text:
Talk:Moshe Marzouk

Terrorist label
A lot of edit summaries, but nothing here. Would it help to discuss some of the disagreements? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Discuss with who? You have stated on my Talk page that you do not care about content, "I was not concerned with the content of the article" . --Islamist 17:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Islamist: note the difference between not being concerned with content on one occasion, and never being concerned with content. If you could just assume good faith once, and understand that it's possible for people to disagree with you without being evil bigots, you might find that your experience on Wikipedia was a lot pleasanter (it certainly would be for the rest of us).
 * 2) Jayjg: with regard to the inclusion of "terrorist", I can't agree with you. A central issue in the part of just-war theory that deals with jus in bello is concerned with the possibility of justly bombing civilian targets (Berlin, London, Dresden, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, etc.), the claim being that under certain circumstances it does not count as terrorism.  Many governments, including the U.K., the U.S., and many of those in the Middle East, have bombed and otherwise attacked civilian targets, claiming that it's not terrorism because it's justified.  I don't accept any of those excuses, and I agree with you that bombing civilian targets in order to cause terror is never justified and always terrorism — but many don't agree, so I don't see that making clear that this case isn't claimed to be one of 'non-terrorist' bombing should be removed from the article. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Israel never claimed that the bombing of these targest was justified in any way, so the insertion is a somewhat bizarre countering of an argument that hasn't been made in the first place. Egypt and Israel were not actively at war at the time, so one can't compare various bombings (e.g. Berlin) to this one.  Had this occured during the '67 war your point might have been stronger. Jayjg (talk)  15:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But, first, nothing that I said implied that Israel had claimed the bombings to be justified; I'm not sure what your point is here. Secondly, clarifying a point isn't the same as 'countering an argument that hasn't been made'; it's, well, clarifying a point. Thirdly, the article doesn't explain the relationship between the states at the time; it could, I suppose, go into all that, simply in order to make the point that the bombings were terrorism rather than acts of war — this seems a more straightforward approach. Fourthly, given that all you seem to be saying is that the qualification isn't needed, I'm unsure why you're so determined to remove it. Perhaps most importantly, every time that there's a suicide bomb or a missile attack in Israel it's described by the media and the politicians as a terrorist act; your argument commits you to objecting to that (they should simply say that a missile or bomb killed some civilians), yet it seems perfectly reasonable to me that it should be dubbed terrorism, just as this should be. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Your most important argument is simply false; suicide bombs and missile attacks on Israel are rarely described as "terrorist"; in fact, when it comes to attacks on Israel the media studiously avoids that word in order to (as the claim) "not take sides".  Here's a simple example:   Note how studiously the word "terrorist" is avoided; and that is for bombs that killed many civilians, not merely (as with Marzouk) firebombs that killed and injured no-one, and did little damage.  This is the policy of most media outlets, BBC, CNN, etc.  Of course, when it comes to their own ox being gored, they will use the word; thus the BBC will refer to IRA attacks as "terrorist", though not attacks on Israel.  Similarly, CNN has no trouble deciding that attacks on the U.S. are "terrorist", just not attacks on Israeli civilians.  Reuters has a policy of never using the word "terrorist" in order to "protect its reporters".  The New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., all refuse to use the word.  Of course, I have taken the word out of articles when it has been used to described Palestinian attacks; for example   And that's why it should be out here as well. Jayjg (talk)  21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It may be that the BBC and the Israeli government don't always use the word 'terrorist' in such cases, but (""The Syrians should not be allowing armed terrorists to cross the border," an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman said"),  ("heightening the sense that Gaza is effectively one huge prison breeding more people will to martyr themselves for the Palestinian cause and support those like Hamas who carry out terrorist acts against Israel"),  ("I mean there are terrible terrorist acts happening in Israel, as a result of suicide bombers and so on"), and  ("I wanted to get a range of voices to show that Jewish Israelis and Arabs both ride on the buses. For that reason I focus on a couple of Arab Israelis and find out what they feel about being under threat from their own people in a terrorist attack") indicate that your claim is too sweeping. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm increasingly thinking that the word "terrorist" rarely adds any meaning because there are so many definitions. According to the definition I use myself (the so-called UN academic definition), Marzouk would not be regarded as a terrorist, but perhaps according to other definitions he would, though the targeting of civilians does not in and of itself define terrorism. I'm currently doing a re-write of Abu Nidal and wondering whether to delete the word "terrorist" even though he organized attacks that killed 900 people in 20 countries, so to use it for Marzouk who, as I understand it, killed no one, seems odd, especially if it's causing a dispute. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've done a copy edit and removed that word until we find a consensus here. My suggestion is to expand the article and let the facts speak for themselves rather than adding a label. We don't say what he did, or what the purpose of the operation was, so the use of the word "terrorist" is certainly unjustified until we fill in some of those facts, and when we do, it will arguably be redundant. Is it still true that the Israeli government has not acknowledged him, by the way, because there's a picture of a stamp with his head on it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

As Jayjg has pointed out, all bombing of civilian targets is terrorism, although we disagree that inserting the label is redundant. I agree with Mel that not using the word is a equivalent to making a statement. If this were a Hamas operative we were talking about, would Jayjg and SlimVirgin dissemble about the terrorist label? --AladdinSE 23:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've pointed that out? I've said attacks on civilians with the intent to injure or kill, in order to terrorize people, are terrorism.  Post office buildings aren't civilians. As for Hamas, they attempt to kill poeple, as many as possible, so the point is moot. Jayjg (talk)  00:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes you've implied in your edit summaries  that it is terrorism because all bombings of civilian targets are terrorism. You were making, I believe, an argument for redundancy. No, post office buildings are not civilians, but they are civilian targets. If Hamas were to blow up a bus stop with no one in it, I would still call that a terrorist act. --AladdinSE 22:14, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of terrorism
Is this going to be the policy in all articles? For example, in Al-Qaeda and September 11, 2001, attacks ("The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks")? I don't understand the reluctance to call bombing civilians terrorism in this article. To omit it because it's causing a dispute would be a reason (though not, I think, a strong one), except that I find the dispute itself perplexing. Jayjg doesn't in fact deny that the bombings were terrorism, he just doesn't think that they should be described as such, because: "No need to bash people on the heads with this, it looks like POV". Why is it PoV to call these terrorist attacks terrorism but OK to call the 11th September attack terrorism? Isn't it even more obvious in the latter case, so there's even less need to 'bash people on the heads' with it? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * My point wasn't that it was terrorism, but that even if it was, there's no need to bash people over the heads with it. Once you describe exactly what was done, there's little need for the word; people will decide on their own exactly what kind of act it was. Jayjg (talk)  00:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't find a source that says when or whether he was ever acknowledged (he must have been to get a stamp), so I've just left it that they didn't acknowledge him at the time. Regarding the word, Mel, there is a tendency on WP (though no policy) not to add it where there is even the remotest doubt: you'll note that September 11, 2001 attacks does not have the word in the title, and it was included in the text only after extensive debate. So if there's a debate about labelling even that (the quintessential terrorist act), it's not at all clear it's appropriate to label the bombing of some post offices and two libraries (with, so far as I know, no injuries or loss of life) as acts of terrorism. Anyway, my point is simply: what does the word add? Would it not make sense to add facts (harder to do because it involves research) than sticking a label on it and leaving the facts out? SlimVirgin (talk)  22:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * My view, I suppose, has two sources. First, I think that whether or not an act is terrorist is a fact.  It's a difficult fact to establish in many cases, and there are all sorts of political reasons for different groups to establish different definitions of 'terrorism' (just as we're seeing with 'torture').  I'm not clear, though, that that makes it different in kind from saying that it's a fact that astrophysics is scientific and creation geology not.  Secondly, though, Wikipedia must not only be neutral, it must be seen to be neutral.  If the decision has been made to use the word 'terrorism' in one article where it's applicable, then it should be used in any article where it's applicable.  (And remember that the parties to the dispute here were all agreed that it is applicable.) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The last point first: they're not, because I'm not. Which definition of terrorism are you using exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did use the past tense... I suppose that I thought that you were entering the field as a mediator rather than as a new combatant.

