text:
Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 4

Merge this article
I have a question: How big is this "movement"?

All that I can gather from the facts is that it is but a program started by and promoted by the Discovery Institute (with Phillip E. Johnson being a part of the program.) That being the case why isn't this entire subject matter listed on the Discovery Institute article?

Why is there a separate article? I discovered that the Discovery Institute has several articles related to it on Wikipedia and all of them should be merged into one article and this topic reduced to a single sub-section. If you do a search for material you will come back to the Discovery Institute and most of the written material seems to flow from one newspaper article. Therefore I say merge everything into one article about the Discovery Institute and be done with it. MPLX/MH 18:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I answered that in discussion above and gave cites to education writers and state organizations. There are many state and local org's that support it, individual science teachers support it, Wiki writers support it, Congress, the President, Ohio and Minnesota Dept of Education support it (see article).  This is definitely an education policy/movement bigger than just the DI, with, I am sure, variations that don't correspond exactly to the DI formulation.  --VorpalBlade 18:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * But was is "it"? The movement seems to be more of a collection of ideas some of which are shared in common. A Movement would have a date of origination, an organization with officers at an address and a budget. This is a but a fuzzy idea.

 * Monk raised a valid question over "Darwinism" and this aspect seems to come from Phillip E. Johnson who "...Despite the fact that he has no formal background in the biological sciences, Johnson has become a prominent critic of evolutionary theory. Johnson popularized the term "intelligent design" in its current sense in his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial, and he remains one of the best known advocates for the intelligent design movement."

 * This is NOT a "movement" and it originates as a program of the Discovery Institute and follows the writings of a layperson who has no qualifications in this subject matter.

 * Therefore the entire article should be shrunk to a sub-section within the Discovery Institute article because the Johnson entry is little more than a stub. MPLX/MH 18:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think we're stumbling around a central problem here: "TTC is not a movement, per se -- it's a proposed policy and a rallying cry." this proposed policy is supported by many people -- DI ... but also people who have nothing to do with the DI ... teachers + politicians etc.  Ungtss 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So WHO is doing the rallying? WHO began the rally? WHO is coordinating it? WHERE can I find the coordinators? WHAT is their address? WHO is paying for this movement? The answer is found in the very opening of the article: the Discovery Institute and a person with absolutely NO qualifications to address this matter! MPLX/MH 18:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Wiki policy:

 * Many Wikipedia users prefer to avoid having tags at the top of articles, particularly if it's not relevant to the reader of the article. Consider using these tags sparingly, and use the discussion page to discuss how to merge articles where it's not obvious whether or how the article should be merged.

I think it is a movement and a policy and a rallying cry. MPLX, you don't seem to address the examples I gave. You seem to mean that it is not a single organization. --VorpalBlade 18:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More from Wiki policy:

 * If you disagree with a "merge" indication then you can remove it, or change the template from to  and discuss it on this page until consensus is reached.

--VorpalBlade 19:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * as evidence that it's broader than the DI, here are [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355080/posts charles colson], renew america, and access research network on the topic. Ungtss 19:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is from the discussion above:

You can read the Jay Matthews article in the Wash Post (cited in article). He supports the movement and has nothing to do with DI. --VorpalBlade 12:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here you go (state organizations):

Ohio Minnesota

--VorpalBlade 19:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article would benefit from a list of orgs/prominent people supporting the movement, to preempt this argument? Ungtss 19:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The movement"
1. "I think it is a movement and a policy and a rallying cry. MPLX, you ... seem to mean that it is not a single organization.  --VorpalBlade 18:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
 * No, I believe just the opposite: it is a single organization called the Discovery Institute. There is a Republican Party which has a central organization, with lots of sub-groups - but they are all a part of the Republican Party. Same goes for the Democrats. Same goes for just about any movement you care to name.

2. ":as evidence that it's broader than the DI, here are [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355080/posts charles colson], renew america, and access research network on the topic. Ungtss 19:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
 * And what do they all have in common? A movement that originated with the Discovery Institute. It is their agenda.

3. "You can read the Jay Matthews article in the Wash Post (cited in article). He supports the movement and has nothing to do with DI.  --VorpalBlade 12:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
 * That is like saying someone supports the Republican Party platform (or any other party) while claiming that they have nothing to do with the Party!

