The Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee of the United States and United Kingdom later investigated it.

At the beginning of 1942 the Japanese acquired all the low temperature carbonization patents of Lurgi for Japan, Manchuria, and of China. The agreement gave the Japanese the right to construct plants and an exclusive use of patents. A flat payment of approximately 800,000 Reichsmark, was received from the Japanese, this sum being cleared through the German government. One of the aims was synthetic oil. For example, the South Sakhalin Mining and Railway Company plant at Naihoro/Oichai in Karafuto perhaps motivated the licensing: the southern Karafuto brown coal with a content of paraffin tar (about 15%), and low water content, was suitable for hydrogenation.

 * Mitsui Kosan KK Miiki (Ohmura) operated from about 1939. Lurgi AG installed an activated carbon plant to operate with the Fischer–Tropsch plant. Coke and water gas were produced, the coke ovens being built by Koppers.
 * The shale plant at Fushun (Japanese Bujum), Manchuria, was perhaps capable of annual production of 200,000 tons of shale oil. The Imperial Japanese Navy also had an interest there in producing some diesel oil and gasoline, in low amounts.
 * The Manshu Gosei Nenryo plant at Jinzhou (Kinshu), was a Fischer–Tropsch plant producing about 30,000 tons per year, online from about 1940.
 * Near Beijing, in Hebei, the Kalgari factory was to develop the local bituminous coal. It could be used also for the Mengjiang coal of the Chahar–Suiyuan mines.
 * A planned gasification plant at Rumoe in Hokkaidō was apparently not built.
 * Chosen Sekitan KK at Eian was a small low temperature carbonization plant which was processed about 600 tons of coal per day. This plant yielded from 15,000 to 20,000 tons per annum of coal tar.

With Koppers
Ube Yuka Kogya KK (No.2), at Ube was a low temperature carbonization plant, with a synthetic ammonia plant. This was a collaboration with Heinrich Koppers AG of Essen.

Aircraft
It is known that Japan and Germany signed agreements on military technological collaboration, both before the 1939 outbreak of World War II, and during the conflict. However, the first air technology interchange occurred during World War I when Japan joined against Germany on the side of the Allies, and Germany lost a Rumpler Taube aircraft at Tsingtao, which the Japanese rebuilt as the Isobe Kaizo Rumpler Taube, as well as an LVG, known to the Japanese as the Seishiki-1, in 1916.

After the war had ended the Japanese purchased licences for the Hansa-Brandenburg W.33 which was built as the Yokosho Navy Type Hansa in 1922, and as the Aichi Type 15-ko "Mi-go" in 1925.

During World War II the Japanese Navy traded a Nakajima E8N "Dave" reconnaissance seaplane (itself a multi-generational development of the Vought O2U to Germany, later seen in British markings on the German raider GERMAN AUXILIARY CRUISER Orion, and some sources mention the probable dispatch of a Mitsubishi Ki-46 "Dinah", among other weapons.

In the other direction:

 * The German Focke-Wulf company sent a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-5, and was contracted to send a Focke-Wulf Fw 200 V-10 (S-1) or Focke-Wulf Ta 152.
 * The Heinkel company sent examples of the Heinkel He 50 A (manufactured in Japan by Aichi as the D1A1, Allied codename "Susie"), Heinkel He 70 "Blitz", Heinkel He 111fs, Heinkel He 112 (V12,12 B-0, Japanese designation A7He1), Heinkel He 100 D-1 (in Japan designated AXHe1), Heinkel He 116 (V5/6), and Heinkel He 118 (DXHe/Yokosuka D4Y Suisei), Heinkel He 119 V7 and V8, Heinkel HD 25, Heinkel HD 62, Heinkel HD 28, Heinkel HD 23, Heinkel He 162 "Volksjager" under the variant named Tachikawa Ki 162, and Heinkel He 177 A-7 "Greif" designs.
 * The Bücker company sent its Bücker Bü 131 Jungmann which in Japan was designated the Kokusai Ki-86 (Army) or Kyūshū K9W (Navy).
 * Dornier sent its Dornier Do 16 Wal (in Japan made by Kawasaki as the KDN-1), Dornier Do N built as the Kawasaki Army Type 87 heavy bomber, and the Dornier Do C.
 * Fieseler sent the Fieseler Fi-103 Reichenberg, and Fieseler Fi 156 Storch (redesigned by the Japanese and produced as the Kobeseiko Te-Gō).
 * The Junkers company sent its Junkers K 37 (developed by the Japanese as the Mitsubishi Ki-1 and Ki-2), Junkers G.38b K51 (Japanese design Mitsubishi Ki-20), Junkers Ju 88 A-1, Junkers Ju 52, Junkers Ju 87 A, Junkers Ju 86 and made sales of its Junkers Ju 290, Junkers Ju 390 and Junkers Ju 488 designs.
 * The Messerschmitt company sold the Messerschmitt Bf 109 E-3/4, Messerschmitt Bf 110, Messerschmitt Me 210 A-2, Messerschmitt Me 163 A/B "Komet" (a Japanese design based only on the partial drawings received was the Mitsubishi J8M/Ki-202 Shusui rocket interceptor) and Messerschmitt Me 262 A-1a whose design influenced the Nakajima Ki-201 Karyu; and studied the possibility of the use of the Messerschmitt Me 264. Also sent was the design of the Messerschmitt Me 509, which may have influenced the design of the Yokosuka R2Y1 Keiun reconnaissance plane.
 * The Arado company sent an example of Arado Ar 196 A-4, which had been traded for the Nakajima E8N.
 * Focke-Achgelis sent its design Focke-Achgelis Fa 330 Bachstelze, an observation aircraft for submarines, and other aircraft examples.

When it came to aircraft equipment, the Japanese Army fighter Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien ("Tony") used a licence-built Daimler-Benz DB 601A engine which resulted in the Allies believing that it was either a Messerschmitt Bf 109 or an Italian Macchi C.202 Folgore until they examined captured examples. It was also fitted with Mauser MG 151/20 20 mm cannons also built under licence.

Rockets
According to decrypted messages from the Japanese embassy in Germany, twelve dismantled V-2 (A-4) rockets were shipped to Japan. These left Bordeaux in August 1944 on the GS U-219 and GS U-195 and reached Djakarta in December 1944. Civilian V-2 expert Heinz Schlicke was a passenger on the GS U-234 when it departed Kristiansand, Norway for Japan in May 1945, shortly before the war ended in Europe. The fate of these V-2 rockets is unknown.