I take it that a terrorist is someone who attempts to further a political (reasonably broadly defined) aim by performing acts designed to cause fear. Such acts will usually be violent, and aimed at civilians, though it's possible for a terrorist to use the mere threat of violence, or to attack military targets. This is even more rushed than my last message, so I'll try to get back to this tomorrow, in order to refine this definition. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It would be helpful to have your precise definition and a source. Operation Suzannah was not aimed at civilians (as I understand it) but at buildings used by civilians. No one was injured or (again, as I understand it) intended to be. In fact, there are stories that the Egyptians had advance warning of all the bombings from the inside too, but that's another story. The acts were not intended to cause fear among civilians. They were intended to persuade the British that the Eyptians were unfit to govern. So this is very much a borderline example of terrorism, if it's an example at all. Regardless, my point above still stands. Wouldn't it make more sense to add some facts about the case first, and then decide, because we may find the facts speaking for themselves? Adding the word "terrorist" without a description of what actually happened is a bit like going out with lipstick but no clothes. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly so; the intent, as I understand it, was to convince the British that the Egyptian government was inept, and that they should therefore not give up control of the Suez Canal. There doesn't seem to have been any intent to harm civilians or cause terror that I can tell. Jayjg (talk)  00:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to add: this is what most governments would call a false-flag operation or PSYOPS. It's definitely an example of the first, and my understanding is that Israeli academics have also called it the latter. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Back again, after my beauty sleep. The following comes close to my view (better than my trying to formulate my definition, because as a philosopher I talk about this only in tutorials and classes on just-war theory and terrorism, and giving a neat definition isn't my aim...):
 * "terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. (JCS Pub 1-02)"

The British government's definition looks about right to me, too.

The two agree in not limiting terrorism to violence against people, and in not limiting it to the actual production of fear, but extending it to attacks on property, and for the purpose of influencing governments. For other interesting discussions or attempts at definition, see: Oxford Today and Army Technology. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Why do you think this was an attempt "to coerce or intimidate governments or societies"? Jayjg (talk)
 * I'm disappointed anyone here is disputing the label. It's not the Mossad being called terrorist, it's the specific bombings in Egypt that are mentioned in this article. All these arguments against its use are mind boggling. If a Hamas suicide bomber blows up a bus stop, it's terrorist. When Moshe Mazrouk blew up libraries and civilian installations, it was terrorist. He was a terrorist. --AladdinSE 11:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * (posted to SlimVirgin's Talk page, but I'll put it here too)
 * The problem is in part, I think, that there's a disagreement over whether the term 'terrorist' is a judgement or a description. I take it to be a description, though it's true that I don't think that any instance of terrorism can be morally defended.  The initial problem, in fact, was that no-one involved in the debate did deny that 'terrorism' was an accurate description; Jayjg simply said that it shouldn't be used anyway.
 * A further problem is that the word 'terorism' is used in Wikipedia articles to describe events, not merely in reports of what people have said about them. Not to use it in an article like Moshe Marzouk, therefore, appears to make a statement.  If the word were never used, I'd not complain, but we can't look at each article in isolation — readers will see the discrepancy, and draw conclusions about our neutrality.  I'd rather that didn't happen. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * They already make that accusation regularly, and generally without cause; there's no point in pandering to perception, rather than Encyclopedic integrity. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg It's a bit naughty to revert as a minor edit. Could the article be left alone until the discussion is over? Is your position still that, while the actions were terrorism, the article shouldn't say so, or do you now say that it wasn't really terrorism, or what? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Reverts are by definition minor; that is how Wikipedia classifies them. And you're free to leave it alone until the discussion is over.  As for my position, it has always been that it is not clear whether it is terrorism, but in any event there's no point in trying to bash people with this, it just looks like political editorializing, and there's already far too much of that going on in Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk)  16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, then my argument that it's not evaluative but descriptive comes into play, as does my other arguments. What are your responses to them? Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure it's descriptive; it seems to, at best, skirt the commonly accepted definitions of terrorist acts. It doesn't appear to have been intended to incite terror among civilians, or to "coerce or intimidate governments or societies"; rather, it appears to have been an attempt to convince the British government that the Egyptian government was inept. Jayjg (talk)  18:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the point that authorities may have been given advance warning of the bombings, let us remember that the IRA frequently gave such warnings to British and Irish authorities before blowing up civilian targets, the world still overwhelmingly classified the acts as terrorism. --AladdinSE 23:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * The IRA was trying to terrorize people and coerce governments; the intent here appears to be different. Plus all the other good reasons not to include the word. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism is terrorism. No "intent," political ideology or international covert intrigue can mitigate it. --AladdinSE 22:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Aladdin and Mel
AladdinSE, if you want the word "terrorist" in there, you'll have to supply a third-party, authoritative definition.

Mel, your def: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

You have a problem with the word "unlawful": the invasion of Iraq was domestically lawful within the invading countries; internationally it was not. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq could be described as an act of terrorism, which means the term has lost all meaning.

 * Domestic law doesn't cover international actions.
 * There are, however, clear distinctions drawn between definitions of war and of terrorism, one of the important ones going right back to Aquinas, with his condition that war be declared by a properly constituted authority; Iraq was a war, whether one takes it to have been just or unjust. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I based what I wrote on your definition and only your definition. You wrote "unlawful": if you want to expand it to cover only domestic law (of the country that is the aggressor or victim?), that's fine, but you'll find it will lead to further problems. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

According to the British def you offered :

1 (1) (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and 1 (1) (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Mazouk fits (c) but not necessarily (b), as he was trying to influence an overseas government, not the government of the country he attacked, and he was not trying to intimidate the public.

 * That sounds a bit sophistic, to be honest. Are you really saying that the same action would be terrorism if it tried to influence one government but not if it tried to influence another?  So the 11th September attacks wouldn't have been terrorism if they were aimed at the British government, and suicide bombers in Israel wouldn't be terrorists if they were trying to influence the U.S.? Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, I'm responding only to the words in the definition, which says "the government," not "governments" or "any government". What I'm saying is that it's a poor definition. Read the one below, which avoids these problems. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd say it's inappropriate to use a definition drawn up by a government for a piece of anti-terrorist legislation, the intention of which is arguably that it be used as a political weapon to curtail civil liberties. This means that the British govt (and any other governments with similar aims) don't come to the debate with clean hands, as you can see from the definition's point (3): that any act falling within subsection 2 (serious violence against a person or damage to property) that involves the use of a firearm or explosives is an act of terrorism even if it fails to fall within subsection 1 (b) (the intention to influence the government or intimidate the public). Therefore, it seems that anyone who uses or threatens to use a gun in an act of violence is a terrorist if a prosecutor decides to define them as such.

The following is a more precise definition with none of the political baggage inherent in legislative definitions. I've often seen this referred to as the UN academic definition, and I believe it's popular with social scientists (note that I've seen more than one version of this definition, perhaps from different editions of the original text it came from):

"An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from the target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought. (Schmid & Jongman, Political Terrorism, 1988)"

This definition as applied to Marzouk:

 * 1) He was a clandestine individual acting on behalf of a state;
 * 2) He acted for political reasons;
 * 3) There were no human victims of the violence, unless you count the people who couldn't use the post offices and library he blew up;
 * 4) The post offices and library were arguably chosen as symbolic targets, though that would be stretching it;
 * 5) There were no threat- or violence-based communication processes between the terrorists, victims, and target audience;
 * 6) The target audience did not become a target of demands, though arguably it was the target of attention, as the operation was a propaganda exercise.