4. "Ok, here you go (state organizations): Ohio Minnesota --VorpalBlade 19:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
 * Same thing. Central organization and state organizations. But it is all a part of the Discovery Institute agenda.
 * Moreover, in at last one case (Ohio, and, I suspect, the others) a director of the institute was involved in the process that led to the adoption of the policy. The document demonstrating this was posted by one of the pro-movement people editing the article (in order to make a different point); if you need the details, I'll try to find it again. The link will still be on the Talk page somewhere. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5. "Perhaps the article would benefit from a list of orgs/prominent people supporting the movement, to preempt this argument? Ungtss 19:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
 * No it won't. The idea being touted is that while this movement was created by the Discovery Institute it has nothing to do with it. The problem with this movement (Discovery Institute), is that it has set up Charles Darwin as a straw man which it is trying to knock down, when the straw opposition does not exist. There is no movement preaching Darwinism for this counter movement to be balancing. The Discovery Institute invented a straw issue which it is trying to palm off as being a genuine issue. It is not. If you think that it is then please show me where the "Darwin Movement" can be found. But in any event by the self-admission of the article it states who created it = the Discovery Institute! MPLX/MH 20:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because an organization started a movement does not mean the movement exists only within the context of that organization. above are listed at least 6 organizations promoting TTC that have nothing to do with DI.  your merge is equivalent to merging Pro-Choice into National Organization for Women.  Ungtss 20:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The old name for this co-identity was "fellow travellers", but the core remains the same and the core is the Discovery Institute. But while you are concentrating on part one of my reason to merge you are avoiding part two: this is a staw man issue. How can there be a movement to counter something that does not exist? The entire thrust of this Discovery Institute movement is to destroy Darwinism, as if Darwinism was even a live issue. Instead of comparing merging Pro-Choice into National Organization for Women, you should be talking about merging Darwinism with the Flat Earth Society, because both are unrelated, yet both issues are dead. This is a straw man issue bordering on a hoax. MPLX/MH 21:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll take your first sentence as a concession that although the "core" may be DI, that does not justify a merge, where the movement moves substantially beyond the "core." the remainder of your comments are criticism of TTC, which certainly belong on the page, but do not justify the merge in any way at all.  The fact that an issue is dead does not justify a merge.  Ungtss 21:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nooooooo! That is not a concession! It simply means that this entire subject matter is a redirect because it is the Discovery Institute agenda under another name. To show otherwise you have to show a movement, a organization, a address, a governing body and a means of financing it. MPLX/MH 21:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Would a number of independent organizations with the same agenda, and many of which have nothing to do with DI, suffice to make this analogous to Pro-Choice and National Organization of Women? If not, why?  Ungtss 21:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two people on this page have offered the argument that, if an organisation starts a political movement that influences people outside the organisation, the the movement can no longer be ascribed to the organisation. So, given that most people who vote for one or another political party aren't members of that party, we shouldn't refer to the agendas, policies, etc., as being those of the parties — because the policies are supported by outsiders. This is, of course, nonsense. The 'Teach the controversy' movemeent is the baby of the Discovery Institute, and if it's supported by others, that means that it's their successful baby; it doesn't mean that it's been adopted in any less metaphorical sense. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * sir, you are misrepresenting the argument. no one is saying it cannot be ascribed to the organization.  we are saying it should not be merged into the organization, any more than supply-side economics should be merged into Republican party or Ronald Reagan.  Ungtss 21:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why this is a straw man issue (or a hoax)
All these words keep getting farther away from reality and reality says that this movement is either a hoax (a wind-up), or a time-wasting enterprise debating a controversy that does not exist. For proof I offer the following" 1. The article states that the movement began with a book written by a man with no qualifications to write it. 2. The subject of the book is a moot issue concerning an imagined controversy over Darwinism in US public schools: but there is no controversy over Darwinism in US public schools. 3. The author is a preacher who wants to create a controversy so that he can preach in schools. That is what the article admits to! So what is this? Is it a debate over a straw man issue or is it a wind-up? Either way it can be merged with rest of the agenda flowing from the Discovery Institute article. MPLX/MH 21:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Again i repeat. you've got a cute opinion, but your opinion of the quality of the subject matter is not relevent with regard to the merge of this article.  It's a movement/proposed policy/rallying cry.  Incidentally, your strong conviction that this is a dead issue might do with a reality check.  darwin's had the reigns for 150 years, but we're not going anywhere.  we're just getting smarter.  and those who fail to recognize the formidability of their foes are doomed, eventually, to fall to them.  so if you truly believe that darwinism is the truth, i implore you, do not pretend that your foes have disappeared.  instead, know your enemy, and meet him on the open field of reason rather than the backwoods of censorship and ad hominem.  it's your only hope for victory.  Ungtss 21:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) It's interesting that you (yet again) don't address any of the points, but make vague, general statements.
 * 2) It's also interesting (and depressing) that you choose such aggressive, confrontational language ("your foes", "your enemy", etc.). This sort of sub-Winston Churchill rhetoric sits very badly on a Wikipedia Talk page.
 * 3) Your grasp of the history and current status of science is very weak. First, Darwin hasn't held any reins for 150 years; his views almost disappeared into obscurity until the early twentieth century, when the work of Mendel was (after being used to oppose Darwin) married with Darwin's ideas to produce the new synthesis (neo-Darwinism).  Since then, biology has developed, refined, and challenged Darwin's ideas in many ways.  What has never been challenged, because there has never been any good reason to challenge it, is the basic fact of evolution.  What controversy there is concerns the mechanisms and the phylogenetic story. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) his points had to do with the validity of ID. I have no interest in debating that point.  it is irrelevent to the quality and content of the page, which are my only goals;
 * 2) i did not assume confrontational language. i noted that comments of his such as "The author is a preacher who wants to create a controversy so that he can preach in schools." indicate that he is not a big fan of ID or its proponents, and thus they are his foes.  i have no beef with evolutionists myself.  my beef is with fundamentalists of either the creationist or evolutionist variety.
 * 3) i know the history of evolution. you're simply exploiting an irrelevent poetic imprecision in my point to avoid the primary point.  you're right, darwinism faded until mendelism was twisted out of recognition of support the resurgence of darwinism in the mid-20th century.  but even during the time when orthogenesis et al ruled, those views were inconsistent with biblical creationism.  nevertheless, the creationists were still there.  we're not going away.  pretending we are going away doesn't help your ends.  figuring out what we're saying and ravaging it in the light of reason is the only hope you have.  Ungtss 22:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And again you throw out vague and confrontational language without really saying anything to the point. One way of avoiding misunderstandings (not exploitation; why do you assume bad faith?) caused by your "irrelevant poetic imprecision" is — cut out the irrelevant poetic imprecision. You might also cut out the histrionics ("we're not going away. pretending we're going away..." etc.). But then there's be nothing left. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There was nothing for me to respond to, except our friend's conspiracy theories about how johnson just wants to preach in schools and bang people over the head with his Wedge. I note also that my refutation of your misrepresentation of my argument in the section above is as-yet-unanswered, and that no coherent argument for the merge has yet been articulated, and i await your response.  Ungtss 22:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd say that "johnson just wants to preach in schools and bang people over the head with his Wedge" accurately sums up reality and is exactly what his agenda is judging by his many writings and the quotes found in the article. FeloniousMonk 23:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say we should take a moment to distinguish "opinion" from "reality" at this point, and note that npov allows a structure in which both your opinion and mine can peacefully coexist. Ungtss 23:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * god! (small), for a moment I thought that Mel Etitis was just being a git and opposing whatever, until I read on to see that (GOD ALMIGHTY!), we are on the same bloody side on this issue! I am also totally in agreement with the opinion expressed by FeloniousMonk. MPLX/MH 01:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you all agree. perhaps you'd like to explain how your agreement holds any relevence for the proposed merge of this page?  Ungtss 01:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes please! Me Sir, me Sir!
While I think that Johnson is a total twit - because no one is debating Darwin, and contrary to an interpretation of my earlier remarks, I did not want anyone to gain from my writings the opinion that Darwin's views have been swallowed hook line and sinker by the scientific community - just the opposite is true. But Darwin did kick off a debate which still continues. Advanced knowledge has now switched on the light to show everyone who looks to see that that this is a much more complicated and complex issue than previously thought. But Darwin is like a 78rpm record. He is not even a revived 45, let alone an LP. Now CDs are moving on to DVDs and beyond as is our understanding of life and the universes. Of course we still can't answer the ultimate questions about the original Big Bang and why it happened or what (or who) caused it to happen, which is why I still believe in Nature's God and Nature's Laws which the USA was founded upon (NOT Christianity! and certainly not the primitive mind set of Mr. Johnson and his friends.) I just wanted to make myself clear. IF this article was REALLY about THAT controverial issue I would be all for it, but this article is really a cheap dressing-up of nothing more than tub-thumping, idiotic, primitive and Elmer Gantry style religion! There's nothing controversial about that and Burt did a great job on the screen of showing anyone with an open mind what Johnson's agenda really is. Merge this rubbish with Discovery Institute. MPLX/MH 02:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid your argument is still non sequitur. you're saying we should merge the article because the arguments of TTC are stupid, outdated, and "primitive."  but your conclusion does not follow from your premise.  Fascism is stupid, but nobody's suggesting we merge it into Nazi or Hitler.  the stupidity of an idea does not justify merging it into the article of a group that originated it, when the idea is held by many people beyond that group.  i'm aware of your opinion that my beliefs are primitive.  of what relevence is that to the merge of this article?  Ungtss 02:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Now we have switched from your previous analogy to a new one, but the comparison is still the same. Of course I am not suggesting that it is merged because Johnson's writings are absurd, I am asking for it to be merged because this article already has a home at Discovery Institute. Again you come back to the group concept but the ONLY group that I am aware of (so far in this discussion) is the Discovery Institute. I did not suggest that your views are primitive because I do not know what your views are. I stated that Johnson was Elmer Gantry in disguise. The only problem is that most people who have any education have already seen that movie many times, laughed, sighed and gone to bed (I am now thinking of Groundhog Day.) MPLX/MH 02:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * your argument is that "the only group you're aware of who invokes TTC is DI." counterevidence: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355080/posts charles colson], renew america, access research network,  Ohio, and Minnesota.  these are all different organizations.  yes, they work with DI to achieve their mutual goals.  But they are not DI.  I don't think there is reason to believe that, as you said, "DI is the only group who invokes TTC."  Ungtss 02:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FRANCHISE OPERATION: So you have driven the last nail into the coffin of this Discovery Institute scheme. Yes, fellow travellers picked up on it after Discovery Institute created it with Johnson's help and they continue to work with Discovery Institute. Of course they do. This baby was given birth and brought into the village (Hillary said "it takes a village") to raise this child of which the Discovery Institute is the mother and Johnson is the father. What is left to say but "merge this sucker now!" MPLX/MH 04:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a lot left to say, but i've learned what on wikipedia creationism articles, it doesn't matter what you say, because reason doesn't apply. so let's merge "Intelligent design," "Irreducible complexity," and "Specified complexity" while we're at it, since the same non-reasoning you're using here applies in those cases.  Carry on.  Ungtss 11:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The dishonesty of this article

 * Darwinism is NOT the opposite of Creationism. Many people in the scientific community have an open mind about the origins of life and the universes, but they do not see a "controversy" where none exists (between Darwinism and Creationism). This is a DISHONEST bit of religious propaganda in the style of Elmer Gantry with Johnson admitting that education is not his aim. Johnson is just like all dictators who gain a foothold by democratic methods: first they get elected and then they ban elections. In this case he wants to enter the classroom in the disguise of an educator and then strip off his mask and reveal himself as Elmer Gantry. It is a dishonest controversy because Johnson is creating a controversy which he knows does not exist in order for him to be declared the victor. How ironic that Johnson who tub thumps for the 10 Commandments has forgotten one of them. MPLX/MH 14:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is not dishonest. The people mentioned in the article may or may not be dishonest.  It is possible (and necessary) to write honest articles about dishonest people.  The dishonesty of the subject matter does not justify merging it into another article.  it justifies cited, sourced, and attributed instances in which dishonesty was reported.  Ungtss 14:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Just because you think the controversy is settled doesn't mean everyone does. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why this article is dishonest
1. It claims to be about a controversy: the controversy as stated does not exist.
 * the article can fairly represent this pov without being merged. Ungtss 15:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Darwinism is not being promoted as the alternative to Creationism.
 * this is irrelevent to the TTC agenda, and the article.

3. The people behind this alleged controversy call it a wedge agenda in order to get their own religious dogma into the classroom in the disguise of academic discussion.
 * the article can fairly reflect this conspiracy theory of yours without being merged.

4. The Discovery Institute which is paying for this agenda is palming it off as a broadbased "movement" when in reality the agenda would not have existed if Johnson and the Discovery Institute had not created it and continued to push it.
 * the article can fairly reflect this conspiracy theory of yours without being merged.

5. Advocates of the agenda on this page have already admitted that they are merely pamphleteers and are flag wavers for a cause, not an academic discussion.
 * um ... who? Ungtss 15:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6. This is not an academic issue but a fundamentalist theological issue.
 * the article can fairly reflect this pov without being merged.

7. If "Darwinism" does not exist as a threat then neither does the controversy.
 * the article can fairly represent this pov without being merged.

