text:
Talk:Vasa (ship)

Unreferenced concept
Vasa was built during a time of transition in naval tactics, from an era when boarding was still one of the primary ways of fighting enemy ships to an era of the strictly organized ship-of-the-line and a focus on victory through superior gunnery..... This rather glosses over the long period in which naval tactics were changing from boarding to gunnery. Pretty much the same statement could be made for Mary Rose (or for a Swedish example, the Swan, sunk 1524). Tactics were still in a state of transition in 1650 – for example, see War at Sea in the Age of Sail 1650-1850, Andrew Lambert, pg 41: "In 1650 the leading naval power, the Dutch, favoured a close range melee action, but by 1672 the line of battle had been established...". The line of battle required further refinement, with the development of signalling among the essential developments. As an unreferenced piece of text, this content has to be questioned, especially in the context of what other naval historians say on the matter. At a minimum, the article currently does not provide sufficient periodisation of the transition from boarding to bombardment and is overly simplistic. The reference on which this part of the article is based would be helpful. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 * The paragraph you're quoting is cited. Why are you describing it as "unreferenced"? Peter Isotalo 01:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Because the concept quoted here (in the green highlight) in this talk page section is not mentioned at all on the page that is given in the reference. To be clear, page 49 of Cederlund (2006), starts with the weight of broadside, making comparisons with HMS Victory and USS Constitution. Then it discusses the "motley collection of guns" that prior warships tended to have, followed by production problems. Then there is a new section that discusses the classification of different types of guns, then goes back to the need for standardisation of the grades of powder required and the cannon balls fired. The next page continues on these themes of standardisation and then moves on to the actual specification of the guns in an inventory and as found in the wreck. There is no mention at all of naval tactics in this part of the cited work. I presume that you do not have a copy of Cederlund (2006) available to make this check. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked the history and the original (separate) statement was supported by a different web ref which was unfortunately lost when content was merged. Ref added, problem fixed.
 * I don't see that the rest of your argument is about factual accuracy as such but rather the level of detail. Feel free to tweak the text, but keep in mind that you're better off detailing this stuff in naval tactics and similar articles and link them from here. There's no point in getting overly detailed if it's not actually relevant to the article subject. Peter Isotalo 17:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

sfn to harvnb
I am mystified by the sudden change of referencing from mostly (15 instances) to entirely  (21 instances); The latter template had not existed in the article until this wholesale conversion. The edit summary mentions "consistency", which seems odd.

I also make this comment in the context of being much more common – 161,000 articles, versus 46,000 for. I have heard comment that the harv set of templates can have more technical problems, though am not in a position to confirm that. Certainly greater usage indicates greater accessibility for the range of editors who would be welcome in this article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 * It's the same standard as in galley per the PR in July. It went through an FAC without any fuss. I'm also assuming that a template used in 46k articles is approved by the community.
 * I started with the sfn because they were easier to replace. Feel free to help out if you want to improve the standardization! Peter Isotalo 19:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 * You do realise that you are laying yourself open to an accusation of disruptive editing (WP:DIS) by making large changes to referencing whilst this and closely related matters are under discussion here? Furthermore, I am no expert on the differences between the different shortform referencing templates, but if appears that you have chosen the template that is problematical with separate notes. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets. That is highly relevant to the current discussion. I appreciate that I am probably the wrong person to be giving you this advice, but you need to hear it from someone. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Knock yourself out. Peter Isotalo 20:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This being a FA, I'm a little surprised there is no settled WP:REFVAR (or is there and it's just not "enforced"?). It would be good to pick one, reftag, sfn or harvnb, and stick with it. Personally, if I start an article, I go reftag, name the refs for easy reuse in wikitext and VE, and use rp as necessary. But I know other people have other preferences. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You will therefore be surprised to see how common it is for FAs to have an inconsistent citation style. In a study of 101 Featured Articles, 71.3% were found to have a mix of short form and full referencing (which could be described as the "high level citation style"). Some of these are so heavily mixed that it is difficult to tell which is the predominant form. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's really only started in the last few years. Plus if the nominators aren't maintaining the consistency, it will degrade as people use whatever they prefer themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was as surprised as anyone by the scale – and I am simply sharing the finding here. The degree to which it is a problem (and it is a problem) and what to do about it is another matter, on which I have no immediate opinion. I do wonder if the referencing enthusiasts (for want of a better term) who inhabit, for instance, the CITEVAR help page would be equally surprised. What, also, do Wikipedia readers think of this variability? OK, most never look at the sources, but some do. It is hardly the best bit of PR for the project. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look at, which we are told is the version that got FA approval, references 50, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 all appear to be at variance with the main citation style. Perhaps there was a technical problem back then, but the Nature article (ref 63 in the FA approved version) was only recently fixed with and . Again, I am just digging up the information. I wonder how many others in the list of surveyed FAs had inconsistent referencing at the time they achieved FA status. I am probably all out of enthusiasm for looking at more edit histories for now, and it has just stopped raining. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a thing at all back then so I expect most of them have a mixture. And I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few of my own from 10 years or more ago have a mixture from other people's additions since then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Question re possible original research
How is this

relevant to this article? Jonathan Adams's book mentions this article's subject but this text's source, a passage from that book titled "The Gresham Ship", does not. Further, were either of the actions described here ("furring" and the basic fix that Adams calls "girdling") done to Vasa?  City o f  Silver  20:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 * This point is a great illustration of the question over informational footnotes being in the article. As a footnote, it is an explanation that side-steps the main flow of the article and answers the question that many readers would surely have: "if a ship had insufficient stability, was there anything that could be done about it?" So that is setting the article content in the context of all Northern European 17th century shipbuilding, rather in the same way that the dominance of the Dutch in the international timber trade is mentioned in the section about the mainmast – another piece of text that would be well placed in an informational footnote. What is problematical is that if we are constrained into not having informational footnotes, then the reader is less clear that these are explanations that are outside the main narrative – but as editors we ask the question: if not footnoted here, how would the reader learn this?
 * On the question of possible original research, I really don't think that answering this obvious question with an explanation found in a major work on maritime archaeology is a problem. Adams even gives a date for furring in his source "(Mainwaring 1623 in Manwaring and Perrin 1922)" which puts us almost exactly contemporaneous with the loss of Vasa. The dating of the first predictive stability calculations for a ship is already in the article, but Adams also confirms this at page 77: "Unfortunately predictive stability calculations were still two centuries away" [from the loss of the Mary Rose]. Surely the job of a Wikipedia editor is to explain the subject, and this is all perfectly mainstream stuff. Or is there another problem? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @City of Silver. Be careful about going off on tangents when citing works that don't have a direct connection to this article. Putting claims in notes doesn't make them less subordinate to WP:OR or WP:SS. Please stay on topic. Peter Isotalo 13:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The more likely WP:OR in the article is a selective usage of a dictionary to contradict the major source for the article on the origin of the ship's name. The dictionary's meaning (1) includes a sheaf (kärve) as one of meanings listed. This is emphatically ignored in the article, as is the repeated interpretation of the word as a "sheaf" or a "wheatsheaf" for the ship's name in Vasa I, a book written and edited by a native Swedish speaker and a native English speaker respectively, who have both published in the other language in academic journals. Instead the article has the primary meaning of "fascine" and also "sheaf" in a heraldic context. The dictionary clearly states that "sheaf" is one of the several primary meanings. So what we have is the interpretation of a dictionary by an editor, where the interpretation appears to be incomplete and is certainly at variance with the major source on the subject of the article.
 * For the avoidance of doubt, any discussion of ship stability by a noted maritime archaeologist (who, incidentally, has done a lot of important work on wrecks of Swedish warships) has relevance to an article about a warship with a stability problem. Saying it is not relevant is like refusing article content on the Dutch dominance of the international timber trade from a book about 17th century Dutch shipbuilding. Or, for future content, questioning the relevance of Anderson's Rigging of Ships for explanations of how the contemporary rig worked. (Spoiler alert: Hocker and Pipping mention this book, it provides a useful measure of how study of Vasa advances knowledge, and is still an important work.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just try to focus on the article topic and keep the recommendations of WP:SS in mind. Peter Isotalo 10:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The focus is surely on the notable points that the article should convey. Amongst the several items on that list, the stability issues of ships before stability calculations could be made is an important piece of context for the reader. Another major notable point about Vasa is the survival of an enormous amount of sails, rigging and spars – far in excess of any other investigated wreck. Therefore the article should cover that sufficiently. That would involve some comparative technical detail. If this steps outside your comfort zone, that is not a situation where invoking summary style is appropriate. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia that have content that may be technically challenging for some readers or editors; e.g. Chi-squared distribution. However, Wikipedia is where many people go for information on such subjects. Therefore it should be covered. None of this should be surprising.
 * In the meantime, the article still contains text that is at variance with the definitive source's view. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep discussing the definition of "vase" in Swedish, there's a separate thread for it. Peter Isotalo 19:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: separate informational notes section
Should the layout of this article contain a separate section for explanatory footnotes, similar in general appearance to the version here?

