text:
Talk:Piano Man (song)

Lower key
It seems Billy Joel plays this song in a lower key in the recent years. Could someone confirm which key is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.176.82 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
This needs NPOVing to all hell. Djbrianuk 22:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time signature inaccuracy
The current version says the song is a slow 6/8 time. However, anyone listening to the song will notice it has a strong beat every 3 beats, more characteristic of 3/4 time. Technically this is original research, so i wont edit it, but if anyone wants to cite a reliable source for it, go ahead 70.48.0.59 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, Maqifrnswa (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The song is in 6/8 time, and would never be described as 3/4 by a musician. If you clicked along to it, would you click rapidly 3 times every bar (3/4 time) like it was a fast march, or twice per 6/8 bar ("it's NINE o'CLOCK on a SATurday...")? Although a source is quoted to say it is 3/4 it may be from a beginner's book. Tiger999 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the article states it's 3/4, apparently based on the notation in a song book. I disagree with that and would also say it's 6/8 or even 12/8. The "strong beat every three beats" mentioned above alternates between bass drum and snare drum. Based on the vocal phrasing I'd go for 12/8 though there is a 3/4 feel to the keyboard solo (at about 3:30). Robby.is.on (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is Definitely 3/4. The sheet music says so in the Billy Joel greatest hits book, and you can tell because the overall feel of the song is very waltz-like with the way it goes "ONE-two-three, ONE-two-three" and so on, with a strong accent on beat one. 6/8 would feel less waltz-like and more like "ONE-two-three-four-five-six". Compare "Piano Man" to a waltz, such as the Blue Danube by Strauss or the Waltz of the Flowers from Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker, and you'll see the feel is very similar.

The piano is clearly played in 3/4 as the piano hits the bass of the current inversion every third beat followed by the two upper notes of the triad on two and three.

The drums are drift back and forth between 6/8 and 3/4. 6/8 is characterized by kick drum hit on one and snare hit on four, whereas 3/4 is kick on one then snare on three repeated.

In the first verse the drums are in 6/8 and switches briefly to 3/4 during the instrumental in the middle. But the second verse is 3/4 for the first vocal half and jumps to 6/8 at the instrumental and sticks there for a while. It's not totally consistent, but in general soft parts and instrumentals are in 3/4 more often than not. It might be intentional or simply that the piano tends to be driving those parts and so the drummer naturally falls into that signature.

I'm a musician... Not that that makes me right, but just to counter the idea that no musician would say it's 3/4. Since the dominant instrument (piano) is consistently in 3/4, played by the person who wrote the song, and the rest of the band forms around that, I'd say the song is in 3/4 regardless of whether the drums always agree. Guyondowy (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Joel has started that it's a waltz, which implies 6/8.
 * > However, going into even more detail about the song, Joel said, “It’s a waltz and it’s about a guy in a piano bar, and it’s not even a lyric, it’s a limerick,”
 * https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-hit-song-billy-joel-expected-to-flop/ Maqifrnswa (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Amateur musician, but of 40 years experience, here. It doesn't matter what the sheet music book says, sheet music books are not authoritative, I've seen errors in them a million times. Besides, | Online Drummer's sheet music for it is in 6/8, and that was transcribed by a professional drummer, so, there's your source for it being in 6/8. To my ears the song is clearly a slow 6/8 ballad. It's not a simple "Oom-pa-pa" rhythm. You can't sing "It's a pretty good crowd for a saturday, and the regular crowd shuffles in" in 4 bars of 3/4, it's 8 groups of 3 beats (or 4 groups of 6), not 4 groups of 3. As someone above said, it could be interpreted as 12/8, but definitely not 3/4. It has been | observed that slow 6/8 is easily mistaken for 3/4 for perceptual reasons, as in John Mayer's slow 6/8 "Gravity". However: I have a friend who is a music professor and published composer who I've had similar arguments with a million times. His counter, when I play him something clearly in 6/8, like Red Hot Chili Peppers's "Breaking The Girl", is that in the classical period, when the rules were written, it would have been considered to have been 3/4, end of story. So obviously there's room for interpretation, and perhaps some subjectivity involved. It's probably up to whoever's conducting an individual performance. But as far relying on a source, I myself would go with the published commercial transcription by a professional drummer, which says 6/8, rather than the popular mass-market omnibus music book of the type I've seen contain mistakes many times. Because the current text saying 3/4 is unsourced, I have updated it. If someone can find a reliable source that disputes this, I believe it would be most fair to mention the dispute rather than revert or replace the edit. SteubenGlass (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Not Very Accurate
"Joel's early career was as a piano player in bars." I don't think this is the case. Joel only played at the Executive Room for six months while he was sitting out a bad record company contract. Otherwise, there's no mention of him being a piano player in bars, though that's certainly his reputation.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.86.23.99 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Did Billy Joel himself write this article? It's talking about "Piano Man" (nice little pop song) like it's Beethoven's 9th Symphony. 4.230.159.199 08:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that by now all the puffery has been edited out... -- PKtm 19:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, It's a start
I know it's not there yet, but I added an infobox, updated a link, and added more material jj 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Was Piano Man actually cut down to 3:05? Or was 3:05 just used for the sake of a rhyme? Is the 5:37 version we all know not actually the edited version, or is this the "proper" one?
 * 3:05 for the single, 5:37 in album versions. --YankeeDoodle14 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)how does the music make you feel?

Check the History
While reading the overview of this song, I couldn't help but see that it says "Piano Man" was created during the time of Billy Joel's "lounge singing in Los Angeles". Being a native of the city of Troy, NY, I find it hard not to state where this song actually came from. It was made about a bar called the "Hendrick Hudson Hotel Bar" in Troy, NY. Look it up. Ask Billy Joel. My older relatives are friends with many of the people mentioned in the song and they would have no problem telling anyone their real last names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilmick7 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC). Lilmick7 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the Hendrick Hudson theory. I was a waiter in the 1980s at Holmes & Watson (now McAddy's Pub) and "John at the bar" worked there. He used to tell of working at the Hendrick Hudson bar and inspiring the line in the song. John was very overweight, similar to the person who plays John in the video of the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doohickie (talk • contribs) 06:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I added the release date, recording dates/place, producer, and the part in the Trivia section that mentions The Hassles. The info was all taken from the inside of an album called "Rock Classics of the 70s". So anyone who has that can check it. I did that all ages ago, but never thought of mentioning it. And I know this isn't the place to talk about references but I just thought I would anyway. Hope that's ok, guys. :) Rforsite01 17:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it's about a bar in Highland Falls, NY, called Benny Havens, across from Cold Spring, NY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.250.39 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles!?
This song was written LONG before he went over to the west coast, my aunt's good friend dated joel's bass guitarist and it is said that the song is written about an English pub in Huntington, NY near Cold Spring Harbor. The name of the pub is "Canerbury Ales" and it was located (when the song was written) on New York Avenue just south of Main Street.

I think that the notion that the song was written about a bar in LA is highly inaccurate. I would enjoy to see hard evidence of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FloppyDiskMan (talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Real estate novelist
"Now Paul is a real estate novelist" Anybody knows what the expression "real estate novelist" means? hey i'm doing a asyment on can simeone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix7731 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is to late but i would love to answer this question Real Estate Novilist was refering to someone that he knew who sold real estate and claimed he was working on a book, but billy never thought he would finish it.--Kopicz 01:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkopicz3 (talk • contribs)

don't know
i'm am stuck on the queston why did he writtte it and what is the main message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.67.216.59 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Composition
I added in composition that there's also a mandolin in the song. I think, very lightly, there is an acoustic guitar, but that could be the piano playing softly. Those Kids (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit Confusing
In one section of the article it says "Piano Man" is a fictionalized retelling of real people Joel met during his days as a piano-lounge(etc) BUT in another section it says Joel admitted on Inside the Actors Studio that each of the characters in the song is based on a real person, either a friend of his or another stranger at the bar.

If it is based on a real person it can not be fictionalized --Kopicz (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Sure it can. People write fiction based upon real people all the time. Jpcohen (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Performance in the original key a few years back
When I say, "performed the song in the original key for the first time in approximately a decade" (referring to when Joel received the Gershwin Prize in November 2014" I am unsure exactly when the last time before that was that he performed it in the original key. He performed it in the original key until 2003, when that leg of his F2F tours with Elton John completed. I don't believe Joel performed regularly again until 2006, and by then he had changed the key of Piano Man from C to B flat. So the key was lowered sometime between 2003 and 2006. So that's why I say "approximately a decade" because I'm unsure exactly what year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.228.2 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Insufficiently specific citations
Citations 6 and 11, the URL given is Youtube's home page. I believe 6 is supposed to point to How Billy Joel became the "Piano Man", but I can't find 11. —131.191.63.59 (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Piano Man (song)


text:
Blue field entoptic phenomenon

The blue field entoptic phenomenon is an entoptic phenomenon characterized by the appearance of tiny bright dots (nicknamed blue-sky sprites) moving quickly along undulating pathways in the visual field, especially when looking into bright blue light such as the sky. The dots are short-lived, visible for about one second or less, and travel short distances along seemingly random, undulating paths. Some of them seem to follow the same path as other dots before them. The dots may appear elongated along the path, like tiny worms. The dots' rate of travel appears to vary in synchrony with the heartbeat: they briefly accelerate at each beat. The dots appear in the central field of view, within 15 degrees from the fixation point. The left and right eye see different, seemingly random, dot patterns; a person viewing through both eyes sees a combination of both left and right visual field disturbances. While seeing the phenomenon, lightly pressing inward on the sides of the eyeballs at the lateral canthus causes the movement to stop being fluid and the dots to move only when the heart beats.