8. The "movement" is really the agenda of the Discovery Institute.
 * the article can fairly reflect this pov without being merged.

no justification for merge, sir. none. justification for the article: it's a movement for a particular education policy being promoted by a number of groups. the article should describe the stated goals of the movement, and critiques of that goal. Ungtss 15:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * On the basis of 4 above, pretty much all politics should be disallowed from Wikipedia, since there is almost always a party or organisation paying to have its agenda advanced. DJ Clayworth 18:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wiki policy on duplicate articles and merging

 * This on Wiki policy:

Duplicate articles From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Shortcut: WP:DA

Below is a list of duplicate articles that have been created mostly by mistake. They have to be merged into a single piece of work, and one title has to be redirected to the other (or a completely new page must be created) in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Canonicalization.

Categories that need merging can be listed [together] on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion where one category will be deleted after merging into the other.

Although this page does not automatically update as does Category:Articles to be merged, this page has nevertheless been kept because unlike the category page, this page allows editors to make comments about the articles to be merged.

If you disagree with a "merge" indication then you can remove it, or change the template from to  and discuss it on this page until consensus is reached. ____________________________

 * The reason to merge is that two articles are duplicates of each other.   I think that Discovery Institute and Teach the Controversy are clearly not duplicates of each other.  If there is an appearance of duplication, I agree, and it is because others have included extensive ad hominem criticisms of the originators of the policy.  A good article might contain brief mentions of such arguments and links to the other pages, but not lengthy discussion.  This issue of relevancy was discussed above in Archive 1.  The proper solution is to take out these lengthy discussions and move them to a different page, if appropriate, not merging the entire article.

 * We have shown widespread support for this policy outside the DI by many other individuals and organizations, as well as implementation or support of the policy by the US Congress, the US President, the state of Ohio (as discussed in the article) as well as the state of Minnesota. It seems quite strange to claim that this does not deserve a separate article.

 * The opinions on merging seem to be lining up according to who likes the policy and who doesn't like it (and who thinks it is a hoax or who has a conspiracy theory regarding it). Not liking a policy or movement is not a basis for merging an article.  Nor is belief in a conspiracy theory regarding it.  I continue to note that I have not seen much or any substantive criticism of the policy, even though we have a concrete implementation in the Ohio Model Lesson Plan (linked in the article).  All the criticism is directed at the originators.  This also seems to violate Wiki policy.

 * I guess you did not read my comments and talked on past them so I moved them here. My objection is to the title - because there is no controversy over Darwinism - that is a dead duck. This leads me back to my original comment which has not been answered:

The article is a fraud: The article is called "Teach the Controversy" - but there is NO controversy! The article claims to represent a "movement" but there is no movement outside of the coordinated activities of the Discovery Institute. Johnson himself has admitted to his own fraud: he has stated that he wants to wedge himself into the classroom on an issue for which he lacks any qualifications in order to push a religious agenda. He has admitted his agenda. MPLX/MH 15:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe that a vote to merge is a vote to violate Wiki policy on neutrality and Wiki policy on duplicate articles and merging.

--VorpalBlade 14:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. unfortunately, such votes to directly violate policy are the rule, rather than the exception, when related to this topic.  they are, in fact, tacitly encouraged.  Ungtss 14:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 4


text:
Talk:Cricket/Archive 4

Inning vs Innings
Can we reach some kind of consensus on this issue. Recently, there has been a lot of changes and reversions relating to the particular terminology. Whilst the (presumably American-preferred) "inning" seems to be fairly popular, it is also true that the vast majority of cricket players/supporters/administrators are not American and use the term "innings", even if there is no seeming reason for this, bar long-standing convention. Perhaps some decision is necessary, so we can prevent needless changes and reverts. Smoddy 22:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) 22:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * There's nothing to reach consensus on. The cricket term is 'innings' (both singular and plural). Full stop. Nothing to argue on. It is always 'innings' in cricket: never, ever 'inning', regardless of whether Americans keep getting it wrong by way of false analogy with baseball. Law 12 of the Laws of cricket makes that clear: See . There's meant to be a way of writing in the text something that doesn't appear on the screen. Maybe we should add text to the effect that 'cricket uses the term innings and NEVER inning - please do not change'. If you know how to do it, please add it to the article. jguk 23:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I quite agree with you. Thanks. 19:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) Smoddy 19:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Done earlier today, by the way. Comments are done by enclosing them with . -- ALoan (Talk) 20:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

National Game
I have lived in Australia and did not know that Cricket is the national sport of Australia. Are you sure about this?

I agree with you, anonymous. Also, what actually is a national sport - how is it defined? Seems to me to be a very arbitrary distinction. I have deleted it. Jongarrettuk 20:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a reaction to the (sometimes acrimonious) divides in the football codes, so cricket, which enjoys reasonably uniform support everywhere, gets the mantle.

I have deleted the reference to Canada, so the article again reads that cricket is popular in Commonwealth countries. This is because there are many Commonwealth countries where cricket would not be said to be popular. Identifying just Canada suggests cricket is popular throughout the Commonwealth. The countries where it is not popular include Belize, Botswana, Mozambique, Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana, the Gambia, Cameroon, Malta, Cyprus and many Pacific Island nations. Jongarrettuk 07:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd submit that cricket *is* popular in Uganda, and add Scotland to your list (I've seen cricket played in Scotland but the participants were all English, Australian or of Indian or Pakistani extraction).

 * Some of the Pacific Island (Samoa and Tonga and perhaps Fiji)nations play a variant of Cricket that resembles an eighteenth century version of the game. There are only two stumps, the bat is larger - resembling a hockey-stick like club, and the number of players often exceed eleven. I'll have a hunt around to see if we have an article on it. Lisiate 23:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lampoon
WTF is that bit about lampooning other countries and diplomatic outrage about? It's not explained in the article, and it's certainly not clear to me what it means. Pakistani ball-tampering? Murali chucker-or-not? Kiwis are all sheep-shaggers? Perhaps someone could make more sense of it. Harry R 12:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It need not be mentioned in the article itself, but if you insist, another article on cricket culture can be created and linked there. Specifically it is refers to Aus vs NZ/Eng; Ind vs Pak / Eng vs Zim. The recent incident where Aus PM John Howard slipped up and called indirectly Murali a "chucker" also comes to mind. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]]

 * OK. I think 'rival nations have lampooned each other over cricket matches' is an odd phrasing in that case. It sounds too specific; calling someone a 'chucker' is hardly a lampoon, it's an accusation. How about something like "cricket generates fierce national rivalries, occasionally spilling over into diplomatic incidents." Or whatever. Harry R 19:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * definately an improvement, but "diplomatic incidents" sounds vague. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]]
 * An example might be the famous "underarm" incident in a New Zealand/Australia game in 1981 -- with New Zealand trailing by six runs and only one ball left to play, Trevor Chappell bowled the final ball underarm, making it impossible to hit the six needed to tie the match. 218.101.90.157 12:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's worth noting that the "Bodyline" incidents that took place in 1930 when England toured Australia DID lead to international incidents, with the enraged Australian public almost taking up a boycott against buying English goods. There's already an article on this topic but I think it's a strong example of diplomatic incidents that have occurred over cricket.

Innings
I've added a note that an innings cannot be declared in a one-day limited overs game. Like many other laws, this was brought in to deter gamesmanship: an English side (was is Gloucs?) declared their innings closed at 0 for 0 after 1 ball to preserve their net run rate in a league competition. Jongarrettuk 18:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Three Cheers
Three cheers to all who have made this article a FEATURED ARTICLE to appear on the front page today. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 18:30, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Methods of dismissal
Since this article is already 30k long, should we just list the methods of dismissal here without giving any explanation. There's already a link to a separate 'dismissals' page - so anyone wanting more explanation can go there. What do others think? Jongarrettuk 20:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It won't take off too many bytes. Some are worth mentioning though, just for encyclopedic purposes, I think we should look at the field overview and types of cricket for a mild pruning. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 20:29, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Bowling
In the bowling section, the following (partial) definition of a legal bowl is used:

When bowling, bowlers must release the ball with at least one foot inside the area bounded by the popping crease and the return creases to prevent it from being called a no-ball.

Shouldn't this be both feet, rather than at least one foot? I don't know the text of the rule, but it looks like this definition would allow a bowl with the back foot just behind the popping crease.

 * That's exactly what happens; a no-ball is called for overstepping the crease only if both feet are in front of the popping crease.

 * I thought a no-ball was called if both feet are in front of the bowling crease, or if the front foot is in front of the popping crease, or if both feet are outside the return crease. I may have technical misunderstandings here; but what's certain is that you cannot bowl with nothing but your back foot behind the popping crease.  Aramael 13:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Out Caught Ball
Gareth, It may be the way everyone says it, but having never heard it, there seems to be a word missing. Perhaps we need some explaination about the jargon before using it. TomCerul 15:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What something like this :
 * Briefly, the eleven modes of dismissal are:
 * * Caught – if a fielder catches the ball after the batsman strikes it, before the ball bounces.