Options
 * A. Separate section for explanatory footnotes
 * B. No separate section for explanatory footnotes

This RfC was recommended in the third opinion shown above under Talk:Vasa (ship). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option A, for reasons given in my justification in the Discussion section, below. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A, from a accessibility viewpoint, my preference is a separate section for explanatory notes, because the screen reader will process them as a separate section, whereas when they are combined together in the References section, the screen reader doesn't know the difference between explanatory notes and references. It's my belief that all users (readers and editors), regardless of disability, should be able to read and navigate Wikipedia easily. But alas, I also realize that articles being accessible is a minority viewpoint and doesn't hold much weight around here. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter, from an accessibility viewpoint, whether the screen reader processes them as a separate or combined section? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't immediately see any guidance on appendices at MOS:ACCESS. Is there any? VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The only guidance given is in the section Article structure, which defers to MOS:LAYOUT, because apparently Standardization is already a habit on Wikipedia - which of course is not true. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the section MOS:NOTES of MOS:LAYOUT does not provide any guidance on whether the sections should be separate or combined, instead leaving it to page by page editorial discretion. VQuakr (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, and it's the same with accessibility, because more often than not, WP:ACCESSIBILITY is based on page by page editorial discretion. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From an accessibility viewpoint, my preference is for a note standard that actually exists outside Wikipedia. Because splitting explanation from the citation of that explanation just creates an unnecessarily complicated navigation.
 * However, like you, I have no actual proof to back my opinion up. If you're serious about this, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, not an RfC for an individual article. I'm 100% for increasing accessibility, but I'm very skeptical to claims based on personal opinions. Peter Isotalo 12:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically, anyone interested in this question might also be interested in the discussion Peter started at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. I've linked to this RFC there as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A if we are going to have explanatory footnotes, as we currently do, it makes sense to have them in a separate section from references. This is typical with how most nonfiction works are formatted, with informational footnotes in a separate location from the works cited. Commingling the two makes information from either appendix harder to navigate. VQuakr (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * B. MOS:NOTES indicates that "If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated". Given that the MOS allows both approaches, MOS:VAR supports retaining the existing style in the absence of substantial reasons for the change, and the reasons proposed so far are largely based on preference/popularity. These appendices are not typically read top to bottom like a body section would be, but accessed piecemeal by footnotes, which provide the necessary navigational function whether they point to one section or multiple. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A since it allows the reader to immediately differentiate between footnotes for verification and those offering commentary. I agree that popularity is of no significant importance to the argument. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A would be my preference. It makes the layout look cleaner. However as others have pointed out, both styles are acceptable. I would be happy if the people who actually work on expanding/improving the article made the decision. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B, per Nikkimaria; we should retain the existing style without a good reason to change it -- MOS:VAR. Bringing in outside editors, like myself, isn't the best way to handle this sort of discussion -- as Peter says above it should really be left to the people actually working on the article.  I would suggest that instead of holding an RfC that regardless of its outcome won't improve the content, editors who want to work on the article do so, in the existing layout.  If amongst themselves those editors can agree on a change to the layout that would be much better and more collegial than having an RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * people actually working on the article - have you considered the four editors (three plus me) who have added an to this article? None of the three seem to be in this discussion and I have refrained from pinging them to avoid the accusation of canvassing, but an independent editor who is more used to the procedures may want to do so. Without their direct input, it seems fair to believe that they support a separate notes section. I think we also need to realise that there is not really a current group of editors working on the article. The most recent material change to content by editors other than the two in dispute is this one, two associated edits that are the sole contribution by that editor. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In each case those editors had one editing session of either a single edit or a few minutes. This isn't what I meant by editors working on the article, and no, I don't think they should be pinged, any more than the scores of other editors with incidental edits to the article.  My feeling is that the decision should be in the hands of those editors making significant contributions to the article, which does include you.  I don't know if I've made this clear: I don't think anyone is acting in bad faith here.  I just think the natural consequence of an RfC is to overrule RETAIN and VAR, and that is not in keeping with the spirit of those guidelines.  Imagine if when you and Peter first disagreed about the use of notes you had said "Well, there's just the two of us working, and Peter's the main author; I think there should be notes but he's not convinced so I'll let it go and maybe in the future another consensus will emerge".  The energy that you (in good faith, as I say) have put into arguing for the change, and the energy that that has absorbed from numerous other editors, would have gone into other, perhaps more productive edits.  I believe that's the real intention of RETAIN and VAR -- to avoid what are almost always unproductive conversations by giving preference to the existing styles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's how Wikipedia is meant to work – articles aren't owned by anybody. And whether or not to use separate explanatory notes is about making the article more reader-friendly (even though there are different notions of which variant actually is more reader-friendly), not just about mere spelling or stylistic changes, to which MOS:RETAIN and MOS:VAR are meant to apply. Gawaon (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As per your summary in this quote (even though there are different notions of which variant actually is more reader-friendly)
 * There's simply no consensus about this in the community. That's what effectively makes this a stylistic issue. Peter Isotalo 13:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B per several reasons given above, plus the main editor should not be bullied out of their editorial choice. Personally, I really hate this made-up style, never seen outside Wikipedia (I must read very different academic literature from VQuakr, as I never see this). Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the style is not a Wikipedia original, . VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, as I say, I read a lot of academic literature, and never see this - it may be an American, or scientific, thing, in which case it should not be imposed on this article. It is certainly not, as you claim "typical with how most nonfiction works are formatted" (sic). Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @VQuakr, can you show any actual real-world examples? Peter Isotalo 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The real-world examples are over at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, where this has been WP:TALKFORKed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The main editor is not getting bullied out of their editorial choice, and that is a gross mischaracterization of the comments made in this RfC. Isaidnoway <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 10:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely think this is a form of bureaucratic bullying. The instigator of the RFC has discussed this at length with both me and others and has been provided with plenty of counter-arguments. There's been no lack of discussion, only a failure to move on. Peter Isotalo 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The RfC, as you know, was recommended by the provider of the third opinion. That opinion was requested by Peter Isotalo. Without the third opinion, we would not be here now. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well if you thought there was a behavioral issue with the "instigator of the RFC", then you absolutely should have reported that behavior in the appropriate forum. Did you? But speaking for myself, I don't appreciate the implication that my participation in this RfC has involved the use of force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate the "main editor". Making unfounded accusations like this trivializes the harm done by actual bullying.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 04:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Isaidnoway, I have pointed out behavioral issues, but my impression that no one seems to really care.