Most people are able to see this phenomenon in the sky, although it is relatively weak in most instances; many will not notice it until asked to pay attention. The dots are highly conspicuous against any monochromatic blue background of a wavelength of around 430 nm in place of the sky. The phenomenon is also known as Scheerer's phenomenon, after the German ophthalmologist Richard Scheerer, who first drew clinical attention to it in 1924.

Explanation
The dots are white blood cells moving in the capillaries in front of the retina of the eye. Blue light (optimal wavelength: 430 nm) is absorbed by the red blood cells that fill the capillaries. The eye and brain "edit out" the shadow lines of the capillaries, partially by dark adaptation of the photoreceptors lying beneath the capillaries. The white blood cells, which are larger than red blood cells, but much rarer and do not absorb blue light, create gaps in the blood column, and these gaps appear as bright dots. The gaps are elongated because a spherical white blood cell is too wide for the capillary. Red blood cells pile up behind the white blood cell, showing up like a dark tail. This behavior of the blood cells in the capillaries of the retina has been directly observed in human subjects by adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, a real time imaging technique for examining retinal blood flow. The dots will not appear at the very center of the visual field, because there are no blood vessels in the foveal avascular zone.

Blue field entoptoscopy
In a technique known as blue field entoptoscopy, the effect is used to estimate the blood flow in the retinal capillaries. The patient is alternatingly shown blue light and a computer generated picture of moving dots; by adjusting the speed and density of these dots, the patient tries to match the computer generated picture to the perceived entoptic dots.

Difference from other entoptic phenomena
Scheerer's phenomenon can be easily distinguished from floaters (muscae volitantes). Scheerer's phenomenon consists of corpuscles of identical diameter and visual sharpness, of a simple dot or worm-like shape, brighter than the background. If the eye stops moving, the dots keep darting around. If the eye moves, the dots follow instantaneously, because they are contained in the retina. In contrast, floaters are specks or threads of variable diameter and variable visual sharpness, some of complex shape, darker than the background. If the eye stops moving, the floaters settle down. If the eye moves, the floaters follow sluggishly, because they are contained in the vitreous humor, which, being gelatinous, is subject to inertia.

Scheerer's phenomenon can be distinguished from visual snow because it appears only when looking into bright light, whereas visual snow is constantly present in all light conditions, including the absence of light.

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

title: Blue field entoptic phenomenon


text: Category:Belgian biologists

title: Category:Belgian biologists


text:
Nyam-Osoryn Tuyaa

Nyam-Osoryn Tuyaa (Ням-Осорын Туяa; born 1958) is a former Mongolian politician, and the acting Prime Minister from 22 to 30 July 1999. She also served as Chairperson of the 55th session of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).

Tuyaa was the foreign minister in the Democratic Party-led government under Janlavyn Narantsatsralt, being appointed in 1998. When this government was forced to resign the following year, she became acting Prime Minister for a short time before parliament elected Rinchinnyamyn Amarjargal. She then served as foreign minister in the new government until it was defeated in the 2000 elections. She herself lost her seat in parliament (for a district in Khentii Province) in the same elections, which saw the People's Revolution Party win all but four of the seats.

title: Nyam-Osoryn Tuyaa


text:
Utah State Route 154

State Route 154 (SR-154) or Bangerter Highway (named after former Utah Governor Norman H. Bangerter) is a partial expressway running west and then north from Draper through western Salt Lake County, eventually reaching the Salt Lake City International Airport in Salt Lake City. Construction began in 1988 after planning for the highway began more than two decades prior. For the next ten years, portions of the highway opened as constructed, with the entire route finished by 1998.

Original plans for the six-lane expressway running through the western suburbs of Salt Lake City placed Bangerter Highway running further north past the Salt Lake City International Airport into Davis County. However, any route north of the airport never reached fruition, whereas the original southerly end of the route was extended from Redwood Road to I-15.

Route description
State Route 154 (Bangerter Highway) begins just southeast of a single-point urban interchange at I-15 at the intersection of 13800 South in the Salt Lake City suburb of Draper. The three-lane road curves from the north to the west and widens to four lanes before accessing the I-15 interchange. Past the freeway exit, SR-154 expands to three lanes in each direction with a median barrier in the center. With the exception of two variations in the course of the road prior to an intersection at Redwood Road (SR-68), the highway heads relatively due west (there is a dip to the south for about a mile as the roadway crosses the Jordan River). Throughout its whole route, with four exceptions (I-15, SR-68, SR-48, SR-201, and I-80), SR-154 intersects only major cross streets at grade-level intersections. The route runs into the boundary of Bluffdale and Riverton before definitively entering Riverton boundaries when the highway makes a northerly curve.

Making a slight easterly jog in the process, the road maintains its six-lane divided-highway setup as it intersects 13400 South, 12600 South (SR-71) and 11400 South (SR-175 and the access road to Daybreak and the Oquirrh Mountain LDS Temple). Arriving in South Jordan, more cross streets intersect Bangerter Highway (South Jordan Parkway SR-151 and 9800 South) before the route traverses into West Jordan. There is no at-grade intersection at 9000 South and 7800 South SR-48, but an overpass with on- and off- ramps, permitting easy access to South Valley Regional Airport and allowing uninterrupted traffic flow on Bangerter. SR-154 continues, intersecting 7000 South (access to Jordan Landing) and Bennion Boulevard (6200 South). The route slides to the west, entering Taylorsville and crossing 5400 South via overpass with on- and off-ramps (SR-173) and 4700 South.

As SR-154 enters West Valley City, it intersects 4100 South, 3500 South (SR-171), and 3100 South. The highway curves northwest, intersecting with Parkway Boulevard (2700 South), Lake Park Boulevard (2400 South), and 2100 South before meeting SR-201 (21st South Freeway) at a diverging diamond interchange and entering Salt Lake City. Losing one lane in each direction, the route meanders northerly toward the Airport, crossing 1820 South and California Avenue (1300 South) before meeting at a cloverleaf interchange at I-80 and terminating at the access road to the Airport.

Planning and construction
Planning for the West Valley Highway began in the 1960s as a local federal-aid project. The proposed alignment began at the curve in SR-68 near 15300 South and proceeded north-northwesterly and northerly, following a path much like the present alignment to I-80. It continued north along what was then the west boundary of the then Salt Lake City Municipal Airport No. 1 (now Salt Lake City International Airport) into 4000 West, curving east onto 2200 North and ending at I-215. A drainage canal was moved to make room for a loop from 2200 North onto northbound I-215, but when the Interstate was finished south of 2200 North (where it had ended for many years) in the mid-1980s, a diamond interchange was built instead. Later the north segment was rerouted to continue north-northeasterly from the airport into Davis County; parts of this are now the Legacy Parkway. Salt Lake County was able to build the highway between SR-201 (2100 South) and I-80 with federal funding, but it took the state to finish it.

In 1989, the Utah Transportation Commission added a portion of the proposed West Valley Highway to the state highway system as State Route 154. A newly proposed corridor ran west from I-15 near 13400 South to near 3200 West, where it joined the older proposal and headed north to I-80. With the help of Governor Norman H. Bangerter, longtime resident of West Valley City, the project received needed money from the state's general fund, and was opened between SR-201 (2100 South) and SR-171 (3500 South) on November 26, 1991. The Transportation Commission renamed the highway after Bangerter in May 1993. It was finally completed to I-15 on November 17, 1998.

Continuous-flow intersections
In 2007, a continuous flow intersection was constructed at the junction of SR-154 and SR-171 (3500 South), one of a very few such intersections in the United States. The intersection is one of the busiest in the state and handles 100,000 vehicles on a typical weekday. In 2011, five more intersections were upgraded to continuous-flow intersections (3100 South, 4100 South, 5400 South/SR-173, 6200 South, and 7000 South) as part of the Bangerter 2.0 project. Another CFI was completed at the 13400 South intersection in 2013.

Interchanges
UDOT has begun the process of converting several at-grade intersections into grade-separated interchanges, all of them single-point urban interchanges. The first was completed at 7800 South (SR-48) in 2012, followed by one at Redwood Road (SR-68) in 2015.

In 2016, a new interchange was completed at 600 West, the first to not replace a pre-existing intersection. At the same time, the nearby intersection at 200 West was converted to right-in/right-out access only.

Through 2017 and 2018, the Bangerter Four project converted four intersections into interchanges: 5400 South (SR-173), 7000 South, 9000 South (SR-209), and 11400 South (SR-175). The 7000 South interchange was opened in 2017, while the other three were completed in late 2018.

In spring 2020, construction began on a grade-separated interchange at 6200 South, followed by construction of similar interchanges at 12600 South (SR-71) in January 2021 and 10400 South (SR-151) in May 2021. These three interchanges opened on May 19, 2022.

Future
Eventually, all at-grade intersections on Bangerter Highway between I-15 and SR-201 are planned to be upgraded to grade-separated interchanges. Environmental impact statements (EIS) have been completed for Bangerter intersections at 4700 South, 9800 South, and 13400 South. Construction is anticipated to start at these three locations in spring 2023. The interchanges at 4700 South and 13400 South will be constructed as single point urban interchanges while the interchange at 9800 South will be constructed as a tight diamond interchange to minimize impacts to the surrounding community.

title: Utah State Route 154


text:
Talk:227 (TV series)

Location of the neighborhood
The article includes this:

 * While the neighborhood's location is never mentioned specifically, it is shown in the opening credits to have very close proximity to the Washington Monument.

Is it worth mentioning that the photograph was doctored and that the neighborhood location (especially with that building number) is impossible?

 * Yeah, that should be mentioned, because I know I didn't know that. Mike H 15:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

"Inner city" seems like an antiquated and rather pejorative qualifier. Seems unnecessary here.