 * Whaddya know? It's in the paragraph before GWO

That description fails to inlcude "Out Caught Ball". TomCerul 15:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hardly surprising, because that's a term that you have just invented. It describes what it means to be out "caught", though.
 * Oh, even more words missing to my unaccustomed eye. For baseball, we might say someone was caught out, but "out caught" is Strange.  Is it common to say that someone is out caught in cricket?
 * Usually, you'd omit the "out" too. "out, caught", is common, with a modifier.

(Can you out catch someone?)
 * No,

If not, maybe "A batsman cannot be dismissed because of a caught ball, . . ."
 * It's the word "ball" that's not used. You just never say, "caught ball".  You can say "caught out" (common), "out, caught" is common with a modifier, but the "ball" bit is eternally omitted.  The "out caught" is not too common on its own, but works (by analogy) in a list because you *do* say
 * Flintoff was out LBW.
 * Boycott was out stumped.
 * Owen was out, caught behind off the bowling of Tendulkar...

If "out caught" is the phrasing, let's mention that in the Caught description. TomCerul 15:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it reads better to say "out LBW, bowled, caught, etc..."
 * I agree.  :D TomCerul

This seems to be overly complicated, does it fit in this paragraph or not? "A batsman may be dismissed by any means from a "wide" ball, although any delivery that bowls a batsman, or traps him leg before wicket, would not be called wide. Similarly, any ball hit by the batsman is not considered a wide, and so he may be out caught."
 * It could probably be omitted. If its complicated now, thats better than how it was before, when it was simply wrong.
 * Let's pull it, the paragraph can simply explain no-ball. TomCerul 15:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Good idea -- in this context (bowler error reprieving out batsmen) no balls are the only thing relevant.
 * Done. This has been a wierd experience.  I thought this was going to turn into a flame war.  It's a different internet than it used to be.   BTW, do you know about the 4 tilde trick?  If you include 4 ~'s with no spaces, it signs your post.  TomCerul 15:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, (I've been here forever). I prefer the three tilde trick, myself. GWO

My apologies, but I've never even seen this game played. TomCerul 15:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) --- Tom: The each time a bowler throws the ball to the batsman it is called a (bowled) 'ball'; to avoid disambiguations here, we use the term "delivery" instead (which is also popular). An illegal thrown ball -- a no-ball occurs when the bowler's foot is out of the specified area or the fielding team violates fielding restrictions (plus a few more cases are there too). A wide occurs when the bowled ball passes too far away from the batsman, such that it is out of his normal reach (hence the name wide). A wide-ball is called by the umpire only if the above condition occurs and the batsman fails to hit this delivery. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:30, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

dimensions
Can somebody check the imperial and metric dimensions against the laws of cricket? I added some by conversion, but I am not convinced the article is satisfactory. Thanks Bobblewik (talk) 16:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm sure it isn't satisfactory - some of the imperial dimensions in 'the pitch' were clearly wrong and I have amended them by reference to the rules of cricket, but the article probably needs someone less busy and more methodical than me to go through and check all the dimensions Jongarrettuk 18:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I wrote that paragraph, could you be specific as to what is wrong? I had crosschecked the figures before adding. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:10, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * It said the pitch was 72 feet long by 12 - Law 7.1 provides that it's 22 yards by 10 feet (ie 66 feet by 10 feet); Law 9.3 provides that the popping crease is marked for at least 6 feet either side of the middle of the pitch. It's these that I was referring to. I kinda guessed someone vandalised it along the way and it hadn't been picked up rather than it having initially been written wrong Jongarrettuk 19:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah yes, well actually, that particular figure is the area of the clay strip. Beyond the stumps at both endsif you've noticed some extra part is also included, this adds up to the 72 feet. Similarly with the width. However the distance between the two wickets are the 22 yards. It wont be wrong to say that 72 feet are the dimentions of the playing area. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * I understand that the laws have both metric and imperial values. If you take the imperial values from the laws, please also take the metric values from there too. That would be better than applying our own conversions and getting different figures. Thanks Bobblewik (talk) 10:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't know official metric and imperial units differ. Are the metric figures rounded up or something? ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:37, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * They're rounded to two decimal points, that's all Jongarrettuk 19:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wides and no balls
I prefer Nichalp's wording for wides and no balls - before this is changed again, bear in mind that law 24.15 states:

Out from a No ball When No ball has been called, neither batsman shall be out under any of the Laws except 33 (Handled the ball), 34 (Hit the ball twice), 37 (Obstructing the field) or 38 (Run out)].

and law 25.8 states:

8. Out from a Wide When Wide ball has been called, neither batsman shall be out under any of the Laws except 33 (Handled the ball), 35 (Hit wicket), 37 (Obstructing the field), 38 (Run out) or 39 (Stumped).

We could change the text to mirror the laws, or just list (as we do now) what methods of dismissal don't apply. Jongarrettuk 19:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I feel that law numbers should be kept off this page. It would look too "official" and dictionary type. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]]

 * I absolutely agree with you about keeping them off the main page. But the main page should, I think, be consistent with them. As you've probably guessed by now:) I think they are useful in discussing improvements/accuracy of the main page on this talk page. Jongarrettuk 19:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Substitutes
I don't understand where the reference to a fitness test before a match comes from. Can you provide a reference? It's not in law 2 and I've never heard of it before. Jongarrettuk 19:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not familiar with the exact law numbers, but an batsman who is unfit before the game starts, is not allowed access to a runner or substitute. I am certain of this rule. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:29, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is in Law Two (indirectly)
 * If the umpires are satisfied that a player has been injured or become ill after the nomination of the players, they shall allow that player to have'
 * (i) a substitute acting instead of him in the field.
 * Present interpretation is that players undergo fitness tests so umpires can rule when the injury occured GWO 07:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's true, but that doesn't mean everyone takes a fitness test - have a look at one of the two links to the laws at the bottom of the article (there are only 42 of them, all with straightforward names). I'd also be interested in why you've put that the creases are marked for at least 30 yards (27 m) on either side of the pitch - the only ref I'm aware of in the laws is to 6 feet, though I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. Jongarrettuk 19:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The popping creases is extended upto infinity. It is drawn upto 30 yards thereoff. Remember, the square leg umpire has to stand on the popping crease. This also aids the runners. I've never seen a popping crease just six yards off the pitch. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed that the popping (and also the return) crease is extended up to infinity. I also agree that the minimum marked extension of 6 feet either side of the middle of the pitch is usually exceeded (and by quite a bit too!). The thing is the laws only state a minimum, and I'm not aware of where the 30 yard figure comes from (if you have a good reference, I'll concede). The shortest markings I've ever seen are when I've played at a local park recreationally - the ones I see at the Oval are much much longer! Jongarrettuk 19:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't say that the 30 yard visual extension is a hard and fast rule. Since it is extended to a fair distance, (isn't the square-leg ump placed on the intersection of this line and the 30 yard circle?) it would be safe to say that the popping crease is usually marked upto 30 yards (in formal cricket). ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 20:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Cricket
from WP:FARC Now I may just be the dumb american, but the claim that it is the second most popular sport in the world needs to be backed up. Can it's attendence be matched up to how much attendance is done in Baseball in America, Japan, The Carribean, Korea, Taiwan, Canada and Central America? I'd like to see Attendance figures, if they can't match what Baseball has had in the Americas and the Far East, then I want it changed to "Second most popular game outside of North America", or something. Sorry if I sound like the ugly american, but I do have a point, it does need to be backed up. --Gamingboy 17:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed that sentence. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.--Gamingboy 17:42, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest removing that claim from any article making it. The second most popular sport in the world isn't clear. Cricket might be able to beat baseball, though, simply by its popularity in India. Average Earthman 17:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, remove "second best" remarks from all sports. --Gamingboy 20:44, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * The phrase mentioned that "Cricket is the second largest viewed sport. It is watched in all Test nations, numbers which would beat many other sports including baseball. The Cricket World Cup is the third largest sporting event watched on television. Come to India and you'll see why :) -- Nichalp

Why is this here and not on that article's talk page? →Raul654 21:03, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm new here. I figured it was a error on a Featured Article, so it would go here.--Gamingboy 21:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * (For the record) Keep. (Should this discussion be moved to Talk:cricket?) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This shouldn't be here. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason to remove it for that kind of problem, and its been rectified anyway. Kiand 18:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Something that is not mentioned in the run scoring section of the page is: If the batter hits the ball and runs to the other end, thus the 'non-striker' running to the batting end, for a score add of one, does the 'non-striker' then become the striker because he is at that end of the pitch? I know NOTHING of cricket and was reading the article to learn about it.

