text:
Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi

Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi (أحمد طالب الإبراهيمي; born 5 January 1932) is an Algerian politician and intellectual.

He is the son of Islamic theologian and renowned scholar Bachir Ibrahimi, and served in multiple ministerial roles in Algeria from the 1960s until the late 1980s. A staunch anti-colonialist and proponent of Arab heritage through his writings and his actions, Dr. Ibrahimi was jailed by the French authorities as a militant of the FLN Party. He ran for president in 1999 but withdrew from the race along with all other opposition candidates hours before voting commenced, claiming electoral fraud by the army. In 2004, his proposed candidacy was disqualified because of alleged links with the proscribed Islamic Salvation Front (FIS). His platform includes moderate Islamism and adherence to free-market economics. Dr. Ibrahimi is the father of two sons, and currently resides in the city of Algiers, Algeria with his wife Souad.

Early years
Ahmed Taleb-Ibrahimi was born on January 5, 1932, in the eastern city of Setif, 220 miles off the Algerian capital. He grew up in a family of modest means, which was yet in contrast intellectually and spiritually wealthy. His father, Sheikh Bachir Ibrahimi, a renowned scholar, was already fighting the French colonialism not with a military weapon but with his sharp pen and voice. He was Deputy President and later President of the “Association of the Oulemaa”, whose main objective was to build schools in order to inform & educate the populace, raise awareness about the Arabic heritage & a moderate Islam, and free Algeria from the shackles of colonialism. Because of his militant activities, the French occupiers extradited him numerous times, and assigned him under house arrest for “spreading subversion.” This in turn obliged the family to be scattered around the country.

As a child and an adolescent, Ahmed quickly acquired from his father a precious knowledge and a general culture which he will later rely and build on. In the late 1940s, he passed his Baccalaureate exam and went on studying medicine. In 1954 he moved to Paris to further his medical education, and after that he earned a degree in Hematology, interning at few Parisian hospitals.

French prison until Algerian independence
Whilst Ahmed completed his medical specialty, he was simultaneously a militant and an advocate for Algerian independence. With some other militants, he launched in 1952 "Le Jeune Musulman", a newspaper addressing the needs of the young generation in retrieving its identity after years of colonization. He was elected as the 1st president of l'UGEMA (Union Générale des étudiants Musulmans Algériens). Later he was appointed member of "Fédération de France", the FLN representation in France. No wonder that in February 1957 he was arrested and imprisoned in Paris. During almost 5 years in French prisons, he developed friendship in so far as brotherhood with other inmates who will later become the elite of a free Algeria. In September 1961 he was liberated and spent few months overseas, among other places, in Switzerland, Tunisia, and Morocco to physically heal from illness caused by years of incarceration.

Algerian doctor
In 1962 he pursued his career as a doctor in the main hospital of Algiers. After the independence, in July 1962, Ahmed continued his work of reforming, renovating the hospital, teaching the next generation of Algerian doctors, and learning from foreign professors who chose to remain in independent Algeria. Moreover, during the next 3 years, he received many enticing offers to be Ambassador, and had other senior government positions offered to him which he refused because he wanted to stay with his family which he missed from all those years of war and separation. Even the-then first President of Algeria, Ahmed Ben Bella, made several overtures to Ahmed so he works with him. Ahmed politely declined the offer and made it clear that he wished to continue practicing medicine rather than engage in Politics. In addition, Ahmed had the financial responsibility to find housing for his parents and ailing sister, and share his meager salary with them.

Though inconceivable and oddly paradoxical for someone of the stature of Sheikh Bachir Ibrahimi – a prominent scholar who spent all his life fighting and suffering along with his family to render Algeria a free and prosperous nation – the family was hard-pressed to find a place to live in an independent Algeria. This was indeed not a coincidence at all in as much as the-then President Benbella was hostile to Sheikh Bachir and his son Ahmed because the latter did not agree with his policies in general, and the extreme socialism that the President adopted in particular.

Torture under Benbella
Following the orders of President Benbella, Ahmed was arrested and jailed in Algerian prisons in July 1964. These horrible 8 months were considerably worse than the 5 years spent in French prisons. Indeed, during this time he was repeatedly tortured in an egregious way by some of his countrymen. It is worthwhile to remind the reader that during the Algerian revolution (1954–1962), the International Community strongly condemned France for torturing Algerians. Alas, even after Algeria became independent, some Algerians themselves, with President Benbella at the helm perpetuated this barbaric practice against his jail companions. In fact, it is alarmingly sickening that although Benbella and Ahmed were amongst many inmates within the same French prison in the late 1950s, becoming by default “brothers in arms”, Benbella later became President, executed some of his companions, and wished to do the same with Ahmed. The latter was lucky enough that the-then Defense Minister Houari Boumediene intervened to spare him. What was then the “crime” of Ahmed Taleb-Ibrahimi? He simply did not agree with the policies and direction of Benbella, and refused to work with him.

In February 1965, Ahmed was released weakened by the excruciating episode he endured. He traveled to Switzerland to heal emotionally and physically with some of the other inmates who were lucky to make it alive under Benbella’s heinous torture. Upon his return, he resumed work in the hospital and strenuously endeavored to enjoy and make up the missed moments with his family. Unfortunately, 3 months later Cheikh Bachir died on 20 May 1965. And a month later, on June 19, 1965 Benbella was overthrown via a bloodless coup by Defense Minister Houari Boumediene who will become President of Algeria.

Minister under Boumediene
In 1965 President Boumediene offered Ahmed the position of Minister of Education. The latter went on a campaign of reforming the Algerian school and its educational system. In 1970, Boumediene reshuffled his cabinet, and appointed Ahmed Minister of Information and Culture until April 1977. By this date, the President chose to have Ahmed even closer to him, and created the position of “Minister Advisor to the President.” Throughout the years, it was clear that Ahmed earned the trust and confidence of the President.

Later years and the election of 1999
However, such allegations have been contradicted by the trust placed by the Algerian people in Abdelaziz Bouteflika three times again through the elections of 2004, 2009 and 2014. Although Most Serious Opposition Parties confirm that Bouteflika was repeatedly elected with massive fraud and the Algerian People finally overthrown him in 2019, When he tried to run for a fifth term.

title: Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi


text:
Talk:David Lander

Untitled
Can anybody explain to me why we shouldn't have a link to Lander's book where he revealed his condition to the world? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  21:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, I've realised you prefer to use the ISBN. The ISBN for this book is 1585420522, but I have no idea how to link to that. So, to those of you that keep reverting that link, Please link to the book, it has nothing to do to Treasuretrove's schemes, and is simply important in the context of David Lander. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  21:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lenny and the Squigtones contradictory
Contradictory entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lander "Lander released an album as Lenny and the Squigtones in 1980"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McKean "and the characters [[referring to both Lenny and Squiggy] became something of a phenomenon, even releasing an album as Lenny and the Squigtones in 1979"

Both the implication of who released the album and the year the album was released appear to be different on these pages.

Squigtones Reissue?
Can someone please explain why the 1980 comedy classic on Casablanca has never seen a CD release? Know of any plans, past or present, thwarted or pending? Richiestern 18:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

TMZ
Should the TMZ reference be removed? It’s usually considered to not be a reliable source. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:David Lander


text:
Photographic print toning

In photography, toning is a method of altering the color of black-and-white photographs. In analog photography, it is a chemical process carried out on metal salt-based prints, such as silver prints, iron-based prints (cyanotype or Van Dyke brown), or platinum or palladium prints. This darkroom process cannot be performed with a color photograph. The effects of this process can be emulated with software in digital photography. Sepia is considered a form of black-and-white or monochrome photography.

Chemical toning
Most toners work by replacing the metallic silver in the emulsion with a silver compound, such as silver sulfide (Ag2S) in the case of sepia toning. The compound may be more stable than metallic silver and may also have a different color or tone. Different toning processes give different colors to the final print. In some cases, the printer may choose to tone some parts of a print more than others.

Toner also can increase the range of shades visible in a print without reducing the contrast. Selenium toning is especially effective in this regard. Some toning processes can improve the chemical stability of the print, increasing its potential longevity. Other toning processes, such as those including iron and copper, can make the print less stable. Many chemical toners are highly toxic, some even containing chemicals that are carcinogenic. It is therefore extremely important that the chemicals be used in a well ventilated area, and rubber gloves and face protection should be worn when handling them.

Selenium toning
Selenium toning is a popular archival toning process, converting metallic silver to silver selenide. In a diluted toning solution, selenium toning gives a red-brown tone, while a strong solution gives a purple-brown tone. The change in color depends upon the chemical make-up of the photographic emulsion being toned. Chloro-bromide papers change dramatically, whilst pure bromide papers change little. Fibre-based papers are more responsive to selenium toning.

