text:
User talk:Izmir Stinger

Hi there. Thanks for your message...I'm touched that you appreciated my welcoming :D

You'd be surprised by how much 'vandalism' is actually good faith contributions, that a lot of people fail to recognize. In the Good Ol' Days™ of Wikipedia, you could vandalize a page completely 10 times, and still get a friendly message thanking you for testing out Wikipedia. I, for one, thought that this was better, and continue to try and presume good faith on the first message. You might be surprised to know that I've actually unblocked more than I've blocked! (which I just found out myself...)

Don't worry about introducing them to Wikipedia- just try and make sure they don't continue to vandalize pages, because it can really cause problems sometimes. I'll bet a lot of good editors started out by just playing with Wikipedia :)

Regards,

Frazzydee|✍ 00:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Izmir Stinger


text:
Talk:Radio Newyork International

We have the history, but what did they broadcast?
So the history of the radio station is all well and good, but it leaves us completely in the dark. Just what, exactly, was being broadcast on this station? Why were these individuals attempting to broadcast illegally? siafu 00:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It was called "free form rock and roll" which essentially means test broadcasts by amatuers because scheduled professional broadcasts were never aired. So imagine the worst music station you have ever heard and you have RNI with one exception: they were on the high seas off NY and that fact alone provided the magic of it all. I will add something about all of this now that you have raised the question. MPLX/MH 04:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They were trying to get into the Courts (Federal) in order to give the airwaves back to the public, free from Government oppression and/or interference. Unfortunately, Allan (Who did do a lot for the cause) coward under US pressure, resulting in more regulations from the Govt. and FCC. (And the music, a lot of amateur stuff, wasn't all that bad). - It is also, more than possible that it is because of RNI that the US extended the territorial waters out past Sarah to insure they could not maintain their supply lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.84.57 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for info about the actual broadcasters
Obviously MPLX didn't get around to his proposed addition before he left Wikipedia for good over a year ago, so we still have an article about RNI which spends signifigant space talking about the history of the ship instead and not a single word about the on-air staff. More than a few well-known NYC area pirate broadcasters contributed to RNI (illegal and legal versions), and the only one mentioned is Allan Weiner himself. Honestly, somebody has to have SOME info in this regard. --Enwilson 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with you. Although seemingly a well written and well researched piece it seems way too heavy and detailed on the intrigue and political history whilst having very little on what the article's supposedly about: the radio station. I'll see if I can find a suitable template to add! --kingboyk (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The story would take a book, Unfortunately I don't know anything about "Pre-Sarah" But can supply info regarding the Sarah (from Josh - even though he's not overly talkative about it now days). The Story of and behind Sarah is wild (Ollie North/Noriega - why the US Gvt. was trying so hard to shut them down) she was a Japanese Fishing boat (hokumaru  Possibly hokumaru II).

It would be great if the folks involved got some recognition for their work, even if it is little more than a foot note in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.84.57 (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, after hearing the reel to reel tapes that Alan and JP provided
to be played on the initial RNI broadcasts that were so terrible, many of the NY pirates dropped out. Not many people ever heard from Alan specific reasons exactly why he decided to go offshore. Alan usually just told whomever it was working with him on the project at the time  what it was 'they would want to hear' from a bag of many reasons. I think he stated his intentions best in his book that came out many years later. hungyj222

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

title: Talk:Radio Newyork International


text:
British Orthodox Church

The British Orthodox Church (BOC), formerly the Orthodox Church of the British Isles, is an independent church, having its roots in Oriental Orthodoxy.

The British Orthodox Church has not been in communion with any of the Oriental Orthodox churches since a 2015 decision to return to an independent status.

Origins
The church claims to be the continuation of the Ancient British Church of Jules Ferrette.

Metropolitan Seraphim of Glastonbury has served as the metropolitan of the Metropolis of Glastonbury and Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of the British Isles, succeeding Hugh George de Willmott Newman.

Creation: merge into the Coptic Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Church of the British Isles and the Celtic Orthodox Church split in 1994, under Mar Seraphim (William Henry Hugo Newman-Norton). For its part, the Orthodox Church of the British Isles joined the Coptic Orthodox Church and changed its name to British Orthodox Church.

On 6 April 1994, a protocol enacting the merge of the Orthodox Church of the British Isles into the Coptic Orthodox Church was signed by both parties. The Orthodox Church of the British Isles, headed by Seraphim, changed its name to British Orthodox Church for the union, and became "a diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria with jurisdiction over the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands". The British Orthodox Church was distinct from the other communities in the British Isles of the Coptic Church. Seraphim, primate of the British Orthodox Church, was not reordained, but received a chrismation. On 19 June 1994, Seraphim "was consecrated as a Metropolitan in the Coptic Patriarchate by His Holiness Pope Shenouda assisted by some seventy Metropolitans and Bishops". Seraphim then became member of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Independence again
On 4 October 2015 the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, in response to a request from the British Orthodox Church, "in the same spirit with which this union came into being", agreed to the British Orthodox Church returning to its pre-1994 status "in fulfilment to what it sees as its current mission in the light of the developments and changing dynamics of the Middle East and Britain". The British Orthodox website spoke of it "amicably returning to its original status in order to fulfil its mission more effectively". This resulted in the British Orthodox Church returning to a non-canonical status, outside of communion with any church.

On 29 October 2017, Metropolitan Seraphim, acting solus, consecrated Father David Seeds as Bishop David of Priddy.

In January 2019, the BOC announced that Seraphim was once again considered as its Patriarch, since from the moment of the union with the Coptic Church Seraphim had ceased to use this title.

On 23 February 2019, Patriarch Seraphim, acting with Bishop David of Priddy, consecrated Father James Maskery as Abba James, Archbishop Titular of Caerleon-upon-Usk and Mafrian of the British Orthodox Church. Mafrian is a title used in the Syrian Orthodox Church for the Catholicos of the East, and the primate of the church in the Sassanid Empire, now Iran and Iraq.

Publications
Through the church press it publishes the Glastonbury Review, the only English-language journal committed to regular reporting about the activities of the Oriental Orthodox churches and it has also begun to republish some theological works.

Primates

 * Richard Williams Morgan (claimed)
 * Charles Isaac Stevens (claimed)
 * James Martin (claimed)
 * Andries Caarel Albertus McLaglen (claimed)
 * Herbert James Monzani-Heard (claimed)
 * Hugh George de Willmott Newman
 * Abba Seraphim

title: British Orthodox Church


text:
Talk:Order in Council

Last Paragraph
The last paragraph, anyone know if that's true/untrue/PoV'd up/OK? 68.39.174.39 00:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I rather wondered about it, or at least the particular example given. Within the United Kingdom itself, an Act of Parliament is the usual method of overturning a court case which the Government doesn't like or which produces unfortunate results (e.g. the Family Law Act 1986 providing a solution to the awkward question posed by R. v. Brentwood Superintendant Marriage Registrar; the War Damages Act 1965 overturning Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Lord Advocate). I've not come across it being done with an Order-in-Council before, but I note the example involved the British Indian Ocean Territory, and Orders-in-Council used to be the main way we dealt with colonies as opposed to Acts.

 * I suppose the claim is possible, in short, but I've no way of verifying it. Perhaps someone who's made some study of the example given? --Killiedaft 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I added this sentence, as a counterpoint to the previous sentence "However, most Orders of this sort are usually eventually formalized according to the traditional lawmaking process". Someone later made it into a seperate paragraph, giving it more prominance than I intended.

 * The primary source is a written statement to parliament from a junior Foreign Office minister which in summary says "we have therefore decided to legislate to prevent it ... on 10 June 2004 Her Majesty made two Orders in Council, the combined effect of which is to restore full immigration control over all the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory ... These two orders restore the legal position to what it had been understood to be before the High Court decision of 3 November 2000.". This is effectively the executive reversing that court decision without parliamentary scrutiny. (NB the Diego Garcia article has a link to this primary source.)