 * From working with Thought on and off since 2022, my impression is that they simply refuse to respect contrary arguments are valid, or even that they exist. I think they're more and more turning discussions not into intellectual investigations but more like litigation. The latest comment is also extremely weird; Thought is trying to pass off their own choice to kick off an RFC as if there was no other choice.
 * As I've pointed out before, this RFC is about policy, not the minutiae of 17th century warships. There's no point in having this RFC other than trying to circumvent the "live and let live" aspects of WP:CITEVAR. Peter Isotalo 16:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All I am trying to do is resolve what I see as a barrier to a better article. If you are going to bring up behaviour, though I doubt this is the right place, you need to consider the several occasions when you have not understood very simple problems with, for instance, missing or incorrect references. Most editors would probably give up and walk away – I have not. Is that a failing?
 * For what it's worth, I did feel compelled to progress this matter into an RfC, despite this not being something I feel I would have originated on my own. What would you have done in the same situation?
 * And, to be clear, this RfC is on an article-specific talk page. So it is not about Wikipedia policy, it is about this article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Most editors" would agree to disagree and move on. That's what I did with the she/it issue (I think "she" is overly conservative and unnecessary, but I accept it as a valid alternative).
 * You have been told in no uncertain terms by multiple editors that the reference format you dislike is an accepted as a valid variant by the community. If you believe a particular variant is objectively bad and should not be used, your argument is not limited to any specific article.
 * Either way, it's pretty clear that this RFC is not going to create any new consensus and isn't solving any of your concerns. I recommend that you focus on working on the article and, in a spirit of collaboration, try to find a way to fit your improvements into the existing format. Peter Isotalo 14:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Option A, since it's more helpful for the reader. Most readers will likely not pay attention to source footnotes, but may be more interested in explanatory notes that give additional details regarding the discussed topic. But they will only be able to identify the latter if they are numbered differently ([a], [b], [c] or similar) and hence also grouped separately from the source footnotes. It's best practice in Wikipedia, and it makes sense for this article too. Gawaon (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This is not just a matter of presentational style. In the latter half of 2023, a second major source was published on the subject of this article covering, in the main part, the sailing rig of Vasa. Putting material from this source in the article will require a lot of terminological and other explanation that will be familiar to some readers and not to others. The easiest place to put that is in a separate notes section, where everything is grouped together. The reader can then skip footnotes if they wish or can refer back to them as they read further into the article.
 * A major complication is that the details of Square rig in the 17th century were very different from the latter half of the 19th and early 20th century, which is the experience of many with some knowledge. Therefore Wikilinks are not really an answer to explaining things, as existing articles tend to focus on the more recent versions of square rig. Rewriting a number of these articles would be a significant task and may then alter their balance by containing too much about the 17th century version.
 * A separate notes section will also be useful for information that breaks the narrative flow of the article, but is still material that is helpful to the reader. An example of this is the current text at the end of the Masts and spars section, which mentions the role of Amsterdam in the international timber trade of the time.(Note that writing of these sections has been paused whilst these layout matters are being resolved. There is a lot more material to add.)
 * The article contained a separate footnotes section until quite recently, though this did not exist at the time the article gained Featured Article status in December 2007. The first separate informational footnote was added in October 2019. By 12 January 2024 there were four footnotes in the section.
 * A separate informational footnotes section is common in Featured Articles. A survey of 101 featured articles found that 68 (67%) had some sort of informational footnote. Of these 68, the survey showed 61 (90%) with a separate notes section. Of the seven articles that mixed notes in with references, four had no reference to support their content and the other three included the reference in a narrative form within the note. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of this argues in favour of having explanatory notes in general, which I don't think is in dispute; about the only thing specific to the separation of notes is that some other articles do it. Anything else to support that position? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In short, it is very difficult to write on this precise subject without having footnotes. I have refrained from using footnotes whilst they are under debate, and it makes new content in the article on the sailing rig a mess. Much of the text recently added would be better in a footnote so that the main content could be added. It was a surprise to me to see how limiting it is when I tried it.
 * From the reader-based viewpoint, notes that explain a lot of technical detail are much easier to read if they are not muddled up with all the references. We are meant to be thinking of the reader first? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Referencing of the content of footnotes appears to be problem if they are not in a separate section. Others will know more than me about any technical constraints, but the survey showed this to be generally unsatisfactory. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't have footnotes at all. The argument seems to be only about where they are placed. And I'm not seeing any reason why footnotes cannot be sourced regardless of where they are. That leaves us with what's best for the readers - do you have any evidence to support that one approach is better than the other in that regard? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The evidence for where they are placed is the best practice seen in the study of 101 other featured articles. All articles with more than just a few footnotes had them as a separate section. The study does not enumerate this parameter, but the list of articles with footnotes is tabulated and can be easily checked. This article already has some footnotes, text in the article that would serve better as footnotes, and potentially a lot more explanatory notes as new content continues to be added. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In quick look at WP:Featured articles, starting from the beginning of the list, the first article I found with no separate notes section was number 10 in the list, and this simply had no informational notes of any kind, just references. I searched as far as Act of Independence of Lithuania (18th in list) before giving up, still without finding any informational notes in the same section as reference citations. This snapshot, in a different section of the list of FAs, confirms the study mentioned above. More importantly, any editor can reasonably quickly make the same check. Do we know if FA reviewers operate any sort of standard on this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * FA reviewers follow the MOS, which allows both organizations. More broadly, the evidence you're compiling is that one approach is more popular than the other - that doesn't make that one better or the other forbidden. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is the apparent 100% compliance with the rule "FAs have a separate notes section if there are more than two or three informational notes". There probably is an FA out there that has more than, say, half a dozen informational notes included in with the references, but the evidence is that it would be a very rare situation.
 * I have just checked, in alphabetical order Featured articles and the first article (number 42 in the list) that has any informational notes in the list of references is British contribution to the Manhattan Project, with three instances. So that fits this suggested rule and further demonstrates the rareness of mixed notes and references. These checked articles show informational notes to be very common, even if there is just one in the article. I can keep looking if you feel that is necessary. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the observed "rule" may simply be derived from the behaviour of the nominators.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment from primary author
This RfC has zero merit. It's just an excuse to get a free pass from WP:CITEVAR and WP:FAOWN. It's super-clearly about not liking other people's arguments and bureaucratic harrassment. There's no consensus-building at work here and not a shred of evidence that the desired change would either help or hurt readers. It's all 100% about the behavior and opinions of editors, not what benefit readers.