Selenium toning may not produce prints quite as stable as sepia or gold toning. Recently, doubts have surfaced as to the effectiveness of selenium toner in ensuring print longevity.

Sepia toning
Sepia toning is a specialized treatment to give a black-and-white photographic print a warmer tone and to enhance its archival qualities. The metallic silver in the print is converted to a sulfide compound, which is much more resistant to the effects of environmental pollutants such as atmospheric sulfur compounds. Silver sulfide is at least 50% more stable than silver.

There are three types of sepia toner in modern use;
 * 1) Sodium sulfide toners – the traditional 'rotten egg' toners (sodium sulfide smells of rotten eggs when exposed to moisture);
 * 2) Thiourea (or 'thiocarbamide') toners – these are odorless and the tone can be varied according to the chemical mixture;
 * 3) Polysulfide or 'direct' toners – these do not require a bleaching stage.

Except for polysulfide toners, sepia toning is done in three stages. The print is first soaked in a potassium ferricyanide bleach to reconvert the metallic silver to silver halide. The print is washed to remove excess potassium ferricyanide and then immersed into a bath of toner, which converts the silver halides to silver sulfide.

Incomplete bleaching creates a multi-toned image with sepia highlights and gray mid-tones and shadows. This is called split toning. The untoned silver in the print can be treated with a different toner, such as gold or selenium.

Fred Judge FRPS made extensive use of sepia toning for postcards produced by the British picture postcards manufacturer Judges Postcards.

Metal replacement toning
Metal replacement toners replace the metallic silver, through a series of chemical reactions, with a ferrocyanide salt of a transition metal. Some metals, such as platinum or gold, can protect the image. Others, such as iron (blue toner) or copper (red toner), may reduce the life of the image.

Metal-replacement toning with gold alone results in a blue-black tone. It is often combined with a sepia toner to produce a more attractive orange-red tone. The archival Gold Protective Solution (GP-1) formula uses a 1% gold chloride stock solution with sodium or potassium thiocyanate. It is sometimes used to split tone photographs previously toned in selenium for artistic purposes.

Dye toning
Dye toners replace the metallic silver with a dye. The image will have a reduced lifetime compared with an ordinary silver print.

Digital toning
Toning can be simulated digitally, either in-camera or in post-processing. The in-camera effect, as well as beginner tutorials given for software like Photoshop or GIMP, use a simple tint. More sophisticated software tends to implement sepia tones using the duotone feature. Simpler photo-editing software usually has an option to sepia-tone an image in one step.

Examples
The examples below show a digital color photograph, a black-and-white version and a sepia-toned version.

title: Photographic print toning


text:
Ozone depletion potential

The ozone depletion potential (ODP) of a chemical compound is the relative amount of degradation to the ozone layer it can cause, with trichlorofluoromethane (R-11 or CFC-11) being fixed at an ODP of 1.0. Chlorodifluoromethane (R-22), for example, has an ODP of 0.05. CFC 11, or R-11 has the maximum potential amongst chlorocarbons because of the presence of three chlorine atoms in the molecule.

The first proposal of ODP came from Wuebbles in 1983. It was defined as a measure of destructive effects of a substance compared to a reference substance.

Precisely, ODP of a given substance is defined as the ratio of global loss of ozone due to the given substance to the global loss of ozone due to CFC-11 of the same mass.

ODP can be estimated from the molecular structure of a given substance. Chlorofluorocarbons have ODPs roughly equal to 1. Brominated substances have usually higher ODPs in range 5–15, because of the more aggressive bromine reaction with ozone. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons have ODPs mostly in range 0.005 - 0.2 due to the presence of the hydrogen which causes them to react readily in the troposphere, therefore reducing their chance to reach the stratosphere where the ozone layer is present. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) have no chlorine content, so their ODP is essentially zero. ODP is often used in conjunction with a compound's global warming potential (GWP) as a measure of how environmentally detrimental it can be.

In a broad sense, haloalkanes that contain no hydrogen are stable in the troposphere and decompose only in the stratosphere. Those compounds that contain hydrogen also react with OH radicals and can therefore be decomposed in the troposphere, as well. The ozone depletion potential increases with the heavier halogens since the C-X bond strength is lower. Note the trend of the CClF2-X series in the table below.

title: Ozone depletion potential


text:
Talk:Awareness

levels
May i add a section of levels of awereness? something like this:"Levels of consciousness" -Not aware (Sub-conscious) -Weak awareness (Phenomenal consciousness) -Self-awareness -awareness of ones existense -awareness of ones observation -awareness of ones calculation -awareness of ones psychological aspects

I just need some help to complete the list and to make it more representative to reality.. Ressonans 15:52, 17 aug 2006 (CMN)

 * Sigmund Frued, Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Erik Erikson all described stages of development, which function like levels of awareness. Also, Maslow's hierarchy of needs has levels, which could be seen as levels of awareness. Levels of awareness is a concept in psychology, and quite a few people have explored it before. Qsimanelix (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Chordate
How is it known that the chordate nervous system facilitate awareness?--Brad Weisbecker 06:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Blank awareness
Is there a word for the general category of campaings and movements to foster "______ awareness," where "_____" is a poitical issue or crisis (as in breast cancer awareness, poverty awareness, etc.)? If so, should an article on that be listed under "see also" or up at the top? $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 11:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Situational awareness

 * analyze and communicate about people and things of interest” in a number of complex environments
 * See Battlespace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.163.44.102 (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Elements of awareness?
Perhaps there should be some link to "situational awareness". Endsley's definition does unpack the notion, and perhaps is more broadly applicable to "awareness"?

Situation Awareness is the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future (pp. 36). (Endsley, 1995, after Endsley, 1987, 1988).

Company names Awareness?
I added the disambiguation link at the top of the page to differentiate between the concept of awareness (religion/philosophy) and the Massachusetts-based company, Awareness, Inc.Adammetz 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

minor thing
from the second paragraph: "awarement" I checked dictionary.com and this supposed word isn't listed. I would like a better explanation of this concept, because I think this part is a little vauge. "the form of awareness", etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checazoe (talk • contribs) 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

does this link fit here?
or where is the right place (in addition to the wikisite of Paul Brunton? is this eventually enlightenment or illumination or awakening? Please share your idea.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.3 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Add refimprove template
Since there are a few citations, I took out the Unreferenced template and replaced it with the Refimprove. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`.   09:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Awareness is the same as Mindfulness
I believe this article is missing a major point. Awareness is a western term for Mindfulness_(Buddhism) & Mindfulness_(psychology).

Awareness occurs in the now (present moment). Buddhist refer to it as Mindfulness.

Mindfulness is a very good descriptive word of what occurs particular in relation to the human condition. Awareness or Mindfulness watches the mind (inner world) and the external world (at the present moment). It can watch everything that occurs, memories, thoughts, emotions, feelings, physical objects, form etc. It does not get involved... it just watches non-judgementally. Real awareness can only occur in the now present moment (non-juddgemental observation). You cannot become aware of something later... that is a memory.

Without the incorporation of mindfulness this article lacks depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyjoyce (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Review
This article is barely trustworthy and is biased, incomplete, and in need of better writing and more accuracy. The article attempts to address awareness from the perspective of biological psychology and provides a tentative outline. However, the articles provides little in-depth information and random unreferenced examples presented in an arbitrary order. Fundamentally, it lacks an overview of the main theories on awareness from perspectives of cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and neuropsychology. For the purposes of an encyclopaedia it further lacks a lucid concise folk-psychological notion to be stated in the introduction. The reference to awareness in relation to digital information systems appears misplaced and unjustified. The edits contain apostrophizations, which belong to informal language. Finally, the references are not written in APA style. Ostracon (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

minimum requirement for language use
In a para overleaf you say "capacity for thought and understanding". Neither of the two words seem to be defined there or elsewhere. So it is impossible to check out the meaning of the definition. I doubt that it is right to claim such an idea. Mind you, even an insect may have "thoughts" and mammals and other animals or even plants are surely feature understanding as it is exhibited in theses days increasingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.35.70 (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Awareness. 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/20060308235733/http://www.news.cornell.edu:80/Chronicle/05/3.3.05/brain_damage_aware.html to http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/05/3.3.05/brain_damage_aware.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Reflective Access
Is awareness the same as the (philosophical) concept of "Reflective Access"? See, for example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/#DegRefAcc Thanks.--Lbeaumont (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Circular reasoning
In the intro awareness is declared as "the state of being conscious of something". Then conscious is referred to as "the state or quality of awareness". This is a circular definition. 82.217.111.143 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the discussion of this topic, please see Talk:Consciousness 82.217.111.143 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

yep, I just noticed that as well coming from the article "Cognitive science#Consciousness" seems a bit silly to state as fact with no sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:600:3A78:3133:3DBF:D4A3:C255 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism
I think the whole section under Neuroscience has been plagiarized. Clarheart (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Spiritual Awareness
Hello Fellow Wikipedians: I feel the article needs to take into account the new use of the word in the context of meditation. However, although there are good references available, in this meaning, it lacks a scientific basis, and always will do, due to its necessarily subjective basis. Therefore it would not sit well here, and may need its own Wikipage. Could anyone help with this? Yesterday I wrote a rough outline, without references, which was swiftly reverted, of course. But what I wrote is as follows:

The word Awareness is being increasingly adopted by the worldwide spiritual movement as the word to describe transcendent mindfulness, where the meditator is completely detached from all objects of consciousness. This is such a supremely important new useage, it really deserves a Wikipage all of its own. Ajahn Sumedho may possibly be referring to this state in his phrase 'Intuitive Awareness.'