 * It does seem however that this only occured with a Prerogative Order-in-Council dealing with ex-colonial/commonwealth law, under the traditional prerogative power to pass laws for the "Peace Order and Good Government" of a territory (search for "POGG" in this paper). This is probably not easily done with other kinds of Orders without parliamentary scrutiny. Maybe the sentence I added should be caveated in some way, such as "In some cases Orders can be used to effectively reverse ...".

 * NB I understand there is another application ongoing for a judicial review of these Orders-in-Council. - Rwendland 22:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That would more or less make sense, that this is only a possibility when overturning judgments relating to colonies/dependent territories/overseas territories/whatever the FCO seems to thing we should call them nowadays. I certainly haven't managed to come across any example of a U.K. court decision being overruled by Order-in-Council. I'll add something to that effect, and you can see what you think? Killiedaft 23:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm in two minds about this now.

 * On the one hand I think this isn't very central to the article, and if it takes more than a single sentence to cover, it isn't worth the space. Especially as there seems a lot more about OICs that should be explained. Perhaps it should just be dropped.

 * OTOH the BIOT/Diego Garcia OICs are probably the most controversial OICs in recent times, and the court cases illustrate some important points about OICs. The first court case in 1990 actually struck down an OIC, showing that nowadays the Royal Prerogative isn't without limit even when used outside the context of an Act of Parliament, as it wasn't made to in accord with the traditional powers for "Peace Order and Good Government" of a population.

 * So I wonder if a fuller discussion of these cases is warranted, focusing more on illustrating the limits to OICs rather than the Diego Garcia expulsions. Do you think it worth me trying to draft a small section on this?

 * I think your phrase "Within the U.K. itself" should perhaps be re-phrased - the reversed decision was that of the British High Court, and a lot to do with the the motives and actions of British Civil Servants in Whitehall, though the OIC only effected those outside the UK. - Rwendland 14:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't entirely follow the objection to 'Within the U.K...': no court decision which has effect within the U.K. can be overturned except by Act of Parliament. Colonial decisions, on the other hand, can apparently be overturned by Order-in-Council. The colonies are not, and have never been considered a part of the U.K. itself. They're always styled separately. Yes, the English High Court may have jurisdiction over the colonies, but they've never had representation in Parliament in the same way that whole of the U.K. is. It's not just semantics -- in constitutional law there's a clear line between the U.K. and her colonies. There's no such thing as a British High Court, by the way, unless someone has cunningly abolished the High Court of Northern Ireland and the Court of Session and failed to tell us. In Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary is a criminal court.

 * As to further discussion of the Orders in context of the Diego Garcia judgments, I wouldn't personally be inclined to do too much. I don't think it's ever been in doubt that use of the Prerogative can be controlled by the courts, off the top of my head. I don't believe these cases created a precedent, although I'd have to dig out the administrative law stuff to check, but I seem to remember there have been previous cases on the use of Prerogative Orders, possibly post-World War One. Killiedaft 10:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The government did in fact argue that an Order in Council made for a British Overseas Territory was "immune from all review by the courts whether by the courts in this country or by the court established for BIOT", see para 6 of this 2006 court decision. So there must have been some doubt on this, though the High Court rejected that argument. Rwendland 12:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging
Unless I am mistaken, both Order-in-Council and Queen-in-Council refers to the same thing. If that is the case, then we should merge the two articles together. --Hurricane111 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly worthwhile in Queen-in-Council, so a simple redirect might be best.--cj | talk 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree too. I have redirected for now. Jon.baldwin 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The High Court Judge uses both term carefully in para 5 of this 2006 court decision, implying that there is a difference. e.g "The Queen in Council acts upon the advice of a Minister" implying Queen in Council is the action on behalf of the Queen in the Privy Council, rather than the Order created. Rwendland 12:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only in the UK and commonwealth
This article should be made more international. I got here via the link in this sentence "The Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) was established by a royal decree on 1 November 1944..." on the Royal Norwegian Air Force page. If I didn't know better I might think the Norwegian Air Force was established by the Queen of England! Inge 10:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Remedy
I think the fault here lies with the redirect put on royal decree - it should never have come to this page in the first place, as an order-in-council is a specific type of royal decree that bears relevance only to the UK and other Commonwealth countries. I have therefore changed the redirect of Royal decree to decree, and removed the "worldwide view" tag. Vneiomazza 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Executive orders
Orders-in-council seem so similar to Executive Orders in the American presidential system that I wonder if a "See also" link would be appropriate. The major difference would seemingly be that many of those are never later addressed by ordinary statutory law. Rlquall 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
I have removed the following paragraph as Nothern Ireland Assembly is no longer suspended --Drgs100 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Whilst the Northern Ireland Assembly remains suspended, much Northern Ireland legislation is made by Order-in-Council. This is done under the various Northern Ireland Acts 1974 to 2000, and not in virtue of the Royal Prerogative.

Chagos Islands
It was used to steal the Chagos Islands from its inhabitants. This happened on June 10, 2004. -See "Stealing a Nation" by John Pilger

Nonsense. Chagos Islands belong to Britain, Britain can't steal from itself. Chagos Islands are not a nation anymore than the Isle of Wight is a nation. They are British territory, and "Stealing a Nation" is nothing more than left wing anti-British propaganda. YourPTR! (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

lacks historical coverage
This article currently seems to be exclusively about the modern situation in which an Order-in-Council is basically an elaborate technicality, but in the past it has been an actual tool used by sovereigns to enact legislation. I came here from George V of the United Kingdom, which said that he changed his Royal House's name to House of Windsor by an Order-in-Council, so was hoping to find some information about what an Order-in-Council in 1917 entailed. --Delirium 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication
How and where are orders-in-council published? Definitive lists of Acts of Parliament and SIs (for recent years) can be found on the internet, but is there any such public availability for orders-in-council. It beggars belief that legislation can be buried in obscurity by not publishing it properly. 79.68.202.189 (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
This whole article should be written way more clearly, but the introduction is especially confusing. Wouldn't it be possible to include something about the notablity of an Order-in-Council (i.e. ability to make law by decree) in the intro? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

European Union and the Royal Prerogative
"This type has become less common with the passage of time, as statutes encroach on areas which used to form part of the Royal Prerogative."

I'm not sure that this is true in the UK. From what I read a few years ago (but did not make a note of at the time, as most EU directives are Treaty obligations -- which bind the UK Government (related to the reason for the Supremacy Clause in the US constitution), but for which no act of Parliament may have been passed -- the use of the Royal Prerogative as a Governmental convenience (to force compliance by non-government actors in the UK without the necessary enabling legislation) has become some what more used in the last 30 years than in the 30 years before that. A Google search on [European Union Royal Prerogative] returns a number of articles on this. PBS (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada section
Just noting that OICs are often controversial in Canada and its provinces; usually in the context of avoiding parliamentary debate, since they don't have to be put on the order paper. There are three items currently; there could be hundreds; I'm not going to get into it, other than noting it's not just OICs on major controversies but legions of minor ones. All kinds of governmental restructuring and policy changes are made using them, with little or no parliamentary debate or public recourse and only rarely, if ever, court action to overturn them (you need, for one thing, the Crown's permission to proceed). Some I know of for sure are various OICs reducing provincial parks in BC, or converting them into protected areas (i.e. reducing the level of protection); but that's only one of many possible items to raise.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did someone delete reference to the 2020 nova Scotia attacks as motivations for the most recent order in council? Im putting it back in. 70.74.121.182 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No mention of its use to crush offshore radio of the 1960s
When the Parliament could not quickly silence Radio 390 an Order in Council was made to redraw the coastline in order to extend territorial waters and bring the station under existing UK law. Then the Crown took Radio 390 to court and prosecuted the station successfully under the existing law. Another instance took place when an Order was extended to override the Manx - Isle of Man Parliament in order to silence Radio Caroline North. There are many other examples of the use of these Orders to achieve that which the Parliament cannot achieve. All of this is due to the lack of a written constitution in the name of, by, and for "The People". Someone added in another section of this article that these acts are similar to acts undertaken by the President of the USA. That is sheer nonsense. In the USA citizens and residents have written constitutional rights, but in the UK they have privileges, and there is a big difference! This is a very poor article. 80.192.68.143 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Page move from "Order-in-Council" to "Order in Council"
The rationale I gave when moving this article from Order-in-Council to Order in Council is truncated when viewing the page history. The full text I typed was: "'Order in Council' is the form used in British (and apparently also Canadian) official usage, is how the term is listed in the OED, and is how the term is given in roughly 95% of the first 500 results returned by Google (many of the exceptions being Wikipedia clones)" Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Order in Council. 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/20120426232549/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/cabinet-draft-manual.pdf to http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/cabinet-draft-manual.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528160028/http://library.queensu.ca/webdoc/gov/OrdersinCouncil.pdf to http://library.queensu.ca/webdoc/gov/OrdersinCouncil.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus, and in particular, the use of "Council" as a proper noun. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Order in Council → Order in council – Not a proper name. (It refers to a type of legislative instrument that exists in many countries, not a particular piece of legislation.) 156.57.13.133 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 * This needs to go to RM, as the "Council" in question in every case is a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose since the Council in the name refers to the Privy Council and is unambiguously a proper noun. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Support - Describes a general process, not any specific order in council. Primergrey (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose The Council is, as per Necrothesp, a proper name, a specific Council, even if it's a different specific Council in different countries. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose an 'Order in Council' refers exclusively to bodies known as a Privy Council or Executive Council, both proper nouns. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, proper noun as stated by other !votes - https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/orders/ Cabayi (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose', definitely a proper name. It is always capitalized in texts.  Walrasiad (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Order in Council