Vehicles
There are other cases of military technology interchange. The Ho-Ru SPG with 47 mm AT cannon, resembled the German Hetzer tank destroyer combined with wheel guide pins like the T-34. The heavy tank destroyers Ho-Ri I and II, armed with a 105 mm cannon, seem to have been influenced by German Jagd heavy tanks Elefant and Jagdtiger. The Type 4 Chi-To medium tank, armed with a 75 mm cannon, and the Type 5 Chi-Ri medium tank, armed with 75 or 88 mm cannon, were influenced by the Panther, Tiger I, and Tiger II German tanks. The Type 1 Ho-Ha half-track armoured personnel carrier was similar to the German Sd.Kfz. 251 armoured fighting vehicle.

Japanese Ambassador General Hiroshi Ōshima in the name of Japanese Army bought one example of the Panzerkampfwagen PzKpfw VI Ausf E Tiger I tank with additional equipment.

Submarines
The Japanese Navy received examples of the German Type IXD2 submarine Ausf "Monsun" and other submarines, including the Type IXC's GS U-511 (RO-500) and GS U-1224 (RO-501), and after the German surrender, interned the Type IXD2's GS U-181 (I-501) and GS U-862 (I-502), the captured Italian submarines Comandante Cappellini, (I-503), and Luigi Torelli (I-504), which had become Foreign U-boats UIT-24 and UIT-25, and the German Type X submarine GS U-219 (I-505), the Type IXD1 GS U-195 (I-506). Japan also received Flakvierling anti-aircraft cannons, with a disarmed V-2, etc. as well.

Japanese Navy received later in last war stages from Germans, some advanced technology of Type XXI "Elektro-boote" class for designed The Sen Taka (submarine, high speed) and Sen Taka Sho (submarine, high speed, small) models, in high bursts of speed, could run faster submerged than on the surface for up to an hour, only comparable in underwater speed to the I-201-class was the German related sub type.

Ships
In 1935, a German technical mission arrived in Japan to sign accords and licenses to use the technology from the Akagi-class aircraft carrier for use in the German aircraft carriers GERMAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER Graf Zeppelin and Flugzeugträger B (both later cancelled) from Deutsche Werke Kiel A.G.

They also acquired the technical data on the adaptations to the Messerschmitt Bf 109T/E and Junkers Ju 87C/E, for use on such carriers. This technology was also applied in the following aircraft:
 * Fieseler Fi 156
 * Fieseler Fi 167
 * Arado Ar 95/195
 * Arado Ar 96B
 * Arado Ar 197
 * Heinkel He 50
 * Avia B 534. IV

Other military technology collaborations
To put this in perspective, the Japanese also bought licences and acquired aircraft (sometimes singly and sometimes in large quantities) from most of the western countries. These included the United Kingdom (with which it had a close relationship up until shortly after the end of World War I) and whose De Havilland aircraft were extensively used, France, who supplied a huge variety of aircraft of all types from 1917 through to the 1930s, and whose Nieuport-Delage NiD 29 fighter provided the Japanese Army Air Force with its first modern fighter aircraft, as well as the bias toward extremely manoeuvrable aircraft. The United States of America supplied the Douglas DC-4E and Douglas DC-5, the North American NA-16 (precursor to the T-6/SNJ) as well as others too many to list. This resulted in many Japanese aircraft being discounted as being copies of Western designs - which from 1935 onwards was rarely the case except for trainers and light transports where development could be accelerated, the Nakajima Ki-201 and Mitsubishi J8M being rare exceptions.

Later developments
By 1944, Japan was to rely heavily on the Nippon-German Technical Exchange Agreement, obtaining manufacturing rights, intelligence, blueprints, and in some cases, actual airframes for several of Germany's new air weapons. These included the Me 163 Komet (developed as the Mitsubishi J8M Shusui), the BMW 003 axial-flow jet engine (which was reworked to Japanese standards as the Ishikawajima Ne-20), information on the Me 262 which resulted in the Nakajima J9Y Kikka), data on the Fiesler Fi-103R series (which culminated in the development of the Kawanishi Baika), and even data on the Bachem Ba 349 Natter point-defense interceptor.

Nakajima Kikka
While the Nakajima Kikka bore some resemblance to the German Me 262, it was only superficial, even though the Ne-20 engines which powered the Kikka were the Japanese equivalent of the German BMW 003 engine which initially powered the Me 262 prototype. Also, the Kikka was envisioned from the outset not as a fighter, but as a special attack bomber and was only armed with a bomb payload. It is wrongly considered that this aircraft registration was J9Y or J10N, although this aircraft was never registered.