The term Awareness in this context is hard to exactly pin down, because it is not itself an object of consciousness. Instead, the word is used to describe a way of looking. Thus, in this context, 'Awareness' (capital A) is a way of looking, of seeing without an observer, of seeing without attachment, without identification, without identity, without an ego, without a centre. And yet, infuriatingly, many respected teachers go on to encourage the practice of being aware of Awareness. It seems therefore that even experts struggle to reckon with this Awareness. Some experts deny that there can be awareness of Awareness. Ultimately it seems that each of us must come to realise the truth of the matter for ourselves, without any hope of universal agreement. This is therefore an abstruse field of the most primary importance, because it is generally regarded as the direct route to Nibbana, Nirvana, Enlightenment. The practice of Awareness has suddenly become apparent in many religious traditions, and yet it is also becoming increasingly obvious that the practice of this Awareness has a very long history indeed. It is even visible in the ancient Upanishads. However, although many teachers agree to call this practice Awareness, any term for it is unsatisfactory. It is a state to be realised, not conceived of, or argued about. Therefore it has a plethora of other names, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. It has been called Emptiness or God or Truth or Love, and so on. It is one's true identity. One IS that. It is not to be objectively known. And yet, by consciously abiding in that state, one is led to final liberation from all that is known. By abiding in that state, one becomes gradually released from all attachment. Ajahn Chah called it Our True Home. Sukusala (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Winter 2023
— Assignment last updated by WallaceAnne (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Psychology
I feel it would be nice to add some reliably sourced coverage of psychological experiments pertaining to one's ability to be aware of something/certain things during the experiment. 2A00:23C4:41A:9601:85A0:9D14:AB9D:DED (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Alterations of the Lede's Opening
Below is why I altered the first paragraph in the lede.

While the terms are often synonymous, they aren't always (see the APA definition linked in the article). Also awareness is an activity of the mind, and psychology is the study of mind and behavior. I also removed a circular definition of awareness because it contained "aware".