text: User:Dissembler~enwiki

title: User:Dissembler~enwiki


text:
LNER Class V2 4771 Green Arrow

The LNER Class V2 2-6-2 steam locomotive, number 4771 Green Arrow was built in June 1936 for the London and North Eastern Railway (LNER) at Doncaster Works to a design of Nigel Gresley. The first-built and sole surviving member of its class, it was designed for hauling express freight and passenger trains and named after an express freight service.

Operational life
Initially allotted the number 637, it was fitted with curved nameplates over the middle driving wheels. Before entry into LNER service the number was altered to 4771, and the curved nameplates were replaced with straight nameplates mounted on the sides of the smokebox. In order to do this, the builder's plate (Doncaster Works No. 1837) had to be re-located to below the cab windows.

The locomotive was later allocated no. 700 in 1943, but this never carried and was revised to 800 in April 1946, and that number was applied by the LNER in November 1946, and 60800 by British Railways in February 1949.

Preservation
Green Arrow was withdrawn from British Railways service in August 1962, and selected for preservation within the national collection, it was restored at Doncaster Works.

With work completed in April 1963, it was followed by almost ten years of storage, during which it was moved several times. A transfer from Doncaster to Hellifield occurred in October 1964; the locomotive was moved to Wigston in 1967 - this was intended to be the final temporary home, since it was intended that Green Arrow would become one of the permanent exhibits in a Municipal Museum which was proposed for the nearby city of Leicester. However, before the museum was ready, demolition of Wigston locomotive depot was scheduled, and the locomotive was sent south to the Preston Park shops of the Pullman Car Company in September 1970. The National Railway Museum (NRM) was then being planned, and in November 1971 Green Arrow was selected for the National Collection, items from which would form the main display in the NRM. The locomotive was again moved, this time to Norwich depot in January 1972, where it was returned to working order; the first trial trip, to Ely, was on 28 March 1973. It then commenced a series of runs at the head of special trains, before being moved to Carnforth on 2 July 1973. In September 1979, Green Arrow headed The Centenary Express, as part of an exhibition tour of the country organised by Travellers Fare to celebrate the centenary of on-train catering. Green Arrow ran in preservation until being withdrawn from service on 21 April 2008, shortly before its boiler certificate expired.

After a series of commemorative runs on preserved railways, the locomotive moved to the North Yorkshire Moors Railway for their LNER gala. Following the first gala weekend the boiler was found to have two cracked superheater tubes; temporary repairs allowed the loco to make a final run on the second weekend before being finally withdrawn. Following this the loco returned to the National Collection and was on static display at the National Railway Museum's Locomotion site at Shildon. In 2015 it was announced that Green Arrow is one of the planned exhibits for the Great Central Railway's proposed railway museum located at Leicester North station. In February 2021 it was announced that the locomotive had been loaned for 3 years to the newly relocated Danum Gallery.

Models
Bachmann and Graham Farish produce models of Green Arrow for OO gauge and N gauge respectively as part of the 2011 range.

title: LNER Class V2 4771 Green Arrow


text:
User:DrVeghead

Now a doctor! Still, no longer a veghead.

title: User:DrVeghead


text:
User talk:Orz

Orz, can you please point me to supporting information regarding your claim that W Bush was admitted to Harvard only due to his father's connections? I am unaware of these findings. - Tεx  τ  urε  17:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Texture:

Please refer to the Salon article from September 16, 2004 written by Yoshi Tsurumi, a former professor of George W. Bush at Harvard University. On the web, such information can be found at http://dogfight04.typepad.com/dogfight04/2004/09/bush_showing_hi.html. -- Orz

Robert Sapolsky
Orz: Why did you blank the section in Robert Sapolsky? I've reverted your edit until you can explain why this paragraph is false. Semiconscious ·  talk  10:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has never been blanked. Read the log carefully. My modification was "Robert Sapolsky, a neuroendocrinologist, has focused his research on issues of stress and neuron degeneration" ---> "His research focuses on issues of [[Stress (medicine)|

stress]] and neuron degeneration". -- Orz 19:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ....yeah.... I see that now. Thus the perils of trying to edit at 3am. My apologies! Semiconscious  ·  talk  20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Mark Selbee. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Zoz (t) 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. JForget 22:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry disregard about the message then. -- JForget 00:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Timestamp preservation
You added a new column File timestamp preservation to the Technical information section of Comparison of revision control software. Could you please add a corresponding entry to the Table explanations similarly to the other columns? I recently deleted a similar column, because it had no clear explanation. Thank you.

I also believe the "Advanced Features" section would be more appropriate for this column. And there we wouldn't need dozens of unknown tags either. Agreed? --Drizzd (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Orz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Richard Wolfson (physicist) -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Orz


text:
Aurinko

Aurinko (1992) is an album by the Finnish rock group CMX. The word "Aurinko" means "The Sun" in Finnish. The album cover depicts a cross section of a pineapple.

The album was the first to mark a considerable move towards more mainstream rock from the band's hardcore roots, with more streamlined approach to songwriting and distinctibly more vocal singing style in most tracks. Also, Aurinko featured one of their biggest future live hits, "Ainomieli".

In a City magazine interview in 2005, when asked about which CMX song should never have been made, A. W. Yrjänä has said: "On Aurinko there's 'Timanttirumpu', that makes no sense at all. It's just growling and drum playing".

Track listing
All songs written by A. W. Yrjänä and Janne Halmkrona with lyrics by A. W. Yrjänä.