 * Yes, the non-striker becomes the striker if one run is scored (or any odd number of runs).

 * However, at the end of an over, the bowling end changes - that is, if the bowler was bowling from one end of the pitch, the next over will be bowled from the other end. So if the batsmen take one run on the last ball of an over, the guy who was the striker is still going to be the striker. --ashwatha 01:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Should this be mentioned in the main page, as part of scoring maybe?

Seam Bowling
Is the seam bowling article authentic? Seems to me like a it is some kind of top-spin bowling. I'm sure there's more to it. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 20:36, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems correct. But it's not a very good article, is it? Jongarrettuk 20:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is authentic, but not brilliant prose.
 * Generally, seam bowlers bowl quicker, with the seam nearly parallel to the direction of flight of the ball - the idea is to bounce the ball sideways off the seam (i.e. the ball actually bounces on the seam non-symetrically, creating sideways deviation). The ball is usually imparted some top spin so that it remains stable through the air, but the spin does not create the sideways deviation.
 * Underspin rather than top spin, induced by pulling the fingers down on release.
 * Spin bowlers generally bowl slower, with the seam transverse to the direction of flight of the ball (i.e. the ball bounces on the seam symetrically, so the seam can bite into the pitch and spin the ball sideways).
 * Some pace bowlers bowl spun deliveries with the seam transverse to the flight of the ball called "cutters", but cutters are usually bowled a bit slower that full speed otherwise the seam does not have enough time to "grip" the pitch when it bounces.
 * HTH (and someone please correct me if I am wrong). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a poor article. The reason its in that state is that it was previously just plain wrong, conflating seam bowling with swing bowling.  I modified it so it was no longer egregiously inaccurate, but couldn't be bothered to give it the full rewrite required -- GWO 10:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - and I wasn't having a 'go' (I've written/contributed to many crap articles myself, so have no stone to case), just leaving a note in case there's anyone more motivated that you and me who wants to improve it. Jongarrettuk 15:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I wasn't apologising. :) -- GWO

Leg side rule
Any idea why batsmen are not given out LBW if the ball pitches on the leg side of the pitch? I feel that this rule is particularly hard on left-arm bowlers and leg-spinners. Should this rule be revoked? ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:55, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Because otherwise the game would be massively biased towards bowlers who then always seek to pitch the ball outside leg and move towards the stumps. Games would always be over in one or two days. Without the rule, lots and lots of deliveries effectively become unplayable. Or at least that's what they say whenever it's discussed on TV or Test Match Special. I must say, the explanation makes sense to me. jguk 20:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) PS Glad to see your guys get one over on the Aussies for once!

 * In ODI cricket, if the pitched ball misses the batsman and goes down leg, it is wided. If the ball is aligned on leg-stump, then is is easier for the ball to be hit on the off-side, with less of a chance for the batsman being out bowled or snicking the ball. Also, with the six fielder restriction in ODI cricket, teams can't set bodyline field placements if the ball is pitched on leg. I'm not sure how deliveries become unplayable as many deliveries are pitched outside leg-stump and still hit for sixes and fours. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 17:58, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Imagine if all the balls players now pad up to have to be played. Remember, the bad balls that can be gotten away are put away now, but a lot of balls get padded up to too. All these would suddenly become potential wicket taking deliveries. Bodyline fields (more than 2 mean behind square on the leg side) can't be set under any form of cricket. But there is no bar on having 2 leg slips and a couple of men in close on the leg side in front of square ready for the catch. And let me assure you, they often mention this on TV here, and all the former test players say the same thing: it would make too many deliveries unplayable. jguk 19:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * No no, what you're saying above is perfectly legal to employ. Many deliveries are still pitched outside leg-stump. I've seen many left-arm bowlers pitch the ball outside legstump and then angle it into RHB. Its legal to do this. But sadly if the batsman misses the ball, he can't get out LBW even thought it would have shattered the stumps. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:18, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * And the reason for that is, if you could get LBW's, there'd be no reason for left armers to bowl anywhere else (especially slow left armers). And that would lead to lots of negative tactics -- slinging it down leg and hoping for some movement, knowing that its much harder for the batsman to punish the bad ball down the leg side.  It's about discouraging negative tactics, and making the game more interesting.  --- GWO

 * I think the key aspect here is that this only applies if the batsman is playing a shot. If the batsman fails to offer a shot, then he can be given out to any ball, no matter where it pitches, if in the opinion of the umpire it was going to hit the stumps. This is an excellent rule, as it prevents negative play on the part of the batsman - and a batsman padding up over after over is as negative as it gets. Unfortunately, umpires (especially English umpires?) have traditionally been, for some unexplained reason, reluctant to enforce this rule. Batsmen would make the weakest and most unconvincing bit of a vague wave of the bat after the ball had passed through to the keeper, and were deemed to have played a shot. But this seems to be changing of late, umpires seem to have got the message at last - and none to soon!. Tannin 13:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If the batsman fails to offer a shot, then he can be given out to any ball, no matter where it pitches.
 * That's just incorrect. A batsman is never out LBW to a ball that pitches outside leg.  The "not playing a shot" clause applies if the batsman is hit outside the line of off stump by a ball that would go on an hit them. Pitches in the leg-side = not out.  Always.  See LBW (and Laws 36.1b and 36.1d(i,ii)  --- GWO

There are ample laws to wide any delivery that goes past leg in the ODI format. If I was a left-arm bowler, I'll still pitch the ball outside leg and sometimes hope to bowl the batsman around his legs (like Warne sometimes does). However he can't get out LBW, which I feel is sad. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | [[User talk:nichalp| ✉ ]] 19:08, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * I prefer five day tests over one or two day tests. And the rule didn't stop Harbajan Singh from getting "7 for" either. jguk 20:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Harbhajan Singh bowls right arm off-breaks. Pitching it down the leg side's no good to him. It's a tactic for the leggie and the orthodox slow left armer. -- GWO
 * Well that depends on whether the batsman is left or right handed (not that I checked how many of the South Africans are left handed). jguk 23:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * True, true. Smith and Rudolf are left handers, Harbhajan's other five victims were right handers. -- GWO
 * To Nichalp; well, the other problem which pitching the ball down leg is that if you stray off your line, or the ball's not turning much, you tend to get smashed to cow corner. -- GWO

WikiProject Cricket
May I invite you all to a new WikiProject to improve the quality and depth of cricket articles on Wikipedia. It's located on WikiProject Cricket. I'm taking the approach of let's see who's interested and let's see which bits we want to improve/expand to begin with. Once we know that, hopefully we can work together to improve Wikipedia's cricket coverage. jguk 16:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infobox
In addition to the Cricket WikiProhect, I would like to announce the infobox for cricket players. It has statistics, the flag etc. I would like to call upon all Cricket fans on the Wikipedia to come, test, suggest and if you want edit this box so it looks good enough to use on the other cricket players. So far I started one on Murali, so come and see this very alpha version of the infobox: Template:Muttiah Muralitharan infobox
 * Update: The box has been improved by User:Smoddy and the new version is at Template:Infobox Cricketer. See WikiProject Cricket talk page for more details. The one I started has been deleted due to it not being global and obselete. Squash 23:22, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Two test match articles
First Test Match and Second Test Match are bare scorecards for matches in the recent India v. Australia series. They were apparently copied from Cricinfo. They are both on Cleanup. I would like some opinions on... Thanks in advance for your comments. --rbrwr± 19:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * whether we should have such articles - is every individual Test Match sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article? Is any Test Match notable?
 * whether a scorecard can be copyrighted - that is to say, is the presentation of the scorecard in this format a violation of cricinfo's copyright?
 * how should articles about Test matches (if we are to have them) be named? Obviously "First Test Match" is not a unique name. Should it be India v. Australia, 1st Test, 2004-5, or some other format?
 * I personally think this page is totally useless. If the user wants scorecards from Tests, let them look at the Cricinfo page.  These articles are not encyclopedic at all.  I think they should be deleted.  As for whether they are copyright - the data itself is clearly not copyright.  However, with the formatting exactly preserved, and no question of any fair use being applicable, I think copyright could have been infringed.  Even more - the only article that links to the pages is 2004 in India.  These articles in no way contribute to Wikipedia.  The pages also infringe several articles on what Wikipedia is not.  I say, delete asap.  Smoddy | Talk 19:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think that all matches played should have scorecards put up on wikipedia. The formatting is fine and no copyright infringement can be taken as that is the most common way that scores are represented. Nichalp 19:04, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Helmets
Does anyone know the early history of the use of helmets in Test cricket? I'm sure that I read somewhere some time ago (I can't for the life of me remember where it was though) that Graeme Yallop was the first user. Can anyone confirm or correct this please - Ianbrown 03:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * or maybe it was David Hookes? Ianbrown 05:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * There was some discusssion of Viv Richards' aversion to cricket helmets on Talk:Viv Richards - including this comment that I made "The Age makes some interesting comments on the introduction of cricket helmets here." -- ALoan (Talk) 10:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Commment
The article claims "cricket remained illegal until 1748", but the Guiness Book of Records says "the earliest major match of which a full score survives was one in which a team representing England (40 and 70) was beaten by Kent (53 and 58 for 9) by one wicket at the Artillery Ground in Finsbury, London, on 18 Jun 1744". I'm pretty sure 1744 is earlier than 1748.