This may ruin the philosophy effect, but Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and an accurate, robust encyclopedia is more important than the philosophy effect. Closetside (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Psychology is first because a definition from psychologists (particularly the American Psychological Association) is used. Please do not alter the order of the wiki links without explanation. Closetside (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The APA definition was stable (hence implicit consensus for the APA definition) and the link ordering fit the definition used. Unsubstantiated link switching were done by IP editors and an SPA, not by established users. Another established user reverted one of those link changes. Lastly, an RFC does not occur before a talk page discussion. If there is a substantiated defense of the previous version, please respond here. If not, kindly cease and desist. Closetside (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the right way to think of it being "stable". The order was stable for years until your change, which an IP changed back just days later, implying that your edit was contentious, not the reversion. IPs are editors, too, don't forget that. They're welcome to weigh in on changes like this. SWinxy (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The IPs never replaced the APA definition, only the link order. Therefore, "[t]he APA definition was stable." My declaration of stability was not about the link order. I was willing to have a talk page discussion with IP editors. However, the IPs never communicated on the IPs nor gave a substantial reason (the only reason was the philosophy effect). Closetside (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The absurd requirement of having an RFC before changing a "stable" lede contradicts the be bold policy. Furthermore, everything but the order of links was stable. Closetside (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The practice is WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, not just "make the change and ignore people who revert you because you disagree". Get consensus for your change, and stop being disruptive. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  15:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are forgetting the discuss part of BRD. There was no talk page discussion before an RFC, which violates WP:RFCBEFORE. All the reverts before you were by one-edit IP editors or a one-edit WP:SPA without any substantial reason. Therefore, the opposition isn't legitimate. Furthermore, the new definition was stable. Additionally, another editor reverted one of those one-edit IP editors. Closetside (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Closetside full disclosure, I came here because of the YouTube video, though I never edited the article. I would just like to point out the flaw in the argument that "awareness is an activity of the mind, and psychology is the study of mind and behavior." - is there a Wikipedia rule that suggests that articles for activities should be classed by the field that studies the agent of those actions? I'm really curious, because that seems strange to me, considering the same claim could be made on the other side. - awareness is based in knowledge (or even more precisely, is knowledge) and philosophy is the study of, among other things, knowledge (epistemology). Saeleriela (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Philosophy studies awareness (perception and knowledge of something) abstractly while psychology studies awareness scientifically. There is a far greater corpus of work from the scientific perspective compared to the abstract perspective, because only the former perspective can yield direct, practical results. Due to this difference in prominence, psychology should be first. Closetside (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Closetside now we're getting into value judgements that I don't think have a place on Wikipedia. Who are you to judge that the "scientific perspective" yields more "practical" results? First of all, philosophy is a science too. Secondly, once again, the practicality is, I would argue, subjective (it is, to me, funny that this argument about results being direct is in fact built on indirect claims). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of all knowledge, not just the one you think is more practical, or direct, and neither should there be a hierarchy of knowledge built on such subjective opinions. Saeleriela (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First, science has two definitions.
 *
 *  Knowledge
 *  Knowledge obtained through the scientific method
 *
 * The first definition says everything is science, and that's the definiton you are using. The second definition restricts it to the natural sciences and the social sciences. Considering Wikipedia defines science in terms of the scientific method, it prefers the second definition (hereinafter the definition of science used).
 * Science produces working hypothesises, theories, and laws. These products are easily applicable to reality. Formal science which makes the rest of science possible. Therefore, it is sometimes considered part of science).
 * On the other hand, every branch of philosophy beside logic is theoretical and not concrete (ethics and epistemology are two big examples). If a subject is practical, it will have far more academic study than a virtually non-practical counterpart, as in the case of psychological awareness versus philosophical awareness. Indeed, most of the article's body is about scientific experiments related to awareness, and not about awareness as philosophical concept. Closetside (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Closetside That doesn't change the fact that there's no reason "science" in the strict sense of the word you're using should be above the "non-scientific" knowledge. I agree that there is a larger corpus of work on psychology, and so it should perhaps be above philosophy, though I also think it is pedantic and there should be a place for whimsy on Wikipedia, like the philosophy rule, if it doesn't seriously impede the use of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. But you're injecting your opinions into these arguments about what knowledge is more practical, which I don't agree with and I feel they should be kept out of the discussion. There simply isn't a single reason the concrete sciences have more of a place on Wikipedia than non concrete sciences, like some branches of philosophy, (and art, for example too) because there is space and need for all. Saeleriela (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That still ends up being a value judgment that psychology is more important than philosophy. Can you show a Wikipedia rule that says the more prominent link must come first? That's a question you haven't answered. I'd also like to point out that while philosophy is not like physics or biology, science and the scientific method relies on philosophy to give its rationale for being the way it is. Bytor (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If a concept appears more often in Field A than Field B (like awareness in psychology than philosophy), Field A should go first. This is obvious when it when it is way more field A and 50-50 is a good cutoff. If it’s not an official rule it should be. Closetside (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, so if i understand what you're saying is that there is no WP rule about this.
 * Therefore, altering the lede to place 'psychology' before 'philosophy' was a decision made from personal preferences as indicated by edit comments 'because it sounds better' and similar, rather than anything to do with accuracy and robustness of WP, definitions from the APA, what awareness is, or any of the other post hoc rationales offered here on the talk page by multiple people and is thus an unjustified edit.
 * From that one could make the argument, and robustly too, that changing 'psychology' to be first and continually undoing reversions back to 'philosophy' first is a MOS:VAR violation of WP:MOS.
 * Further, the WP:MOS does not talk about it but most English writing style manuals say that one should default to alphabetical ordering unless there is a clear case to be made that a different order would enhance understanding. In the lede, 'In psychology and philosophy, awareness is' is not more understandable than 'In philosophy and psychology, awareness is', so alphabetical ordering should be chosen. It's not something like traffic lights where saying 'green, red, and yellow' would trip a lot of people up because we're all so used to thinking 'red, yellow, and green'.
 * As such, I feel the article should be reverted to "philosophy and psychology" unless and until a reasonable and sufficiently discussed consensus can be reached that some other order has value beyond stylistic preferences and personal value judgments. Bytor (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another reason to support this is that the Philosophy article does not link to Awareness, but Psychology does. It seems that the psychology is more relevant, at least according to our own content. Also, the APA definition is the one being used here. Qsimanelix (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the lede "Awareness in X and Y is..." seems awkward to me regardless of which is X and which is Y. Awareness is a general concept which is also understood and used by people outside of these two specific areas of study.
 * Compare to the article on knowledge, a similarly general concept. That article beings "Knowledge is an awareness of facts, a familiarity with individuals and situations, or a practical skill." Only two paragraphs down does it mention "The main discipline investigating knowledge is epistemology." In my opinion that sort of lede not only reads better but is a much more suitable way to introduce a broad, general concept which is used outside of just a couple of specific academic disciplines. In contrast, for a term like "epistemology" which is a technical term in philosophy rather than a general-usage term, the article begins "Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge." "Awareness" being a general term with non-technical and interdisciplinary usage deserves the definition-first lede like "knowledge", not the discipline-first lede like "epistemology".
 * I would suggest the following:
 * > Awareness is a perception or knowledge of something. This concept is often treated as synonymous to consciousness. However, one can be aware of something without being explicitly conscious of it, such as in the case of blindsight. The nature of awareness is studied in both psychology and philosophy.
 * If no one objects, I can be bold and make the change, but I figured I'd solicit feedback here first. (For what it's worth, I've avoided checking how this change would effect the "first link" game.) - Tim314 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at a few other articles for similar general concepts, like knowledge, understanding, perception, and insight, none of them start by naming specific fields as if the concept is limited to those before defining the concept. - Tim314 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This pattern of in X and Y sometimes occurs, such as in Truth value, Converse, and Statement. While awareness is a broad topic, so are psychology and philosophy. It's important that the discipline is occasionally mentioned, and this is the case throughout every topic in Wikipedia. For example, most chemistry articles don't have "In chemistry", but some do.
 * Considering there are four major branches of philosophy, and three of them don't really study awareness (ethics, metaphysics, and logic), maybe we should substitute philosophy for epistemology in the lede. Closetside (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation, awareness is also studied in metaphysics. Therefore, I will restore philosophy and remove epistemology. Closetside (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More examples for in X and Y include Abstraction (computer science) and Matter.
 * Examples for sparse in X notation include Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory not having "In chemistry", but Acid–base reaction having it. Genus does not have "In biology", but Taxonomic rank does. Stating the discipline, either directly or recursively, is important per MOS:CONTEXTLINK. Closetside (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression from examples that start "In X", such as Truth value, is that the definition is technical or specific to a particular field. While the definition of awareness used here has come from a psychology organisation, it is not very different from Google's generic definition, "knowledge or perception of a situation or fact", and does not seem specific to any academic field. I would suggest something more like Awareness is a perception or knowledge of something, and has been studied in philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.
 * PS Converse and Statement are disambiguation pages and don't seem to be the links intended. Mgp28 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Found them: Converse (logic) and Statement (logic), which I also feel are giving specialized definitions. Mgp28 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Really. Energy and Sound are two everyday words, but they are formally concepts of physics so they have “In physics,” Closetside (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, those articles start with definitions of those words in the context of physics, which may differ from how the words are understood in other contexts. So I suppose my question is, outside of psychology and philosophy, what other definitions does awareness have? Perception or knowledge of something sounds like a universal definition of awareness so feels like it does not need the conditional part.
 * Similar to the epistemology / philosophy discussion above, I also wonder if psychology is too specific. Awareness is of interest to neuroscientists, ethologists, botanists. Probably also to some people in computer science. Perhaps philosophy and biological science or natural science would be more inclusive of the fields considering awareness. Mgp28 (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no non-technical definition of energy or sound, otherwise there would be an alternate definition. Acceleration is another example. Closetside (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the article sound is its meaning in human physiology and psychology, and that's not to mention the word's different meanings in geography and medicine. And energy has an everyday meaning -- "I'm full of energy" -- that differs from its meaning in science. Acceleration (disambiguation) kicks off with four definitions outside of mechanics. But I'm not really motivated to work through every Wikipedia article that starts In.... I don't think the definition of awareness needs to be conditioned on particular subjects, you think it does. I'll leave it to see if anyone else has a view. Mgp28 (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ethnologists study everything (you can pass moral judgement on anything). The parts of neuroscience that deal with awareness are part of psychology and if plants have minds like humans and animals, we would have plant psychology. Psychology is the right identifier. Closetside (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * can we please have philosophy back? :( 2003:D3:2741:E526:F142:C930:C4AC:8AAC (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the article sound is its meaning in human physiology and psychology, and that's not to mention the word's different meanings in geography and medicine. And energy has an everyday meaning -- "I'm full of energy" -- that differs from its meaning in science. Acceleration (disambiguation) kicks off with four definitions outside of mechanics. But I'm not really motivated to work through every Wikipedia article that starts In.... I don't think the definition of awareness needs to be conditioned on particular subjects, you think it does. I'll leave it to see if anyone else has a view. Mgp28 (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ethnologists study everything (you can pass moral judgement on anything). The parts of neuroscience that deal with awareness are part of psychology and if plants have minds like humans and animals, we would have plant psychology. Psychology is the right identifier. Closetside (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * can we please have philosophy back? :( 2003:D3:2741:E526:F142:C930:C4AC:8AAC (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any justification for reverts Special:PermanentLink/1230323525 and Special:PermanentLink/1230388731? Practically every Wikipedia article starts by describing the topic in the article with "[Subject] is/was ..." yet this inexplicably been reverted as "sabotage" for this article with reference to this talk page. Bringing a page in line with every other Wikipedia page is very obviously not sabotage. This talk page only discusses here whether psychology or philosophy should come first in the phrase "psychology and philosophy". I personally find that an absurd thing to have strong opinions about, but more importantly it's just not relevant to those reverts. My hat stinks (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While there are many Wikipedia articles that do begin with the [Subject is] format, Awareness is an extremely broad concept which should have its scope clearly defined in the beginning of the article. Currently there is no need for a restructure of the lede, and while "sabotage" is a strong word, most current attempts to do so are just vandalism motivated by a Youtube video. CitrusHemlock 15:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a very poor justification for a number of reasons. These edits did not change the scope of the article or make it unclear what that scope is; the scope was still defined clearly at the beginning of the article. There is a disambiguation page for this article; if there's some confusion about what this article covers it should use a more appropriate disambiguation template to link to the alternate interpretation. Many other articles cover broad topics yet still start the same way, eg Technology, Society, Ethics, Mathematics. There is "no need" for many small rewordings on Wikipedia which nevertheless improve articles and consistency between articles, these edits are generally not reverted. Suggesting that an edit isn't worthwhile simply because you assume it came from someone watching a video is a clear violation of WP:AGF. My hat stinks (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that the new editors on this page are operating in any bad faith, I do think that they are naive for disrupting a generally stable article to edit war over a joke. In the future there may be a place for discussion about the lede's wording, but currently that's outweighed by people attempting to stop disruptive edits. For now focus should be put on maintaining the article in the state it was at before the video, not trying to introduce a third idea. CitrusHemlock 20:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the scope of this article limited to the psychological and philosophical view of awareness, though? It seems to me that the definition as "a perception or knowledge of something" accurately fits the broader concept and "Communications and information systems" already goes beyond that scope.
 * If this is indeed for a limited view of awareness, shouldn't there be another article on that more generalized subject? 172.59.224.170 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though the order was changed to get rid of the "philosophy effect". That's not a good reason. Letting these things happen naturally is cool, although of course it should be secondary to WP's purpose as an encyclopedia. Making changes just to thwart it is not cool, even though it doesn't particularly detract from WP's primary purpose. As far as I know, there is no rule or guideline saying that the psychology article should be linked first. So, contingent on my current impression of the facts, I think the order should be put back to philosophy first. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I find the argument for changing the order of the two to be without merit. Philosophy is (by far) the elder of the two disciplines, and furthermore encompasses all science and therefore psychology. Philosophers have been debating the nature of awareness for thousands of years before the birth of John Stuart Mill. cf. the opening sentence of the History section of Psychology. By nature of psychology being a subset of philosophy, the APA definition is also a philosophical one.--Wlerin (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 * But the change wasn't made because of how "important" or "historic" either field was but instead based on the fact that the rest of the lead uses sources and definitions from psychology (APA etc.) and not Philosophy. Cakelot1  ☞  talk  06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The choice of the APA definition comes down to the existence of (relatively) authoritative bodies for psychology while there are none for philosophy. I don't see what relevance this has to the order of the two fields in the lede (besides which, as I said, a psychological definition is also a philosophical one.)--Wlerin (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake, actually the choice of the APA definition has an even simpler explanation. The same person who is now advocating switching the order of these two terms also replaced the original text of the lede (which referenced a philosophy encyclopedia) with the APA definition a little over a month ago. (edited to remove an inaccurate claim)--Wlerin (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Closetside, could you explain exacly why you replaced the SEP definition (which was "Awareness [...] is a concept about knowing, perceiving and being cognizant of events.") with one that cites the APA (awareness is a perception or knowledge of something)? As far as I can tell these two definitions are very nearly identical, except that the SEP-citing definition avoids potential copyright issues. In which case the only reason to use the APA definition seems to be an personal bias towards psychology over philosophy - which I don't think is a good reason to have changed the article.