From the above, we see that some of this case fits the definition, some not, which is why I argued earlier that it's a borderline case and that the word ought not to be used. One the other hand, it precisely fits the definition of a false-flag operation, and slightly less precisely fits the definition of PSYOPS, so if we have to label it (and I think we shouldn't), we should use the more precise label, not the one we can't agree on. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Mel, I reverted the change you made from 14 to fourteen, as numbers over 9 or 10 (depending on which style guide you're using) are written as numerals. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't check the Wikipedia MoS — I was going on the normal rules of typography (e.g Rees, §§202–205). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm — having checked the obvious place (Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) I can find no mention of Wikipedia policy; am I just going blind, or is it somewhere else? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know where it is, but it's definitely in there somewhere; anyway, any style guide that I've seen (I have here AP, CP, Globe&Mail, Chicago, and Bill Walsh) recommends numerals for higher numbers. They differ only in where they begin: some at 10, some at 11 (so you write eight, nine, 10). Check with Maureen: she's very familiar with the MoS. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bombing civilian targets, whether people were killed or not, is terrorism. No political ideology or foreign intelligence operation attempting to achieve a covert international goal can mitigate this definition. --AladdinSE 15:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
Good edits, Jayjg. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help myself, I edited it some more; please let me know what you think. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It reads much better thanks to your edits, as does Lavon Affair. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you. There's more work to be done still at the Lavon Affair, the aftermath section is still skimpy and it overlaps other articles, but it will have to wait till next week. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV principle
Just stop. --Dissembler 01:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Your user page doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your good faith, Dissembler. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Could you please focus on the edits in this article? What are your objections? If you have problems with me or Jayjg and our biases, we have User pages for you to post your comments. --Dissembler 01:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I love you too Dissembler, but be that as it may, we've agreed to call this a false-flag operation, not terrorism, for the reasons argued above. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:35, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Who agreed?--Dissembler 01:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read the page, you'll see. If you want to call it terrorism, please supply an authoritative academic definition. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The false flag thing is a bit of a red herring. It would be "state-sponsored terrorism" by most definitions. It was violence directed at a civilian target by a non-state actor with the aim of influencing political actions. You show the definition it does not fit. While I don't support the use of the word "terrorist" in any of our articles in this sphere (or any sphere, given its contentiousness), I find your argument rather weak, Slim. Grace Note 02:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that digging out definitions that it does not quite fit in your view is rather unconvincing when those definitions become as involved as the one you used!Grace Note 02:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * All the good definitions are somewhat involved, because it's a difficult thing to define. Any simple definition will tend to act as a catch-all, and these benefit only governments wanting to use them to curtail civil liberties. The precise description of Operation Suzannah is a false-flag operation: that would be the technical term. It might also be called PSYOPS or a black operation. To call it terrorism is like adding in brackets (and we didn't like it). It fails to denote. In this case, he blew up a couple of post offices; no one was hurt or killed and no one was intended to be. I thought you were one of the editors who agreed with this, or am I thinking of another page? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:19, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * All the good definitions are somewhat involved, because it's a difficult thing to define. I disagree. It's only difficult for those whose agenda requires a complicated definition. I've always been happy with "violence against civilians for political ends" with the understanding that the direct targets are not the actual targets of the violence.

 * When a term becomes all-encompassing, it ceases to have meaning. Your definition would make no distinction between some criminal acts, acts of war (whether aggressive or defensive), and acts of what most people would agree was terrorism e.g. bombing of PA 103. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Any simple definition will tend to act as a catch-all, and these benefit only governments wanting to use them to curtail civil liberties. I disagree again. Simple definitions tend to benefit the civilians who are generally the victims of terror. Simple definitions don't allow state actors to claim that their acts of terror are "war" and everyone else's "terror".

 * Here's a simple definition from the British government and if you read it, or read the discussion above, you'll see that it reduces to anyone who uses or threatens to use a firearm or explosive, so the distinction between criminal and terrorist acts has disappeared, if a prosecutor so wishes. This has implications in terms of the time police are allowed to hold suspects without legal representation, and for non-nationals, it can mean ending up in Belmarsh for as long as the government wants to hold you. Simple definitions of terrorism can be dangerous. The reason I like the one I've posted above is that it was developed by social scientists, not governments with an agenda. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * The precise description of Operation Suzannah is a false-flag operation: that would be the technical term. This is entirely a red herring. What type of operation it was has no bearing at all on whether it was aimed at civilians etc. If it turned out that the 9/11 hijackers were agents of fill in who fits this role in your favourite conspiracy theory, what they did would nonetheless be an act of terror. It would not change into a "false flag operation" with a wave of the wand. IOW, they are not actually different things.

 * True, but to call it a false-flag operation tells the reader something about it. To call it terrorism doesn't. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * To call it terrorism is like adding in brackets (and we didn't like it). It fails to denote. I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to understand this. I think it denotes that it was an operation designed to terrorise the population and polity of Egypt with the aim of changing its political standpoints.

 * No, it wasn't. It was designed only to make the Egyptian govt look incompetent so that the British wouldn't pull out. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * In this case, he blew up a couple of post offices; no one was hurt or killed and no one was intended to be. So terrorism must involve physical harm? I'm not aware that it does. If my neighbour was noisy, say, and would not turn down his stereo when I politely asked him, my smashing his front window would, in the broadest sense, be "terrorism". Its aim would without question be to terrorise him. I could do a great deal of damage to both his home and his sense of security without ever hurting him.

 * I thought you were one of the editors who agreed with this, or am I thinking of another page? I have stated my opinion, which is that the POV term "terrorist" should not be used on any page connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict at the very least. But you don't seem to agree with that, so I am discussing this with you on your terms. I think I've said all I have to say though, and I try to avoid endlessly disputing pages. I'm happy for you to reply on my talkpage if you feel there's merit in doing so, or not if you don't.Grace Note 03:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it shouldn't be used where there's ambiguity or where it clearly adds no information, and I'm increasingly coming to think it shouldn't be used at all, because in cases where it clearly is what everyone would regard as terrorist, there's no point in saying it; and in cases where it's ambiguous, it's hard to find a definition everyone can agree on, and without a definition (and it would probably have to be a Wikipedia-wide one), it lacks meaning. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * No need to respond to Dissembler any more, although I have no doubt another sockpuppet will be along soon enough. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention my concern when section titles are used to attack other editors. Dissembler, please use neutral-sounding titles like "NPOV principle" and do not accuse other editors by name. --AladdinSE 14:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ignoring abusive sockuppets, three editors here agree that using the word "terrorist" is a bad idea in these kinds of articles in general, and two strongly question whether it even applies in this particular case. You seem to be the odd man out Aladdin.  As for the removal of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism", please see these edits for examples:             Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  16:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment about section headers, Aladdin. Regarding the word "terrorist," what do you see as the difference in meaning between these sentences? "In 1954, the group carried out a series of bombings of civilian targets." "In 1954, the group carried out a series of terrorist bombings of civilian targets." My argument is that they have exactly the same meaning (as in detonation). SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oops, slight Freudian slip there: I meant denotation, not detonation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:53, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Jayjg: I am not cowed by three editors disagreeing with me, and it's not in the best spirit of Wikipedia to try and intimidate me in this fashion. I have compromised and conceded on various topics and articles when I have been rationally dissuaded, so I am not "sticking to my guns" out of childish obstinacy. In any case you're wrong, I am not alone. Mel Etitis has taken the position that "terrorist" applies. You've dismissed others as sockpuppets. Well, I have no knowledge or interest of your reasoning for dismissing their opinions. If it makes you feel better, I'll put in a request for review in some editors' Talk pages and "even up the odds" by introducing more opinions like my own. If they also disagree with me, and have new arguments that actually dissuade me, I will concede immediately. By the way, regarding your DFLP edit, for the record I think that was a clear terrorist act and would not have made that revert. --AladdinSE 22:36, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * When I point out that a number of editors disagree with you, it's not to "cow" you, but to note that your position is a minority one. Consensus, as Wikipedia understands it, is built via majorities; I find your response to be highly personal and combative. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  03:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You may want to reevaluate your choice of words in the future, then. You by no means have an overwhelming majority (or anywhere near it). Coincidentally, I find your manner to be highly personal and appears to be indicative of attempted intimidation. --AladdinSE 22:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if my manner comes across to you like that; I certainly don't intend it in that way. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Slim: Yes, detonation is described with or without the terrorist descrption. Detonation is hardly the point however. Both you and Jayjg may have a point for redundancy, after all what bombing of civilian targets isn't terrorism? It's important that these acts are described as what they are, terrorist acts. Otherwise it's a shameful whitewash where we have one standard for Arab terrorists and another for Israeli ones. Since the targets themselves are listed directly afterwards in the article, I'll remove "civilian targets" since that aslo is redundant since post office buildings, libraries and cinemas need no such classification. --AladdinSE 22:36, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Aladdin, sorry, I meant to write denotation, not detonation. ;-) Now I see you've changed it to terrorist bombings minus civilian, even though the latter is the description that's not disputed. Is your point that you actively want the word "terrorist" in here or that you don't want it in other articles, because if it's the latter, adding it here is almost disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, though I can understand being frustrated by inconsistency. Perhaps you could say which articles you object to the use of "terrorist" in, because it might make sense to look at deleting it from those, rather than adding it to this. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:53, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I see, I was wondering how detonation was relevant :-) Yes, it does seem to denote a redundancy, because, as I've said before, and as Jayjg seems to have also implied, what bombing of civilian buildings is not terrorist? No, I don't think it should be taken out elsewhere where it is relevant. As I said above in my reply to Jay, one of his removals of the word terrorist, regarding the DFLP, was not something I would have done myself. When an act is clearly terrorist it should be stated clearly as such. I trust I have been very communicative in Talk discussions, and strongly deny any attempt to be deliberately disruptive. Nevertheless, I read the disrupting Wikipedia to make a point link you provided above, and it gave me pause. The policy particularly mentions the terrorist label controversy. Although it starts out with "If you feel that a particular attack should not be called "terrorist"..., whereas I believe the opposite, I now have doubts. Not about the Lavon affair bombings being terrorist, to my mind they clearly were, but concerns regarding breaking policy. The policy says if you believe terrorist does not apply, argue on Talk how you htink it is POV, and do not add it to dozens of other articles to illustrate a point. As you know, in this case, I believe that its omission was a POV statement, and I included it as a stand-alone edit, not in response to any other dispute in other articles. Now, you say adding it here is almost disruptive. Do you think it crosses the line? If you honestly do, I will concede, albeit on a technicality. --AladdinSE 08:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * It's very decent of you to offer to concede the point, Aladdin, but no, I don't believe you've crossed the line, as your concern is with this article and not to make a point about others, and you're clearly editing in good faith. We'll just have to continue arguing, I'm afraid. ;-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  08:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Moshe Marzouk