text:
Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 6

Comments

 * I am in agreement with you, Ian. By the way, thanks for posting that article on Howard Ahmanson, Jr, after reading it I looked at the Wikipedia article. Clearly this is one big agenda of this man: Howard Ahmanson, Jr and Johnson is merely his poodle and the DI his toy. The guy is a dangerous nut because he has money and unlike people like Timothy McVeigh who resort to violence because of a lack of money, this guy can buy people. It seems to me that what should be done is to follow the money and group this entire subject around the money and around its reclusive mastermind: Howard Ahmanson, Jr. Forget the terrorist bombers, it is this kind of idiot who worries me because he answers to no one and has the money power to make things happen. Johnson can clearly crank out books by the bucketload if Howard Ahmanson, Jr is footing the bill which helps to explain why Johnson who has no credentials in this field is able to chug-a-lug onwards with the Discovery Institute. Thanks again, I had no idea, no idea at all how this went together. MPLX/MH 17:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the VFD nomination is as close to a bad faith nomination as I've seen in a while. If you can't even get a consensus to merge, then getting a consensus to delete is very unlikely. DJ Clayworth 20:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree - since people said that the "merge poll" was against policy, it follows that correct thing to do (the thing that fits with policy) is to take it to VfD. That way you get a binding resolution.  Not what I would have done. but it's the logical conclusion based on the opposition that the straw poll engendered.  Guettarda 22:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Except that the poll isn't against policy (see above for discussion). On the contrary, in fact: "In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll".  This has been a long-running dispute. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. The merge poll was clearly not against policy. It happens daily on many other articles on wikipedia. Someone was just being creative in their objections and liberal in the reading of policy. I've yet to read anywhere that polls are proscribed; not favored maybe, but not proscribed. The citation provided that polls were proscribed was neither definitive nor policy, but a guideline. FeloniousMonk 16:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule
Please note that VorpalBlade has now reverted the article twice, once more and the 3 revert rule kicks in. He is not reverting identical copy, he is reverting any changes to the article. See history of the article for details. MPLX/MH 04:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm new. What is the 3 revert rule and what will it do? Mred64 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate sections
This discussion page has become corrupted. Many of its sections appear twice. It needs to be cleaned up. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have now done so by deleting the duplicate sections. I believe that I have not lost anyone's comments but if I am wrong I assure everyone that it was accidental. My only motive was to sort the page out. I do not wish to intervene in the dispute. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:20, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Summary
I don't see Ungtss's objection to the shortened introduction; it's short, neutral, and factual. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * not surprised. you don't see my objection to the merge either.  carry on.  Ungtss 15:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So do you think that it's not short, neutral, or factual? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's all three. but i don't think it's more neutral than the other, shorter is not better, and it is less factual, because it contains fewer facts.  From the perspective of one who thinks this article should remain, shorter is not a valid justification for an edit that removes information.  but such an edit is perfectly consistent with the views of one who wishes the article to disappear entirely.  further, the facts that were selected to remain in the revised intro are designed to emphasize the link with DI ... again ... in an effort to merge the article.  That's all.  I won't fight.  I've realized that it's emotion, not reason, that governs these discussions, and i'm certainly in no position to change anyone's emotions:(.  Ungtss 16:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The massive changes by MPLX are very biased, and render the intro very misleading and POV. He should seek consensus here on such major revisions, which he has not done.  There is nothing approaching consensus on his version; there was consensus on the previous version.  --VorpalBlade 19:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Mel, if changes to the consensus version are needed, we should discuss them here. MPLX has shown himself unable to seek consensus or work with others on this page.  Your endorsement of MPLX and his grossly biased version is quite unbecoming.  --VorpalBlade 20:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Vorpal -- There have been a number of calls by myself up above for you to comment on the ongoing problems of neutrality in one part of this article. So far, it appears that either 1) you don't have the time to do this or 2) you don't think that such is an issue. Either way, it is problematic for you to continue to insist on a "consensus version" which is actually not much of a consensus right now, all things considered. Like it or not, there are editors here who see a great deal of problems with the way the article looks in the "consensus" version. Simply reverting will not make the problem go away. Joshuaschroeder 20:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right. Reverting won't make the problem go away, reason won't make the problem go away, compromise won't make the problem go away, votes won't make the problem go away, and research won't make the problem go away.  Why?  Because the problem is bigotry.  Ungtss 20:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, your version has one person in favor and two people have stated they prefer the last consensus version. There is clearly no consensus for yours. The MPLX version was not discussed at all before he made his massive changes. This has raised strong objections. The current version may not be perfect, but if we are going to change it, it must be through working together to seek consensus. Not unilateral strike force action.

Here is my summary of the previous constructive discussions. No one objected to my summary at the time. --VorpalBlade 20:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summary of comments on Proposal 4

 * I am in favor.
 * I understand Mel Etitis is in favor.
 * Ungtss is in favor.
 * Monk has not commented directly but drafted the original version (and Proposal 4 has very few changes from that).
 * Ian thinks it needs more work, but has bowed out of the discussion.

 * JoshuaSchroeder thinks it needs work, but only recently came to the discussion.

Based on this, I am going to edit to replace the current intro with Proposal 4 (which is a fairly minor edit). This seems to be the version closest to full consensus.

I propose that we follow Wiki policy going forward and that large or controversial edits be worked out in the discussion room before they or done. If an edit causes controversy, we should agree to go back to the previous version until we can get a consensus.

Thanks for your cooperation in working this out.

--VorpalBlade 13:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. Ungtss 20:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I'm in favour of what's there now. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That is quite interesting, Mel. You have right to change your mind, but if there are to be major rewrites to the intro, it should be discussed here to seek consensus.  Your taking the side of a highly POV version with no attempt to encourage discussion here  is inappropriate and inconsistent with Wiki policy.  The fact that your are doing this as an Admin tells me that the some actions contrary to consensus are approved by the ultimate powers that be on Wikipedia.  I guess power trumps consensus here, as in the real world.  --VorpalBlade 14:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, when I asked Ungtss "So do you think that it's not short, neutral, or factual?" he replied "It's all three" (see above). I find it difficult to see where the lack of Neutrality is; could you explain? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Ungtss is wrong about its neutrality. It does not give a good summary of the movement and it focuses entirely on the DI.  The ref. to Howard A. in the intro is ridiculous conspiracy theory propaganda.  It extends the ad hominem attack back to contributors to DI.  How can that possibly belong in the intro?

 * Regardless, the overall quality of the revisions you are enforcing are clearly inferior to the consensus version.

 * You are, of course, ignoring my observation that we should keep the consensus version until we agree on a revision. You have two contributors who think this is a very bad major edit, but instead of encouraging MPLX (who has shown himself to be a loose cannon) to discuss before making such radical changes, you support him and revert to his edits.  Your tactics are clear based on your past actions.  If I make edits, you will revert back and lock the page, if necessary.  --VorpalBlade 17:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What you support is dogma, not a NPOV encyclopedia. Clearly the rubbish that was there was a poorly written and repetitious duplication of other articles. I am still convinced that this silly idea duplicating the wedge movement should be merged with the DI article. As far as reverts are concerned, you tiptoed up to the 3 revert limit and then stopped and a sockpuppet mysteriously appeared to do the same sort of thing in your place until I brought attention to that. You had a consensus of you and yourself because even your supporter was not in lockstep with you and he even called DI "fascist" and the financial supporter a mental case. So as far as your reference to ad hominem remarks are concerned, you can shine the light fair and square on your lone supporter since he is the person calling DI fascist and its financial backer a nutcase. Obviously you are on a rant that is getting blocked. MPLX/MH 18:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support Mel Etitis as a highly qualified academic editor of the English language and the last edit that he has made to the article. I noted that the supposed poll above resulted in Mel Etitis being misrepresented by VorpalBlade who also dismissed the contributions made by Ian who disagreed with VorpalBlade, dismissed JoshuaSchroeder for appearing too late and ignored my contributions. This in effect left VorpalBlade getting sole endorsement from Ungtss which means that the majority are in favor of either merging or deleting this article! MPLX/MH 22:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no current Proposal 4