 * 1) "Pyhiinvaeltaja" – 3:12 ("Pilgrim")
 * 2) "Härjät" – 3:45 ("Bulls")
 * 3) "Aivosähköä" – 3:29 ("Brain Electricity")
 * 4) "Katariinanpyörä" – 2:30 ("Catherine Wheel")
 * 5) "Todellisuuksien yleiset luokat I-IV" – 3:19 ("Universal Classes of Reality I-IV")
 * 6) "Tähteinvälinen" – 5:10 ("Interstellar")
 * 7) "Manalainen" – 3:21 ("Underworder")
 * 8) "Ainomieli" – 3:28
 * 9) "Kaksi jokea" – 3:49 ("Two Rivers")
 * 10) "Timanttirumpu" – 3:13 ("Diamond Drum")
 * 11) "Marian ilmestys" – 5:53 ("Revelation of Mary")
 * 12) "Yö ei ole pimeä päivä" – 3:01 ("The Night is not a Dark Day")

Credits

 * A. W. Yrjänä - Vocals, Bass guitar, Producer
 * Janne Halmkrona - Guitars
 * Timo Rasio - Guitars
 * Pekka Kanniainen - Drums
 * Gabi Hakanen - Producer, Engineer, Mixing
 * Anna Kuoppamäki
 * Costi Suhonen
 * Kikke Heikkinen
 * Wagner Keppi
 * Mika Paloniemi
 * Tapani Rinne
 * Kosonen
 * Njuga Mol'ubata
 * Martti Salminen
 * Kain Ärjyvä - Sleeve Design, Photography
 * Jolle Penttilä - Photography

title: Aurinko


text:
Talk:Lone Wolf and Cub

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GoforPapaPalpatine. Peer reviewers: Fordhuntington1, Zealora.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First header
Note for people wanting to create an article on this in Portuguese: The title of the book in Brazil is "Lobo Solitário", and all names are in Western order (Itto Ogami) as opposed to the Japanese order that the English-language books use. Panini Comics publishes "Lobo Solitário" in Brazil. WhisperToMe 00:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2002-2004 Series availability
The 2002-2004 television series is not available on DVD in Japan or anywhere else, why is it stated that it is readily available? This has been edited but then re-edited to incorrectly state a DVD release which is not backed up by any evidence.

The original series was released on DVD last december in Japan and is available in a box set. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Britpod (talk • contribs).

Image for Animanga Box
Just wanted to ask before I changed anything, but does anyone else think that an image from the manga should be placed in the image section of the animanga info box, since the box itself is about the manga series? I had originally placed one in there, but if necessary I could place a better image of the manga artwork if the first is felt to be an inadequate representation. Gundam785|Talk 04:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually this is better than the first one, you have a better image? Or why not put the manga cover in there as in other articles? We already have that uploaded. - Ajshm 10:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Image for Animanga Box
Suggest we divide this into MAGNA and SCREEN ADAPTIONS. As the disclaimer says; this is an article about the manga.

--TTwist 09:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Romanisation of Japanese Title
Shouldn't that read "Kotsure Ōkami", "Carrying-Children-Wolf"? Apologies if I'm wrong, my Japanese is quite weak! - 60.36.46.80 06:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It does come from 子 "ko" plus 連れる "tsureru" but the "tsu" is altered to "zu" when the two are put together, so "kozure" is correct. There are more than one romanization scheme for japanese, though. Using "zu" reflects pronunciation, but doesn't let you know which kana to use: it could be a modified "tsu" or a modified "su". Another system, the one used in japanese education, would use "du" for a modified "tsu" and "zu" for a modified "su". In this system, "kodure" would be used, and indeed you'll get related hits on Google using "kodure ookami". Those hits are less numerous that with "kozure ookami", though, and seem to mainly refer to a game using that character. I think the title of the page should stay "kozure ookami" Alestane 21:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sono chīsaki te ni
The article gives "A Child's Hand Reaches Up" as a litteral translation, which may be good in context but doesn't seem litteral to me. I understand the japanese to mean "In that little hand". Before I go ahead and correct it in the article, does anyone know where the "A Child's Hand Reaches Up" comes from? Alestane 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to be an alternate title. I'll edit the main page. Alestane

There's a new veideogame
See and related videos. --HanzoHattori 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

One more film, or two
There is what could be called one more film. Like Shogun Assassin, it was a dubbed compilation. It was released to USA theaters in the mid-1970s under the title Lightning Swords of Death and showed on premium cable (I saw it on Cinemax) in the 1980s. Like Shogun Assassin it included the origin flashback from the first film. In the 1990s, there was a video release, Lupine Wolf (dubbed and panned & scanned), which I read somewhere was an essentially intact version of Lone Wolf and Cub: Baby Cart to Hades, but retitled, dubbed and P&Sed. In the film box here, that entry is given the alternative title Shogun Assassin II: Lightning Swords of Death, but the origin sequence is not part of LW, so that isn't simply a video release of LSoD. Furthermore, I've never heard of any of the last four of these films being repackaged as Shogun Assassin [number]: [subtitle]. Where does this come from? --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler tag?
I'd suggest adding a spoiler tag on "Plot Summary", as it spoils the whole plot, including the ending. XKuei (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Per WP:SPOILER and WP:NDA, there are no "spoiler" disclaimers in articles. Besides, someone who doesn't realize that a plot summary will contain possible "spoilers" is a complete idiot. —Farix (t | c) 10:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, what I meant is that, from my own point of view, Plot Summaries as a whole are spoiling stories in a way that's pretty much non-enciclopedic. I mean, one thing is informational richness; people want to know every detail on say, Napoleonic Wars. Another thing, though, is a "Plot Summary" for an entertainment product that essentially tells the history in the products stead. I hope you understand that while I'm no idiot, I'd be very pleased to get actual Summaries or synopsis instead of the entirety of the plot of a given movie/book the way Wikipedia articles currently do. Xkuei (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Person of interest
little did he know that "Person of interest" its a TV show mystery solved 72.185.61.209 (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a connection to the manga that I'm not seeing this is still misplaced in the article on the manga Lone Wolf and Cub. What I've done instead is adding a so-called hatnote at the page Wolf and Cub: If anyone searches for the TV episode, they will end up at that page and see the appropriate pointer. It's not likely that anyone will be on this page looking for the episode. Amalthea  10:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * you aided so called hat note for some rock band? what is the point of that? 72.185.61.209 (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:HATNOTE for reasoning. Amalthea  10:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * yes there is connection to this glorified manga. not only in the name but also in the theme of that episode. 72.185.61.209 (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the comic mentioned directly in the episode? Or is this your interpretation? If the latter, we would need to find a reliable source that comes to the same conclusion. Amalthea  10:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

its not my interpretation. that episode is themed after the manga which is shown there as well.

72.185.61.209 (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Source for translated titles
It appears from the talk threads here that translation for the film titles was done by Wikipedia editors.

Would it be better to use a reliable source for this? For example, the DVDs from AmiEigo provide translated titles. I have not seen all of the AmiEigo versions but did note these titles:

First off - AmiEigo translates 子連れ狼 as "Lone Wolf and Cub" rather than the more literal "Wolf with Child in Tow" the article uses. I personally would have translated this as "Wolf with Child" as I don't see a "tow" as in "牽引で子連れ狼".

1 The article has "Child and Expertise for Rent" while AmiEigo has the same "Child and Expertise for Rent."

3. The article has "Baby Cart Against the Winds of Death" while AmiEigo used "Perambulator Against the Winds of Death."

4. The article used "The Heart of a Parent, the Heart of a Child" while AmiEigo used "Heart of the Parent, Heart of the Child." AmiEigo's translation seems closer to "親の心子の心" which I read as "Heart of the parent; Heart of a child."

6. The article used "Now We Go to Hell, Daigoro!" while AmiEigo used "Daigoro! We're off to Hell!." I likely would have translated "地獄へ行くぞ!大五郎" as "Daigoro! We'll go to hell!" but I can see why AmiEigo used "We're off to Hell!"

I never saw discs #2 and #5 in the series and so don't know how AmiEigo translated the titles.

2. The article uses "Baby Cart of the River of Sanzu." I would translate "三途の川の乳母車" as "Pram at the Sanzu River" and for this series it makes sense to use "Baby Cart at the Sanzu River." The common English title, "Baby Cart at the River Styx", is an excellent translation as "三途の川" is the Sanzu River which is the Japanese version of the River Styx.