Grammar
The credibility of this article is severely hindered by poor grammar and overuse of parentheses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.70.42 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

 * I totally agree. This article was very poorly written. I attempted to clean it up myself, but got too tired. Instead I put a cleanup tag on it. Keekee 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I've cleared up some of the grammar based on what was there, but it could still probably benefit from some closer attention from someone who actually knows the show. --Nozzer42 17:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"African-American series"
Nitpicking here, but it seems that this needs to be reworded. The series itself is not African-American. It's American. The characters and actors are African-American. Not the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.255.144 (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * What about "American series tailored to African American viewers" ? 159.178.42.193 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Theme song
The discussion of the theme song is incomprehensible. For one, it uses the word "tremble", saying that it's "non-existent". In my experience, music doesn't necessarily shake uncontrollably, so perhaps the fact that it doesn't exist in the theme song should go without saying. Secondly, it gives undue weight to the addition of the "Ooh!" in latter seasons -- it doesn't make clear what the "Ooh!" is supposed to be, but nonetheless talks about it for four sentences. The next section starts with "227 never had changed its theme song, except for the new set of the Jenkins' apartment...," which, in addition to being extremely poor writing, makes no sense at all after the paragraph on the addition of the "Ooh!".

Granted, 227 wasn't Seinfeld, but I think we can do a little better than this horribly-written piece of claptrap. 68.46.43.198 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Building same as one on Sesame Street?
Is it me or is the building the same as Sesame Street? CaribDigita (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I thought so too. It turns out not to be true:
 * https://legendsrevealed.com/entertainment/2015/07/31/was-the-apartment-building-in-227-the-same-one-used-on-sesame-street/ 159.178.42.193 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:227 (TV series)


text:
777 (number)

777 (seven hundred [and] seventy-seven) is the natural number following 776 and preceding 778. The number 777 is significant in numerous religious and political contexts.

In mathematics
777 is an odd, composite, palindromic repdigit. It is also a sphenic number, with 3, 7, and 37 as its prime factors.

In decimal representation, its largest prime factor is a concatenation of its smaller two; the only other number below 1000 with this property is 138.

777 is also:
 * An extravagant number, a lucky number, a polite number, and an amenable number.
 * A deficient number, since the sum of its divisors is less than 2n.
 * A congruent number, as it is possible to make a right triangle with a rational number of sides whose area is 777.
 * An arithmetic number, since the average of its positive divisors is also an integer (152).
 * A repdigit in senary.

777 is the difference between the number of diagonals and edges in a regular 42-gon, which is the largest polygon that can tile a plane-vertex (alongside regular triangles and heptagons) without tiling the plane uniformly with other regular polygons.

Adding 1000 to 777 yields the smallest prime number greater than 422. 1777 has an odd prime index of 343, which is the cube of 7.

Religious significance
According to the Bible, Lamech, the father of Noah lived for 777 years. Some of the known religious connections to 777 are noted in the sections below.

Judaism
The numbers 3 and 7 both are considered "perfect numbers" under Hebrew tradition.

Christianity
According to some, 777 represents the threefold perfection of the Trinity.

Thelema
777 is also found in the title of the book 777 and Other Qabalistic Writings of Aleister Crowley pertaining to the law of thelema.

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging
The Afrikaner Resistance Movement (Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, AWB), a Boer-nationalist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist movement in South Africa, used the number 777 as part of their emblem.

The number refers to a triumph of "God's number" 7 over the Devil's number 666. On the AWB flag, the numbers are arranged in a triskelion shape, resembling the Nazi Swastika.

Computing
In Unix's chmod, change-access-mode command, the octal value 777 grants all file-access permissions to all user types in a file.

Aviation
Boeing, the largest manufacturer of airliners in the United States, released the Boeing 777 (commonly nicknamed the Triple Seven) in June 1995. The 777 family includes the 777-200, 777-200ER, the 777-300, the 777-200LR Worldliner, the 777-300ER, and the 777 Freighter. The -100 wasn't continued in production due to loss of interest. In the 21st century, Boeing has developed what will be in use for some different airlines, called the Boeing 777X. Projects have been delayed because of COVID-19, but will return to normal production.

777 Tower
777 Tower is an office building situated in the US and it was built in 1991.

Gambling and luck
777 is used on most slot machines in the United States to identify a jackpot. As it is considered a lucky number, banknotes with a serial number containing 777 tend to be valued by collectors and numismatists. The US Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing sells uncirculated 777 $1 bills for this reason.

title: 777 (number)


text:
Joe Penny

Joseph Edward Penny Jr. (born June 24, 1956) is a retired American actor best known for his roles as Nick Ryder on the detective series Riptide from 1984 to 1986, and as Jake Styles in the CBS television series Jake and the Fatman from 1987 to 1992.

Early life
Penny was born in Uxbridge, London to an American father, Joseph Edward Penny Sr., and an Italian mother, Anne Teresa Rita Cox. He was brought up in Marietta, Georgia, United States. After his parents divorced, he moved to California with his mother. He attended Marina High School in Huntington Beach, California, where he played football and basketball.

Career
Starting with a minor role on Forever Fernwood in 1977, Penny has appeared in numerous TV films and television series, including in major roles on Riptide and Jake and the Fatman. He has also made many guest appearances on television shows including Touched by an Angel, T. J. Hooker, Vega$, Matt Houston, Lou Grant, CHiPs, Flamingo Road, The Sopranos, Diagnosis: Murder, Matlock, Walker, Texas Ranger, Archie Bunker's Place, 7th Heaven, Tucker's Witch, Boomtown, The Gangster Chronicles, and CSI. In 2005, he co-starred with Lea Thompson in the mystery series Jane Doe on the Hallmark Channel.

title: Joe Penny


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/227 (TV series)/archive1

227 (TV series)
I have recently gained a newfound interest in this sitcom, and I have edited information with all I've been able to gather from television interviews (such as I Love the 80s, thus the lack of written sources). I would love for this to become a more well-rounded article (I am not sure if it has enough potential to be an FA), so opinions are welcomed. Mike H 22:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty decent, if a bit on the short side. You might consider adding would be some humorous quotations and/or running jokes from the show, as well as individual character descriptions. — RJH 05:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq occupation mistakes

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus thus keep. --SPUI (talk) 14:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraq occupation mistakes (now renamed Criticism of the Iraq War)
Highly POV content and title, issues should be mentioned in the main article. Gazpacho 22:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote the article as it is. 1. If the issue is change, why then place it immediately for deletion? Here, that kind of reflexive reaction is called deletionism, and its treated as a kind of wiki-social disease. 2. The issue of POV merits an sticker, not a  sticker. 3. On particular issues that need to be changed, are you claiming that there is not enough factual material related to criticisms and claims of the Iraq War and its execution? Certainly there's an argument for inclusion in the "main article", but LIC, there is no "main article," and whatever articles there are, are in need of organization. -==SV 23:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a main article, Steve. You linked to it yourself. When the title of the article itself is POV, and the article presents POV about another article's subject as fact, that's a POV fork and should be considered for deletion. Gazpacho
 * Your claiming its a "pov fork" - I think others will see it as simply focusing on a very valid aspect of the war, even if it was a mistake to use "mistake" in the title. :) Comensa la vota! -==SV 23:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Baastalk 19:57, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV. RickK 23:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. The topic is worthy of discussion, but the place is at 2003 Invasion of Iraq and/or Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. And indeed that has already happened to a certain extent. --bainer 23:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV fork; noteworthy criticisms of the Iraq war/occupation should be included in the relevant articles instead. Firebug 01:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Inherently flawed title. Noteworthy public discussion of the war's merits or lack thereof belongs in more general articles which already exist. Delete. Fire Star 02:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork. Dave the Red (talk) 04:17, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plenty of valid criticisms of both the motives and the conduct of the war, but those belong on the already-existing pages covering it. -- 8^D gab 04:47, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 06:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, all is discussed in articles elsewhere. The title is too POV for a redirect. Sjakkalle 07:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is? Where? - ==SV 20:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Try 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Sjakkalle 08:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too early to discuss deletion.  It was put up for deletion on the same day it was created.  Let's give the article time to be born, so we can see what we're talking about first.
 * It would also seem that the normal editing of merging articles and moving them to less pov titles is also impaired. Nevertheless I have moved it (having not noticed the notice) and it stands where it does, because I have neither the inclination nor the will to move it back to what it was before, which was a substantially different article. -==SV 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a comment regarding inappropriate listing: According to the Deletion_policy if an "Article is biased or has lots of POV," it falls under "Problems that dont require deletion" (see the table). The remedy listed is "List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention," and the proper tags to use are or  Since the Deletion listing was misapplied (and since VFD has always been a hangout for delete-freaks anyway) I will take upon myself the laborious effort of removing the inappropriate tag and replacing it with a proper one. It turn out that I was corrent. As I wrote above: "Here, that kind of reflexive reaction is called deletionism, and its treated as a kind of wiki-social disease. 2. The issue of POV merits an  sticker, not a  sticker."  Apologies ladies and gents, for 1. being so late to check the actual policy, (I had made the mistake of assuming that you people actually knew what you were talking about) and 2. for bursting your bubbles -==SV 21:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "VFD has always been a hangout for delete-freaks" is in my view rubbish. Most of the people regularly patrolling the VfD-page make their vote based on the articles merit; also those who label themselves "deletionist". Sjakkalle 08:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that VfD is equally if not more vigilantly patrolled by self-declared inclusionists and "keep-freaks". -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey! Don't call me a freak! :-) Sjakkalle 11:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The article's current title, "Criticism of the Iraq War", is not inherently POV as the original title "Iraq occupation mistakes" was. However, whether Stevertigo can see it or not, whether he will admit it or not, it was created as a POV fork.  "Article is biased or has lots of POV" may not be a reason to delete but "Article is a POV fork" is.  Add to this Stevertigo's idea that he is unilaterally entitled to declare the VfD against his article "misapplied" and revert it, and it adds up to a Strong delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I might agree with this if someone (anyone) could qualitatively define (and substantiate) for me any practical differences between POV as no reason for vfd (use npov sticker) and a POV fork as reason for "strong delete" of whole article. The term "fork" implies that this material is treated elsewhere in a similiarly complied way. Where? It cant be that hard to provide a link! Does this mean that Wives of Henry VIII should be deleted because it contains redundant info, that can be found accross the related and attached articles? LOL. -==SV 22:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it your opinion then that "compiling" information from two or more articles together entitles the compiler to create as POV an article as they like, and then that article is actively protected from deletion, because "POV is not a reason to delete" and somehow covering the same ground as more than one article makes it less a duplicate article? "LOL." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No sir: It is my view that using the vfd as a means to express a criticism of an article's premise is the cheapest of cop-outs. In case you hadnt noticed, this is a wiki: If the issue is the title - MOVE IT. POV content? - Edit it, FFS! ==SV 01:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can have a complementary page? Kevin Baastalk 22:45, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