I'd also question the removal of Chalmers' definition (which was "a subject is aware of some information when that information is directly available to bring to bear in the direction of a wide range of behavioral actions"). As far as I can guess from your references elsewhere on this page the issue seems to have been that you read that sentence as "Another definition describes it as: [a state wherein a subject is aware of some information when that information is directly available to bring to bear in the direction of a wide range of behavioral actions.]" instead of the way I'm fairly certain it's intended to be read - "[Another definition describes it as a state wherein] a subject is aware of some information when: [that information is directly available to bring to bear in the direction of a wide range of behavioral actions.]" Hopefully the added punctuation makes clear the differences between the two readings, and why the latter is very much not circular. If the problem really is that you read it the first way rather than the second, I think a slight rewording to avoid potential ambiguity would be more appropriate than removing that definition entirely? 185.248.65.156 (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Request for Comment on ordering of philosophy and psychology
Should the lead sentence in this article list philosophy or psychology first? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Improper RFC per WP:RFCBEFORE. No talk page discussion before this RFC was initialized. Closetside (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Stop trying to Wikilawyer. The RFC is happening. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked for a WP:3O. Let's see what an uninvolved editor says about your RFC. Closetside (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright then, let's see. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  16:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: I'm sorry, what? This is quite frankly ridiculous coming from an editor with seventeen (!) years experience and 10,000 edits. No, you do not need an RfC to change a lead. Yes, if you start an RfC there must be discussion beforehand. In case you have forgotten, your sole pre-RfC comment consisted of mentioning WP:BRD, apparently under the mistaken impression it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for a revert, and an accusation of disruptive editing (WP:KETTLE). Now your RfC !vote contains no evidence and no indication you have even read Closetside's arguments above (who by contrast, has conducted themselves excellently). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said you need an RfC to change a lead, I did say you need an RfC to change a lead contrary to prior stable consensus, if the bold change is reverted, which it has been repeatedly. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  18:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also incorrect. What you need is discussion, which Closetside was happy to start and which none of the numerous reverters, yourself included, were willing to participate in. As I said above, the "discuss" part of BRD applies just as much to the reverter as to the one who made the bold edit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support ordering philosophy first -- in most articles, philosophy comes before psychology and there doesn't appear to be any valid reason to change the ordering for this article. But I'm interested in seeing what other people say. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is consensus for the APA definition. Because a definition of psychologists is used, psychology should go first as explained above. Closetside (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Invalid RFC/Speedy Close – no point in an RFC at this stage; there has been no substantial discussion.  Aza24  (talk)   19:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be kinda cool to preserve wikipedia's "first-link network"
I just watched this really well-made video analyzing the network theory of Wikipedia, specifically how taking the first link on 97% of pages eventually links to the philosophy article. The video mentioned this link to philosophy pattern was broken by a reordering of psychology and philosophy on this page. I'm assuming there is a moderately good reason to have psychology first, but as we are humans who occasionally like to give meaning to the meaningless, do the editors of this wiki think it'd be cooler to switch the links back and preserve the first-link network? Zyansheep (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't think these network effects are super interesting or fun unless they are not intentional. Making a change to keep the network effects sort undermines the network effects and any analysis of it, and also why they could be fun or interesting. 172.87.67.58 (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. We should link to the more relevant article, not whichever one makes the "network" better. The average reader doesn't care about the network described in the video. Qsimanelix (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * i just checked, even with awareness going to psychology it still links to philosophy (Awareness > Psychology > Mind > Intellect > Ability > Action (philosophy) > Philosophy) which means pages going to awareness still get to philosophy Valleybox (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That edit to Mind was done by a one-edit IP editor and that edit caused its lede to contradict its body. I therefore reverted it so now that chain no longer exists. Closetside (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * someone changed the first sentence (thank you) to go to perception (which links to philosophy), so the debate is hopefully over Valleybox (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Now somebody added a link to science on the psychology page, which leads to philosophy Vortex4020 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll note that we aren't optimizing for or against pages eventually leading to philosophy. AlonzoMucy (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it maybe an idea to create an actual article (not just an Wikipedia:[text] article) for this whole thing? QwertyPc Game17 (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We would need more press coverage beyond one YouTube channel, especially one with less than 100,000 subscribers before we would write an actual article about the former philosophy effect. Closetside (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess it already exists: it's called Wikiracing according to WP:Wiki Game Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually ended up here just to satisfy my curiosity with the talk page from this seemingly unpopular video (which is now at over 350,000 views, a bit more than your snarky 4,000 view comment) that covers a topic that they were inspired by and put actual effort into creating unlike most of the drivel that’s out there.
 * Honestly I couldn’t care less about the preservation of the philosophy first link “rule” and actually agree that artificially preserving the rule just for the sake of it makes no sense.
 * What I do have an issue with is your judgmental attitude towards what is and isn’t “worth” being written as a Wikipedia article (that already exists and has existed since 2008, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy, mind you) as if you are the be-all-end-all judge as to what is worth writing about and what pertains to be quality.
 * The popularity of something is not equal to the importance of it, nor the quality of it. You tout being for the scientific method and seem to rely heavily on the ideas behind science but do you really think that peer reviewed scientific articles go through more than 100,000 people before they are published? At best we’re talking dozens of people reviewing articles before they’re published, yet they’re somehow inherently more valuable? What is your metric here for determining whether something is “worth” writing about?
 * Doing a quick search around pulled up an analysis done by Collin Morris (also a Wikipedia contributor) in was an effort to find the least visited Wikipedia article of all time. The average view count per page was around 13,000 views. By your own metrics for something being valid enough to write about based on how popular it is, the majority of Wikipedia articles aren’t worth taking up space on the site because they don’t have over 100,000 page visits over the course of their lifetime. 50.223.32.18 (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't use talk pages as a WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOX to wright unrelated Walls of text about policy, as they are for discussing improvements to this page (although as I'm sure your aware Getting to Philosophy is not an article but a backrooms essay page) Cakelot1  ☞  talk  06:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm famous! (Just kidding, that video only has 4,000 views). I agree with the response of 172.87.67.58. Furthermore, the philosophy effect is not a rule of Wikipedia, while having psychology first resulted from following Wikipedia's rules and improves Wikpedia in its current state. If the philosophy effect can be restored through improving Wikipedia, go for it. Otherwise, the philosophy effect will remain a relic of the past. Closetside (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * i mean, the rule isn't really that important in the long run, and can still mostly exist if you just add "or awareness"
 * of course, this isn't what some people might call "as cool" as it all going to philosophy but it doesn't really matter in my opinion at least
 * again, there are still articles that don't end up at philosophy and the number of these might go up, which could say something about the sheer diversity of things there are Valleybox (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Philosophy leads to awareness, so you can just say awareness, and It will stay the same percentage. Cal3000000 (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for not knowing Wikipedia rules, but what rule is it that results in psychology first? I suspect that the video is going to bring in a lot of people who are interested in this aspect of the article and a clear explanation of the rule from an experienced editor would be very helpful to any future discussion. Thank you. AlonzoMucy (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * in an earlier section in the talk page, the editor who began flipping links has justified themselves by saying that "psychology is first because a definition from psychologists is used" [while a definition from philosophers specifically, isn't, to the best of my knowledge] Valleybox (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that, Closetside mentioned here that the change resulted from following Wikipedia's rules. My inquiry is to what rule that is and how it applies here. AlonzoMucy (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To quote Closestside: "This may ruin the philosophy effect, but Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and an accurate, robust encyclopedia is more important than the philosophy effect". Jkar (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He also stated, " Furthermore, the philosophy effect is not a rule of Wikipedia, while having psychology first resulted from following Wikipedia's rules" AlonzoMucy (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the rules, per Copying text from other sources, and section 3 in the APA Terms of Use, would the direct use of the phrase "perception or knowledge of something" not constitute a copyright violation? Airliners321 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a number of conflicting issues here:
 * 1. The philosophy effect - I believe a consensus is forming that this ought not be the motivation for an edit, I agree
 * 2. The history of revisions/stability of edits - looking at the edit history the Philosophy>Psychology ordering appears to be prevalent prior to the 5th of April where it was changed for "ease of reading" and quickly reverted. Closetside's rewrite on the 17th of May has not been discussed on its own merits and the definition has been unstable since.
 * 3. The ordering of disciplines when a definition is provided - I think this points to the entire sentence being a bit clumsy, it's not clear to the reader that the definition refers primarily to the psychological use of the term. The fields should be listed in the order of which studies awareness the most. To my view awareness relates more to what you think than what you perceive and the philosophy references (including this removed one) seem to have more detail on the subject than the APA definition.
 * 4. Copyright - The current opening paragraph certainly seems to cross the boundaries of close paraphrasing rules, if the first sentence of the APA definition is copied exactly it should be quoted. 2401:D002:B508:C900:85EB:5391:5A2B:DFBD (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree on all points. And more on point 3, looking at a similar psychology/philosophy term (Perception) it doesn't make sense to say that "the term is from field X and Y" before giving the definition. It seems more consistent to just give the definition outright. Zyansheep (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is just in most articles of Wikipedia the it starts with 'In X, Cal3000000 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that true? Just clicking the Random Article button a bunch of times doesn't give me any "In X" articles but perhaps it is more common in some relevant subsection of wikipedia? Zyansheep (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree on some of your points and disagree on others. Here is what I think.
 * 1. Fully agree.
 * 2. While the link order wasn't stable, everything else was. Therefore, my reference to the stability of the remainder of my change was valid. Consensus was established in the closed Request for Comment above, where its Original Poster conceded the dispute and closed the discussion in favor of psychology being first.
 * 3. In many pages throughout Wikipedia, the list of disciplines is listed before the definition of a topic. For example, Spacetime.
 * 4. Definitions are hard to say in our own words, especially as non-experts. Two words that are ordinarily synonyms could mean totally different things within the context of scholarly study of the discipline. Lastly, the definition was meant for the public to reuse, being given in the APA's FAQ page. Closetside (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with 1. issue is that many people do opposite now and try to destroy this effect. That is why I think it would be better to go to original order as that was created before this whole thing begun Darth Kirtap (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It may very well be that the rest of your changes were only "stable" because the war was focused on the word order and no one was even aware of the rest of the changes. And anyone who might have ideas for how to improve the lede (which imho at present reads very clumsily and lacks the scope of the previous lede) doesn't want to get lost in the ongoing edit war. Ephemeral stability in the midst of an edit war is not an argument for the new lede.--Wlerin (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * True to my word, it is now restored. See Universe. Closetside (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zyansheep I just checked, and it still leads to philosophy later down the line, so the effect is still preserved, the video maker mentioned the fact that the accuracy of the video could've changed when you watch it, and everything is fine. All that's different is that 25% of articles go to philosophy from somewhere else now. RteeeeKed 💬📖 06:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * doesn't anymore! But people can just say awareness rather than philosophy, as Philosophy leads to Awareness Cal3000000 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah, I think there are some people trying to optimize other articles to preserve the link. Zyansheep (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the off-topic, but would this be considered press coverage? I recall other talk pages having YouTube listed as press coverage. Arslan35 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently, Awareness still goes to philosopy, just in a different way. 176.240.216.192 (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 * THIS MESSAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT: Psychology now redirects to philosophy later down the road; there is no need to switch back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.194.179 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IP as has been repeatedly pointed out above, decisions on Wikipedia shouldn't be made to keep an alleged "rule" correct (no matter how entertaining the video is). In future please try avoid using WP:SHOUT for emphasize, sign your comments (using ~ ), and don't place your comments at the top of threads (I've moved it to the bottom as to not confuse people). Thank you. Cakelot1  ☞  talk  20:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ah alr thx, not rly used to wikipedia talk pages 108.65.194.179 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes for psychology and philosophy
The footnote for psychology links to a text about philosophy. The footnote for philosophy links to the dictionary of psychology. This is nonsensical. Either the links must be switched around or the footnotes must be switched around. Gastly12345 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Protection Level
Please can someone protect or semi-protect this article due to edit warring. This seems to have been started by a youtube video about the first links on each page linking to philosophy. Most of these edits have just been reverts without explanation, and so surely this constitutes edit warring  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal3000000 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 * It was semi protected with an expiry of the 29 July, which has calmed things down (there has only been one revert in the following 2 days, so it it seems to be working)  Cakelot1  ☞  talk  08:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Should the Article Start with Awareness
Should the starting defention be changed to start with the word Awareness like it was before the switching of the first 2 links? So that it is more clear that the start is a defenion of Awareness. As well as following the Manual of Style. GonzoBlue (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 * No. Most articles stating the discipline list the discipline before the term. Closetside (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024
Remove psychology I think too much is related to psychology Eta124 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cakelot1  ☞  talk  20:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2024
Revert edit Special:Diff/1230941564: The discussion on the talk page which the edit summary refers to is every other user clearly and unambiguously objecting to this one editor forcing through this change. My hat stinks (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: By definition, no revert is an uncontroversial change, and edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes. Feel free to discuss with the user. Tollens (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ER states multiple times that edit requests are valid for potentially controversial changes if there is clear consensus. As already stated, all discussion on the talk page related to this change is people objecting to it. My hat stinks (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The page starts wrong generally
I believe the page shouldn't start with "In psychology and philisophy" or the other way around. This part should be removed completely or moved later down the line. This will end the whole "war" going on, as it will link back to philosophy and the article will be undamaged. Many wikipedia aricles don't even start with the field as first word. 85.193.33.118 (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * This was attempted and reverted as "sabotage", discussed above in . Other changes to the page keep getting reverted as "under discussion" even when there's a clear consensus on the talk page. It appears there's some users very heavily invested in making this page an exception to wiki norms, the only explanation would seem to be to break the "philosophy effect" mentioned in relation to the controversial change which started this drama. My hat stinks (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * It would be nice if we actually did an RFC, I think now is the time for one. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe not needed. It's been stable for a couple of days, with the reasonable choice of philosophy mentioned first. 'Awareness' is actually an unexplained phenomena and quite enjoyable, and neither 'philosophy' or 'psychology' tightly fit as definitive descriptors. 'Philosophy' does describe aspects of the topic well, and arguably better than the word 'psychology'. As for keeping the Wikipedia 'philosophy'-chain phenomena intact, nothing wrong with that. It could even be discussed that WP:IAR asks us to 'maintain' the encyclopedia, and to maintain the philosophy game as a known and interesting part of Wikipedia lore is secondary and almost quasi-coincidental. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Awareness