text:
Penske Corporation

Penske Corporation, Inc. is an American diversified transportation services company based in Bloomfield Township, Oakland County, Michigan. Roger Penske is the founder and chairman of the privately held company, and Rob Kurnick is the president. Penske operates in the automotive retail, truck leasing, transportation, logistics, and motorsports industries. Penske operates in over 3,200 locations and employs more than 70,000 people globally.

Current

 * DAVCO Technology (transportation component manufacturing)
 * Ilmor Engineering (high performance motorsport engines)
 * Penske Automotive Group (a 40+% stake)
 * Penske Entertainment Corporation, parent company of:
 * INDYCAR, LLC (Motorsports sanctioning body; parent company of the IndyCar Series)
 * Indianapolis Motor Speedway (2.5-mile race track in Speedway, Indiana)
 * IMS, LLC (Operators of the race track)
 * IMS Productions, Inc. (broadcast television production company with satellite trucks, TV trucks and audio/visual editing facilities)
 * Penske Logistics (supply chain management and logistics service)
 * Penske Motor Group (retail automotive in California and Texas)
 * Premier Truck Group (commercial vehicle dealerships)
 * Penske Truck Leasing (joint venture with Penske Corp. and Mitsui & Co., Ltd)
 * Penske Truck Rental (truck rental services)
 * Team Penske (Motorsports team that enters teams in the IndyCar Series, IMSA SportsCar Championship and NASCAR)
 * Truck-Lite (transportation component manufacturing)
 * Carshop (certified used vehicle dealer)

Former

 * Detroit Diesel – A former GM subsidiary, Penske purchased a portion of the company in 1988 and, together with General Motors, spun the company off into a separate company. Sold to DaimlerChrysler AG in 2000.
 * DJR Team Penske (51% stake) (Australian V8 Supercars team) sold in 2020
 * Penske Auto Centers – A former subsidiary that had operated auto repair centers within selected Kmart stores from 1995 until 2002.
 * VM Motori S.p.A. – 50% was bought in 2003 and the rest in 2007, but a 51% stake was sold to Fiat S.p.A. in February 2011, and the remainder sold to Fiat in 2013.

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

title: Penske Corporation


text:
Talk:Synthetic rubber

note
still to be added:

Nitrile rubber is a synthetic rubber co-polymer of acrylonitrile and butadiene.

Butyl rubber and polyisobutylene

Buna rubber

EPDM rubber

Polyurethane rubber

Fluorosilicone rubber

Neoprene (polychloroprene or polychloroisoprene)

see elastomer
 * I have added links to most of the above. Biscuittin (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

rubber chair

 * I want more information about rubber chairs (ideal for toddlers, to avoid shocks and accidents) . --Mac (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

isoprene biologically-degradable ?
The article needs to be improved regarding the biologically-degradability of isoprene. For example is the Bouchardt isoprene biologically degredable ? Also, methyl isoprene seems to have a good chance of being biologically degredable. Both, because the products seem to be close to natural rubber (similar to other substances as eg ethanol, ... which too are made artificially but are still bio-degradable).

If the substances are bio-degradable, they should require their own page, and the page could be fitted with a template, indicating it's suitable to the C2C-recycling method.

Regarding the Bouchardt isoprene, following info can be added:

Bouchardt obtained isoprene from natural rubber by distillation, treated it with hydrochloric acid and obtained a tough elastic rubber like solid.

91.180.228.95 (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

figures are wrong
Hi, I think that the annual production mentioned is wrong. It is not of 15 million tons as mentioned. It is rather the double! Only the natural rubber is produced annually at a level of 10 million tons (10 billion Kg), so the total should be about 30 billion kg, not 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Séraphin 01 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Article looks to be re-written history
In USA, on TV the history shows say "CRC, the Chemical Rubber Company" came out with the first practical high volume low cost durable synthetic tire, a hurried project for use in the world war.

It's then said the family ownership dissapated but that the family still runs a famous cancer treatment center, aquired using the remainder of their CRC fortune.

CRC Press is not simply a book company (a later division). That revisionism. They weren't called the Chemical Rubber Company for no reason.

Tell me I'm wrong. Try me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.202.186 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi 72.219.202.186, I'm not entirely sure what your issue is with this article. The Chemical Rubber Company (CRC) is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and neither is the modern CRC Press. Is this omission what you term "revisionism"? If you have reliable sources that describe the role of the CRC in the history of synthetic rubber, then please do add this information, referencing as is appropriate with full citations. Please remember to always assume good faith on the behalf of other editors and that original research is not allowed. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

unsourced
The table below is unsourced and a target for spammers.

Moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please don't restore without finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them.

 * Table of common synthetic rubbers

In addition, the term "gum rubber" is sometimes used to describe the tree-derived natural rubber (code NR) and to distinguish it from synthetic natural rubber (code IR).

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Uses
I think someone should add uses page. Its weird its missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IXentimenTI (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Synthetic rubber


text:
User talk:Audentis

Please feel free to add any comments about pages I've created or edited to this page, or to the discussion section of the article itself, if you so choose.

Comments on Pages I've Created/Edited
Feel free to be critical, but be nice!

Requests for Advocacy
Requests are welcome, regardless of the field of knowledge involved. Click here to read my Member Statement on the AMA page.

 * Thank you Audentis for your response on my talk page and your willingness to help. Here is an important link which validates my claim that Tirat Carmel was developed on the site of the evacuated Palestinian-Arab village of al-Tirah. I've learned a great deal from this external link and I plan to add that information to the article -- once the arbitration process is over and I can be sure that there will be no further tampering with the facts:

 * http://www.palestineremembered.com/Haifa/al-Tira/index.html

 * And here is another link, which validates my position on the second point of contention -- that the MATAM industrial park is part of nearby Haifa, and therefore should not be mentioned in an article about Tirat Carmel:

 * http://www.gav-yam.co.il/GavYam/site/matam/eng/about_us/main.asp
 * RCSB 08:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * WOW! What thorough research!
 * Thank you Audentis for your immense help. The research you have done and your pains to uphold impartiality are amazing.
 * As you have noticed, I did revise the article again, the reason being that I merged it with the article on Tirat Karmel (With a 'K') and felt I might as well edit it according to my findings.