 * keep edit and expand as currently retitled (Criticism of the Iraq War); the war and subsequent peace was one which triggered massive criticism and debate. Some of it valid, some not, definitely much of which could be interestingly analysed beyond the level which the general article can afford to.  If there are non NPOV statements, move them to the talk page rewrite them for balance or make the needed additions..  Mozzerati 17:00, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * Keep but revise. This article seems to be highly biased at this point, and facts are weak. How about adding statistics, initial goals and current results, and possibly comments by people involved? The title does not cover potential information that can be added, including other POV's on the Iraq occupation. --Sango123 19:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or revise This is too biased.  --Dr. Ingel 02:06, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep --Yonghokim 06:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep so long as verifiable and revise. For example the criticism of not guarding the main Museum is questionable considering it was used as a base of operations for Saddam loyalists; and most items were safely recovered after an initial lack of cooperation. - RoyBoy 800 05:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Critique only does not allow relevant counter-points to be brought up in each section. If 2003 Invasion of Iraq is getting too cluttered then you can split that into smaller sections such as Motivations for 2003 invasion of Iraq and how it was carried out.  The answer is not making an inherently one-sided article.  gren 05:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a non-sequitur. Whilst the article currently has pretty much only criticism, you can easily and simply add criticism of criticism, which is the whole point.  The level of criticism was strong enough to make it interesting in and of its own.  E.g. the article claims that the WMD claim is provenly falsifiable (presumably just because the American weapons inspectors after the war claimed it was false).  On the other hand George Bush has recently criticised that by claiming that there were WMD in Iraq and that they had been found, which is a different point of view.  Both should be stated along with the case for each.  Claiming that an article about criticism is non-NPOV is like claiming that an article about "Motivations for 2003 invasion of Iraq" is non-NPOV.  Both can be made NPOV or not.  Mozzerati 06:58, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
 * Gren:"Motivations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq" (LOL) might be an "alternate" way of looking at it, but I think that "motiviations" is MUCH more POV than "criticism," which like Mozzerati says, can still be a well-enough written article. But while "motivations" can include criticism, its basic framework is much more limited in scope. Snide comment: Considering also the inconsistenty and shifts in "motivation" (in rhetoric, anyway) from 2002-2005 maybe the title "ever-changing motivations" would be more accurate. ;) -SV|t|add 19:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not non-sequitir I don't think. I prefer motivations because the motivations are US policy and US policy is worth reporting.  Criticisms stem from US policy, not the reverse.  Yes, I know both can contain POV but I think we must keep in mind what is the news and what is in reaction to that.  I think the "criticism of the criticism" argument is taking the whole issue backwards.  and Stevertigo, your comment might have been snide but it amused me... I do think there is plenty to question about the Bush administrations actions... I am not a staunch Republican trying to keep Wikipedia free of dissent... in fact I dislike most political parties... I just don't like what I see as the implications of such a title.  If you want to change my vote to an Apathetic really not going to argue if it's not deleted delete then you may do so. Just know my argument is with the title not with the content so much. (do balance it though...) gren 19:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. JYolkowski // talk 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2003 Invasion of Iraq. - Pioneer-12 00:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Sonic Youth (EP)

Sonic Youth is the debut EP by American rock band Sonic Youth. It was recorded between December 1981 and January 1982 and released in March 1982 by Glenn Branca's Neutral label. It is the only recording featuring the early Sonic Youth lineup with Richard Edson on drums. Sonic Youth differs stylistically from the band's later work in its greater incorporation of clean guitars, standard tuning, crisp production and a post-punk style.

Background
Sonic Youth is the only Sonic Youth release in which the guitars predominantly use standard tuning. James Jackson Toth of Stereogum stated that the album "sounds like the dark, post-punk cousin of Thurston's spunky new wave band the Coachmen." Drum-wise, the songs feature the more "downtown" roto-tom-addled stylings of Richard Edson, approaching the quasi-funk/hip-hop rhythms of 99 Records bands like ESG and Liquid Liquid. The bass guitar, though often playing minor key riffs, is almost funk-based, which was a common feature of post-punk and no wave music. The clean guitar tones contain little of the trademark noise that Sonic Youth would eventually become known for.

Although the original record clocks in at under 25 minutes in length, Sonic Youth is considered by the band to be their first studio album. Kim Gordon has referred to it in her autobiography as an EP.

Release
Sonic Youth was released on 12" vinyl in March 1982 on then-mentor Branca's record label Neutral. It was released in Europe on the German Zensor label in 1984.

Critical reception
Sonic Youth has received a mixed reception from critics.

In his review of the 2006 reissue, Brandon Stosuy of Pitchfork gave the EP a grade of 8.2 out of 10, calling it "obviously more primitive than the quartet's later work [...] the recordings offer a ghostly, mesmerizing locked groove" and that "this is SY at their most icy; it's an erudite, windswept set, wrapping distortion inside danceable half-frozen Liquid Liquid beats." Andy Kellman of AllMusic wrote, "Awkward and rather formative, the record sounds like a fusion of no wave and an early Factory band." Trouser Press wrote of the album: "This disc is no fun."

Influence
"She Is Not Alone" was covered by Slovenian band Borghesia, issued as a 1989 single by the Play It Again Sam label.

Reissues
In 1987, SST reissued the album in its original vinyl format, as well as on cassette with all five tracks running on its first side. The flip side of the cassette featured the same five tracks on the other side, but played backwards from last to first, and the printing on both the J-card and cassette matched this: side 1 had the band name and song titles printed forwards, side 2 had them printed as a mirror image. That same year, the EP saw its first CD release by SST in the U.S. and by Blast First in the UK.

Sonic Youth was reissued by Geffen Records in 2006 on CD and as a double LP, with a number of bonus tracks that brought the running time to 63:04. Added were seven songs from a live performance recorded on 18 September 1981. Most of the tracks played were based on pieces composed by the band for the Noisefest festival held earlier in 1981, while others predate the band itself, such as Gordon's song "Cosmopolitan Girl". Several of these pieces are quite different from their studio counterparts, in particular the noisy early version of "She Is Not Alone". Among the tracks is the instrumental "Destroyer", previously coveted by bootleg collectors. Also added was a studio recording of a song that also appeared in a live version, "Where the Red Fern Grows". The song, an early version of "I Dreamed I Dream", was recorded in October 1981 at a studio in Chelsea during the band's first recording session. The session did not go well due at least partially to an engineer who did not understand the band's music. The studio version was an instrumental, while on the live take, Lee sang two lines towards the end. The 2006 booklet contains new photos and extensive liner notes from Branca, Edson and Byron Coley, as well as a "few notes" concerning the album from Thurston Moore. On the CD reissue, the tray card is double-sided – the side that faces out contains the track listing with a bar code and an RIAA anti-piracy notice, and the opposite side has the same track listing without a bar code or an RIAA warning. Despite the CD reissue on Geffen, logos for Neutral Records can still be found in numerous places in the package.

Track listing

 * The bonus tracks were recorded live at the Music for Millions Festival at the New Pilgrim Theatre in New York on September 18, 1981 except for the studio version of "Where the Red Fern Grows" which was "recorded Noise NY sessions, engineer unknown, October 1981" according to the liner notes.

Personnel

 * Sonic Youth

 * Thurston Moore – guitar, vocals, bass guitar ("The Good and the Bad"), production
 * Kim Gordon – bass guitar, vocals, guitar ("The Good and the Bad"), production
 * Lee Ranaldo – guitar, vocals, power drill ("The Burning Spear"), production
 * Richard Edson – drums, production

 * Technical

 * Don Hunerberg – engineering

authors: Илья Северин

title: Sonic Youth (EP)


text:
List of islands of South Korea

South Korea is mostly surrounded by water and has 2413 km of coast line along three seas; to the west is the Yellow Sea (called Sohae ; in South Korea, literally means west sea), to the south is the East China Sea, and to the east is the Sea of Japan (called Donghae ; in South Korea, literally means east sea). Geographically, South Korea's landmass is approximately 100032 km2.

In accordance with the Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, all of the islands controlled by the ROK are wholly claimed by the DPRK.

Following is a list of major islands of South Korea, the Republic of Korea, arranged by body of water and then by province, and not including most uninhabited islands and islets. For a list of islands of North Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, see List of islands of North Korea.