text:
User:Agatharchides

I am from.

No, you're a demobilized sockpuppet. --Agatharchides 10:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Agatharchides


text:
User talk:Pope John Paul II

The legend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.78.215.182 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Onlyemarie 21:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please change your name on wikipedia. Wikipedia has a policy of not using names of people, issues etc because people can perceive the name used as indicating POV. It also means that however neutral you are, people will presume an agenda because of your nickname. Users who breach naming policy can find themselves blocked from wikipedia. To avoid that, please use a neutral nickname. Fear ÉIREANN 22:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your username has been blocked as inappropriate, in line with our blocking policy. You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a constructive manner. See username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. Alternatively, edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username.

Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing namechanges, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism, we will remove that block as soon as possible - if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation to them - see list of administrators.

Once you create a new account with an appropriate username, you may wish to leave a note at your old user page noting your new name. To merge the contributions from your old account into your new one, leave a note on Changing username. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep the IP blocked.
keep the IP blocked. Check out the "contributions." and so on. Dave (talk)

title: User talk:Pope John Paul II


text:
Trubetskoy family

The House of Trubetskoy, (Трубецкие; Трубяцкі; Trubecki; Ruthenian: Trubetsky; Трубецький; Troubetzkoy; Trubic; Trubetski; Trubezkoi; Trubetskoj) is a Russian gentry family of Ruthenian stock and Lithuanian origin, like many other princely houses of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, later prominent in Russian history, science, and arts. They are descended from Algirdas's son Demetrius I Starshy (1327 – 12 August 1399). They used the Pogoń Litewska coat of arms and the Trubetsky coat of arms.