 * This has been my first 'major' work on the Wikipedia and I've learned much of a technical nature. More importantly, however, I've learned from your example what standards one should uphold when contributing to the Wikipedia. RCSB 00:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

 * Dear all,

 * Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.
 * Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

 * The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

 * The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.
 * We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

 * Best regards,
 * Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza
 * I sterbinski 01:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop
You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

AMA
Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator Election
Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for advocacy
Hello, I am an editor on the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article. Recently a user has voiced a number of complaints about the article, and a number of editors, including myself, have replied. Unfortunately, the discussion between he and I has deteriorated to such an extent that he has taken to ignoring me. I was hoping you might be interested in acting as an advocate for me in this dispute, providing your views on the issue or how it can be resolved, or anything else you think may help before I take the next step and attempt more formal mediation. The details of the dispute are on the article's talk page, starting here. It might also be helpful to look at the article's edit history starting at 2006-05-04 04:11:57 UTC. Thank you. -- noosph e re 00:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AMA Roll Call
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Need help - I feel intimidated by cop who is editor
Hi, I am reaching out to you with an odd situation even for Wikipedia. I attempted to edit the article on John Littlechild 1who led the first Special Irish Branch for the UK police and who also investigated the Jack the Ripper and Oscar Wilde cases. I saw that the article only touched on the career points of the subject. I noted that the formation of the Special Branch was opressive to the Irish and that Littlechild has a homophobe for his prosecution of Wilde.

These edits were promptly removed several times by editor Ben W. Bell 2 - a pro British Irishman. The editor Necrothesp 3 -- who authored the article -- also removed various entries. I even reduced the entry to say that the formation of the Special Branch was oppressive to the Irish and nothing more. This too was removed under the excuse that I was offering a POV and not a neutral objective fact.

I was going to get administrators to act as third parties but became intimidated by one simple fact -- on Necrothesp's user page its states that he is a British cop and a member of the U.K. Territorial army. I could go on forever talking about why the British police should not be allowed to edit articles on Northern Ireland but that would be useless. I travel in the UK a great deal and the police have special powers to trace users of any BBS system.

Necrothesp and Ben W. Bell also kept posting on my talk page after I said I felt intimidated. I asked them nicely to leave unitl after the editing conflict wass resolved but they still kept posting. I feel very intimidated. I would like to revise the article with more solid sources but fear being ganged up on again by Necorthesp the cop and his friend Ben W. Bell. In the last entry he made on my talk page Necorthest suggested I leave Wikipedia altogether which is very intimidating coming from someone who is a policeman 4.

I would still like to edit the article but would like you or some other advocate to watch what is being said and done. Please help!

I look forward to hearing from you.

617USA 617USA 30 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Nicole Corriero.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Nicole Corriero.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a  rtinp23  21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Using IPs to evade edit limits
Audentis, you should refrain from using IPs to evade edit limits on articles as it appears you are doing at Dario Hunter. ,, and have all made the same edits as you have over the last few days. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies. Please refrain from making such edits or you will be reported and possibly blocked from further edits.--User:Namiba 14:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I reject your claim. But I observe that on that same article, User:Namiba you have reverted the same things well over the allowed 3 reverts. (5 times.) Please stop edit warring in violation of Wikipedia policy. Audentis (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3 times over 24 hours. Please read WP:3R.--User:Namiba 14:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the article that you’ve linked to more thoroughly. “Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.” Audentis (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * “Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached.“ Audentis (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to report me, go for it. I will be happy to have administrators examine the origins of these mysterious IP edits which all mirror yours.--User:Namiba 15:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Check your talk page for notice of the report. Audentis (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Dario Hunter) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Salvio 15:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Note that I've blocked you as well because, per WP:DUCK, I am confident the IPs were operated by you. Please note that if you do that again the next block will not be partial. Salvio 15:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for logging out to continue edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Salvio 16:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Audentis


text:
Smith graph

In the mathematical field of graph theory, a Smith graph is either of two kinds of graph.

These are also the simply laced affine (and finite, if the spectral radius may be less than 2) Dynkin diagrams.
 * It is a graph whose adjacency matrix has largest eigenvalue at most 2, or has spectral radius 2 or at most 2. The graphs with spectral radius 2 form two infinite families and three sporadic examples; if we ask for spectral radius at most 2 then there are two additional infinite families and three more sporadic examples. The infinite families with spectral radius less than 2 are the paths and the paths with one extra edge attached to the vertex next to an endpoint; the infinite families with spectral radius exactly 2 are the cycles and the paths with an extra edge attached to each of the vertices next to an endpoint.
 * It is a strongly regular graph with certain kinds of parameter values.

title: Smith graph


text:
Talk:The Lincolnshire Poacher (disambiguation)

Untitled
In case anyone is wondering..........

My great grandfather WAS actually fined twenty shillings for poaching, near Washingborough, in 1898..... but hes the only one who ever got caught :-D

Lincolnshire Poacher 09:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and dont call it a BRITISH folk song, theres no such thing in the UK - only English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish folk songs, and various subdivisions - eg Cornish, Northumberland, Lincolnshire etc :-P

Lincolnshire Poacher 21:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So which of all the alternatives is it, then? Perhaps we could call it a "European folk song". ;-) I would say it is, just like it is a British one. Bromskloss 17:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi just thought i should say Lincolnshire Poacher is also the regimental song and a march for the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment "the poachers" The song is very important to the battalion and can be heard on many times being sung at full volume from messes and partys wherever a "poacher" is based.


text: User talk:67.150.98.207

title: User talk:67.150.98.207


text:
Talk:Extreme project management

Should this entry be renamed to 'agile project management'?

Added Stub template. This is really a well referenced article, but it doesn't really say anything concrete.

Deletion/merger?
I am unsure of how distinct this really is from project managment. Still there is a related article, I also recommended for deletion,"Megaprojects," for the same reasons. Still, there seems to be a great deal of popularity, and hence novelty and usefulness to this subject. Should this be merged with megaprojects?GESICC (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Extreme project management


text:
Tim Horan

Tim Horan AM (born 18 May 1970) is a former Australian rugby union footballer of Irish Descent, raised in Queensland. He played for the Queensland Reds in the Super 12, and represented Australia. He was one of the best centres in the world throughout the 1990s due to his attacking prowess, formidable defence and playmaking ability. He became one of only 43 players who have won the Rugby World Cup on multiple occasions.

As well as inside centre, Horan also played fly-half and earned one international cap on the wing.

Early career
Horan's rugby career began at Toowoomba's Downlands College under First XV coach John Elders, a former coach of England. The Downlands First XV of 1987 was undefeated throughout the year, including matches against Sydney's Kings, Riverview and St Joseph's colleges. The side also included future Wallabies Brett Johnstone, Brett Robinson, Garrick Morgan, and Peter Ryan.

He initially partnered Jason Little, with whom he wrote a book, Perfect Union and later in his career, Daniel Herbert. Horan and Little met when they were 13 years old, rooming together for a rugby league representative team.

Horan played a role in Australia winning the 1999 Rugby World Cup. He was voted player of the tournament (winning himself a year's worth of Guinness for scoring the fastest try).

Wallabies
His debut came in 1989 against New Zealand, where he impressed his opposite number, Joe Stanley, so much that Stanley gave Horan his Test jersey and told him to keep his own as it was his first. In his next Test, he and Little marked the experienced French pair of Franck Mesnel and Philippe Sella, and Horan scored his first two Test tries. That year, in what has become a famous incident in Australian Rugby, both he and Jason Little were subjected to a mock bar room ceremony in which they pledged not to defect to Rugby league.

After winning the World Cup in 1991, in which he scored four tries and a successful Bledisloe Cup in 1992, the Wallabies endured a mixed 1993. 1994 saw Horan's career nearly end with a horrific knee injury in the Super 10 final and he would spend over a year in rehabilitation before making the squad to the 1995 World Cup defence in South Africa.

In 1996, he captained the national side for the first and only time and he also played at flyhalf. He missed the 61–22 loss to South Africa but returned for a 15-all draw with England, helping Ben Tune and George Gregan score a try apiece.

He peaked again for the 1999 World Cup against South Africa in the semi-final. Despite suffering from severe food poisoning the night before the match, he played against South Africa in a 27-21 extra-time win. This was followed by the second Wallaby World Cup win of his career.

2000 was to be his final Test year and was affected by injuries. He signed for English club Saracens.