 * 'There is no Proposal 4'' because the Talk has moved on. There is:
 * *1) a proposal to Merge with the Discovery Institute article.
 * *2) a proposal to Delete the article.
 * Of note:
 * VorpalBlade has reverted twice, engaged in little discussion and 1 revert away from breaking the Wikipedia prohibition on reverts.
 * Ungtss is a constant critic of all change but does not engage in specific criticisms of sentences to show how they could be improved.
 * As it stands the article is over the Wikipedia length for an article.
 * The present article requires heavy editing to remove redundant words and phrases.
 * The present article requires editing for accuracy (for instance, the article refers to a "movement" which does not exist within the definition of a "movement". What exists is an idea proposed by Johnson, endorsed by the Discovery Institute of which Johnson is a member, and financing of both Johnson and the Discovery Institute.
 * Since this is a job for strict editing and since this article has the interest of a highly qualified editior of the English language according to all accepted academic standards, then Μελ Ετητης ) should be given free hand to edit from the standpoint of encyclopedic quality control. Once he has completed his total revision of the article as a work in the English language, then each paragraph should be opened for comments as to accuracy. Failure to adopt this proposal by persons unqualified or less qualified will demonstrate a refusal to cooperate with other Wikipedia editors for the sake of attempting to achieve the adoption of a biased polemical writing as a NPOV Wikipedia article. MPLX/MH 22:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, editors are allowed three edits in twenty-four hours, and I don't thin that anyone is in danger in breaking that. I agree, though, that Ungtss's forte is long and vague criticism, with rarely anything specific enough to be useful (or that allows him to be pinned down). I agree that the article needs strict editing, but not that it should be done by one person, however eminently – or even uniquely – qualified. Perhaps we should wait for the result of the VfD before doing anything major to the article. We can (I probably shall) tinker with it to make it more concise and accurate, but that's all. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My suggestions have been very clear, and have been utterly ignored by those caught up in a conspiracy theory. this article should describe the policy of TTC according to its proponents, provide attributed criticism of that policy, and limit itself to information directly related to the movement and the proposed policy.  the intro should describe the proposed policy according to its proponents, which is very clearly articulated in VorpalBlade's version.  Ungtss 22:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "this article should describe the policy of TTC according to its proponents, provide attributed criticism of that policy, and limit itself to information directly related to the movement and the proposed policy. Ungtss 22:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
 * There is no movement, only an idea proposed by Johnson and endorsed by the Discovery Institute of which Johnson is a member.
 * There is no policy other than the Discovery Institute policy paid for by the same person who is funding both Johnson and the DI.
 * The FRAUD of this article is in trying to asset that it is an independent movement which has caused controversy - when the article states that it is a controversial proposal that one man originated, his organization backed him up and the person who Ungtss earlier discribed as being mentally ill, has paid for! MPLX/MH 22:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. i'll concede all of your nonsense, and your argument still doesn't follow.  There is an independent article on Wedge strategy -- which stems solely from DI and these fascist, hateful, whatever-you-wanna-call-them donors.  No justification for merge.  Ungtss 22:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know what you conceded, but I did follow your link and I did check out the history of edits on the Wedge strategy article and I can see that you guys are breeding this stuff like bunny rabbits. These duplicated articles are wasting everyone's time. It would seem that what should be called for is a review of all of the several related articles on this topic that are trying to keep distance from each other to prevent merging. I find it funny that you call the financier of both Johnson and the Discovery Institute both a fascist and hateful since without his money none of this nonsense would have happened in the first place. We need a new template to link all of these articles and to call for help from Wikipedia Admins - since it is obvious that this entire subject is making a total mockery out of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. They all need merging into one main article with supporting biographies of key players. MPLX/MH 22:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I conceded your conspiracy theory for the sake of the argument; i was shocked and surprised at your response. Would you support a merge of Wedge strategy?  Ungtss 22:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Where stuff belongs to DI it should be moved there, same with Johnson, wedgies and anything else. These articles spew all over the place like religious tracts seeking to find a home anywhere. The fact of the matter is that this topic is highly POV in that MANY people (me included) have open minds as to the origin of life (it is not a "us" versus "them" because we are ALL on this Planet with knowledge limited to scientific discovery.) Many people - me included DON'T believe in Johnson or the DI and their ram-rod theology, but do have an open mind regarding what the US Declaration of Independence calls "Nature's God and Nature's Laws". A lot of tub-thumpers read right over that and think that it says "God of the King James Bible and Jesus Christ", well it does not say that and there are a LOT of people who have read Tom Paine, who agree with Tom Paine and who agree with the classification of Nature and Nature's God. It is this wedging in of stuff for ulterior motives under the guise of neutrality (when it is POV) that irks me. Johnson (and the man you call mentally ill who funded all of this), need to be described on their apporopriate pages - but not shoved here, there and everywhere under misleading articles! MPLX/MH 16:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reverts
You are overlooking the fact that 81.79.146.106 has made 5 defacto reverts on the 24th - see history - which points to 81.79.146.106 being a sockpuppet! Go ahead and edit the entire bloody mess Μελ Ετητης ) (for you to get my support is no small thing!) MPLX/MH 22:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accidentally unattributed recent edit
Oops. I just edited the page (quite substantially) without logging in. My bad. The edit of 19:29, 2005 Apr 25 by 194.203.111.212 was mine. No attempt at sockpuppetry was intended :-). Gareth McCaughan 19:32, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Discourtesy
VorpalBlade has reverted what he ingenuously disingenuously referred to as MPLX/MH's 'vandalism'. Leaving aside that characterisation, he also reverted two unrelated sets of edits, one by an anon editor, and one by me (which included mending the badly formed 'merge' template). That is vandalistic, as well as bad manners. Please don't let your emotions get in the way of Wikiquette. Veiled personal attacks on this page are one thing, but heavy-handed behaviour on the article itself is quite another. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Mel, your criticism and hypocrisy are truly laughable. See my comments above.  Any reader can look at the record on this page to see who has worked toward consensus.  By the way, I don't think "ingenuously" means what you think it means.  --VorpalBlade 20:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Massive undiscussed deletions speak for themselves. Your editing a vandalized page makes you a vandal as well, and the proper step is to correct it.  --VorpalBlade 20:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest that you look up 'ingenuously' in the dictionary.
 * I didn't expect an apology for your poor manners, but I expected a little more than 'so are you'. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As to "ingenuous," I think I am "openly straightforward or frank; candid." Thanks for the kind words.  I think that may be the first nice thing you have said to me in all our discussions.