5. I would translate "冥府魔道" as "Road to the Land of Demons" but I'm find with "Land of Demons."

Note that those AmiEigo translations were from discs they released around 2003. It's possible they have re-done the titles within the DVDs as this page uses the standard English titles. The AmiEigo I mentioned above showed on the screen when the Japanese titles were showing. Someone with a recently purchased full box set could verify this. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest removing all of the translations. It is not much more than self-indulgence to include these. If it has an English title then that is probably enough. There is no particular reason why a Wikipedia article has to provide a precise translation of the name into English and it doesn't really add anything to the article. The individual film article might want to have the translation, if it is quite different in meaning from the title the film is released in in English, but generally it's hardly necessary and having these things is more to do with wikipedians showing off about how they can translate from Japanese rather than actually giving information about the films. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Gomune Oyuki - reason episode was suppressed
The article currently reads: "All of these releases excluded the deleted from distribution 2nd episode "Gomune Oyuki". It is unclear as to why this episode is no longer made available."

The reason is clear: socially/politically embarrassing subject matter.

The episode dealt with the gomune who, during the Edo period, were of the class of people legally strongly discriminated against as outcasts called eta during feudal times. During modern times there were/are outcasts called burakumin. The status given to burakumin can be compared to the Hindu 'untouchables' - or maybe to African Americans before the Civil Rights Movement except that it wasn't race issue but a caste you could look up on a national family registry into the mid 70s.

There was much public and political awareness of burakumin around the 60s, particularly the late 60s to mid 70s. Takeda Lullaby is a song that was quietly banned from broadcast by major Japansese broadcasters for its political associations as a burakumin song. Even into the late 1990s burakumin were not a matter for polite discussion.

My sources don't state whether or not the broadcaster considered the content inflammatory and let it be shown anyway, didn't think it was inflammatory or didn't know the content at all. They also don't state if the broadcaster decided on its own to suppress the episode or if it was prompted to suppress it by public response or political pressure.

Naturally, if I had good written references to include I would edit the article but maybe someone will be prompted by this note to investigate. Waerloeg (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the information. This sounds like a plausible explanation, but the question arises as to why then is/was the 4th feature film, which is based on the same manga story and features the eta, not banned as well? It has been released on DVD in Japan and in other regions without issue. Chanbara (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 * You're welcome. Here's some speculation as to why the film is around freely but the tv episode isn't. While I used banned to describe Takeda Lullaby above I've used the word "suppressed" here rather than "banned". Bans are imposed formally by governments but the episode was suppressed by the broadcaster itself so far as my readings indicated, no mention of an act of law being involved.
 * 1 The tv episode content contains something someone finds objectionable that isn't in the other medium (e.g., perhaps someone is portrayed worse in the tv show than the film)
 * 2 The rights are owned by different companies and distributed different ways
 * they have different opinions on what is proper
 * they are subject to different amounts of pressure from the public, politicians etc. As I mentioned, major Japanese broadcasters quietly banned Takeda Lullaby and the tv series was broadcast on a major network.
 * films weren't and aren't all that often re-released so it wasn't deemed necessary to take action while tv shows were expected to be syndicated or re-run so action was deemed necessary.
 * 3 Once a decision to suppress has been made, unless the DVD producer makes a mistake or takes matters into his own hand, even if the reason for suppression no longer exists someone in authority has to actively make a decision to reverse the suppression.
 * The person who makes that decision then has to be prepared to justify that decision if objections about the reversal later arise. Sometimes it's easier not to make waves.
 * It's completely possible that people in positions of authority today were juniors in the same company when the episode was suppressed and they share the opinions that led to the suppression.
 * Having never been suppressed, no one has had to go to the bother to unsuppress the film.
 * 4 The film was released before the tv show and things had changed. Maybe the burakumin crisis was rising, maybe the film primed people to a hair trigger and they were incensed.
 * 5 Maybe fewer people saw the film series and so less offense was caused
 * people expect films to be more avant garde and daring than tv shows which is why films have content that is often edited out for tv
 * 6 No one involved in the DVD release or any rebroadcast of the tv show has been motivated enough to start the ball rolling on how to go about releasing the episode.
 * It's easy to omit one episode out of 27 or 79 but it's harder to miss one film out of 6.
 * The tape may or may not be with the others. It could be misplaced or might not even exist any more.
 * I think different content and different standards applied by different people is amply sufficient to explain why the film exists in DVD form but apathy about including it is also possible. The show was about 30 years old when the last DVD set was released and it hasn't got the fan base to generate Star Trek like nerd rage. AnimEigo (who released the tv series DVDs) still exists so someone could email them and ask why they didn't include the episode. Waerloeg (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While this sounds like it might be the explanation, why not list the sources that led you to this conclusion? The way it is now, it's just a claim made by you, nothing more. I googled this for a while now and cannot find any reliable information at all about why this episode was suppressed. Billy7 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lone Wolf and Cub. 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://www.webcitation.org/67GQoMETk?url=http://www.nichibutsu.co.jp/list/amlist.html to http://www.nichibutsu.co.jp/list/amlist.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Frank Miller cover? Why?
Can we have the cover replaced with one that displays Kojima's artwork instead of Frank Miller's? Especially given there are no other examples of the book's artwork anywhere in the article? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hawk and Chick: Bob's Burgers parody
The Bob's Burgers episode Hawk & Chick has been described as a parody of Lone Wolf and Cub.

I have found a lot of sources for this, but I think they probably count as unreliable, or be too much primary sources to be acceptable. Examples: But it seems very clearly to be a reference. I just haven't found any journal or even blog talking about it. I'd love if someone found something so we could include it in the article.
 * 1) PoeTV: BOB'S BURGERS | Hawk & Chick Box Set Collection | ANIMATION on FOX
 * 2) Imgur: Turns out Hawk and chick is based on something - Imgur
 * 3) Reddit: Turns out Hawk and chick is based on something : BobsBurgers

This is largely duplicated in the Hawk and Chick talk page.

~nhinchey (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Is a user generated contest website and is not a reliable source.
 * Is a user generated content website and is not a reliable source.
 * Is a forum post discussing the previous link, and is still not a reliable source.
 * Seeing a pattern? Regardless of whether it is a parody, it isn't covered by reliable third-party sources and should not be mentioned. —Farix (t | c) 10:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Library Requests
Hi. I've been working on this for a class project. After doing some research, I was able to find articles that discussed how Lone Wolf and Cub was added to libraries in the 90's and early 2000's. Thanks for making a great page. GoforPapaPalpatine (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Direct Reference in Samurai Jack
In Episode XIX (Season 2, Episode 6) of Samurai Jack, Jack comes upon his original home and relives memories of his past. One such flashback is a direct reference to the 1973 Lone Wolf and Cub television series, Kozure ôkami. This is described on the Internet Movies Database at the following url: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0837449/movieconnections/?tab=mc&ref_=tt_trv_cnn

I know that IMDb on its own is not a reliable resource. Fortunately, an article on the website, Pop Matters, also verifies this cameo appearance, even if only in a single line of text at the following url: https://www.popmatters.com/116502-lone-wolf-and-cub-part-1-history-and-influences-2496129407.html

Given the pop cultural impact of both Samurai Jack and Lone Wolf and Cub, and that this reference has been verified by a reliable resource, I feel that this is worth including in the article.45.18.49.225 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Dark Horse mangas inverted/flipped
I think it should be noted in the section where the Dark Horse mangas are mentioned, that all of them are inverted, i. e. all the images or panels are flipped horizontally, so that every character becomes "left-handed", swords are carried on the wrong side, characters with prominent features on their faces or other body parts have them on the wrong side etc. Billy7 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Agree -- just need to find a review citation. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lone Wolf and Cub


text:
Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?

"Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?" is the ninth episode of the fourth season of the animated television series South Park, and 57th episode of the series overall. Going by the production air order, it would be 10th episode of Season 4. "Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?" originally aired in the United States on July 19, 2000, on Comedy Central. It is the first part of a two-parter, which concludes in the following episode "Probably." The story links some of the events and characters of the film South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut into the animated series. The episode is rated TV-MA in the United States.

In the episode, the boys become obsessed with religion after a sermon about hell scares them. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein returns to Hell and tries to dispose of Satan's new boyfriend.