Retirement
Horan began a career as a newspaper columnist and broadcaster. Horan headed the Sports and Entertainment business in Private and Premium Banking for Westpac Banking Corporation until 2018 when he joined London based investment specialist River and Mercantile as Managing Director of its Australia and New Zealand operation. He is an ambassador for Spinal Injuries Australia, speaking to school children regarding prevention of spinal injuries. Horan is an ambassador for the Modified Rugby Program (MRP) that provides modified games of rugby for boys and girls with learning and perceptual difficulties. He is also ambassador for Aunties and Uncles - a non-profit organisation offering friendship, role-modelling and support for children in single parent or parentless families. He was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2006, and in the 2009 Australia Day Honours he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM), "for service to Rugby Union football, particularly as an international representative player, and to the community through promoting awareness of spinal injury prevention and support for youth mentoring organisations." Horan's father is Mike Horan, the former National Party and Liberal National Party Member of Parliament for the Queensland electoral district of Toowoomba South.

 * Played 80 test caps
 * 119 state caps
 * 130 points
 * 40 tries

Post-playing career
Tim Horan has been a commentator for Fox Sports Australia since September 2010. In 2011 Horan joined Triple M's Sunday Rugby show The Ruck with Matt Burke. In February 2021, Horan was announced as a part of the Stan Sport commentary team to cover Super Rugby AU.

Honours
Horan was inducted into both the World Rugby Hall of Fame and the Australian Rugby Union Hall of Fame in 2015.

title: Tim Horan


text:
User talk:Mbjorklo~enwiki

Welcome!

'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
 * Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Mbjorklo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Mbjorklo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mbjorklo~enwiki


text: Talk:Le Breuil-en-Auge

title: Talk:Le Breuil-en-Auge


text: File:Taisekiji Hoanden 2.JPG

title: File:Taisekiji Hoanden 2.JPG


text:
Strathbogie

Strathbogie may refer to:
 * Strathbogie, Scotland, the former name of Huntly, Scotland, and the strath to the south of it
 * Strathbogie Castle, former name of Huntly Castle, the ancestral home of the chief of Clan Gordon, Earl of Huntly
 * Strathbogie Park, the former name of Christie Park, Huntly, home ground of association football club Huntly F.C.
 * Strathbogie, Victoria, Australia
 * Shire of Strathbogie, Victoria, Australia
 * Strathbogie Ranges, Victoria, Australia

title: Strathbogie


text:
Kinglake

Kinglake may refer to
 * Kinglake (surname)
 * Kinglake, Ontario, a community in Canada
 * Kinglake, Victoria, a town in Australia
 * ABC Kinglake Ranges, a temporary radio service broadcasting from Kinglake, Victoria
 * Kinglake Football Club from Kinglake, Victoria
 * Kinglake West, Victoria, a town in Australia
 * Kinglake National Park in Central Victoria, Australia

title: Kinglake


text:
Avenel

Avenel may refer to:

 * Avenel, Victoria, Australia
 * Avenel railway station
 * Avenel-Hillandale, Maryland, a historic place near Washington, D.C.
 * Avenel, New Jersey, United States
 * Avenel (NJT station)
 * Avenel (Bedford, Virginia), a NRHP listing in Bedford, Virginia
 * Avenel Cooperative Housing Project, a historic cooperative housing project in Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California
 * TPC Potomac at Avenel Farms, a golf course in Potomac, Maryland
 * The Avenel family of Scotland, including Robert Avenel

title: Avenel


text: Category:Belarusian revolutionaries

title: Category:Belarusian revolutionaries


text:
Eildon

Eildon is the largest committee area of the Scottish Borders Council, with a population of 34,892 at the census in 2001. It also contains the three Eildon Hills, tallest in the Scottish Borders.

Places in Eildon
• Alewater

• Clovenfords

• Denholm

• Earlston

• Galashiels

• Heriot

• Kilnknowe

• Ladhope

• Langlee

• Lauder

• Lauderdale

• Melrose

• Mossilee

• Netherdale

• Newtown St Boswells

• Scott's View

• Selkirk

• Old Selkirk

• St Boswells

• Tweedbank

title: Eildon


text: User talk:66.60.149.128

title: User talk:66.60.149.128


text:
User:Manuel Strehl

(Deutsch) - (English) - (Latina)

The main page is my German Wikipedia page. Please visit its discussion page for faster contact! Manuel Strehl ( * 1980 in Regensburg, † hopefully not yet...) is user of the English Wikipedia since spring 2005. He spends his real life with studying useless things like Physics, Philosophy or some languages (e.g., Arabic and Chinese).

Interests:

 * Calligraphy
 * Physics
 * Philosophy
 * Languages
 * Fan of my hometown: Regensburg
 * CSS: My own stylesheet
 * Making Wikipedia better: Proposal for Wikimedia: WikiPlanet (Critics welcome!)
 * Making Wikipedia even better: Article Westliche Kalligrafie got 5th place in the German Wikipedia writing contest!

Articles with significant contributions of mine:

 * None in the English Wikipedia

Wikipedias

 * German Wikipedia
 * Latin Wikipedia

Other Wikimedia-Projects

 * WikiBooks
 * Wikimedia Commons
 * Meta-Wiki
 * WikiNews
 * WikiQuote
 * WikiSource
 * Wiktionary

Weblinks

 * My Homepage
 * Codepoints.net, a Unicode visualisation

deutsche Wikipedia lateinische Wikipedia

title: User:Manuel Strehl


text:
Talk:Saab Lofton

Discussion
Does anyone know when was Lofton born?--207.200.116.202 09:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this guy notable? 68.230.135.102 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he's notable, he wrote a few books. I met him today, quite an interesting character. Decided to look him up. 24.22.229.243 10:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Chris Jr.

Most if not all of the information here was lifted directly off of his website, written by him.
Check under "the personal" part of his website. The paragraph dealing with his history is taken verbatim from there. 71.217.2.24 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Complaint from subject
We got an emailed complaint from the subject of the article. I've referred it to WP:BLPN. In the meantime, the article has no third-party references and badly needs some - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose deletion
I've looked into the books listed in the bibliography... The first was published by a small defunct anarchist publisher which describes itself as publishing "pamphlets", sold out and was not reprinted. The second was described by Pop Occulture Magazine as "obviously a low-budget and quite-possibly home-printed affair". There is no evidence that either of these books received a credible review, much less meet WP:BOOK. Journalists are a dime-a-dozen and not automatically notable, and these books don't appear to establish notability either.

Therefore I am proposing deletion of the article. If the tag is remove, would someone please nominate for deletion? I can't as I can't create the deletion page... 67.67.219.223 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll keep an eye on it. I also find it a little hard to believe that he was kicked out of San Francisco State for writing a novel that was "too radical." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I went looking for sources, didn't find any, agreed with proposed deletion.-- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Greetings. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing, but I went ahead and tried to get the entry to comply to the biography guidelines. I'd figured it'd be good practice. If there's enough there to keep it from deletion, perhaps someone could suggest ways I could improve it further? Thanks for everyone's time and consideration. Potemkin01 (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 * See WP:BIO. 67.67.219.223 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 * He's written two books, and people have said on this talk page that they've come here looking for information about him. That would seem to make him notable. I did read the notable article. My revision added information and many sources, and he's been the subject of quite a few interviews, etc. I would like to revert back to the previous revision...Potemkin01 (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Most of your sources were no good. You can't use links to the book's publisher for example, or to amazon.com, to establish any thing. The publisher is not independent, and amazon is a commercial site which we can't link to. You can't just link to the newspapers or websites that the subject has worked for or published on. To establish notability, you have to provide multiple independent reliable sources by third parties who have written about the subject. Having had a couple of books published does not make the person notable. Read about verifiability, reliable sources, how to cite, what make a book notable, etc. 67.67.219.223 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 * We also do not allow text anchored links like this, Wikipedia, in the body of the text. All such external links belong at the end of the article in the external links section. Also, sentence like "Joe Blow wrote for The New York Times" is still an unsupported assertion. You must link not just to the main page for the paper for which he allegedly worked, but to some proof that he worked there, typically either a biography of the subject or at least a staff list that includes him. So, you would say, "The subject worked for such and such a company between 1999 and 2002.[link to a reliable source which says the same]. That's not really what you did. You still need to spend some time learning Wikipedia requirements. I suspect when you learn what kind of sources an article requires, you will understand that this subject has not yet attained the necessary notability. 67.67.219.223 (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I really appreciate your taking the time to explain everything. I will do much more reading. Potemkin01 (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break
OK. 67.67.219.223, I don't think you're helping matters by reverting Potemkin's well-intentioned edits to break the article into sections. The article already had a references needed tag; I think that's good enough for now.