As I detailed here, ThoughtIdRetired has become a genuinely disruptive force. There's plenty ofg potential for good contributions, but the relentless zeal and refusal to believe conflicting arguments or points of view needs to stop. Otherwise, it's likely just going to lead to more drama. I'm going to finish standardizing the formatting of notes and refs according to the standard that has been used in this article since 2008. If anyone doesn't like that like that, ask for a change in WP:CITEVAR instead of trying to bulldoze fellow editors. Peter Isotalo 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 * WP:CITEVAR says Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change. This RfC is the effort to seek consensus that is mentioned by the guideline you linked. WP:FAOWN notes that this article is ...open for editing like any other. Neither of these guidelines say what you seem to believe they do. VQuakr (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are rules lawyering both guidelines by ignoring the part where they effectively say "we leave subjective stuff alone". Thought has been asking around about these issues, and me and several other experienced editors have kept saying "naw, don't do that".
 * This RfC has nothing to do with seeking consensus but is simply an attempt to bulldoze fellow editors. Peter Isotalo 14:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither section says anything like "we leave subjective stuff alone". It's not possible to ignore something that doesn't exist. Editorial decisions are based on consensus, and an RfC is a consensus-building tool. That's it. Its use isn't something nefarious or an attack against anyone, and treating this as if it's something inappropriate while throwing out accusations is unproductive. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @VQuakr, you have been advised by several other editors that this exactly the point; we don't pick fights over things that don't actually matter.
 * Both you and Thought have approached this issue by consistently and wilfully ignoring or belittling any arguments that don't support your favored outcome.
 * You have zero evidence that what you're trying to achieve actually makes Wikipedia better for readers. You have zero evidence that what you're arguing against is a problem for readers. Peter Isotalo 11:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Untrue, but you desperately need to stop thinking of discussing changes to an article as "picking fights". VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Foreign ambassadors
When talking about the people who witnessed the sinking of the ship, it says:
 * The crowd included foreign ambassadors, in effect spies of Gustavus Adolphus' allies and enemies.

I'm not sure why it's necessary to describe the ambassadors like this. It is true that ambassadors and envoys typically reported all kinds of stuff, including 'secret' matters (usually encrypted), back to their governments. Foreign rulers often knew about this and the worst case scenario was that the mail of those ambassadors or envoys was searched, possibly leading to some kind of punishment. But to call these people 'spies' as if it were something especially devious seems out of place. 2001:1C02:1990:A900:F49D:D84E:B426:1E42 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Content related to changes in shipbuilding
Regarding this edit, it doesn't belong under the section "Inquest" because that section is not just a general section on the aftermath of the sinking.

The paragraph could be relevant in this article if it's clarified that there's a direct connection with the fate of Vasa. Does the source elaborate on such a connection? Peter Isotalo 21:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 * The Adams source does appear to connect the Vasa loss with the changes in shipbuilding. These sentences share a paragraph: Perhaps the answer is indicated by the fate of the Vasa in 1628 which clearly reveals problematic communication between the commissioning authority and the shipwrights....But if, as it now seems, Vasa was very close to what was originally intended, master shipwright Henrik Hybertsson clearly had enough autonomy to exasperate the king (Hocker 2006:45). The Swedish Crown finally abandoned Dutch expertise some 20 years later. The paragraph continues with material that supports the rest of the contested paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, under "Legacy" would be appropriate then, right?
 * I would've checked Adams myself but all the Stockholm libraries that have it are closed for the summer. Peter Isotalo 23:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Legacy section seems reasonable to me. Are all libraries closed there or just the academic ones? Here (USA) we have 'summer reading programs' and such aimed at schoolchildren that are run through the library system. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Re-added the paragraph.
 * The libraries that have Adams in Stockholm, Södertörn University and Sjöhistoriska, happened to be closed. The regular public libraries are open, but a lot of the more specialized ones go on holiday until the first weeks of August. Peter Isotalo 01:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vasa (ship)


text:
Fortín San Juan de la Cruz

Fortín San Juan de la Cruz (Fort Saint John of the Cross), most commonly known as El Cañuelo, was built on Isla de Cabras in the Palo Seco barrio of the municipality of Toa Baja, at the western end of the entrance to San Juan Bay, in Puerto Rico. The square coastal fort has massive sandstone walls that date back to the 1630s. Although the U.S. Navy bombarded the fort in 1898, the fort survived. Today the fort is part of the San Juan National Historic Site, which is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and on the National Register of Historic Places. The fort is not open to visitors, but it can be viewed from its exterior.

History
The original fort built on this site in the late 1500s was made of wood; it burned to the ground in 1625 during a Dutch attack. However, the Spaniards replaced it with a stone fort between 1630 and 1660.

El Cañuelo was the smallest fort in the harbor defense system. Cannon fire from the fort and from Castillo San Felipe del Morro created a crossfire to protect the entrance to San Juan bay. The fort also guarded the mouth of the Bayamón River on the other side. reportedly, at one time, there was a huge chain crossing from El Morro to El Cañuelo that was extended during attacks to provide a physical barricade across the bay entrance.

On 12 May 1898, during the Spanish–American War, the United States Navy bombarded El Cañuelo as part of its bombardment of San Juan. Spanish records do not list any guns or troops at El Cañuelo at the time.

Other information
The square fort is about 80 feet (24 m) per side, with one guerite (garita in Spanish). It covers an estimated 3.4 acre area. El Cañuelo Island was originally a rocky islet completely surrounded by water and accessible only by boat. A some point after 1986 nearby Isla de Cabras was artificially expanded to incorporate it.

A causeway connects Isla de Cabras to the main island; the road is Puerto Rico Highway 870, and it passes by the fort as it reaches the island. The site features fabulous views of Boca Vieja Cove to the west and San Juan Bay to the east. The fort itself is closed to the public, but one can walk around its walls. There is a small recreation area with picnic tables at the site of the fort.

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

title: Fortín San Juan de la Cruz


text:
Talk:X2

X2 → X2 (movie) and X2 (disambiguation) → X2 - On the model of X1 and X3, which have disambiguation pages at the respective titles. Georgia guy 20:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Support violet/riga (t) 20:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Gdr 09:40, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * Support —Morven 17:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have performed these moves. - UtherSRG 14:09, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Further Tags?
I have added tags to the video games to clarify them a bit. If it's too much, then someone can remove the tags themselves. The question is, with disambig pages, is it worth making tags within the summary of each item, or keeping the page cleaner and allowing the user to find it themselves? (This has been covered before I assume?) If so, I think the X2 (PWC) line could use shortening. Yue.san 10:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:X2


text:
Greece at the 2000 Summer Olympics

Greece competed at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia. Greek athletes have competed in every Summer Olympic Games. At the closing ceremony, a Greek segment was performed, as the country hosted the next Olympics in Athens four years later. Two Greek flags were also hoisted in preparation for the handover, with the Greek national anthem played once.

Medalists
Greece finished in 17th position in the final medal rankings, with four gold medals and 13 medals overall. These were the most successful Olympic Games for Greece in which it was not the host nation.