Sleep-deprivation, or something.
 * But once again you avoid the main issue. --VorpalBlade 21:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I rather think that that's what you're doing. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the material involved in the edits that you reverted, it's still bad Wikiquette (and bad manners) to revert later, unconnected edits. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * But Mel, my main point is that good editing and true courtesy means protecting each other's edits from the likes of MPLX, who does massive deletions and screams on this page. And then we cooperate to do measured edits that we can all live with.  I think it is possible and I thought that that is what we were doing before the last round of radical deletions.  --VorpalBlade 22:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleting 120+ lines of text without discussion

 * Let the record reflect that the deletion of 120+ lines of text with no discussion on the talk page is an appropriate edit according to Mel Etitis. And then Mel did some "tidying."  --VorpalBlade 21:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editing
It seems like that if anyone makes an edit to this page, people who disagree get ready to lynch them. Meanwhile, the proposals don't seem to get too far from what I have seen. Both sides seem willing to compromise, but it seems they claim it eventually leads to POV for the other side. I have seen few constructive changes that have reached a consensus and are considered neutral by either side. Should the page be protected? It may make proposals more effective and move faster. Also, "controversial" edits will be stopped because edits should then be approved by other editors on the talk page. I'm trying not to sound favorable to either side, but I think it may be better this way. However, I can't claim to know all about what happens when a page is protected and I don't know if this article meets any guidelines for protected pages. Mred64 22:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree on your evaluation to some extent. I think massive deletions without discussion are wrong.  Reasonable edits to improve the style or accuracy of the article are great.  If you look at the history, several contributors on both sides worked very hard to come up with a neutral intro.  It can be done; we just need to talk about it and work together.  --VorpalBlade 10:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * MPLX wants to merge, Ian wants to delete. Until we resolve these efforts, I think it will be harder to get people to talk constructively about making this article better.  I look forward to that day, however.  --VorpalBlade 10:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits re Congress Action
Ian, both houses of Congress did vote on it, so your edit was inaccurate. There is already a paragraph on the legal force of the language. Maybe you want to move it up to the para above the report language?

You can't just delete the proponent sections, leave in the opponent section, and say that is neutral. Readers know that opponent section are telling them what they say. I think the opponents are wrong and much of what the say is false, but I also know it has to stay in to make a balanced, fair article. --VorpalBlade 10:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * May 14, 2002

 * Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.
 * Executive Director
 * National Center for Science Education, Inc.
 * 420 40th Street, Suite 2
 * Oakland, CA 94609-2509

 * Dear Dr. Scott:

 * Thank you for contacting me to share the concerns of the National Center for Science Education, Inc. regarding the report language accompanying H.R. 1, now titled, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I am writing to express my views on the compromise language on science education that was agreed to by the conferees.

 * As you are now aware, NCLB calls for states to implement annual assessments in the subjects of reading and math during grades 3 through 8. The law also requires states to measure the proficiency of all students in science starting with the 2007-2008 school year. To address the importance of these newly required assessments in the area of science education, the conference committee included a compromise version of the Santorum Amendment in report language:

 * The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exists, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries profoundly affect society.

 * Quality assessments involve the application of critical thinking skills, and perhaps this is nowhere more important than in science education. Teachers often encourage critical thinking through the introduction of controversial issues. While the subject of evolution was used as an example of a controversial issue in the report language, neither the teaching of evolution nor any other specific topic is mandated in NCLB or the conference report. The law restricts the federal endorsement of curriculum, and the report language should not be construed to promote specific topics within subject areas. Congress recognizes that the teaching of the "full range of scientific views" should be encouraged, and such decisions are best left to the scientific community, rather than legislators.

 * The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act is to ensure that all children receive a quality education with reading, math and science as its foundation. The report language correctly describes science as a subject of "data and testable theories", different from "religious or philosophical claims." It is critical that the effort to narrow the achievement gap not be burdened with ideology regardless of subject matter. The language is profoundly clear that "science" should be at the center of a quality science education.

 * Your interest in upholding academic excellence is science is appreciated. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 * Very truly yours,

 * [signature]

 * George Miller
 * Ranking Democrat
 * See also http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/ID-activists-guide-v1.pdf

 * After Santorum's language was deleted from the bill, he was able to insert a watered down version of his language in the explanatory report of the conference committee. Here is where the language about evolution is located, right on page 703. However, a committee report, even when it is accepted by the Congress, is not a bill. It was not sent to the President's desk for signature, and it is not part of Public Law 107-110. Case closed. Committee reports simply do not have the force of law.

 * Not sure what in the quote you think supports your view. This language supports mine:

 * Thank you for contacting me to share the concerns of the National Center for Science Education, Inc. regarding the report language accompanying H.R. 1, now titled, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

 * See the more detailed explanation at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=112. --VorpalBlade 14:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response:

1. The legislative history of the Santorum Amendment actually opposes the idea of teaching intelligent design, because it was removed from the bill.

Federal laws in the United States must be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Often, a bill is submitted to both houses at the same time, and the two houses work on them independently. But before the bill goes to the president, there must be just one bill; both houses must vote on exactly the same language. To accomplish this, a conference committee, formed of members of both houses, hashes out the differences and makes a compromise bill. The committee produces an explanatory statement that tells the legislative history of the bill and any views about it that conference committee members want to include. Such a report may be taken into account if courts later need to consider the intent of the bill, but it has no legal force per se.

The Santorum Amendment was added to an early draft of HR-1 by Senator Rick Santorum. It was a recommendation that would have made no binding requirements anyway. It was not included in the House version of the bill. The conference committee for the bill considered the amendment and deliberately chose to omit it, and the Santorum Amendment does not exist in the law that was signed by the president (Public Law 107-110). The amendment still exists, in watered-down form, in the explanatory statement due to the special interest of one or more of the conference committee members.

As noted above, the explanatory statement can still be used to interpret the law. But what does it mean to interpret a nonbinding recommendation that was removed before the bill became law?

2. Even in its original form, the Santorum Amendment did not oppose teaching evolution or advocate teaching intelligent design. The language said, "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist." Evolution is used only as an example. It is a poor example, since there are no competing scientific views. In particular, intelligent design is not scientific.

3. A governmental requirement for teaching intelligent design or other so-called alternatives to evolution would likely be found unconstitutional, given the precedent of past cases, particularly Edwards v. Aguillard, 393 U.S. 97 (1987).

4. Members of the U.S. Congress are not well qualified in educational matters. Rick Santorum in particular proposed and supported the amendment for religious reasons, not for pedagogy.

The political action section
So, I'm curious why VorpalBlade failed to note that the passage he cited is known publicly as the contentious and hotly debated Santorum Amendment? Clearly he knew it was, as he's been editing that article as well. Anyway, I've rewritten it to reflect it's common name and the fact that the Discovery Institute lobbied hard for it's inclusion. I also included a paragraph on the Meyer/Miller incident with the Ohio Board of Education. Lastly, I've renamed the section political action, as this is clearly political action- driven by outside influence, not government. FeloniousMonk 13:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to it. FeloniousMonk 13:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And that VorpalBlade quickly emasculated it. I'll fix it. FeloniousMonk 13:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Monk, I kept a reference to Santorum Amendment in my revision, and I put back in your ref. to Miller. We were both editing at the same time.  If I inadvertantly reverted some of your changes, I apologize.  I disagree with your contention about "political" v. "government," as discussed above.