Also, it's probably worth noting that the first international cricket match was played between the USA and Canada in 1844 (again, according to Guiness). 218.101.90.157 12:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just started reading A Social History of English Cricket by Derek Birley ISBN 1-85410-941-3. It was named William Hill Sports Book of The Year in 1999, and, even though I'm only up to Chapter 3, I heartily recommend it. That book does not refer to cricket ever being illegal. It notes only that it needed to comply first with Sabbath-observance laws (mid-17th century), and then gaming laws that made bets of first £100 and later £10 illegal (mid-17th century to 18th century). The only reference in Birley's well-researched book to a 1748 court case that I've seen is a London magistrate conceding that cricket is a manly game, but condemning its ill use by betting above the limit of £10. I will change the reference both here and on History of cricket, though I'd be interested to know, if the original contributor can step forward, what the source for the reference to cricket being illegal is, jguk 19:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * User:Dmmaus (he's been offline for quite sometime) and User:Lord Emsworth had quite a say in the history of cricket when it was written. Nichalp 19:34, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Radius or diameter
WRT a recent edit. Is it the radius or diameter of a field that is 150 metres? Nichalp 19:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither. There is no set size. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 19:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but it should be clarified as to what most cricket grounds measure, just to give a reader a relative spatial idea. Going back to the question... Nichalp 19:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Silly
I have heard that "silly" means something not so silly in Cricket. Either it means "left" or it means "shallow", I can't remember (and may be totally wrong on that, too). Could someone please enlighten me on this? (and preferrably update the article) Thanks. --Vik Reykja 10:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * See Fielding (cricket), particularly the section on "Modifiers". --rbrwr± 11:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, rbrwr, I hadn't read the satellite articles. My fault. Vik Reykja 12:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Strange that there is no entry on cricket terminology. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There is now :-) dramatic 09:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cricket to foreigners
I removed the section on cricket for foreigners. It only serves to confuse people who start here to learn the game. Besides, it also provides for a unnessary and often irritating scroll in order to move on to more instructional topics. == 18:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd still like it to go somewhere. It's well-known and quite humorous. Which American actress said something along the lines of "Where is he going? Doesn't he want to play any more?" when a batsman was out on her first visit to a cricket game?

 * I also remember being a row behind an American who was watching his first game at a Test match at Edgbaston, when 22 or 23 wickets fell - a good day, but he probably got the wrong impression about the game, jguk 19:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How about wikiquote? == 20:40, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does anyone read that thing? :) jguk 20:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Your actress, I don't know, but Venus Williams, two hours into a game, once asked, "But when does it start?" Smoddy (tgeck) 19:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No, actually you didn't remove the section -- you removed my edit to it! (I had changed jguk's text from saying that the piece illustrated the complexity of the game to saying it illustrated the potential ambiguity of the terminology. --Ngb 11:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, my oversight. I've removed it now. I'm not in support of it on this page. I've also pruned the page a bit.

Retired "Hurt"?
I have a .pdf file with me on the laws of cricket (2000). I've checked it, but contrary to popular usage, nowhere does it say that a batsman is "Retired Hurt". Its just '"Retired Out" or "Retired Not out". I guess we'll have to change the link. == 19:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * ...but as you say, "retired hurt" is the popular usage. It would only confuse people to remove it. For anyone who wants to see the law for themselves, it's Law 2, parts 9(b) and (c). --rbrwr± 20:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I know it may confuse many, but most people retire only after an injury. I've never seen any case of people retiring otherwise. Let's vote here for 1) Popular Usage or 2) Unambiguous original statement to effect a change or not. == 20:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * He is retired hurt during the innings. At the close of the innings, he is retired not out.  Trust me, I'm a qualified scorer & umpire.  Smoddy (tgeck) 22:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Its quite common in lower-grade school games or social games for a batsman to retire upon reaching 50 (primarily to give everyone a chance to bat int he time available). dramatic 09:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Generally, unless the competition rules specify otherwise, the batsman is officially retired out – i.e. they cannot return. Smoddy (tgeck) 19:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A batsman is "retired - x" -- if he leaves the field. I believe that the word "hurt" is added, as in 99.99% of all cases, he retires because of injury. Official usage does not dictate if he retired because he was "hurt". :) == 20:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * When a batsman is injured, he retires "hurt". At the end of the innings, he is noted as being "retired not out" and the score is given as all out (if the other 9 wickets have fallen).  Nevertheless, the batsman isn't out.  If he retires for pretty much any other reason, he is "retired out".  Smoddy (tgeck) 20:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Cricket/Archive 4


text:
Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bine (mythology)

Bine, or Bryth, refers to a mythical account of death and resurrection in Akkadian mythology. Its closest analogue in Greek mythology is Cerberus, in its guardianship of hell.

In the myth, it was described as a bearer of unwanted souls and the supplier of wings to exiting demons. Hell, in a sense, could not let demons go as long as they threatened to bring the wrath of the Almighty down upon them. Bine had the power to change captured souls into wings: the more souls you captured, the Bine could make your wings grow. Yet Bine himself was not immortal — he was a carpenter that worked for demons, before the archdemon of Akkadian lore banished him to guard the entrance in order that wayward demons could venture and build the army for the Second Coming.


text:
User talk:AdunaicLayman

Hello!

Image:Sakai.png
Hi!. You didn't really provide sufficent copyright information on this image. I've changed the tagging to nosource since it's the copyright of the photo which was signed which concerns us. If you could provide more information that would be great! --Gmaxwell 11:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, I haven't logged in for quite some time. If I recall correctly, I was sent this image from Sakai himself, as an autograph. I uploaded it, seeing as how there wasn't any image of him. What kind of copyright that falls under, i have no idea (the image quality is less than I thought it once was) Feel free to tag it with whatever is needed or remove it if it's a copyvio. Adun 04:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Praeimparco.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Praeimparco.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:AdunaicLayman


text:
Talk:Office of emergency management

Factual issues
I fixed it a bit. OEM as described here was just a unit of the EPA but I think based on the contextual links to this page, the original author was trying to describe the agencies at all level of government that are responsible for emergency management. So I tried to make it a little more general and provide links to some typical agencies that are the OEMs for their jurisdiction. Dirtgirl 16:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not so much a matter of getting facts wrong, as expressing them in a way that implies untrue things. Two problems. First, you say "all levels of government" as if OEMs were popular around the world; I'm guessing you mean "in the United States". Second, you imply that most local jurisdictions have a department called "Office of Emergency Mangement"; I don't know the subject, but I'm guessing that it's pretty common to have an office that serves as an OEM, but is called something else. --Isaac R 18:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Better now? You're right about one thing, but I won't pretend to know the subject. This just seems more approximate. - JustSomeKid

OEM = FEMA
The OEM is headed up by FEMA and can assume control of all aspects of government as stated by EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 which specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

This is wrong. FEMA's organization does not include any "office of emergency management". FEMA is made up of Regions that include local offices and personnel, but they are not called "offices of emergency management" (that would be redundant because FEMA stands for the "federal emergency management agency"). Further, local and state offices of emergency management are completely independent and separate from the federal government. For instance, in New York City, the Office of Emergency Management reports to the Mayor, not FEMA. See my explanation above for how I think this page needed to be fixed. Dirtgirl 14:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio
Removed a major portion of this article for COPYVIO. It was added in 2008, ostensibly for "a school project". Most of the deleted text was copied or thinly paraphrased from the sources that were added at the same time. When I had removed all the copied material, the little that remained no longer constituted a section and it too was removed. I kept the two book sources under a further reading section--they appear to be good sources and are available in preview at googlebooks, in case any editor wants to take a stab at rebuilding this article. Richigi (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Office of Emergency Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140714174551/http://www.state.il.us/iema/ to http://www.state.il.us/iema/

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) 10:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename & merge article?
Emergency management agency might be a better name for this article. Emergency management agency is currently a disambiguation page for the types of agencies described and listed in this article. This article may also be a good fit as the main article for the Category:Emergency management by country. HugoHelp (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Office of Emergency Management. 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/20110418144355/http://www.nationaldisaster.go.ke/ to http://www.nationaldisaster.go.ke/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Office of emergency management


text:
Talk:It Happened One Night

Clarification
"Claudette Colbert was not enthused by the idea of the film and demanded $50,000 double her normal salary in order to do it. On the set she would show her unhappiness, contrasted with Gable and Capra who enjoyed the making of the film.  The film had to be made in four weeks because that was all of the time that Colbert had for the film and even after its finish she had claimed to her friends that it was one of the worst films she had made. After the films great success and some convincing she had shown up at the Oscars and although she did not at first, she went back to the stage and thanks Frank Capra for making the film a success."