Ganghwa

 * Boreumdo
 * Achado
 * Bido
 * Maldo
 * Suribong
 * Yongrando
 * Donggeomdo
 * Ganghwado
 * Eoyujeongdo
 * Gogado
 * Maeumdo
 * Songgado
 * Gyodongdo
 * Jumundo
 * Bunjido
 * Seokdo
 * Suseom
 * Susido
 * Seogeomdo
 * Goiriseom
 * Mibeopdo
 * Nabdo
 * Seongmodo
 * Ddannapseom
 * Daeseom
 * Daesongdo
 * Dolseom
 * Gijangseom
 * Sosongdo
 * Woodo

Ongjin

 * Baegado
 * Beolseom
 * Budo
 * Doryangdo
 * Gyeseom
 * Gwando
 * Gwangdaedo
 * Jido
 * Meongaeseom
 * Nabdo
 * Oseom
 * Uldo
 * Baengnyeongdo
 * Daecheongdo
 * Daechojido
 * Daeijakdo
 * Deokjeokdo
 * Meokdo
 * Dongbaekdo
 * Eopyungdo
 * Gabjukdo
 * Gado
 * Gakheuldo
 * Anggakheuldo
 * Tonggakheuldo
 * Jungtonggakheuldo
 * Sotonggakheuldo
 * Gureopdo
 * Hangdo
 * Jangbongdo
 * Amseodo
 * Bigajido
 * Dongmando
 * Sado
 * Seomando
 * Seonmido
 * Wado
 * Jawoldo
 * Modo
 * Mungapdo
 * Mungtungdo
 * Odo
 * Saseungbongdo
 * Seongapdo
 * Seonjaedo
 * Cheukdo
 * Oihangdo
 * Seungbongdo
 * Gumdo
 * Budo
 * Sanggonggyungdo
 * Sido
 * Sindo
 * Socheongdo
 * Sochojido
 * Sogado
 * Soijakdo
 * Yeongheungdo
 * Yeonpyeongdo
 * Daeyeonpyeongdo
 * Soyeonpyeongdo
 * Chaekdo
 * Moido
 * Kujido
 * Geodo
 * Soyado

Other

 * Jakyakdo
 * Muuido
 * Palmido
 * Silmido
 * Se-eodo
 * Songdo (Artificial island)
 * Yongyudo, Yeongjongdo—now joined together by Incheon International Airport

Ansan

 * Bultando
 * Daebudo
 * Pungdo
 * Seongamdo
 * Yukdo
 * РЕССКЕЙП ЛУЧШИЙ

Hwaseong

 * Eodo
 * Gukhwado
 * Hyungdo
 * Jebudo
 * Ueumdo

Dangjin

 * Daejodo
 * Haengdando
 * Nanjido

Seosan

 * Bunjeomdo
 * Ganwoldo
 * Gopado
 * Jeodo
 * Ungdo
 * Woodo
 * docdo

Taean

 * Ando
 * Anmyeondo
 * Dujido
 * Gauido
 * Gyeokryeolbi Islands
 * Bukgyeokryeolbido
 * Donggyeokryeolbido
 * Seogyeokryeolbido
 * Hwangdo
 * Jukdo
 * Mado
 * Napasudo
 * Oedo
 * Oepasudo
 * Ongdo
 * Sinjindo

Hongseong

 * Jukdo

Boryeong

 * Bingdo
 * Chudo
 * Godaedo
 * Heoyukdo
 * Hodo
 * Hyojado
 * Janggodo
 * Jukdo
 * Nokdo
 * Oeyeongdo
 * Sapsido
 * Sodo
 * Songdo
 * Wonsando
 * Woldo
 * Yukdo

Seocheo

 * Yubudo

South Jeolla

 * Anma-do
 * Choramdo
 * Chuja Gundo
 * Gageodo
 * Hauido
 * Heuksando
 * Hongdo
 * Hwa-do
 * Imjado
 * Jindo
 * Naenarodo
 * Nohwado
 * Odongdo
 * Oenarodo
 * Port Hamilton (Geomundo)
 * Sodo (Seodo)
 * Sunhodo (Dongdo)
 * Saengildo
 * Sangtedo
 * Sinjido
 * Yeoseo-do
 * Wan-do

Jeju

 * Jeju-do
 * Gapado
 * Marado
 * Udo

Within Hadong-gun

 * Mado
 * Daedo
 * Jangdo
 * Jujiseom

Within Namhae-gun

 * Namhaedo
 * Changseondo
 * Jodo
 * Hodo
 * Nodo
 * Sochido
 * Maando

Within Sacheon-si

 * Woldeungdo
 * Sinsudo

Within Goseong-gun

 * Anjangseom
 * Jarando
 * Wado
 * Witdaehoseom
 * Patseom

Within Tongyeong

 * Suudo
 * Saryangdo
 * Araetseom
 * Dumido
 * Hanodaedo
 * Yokjido
 * Chudo
 * Bongdo
 * Udo
 * Yeonhwado
 * Jwasarido
 * Sojanggundo
 * Mireukdo
 * Yeondaedo
 * Naebujido
 * Oebujido
 * Hakrimdo
 * Ogokdo 1981-04-28.pngo
 * Gukdo
 * Jido
 * Hwado
 * Jukdo
 * Hansando
 * Bijindo
 * Sojido
 * Bisando
 * Eoeuido
 * Sudo
 * Jwado
 * Yongchodo
 * Songdo
 * Chubongdo
 * Jukdo
 * Jangsado
 * Daedeokdo
 * Gawangdo
 * Maemuldo
 * Somaemuldo

Busan

 * Yeongdo
 * Jodo

North Gyeongsang

 * Ulleungdo
 * Jukdo
 * Kwanundo
 * Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) – disputed by Japan

Seoul

 * Seonyudo
 * Yeouido
 * Bamseom
 * Nodeulseom

title: List of islands of South Korea


text:
Hideous

Hideous may refer to:

 * Ugliness
 * Hideous (liqueur)
 * Hideous!, a 1997 film directed by Charles Band
 * Hideous (short film), 2022

title: Hideous


text:
Moreira

Moreira  may refer to:

Places

 * Moreira (Maia), a parish in Maia Municipality, northern Portugal
 * Moreira (Monção), a parish in Monção Municipality, northern Portugal
 * Moreira (Nelas), a parish in Nelas Municipality, central Portugal

People

 * Moreira (name), given name and surname, including a list of people with the name

title: Moreira


text:
Talk:Bewdley

Bewdley, an anomalous outlying part of Wales
?I live close to Bewdley and have never heard about this; I can also find no sources substantiating it. Could somebody provide a source for this information? --Shastrix 22:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I live in Bewdley, and I can assure you that we are most definitely English! It sounds like one of those laws like the one supposedly allowing people in Chester to shoot Welshmen with longbows (or whatever it is), and I can see no value at all in leaving it in. So I've hacked it out. Loganberry 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Going back over 1,000 years, the border between England and Wales was the River Severn. This put the small community that later became known as Bewdley, firmly on the Welsh side. Now it's at least 25 miles to the east of the Welsh border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.239.61 (talk • contribs)

 * I'm not really sure how much of a community there was here a thousand years ago. A little bit of vaguely relevant trivia, though: Wribbenhall (the part of the town on the eastern, ie English, side of the river) was at one time slightly derogatively known as "the Christian shore". I have no proper sources for this, so it can't go in the article, but I have heard it more than once. Loganberry (Talk) 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In Wribbenhall ( The Christian East shore of the river) There used to be a hangmans post at Catchems End and as the name suggests that was where they used to catch them alright!! But there is also a street called Westbourne st. ( formerly Whispering st.) This is where the criminals used to whisper for the ferry man to take them accross the river into the safe welsh side. As to the confusion above, basically Bewdley developed as an English town crossing point of the river and so has always been an English stronghold and it just so happened to build up a lot on that side of the river and there used to be a gate to Wales up the street called Welsh Gate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.181.244 (talk • contribs)

 * Have you got some sources for any of that? Some of it might fit quite well in the article if so - the Whispering Street stuff would be nice to have - but it shouldn't go in without those references. Regarding Catchems End, my copy of Bewdley in its Golden Age mentions (p6) several examples of Bewdley being used as a sanctuary town. Loganberry (Talk) 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation question
The article needs a pronunciation note, at least for us poor Yanks who don't know how to pronounce your bizarre city names. ;) Is it "boo-dlee", or "boh-dlee", or "bow-dlee" or what? Kasreyn 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose your "boo-dlee" might be the nearest. "Bew" is pronouced similarly to "pew" as used in churches, so you end up with "bew-d-lee" DonBarton 12:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Slur "Bee-oo" into one syllable, followed by a simple "dlee". — Cuivi é  nen  ( talk • contribs ), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 @ 23:44 UTC
 * Hannon le, mellon! Now all we need is an IPA pronunciation note on the article.  How do I add that?  Kasreyn 00:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Going by the article IPA chart for English, the IPA pronunciation is probably bjuːd.liː, but I'm not really sure how the stressor symbols work. — Cuivi é  nen  ( talk • contribs ) , Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 16:36 UTC '''

I've recorded myself saying the word, and added it to the beginning. I'm not sure of IPA, so if someone else could handle that I'd be very grateful. I'm not actually a native of Bewdley, but have lived here since I was eight (I'm now 31), so I think I've got the hang of how the town is pronounced by now! Loganberry (Talk) 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Although it's now a WP policy  to  include the IPA, most  people can't read it. I come from  nearby  Malvern and we always pronounce it  Byood'lee with  a slight  stress on  the first  syllable.--Kudpung (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures on this site
Hello! I think the picture of the street is a bit boring. Could someone near Bewdley or from Bewdley take a new Picture and put it here. This can be this famous bridge from the side or the townhall from the front or the whole city from birdview. That would be great. StefanvH 09:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry you think it's a boring picture. I'm biased since I took it, but I rather like it, as Load Street (what you can see in the photo) is the main street of Bewdley, and both its relative width and the style of the buildings on either side are very characteristic of the town. Having said that, I'd be happy to add more photos, although there is a limit to how many can sensibly be added to a relatively short article. Loganberry (Talk) 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To the pronunciationproblem : Someone from bewdley can record a pronounciation and save it to Wikicommons. I have seen that on the wikisite of bretange. StefanvH 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I've now done that; see the section above. Loganberry (Talk) 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Although it's now a WP policy  to  include the IPA, most  people can't read it. I come from  nearby  Malvern and we always pronounce it  Byood'lee with  a slight  stress on  the first  syllable.--Kudpung (talk)