Plot
Frightened into piety by Father Maxi's fire-and-brimstone sermon, Stan, Cartman, and Kenny begin to attend Sunday school classes with a nun named Sister Anne, who teaches them about Communion and confession. Issues arise when the children begin to ask questions regarding their classmates Kyle, who is Jewish, and Timmy, who is disabled and can say little more than his own name. The priest explains that both will go to Hell if they do not confess their sins. Later, in the confessional, Father Maxi tries to choke Cartman after he unwittingly confesses all the pranks he has played on the priest. Cartman tells the other kids that he has felt God's angry hand, which scares them even more.

Meanwhile, in Hell, Satan and the people of Hell sing The Hukilau Song (featuring Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Tiny Tim, Mao Zedong, Princess Diana, Adolf Hitler, among many others). Satan is torn between two lovers: Chris, an overly-sensitive man he is living with (voiced by Dian Bachar), and Saddam Hussein, Satan's emotionally-abusive ex whom he had killed at the end of South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. Satan is surprised to see Saddam, though Saddam points out the obvious logic: "Yeah, you killed me. Where was I gonna go, Detroit?" It's apparent that Satan is still attracted to Saddam, and he struggles to choose between him and Chris. Chris invites Saddam over for dinner.

Back in South Park, the boys, frightened of dying without having confessed all their sins, are rushing to church when Kenny is hit by a bus. When they arrive at the church, they discover Father Maxi copulating with a woman in the confessional. A brunette woman with glasses runs away and shortly after Father Maxi is on his knees begging forgiveness then yells "Mrs. Donovan is a temptress from hell!" The boys, horrified at the priest's blatant sinfulness and hypocrisy, decide that they will have to save everyone themselves. The episode ends with Cartman using a bullhorn and a stereotypical, exaggerated Southern Protestant preacher's accent on a street corner, directing a large group of children to the creation of a new religious movement. The episode notes it is "to be continued", setting up one of the series first two-parters.

Reception
IGN rated the episode 9/10, stating "It's also one of the better religious satires the show has done." They comment that the funniest element is the love triangle between Satan, Saddam Hussein and Chris, and conclude that the episode is an example of "some of the most scathing commentary on social institutions there is."

title: Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?


text:
User talk:Sikander

Hello hello!

Nomination of Hayden Szeto for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hayden Szeto 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/Hayden Szeto 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 notice from the top of the article.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Mary Coyle
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Siqbal, thanks for creating Mary Coyle!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study
Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern working with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please reply to this message or email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview. .

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Canadian Passport.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Canadian Passport.JPG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Jena
Just because your in Trouble dose not meen you have to get other people in truble my Picks are fine leave them alone !! Jena  (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is in trouble. There are rules for uploads to Wikimedia Commons and they apply to everyone. I'm not picking a fight with you on purpose. Dozens of files are nominated for deletion every day. If your uploads meet the licensing criteria, they will stay on Commons. If not, they will be deleted. These rules apply to everyone. // sikander { talk } 15:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto now live
Hey! Noticed you were still editing the sandbox. I've moved your work over to the page COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto which is now live. Cheers! CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, perfect. Thanks for the note. // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

KSA
how last number change from july 20 shows graph 7 days ahead?! btw local leagues return as spike is declining so tske care of fake news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.83.69 (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've updated the graphs up to July 28. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Your change to Randy Mamola
I think this was a retrograde move; it is less-flattering and emphasises the 'goldfish bowl' (or space helmet) syndrome (does my head look big in this?) with exaggerated proportion caused basically by a low camera angle and no background. It also loses Mamola's working environment (at least, from his more-recent working lifestyle) - that is, the pit lane - from the reader's experience. I requested this image a few years back which I think is perfect (the club colours are seen in the seating). Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you pointing this out, I agree that the small crop doesn't look that great. How about now? // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Better, thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fall Down 7 Times Get Up 8 - Book Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fall Down 7 Times Get Up 8 - Book Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Miso soup packet.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Miso soup packet.JPG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax «¦talk¦» 10:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2023 (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)

== You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. == Baratiiman (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ I am so confused. What disruptive editing are you referring to? // sikander { talk } 🦖 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They're referring to this revert . Borgenland (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . @: I find it quite rude of you to claim that edit as disruptive and to threaten a block from editing. The summary for that edit explains what it is doing. I did not vandalize the page. In my opinion the image was not needed on an article about an election between two people who have nothing to do with that image. Since your threat linked to a policy, please read through this one as well: WP:BOLD. // sikander { talk } 🦖 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hiya!

Darer101 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sikander


text:
User talk:Erin~enwiki

Hello?
Did some nice person grab this user name for me? Eri5n 00:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If you're not using this name, maybe I could talk you out of the password? I've got this silent "5" stuck in my name.  Let me know...  Peace. Eri5n 01:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Erin~enwiki


text:
User talk:Valor

Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library

For more information click  here . You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Sam Spade 00:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Valor


text: User talk:130.65.179.39

title: User talk:130.65.179.39


text:
Giuliano Grazioli

Giuliano Stefano Luigi Grazioli (born 23 March 1975, in Marylebone) is an English former footballer who played as a striker from 1995 until 2009, notably for Barnet.

As a footballer he also played for Wembley, Yeovil Town, Peterborough United, Woking, Stevenage Borough, Swindon Town, Bristol Rovers, AFC Wimbledon, Braintree Town and Dover Athletic.

Playing career
Raised in London of Italian origin, he attended Finchley Catholic High School in London. He scored in Stevenage Borough's fourth round FA Cup game against Newcastle United in the 1997–98 season to leave the game at 1–1 and force a replay. He has also had spells at Enfield, Bristol Rovers, Swindon Town and Peterborough United. He played for North London side Barnet and, during his time at the club, has had a loan spell with AFC Wimbledon, before closing out his career with spells at Braintree Town and Dover Athletic.

Grazioli's time at Peterborough is best remembered for the five goals he scored in the club's record win, a 9–1 victory away at Barnet on 5 September 1998.

Grazioli joined Barnet as part of a deal that took Junior Agogo to Bristol Rovers. Rovers paid £110,000 for Agogo with Grazioli going the other way. He helped Barnet gain promotion from the Football Conference to the Football League in the 2004–05 season. He was the top scorer in the conference with 29 goals – seven more than nearest rival Michael Twiss of Morecambe. A hand injury kept Grazioli out of much of the following season – Barnet's first season back in League Two.

Between the 2006–07 and 2007–08, Grazioli underwent keyhole surgery for a knee injury, following which he moved to AFC Wimbledon on 7 September 2007 on a five-week loan spell.

In January 2008 Grazioli was transfer-listed, mainly due to not being able to break into the first-team due to persistent injuries and lack of fitness. On 31 January, deadline day, he rejected a loan move to Grays Athletic. On 26 April 2008, Grazioli played his last ever home game for Barnet, as a substitute against Stockport County, in which he received a standing ovation from the fans in appreciation of his prolific goal scoring which took the Bees into the Football League.

Grazioli joined Conference South side Braintree Town in August 2008. But after only a month, he signed for Isthmian League side Dover Athletic on 11 September 2008 and made his debut for them as a substitute in a 2–1 win over Tonbridge Angels in the FA Cup. Grazioli made over 20 appearances for Dover Athletic before announcing his retirement in March 2009 due to a sustained head injury. His final appearance came in a 0–0 draw with Staines Town.

Coaching and management career
It was reported in June 2009 that he had been appointed as a scout at Bristol Rovers. In April 2010 he rejoined Barnet in a new role as community development officer. After the appointment of Martin Allen as manager of Barnet in March 2011, Grazioli was made Allen's assistant. In April 2011 after the shock resignation of Allen to go to Notts County Grazioli was appointed caretaker manager for the rest of the season with Lawrie Sanchez acting as Director of Football. His first game in charge was a 2–0 defeat at Bury. The Bees went into the final day of the season two points behind Lincoln City and following a 1–0 win at home to Port Vale coupled with a 3–0 defeat to Aldershot for Lincoln, it was the Imps who suffered relegation to the Conference National, completing a miraculous revival for Barnet, who had spent practically the entire season in the bottom two.