Source: Special features, interview with Frank Capra, Jr. on DVD release Columbia TriStar Home Video, c1999. ISBN 076783660X

I don't especially like my prose nor did I know where to insert it. I thought set atmosphere might be useful. --gren グレン 03:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jammies
I once read that this movie also more or less introduced pyjamas tot the masses, because of Claudette Colbert wearing them. Is this true? - Job

 * Added the Colbert stuff to the new trivia section. As for the pyjamas, it's the first time I've heard it.  It would be even harder to substantiate than the undershirt legend. Clarityfiend 19:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"I just finished the worst picture in the world."
This is a good quote and it fits in well with the article BUT it is of no consequence where she happened to be when she said it. It is not a pivotal moment in history. To the anonymous user who keeps insisting on adding that she was in Sun Valley when she said it, please explain how this addition adds to our understanding or places her words into a better historical context. She finished the film and went to Sun Valley for a holiday. While she was there she was reported to have made the comment. As I said in my edit summary, it doesn't matter where she was when she said it - this is pointless, irrelevant trivia. She may have been in Chicago (and I know very well that's not in Sun Valley and vice versa), she could have been in Osaka, and she could have been on the moon - who cares? The words would have been the same and would have had the same meaning. You kept adding it endlessly to Claudette Colbert which is now fully protected. Please stop adding this until you can demonstrate that Sun Valley has some significance. There are other comments in this article - where was Frank Capra when he said "she pouted". Was he also in Sun Valley, Hollywood, Timbuktu, Antarctica.... who cares?? It's only a few words, but those few words shift the emphasis away from what she said to where she said it, as if that has importance. I've explained my reasons for removing the text, you need to be able to give a better reason for reverting it, than you have so far. Rossrs 09:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Casting
This is a minor point but I do not believe that Carole Lombard was offered the role of Ellie Andrews in It Happened One Night. Here's why. Much has been made of the fact that Lombard and Clark Gable were great lovers and that they only appeared in one film together No Man Of Her Own (1932). If Lombard had come close to appearing Gable in one of the classic films of the time, I would expect it to have been noted in biographies of either Lombard or Gable, and it would been an irresistible snippet of info for them to include. There is no mention of this in Clark Gable by Warren G. Harris, 2002, ISBN 1 85410 904 9 or Gable and Lombard by the same author, 1974, ISBN 0 304 29397 0. It's not mentioned in The Films of Carole Lombard by Frederick W. Ott, 1972, ISBN 0 8065 0278 9, in the quite lengthy biographical section that discusses Lombard's career, including missed opportunities. The possible casting of Myrna Loy, Margaret Sullivan and Miriam Hopkins are mentioned in Inside Oscar by Mason Wiley and Damien Bona, 1987, ISBN 0 0345 344537, without mentioning Lombard. Myrna Loy and Bette Davis discuss/are quoted regarding the possible casting of themselves and others without mentioning Lombard in Being and Becoming by James Kotsilibas-Davis and Myrna Loy, 1987, ISBN 1 55611 101 0 and The Girl Who Walked Home Alone, Bette Davis, A Personal Biography by Charlotte Chandler, 2006, ISBN 0 7432 6208 5.

There are other works that could and should mention this if it was true, but don't, but I think I've cited the main ones. All of these books should have been researched more carefully than the movie divas site which does not state where it drew its information from. I think the most significant point is that the fact that Gable and Lombard never appeared together in a good film (No Man of Her Own is generally considered insignificant to both careers) so if there had been a chance of them appearing together in what became a classic film such as It Happened One Night someone of note would have mentioned it. I'm going to remove it again from the articles in which it appears, and request that it not be added again unless a more reliable source can be provided. Thanks Rossrs 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I've found a more reliable source regarding Lombard and have added it back into the article along with the source. This contradicts the earlier assertion that she rejected the role, rather the source indicates that she was offered the part but was unable to accept due to the fact she had already committed to beging filming another film. Rossrs 12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It Happened One Night. 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/20130328133050/http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php to http://www.loc.gov/film/registry_titles.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It Happened One Night. 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/20121208220135/https://www.greyhound.com/en/about/historicaltimeline.aspx to http://www.greyhound.com/en/about/historicaltimeline.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on It Happened One Night. 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/20120111092629/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1252044858649 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1252044858649
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303183113/http://www.liveauctiontalk.com/free_article_detail.php?article_id=53 to http://www.liveauctiontalk.com/free_article_detail.php?article_id=53

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It Happened One Night. 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/20070417011517/http://eeweems.com/capra/_it_happened_one_night.html to http://eeweems.com/capra/_it_happened_one_night.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
There's also a scene in the TV show One Day at a Time (1975 TV series) Season 3 Episode 16 (Barbara's Rebellion) where Barbara and Bob spend the night in a hotel and make reference to this movie. — Ched (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Billing block
Am I allowed to add Walter Connolly and Roscoe Karns to the Starring section, since they were third-billed, and fourth billed on the poster, respectively Shahin007h (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Template:Infobox film says you can. I don't personally like that policy, but the cinema gods won't strike you down if you do. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Had had?
This just doesn't sound right. Colbert arrived wearing a two-piece traveling suit which she had had the Paramount Pictures costume designer, Travis Banton, make for her trip. 2604:2D80:5B86:DB00:6FC3:3289:7AFB:AC9E (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The grammar is fine. One of the hads refers to a point further back in time. If you search for "had had", you'll find that it's perfectly acceptable in the right places, and this is one of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also see past perfect, which is the verb tense. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:It Happened One Night


text:
Talk:John Patteson (bishop)

Saints
Do Anglicans create saints?? - I have never heard of that - what's your source?--Doc Glasgow 18:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There isn't formal canonization, but the CoE celebrates the old saints and has celebrations of lives since the split. However, I'm not clear either.  I created the article because his was a red link in the List of saints article, and I got the information from the print Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. They didn't give him the saintly title, and I had nothing, really, except his presence on the List article to suggest that there was a canonization of any sort.  I certainly have no trouble with removing that sentence.  I will reword the sentence now and await clarification.  Geogre 04:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Based on his having a commemoration in the church calendar, as mentioned in the article and the Calendar of Saints (Anglican Church of Australia, I am adding the Category:Anglican saints and the Saints Project banner.

 * The saints of the Anglican church are recognized in a book called "Lesser Feast and Fasts", which is put out every few years, usually with a few additions each time.

 * See Saints in Anglicanism. Nedrutland (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Tutor
John Carter 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Where is the evidence that Selwyn was a tutor to him? C M Yonge's biography mentions that the families knew each other, that both were Etonians and recounts sermons in 1841 by Selwyn and Wilberforce that inspired him to become a Missionary. He was at Eton from 1838 to 1845. In 1841 Selwyn was a curate at Windsor. (all from CMY's biography of JCP)--BrianTaylor 13:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Alone
According to the "Lesser Feasts and Fasts", "... In the attack, several of Patteson's company were also killed or wounded." Thus, the note that he landed alone is probably erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.174.81 (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Patteson (bishop)


text:
Hidden transformation

The hidden transformation reformulates a constraint satisfaction problem in such a way all constraints have at most two variables. The new problem is satisfiable if and only if the original problem was, and solutions can be converted easily from one problem to the other.

There are a number of algorithms for constraint satisfaction that work only on constraints that have at most two variables. If a problem has constraints with a larger arity (number of variables), conversion into a problem made of binary constraints allows for execution of these solving algorithms. Constraints with one, two, or more variables are called unary, binary, or higher-order constraints. The number of variables in a constraint is called its arity.

The hidden transformation converts an arbitrary constraint satisfaction problem into a binary one. The transformation is similar to that generating the dual problem. The problem is added new variables, one for each constraint of the original problem. The domain of each such variable is the set of satisfying tuples of the corresponding constraint. The constraints of the new problem enforce the value of the original variables to be consistent with the values of the new variables. For example, if the new variables $$c$$, corresponding to the old constraint $$C(x,y)$$ can assume values $$(1,2)$$ and $$(2,0)$$, two new constraints are added: the first one enforces $$x$$ to take value $$1$$ if $$c=(1,2)$$ value $$2$$ if $$c=(2,0)$$, and vice versa. The second condition enforces a similar condition for variable $$y$$.