Athletics
Men Men's 100 m
 * Georgios Theodoridis
 * Round 1 – 10.34
 * Round 2 – 10.29 (did not advance)

 * Angelos Pavlakakis
 * Round 1 – DNS (did not advance)

Men's 200 m
 * Konstantinos Kenteris
 * Round 1 – 20.57
 * Round 2 – 20.14
 * Semifinal – 20.2
 * Final – 20.09 (gold medal)

 * Anastasios Gousis
 * Round 1 – 21.1 (did not advance)

 * Alexios Alexopoulos
 * Round 1 – DNS (did not advance)

Men's 400 m
 * Anastasios Gousis
 * Round 1 – 46.38 (did not advance)

Men's 800 m
 * Panagiotis Stroubakos
 * Round 1 – 01:47.96 (did not advance)

Men's 400 m Hurdles
 * Periklis Iakovakis
 * Round 1 – 50.2 (did not advance)

Men's 4 × 100 m
 * Alexios Alexopoulos, Konstantinos Kenteris, Angelos Pavlakakis, Georgios Theodoridis
 * Round 1 – 39.21
 * Semifinal – 38.82 (did not advance)

Men's 4 × 400 m
 * Stylianos Dimotsios, Anastasios Gousis, Periklis Iakovakis, Georgios Oikonomidis
 * Round 1 – 03:06.50 (did not advance)

Men's 3,000 m Steeplechase
 * Georgios Giannelis
 * Round 1 – 09:19.14 (did not advance)

Men's Shot Put
 * Vaios Tigkas
 * Qualifying – 18.13 (did not advance)

Men's Javelin Throw
 * Konstadinos Gatsioudis
 * Qualifying – 88.41
 * Final – 86.53 (6th place)

Men's Hammer Throw
 * Alexandros Papadimitriou
 * Qualifying – 76.61
 * Final – 73.30 (12th place)

 * Hristos Polihroniou
 * Qualifying – 74.02 (did not advance)

Men's Long Jump
 * Konstantinos Koukodimos
 * Qualifying – 7.44 (did not advance)

 * Dimitrios Serelis
 * Qualifying – NM (did not advance)

Men's Triple Jump
 * Hristos Meletoglou
 * Qualifying – 16.00 (did not advance)

 * Konstadinos Zalaggitis
 * Qualifying – 14.15 (did not advance)

 * Stamatios Lenis
 * Qualifying – NM (did not advance)

Men's High Jump
 * Lambros Papakostas
 * Qualifying – DNS (did not advance)

Men's 50 km Walk
 * Spyridon Kastanis
 * Final – DNF

 * Theodoros Stamatopoulos
 * Final – DNF

Men's marathon
 * Panayiotis Haramis
 * Final – 2:26:55 (63rd place)

Men's Decathlon
 * Prodromos Korkizoglou
 * 100 m – 10.74
 * Long Jump – 7.16
 * Shot Put – 13.70
 * High Jump – 1.97
 * 400 m – 53.57
 * 100 m Hurdles – DNS
 * Discus Throw – DNS
 * Pole Vault – DNS

Women's Competition
Women's 100 m
 * Ekaterini Thanou
 * Round 1 – 11.10
 * Round 2 – 10.99
 * Semifinal – 11.10
 * Final – 11.12 (silver medal)

 * Paraskevi Patoulidou
 * Round 1 – 11.65 (did not advance)

Women's 200 m
 * Ekaterini Koffa
 * Round 1 – 23.53 (did not advance)

Women's 5,000 m
 * Hrisostomia Iakovou
 * Round 1 – 15:46.48 (did not advance)

Women's 10,000 m
 * Hrisostomia Iakovou
 * Round 1 – DNS (did not advance)

Women's 400 m Hurdles
 * Chrysoula Gountenoudi
 * Round 1 – 01:01.59 (did not advance)

Women's 4 × 100 m
 * Ekaterini Koffa, Paraskevi Patoulidou, Effrosyni Patsou, Ekaterini Thanou
 * Round 1 – 43.46
 * Semifinal – 43.53 (did not advance)

Women's Shot Put
 * Kalliopi Ouzouni
 * Qualifying – 18.56
 * Final – 18.63 (7th place)

Women's Discus
 * Anastasia Kelesidou
 * Qualifying – 63.64
 * Final – 65.71 (silver medal)

 * Styliani Tsikouna
 * Qualifying – 61.59
 * Final – 64.08 (5th place)

 * Aikaterini Vongoli
 * Qualifying – 61.29
 * Final – 61.57 (9th place)

Women's Javelin Throw
 * Mirella Maniani-Tzelili
 * Qualifying – 63.34
 * Final – 67.51 (silver medal)

 * Angeliki Tsiolakoudi
 * Qualifying – 58.11 (did not advance)

Women's Long Jump
 * Niki Xanthou
 * Qualifying – 6.50 (did not advance)

 * Despoina Papavasilaki
 * Qualifying – 5.86 (did not advance)

Women's Triple Jump
 * Olga-Anastasia Vasdeki
 * Qualifying – 14.26
 * Final – 14.15 (7th place)

Women's High Jump
 * Niki Bakogianni
 * Qualifying – 1.80 (did not advance)

Women's Pole Vault
 * Thalia Iakovidou
 * Qualifying – NM (did not advance)

Women's 20 km Walk
 * Athina Papayianni
 * Final – 1:33:14 (11th place)

 * Christina Kokotou
 * Final – 1:38:52 (36th place)

Women's Heptathlon
 * Asimina Vanakara
 * 100 m Hurdles – 14.19
 * High Jump – 1.69
 * Shot Put – 10.74
 * 200 m – 25.78
 * Long Jump – NM
 * Javelin Throw – DNS

Boxing
Men's Bantamweight (– 54 kg)
 * Artour Mikaelian
 * Round 1 – Lost to George Olteanu of Romania (did not advance)

Men's Lightweight (– 60 kg)
 * Tigran Ouzlian
 * Round 1 – Bye
 * Round 2 – Defeated Asghar Ali Shah of Pakistan
 * Quarterfinal – Lost to Mario Kindelán of Cuba (did not advance)

Men's Middleweight (– 75 kg)
 * Antonios Giannoulas
 * Round 1 – Defeated Ottavio Barone of Italy
 * Round 2 – Lost to Jorge Gutiérrez of Cuba (did not advance)

Men's competition
Men's Canoe Singles 500 m
 * Andreas Kiligkaridis
 * Qualifying Heat – 01:57.858 (did not advance)

Men's Canoe Singles 1000 m
 * Andreas Kiligkaridis
 * Qualifying Heat – 04:01.042
 * Semifinal – DSQ (did not advance)

Track Cycling
Men's Sprint
 * Nikolaos Angelidis
 * Qualifying – 10.745
 * Repechage – 2nd place – Heat 3
 * First round – Lost to Florian Rousseau of France

Men's 1 km Time Trial
 * Dimitrios Georgalis
 * Final – 01:04.018 (6th place)

Men's Keirin
 * Lampros Vasilopoulos
 * First round – Heat – 1; Place – 4 (did not advance)
 * Repechage – Heat – 3; Place – 2 (did not advance)
 * Second round – Heat – 1; DNF (did not advance)

Men's Olympic Sprint
 * Lampros Vasilopoulos, Dimitrios Georgalis, Kleanthis Bargkas
 * Qualifying – 45.207
 * Second round – 45.079
 * Final – 45.332 (4th place)

Diving
Men's 3 Metre Springboard
 * Thomas Bimis
 * Preliminary – 324.72 (32nd place, did not advance)

Men's 3 Metre Springboard
 * Nikolaos Siranidis
 * Preliminary – 317.88 (36th place, did not advance)

Women's 3 Metre Springboard
 * Sotiria Koutsopetrou
 * Preliminary – 258.81 (21st place, did not advance)

Women's 10 Metre Platform
 * Eftihia Pappa
 * Preliminary – 236.79 (29th place, did not advance)

Women's 10 Metre Platform
 * Maria Konstantatou
 * Preliminary – 189.57 (38th place, did not advance)

Modern pentathlon
Greece sent only one pentathlete to the first Olympic women's competition.