 * Monk, you have shown yourself as someone who can craft language that both sides can agree on. I disagree with you on some edits, but I respect your willingness to allow both proponents and opponents sections.  Let's please work together to make this a better article.  And please help me stop the wholesale deletions by MPLX and Ian to language they happen to disagree with.  --VorpalBlade 13:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your kind words; I'll try to live up to them. I've found that you have been willing to work together with me in the past, so of course I'm happy to work together now to settle on content that we can all more or less agree on, and that reflects reality. FeloniousMonk 14:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you perhaps convince Ian to stop deleting the "proponent" paragraphs that give balance to the "opponent" paragraphs? One is in the intro that you drafted originally that led to the consensus that we had.  Thanks.  --VorpalBlade 14:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The article doesn't need two paragraphs in the introduction about what proponents want and in any case the claims are false as anyone reading the Ohio lesson plan can easily work out. Proponents don't want students to "critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community" they want students to access the website of Discovery Institute collaborator ARN for the latest DI propaganda before hopping along to the latest creationist front organisation at http://www.objectivityinscience.org before moving along to "scholarly and popular resources concerning intelligent design and philosophical theism" at http://www.origins.org. For balance students are then advised to go along to a history site, a site on genetics carrying nothing on evolution and a site about Gould. Using these sites students would have little chance of learning anything about contemporary evolutionary biology. Ian Pitchford 14:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Based on what you write, why don't you add a section critiquing the Ohio lesson plan? Then I will write a response by proponents.  That would move us toward a more substantive discussion of the movement/policy.   --VorpalBlade 15:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * There isn't a movement/policy to critique, just a DI strategy to debunk. To act as though these duplicitous machinations are sincere would simply bolster the propaganda effect sought. Ian Pitchford 15:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

length
first, mplx, being under 32k is not an absolute requirement -- it is a guideline. secondly, your intro is misleading, because other organizations have supported the same policy, in fact, ICR argued for it before DI. Read the VfD. Ungtss 14:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 6


text:
Rossz Csillag Alatt Született

Rossz Csillag Alatt Született is the twelfth studio album by Canadian electronic music producer Venetian Snares, released on the Planet Mu label on 2005. Inspired by a visit to Hungary, the album title and all of the track names are in Hungarian; Rossz Csillag Alatt Született translates to "Born Under A Bad Star", or figuratively, "Cursed From Birth". The album consists of classical strings and brass combined with breakbeats.

Overview
The concept of the album came when Aaron Funk imagined himself as a pigeon on Budapest's Királyi Palota (Royal Palace). Its third track, "Öngyilkos Vasárnap" is a cover of the song "Szomorú Vasárnap" ("Gloomy Sunday") by Hungarian composer Rezső Seress, which has been referred to as the Hungarian suicide song. According to urban legend, Seress's song has inspired the suicide of multiple people, including his fiancée. The song was reportedly banned in Hungary. It has also been covered by many artists. Billie Holiday's vocals are sampled in this track.

The album also samples various pieces of classical music:
 * The first movement of Béla Bartók's fourth string quartet, in track two.
 * The second of Igor Stravinsky's Three Pieces for Solo Clarinet, in track five.
 * The first movement of Gustav Mahler's 3rd Symphony (trombone solo), in track five.
 * Measures 121-128 (14), 134 (15) and 144 (16) of Bartók's first string quartet (third movement), in track five.
 * Niccolò Paganini's 7th Caprice in A minor, in track five.
 * The beginning of the solo part of Franz Waxman's Carmen Fantasie in track five.
 * The first and third measure of the fourth movement of Bartók's sixth string quartet, in track six.
 * Sir Edward Elgar's "Cello Concerto in E Minor, Op. 85", in track eight.
 * The second movement of Sergei Prokofiev's Quintet in G Minor in track eight.
 * The Siciliana of Fantasia No. 9 from Georg Philipp Telemann's Twelve Fantasias, in track ten.

While there were no official music videos released with the album, artist David O'Reilly produced an unofficial computer generated video for "Szamár Madár", and Mason Shefa produced a film featuring "Szerencsétlen".

Critical reception
Alan Ranta of Tiny Mix Tapes praised Rossz Csillag Alatt Született as Funk's "most accomplished album to date" and described it as being "of uncouth beauty that is at once sublime, timeless, cinematic, sporadic, and moving from start to finish." Sputnikmusic writer Nick Greer hailed it as an "absolutely amazing" release that "truly excels in how it shifts paradigms in unexpected ways". William Tilland of AllMusic called the album "typically uncompromising and unsettling, although it is certainly constructed with great technical skill and maintains an abrasive beauty throughout." Cameron MacDonald of Pitchfork was more reserved in his praise and felt that "Funk's percussive palate could have ventured beyond the standard-issued 'Amen' breakbeats", while concluding that "Rossz's totality still possesses nerves that can cast shadows that never dissipate away from the mind."

Tiny Mix Tapes ranked Rossz Csillag Alatt Született the 25th best album of 2005 and the 31st best album of the 2000s. In 2014, Resident Advisor critic Hugh Taylor described it as "one of breakcore's most important albums". In 2017, Pitchfork placed it at number 25 on its list of "The 50 Best IDM Albums of All Time".

title: Rossz Csillag Alatt Született


text:
Murder of Anita Cobby

Anita Lorraine Cobby (née Lynch) (2 November 1959 – 2 February 1986) was a 26-year-old Australian woman from Blacktown, New South Wales, who was kidnapped while walking home from Blacktown railway station just before 10:00 p.m. on 2 February 1986, and subsequently sexually assaulted and murdered.

Two days after being reported as missing by family, Cobby's body was discovered by a man in a paddock of his farm in Prospect, NSW. Investigations led to the arrest of five men, who were later convicted of her abduction, rape and murder on 10 June 1987. Each was sentenced to life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, on 16 June 1987.

Upon arriving to the location of her body, it was clear to authorities that Cobby had sustained a prolonged and vicious attack, with multiple sharp puncture wounds and cuts, as well as lacerations from being rolled in and dragged through barbed wire. She had obvious signs of being beaten, kicked and struck, mainly from the bruising, cuts and abrasions covering a large percentage of her body. Cobby’s cause of death was ultimately a result of a slit throat, an act which the medical examiner noted ‘nearly decapitated’ her. The forensic pathologist who performed her autopsy additionally noted that Cobby was ‘likely still conscious’ at the time of her throat being cut, and estimated it would have taken ‘between 2-3 minutes’ for her to bleed to death.

The murder received widespread media coverage and public condemnation, including calls to reinstate the death penalty.