Sovereign rule
Princes Troubetzkoy descend from Demetrius I Starshy, one of Algirdas's sons, who ruled the towns of Bryansk and Starodub. He was killed together with his elder sons in the Battle of the Vorskla River (1399). Demetrius's descendants continued to rule the town of Trubetsk (Troubchevsk) until the 1530s, when they had to convert to Roman Catholicism or leave their patrimony and settle in Moscow. They chose the latter, and were accepted with great ceremony at the court of Vasili III of Russia.

Time of Troubles

Undoubtedly, the most prominent of early Troubetzkoys was Prince Dmitry Timofeievich Troubetzkoy, who helped Prince Dmitry Pozharsky to raise a volunteer army and deliver Moscow from the Poles in 1612. The Time of Troubles over, Dmitry was addressed by people as "Liberator of the Motherland" and asked to accept the Tsar's throne. He contented himself, however, with the governorship of Siberia and the title of the Duke (derzhavets) of Shenkursk. Prince Dmitry died on May 24, 1625, and was interred in the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius.

Quite different was a stance of his first cousin, Prince Wigund-Jeronym Troubetzkoy. He supported the Poles and followed them to Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth after the Time of Troubles. Here his descendants were given enviable positions at the court and married into other princely families of Poland. By the 1660s, however, the only Troubetzkoy left, Prince Yuriy Troubetzkoy, returned to Moscow and was given a boyar title by Tsar Alexis of Russia of the House of Romanov. All the branches of the family descend from his marriage to Princess Irina Galitzina.

Members

 * Prince Alexis S. Troubetzkoy, 1934–2017, historian, educator
 * Princess Amélie Rives Troubetzkoy, 1863–1945, American novelist, poet, playwright, married to Prince Pierre Troubetzkoy, artist (1864-1936)
 * Prince Dmitrii Timofeyevich Troubetzkoy, d. 1625, Savior of the Motherland during the Time of Troubles
 * Prince Evgenii Nikolaevitch Troubetzkoy, 1863–1920, religious philosopher, professor, publicist, lawyer, public figure.
 * Prince Igor Nikolayevich Troubetzkoy (Moscow, 23 August 1912, Paris, France – 20 December 2008), driver of the first Ferrari to compete in Grand Prix motor racing. Fourth husband of the American heiress Barbara Hutton.
 * Prince Ivan Yurievich Trubetskoy, 1667–1750, Russian field marshal, Boyar
 * Prince Nikita Yurievich Trubetskoy, 1699–1767, Russian statesman, Field Marshal
 * Prince Nikolai Sergeyevich Troubetzkoy (Moscow, April 16, 1890 – Vienna, June 25, 1938) Russian linguist, historian.
 * Prince Nikolai Petrovitch Troubetzkoy, 1828–1900, father of Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy and Evgenii Nikolaevitch Troubetzkoy, co-founder and Chairman of the Russian Musical Society in Moscow, co-founder of the Moscow Conservatory
 * Prince Paolo Troubetzkoy (Intra, Italy, 15 February 1866 – Pallanza, 12 February 1938), artist, sculptor
 * Prince Pyotr Petrovich Troubetzkoy, 1822–1892, Russian diplomat, botanist, father of Paolo Troubetzkoy and Pierre Troubetzkoy.
 * Prince Pierre Troubetzkoy (1864-1936), artist
 * Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy, 1862–1905, Russian religious philosopher, first elected Rector of Moscow University
 * Prince Sergei Petrovich Troubetzkoy, August 29, 1790 – November 22, 1860, Decembrist
 * Wladimir Troubetzkoy, 10 October 1942 – 2 June 2009, French literary historian
 * Prince Youcca Troubetzkoy, also Nicolas Barclay, George Fairwood, (December 12, 1905 – April 22, 1992) French-American actor.
 * Prince Yuriy Petrovich Trubetskoy, 1643–1679, Ruthenian prince, Boyar
 * Prince Yuri Yurievich Trubetzkoy, 1668–1739, Russian General, Senator

title: Trubetskoy family


text: Category:Romanian inventors

title: Category:Romanian inventors


text:
Category:Rivers of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Rivers of Bosnia and Herzegovina


text:
Säve Airport

Säve Airport (Säve flygplats), known as Göteborg City Airport until 2015, is an airport located 5 NM northwest from the centre of Gothenburg, near Säve, on the island of Hisingen, Bohuslän, Sweden. It is located within the borders of Gothenburg Municipality, hence its former name. It was Gothenburg's second international airport, with international scheduled flights from 2001 to 2015. In addition to commercial airlines, the airport was also used by a number of rescue services, including the Swedish Coast Guard.

Owing to damage to the airport's runway by heavy aircraft and the high cost of repairs, the airport was closed to airline traffic indefinitely on 18 January 2015, but remains open to light aircraft.

Overview
Although it was primarily a low-cost airline airport, it is actually located closer to Gothenburg city centre than the main Göteborg Landvetter Airport, even if the driving time is around the same. It was one of the few city airports to receive Ryanair flights in the 2000s. Göteborg City Airport was able to handle aircraft up to the size of a Boeing 737, an Airbus A320, or similar jets. The airport still accommodates general aviation activities, including two flying clubs, Aeroklubben i Göteborg and Chalmers flygklubb.

DFDS Seaways cited competition from low-cost air services, especially Ryanair (which flew to Glasgow Prestwick and London Stansted from Gothenburg City Airport), as being a reason for its scrapping its Newcastle-Gothenburg ferry service in October 2006. It was the only dedicated passenger ferry service between Sweden and the United Kingdom, and had been running since the 19th century (under various operators).

Development
Construction of the airport began in 1940, as a military airbase for Göta Wing (F 9), a wing of the Swedish Air Force. The airbase was closed down in 1969. The old civil airport at Torslanda (about 10 km south of Säve) was closed down in 1977, and scheduled flights moved to Landvetter Airport; general aviation activities were moved to Säve. In 1984 the runway was improved and extended, to allow larger business jets to operate.

In 2001 the airport was renamed City Airport, and Ryanair started operating scheduled flights to London. Prior to the arrival of Ryanair in 2001, the airport had 9,000 passengers per year; 844,000 passengers flew from City Airport in 2008.

In 2004 the Swedish Armed Forces entirely left the airport, when a helicopter squadron of the Swedish Marines was disbanded. A legacy of the military presence is a museum called Aeroseum, preserving various fighter jets and displaying military aircraft history.

Closure for airline service
On 26 November 2014 the airport had to ban all heavier aircraft, such as the Boeing 737, because the taxiway was not rated to carry heavy aircraft. This meant that all flights operated by Ryanair, Wizz Air and Gotlandsflyg were diverted to Landvetter Airport. The lighter aircraft flown by Sparrow Aviation were allowed to fly after a ban of one day. In the early days following the ban, most passengers still cleared security at Gothenburg City Airport before being transferred by bus. Later all check-in was done at Landvetter Airport for diverted flights.

Initial plans were for the airport to remain closed to heavy aircraft until at least the end of January 2015. However, on 13 January 2015, the decision was published to close the airport permanently to passenger traffic, owing to the high cost of fixing the runway/taxiway problem. Sparrow Aviation, using lighter aircraft, continued to use City Airport until 18 January 2015. The airport was kept open until the end of 2015 in the hope of attracting a possible buyer who could agree to Swedavia's conditions and ensure a long-term plan.

In May 2016, it was announced that a motorsport circuit would be built at the Säve Airport, intended to host Scandinavian Touring Car Championship races. Somehow this did not come to fruition so far (2021), while the airfield itself is not closed but still open for general aviation, home of two aeroclubs and a commercial flight school as well as police and ambulance helicopters.

In 2019, Heart Aerospace established a presence at the airport.

Airlines and destinations
Owing to the aforementioned issues, there is no longer any passenger traffic scheduled. All airlines relocated to Göteborg Landvetter Airport, except Sparrow Aviation which terminated its Gothenburg-Stockholm Bromma Airport flights.

title: Säve Airport


text:
Bitterroot Valley

The Bitterroot Valley is located in southwestern Montana, along the Bitterroot River between the Bitterroot Range and Sapphire Mountains, in the Northwestern United States.