Women's:
 * Katalin Partics – 3700 pts, 22nd place

Sailing
Greece sent seven men and four women to the Sailing competition at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

 * Men

 * Women

 * Open

Swimming
Men's 100 m Freestyle
 * Spyridon Bitsakis
 * Preliminary Heat – 51.28 (did not advance)

Men's 200 m Freestyle
 * Dimitrios Manganas
 * Preliminary Heat – 1:54.36 (did not advance)

Men's 400 m Freestyle
 * Spyridon Gianniotis
 * Preliminary Heat – 03:54.96 (did not advance)

Men's 1500 m Freestyle
 * Spyridon Gianniotis
 * Preliminary Heat – 15:29.69 (did not advance)

Men's 100 m Butterfly
 * Ioannis Drymonakos
 * Preliminary Heat – 56.36 (did not advance)

Men's 200 m Butterfly
 * Ioannis Drymonakos
 * Preliminary Heat – 02:00.75 (did not advance)

Men's 200 m Individual Medley
 * Ioannis Kokkodis
 * Preliminary Heat – 02:04.04 (did not advance)

Men's 400 m Individual Medley
 * Ioannis Kokkodis
 * Preliminary Heat – 04:23.19 (did not advance)

Men's 4 × 200 m Freestyle
 * Spyridon Bitsakis, Spyridon Gianniotis, Dimitrios Manganas, Athanasios Oikonomou
 * Preliminary Heat – 07:35.77 (did not advance)

Women's 50 m Freestyle
 * Athina Bochori
 * Preliminary Heat – 26.9 (did not advance)

Women's 100 m Freestyle
 * Antonia Machaira
 * Preliminary Heat – 57.24 (did not advance)

Women's 200 m Freestyle
 * Zoi Dimoschaki
 * Preliminary Heat – 02:04.06 (did not advance)

Women's 400 m Freestyle
 * Artemis Dafni
 * Preliminary Heat – 04:16.94 (did not advance)

Women's 800 m Freestyle
 * Marianna Lymperta
 * Preliminary Heat – 08:56.33 (did not advance)

Women's 100 m Butterfly
 * Zampia Melachroinou
 * Preliminary Heat – 01:02.06 (did not advance)

Women's 200 m Butterfly
 * Zampia Melachroinou
 * Preliminary Heat – 02:17.60 (did not advance)

Women's 100 m Backstroke
 * Aikaterini Bliamou
 * Preliminary Heat – 01:05.09 (did not advance)

Women's 200 m Backstroke
 * Aikaterini Bliamou
 * Preliminary Heat – 02:18.07 (did not advance)

Women's 200 m Individual Medley
 * Aikaterini Sarakatsani
 * Preliminary Heat – 02:23.05 (did not advance)

Women's 400 m Individual Medley
 * Artemis Dafni
 * Preliminary Heat – 04:53.52 (did not advance)

Synchronized swimming
Duet:
 * Christina Thalassinidou and Despoina Theodoridou – 90.363 pts (13th place, did not advance)

Taekwondo
Men's Under 58 kg:
 * Michail Mouroutsos – Gold medal
 * Preminaly 1 – Defeated Talaat Abada of Egypt (5-0)
 * Preminaly 2 – Defeated Huan Chih-Hsiung of Chinese Taipei (2-1)
 * Preminaly 3 – Defeated Gabriel Alberto Taraburelli of Argentina (2-1)
 * Final – Defeated Gabriel Espareza of Spain (4-2)

Men's over 80 kg:
 * Alexandros Nikolaidis
 * Preminaly 1 – Defeated Donald Ravenscroft of South Africa (WDR)
 * Preminaly 2 – Lost to Milton Castro of Colombia (RSC)

Women's Under 57 kg:
 * Areti Athanasopoulou
 * Preminaly 1 – Defeated Shimaa Afifi of Egypt (7-7, SUP)
 * Preminaly 2 – Lost to Virginia Lourens of Netherlands (6-8, PTS)

Triathlon
Men's Individual Competition:
 * Vassilis Krommidas – 1:51:28.94 (→ 33rd place)

Volleyball

 * Vasso Karadassiou and Efi Sfyri – 17th place (tied)

Water polo
Men Team Competition

Classification 9th-12th

 * Team Roster
 * George Mavrotas
 * Filippos Kaiafas
 * Theodoros Lorantos
 * Konstantinos Loudis
 * Georgios Afroudakis
 * Thomas Khatzis
 * Theodoros Chatzitheodorou
 * Georgios Psykhos
 * Nikolaos Deligiannis
 * Dimitrios Mazis
 * Georgios Reppas
 * Ioannis Thomakos
 * Antonios Vlontakis

Weightlifting
Men

Women

Wrestling
Men

title: Greece at the 2000 Summer Olympics


text:
Pieter Geyl

Pieter Catharinus Arie Geyl (15 December 1887, Dordrecht – 31 December 1966, Utrecht) was a Dutch historian, well known for his studies in early modern Dutch history and in historiography.

Background
Geyl was born in Dordrecht and graduated from the University of Leiden in 1913. His thesis was on Christofforo Suriano, the Venetian Ambassador in the Netherlands from 1616 to 1623. He was married twice, first to Maria Cornelia van Slooten in 1911 (who died in 1933) and secondly to Garberlina Kremer in 1934.

Early career
Geyl worked as a teacher at Stedelijk Gymnasium Schiedam (grammar school) in Schiedam (1912–1913) before going on to serve as the London correspondent for Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant newspaper. During this time, Geyl befriended many influential people in Britain. In 1919 Geyl took up a professorship in Dutch history at the University of London, where he taught until 1935. In 1935, Geyl returned home to become a professor at the University of Utrecht.

In 1928 Geyl became correspondent of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; he resigned in 1936. In 1946 he joined the Academy again, this time as full member.

Wartime experiences
In 1940, Geyl wrote an article on how historians view Napoleon. It was due to be published in June 1940, but after the German occupation in May 1940, the publishers declined to publish Geyl's article out of the fear that comparisons could be made between Napoleon and Adolf Hitler. In September 1940, Geyl used his article for the basis of series of lectures at the Rotterdam School of Economics. In October 1940 the SD (Security Service) of the SS took Geyl hostage in retaliation for what the Germans alleged to be maltreatment of Germans interned in the Dutch East Indies. Geyl spent thirteen months at the Buchenwald concentration camp. Even after his release from Buchenwald, Geyl continued to be held by the Germans at a Dutch prison until he was finally released for medical reasons in February 1944.