The graph representing the result of this transformation is bipartite, as all constraints are between a new and an old variable. Moreover, the constraints are functional: for any given value of a new variable, only one value of the old variable may satisfy the constraint.

title: Hidden transformation


text:
Talk:Aesthetic realism

Shouldn't this page be deleted? The correct spelling is Aesthetic Realism.

 * Redirects are commonly used to help with wrong spelling. Pavel Vozenilek 21:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aesthetic realism


text: User talk:69.51.65.60

title: User talk:69.51.65.60


text: User talk:67.32.30.224

title: User talk:67.32.30.224


text:
Lists of university leaders

For articles listing various university leaders around the world, please see individual national articles from the following countries:

 * List of Australian university leaders
 * List of British university chancellors and vice-chancellors
 * List of Canadian university leaders
 * List of Hong Kong university vice-chancellors and presidents
 * List of Malaysian university leaders
 * List of New Zealand university leaders
 * List of South African university chancellors and vice-chancellors
 * List of Tanzanian university chancellors and vice-chancellors
 * List of Ugandan university leaders
 * List of leaders of universities and colleges in the United States
 * List of Nigerian university leaders

title: Lists of university leaders


text:
Talk:Lists of university leaders

Untitled
The former content of the article "list of university leaders" was distributed around the various sub-articles it links to in April 2005. Doops | talk 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lists of university leaders


text:
WXMX

WXMX (98.1 FM) is a commercial mainstream rock radio station near Memphis, Tennessee. It is owned by Cumulus Media and is branded as "98-1 The Max". The station's studios are located at the Memphis Radio Group building in East Memphis, and the transmitter site is in Cordova, Tennessee.

The station adopted its current format on April 1, 2005. For many years, the station aired the "Drake and Zeke" morning show. In 2015, Zeke Logan died and the show became known as "Drake in the Morning." The show lasted until 2020, when Drake Hall departed the station.

The new morning show was called "Danny and the Jar," featuring Danni Bruns and Chris Jarman. In December 2020, Jarman died.

title: WXMX


text:
Talk:Santa Hermandad

name
Shouldn't this article be called "Santa Hermandad"?Acglaphotis (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Twelfth, or Thirteenth Century?
The article says, "protective municipal leagues began to emerge in the twelfth century". Later, it says, "The hermandad initially began to form in Andalusia in 1265".

Is it possible that "protective municipal leagues" are something different from the hermandad, and that they really did start in the century before the hermandad "initially began to form"?

Or should it say, "protective municipal leagues began to emerge in the thirteenth century"?

I don't have access to the references. Maybe someone can check, please.

Taquito1 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI
FYI: In the Walter Starkie translation of Don Quixote there is a footnote on page 103:

Officers of the Holy Brotherhood carried cross-bows and they were permitted to execute caught in the act, and hang their bodies on trees.

All thru Don Quixote Sancho Panza is in fear of meeting a member of the Holy Brotherhood while travelling the roads of Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbryant 94560 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Greek metal band
I have inserted the Popular culture section with the reference to the Greek metal band, having removed it from the page on Irmandades da Fala, a Galician nationalist association from the first part of the 20th century. I think the Greek reference is more likely to be about these holy brotherhoods. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reference itself. Jonur (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

On further research, my impression is that this was a frivolous edit by the original writer, so I've deleted it. Jonur (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Castillian and Basque ports?
I find strange this mention, since "Cantabrian and Basque" will be more precise (smaller land to refer to) and more correct (as referring to both its northern cultures)

Like mixing a kingdom and a culture is just weird, if we were to use the historical kingdoms instead of cultures, it should be "Castillian and Navarrese" AmunJazz (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the Spanish region now called Cantabria (and formerly the province of Santander) was once the northernmost part of Old Castile, so Santander, Laredo and Castro Urdiales were "Castilian" ports. Jonur (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Santa Hermandad


text:
Talk:Pullman Company

Pullman-Standard redirect
I'm not so sure that we should be redirecting Pullman-Standard to here. I've always separated Pullman and Pullman-Standard in my mind mainly because Pullman-Standard built a lot more freight cars (like the PS-1 box car) than they did passenger cars. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable with PS's offerings would like to fill in an article for that entity? slambo 18:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Haskell & Barker?
I would be interested in seeing how Haskell & Barker (a predecessor, I think) was involved. - Mark Mathu 8/15/2005

UK?
The British Rail Class 251 article links here from the Pullman Car Company link, but there is nothing on this page about the UK. Is this just an omission or is the information about this elsewhere (so I can change the link?) Thryduulf 01:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It just hasn't been added yet. I don't have a solid reference to tell me more about it yet.  Slambo (Speak)  19:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Corporate History
I added the corporate history information after searching on-line, and not finding much. This is a compilation from several years ago of several sources, which I unfortunately neglected to record. - Don Strack 13:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pullman's Kellog subsidiary
A minor correction in the Pullman history: M. W. Kellogg was a subsidiary of Pullman when I joined Kellogg in 1950, long before any merger with Wheelabrator. Kellogg may have started business as a pipe and smokestack fabricator but they became the premier process designer and engineering construction company in the petroleum refinery field as it developed in the early part of the century and to this day. (Today as part of Halliburton.) Their subsidiary, Kellex, also designed the uranium gas diffusion plant at Oak Ridge as part of the Manhatten project. ''Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Donstrack, which included the comment "I haven't figured out how this works yet. Is this how to start modifications?" -- DJN27 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)''
 * I haven't added this because the other sources, namely the SEC filings, did not mention an earlier merger. Don Strack 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

49, 57 or 59?
The Smithsonian's Pullman Collection shows 59 railroads took over operation in 1944, while the Pullman Collection at the Newberry Library shows 57 railroads. Another unrecorded source showed 49 railroads. Obviously, more research is needed here. Don Strack 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

End of Pullman
Sadly, no specific published work has been identified, that carries a comprehensive history of Pullman and its corporate operations. The information in the End of Pullman section is the result of various internet searches, including various Securities and Exchange Commission filings that were found using Pullman as a search word. Other information came from interested persons on several internet railroad (railway) discussion groups. Don Strack 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Too quiet on Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters?
I feel that the article is too quiet about the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Today, Pullmans are strongly linked to the history of the union. The article sleeping car does a better job, perhaps, of acknowledging the Brotherhood's place in history. I've moved a bit of trivia out of the lead and put in a sentence about the porters, but they still warrant more attention. Cheers, --Smilo Don (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AP Story... Someone added this... Could use nicely, if edited and referenced...
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — They worked long hours doing often menial labor for meager pay on America's railroads, and paved the way for the civil rights movement in the process. Now, the unsung men known as Pullman porters are getting overdue recognition for their historical legacy. On Saturday, in conjunction with National Train Day, a handful of surviving Pullman porters in their 80s and 90s are being honored during a ceremony at Philadelphia's historic 30th Street Station. Similar gatherings have been held in Oakland, Chicago and Washington. "The stories and the history we have shows the job these gentlemen did, and their dedication to top-notch service, was just incredible," said Darlene Abubakar, Amtrak's national advertising director. "We wanted to recognize them for that and share their stories." At least four men are expected to attend the Philadelphia event. Porters still living may only number in the dozens, Amtrak officials said. Pullman porters not only were role models in their community, they also helped change race relations in America, said Lyn Hughes, founder of the A. Philip Randolph Pullman Porter Museum in Chicago. "These men were often the only exposure white Americans had to the African-American community," Hughes said. "They were articulate, well dressed, dignified, and they made that impression upon the general public." The first Pullman porters, hired after the Civil War, were former slaves. Their ranks reached 20,000 in the early part of the 20th century, making them the largest group of African-American men employed in the country. They formed the first black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, in the 1920s under the stewardship of A. Philip Randolph, who also was a civil rights leader. Percy Lee, 86, rose from fourth cook to head chef during his 38 years working the Illinois Central Railroad line. In a telephone interview from his home in Fulton, Ky., Lee said he put six children through college from his work on the railroad. He had to retire in 1979 after being injured when his train derailed.

"But I appreciate every day, every minute I worked on that train," said Lee, who plans to attend the Philadelphia event. "It was the best train in the world — with the best food in the world. Now everything comes frozen." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTP5sBYQNAD3TkairC6A9lJaDGaQD9827QHO3 --Smilo Don (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pullman Company. 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/20120913013603/http://www.southshorejournal.org/index.php/issues/volume-4-2011/82-marktown-clayton-marks-planned-worker-community-in-northwest-indiana to http://www.southshorejournal.org/index.php/issues/volume-4-2011/82-marktown-clayton-marks-planned-worker-community-in-northwest-indiana
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629233502/http://www.eliillinois.org/30108_87/index.html to http://www.eliillinois.org/30108_87/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927060132/http://www.newberry.org/collections/PullmanGuide.pdf to http://www.newberry.org/collections/PullmanGuide.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pullman Company


text: User talk:168.11.50.100

title: User talk:168.11.50.100