Potemkin01, I think you were on the right track, but as you can see this is a particularly controversial biography, and there may not be enough good sources out there to salvage it. What 67.67.219.223 says about sourcing is pretty much true; we need more outside sources than the publisher.

As for the subject, someone who is presumably Saab Lofton left me a long message on my talk page about the comments made in the proposed deletion thread, above. Take that as you will. He feels like someone is harassing him with this article.

As far as the article itself goes, I think that if we can't find good sources documenting Lofton's life and body of work that we take the article to AfD, per BLP policy, and perhaps consider starting afresh later. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 * (cut unneeded uncivil comments)

 * Hey. This is not a forum for personally attacking the subject of the article. If you have something constructive or civil to say about the article itself, great. Otherwise, please don't insult the subject of the article. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 * phoebe - Thank you so much for your comments. As I replied to 67.67.219.223, I will try to be more knowledgeable in the future and read up more on the different policies. I will also try to find more secondary sources.

a note from a propaganda press editor

as an editor on propaganda press i must say that whoever is filing these complaints saab lofton has some personal vendetta against lofton as can be seen in his writings "You think it’s everyone else’s fault. That the white man is keeping you down? Take responsibility for yourself. Whitey doesn’t owe you shit niggah!" that's a direct quote read here along with the tons of comments on our site from this person using many aliases, hundreds others have ended up in the spam bin as it's the same comments over and over and over again on each article written by saab lofton. this person is a stalker. whatever is the cause of this stalking i have no idea, but a 'normal' person does not engage in this type of behaviour and i do not know saab lofton. his writings are published on our site and others have met him, i personally have not. in summary, there are lots of passive aggressive types who use the internet to go after people just because they can. then of course build up their own warped rationale that's my 2 cents

nelly avila moreno

THIS IS SAAB LOFTON AND I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP FOR ME. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, "this person is a stalker ... a 'normal' person does not engage in this type of behaviour." IT'S A FAR CRY FROM SIMPLY SAYING, "He feels like someone is harassing him with this article."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Saab Lofton. 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/20080804174609/http://www.trajanmagazine.com:80/v01/i06/10.php to http://www.trajanmagazine.com/v01/i06/10.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saab Lofton


text: User:Raketooy

title: User:Raketooy


text:
Talk:Walter Anderson (businessman)

NPOV
Short and to the point - but a little confrontational, no? Grutness|hello? 09:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gross POV in title
Walter Anderson did more than just evade taxes. The title of this article should be changed especially since it is grossly insulting to Mr. Anderson. Among other things, he also funded a space business and was the sponsor for the CATS Prize. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It's not actually POV because he's convicted, and this is a matter of public record.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I guess the question might be whether it's undue weight. Dunno.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't actually like the article name, but he probably is most notable for being the biggest tax evasion case in US legal history.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The title slanders Walt
What is the agenda of the person that is slandering Walt with that title? If a court finds that Walt is NOT a tax evader will this article issue a correction and an apology to Walt? I hope so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.17.118 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article more carefully. Walter Anderson was convicted of tax evasion, according to the article and its sources. The sources indicate he actually admitted his guilt. The statement beginning with the phrase "If a court finds that Walt is NOT a tax evader" is thus meaningless, as is the incorrect use of the word "slandering." Famspear (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Famspear, you are a lawyer. You tell me. If the government throws someone in a hole for 7 months with rats and insects and does not let the captive defend himself, and the captive confesses to a trumped up charge to save his own life, does that make the captive guilty?

Walt is innocent. It is the government that is corrupt and guilty. This will be proven in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.205.187 (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps YOU, Mr. Lawyer, should read the United States Tax Court records more carefully.

http://www.justiceforwalt.com/Records/090612_order.pdf

THAT source documents the IRS actually admitted THEIR guilt. And their admission was not coerced under inhuman captivity and life threatening conditions; unlike Walt’s admission.

So the IRS admits they were wrong about 3 of the 5 years, but you still cling to the other two years. The facts will come out. Walt will be fully exonerated and those behind all this that railroaded him will be exposed. You will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.205.187 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 * He's still convicted for the remaining two years, and it wouldn't matter that much if he was convicted for the remaining two minutes. Until the time that there's a reliable source that states that he was coerced and that he has been exonerated, I don't think you can really expect the wikipedia to support the theory you've outlined.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How many Wikipedia articles are about individual people? How many of those people have been convicted of a crime at some point in their life? For all or even most of these people does the title of their Wikipedia article label them by their crime? NO.

Why is Wikipedia treating Walt worse than other individuals in the encyclopedia with convictions? I assume it is because of someone's agenda against Walt, NOT out of proper encyclopedia protocol.

Walt is a Telephone Entrepreneur and a Philanthropist. His encyclopedia title should describe him as such. His tax conviction should be fully explained. If he is exonerated than that also should be fully explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.185.147 (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

At this link Walt speaks in an internet radio interview about his legal case and plans to continue his philanthropic assistance of space development: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1237 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.185.147 (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Dear anonymous user: No, I don't need to read the United States Tax Court records "more carefully." Perhaps you should read the record more carefully. You are arguing, essentially, that Walter Anderson is not guilty. Guilt or lack of guilt is not determined in a United States Tax Court proceeding. Guilt or lack of guilt is a criminal matter. In federal tax crime cases, guilty or not guilty verdicts are rendered only in a United States District Court. According to the sources, Anderson was found guilty. You are quite wrong. Famspear (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Walter Anderson (businessman)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight 852

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 11:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Flight 852
Non-notable advertising. --Laura Scudder | Talk 09:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable - Forbsey 23:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable school club. Dcarrano 00:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable school club promo. JamesBurns 09:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable -  Tεx  τ  urε  20:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Stephen Larkham

Stephen Larkham (born 29 May 1974) is a retired Australian rugby union professional player, currently in the role of head coach for Brumbies. He spent his career with the Brumbies in Super Rugby, for whom he played from the inception of the professional Super 12 in 1996 through 2007. He is best known for his long tenure with the Wallabies at international level, for whom he played 102 times. After initial selection at fullback from 1996 to 1997, Larkham was the first-choice Australian fly-half from 1997 to 2007, playing in the 1999, 2003, and 2007 Rugby World Cups.

Playing career
Having started his career as a fullback, Larkham developed into one of the greatest fly-halves in the history of Australian rugby, being named in 2005 at the position in Australia's team of the decade (the "decade" being the first 10 years of professional rugby union). At his peak, Larkham was one of the best flyhalves in world rugby, with reputation as an elusive runner and the lynchpin of a potent backline.

He first gained notice in 1995 when he was plucked from reserve grade club rugby to represent ACT in the Super 12 as a utility back in the Brumbies squad, playing a number of Super 12 games before attracting the attention of the national selectors. Larkham made his test debut as a reserve against Wales in Sydney in 1996 when he replaced injured Ben Tune on the wing, and then joined the Wallabies on their undefeated tour of Europe. In 1997, Larkham proved more than a capable replacement at fullback for the injured Matt Burke, with a two-try effort in the Wallabies final Test against Scotland at Murrayfield. On 16 January 2008 Larkham signed a three-year contract with Japanese club Ricoh Black Rams. After two full seasons in Japan, Larkham negotiated an early release in order to return to Australia. He played in Japan for the first half of the 2010–11 Top League season playing for the Ricoh Black Rams in Japan and then returned to Canberra in November 2010 to take up the role of attack coach for the Brumbies.

Fullback to Fly Half transition
Larkham's conversion from fullback to flyhalf is now hailed as a Rod Macqueen masterstroke that put the Wallabies on track to win the 1999 Rugby World Cup. This was initially a controversial selection as his tactical kicking was regarded as too weak for the position; however, his ability to get the Australian back line going and to slide through gaps himself quickly ended the debate. Simon Poidevin while commenting for Australian TV remarked during the third test against the All Blacks in 1998 that "anyone who thinks (Larkham) is a dud flyhalf needs their head read" (i.e. is wrong) and this was eventually accepted to be correct.