In 1945 Geyl became the chair of history at the University of Utrecht. In his opening address, he called for his students to disprove political and cultural myths that could lead to movements like National Socialism. Geyl was a critic of the Sonderweg interpretation of German history that argued that Nazi Germany was the inevitable result of the way German history developed. In particular, Geyl defended the German historian Leopold von Ranke against the charge of being a proto-Nazi.

Geyl's historical outlook
Geyl was best known as a critic of the British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, who seemed to maintain that he had discovered "laws" of history that proved how civilisations rise and fall. Geyl often debated Toynbee both on the radio and in print. He accused Toynbee of selective use of evidence to support pre-conceived notions and of ignoring evidence that did not support his thesis. In addition, Geyl considered Toynbee's theory to be simplistic, ignoring the full complexity of the past; he regarded Toynbee's theory of "challenge and response" to explain historical change as too loose and a catch-all definition. Finally, Geyl was opposed to Toynbee's apparent claim that Western civilisation was in terminal decline.

Geyl was noted for challenging the then-popular theory that the historical separation of the Dutch and the Flemings was a result of "natural" causes. Geyl claimed that there was a "Greater Netherlands" history and that the Dutch and Flemings separated only during the Eighty Years' War (better known as the Dutch Revolt in the English-speaking world) against Spain in the 16th century. Geyl argued that the revolt failed in the south not because of political, cultural or religious differences, but only because the geography in the north with its lakes, bogs and rivers favoured the rebels and the geography in the south with its flat plains favoured the Spanish Army. Had it not been for the accident of geography, Flanders would have been part of the Dutch Republic. Geyl expressed his ideas in a series of articles and in his main work, De Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Stam (1930–1959, unfinished). In accordance with his historical ideas, Geyl actively supported the Flemish movement, though not favouring Dutch-Flemish irredentism.

Geyl's work has been criticised for not taking into account the unifying force of administrative and economic developments after the separation and for sometimes drawing artificial boundaries based on language alone; on the other hand, it has been praised for its refreshing approach to the Dutch Revolt, which was in marked opposition to the then-current nationally oriented, almost finalistic view on Dutch and Belgian history as represented by P.J. Blok and Henri Pirenne.

Geyl was also noted for arguing that the House of Orange and the Dutch people were often in conflict, especially during the 18th century. Geyl accused William IV of Orange of using the uprising of the Doelisten (a group of Amsterdam burgers) against the ruling elite to seize power for himself in 1748. Another revisionist claim made by Geyl was that the marriage of William of Orange (later stadtholder Willem II) to Mary Stuart was the main cause of the first Anglo-Dutch War in the 17th century.

Napoleon For and Against was an account of how French historians of different ages and views have regarded the French emperor. From Napoleon's time to the present, French historians have presented Napoleon as either a Corsican adventurer who brought death and destruction to France or as a patriotic Frenchman who brought glory and prosperity. Geyl used his book to advance his view that all historians are influenced by the present when writing history and thus all historical writing is transitory. In Geyl's view, there never can be a definitive account for all ages because every age has a different view of the past. For Geyl the best that historians could do was to critically examine their beliefs and urge their readers to do likewise. Geyl felt that history was a progress of "argument without end", but did not feel that this meant that an "anything goes" interpretation of history was acceptable.

Death
Geyl died on 31 December 1966 in Utrecht, Netherlands.

Published works

 * Christofforo Suriano: resident van de Serenissime Republiek van Venetië in Den Haag, 1616–1623, 1913.
 * Willem IV en Engeland tot 1748, 1924.
 * De Groot-Nederlandsche gedachte, 1925.
 * De geschiedenis van de Nederlandsche Stam, 3 volumes, 1930–1959: translated into English as The Revolt of the Netherlands, 1555–1609 and The Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century.
 * Revolutiedagen te Amsterdam, Augustus–September 1748, 1936.
 * Patriotten en NSBers, 1946.
 * History of the Low Countries: Episodes and Problems, Macmillan, 1964. The Trevelyan Lectures 1963, with 4 additional essays.
 * The Revolt of the Netherlands, 1555–1609, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1966.
 * The Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century, Pt. I: 1609-1648; Pt.II: 1648-1715, 2 volumes, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1961 & 1964.
 * Oranje en Stuart, 1641–72, 1939: translated by A. Pomerans into English as Orange and Stuart, 1641–72, New York: Scribner, 1970.
 * Napoleon: voor en tegen in de Franse geschiedschrijving, 1946: translated by O. Renier into English as Napoleon, For and Against, New Haven, CT; Yale University Press, 1948; revised edition 1964.
 * De Patriottenbeweging, 1780–1787, 1947.
 * Can We Know the Pattern of the Past? Discussion between P. Geyl and A. Toynbee concerning Toynbee's Book 'A Study of History', Bossum: F.G. Kroonder, co-written with Arnold Toynbee, 1948.
 * The Pattern of the Past: Can we Determine it? cowritten with Arnold Toynbee and P. Sorokin, New York: Greenwood, 1949.
 * Use and Abuse of History, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1955.
 * Debates with Historians, Cleveland, Ohio: Meridian, 1958.
 * Studies en strijdschriften, 1958.
 * Encounters in History, Cleveland, Ohio: Meridian, 1961.

title: Pieter Geyl


text:
User:Truthserum

ward churchill racist

title: User:Truthserum


text:
Cardinal electors in the 2005 papal conclave

The papal conclave of 2005 was convened to elect a pope, the leader of the Catholic Church, to succeed Pope John Paul II following his death on 2 April 2005. In accordance with the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici gregis, which governed the vacancy of the Holy See, only cardinals who had not passed their 80th birthday on the day on which the Holy See became vacant (in this case, cardinals who were born on or after 2 April 1925) were eligible to participate in the conclave. Although not a formal requirement, the cardinal electors invariably elected the pope from among their number. The election was carried out by secret ballot (per scrutinium).

Of the 183 members of the College of Cardinals at the time of John Paul II's death, there were 117 cardinal electors who were eligible to participate in the subsequent conclave. Two cardinal electors did not participate, decreasing the number in attendance to 115. The number of votes required to be elected pope with a two-thirds supermajority was, or (only in the event of a protracted deadlock) a simple majority of.

Of the 115 attending cardinal electors, 5 were cardinal bishops, 93 were cardinal priests, and 17 were cardinal deacons; 2 had been created cardinals by Pope Paul VI and 113 by Pope John Paul II; 24 worked in the service of the Holy See (such as in the Roman Curia), 73 were in pastoral ministry outside Rome, and 18 had retired. The oldest cardinal elector in the conclave was Marco Cé, at the age of 79 years, and the youngest was Péter Erdő, at the age of 52 years. Another 66 cardinals were ineligible to participate in the conclave, for reasons of age.

The cardinal electors entered the Sistine Chapel to begin the conclave on 18 April 2005. On 19 April, after four ballots over two days, they elected Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who took the papal name Benedict XVI.