Early life
Anita Lynch was born in Sydney on 2 November 1959, to Garry Bernard Lynch, a graphic artist with the Royal Australian Air Force, and Grace "Peggy" Lynch, a nurse. As a teenager Anita participated in beauty pageants, including winning the Miss Western Suburbs Pageant in November 1979, and had a promising career as a model. However, she decided instead to follow in her mother's footsteps into nursing.

Anita met her future husband, John Cobby, while studying for her nursing degree at Sydney Hospital. They married on 27 March 1982. At the time of her murder in 1986, the couple had separated and Anita was living with her parents in Blacktown. According to John, he and Anita were on good terms and, when she was murdered, had been planning to reconcile.

Murder
Cobby worked in Sydney and commuted daily from her home in Blacktown. On the day of the murder, she finished work at Sydney Hospital at 3 p.m. and met friends for dinner in nearby Redfern. Cobby then caught a train from Central railway station to Blacktown station. Arriving at Blacktown, she would usually ring her father who would pick her up. On the day of her death, she most likely decided to walk home after finding the phone to be out of order and no taxis available at the taxi rank. Aside from her killers, only two witnesses saw Cobby after she left the train station.

Cobby was walking alone from the station along Newton Road, Blacktown around 10 p.m., when the gang of five men drove up beside her and stopped their stolen white HT Holden Kingswood. Two men leapt from the car and dragged her into the vehicle, as she kicked and screamed. A teenage boy, his younger sister, and his mother heard someone screaming from the street in front of their house and had gone outside in time to see Cobby forced into the attackers' car. The boy ran across the road to help, but the car drove off before he reached it. Returning home, he telephoned the police to report what he had seen. A few minutes later, their neighbour and his girlfriend arrived home and, after being told of the abduction, drove off to search for the car. They eventually drove down Reen Road (now known as Peter Brock Drive), Prospect and stopped by the now-empty Holden, where the man used a spotlight to search the adjacent paddock. Seeing nothing in the paddock and believing the car he was looking for was a different model Holden, he returned home. The attackers later stated that they had hidden in the long grass to avoid the spotlight and waited for the man to leave.

Once inside the car on Newton Road, Cobby had been ordered to strip off her clothes but refused, begging her attackers to let her go and saying she was married and also menstruating. Her attackers punched Cobby repeatedly, breaking her nose and both cheekbones, before forcing her to perform fellatio on all five men. The attackers then drove to a service station to purchase fuel using money stolen from Cobby's purse. Cobby was then driven down Reen Road to the secluded paddock, while being held down in the car, raped repeatedly, and being continually beaten by her five attackers. They then dragged the brutally beaten Cobby into the paddock along a barbed wire fence, where they dumped her and continued to sexually and physically abuse her for some time. According to his taped confession, one of the attackers, John Travers, then became concerned that Cobby could identify them because she had seen their faces and heard their names, and convinced the other attackers to kill her. Urged on by the others, Travers slit her throat, almost severing her head.

Police investigation
When Cobby did not return home, her family initially thought she was staying overnight with a friend, but after learning that she failed to appear at work the next day, they reported her missing on 3 February. On the morning of 4 February, her naked body was found in the paddock by a farmer investigating what his cows were milling around. Cobby's body was initially identified by her distinctive wedding ring, which was still on her finger when she was found. Her estranged husband John was initially suspected of her murder, but was quickly cleared.

The Australian public reacted with anger upon hearing details of Cobby's murder. On 6 February, the NSW State Government posted a A$50,000 reward for information leading to the capture of Cobby's killers. Also on 6 February, morning radio host John Laws obtained a leaked copy of Cobby's autopsy report, which contained explicit details of her injuries, and read it live on the air, both shocking and galvanising public sentiment. In a 2016 interview with Seven News, Laws said he did it because he felt "the general public ought to know" and that "it incited anger in the public that murders like this were happening and we weren't being given the full details".

On 9 February, police re-enacted Cobby's movements on the night of her disappearance in the hope of jogging the memories of travellers or others who might have seen her. Constable Debbie Wallace wore similar clothing to Cobby and travelled the 9:12 p.m. train to Blacktown. Detectives interviewed the passengers and showed them photos of Cobby whilst Wallace walked the length of the train during the journey.

Following a tip-off from a police informant regarding the stolen Holden, police started searching for Travers, Michael Murdoch, and brothers Les, Michael, and Gary Murphy after they discovered that some of them had a history of violence, and that Travers had a reputation for carrying a knife. On 21 February, police arrested Travers and Murdoch at the home of Travers' uncle and Les Murphy at Travers' own house. Murdoch and Murphy were charged with offences relating to stolen cars and released on police bail. Travers, who admitted that he had stolen a car, made conflicting statements about the murder and was detained in police custody. While in custody, he requested that a friend be called so she could bring him cigarettes. The phone number was handed to the investigating police who contacted the friend, a woman.

The woman, Travers' girlfriend — eventually dubbed "Miss X" — agreed to help with the investigation, met with an officer, and gave him details of Travers' background. Miss X was subsequently sent back in to talk to Travers, agreeing to hide a recording microphone device in her bra while she visited him in his cell and was able to obtain a confession. Miss X later went to Murdoch's home while wearing the concealed recording device to capture his statements on tape as well. Eventually, five men were arrested and charged with the murder. Police were praised for their quick response in capturing all suspects involved. In total, 22 days had elapsed from the time of the murder to the time all suspects were taken into custody.

Perpetrators
The five men charged, who later all pleaded guilty or were convicted of the murder, had over fifty prior convictions for offences including armed robbery, assault, larceny, car theft, breaking and entering, drug use, escaping lawful custody, receiving stolen goods and rape.

John Travers
John Raymond Travers, aged 18 in 1986, was considered the ringleader of the gang. He was raised in relative poverty in Blacktown, the oldest of eight children from unmarried teenage parents. By age 14, he was already an alcoholic, and was expelled from high school during Year 10 for being continually disruptive to other students. Beyond schooling, Travers held few jobs and relied mostly on unemployment benefits as a source of income. He was eventually committed to Boys' Town, a juvenile detention facility, by his mother. His father, with whom he never shared a close relationship, left the household in 1981. Finding it difficult to support the family, Travers relied on crime to provide food, such as stealing animals for the family’s dinners, including chickens and ducks from nearby households. The health of Travers' mother eventually deteriorated, and he and his siblings were sent to live with foster families while she was placed in a hospice. Travers had a history of violent sexual behaviour, against males and females, as well as bestiality; during the times when he resorted to stealing poultry for his family’s meals, he is alleged to have sexually abused the birds prior to butchering and cooking them. Witnesses have also recounted that, on several occasions, Travers had acquired a live lamb or sheep for butchering prior to a barbecue party, alleging that he slit the animals’ throats as he sodomised and abused them sexually—before butchering and roasting the carcass on a spit.