In May 2011 he was appointed as the club's new assistant manager to Lawrie Sanchez. He left the club at the end of the 2011–12 season. In September 2012, Martin Allen announced that Grazioli has been scouting for Gillingham.

Honours

 * Conference National Winner: 2005
 * Isthmian League Premier Division Winner: 2009

title: Giuliano Grazioli


text:
Jim Pollock

James Ivan Pollock (July 8, 1930 – October 28, 2021) was a politician in Ontario, Canada. He was a Progressive Conservative member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1981 to 1990 who represented the riding of Hastings—Peterborough.

Background
Pollock was educated at Rawdon High School, and worked as a farmer before entering politics. He was a reeve of Rawdon Township, and a Warden in the County of Hastings. Pollock was also an active freemason.

Politics
He was elected to the Ontario legislature in the 1981 provincial election, defeating Liberal candidate Dave Hobson by just under 3,000 votes in the riding of Hastings—Peterborough. Elmer Buchanan of the NDP finished third. Pollock was a backbench supporter of Premiers Bill Davis and Frank Miller in the parliaments which followed. In 1983, he brought forward a resolution to make the blue jay the official bird of Ontario.

The Progressive Conservatives lost power following the 1985 election, although Pollock actually increased his majority. He was one of only sixteen Progressive Conservatives re-elected in the 1987 election, defeating Liberal Carman Metcalfe and Elmer Buchanan of the NDP.

The Progressive Conservatives made a modest recovery in the 1990 provincial election, although Pollock lost his seat to Buchanan amid a provincial majority government victory for the NDP. Buchanan won the election by 896 votes.

title: Jim Pollock


text:
Talk:Jeff Stinco

Edits
I have revised the article, removing things like "His favourite colour is black". Not really encyclopaedic... --Alexs letterbox 00:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jeff Stinco


text:
Raymond Hunthausen

Raymond Gerhardt "Dutch" Hunthausen (August 21, 1921 – July 22, 2018) was an American Catholic prelate who served as Bishop of Helena from 1962 to 1975 and as Archbishop of Seattle from 1975 to 1991.

Early life and education
The oldest of seven children, Raymond Hunthausen was born in Anaconda, Montana, to Anthony Gerhardt and Edna Marie (née Tuchscherer) Hunthausen. His parents owned and operated a local grocery store. He grew up helping with the grocery business and working in the Tuchscherer brewery.

Nicknamed "Dutch", Hunthausen received his early education from the Ursuline nuns at the parochial school, and excelled both academically and athletically during high school.

Hunthausen attended Carroll College in Helena, majoring in chemistry and graduating cum laude in 1943. He considered pursuing a career as a chemical engineer or as a fighter pilot for the United States Air Force. However, he was persuaded by Bernard Topel, his spiritual director and mathematics professor at Carroll who later became Bishop of Spokane, to enter the priesthood. Hunthausen began his studies at St. Edward Seminary in Kenmore, Washington, in the fall of 1943.

Priesthood
Hunthausen was ordained a priest by Bishop Joseph Gilmore on June 1, 1946. He returned to Carroll College, where he served as a professor of chemistry (1946–57) and a football and basketball coach (1953–57). In 1953 he earned a master's degree in chemistry from the University of Notre Dame. Hunthausen served as president of Carroll College from 1957 to 1962. He was named a domestic prelate in 1958.

Bishop of Helena
On July 8, 1962, Hunthausen was appointed the sixth Bishop of Helena by Pope John XXIII. He received his episcopal consecration on the following August 30 from Archbishop Egidio Vagnozzi, with Bishops Bernard Topel and William Condon serving as co-consecrators. As Bishop of Helena, Hunthausen was a council father at all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council. He was the newest and youngest American bishop at the start of the council.

Starting in 1976, Hunthausen worked with Call to Action and sought to implement their program. His tenure as Bishop of Helena was marked by increased lay involvement in church matters, the establishment of a mission in Guatemala, the closure of several Catholic elementary and high schools, and the strengthening of religious education programs.

Archbishop of Seattle
Hunthausen was appointed Archbishop of Seattle, Washington by Pope Paul VI in 1975. In 1982, Hunthausen withheld half of his income tax to protest the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and the Trident missile program which had a base nearby, in Puget Sound. In a speech, he said, "Trident is the Auschwitz of Puget Sound." This tax resistance prompted the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to garnish his wages.

Church investigation
As a result of the complaints surrounding Hunthausen's alleged deviations from church doctrine, in 1983 the Vatican authorized Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to launch an investigation. Archbishop (later Cardinal) James Hickey of Washington, DC, was named apostolic visitor to the Archdiocese of Seattle. Hickey's delegation met with Hunthausen and others to investigate his administrative and pastoral practices. The investigation concluded that Hunthausen had exercised "weak doctrinal leadership" in a number of areas, including allowing children to receive the sacrament of Communion without first having received the sacrament of penance.

Donald Wuerl, later Archbishop of Washington, was controversially named an auxiliary bishop with special powers. According to Thomas Bokenkotter, "'A resolution of the affair was finally announced by the Vatican in April after it accepted the report of a commission that recommended that Hunthausen's authority be restored and a coadjutor bishop be appointed. Hunthausen stoutly maintains that his archdiocese has remained fundamentally the same and was never in violation of Vatican doctrine; nor has he had to alter the general direction of his ministry or compromise his liberal beliefs.'"Thomas Murphy, Bishop of Great Falls–Billings, was appointed coadjutor bishop in 1987.

Hunthausen is remembered most for his support of the poor and disenfranchised. He was also an advocate for the youth and encouraged better catechesis in Catholic parishes and Catholic parochial schools despite waning enrollment. In 1985, he helped establish the Institute for Theological Studies at Seattle University, which in 1996 evolved into the School of Theology and Ministry.

Retirement and legacy
On August 21, 1991, Pope John Paul II accepted Hunthausen's resignation as archbishop of Seattle. He then moved to Helena, Montana, to live with his brother, Jack Hunthausen. Raymond continued to hear confessions once a week in East Helena, Montana, and led retreats in the Diocese of Helena.

On July 22, 2018, Hunthausen died in his home in Helena at age 96. He is the second archbishop to be interred in the crypt at St. James Cathedral.

Awards

 * The 1982 Thomas Merton Award by the Thomas Merton Center for Peace and Justice

 * Election to the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics Collegiate Hall of Fame

title: Raymond Hunthausen


text:
User:Eri5n

Hello...
Please feel free to leave me little love notes, critiques, or point out something you think I might be interested in.

Now that's a long list.

My pet wiki projects, and secret desires. (open source secret that is)
Although the primary objective of Wikipedia is the formation of an encyclopedia, it is my observation that a great deal of energy (time) is invested and lost in the Wild-West-Wiki occurring under the "discussion" tabs. I don't mind it one little bit, but it kind of misses the point of building a knowledge base when good folk are shot through the head as they innocently wander into a six-gun town.

I feel there is no better way to build a truly awesome (if that word dates me, so be it) base of knowledge than through a collaborative effort such as this. But WeWiki are young, cock-sure, and scare the poop out of incredibly wise people who have much to contribute, yet try and quit (if try at all) because of our modern net-rebel ways. I intend to always remain a global net-rebel myself, but if we don't mind some of our elders, Wikipedia will be the lesser for it. Are you track'n what I'm lay'n down Kemosabe?

 * I'll be haunting the halls of group-think, and how it completely rots the brain.
 * Conflict resolution by way of keyboard aikido, and a yin-yang acceptance cyberspace and the wikiverse.
 * Mental Tai Chi, even through the annals of ludicrous porn.
 * Forum developments and intelligent think tank projects.
 * The biographies of people I admire.
 * The projects of people who inspire.
 * And the dire ramifications of activities that stomp upon the dignity of others.

Like I said, are you track'n what I'm lay'n down, Kemosabe?