Cardinal electors
The College of Cardinals is divided into three orders: cardinal bishops (CB), cardinal priests (CP) and cardinal deacons (CD), with precedence in that sequence. This is the order in which the cardinal electors process into the conclave, take the oath and cast their ballots. For cardinal bishops, except the Eastern Catholic patriarchs, the dean is first in precedence, followed by the vice-dean and then by the rest in order of appointment as cardinal bishops. For cardinal bishops who are Eastern Catholic patriarchs, for cardinal priests and for cardinal deacons, precedence is determined by the date of the consistory in which they were created cardinals and then by the order in which they appeared in the official announcement or bulletin.

Three of the cardinal electors were from the Eastern Catholic Churches: Ignace Moussa I Daoud (Syriac), Varkey Vithayathil (Syro-Malabar) and Lubomyr Husar (Ukrainian). The senior cardinal bishop, the senior cardinal priest, the senior cardinal deacon and the junior cardinal deacon, who were assigned specific roles in the conclave, such as presiding over the conclave itself (the senior cardinal bishop) or announcing the election of the pope (the senior cardinal deacon), were, respectively, Joseph Ratzinger, William Wakefield Baum, Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez and Attilio Nicora. The camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, who was in charge of administering the Holy See during its vacancy, was Eduardo Martínez Somalo.

The data below are as of 2 April 2005, the date on which the Holy See became vacant. All cardinals are of the Latin Church unless otherwise stated. Cardinals belonging to institutes of consecrated life or to societies of apostolic life are indicated by the relevant post-nominal letters.

{{Legend|#ffc|Elected pope|text=*}}

Cardinal electors by continent and by country
The 115 attending cardinal electors were from 52 countries on all six inhabited continents. The countries with the greatest number of cardinal electors were Italy (twenty), the United States (eleven) and, jointly, Germany and Spain (six each).

{{Legend|#ffc|Continent/country of elected pope|text=*}}


text:
Sweden at the 2000 Summer Olympics

Sweden's entry at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia consisted of 150 competitors (98 men and 52 women) who took part in 92 events in 22 sports.

Canoeing

 * Men

 * Women

Football
Key:
 * Summary
 * W – Win D – Draw L – Loss
 * A.E.T – After extra time.
 * P – Match decided by penalty-shootout.

Women's tournament

 * Team Roster

 * Malin Andersson
 * Kristin Bengtsson
 * Sara Call
 * Linda Fagerström
 * Sara Johansson
 * Caroline Jönsson
 * Ulrika Karlsson
 * Sara Larsson
 * Hanna Ljungberg
 * Åsa Lönnqvist
 * Hanna Marklund
 * Malin Moström
 * Tina Nordlund
 * Cecilia Sandell
 * Therese Sjögran
 * Victoria Svensson
 * Malin Swedberg
 * Ulla-Karin Thelin
 * Jane Törnqvist
 * Karolina Westberg

 * Group stage

Handball
Key:
 * Summary
 * ET: After extra time
 * P – Match decided by penalty-shootout.

Rowing

 * Men

 * Women

Sailing
Sweden won one bronze medal and competed in nine Sailing events at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Men's Mistral
 * Fredrik Palm
 * Race 1 — (30)
 * Race 2 — 21
 * Race 3 — (30)
 * Race 4 — 2
 * Race 5 — 12
 * Race 6 — 14
 * Race 7 — 26
 * Race 8 — 22
 * Race 9 — 25
 * Race 10 — 28
 * Race 11 — 15
 * Final — 165 (23rd place)

Men's Single Handed Dinghy (Finn)
 * Fredrik Lööf
 * Race 1 — (17)
 * Race 2 — 5
 * Race 3 — 1
 * Race 4 — 6
 * Race 5 — 7
 * Race 6 — 4
 * Race 7 — 4
 * Race 8 — (22)
 * Race 9 — 2
 * Race 10 — 11
 * Race 11 — 7
 * Final — 47 (Bronze medal)

Men's Double Handed Dinghy (470)
 * Johan Molund and Mattias Rahm
 * Race 2 — 10
 * Race 3 — 7
 * Race 4 — (30) OCS
 * Race 5 — 2
 * Race 6 — (29)
 * Race 7 — 1
 * Race 8 — 4
 * Race 9 — 19
 * Race 10 — 20
 * Race 11 — 15
 * Final — 96 (12th place)

Women's Single Handed Dinghy (Europe)
 * Therese Torgersson
 * Race 1 — 16
 * Race 2 — 14
 * Race 3 — (23)
 * Race 4 — 20
 * Race 5 — 18
 * Race 6 — 22
 * Race 7 — 20
 * Race 8 — 21
 * Race 9 — 17
 * Race 10 — 11
 * Race 11 — (23)
 * Final — 159 (22nd place)

Women's Double Handed Dinghy (470)
 * Lena Carlsson and Agneta Engström
 * Race 1 — (18)
 * Race 2 — 13
 * Race 3 — 2
 * Race 4 — 10
 * Race 5 — 6
 * Race 6 — 9
 * Race 7 — 14
 * Race 8 — 4
 * Race 9 — 2
 * Race 10 — 11
 * Race 11 — (19)
 * Final — 71 (9th place)

Open Laser
 * Karl Suneson
 * Race 1 — 10
 * Race 2 — 5
 * Race 3 — 3
 * Race 4 — 24
 * Race 5 — 19
 * Race 6 — 17
 * Race 7 — 8
 * Race 8 — 14
 * Race 9 — (44) OCS
 * Race 10 — (44) OCS
 * Race 11 — 7
 * Final — 107 (14th place)

Open Two Handed Keelboat (Star)
 * Mats Johansson and Leif Möller
 * Race 1 — (12)
 * Race 2 — (16)
 * Race 3 — 9
 * Race 4 — 12
 * Race 5 — 9
 * Race 6 — 11
 * Race 7 — 9
 * Race 8 — 8
 * Race 9 — 10
 * Race 10 — 7
 * Race 11 — 10
 * Final — 85 (13th place)

Open Three Handed Keelboat (Soling)
 * Magnus Augustson, Johan Barne and Hans Wallén
 * Round robin Group 2 — (3-2) 3 points — Did not advance

Open High Performance Two Handed Dinghy (49er)
 * John Harrysson and Patrik Sandeström
 * Race 1 — 9
 * Race 2 — 16
 * Race 3 — 13
 * Race 4 — (18) DSQ
 * Race 5 — 15
 * Race 6 — 15
 * Race 7 — 15
 * Race 8 — 14
 * Race 9 — 12
 * Race 10 — 15
 * Race 11 — 15
 * Race 12 — 16
 * Race 13 — (18) OCS
 * Race 14 — 14
 * Race 15 — 15
 * Race 16 — 18 DNF
 * Final — 202 (17th place)

Swimming

 * Men

 * Women

Taekwondo

 * Men

Wrestling

 * Greco-Roman

title: Sweden at the 2000 Summer Olympics


text:
User talk:Bostonian71

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski 20:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Homophobia?
In this erudite encyclopedia, I'm not sure what's worse... homophobia, or the fact that yahoos like anonymous user 204.108.127.254 can't spell... "faggot", for example. But what can one expect from Yankees fans? >:) Wahkeenah 19:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who runs the website or sets the rules, but they could save a lot of time by disallowing unregistered users from making changes. Wahkeenah 21:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bostonian71