1999 Rugby World Cup drop-goal
Larkham's famous 48m-drop goal to seal victory over South Africa in extra time of the 1999 Rugby World Cup semi-final has gone down in rugby folklore as the defining moment in the Wallabies' victorious Rugby World Cup campaign. South Africa had got to the semi-final largely through the efforts of Jannie de Beer kicking five drop goals in their previous match. The fact that Larkham had quite a badly injured knee through the match caused Steve Smith to remark incredulously while calling the game for English ITV "He can barely stand on that leg and yet he just thwacked it over." The feat was even more remarkable as Larkham's eyesight was very poor at the time. Since 1999 he has had laser surgery to correct his vision, however at the time he could not see the goal posts clearly.

Following Australia's victory over France in the World Cup final, several television commercials aired in Australia humorously mocking Larkham's lack of kicking prowess. The commercial featured players and coaches expressing their astonishment that Larkham scored. The commercial begins with Larkham's school coaches saying he was a poor kicker, and had never successfully scored a drop-goal in a match. The climax of the commercial features then-captain John Eales, as well as Matt Burke, Kearns and MacQueen each saying "Don't kick it!" as footage of the moment is replayed. The commercial is available to view on YouTube.

Later career
Larkham was an important part of the Australian 2003 World Cup squad which lost in the tournament final to England. He has suffered greatly from injuries through his career, especially to his knees and right elbow. Despite these he remained a competent defender in spite of his relatively light frame. He was also tried at inside centre by John Connolly for one test against Wales 2006 but the experiment was not regarded a success and he never played there again.

He was famous for forming a long-standing half-back partnership with George Gregan, both of whom were foundation players with the ACT Brumbies rugby franchise. When both retired after the 2007 World Cup, not only were they the two most-capped Wallabies, but they played in more Tests than any other scrum-half/fly-half combination in history, with 79 appearances together. So important were they to the team that in 2007 at Bruce Stadium (Canberra Stadium), a new stand was unveiled as the "Gregan-Larkham Stand" in honour of both players and their combination to the team.

He played his last test against Japan in the 2007 World Cup before a knee injury sidelined him, which effectively ended his Test career as Australia were then knocked out of the competition before he could return.

On 14 May 2007, despite larger offers from French and English teams, Larkham signed a contract with Edinburgh Rugby in Scotland to join them after the 2007 World Cup; however; this deal subsequently fell through, reportedly because the Scottish Rugby Union would not fund the deal. Newly promoted Leeds expressed an interest, as did the Welsh side, the Dragons. However, in January 2008 it was announced that he will join Ricoh Black Rams of Japan.

Larkham played for the ACT Veterans Rugby Club at the World Vintage Rugby Carnival in Hawaii in September 2012. During this carnival he also played as a reserve for an old boys team from Brazil who, not realising who he was, asked him to play second row because he was tall. Despite his other commitments, Larkham occasionally still plays with the ACT Veterans to help them raise funds for the charities they support. On 18 February 2018, he received the GENLEC Player of the Day jacket for his great play and sportsmanship in the Clare Holland Cup charity match.

Brumbies and Australia
In 2010, Larkham returned to the Brumbies ahead of the 2011 Super Rugby season to take up the role of attack coach. He worked under the head coach of Tony Rea who left the franchise at the end of that season. Larkham and newly appointed head coach Jake White made a formidable duo, as during the 2012 Super Rugby season, the Brumbies went from being the fourth best Australian franchise to the second best behind the Queensland Reds. Larkham's attacking influence saw the Brumbies pick up 5 bonus points wins, and an overall better point difference in favor of for. He guided Matt To'omua and Christian Lealiifano to world class fly-half options, which helped the Brumbies secure the top Australian conference position during the 2013 Super Rugby season, finishing second overall losing in the final to the Chiefs 27–22. In 2014, Jake White dramatically resigned as head coach, with Larkham and Laurie Fisher being appointed joint coaches for that season. They finished second in the Australian conference and fourth in the standings after the regular season. They faced the Waratahs in the semi-final, losing 26–8 in Sydney.

In 2015, Fisher left his role to join Gloucester, with Stephen being appointed head coach. In Larkhams's debut season as head coach, he led the Brumbies to the semi-final of the 2015 Super Rugby season, finishing sixth in the overall standings at the end of the regular season. The Brumbies finished with 9 out of 16 wins, which included 3 wins over South African opposition and 2 wins over New Zealand opposition. The season also included a 29–0 win over the Queensland Reds in Brisbane, to make the Brumbies the first team to have held a team scoreless twice against the same opponent. During the qualifier round, the Brumbies convincingly beat the Stormers in Cape Town 39–19, to set up an away semi-finals against first seeds Hurricanes. The Brumbies lost this match 29–9 to be eliminated from Champions contention.

On 27 February 2015, newly appointed Wallabies coach Michael Cheika appointed Larkham as the backs and attack coach for the national side for the 2015 Rugby World Cup. That campaign saw a marked improvement in the team's performance, with the Australians winning the shortened Rugby Championship competition that year, going on to eliminate World Cup hosts England in pool play, and contesting the final against New Zealand (losing 34–17). Larkham remained with the national side until February 2019, when he was controversially sacked by Cheika after coming under intense pressure following a number of years of poor results.

Munster
Larkham joined Irish provincial side Munster as their senior coach ahead of the northern hemisphere 2019–20 season, where he works alongside head coach Johann van Graan, defence coach JP Ferreira and forwards coach Graham Rowntree. Larkham left Munster upon the conclusion of the 2021–22 season to return to his native Australia.

Return to Brumbies
Larkham returned to Brumbies in July 2022 to take up the position of head coach for the 2023 and 2024 Super Rugby Pacific seasons.

Honours
Larkham was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2012. He was admitted to the World Rugby Hall of Fame in 2018.

title: Stephen Larkham


text:
Edinburgh South (Scottish Parliament constituency)

Edinburgh South was a constituency of the Scottish Parliament (Holyrood). It elected one Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) by the plurality (first past the post) method of election. Also, however, it was one of nine constituencies in the Lothians electoral region, which elected seven additional members, in addition to nine constituency MSPs, to produce a form of proportional representation for the region as a whole.

For the Scottish Parliament election, 2011, Edinburgh South was redrawn and replaced by the renamed Edinburgh Southern constituency.

Electoral region
The other eight constituencies of the Lothians region were: Edinburgh Central, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Edinburgh North and Leith, Edinburgh Pentlands, Edinburgh West, Linlithgow, Livingston and Midlothian.

The region covered the City of Edinburgh council area, the West Lothian council area, part of the Midlothian council area, and part of the East Lothian council area.

Constituency boundaries and council area
The Edinburgh South constituency was created at the same time as the Scottish Parliament, in 1999, with the name and boundaries of an existing Westminster constituency. In 2005, however, Scottish Westminster (House of Commons) constituencies were mostly replaced with new constituencies.

The Holyrood constituency covered a southern portion of the City of Edinburgh council area. The rest of the city area is covered by five other constituencies, all also in the Lothians electoral region: Edinburgh West, Edinburgh Central, Edinburgh Pentlands, Edinburgh North and Leith, and Edinburgh East and Musselburgh.

Edinburgh South had boundaries with the Edinburgh West constituency, the Edinburgh Central constituency, and the Edinburgh East and Musselburgh constituency.

Edinburgh East and Musselburgh also covered the Musselburgh portion of the East Lothian council area. The rest of the East Lothian area was covered by the East Lothian constituency, which is in the South of Scotland electoral region.

Wards
Edinburgh South included the wards of Alnwickhill, Gilmerton, Kaimes, Marchmont, Merchiston, Moredun, Newington, North Morningside and the Grange, Prestonfield, and Sciennes, and part of the South Morningside ward, which is split with Edinburgh Pentlands. The wards were created in 1999, at the same time as the constituency, and are due to be replaced with new wards in 2007, without change to constituency boundaries.

To create the new "Edinburgh Southern" for the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, the electoral wards used are Sighthill / Gorgie; Fountainbridge / Craiglockhart; Meadows / Morningside; Southside / Newington; Liberton / Gilmerton; Portobello / Craigmillar. All these wards are divided between Southern and neighbouring constituencies, not one is contained whole within the new boundaries.

Constituency profile
Edinburgh South was predominantly suburban. It included Marchmont, Merchiston, Newington, the Grange, Sciennes and a northern area of Morningside, Moredun, Little France, Inch and Gilmerton.