Happy trails.. And always remember to invite a stranger to sit a while at your campfire, 'cause you might need the favor returned someday.

title: User:Eri5n


text:
Talk:The Reeve's Tale

Strother
The village the two students come from is called Strother, said to be in the north, and the narrator know very little about it. I'm not going to do any original research, but I believe Strother is a corruption of Westruther, over the Scottish frontier. It would make sense. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Rape in the Reeve's Tale
First Alan got up and, without any complaint from the miller's daughter, joined her in bed.

While this summary is technically correct, it strongly implies that the miller's daughter made no complaint because she was willing, which is misleading. The relevant passage, from the original, makes it clear that she was unable to complain:

''And up he rose and to the girl he crept. This wench lay on her back and soundly slept, Until he'd come so near, ere she might spy, It was too late to struggle, then, or cry; And, to be brief, these two were soon alone.''

Likewise, that "the cradle had been moved" bit - the original makes it very clear that John moved it, to trick the miller's wife into his bed. The sensibilities of the Reeve's Tale are very much contrary to modern attitudes; we shouldn't obscure that point by obscuring issues of nonconsent & deceit. --Calair 00:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree on your first point that the previous summary is misleading, but I think the rewrite goes too far in the other direction. There just isn't enough in the text to indicate either consent or lack of consent; only surprise. --Sneftel 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I've added the mention of struggling, though, since that is in the original, and removed the quote marks because this isn't actually a direct quote from Chaucer. --Calair 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm... where do you read that? The lines in question: "Til he so ny was, er she myghte espie, / That it had been to late for to crie, / And shortly for to seyn, they were aton." --Sneftel 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how I managed to miss the blindingly obvious fact that the version I quoted above was a modernised one and not the original text, but somehow I did. Ugh. I beg your pardon, and have reverted to your version minus the quote marks. --Calair 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob; modernized versions are the only way to stay sane while reading The Canterbury Tales. Article looks great now. Thanks! --Sneftel 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just thought I'd add some of my own thoughts to this. Discussions about if it was rape or just a seely young girl should realy be on the main page as it is fascinating and greatly alters how we read the story. Too many lits articles here are dominated by long plot summaries at the expense of analysis and discussion of themes. I know analysis is more difficult to write and make POV or less original research but plot summaries simply mean people don't have to read it and they don't give people any clues to interpretation. Oh well I sould probably solve it myself but it is good to find other people arguing over 14th century literature. MeltBanana 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since literary analysis is original research, it's not really appropriate for us to do it. What IS useful is analysis which is sourced and (ideally) generally agreed upon by scholars in the field. If you have some of that, you should definitely add it to the article. --Sneftel 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The subject of historical attitudes towards rape is probably worth an article in itself. AFAICT, folk of Chaucer's time had a much more lenient attitude towards rape than we do today. There are plenty of stories and songs from that era which which seem to see nothing very objectionable in the idea of tricking a woman into sex. In the Wife of Bath's tale the hero of the tale is condemned to death for rape, but the queen and her ladies all plead for innocence; in Tirant lo Blanc, the title character - presented as a paragon of chivalry - spends much of the book courting a princess and ends up forcing himself on her with the connivance of the queen, and after about five minutes of "how could you?" she ends up more in love with him than ever. I agree that Wikipedia's not the place for original research, but if somebody else has done the research it would make a worthwhile article for this and others to point to. --Calair 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's a very interesting subject. --Sneftel 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pfft. What does "too late to struggle, then, or cry" mean, for pity's sake? I say you can't really rape a woman if her parents are sleeping in the same room without their knowing. I've tried. Oh, call it "original research" if you want. I call it science. --Tysto (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think some people editing this text are imposing modern sensibilities on a Middle English text. What I read in the Reeve's Tale doesn't seem like rape, and by using this word the editors of Wikipedia are misleading potential readers. The Reeve's Tale is a story within a story and must be presented accurately. Calling the sex in the story "rape" imposes a judgment that isn't there in the original story. Indeed, I would contend that it's not a topic for dispute. Regarding the mother, the Reeve says "it was the merriest fit in all her life". And the daughter refers to Alan as "my sweet." Whether a person thinks that sex achieved via trickery is automatically "rape" hardly seems like a fair question. As presented in this story, the women are not raped.RickDesper (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed - I didn't know the story when I came here, and found the use of the word 'rape' confusing, as it seemed to present John and Alan as the villains of the piece, when that doesn't clearly isn't the intention of the poem. I've tweaked things to refer more explicitly to the stealthiness of Alan's approach on Malyne, and to both 'having sex with' the respective women, avoiding the implications of consent that might come from a 'make love to' or a 'they had sex with each other'. I'm still worried that this might come across as being accepting of their behaviour, but in theory at least those questions of consent are left open to the interpretation of the reader. 86.27.181.73 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 * You people must be joking right now. With not even 20% of the Wikipedian population being owmen. You are harrasing the select few that a brave enough to stand-up for themselves and make a contribution to the world's knowledge. You are an absolutely barbaric group of douchebags who have no realy world experience when it comes to today's world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invictus 1234321234 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, "sex achieved via trickery" is not a reality. There is no such thing as sex through trickery. It is rape, and that is the only thing that "hardly seems like a fair question" in this story regarding Aleyn and John's interactions with the women. To bring it up again, the story states that Malyne is asleep when Aleyn goes to rape her; and when he attacks her, it "had been too late for to crie," in essence saying that Aleyn leaps upon Malyne without giving her the chance to either consent or not consent. Either way, Aleyn performs sexual acts on a person without their verbal consent, which is by the very definition rape. John tricks the miller's wife into bed with him and then pounces on her, too. Neither of these women give the men their consent, and so they are both raped. Portraying John and Aleyn in a darker light does not, in fact, taint the reader's judgement of the two in the original story as the man who wrote it obviously had it in mind that the women were to be taken without consent. The whole play on the 'lovebird's farewell the morning after' heavily implies that the two were lovebirds, with Malyne even going as far as referring to Aleyn as "lemman." In fact, John and Aleyn are so good in bed that both women seem to fall for them! This just shows Geoffrey Chaucer's very own fantasies, that if one rapes the girl he will get away with it because he is so great and wonderful. Do not be fooled by this implication. Just because the story says that the women enjoyed getting raped, does not make it sex. Aleyn and John did not "have sex with" anyone. Tartkeys (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this might be simply a dispute over terminology. You say that what occurred was not sex. But rape is, by definition, non-consensual sex. Calling an act 'sex' does not imply consent, or imply that it was not *also* rape. Since it doesn't take a stand on whether there was consent or not, I think it makes the most sense to use when describing Chaucer's prose (given that Chaucer/the reeve didn't take a stand on whether there was consent or not either). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneftel (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Malyne knows she will not see Allyn again-the only reminder being that she will be pregnant [her comment of bread in the mill [modern slang of a bun in the oven i.e slang for pregnancy] ruining her parents plans of social climbing; To say that Allyn will have a long term relationship with Malyne does not square with the fact that in the morning all he can think of is the revenge on the Miller and the double humilitaions of the wife and daugther...there is no evidence that he cares what happens to either Malyne or their future child...if his career is in the Church {members of which were not supposed to marry]..and if its secular  he looked for an advantage marriage with a rich widow/heiress with money to further his career....there is a discussuin as to weather Malyne willingly consented --the fact that Allyn prevented her from crying out...shows it was indeed rape... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.89.217 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Tense
Also, it just occurred to me that the synopsis is given in past tense. I could've sworn I remember reading something in WP:Style about putting it in present tense, and other articles seem to follow that convention, but I can't find it now. Do you think it matters? --Sneftel 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I always have trouble keeping track of Wikipedia conventions - I wouldn't be surprised if that was correct. But it probably isn't a big issue; if anybody really objects to past tense, I daresay they'll fix it one of these days. --Calair 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Editing tense is not my idea of a good time either. --Sneftel 23:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Reeve's Tale