 * Thank you Loganberry! I agree with you about the number of photos, but the famous telford bridge would be a nice addition in my opinion.I don´t wanted to insult you. I am sorry. I just ment there is very much grey in the picture(from the street). Someone like me, who doesent know Bewdley can get the impression Bewdley is just a long street with some houses. It is proberbly better to make that picture again from "dogperspective" (some inches above the ground with a strong tilt upwards (with houses, cars, people, the church?, and some sheepclouds with polarisation-filter)). Interesting for me would be the (church?) and some houses. What do you think about that? StefanvH 13:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't worry; I'm not offended at all, and actually a picture of the bridge would be a good addition to the article. About the Load Street photo: the grey is less noticeable on the full-size picture, but you still have a point. Maybe the best thing for me to do would be to upload several pictures to the Commons, and pick out a couple, and then if this article becomes longer in the future, I or another editor can add more pictures from there. Loganberry (Talk) 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may join in this discussion. All photos can be improved upon, especially with such comments as made by Stefan. However, I can confirm from personal knowledge that Load Street is very difficult to photograph. Both sides of the road have buildings ranging from Georgian gentleman's houses, hotels, banks, civic buildings and Victorian shops and houses and finally the church as an building in the middle of the road. The photograph, in its large format, is quite good at giving the overall impression as to what the street looks like from the river bridge. DonBarton 12:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

New photos
I've uploaded a picture of Bewdley Bridge that I took a few weeks ago. There is currently repair work going on to fix part of the balustrade, so some other possible views of it aren't possible at the moment without showing a lot of unsightly temporary barriers - you can actually see them in this picture (near the centre of the bridge), but from this angle I don't think they're too intrusive. As for the possibility of more photos, I don't see why not, but I think we'd need a longer and more detailed article first to stop it looking overbalanced with so many pictures. Loganberry (Talk) 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've added someone else's picture of the station. I'd have no complaints if anyone had strong views for substituting another, but I think three photos in total is about the maximum sensible for an article as long as this one currently is. Loganberry (Talk) 02:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The old sailors were saying:" If you´r going to the see, take one clock with you or three." :-) --StefanvH 09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article can bear four photos now, so as suggested above I've added one of the Guildhall. That seems to fit best in the History and Government section, and the Load Street picture in the Town Geography section, so I've moved them to fit. Loganberry (Talk) 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Loganberry I think the site has improved enormously during May. Well done! DonBarton 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that too! Thank you Loganberry. [Joke] Please do not write much more, because i have to integrate all into the german version.[/joke] --StefanvH 20:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks to both of you as well; I'm very pleased with our progress over the last few weeks. Plenty more to do of course (sorry Stefan!), but we're getting there. Loganberry (Talk) 22:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Table
Please fill it with sane data. I have borrowed the table from the Worcester site. --StefanvH 18:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a shame there isn't an infobox that doesn't make pages look so ugly... Loganberry (Talk) 00:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the table at least for now, because it doesn't seem suitable for a town within a two-tier authority (district and county), as Worcestershire is. The population thingy shows the figures for Wyre Forest as a whole (just under 100,000), which is so misleading that we're better off without it. I'm also not happy with the idea that we should simply mention the town council under "Politics", seeing as both the district and the county council have far more power. The infobox on the Worcester page is there because Worcester is in itself a local government district; the format is not suitable for a town such as Bewdley which is not itself a district. Loganberry (Talk) 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i can accept that. Hi, again Loganberry! --StefanvH 11:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Hello to you too! I'd better make clear that I don't have any problem with an infobox per se except for the minor complaint about the way they tend to overwhelm pages' appearances. If there is an infobox around which would be suitable for this page, then by all means go ahead and add it. Loganberry (Talk) 11:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye out, please
This page has been vandalised twice this year by anon editors (possibly the same one, as both IP addresses were 172.x.x.x) to include references to a "Thomas McNeil". These can (and should) be reverted on sight. Loganberry (Talk) 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It happened again recently, along with another silly edit about the bridge. Now reverted. Loganberry (Talk) 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Post town
The infobox incorrectly listed the post town as Kidderminster for some while. It isn't - Bewdley is a post town, as List of post towns in the United Kingdom will make clear (look under DY). Loganberry (Talk) 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Education
I've cut this section back to the bare facts. I can certainly accept that there may well be more suitable material to put there, but please remember that it needs to be referenced. We as editors also need to remember that we should not include our own value judgements. For example, a previous version of the section included the following:

 * The Bewdley school is very well known to be a place of excellence and is under leadership by a Practical and Inspirational head teacher

That's no good for a Wikipedia article. We must only use other people's opinions, not our own, per the WP:NPOV policy. If someone has made such a quote in a local newspaper or other reliable, verifiable source then we can use it, but it needs to be specifically cited as such. Loganberry (Talk) 23:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Market to close?
I noticed a piece of paper stuck up in town today saying that the Saturday market would end "for good" after the 9 May. I have no way of telling whether this is accurate, and so far there seems to be nothing in the local media, but since the weekly market was granted in 1472 I think it will be notable if it does go. Loganberry (Talk) 17:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A very notable thing if it does go. where was the paper and who wrote it Loganberry? Dribblingscribe (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Just a handwritten piece of paper stuck to a post about where the passage to the market comes off Load Street. I can't remember the precise wording, I'm afraid. Loganberry (Talk) 18:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * There was a front-page story about it in the Kidderminster Chronicle yesterday, talking about the possibility of a revival. I've added a brief mention. Loganberry (Talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
While checking some Worcestershire articles, I  came across some vandalism here that I  have edited out. I've also made a couple more clean ups on the fly.--Kudpung (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Town map added
Thanks to the new OS OpenData licence, I have been able to add a map to the "Town geography" section. I won't pretend that I'm any sort of genius here: I just took out a rectangle from the appropriate National Grid square, did the minor editing mentioned on its File: page and plunked it here. I think it adds to the article, even so. Loganberry (Talk) 23:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Baldwin
In the history section I have deleted the citation need put against Stanley Baldwin being MP for Bewdley, having corrected to 1908 the year he was first elected after his Wikipedia biography and constituency article. That he ceased to be in 1937 is indisputable as he waited until after Edward VIII's abdication and George VI's coronation before resigning as PM and MP and accepting peerage.Cloptonson (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre
and its staff and pupils are notorious for years for spamming not only this article but articles on other UK schools. Please help to keep Wikipedia articles on topic.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bewdley. 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/20111016065655/http://www.number10.gov.uk:80/history-and-tour/andrew-bonar-law-2/ to http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/andrew-bonar-law-2/

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) 06:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bewdley. 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/20110710193837/http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=317 to http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=317
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/andrew-bonar-law-2/

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) 07:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

National Trust pilot
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bewdley


text:
Talk:Luce Irigaray

Untitled
I moved this tag from the main page! Please put WikiProject tags in talk pages in future :) VivaEmilyDavies 22:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sexed equations and bombastic utterances
What, nothing in here about Irigaray's assertion that E=mc^2 is phallocentric? Nor her related claim that science cannot formulate an accurate model of turbulence because it refuses to acknowledge the Awesome Power of the Vagina? 85.64.246.205 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The lede on this article needs to point out that she's even more batshit insane than Dworkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7E02:5D25:54BA:BCE3:CEDA:2A2B (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Silly "criticism" sections
I removed the Sokal digression a couple months ago. I apologize that my edit summary was not descriptive... I would not normally do that: the poor summary was a glitch either by the software or by my brain, though I can't remember which now. (I had been experiencing problems with "save" timing out in the past, so the bad summary may have been a second try after I removed whitespace too).

In any case, I continue to be uncomfortable with spurious (less generous would be "moronic") criticisms stuck into articles on academics. Actually, not just academics: I've seen the same thing in technical topics, like ones about computer programming. There's this really terribly wrong idea of "balance" that floats around that every presentation of a topic has to have a critic or criticism. But the notability of academics is not firstly the fact that someone or another has criticized their thinking... in fact, any thinker notable enough for an article has probably acquired critics, since that's the nature of academia. It's in the nature of the beast, however, that every thinker who has been moderately widely read, has a dozen professors and hundreds of graduate students, who have written something criticizing some aspect of their thought. Heck, I've probably published something with criticism of Irigaray, albeit passing criticism... I don't want whatever little essay I published in grad school in this encyclopedia article.

I certainly think that whatever Sokal writes is notable in the article about him, or about his books in which the criticisms are stated, or like that. But the article on a criticized subject should not have the criticism unless it speaks in some notable way to their reason for notability. In this case, it's just barely plausible to qualify under that criterion. The stated issue about 'E=mc^2' and phallocentrism is roughly relevant to something actually in Irigaray; actually I'm not sure about that, since I can't recall that in Irigaray—it seems plausible that she comments something like that though. In contrast, there had been something in the Lacan article that said something like "Sokal says that even though he never read Lacan, he's sure it's gibberish" (which was utterly non-notable).