Geography
The valley extends approximately 95 mi from Lost Trail Pass in Idaho, where it is narrow, to a point near the city of Missoula along Interstate 90 where it is wider and flatter. To the west is the Bitterroot Range and its large Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, and to the east is the smaller Sapphire Mountains and their Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area. The Bitterroot Range has steep faces, deep canyons, is heavily forested, and is within the Bitterroot National Forest. The Sapphire Mountains are more rounded, drier, and much less forested.

The southern end of the valley is split into the East and West Forks of the Bitterroot River, and the northern end has the confluence of the Bitterroot River with the Clark Fork River. Connecting into the west side of the valley are numerous deeply carved granite canyons, including scenic Blodgett Canyon and Lolo Creek's canyon.

The vegetation in the valley has been significantly transformed. Originally it was covered in sagebrush.

Highway 93 runs through the center of the valley, exiting to the south over 7,014 feet (2,138 m) Lost Trail Pass. U.S. Highway 93 is the main travel choice through the Bitterroot Valley, but the East Side Highway also runs through the valley, although it is much less traveled.

Communities
Communities within the valley include: Lolo in Missoula County; and Florence, Stevensville, Victor, Corvallis, Hamilton, Darby, Conner, and Sula in Ravalli County.

Hamilton, the largest town and the county seat of Ravalli County, is located at 46°14.8'N and 114°09.6'W at an elevation of 3570 ft with a population of 12,000. Business opportunities within these cities include manufacturing, agriculture, craft breweries, wineries, recreational services, and many entrepreneurs.

History
The valley was the ancestral home of the Bitterroot Salish tribe of the Flathead nation.

In early September 1805, the Lewis and Clark Expedition crossed Lost Trail Pass from present-day Idaho in order to connect with the overland route through the Rocky Mountains. Passing down Camp Creek and the East Fork, they followed the Bitterroot River northward to the point where it connects with the Nez Perce Trail and Lolo Creek. Before continuing their difficult journey to the west, they named their camp Traveler's Rest. Returning to this site in early July of the following year, they split their Corps of Discovery, furthering their explorations both to the northeast (Lewis) and to the south (Clark).

In 1841, Jesuit priests led by Pierre-Jean De Smet founded St. Mary's Mission near present-day Stevensville. It was the first permanent white settlement in what is now Montana. Fort Owen was established nearby in 1850, and difficult relations occurred between the white settlers and the Salish until 1891, when the native tribes were forcibly relocated to the Flathead Indian Reservation. In 1877, Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce tribe passed south through the Bitterroot Valley, fleeing the U.S. Army. They exited the East Fork via Gibbons Pass, near where they fought at the Battle of the Big Hole.

The Bitterroot Valley had nearly a million apple trees in the early 1900s, and was one of the world's largest producers of MacIntosh apples at that time. Irrigation was provided by about 80 mi of canals. Although the Bitterroot Valley's orchards became less competitive with apple orchards in Washington state after hailstorms in 1922 and 1923, it is still home to one of the nation's largest cider orchards.

Settlement has continued since that time. The population of Ravalli County in the 2000 census was 36,070; 40,212 in the 2010 census. The major industries are ranching, agriculture, forestry, and tourism.

Recreation
The Bitterroot Valley offers many recreational activities, including: hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, and rock climbing in the surrounding mountains; and birding and fishing along the Bitterroot River. The valley is popular with hunters, for big game, upland birds, and waterfowl. Grizzly bears activity in the area has steadily increased since 2013 with officials saying it is important to be extra cautious during recreational activities.

In popular culture
The Bitterroot Valley is mentioned as the protagonist's birthplace in the song "Wild Montana Skies," from John Denver's album It's About Time (1983).

The valley is the primary shooting location of the TV series Yellowstone.

title: Bitterroot Valley


text: File:Bowie md seal of the city.jpg

title: File:Bowie md seal of the city.jpg


text:
User talk:NeoChrono Ryu

Perpich Center for Arts Education
Thanks for wanting to add content to this article, but I'm afraid that I've had to remove it (it's still retrievable, using the History tab). First, you've presented it in a way that goes against the Wikipedia Manual of style (for example, using level-one section headings), and secondly, you've expressed it in the first-person plural, so that it reads like a prospectus rather than an encyclopædia article. Please feel free to replace it (so long as it isn't copied from a prospectus), but do so in a way that fits Wikipedia, and that reads like an article. You'll find some useful links above. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Signing Discussion Page Comments
Please sign discussion page comments. You can use four tildes to automatically do this for you. ~ Also, please don't remove material from your talk page. It looks like you are hiding it. When the page gets too long, you can create an archive page by making a slash name, i.e. User talk:NeoChrono Ryu/Archive1. Hu 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Miyamoto Musashi
You removed the book from the references because you claimed the article and the book are not in agreement. Which do you think is better? The article or the book? By removing the book reference, it seems you think the article is more accurate than the book. Hu 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I apologize if it seemed that I was pointing out the article as a better resource that the book. I think the book is better by far, but I do not think that it should be cited if it is not used as a resource. I think that the entire article needs a complete rewrite, using this book as a main refrence, since it is one of the first of its kind, to give a complete and thourough biography of Musashi. I simply do not have the time to devote myself to such a project right now, but if the article is still in need of correction, perhaps this summer I will attempt a total rewrite. NeoChrono Ryu 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the response. No apology needed, I was just trying to sort things out.  My inclination would be to leave the book in the list of references because it is good.  That way an interested party is more likely to track it down and fix the discrepancies without requiring you to rewrite the article. Hu 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I had considered that, but I am just afraid that people will simply accept the book as a valid resource for the article, when the articel actually disagrees with much of the information in the book. In short, the book is valid, and I don't want it's validity to rub off on a semi-false article. I suppose I will have to correct it myself, eventually. NeoChrono Ryu 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gichin_Funakoshi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gichin_Funakoshi.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 09:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nakayama_Masatoshi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nakayama_Masatoshi.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Council of National Unity
What needs to be verified? Halibutt 12:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Shotokan
Please help me on the Shotokan page. ron Southwick 15:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Markup used to flag fact source required
Hi, could you explain to me the convoluted markup you added to Menstrual cycle of:   [< /nowiki >citation needed ]< /nowiki >  . Why not have used the simpler:     ? David Ruben Talk 01:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota meetup
A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 23:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup
 2009 Proposed date: Saturday, October 10. Details under discussion. Please share this with anyone who may be interested.  Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Space Jockey (Alien) for deletion
The article Space Jockey (Alien) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Space Jockey (Alien) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  02:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Freedom of choice for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freedom of choice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

SPECIFICO talk  19:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:NeoChrono Ryu


text:
User:Gadgetfusion

Articles I've Created
Walk of Game, which stands proudly.

 * I've edited Casino Royale, Spider-Man 3, Mabus, Console wars, Seven Wonders of the World, and Nostradamus.

Info About Me
Hi, I'm Gadgetfusion, potential movie director.

I'm years old. My name is. I am registered to Wikipedia because of .There you go. Enough information about me.

Unneccessary Rumors
Over the years, many unplesant rumors have come about me. I want to put some reality into those rumors.

 * No, there are no skeletons in my closet.

 * No, I hate Barbie dolls.

 * No, my obsession is not reading the dictionary and manga comics.

 * No, I am not Ozzy Osbourne, Kim Jong-il, or George W. Bush.

 * No, I don't hate Pope Benedict XVI.

 * No, I do love pizza and spaghetti.

If you (the one who is reading this page) did not hear about or start these rumors and you are confused, don't ask.

Accomplishments

 * I had once hosted a tea party. There was me, The Mad Hatter, Che Guevara, Veruca Salt, Evil, and Mr. Rogers.

Final Thoughts
Thank You. Good Night. Watch TV. Hasta la vista baby. Lock and Load Little Lizard. Please visit my website. The Official Gadgetfusion Website

title: User:Gadgetfusion


text:
Harry Palmer (photographer)

Harry Edmore Palmer (October 30, 1930 – November 2, 2020) was a Canadian photographer.

Background
Harry Palmer graduated from the University of British Columbia in 1951 and was working as a mechanical engineer when he discovered documentary photography. In 1984 Palmer left the oil and gas industry for photography. He attended workshops, worked with photographers such as Dr. Harry Thomson and Paul Caponigro, and studied paintings to learn composition, color, and lighting.

Palmer died on November 2, 2020, at the age of 90.

Works
Palmer's photographs have been featured on stamps by Canada Post in 2003 and on Alberta's 2005 Centennial Stamp. Palmer's photographs have also been exhibited in the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography in 1992, and are in the collection of the Library and Archives Canada. In 2005, Palmer was nominated for the inaugural Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Awards.

title: Harry Palmer (photographer)