Michael Murdoch
Michael Murdoch, aged 18 in 1986, was a childhood friend and criminal associate of Travers. He had also spent a great part of his childhood in juvenile prisons, where he experienced sexual assaults. He was known to have written to politicians during this period of imprisonment seeking protection from such assaults.

Murphy brothers
Michael, Gary and Les Murphy, three brothers from a family of nine children, were also accused of the crime.

 * Michael Murphy, aged 33, was the eldest of the nine Murphy children. He was sent to live with his grandmother when he was 12 years of age.
 * Gary Murphy, aged 28. A hearing impairment affected Gary's schooling and he left early to seek work. He was noted as being an able and willing worker before the crimes. Gary's strong interest in cars led to him facing several car theft-related charges in the years preceding the murder.
 * Les Murphy, aged 22, was the youngest of the Murphy children, and was known as having the worst temperament. He had faced Children's Court on many occasions for a number of theft-related offences before being accused of the Cobby murder.

Trial
The trial began in Sydney on 16 March 1987. Before proceedings began, Travers changed his plea to guilty. Sydney newspaper The Sun published a front-page story on the day the trial began, carrying the headline "ANITA MURDER MAN GUILTY" alongside a large image of Travers. The news story also referred to Michael Murphy as an unemployed prison escapee of no fixed address, and another in the same paper detailed Murphy's criminal convictions and his recent escape from Silverwater Correctional Centre, where he was serving a 25-year sentence for a string of burglaries and thefts. The jury was discharged due to the potentially prejudicial information published about Murphy.

According to the medical examiner's report, Cobby's body showed extensive bruising on her head, breasts, face, shoulders, groin, thighs and legs consistent with "a systematic beating", including a "blow of considerable force around the right eye". She also had lacerations on her hips, thighs and legs from the barbed wire, several cuts to her neck resulting in the severing of her ear and windpipe and near decapitation, and many cuts to her hands and fingers, resulting in the near severing of three of her fingers, which likely occurred when she raised her hands to her face trying to protect herself from the knife. The medical examiner later testified that after Cobby's throat was cut, she would have died within two minutes. He also testified that some radio bulletins purportedly based on his own report contained misinformation about the type and extent of Cobby's injuries. She was not mutilated apart from the slashing of her throat and hands, there had been no attack with a knife on her stomach or genitals, and her shoulders had not been dislocated.

The trial for the remaining members of the gang lasted 54 days, with the men's defence relying on convincing the jury of their minimal involvement in the beating and murder. On 10 June 1987, all four were found guilty of sexual assault and murder. On 16 June, they were each sentenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to life imprisonment plus additional time without the possibility of parole. Justice Alan Maxwell described the crime as, "One of the most horrifying physical and sexual assaults. This was a calculated killing done in cold blood. The Executive should grant the same degree of mercy they bestowed on their victim."

Aftermath
Cobby's parents would join forces with Christine and Peter Simpson, the parents of murder victim Ebony Simpson, to create the Homicide Victims' Support Group (Aust) Inc.—a community support group that helps families deal with heinous crimes. The Lynches also campaigned in seeking tougher sentencing and truth in sentencing laws, which eventuated after Cobby's murder. Cobby's father Garry Lynch died on 14 September 2008, aged 90, suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Her mother, Grace, died of lung cancer in 2013, at the age of 88. The Lynches had been married for 54 years at the time of Garry's death.

Imprisonment
, John Travers was housed in Wellington Correctional Centre in maximum security. In 1996, he and another inmate were being transported from Goulburn to Long Bay when they attempted to escape from the prison van by hacksawing through and kicking in the back door. When the attempt was noticed, the van pulled over at Bowral Police Station, and the two were arrested and charged. Since being sentenced Travers has spent time in Long Bay, Parklea, Maitland, Goulburn, Grafton, Lithgow and Wellington Correctional Centres.

Michael Murphy was housed in Long Bay Hospital in maximum security. During his imprisonment Murphy had been held in Long Bay, Maitland, Lithgow then spent majority of that time at Goulburn until being diagnosed with liver cancer. He died in Long Bay Hospital on 21 February 2019 at the age of 66.

, Gary Murphy was housed in Goulburn Correctional Centre in maximum security. On the morning of 25 June 2019, he was severely beaten by several other prisoners in shower block of 10 Wing at the Metropolitan Special Program Centre at Long Bay and was transferred to hospital in a critical condition. On 23 August 2020 it was revealed by the Daily Telegraph that Murphy had been moved back from Long Bay to Goulburn after being bashed. Since being sentenced Murphy has spent time at Long Bay, Maitland, Lithgow, Junee and Goulburn Correctional Centres.

, Les Murphy was housed in Goulburn Correctional Centre in maximum security. Since being sentenced Murphy has spent time in Long Bay, Parklea, Lithgow, Grafton, Maitland and Goulburn Correctional Centres.

As of 2020, Michael Murdoch was housed in Goulburn Correctional Centre in maximum security. Since being sentence Murdoch has spent time in Long Bay, Parklea, Windsor, Maitland, Bathurst, Lithgow, Junee and Goulburn Correctional Centres.

After the death of Michael Murphy, as of 22 February 2019, NSW Corrective Services confirmed the four other offenders were still alive and were still serving their life sentences in various maximum-security correctional centres across New South Wales, but it could not be revealed where they were currently being housed.

Media
The murder has been covered by several true crime television series, including Crime Investigation Australia in 2006, Crime Stories in 2008, and Australian Families of Crime in 2010. The case was covered by Casefile True Crime Podcast on 22 July 2017. It has also been the subject of several books (see Further reading).

The Australian social-realist film The Boys (1998), directed by Rowan Woods, is, in part, inspired by the Cobby murder and follows the journey of three brothers leading up to a similar crime.

In February 2016, at the time of the 30th anniversary of the murder, police released the taped confessions of Travers and Murdoch that were obtained by Miss X. Seven News broadcast a documentary, 7 News Investigates: Anita Cobby — You Thought You Knew It All, which included the newly released taped confessions and John Cobby's first televised interview about his wife's murder.

A 90-minute documentary titled Anita was released in 2016, on the 30th anniversary of the murder.

Memorial
A park in Sullivan Street, Blacktown was named 'Anita Cobby Reserve in memory of Cobby.

title: Murder of Anita Cobby


text: Category:540 BC births

title: Category:540 BC births