If some editor can make a plausible case that the passing criticism actually relates to Irigaray's notability, I guess it's not so terrible for the article. Not great, but maybe bearable. Such a case, of course, should not be: "Irigaray is wrong, and readers must be alerted to the fact". Right or wrong, it's not our job to ferret out the truth of philosophical claims. Absent a level of plausibility, I'll probably take out the paragraph as non-notable. LotLE × talk 00:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The only reason Irigaray came to my attention was due to the mentioned criticisms of such (hilarious) statements. I think that when something you have said becomes so widely discussed and commented, it becomes notable enough for inclusion in the article. --Lost Goblin 19:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Whether it was right or wrong, the attack on Irigaray by Sokal and Bricmont was certainly memorable. Since Sokal and Bricmont are well known figures, it does a disservice to readers of the Irigaray article not to let them know that they criticised her. Mentioning Sokal and Bricmont's criticisms is not the same as saying that they are correct; that can be left to the reader to judge.

 * The argument that Lulu made for deleting the mention of Sokal and Bricmont's criticisms is in my opinion not convincing, since they are primarily about Irigaray's alleged misunderstanding of scientific concepts generally, and Irigaray's views on science are certainly one reason for her notability. Skoojal (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I am by no means an expert on Irigaray and make no claims about the criticisms in question, but as in the Lacan article, I urge you reconsider the wholesale deletion of the criticism section. By removing or "integrating" criticism, we run the risk of producing articles that are POV-by-omission-- or in the case of integration, POV-by-reader-laziness. Notable, well-sourced criticisms belong in the articles on their subjects, irrespective of whether one editor believes they are "moronic." Whether we believe Sokal's attacks are convincing is immaterial-- his comments themselves ruffled quite a few feathers, and numerous secondary sources have documented that feather-ruffling. While I am certainly AGFing as always, the "biographical irrelevance" argument for en bloc removal of all criticism seems spurious and apologetic. --Kajerm (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:CRIT. Whatever the merit of some particular criticism in itself, it definitely does not belong in a separate WP:COATRACK section, but only if it can be integrated into the document flow.  LotLE × talk  22:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I was not familiar with the essay WP:CRIT; its reasoning for avoiding Criticism sections is rather thin (especially seeing as our entire encyclopedia itself is a troll magnet.) It is at least mildly disingenuous to blindly label criticism of an article's subject as wp:coatrack. Alas, it seems this is the consensus view and that any notable figure with well-placed editors who admire them has free license for the wholesale purge of any criticism with even a drop of venom in it. This is rather depressing. --Kajerm (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 * It is, and should be, consensus. Even more than consensus, governing policy is WP:BLP, which in fact takes precedence over any other policy (for legal reasons).  Nothing with "venom" has any place on Wikipedia, since any such thing is inherently unencyclopedic.  Perhaps a personal blog would be a better place if what you want to write is "venom" (about any topic, not just this biography).  LotLE × talk  07:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Coming two years after this debate, my impression is that there seems to be a mild (weak/apparent) approbation of the fact that the memorable criticism by Sokal and Bricmont should somehow be mentioned in the article, yet not in a specific "Criticism" section. I might be wrong in my appraisal of this old debate and I wouldn't be upset if my addition of today eventually gets removed - but if it is indeed removed, it wouldn't be bad to check once again if this episode should be mentioned at all. It does relate to the credibility of part of the works of this scholar, and I think it should be mentioned (as a sidenote, as one of the previous contributors said above, Irigary only came to my attention because of her hilarious statements about this equation). Camcom (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

CNRS and other affiliations
Like many people, I've never been able to find evidence of Luce Irigaray on the CNRS website or documents. Does anyone have a citation from CNRS to corroborate the claim that she's affiliated?

I'm adding mentions of universities at which she's recently taught. Shom02 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)shom02

 * This person is apparently not affiliated with CNRS (directory search). She might have been in the past, though; the maximum retirement age in France at CNRS is 65. The referenced biographies all seem to be older than 2008. Camcom (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

what about Freud?
there is nothing here about Freud? He was one of the biggest influences of Irigaray!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.104.23 (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Incorrect characterization of arguments
The article said:
 * Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense criticizes Irigaray, as a general example of what they believe is the anti-scientific tendency of "postmodernism". They cite her analyses of E = mc² as a "sexed equation" (because it privileges the speed of light) and her argument that fluid mechanics has been neglected by "masculine" science that prefers to deal with "masculine" rigid objects rather than "feminine" fluids.

This paragraph contains a very tendentious summary of of Irigaray's argument about fluid mechanics and an incorrect summary of the Sokal/Bricmont criticism of it.

If the problem is honestly your wanting to avoid mis-representing her own views, that has an easy remedy, quoting her directly. That quote has been deleted, I see from the history, again, and deleted again, along with any other criticism which includes the "E=MC^2". Clearly some people are willing to censor to achieve their aim of denying Wikipedia readers of any knowledge about this very famous and notable criticism of Irigaray. Clearly "you misrepresented her argument" is a ruse, because, again, otherwise there would not have been deletion also of her own words: ''' "Is e=mc2 a sexed equation?...Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest." '''

Yet that was deleted too. These censors will re-visit this page over and over again, as my reading of the January, February, through May of 2008 history shows: they will delete every reference to the embarrassing E=MC^2 claim, and even delete direct quotes like the above: they do NOT want anyone to now she uttered these words. So countless wikipedia articles giving biographies (E.g. on Chomsky) have a Criticism section so do articles about certain topics (E.g. Animal Rights); they also have a Criticism section. '''It is completely and utterly dishonest to the extreme to state there is anything remotely counter to wikipedia "coatrack" or other standards to include in a biography a Criticism section with well known (almost famous) criticism with a short summary. You can delete all you want, but this fact remains.''' -Patrick Henry, 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

First, Irigaray's argument. In the passages cited by Sokal and Bricmont (on pages 102–106 of the 1997 Profile Books edition), Irigaray does not claim that science is masculine, nor that rigid objects are masculine, nor that fluids are feminine. These claims appear in N. Katherine Hayles' interpretation of Irigaray quoted on page 101. Hayles' interpretation, in my opinion, goes considerably beyond what Irigaray says in the extracts that Sokal and Bricmont quote, and I don't think it deserves mention here. (Unless we're going to cite it as an example of the way caricatures of Irigaray have become well known among people who haven't read her work at all.)

Second, the Sokal/Bricmont criticism. This has nothing to do with the "anti-scientific tendency of postmodernism". Sokal and Bricmont's criticism is that Irigaray is incorrect about the history of the development of solid and fluid mechanics and has misunderstood the source of the difficulty of finding solutions to the equations of fluid mechanics.

I've rewritten the paragraph as best I can so that it's fair to both sides without making it any longer than it deserves to be. Gdr 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Good work! The rewritten version reads much better, and is more encyclopedic. I suspect Sokal and Bricmont are among that large group of people who criticize Irigaray (and most of the folks they "criticize") without having read her.  But your language is neutral and clear.  LotLE × talk  20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. (But you're being unfair to Sokal and Bricmont. They quote more than three pages of "The 'mechanics' of fluids" and they imply that they have read the whole essay, although they have understandable difficulties with Irigaray's highly allusive language, hence their need to consider interpretations such as Hayles's.) Gdr 20:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 * While I appreciate your effort, I'm not convinced the changes are a clear improvement, and I'm not sure why would you delete the link. One can agree or disagree with 'Fashionable Nonsense', but I think the previous version represents its criticism more accurately. --Uriel 10:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the link because I did not use the Dawkins review as a source for the revised paragraph. I worked directly from the Sokal & Bricmont book.

Why do you think the previous version was a better characterization of Sokal and Bricmont's criticisms? I have looked carefully and I can find nothing about the "anti-scientific tendency of postmodernism" in the Luce Irigaray chapter. Please be specific. Gdr 13:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been arguing over Sokal and Bricmont's interpretation of Irigaray's "E=MC^2" passage elsewhere, and with the help of others I think I can make a good case that at minimum it's in error, and at worst a deliberate misinterpretation.

One crucial detail is that in French, *every word* has a gender. This is a critical part of the language; as one website puts it, "You can’t master French if you don’t master French genders." This applies to abstract mathematical concepts, too; calculus ("calcul") is masculine while geometry ("géométrie") is feminine. In the original French, Irigaray asks "l'équation E=MC^2 est-elle une équation sexuée ?" "elle" is roughly equivalent to English's "she," and the word "équation" is female-gendered. So a strict translation of that sentence is "The female equation E=MC^2, is she a sexed equation?" Irigaray goes on to argue that the equation is masculine, due to the way it privileges the speed of light. This constitutes a Proof by Contradiction:

 * 1) Assume it makes sense for equations to have a gender attached.
 * 2) Show that an equation should be thought of as masculine.
 * 3) But French says all equations must be feminine. Contradiction!
 * 4) Ergo, it makes no sense to attach a gender to equations.

This is strengthened by the surrounding context. Before the "E=MC^2" part, Irigaray complains that science and philosophy have drifted apart, and scientists no longer think of the assumptions behind their methods. After that part, Irigaray points out that body parts are sexed (the French word for skin ("peau") is feminine, but how is skin "female?"), and that other cultures either don't agree on that gendering or don't gender at all. At the beginning of the chapter containing the "E=MC^2" passage, Irigaray lays out some critical questions. The second is about the ties between science and the written word (“des relations entre science et littérature“). The third covers the symptoms she sees within science today, and two examples she explicitly mentions are how discoveries are named (“les intitulés des découvertes”) and the invocation of female-sexed terms in scientific language (“la fonction des termes de sexualité féminine dans le langage scientifique”).

This is further strengthened when we look at Irigaray's education and area of study. She's a philosopher with a speciality in linguistics and how it influences the way we think. In an essay published at roughly the same time, “Is the Subject of Science Sexed,” she explicitly talks about how unintentional gendering may influence the way we think. An English translation of her French: "In order to ask if so-called universal language and discourse (languages and discourses, at least one of which is that of science) are neutral as far as the sex that produces them, it is appropriate to pursue research according to a double exigency: to the interpret authoritative discourse as one that obeys a sexual order that the speaking subject doesn’t see and to try to define the characteristics of what a language that is differently sexed would be."

But of course, English does not assign a gender to words. When translating from a heavily-gendered language like French, the convention is to erase all references to gender, since they're almost always irrelevant to the subject being discussed. When they are relevant, however, this habit erases critical context. Add in the omission of the passages before and after, and the fact that Sokal and Bricmont are apparently aware she's a linguist (they explicitly use that word when introducing her), and you can make a decent case that she was deliberately quote-mined.

I'm erasing that section, as Wikipedia shouldn't be spreading misinformation. I'd like to include some of the above, but it constitutes original research by me and the next-best source is the comment section of a blog which I participated in. Hopefully people will click-through to the "Talk" page if they're wondering why her page doesn't mention Sokal/Bricmont's criticism.

Hjhornbeck (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 * That's a plausible explanation but without a source to back it up Wikipedia considers it unsuitable "original research". D.Creish (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm caught in a pickle, then. Irigaray is obscure in feminist circles, and most of them either don't know of her work or don't care. I haven't seen anyone go into the same depth as I and a few others have, so the best source for this includes myself and my research. Either we continue to repeat Sokal/Bricmont's claims when we have a plausible reason to think they're false; I try to find someone else to duplicate my own research, making a mockery of the "no original research" rule; or we just delete the claim and remain somewhat neutral on the matter.
 * I'm not sure I follow your use of "mockery." Are you saying you have published research on the topic? If so it may be a valid source. D.Creish (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I figure the main reason anyone would publish some research would be because I slipped them my homework and said "mind looking into this?" That's dangerously close to socking, and even if not the results would be heavily influenced by my own research. Either way, it defeats the purpose of the "no original research" rule. As for publishing my work, I'm working well outside my area of expertise and I don't think I've done enough research to compensate for that. All I can do is establish plausibility, not act as definitive source. Hjhornbeck (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see what you're saying now. As I understand it the purpose of "no original research" is not to prevent advancement of a field by discouraging wikipedians from contributing :) but to establish a baseline for source quality. The same way we can't use random tweets or tumblr posts as sources, we can't use our own talk-page edits. The assumption is that, if it is valid research it would be publishable in relevant journals. I know the sourcing rules well enough to say there's absolutely no problem if you passed your research to someone for publication - what I don't know is, assuming it were published, whether you could continue to edit the article. I know Wikipedia discourages editing when you're the subject of the article, I don't know the policy when you're the author of a cited source. Maybe the Help desk or a noticeboard could answer that. D.Creish (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it help if I dumped a bunch of citations here, on the Talk page, to buttress what I've argued above? Hjhornbeck (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hjhornbeck makes a strenuous, convoluted effort into salvaging Irigaray's "E=mc²" as some sort of Sapir-Whorfian point on how gendered language would supposedly affect the development of hypotheses, but absolutely nothing of that is implied in the remainder of the citation, not even in the surrounding context. She somehow attributes the "sexual" quality to the equation never pointing it to the gendered grammar of French (shouldn't it be Einstein's German?), but on it "privileging the speed of light" over other speeds that may be "more necessary" (in contrast to "not by its use on nuclear weapons.") The immediate context was that someone questioned her on whether she would describe E=mc² as a "masculine equation" (so, apparently unrelated with the grammatical feminine French gender of équation) while mentioning discomfort with some of her extrapolations from one area of thought to another. She first denies she does such extrapolations and analogies, and concludes by saying many scientists, except perhaps some like Eisntein, do not really think about what they do. Then she proceeds to answer about the equation, which is replied with the E=mc² quote. That is followed by saying that maybe the whole "speed of light" thing makes people prone to endanger themselves with excessive speeds! Only after that she proceeds questioning the grammatical gender of body parts, not to make any argument in line with was suggested, but just randomly making free associations on how some organs are seen in different cultures as more masculine or feminine, and that therapeutic traditions ("western and eastern, like acupuncture") are based on an "economy" of the "sexual body", "not only regarding the sexual organs." That's how far the sources for the context I've seen have it. Nowhere there is the slightest rudiment of a Sapir-Whorfian point, it's just a grammatically coherent sequence of random free-associations, she could as well conclude that "colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Sounds much like some Fritjof Capra stuff or someone needing to take their dose of some psychiatric medication. If there's anything like a Sapir-Whorf type of argument there, it should be in the next page, after all this unrelated nonsense. Either that, or she's absurdly incompetent at expressing her ideas. The statement that saying the equation is "masculine" by "privileging the speed of light rather than other speeds (and rather than its use on nuclear weapons)" constitutes a "proof by contradiction" is simply a glaring non-sequitur (pretty much every phrase in that sequence), and actually kind of contradicts what Irigaray is saying (she does not say it makes no sense for the equation to be "sexed", but rather "perhaps the equation is sexed," implicitly masculine, as stated in the question someone asked her). Perhaps Hjhornbeck is the one who's "proving by contradicting" her, rather than she being the one who made such "proof"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.134.21 (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

False claim
This article currently claims that Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont admit to not having read Irigaray. No such admission appears in their chapter on Irigaray in Fashionable Nonsense, which contains a number of quotations from Irigaray's books and articles. The claim appears to be clearly wrong. Skoojal (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The admission by Sokal and Bricmont is not in their book itself, but in other statements they have made after the book. I know that's hand waving without a citation; but I concede that such a digression is going too far afield in any case (so would rather just remove the caveat that dig up a cite).  However, anything beyond a mere statement that S&B do criticize is really straying too far.  Articles on academics should really, really focus on discussion within their own fields, not just digress into vague ranting by people who don't like general fields of inquiry.  In any case the weird claim (that S&B don't even really make) about "sexed equations" is just too irrelevant for inclusion.

 * However, you are right that my edit earlier today was the wrong one. A simple mention of a well known popular text that mentions Irigaray negatively is fine to include, as long as it's not belabored.  Readers are free to read the linked article on Fasionable Nonsense if they are so inclined.  LotLE × talk  03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Antoinette Fouque
The article describes Antoinette Fouque as a feminist leader. I'm not sure that Fouque considers herself a feminist (Theodore Zeldin says in An Intimate History of Humanity that she rejects the label), so possibly this should be changed.

The description of Hélène Cixous as a feminist is also open to question.

Skoojal (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: get rid of the criticism section
I think the criticism section of this article should be deleted. If anything it contains is relevant to Irigaray's biography, and I suspect that none of it is, then it should be integrated into the rest of the article. The rest should be deleted. Although I have objected to the deletion of Sokal and Bricmont's criticisms in the past, this is no longer my position; I think this stuff should be in article on Sokal. Skoojal (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Huzzah and hurray! I wholeheartedly agree with Skoojal here... and thank him/her for thinking so carefully and with an open mind about the proper focus of biographical articles.

 * I've tried to characterize this on some other talk pages that I know Skoojal has seen, but for other editors: IMO (and per WP:CRIT, etc) what belongs in a biography is (only) facts pertinent to understanding who a given intellectual is, what they did, and to a lesser extent to influence they had on contemporary thinkers.  It is pointedly not the job of WP to tell readers whether that thinker is "right" or "wrong", nor even really to give readers "everything they need to judge the correctness."  An intellectual certainly has positions on whatever issues, but s/he is not herself those positions, but rather a person who advanced them.  There might be some other article on a given intellectual position or concept; that article on the concept might appropriately set its advancers against its refuters.  Humans, however (living or dead) are still distinct from the concepts they are most associated with.  LotLE × talk  07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm considering simply deleting the criticism section entirely, but I'm waiting to see whether anyone has a better suggestion. Skoojal (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 * If there are no objections, I am going to add this part of the criticism section, 'There is an extensive body of literature critiquing and engaging with the philosophy of Luce Irigaray. Margaret Whitford's Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine and her edited collection of essays Engaging With Irigaray provide a useful starting point', to the overview, and delete the rest. Skoojal (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Support LotLE × talk  01:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a section on criticism suggests that the editors of Wikipedia feel that her work may be perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.145.121 (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Destructive Irigaray edits
''Note: For some reason User:JCDenton2052 removed this from his talk page with the WP:CIVIL violating edit comment "rvv". I guess I'll have to put it here instead:''

I don't know why you are sticking in wrong words in Luce Irigaray.

Well, I think I do actually, but it's a completely silly reason. For some reason, as you've stated elsewhere, you want discussion to follow neat parallels where every word that has a morphological parallel has an identical distinction in meaning. So you took out Irigaray's own use of "masculinist" because she doesn't use it as the opposite of "feminist". And just some moments ago you changed her use of "feminine" to "feminist" (the latter a word I think Irigaray has never used in writing), I suppose because you think it would make a nice bookend to the word "masculinist" elsewhere in the article.

You just can't do this! Some silly word game puts meanings into Irigaray's mouth that she simply never had. In describing her books, we have to actually pay attention to what they say, not what we might wish they said. Where possible, we should use the same terms she does; but even where we aren't that literal, there are forms of language that don't involve antanaclasis nor antimetabole. LotLE × talk 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Syntactics
Does anybody understand the final sentence in the section "Contributions to feminist theory"? Aboctok (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation for the "sexed equation"
Right now, Irigarays claim/hypothesis that E=mc² is a "sexed equation" is being marked as "citation needed". I just came across this article which tracks down the original reference in great detail: https://zetetical.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-hunt-for-sexed-equation.html I think it would be nice to include this knowledge somehow, especially as Sokal&Bricmont are sometimes accused of fabricating this quote. 2003:D5:3F26:E304:2B96:283:C552:A04 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Luce Irigaray