text:
Talk:Grand Unified Theory

Quantum Physicists are just catching up with Relativity!
I understand quantum mechanics just enough, not to make any great discoveries in the field, but enough to understand the basics. Special Relativity is the same way. I found something interesting though, relativity implies both wave-particle duality and supersymmetry! A wave is a carrier of eneergy from place to place. A paritcle can be viewed as a carrier of mass from place to place. Relativity says energy is the fourth-dimensional extendsion of momentum (which is mass times velosity). This implies that waves are fourth-dimensional extendsion of particles! This also implies that the carriers of energy (Bosons) are extendsions of the carriers of mass (Fermions)! Wave-particle duality and supersymmetry. It seems so simple I'm surprized that this was overlooked for so many years.--Surreal Warrior 18:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's because it is wrong. Fermions are not the "carriers of mass" any more than massive bosons. I don't understand your implied relationship with waves and particles. Aknochel (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

GUTs don't include gravity
When people say GUT, they don't mean a theory which includes the unification of gravity. I think the term "theory of everything" is reserved for that. Phys 14:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I think they are both silly names. Phys 14:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Having a physics degree does not help
I completely agree; the article is far too technical, even for this poor physics grad. I may have a shot at revising it. But it's going to be a big job....Robma 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a degree in physics from a good university, but the technicalities of this article are far beyond my training. We really need an expert in here... - JustinWick 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the matter of re-writing, the statement leading off this page, asking that articles be expanded while keeping the techie stuff, is very laudable, but IMHO (based on many years of science writing) the whole thing needs starting again from scratch. If this were to come the way of editors on, say, New Scientist magazine, they'd pay off the original author with a kill fee, then hire someone else to start over. Some articles are just so bust they're "write-offs" and I think this is one. I'd be happy to have a go at the re-write, but I'm concerned that the result would be a mass troll attack plus endless reversions. Are there any precedents more experienced Wikipedians feel able to cite here, to give some assurances ??! Robma 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Create a heading Basic Overview of Grand Unification Theory or History of Grand Unification Theory near the top for starters. This should let you begin to rewrite the article in a way that makes sense, preferably without equations (at least for an overview). List the original forces in layman's terms. Overview the history of achievements in partial unification. If any other section wants to get crazy after that, let them, but keep this section clean and simple. Reference the old Nova episode or a high school physics textbook if you have to. MMetro 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Poisoned by a plethora of pictures
Is there any need for the insane amount of particle interaction images in the section towards the bottom? I fail to see what they contribute to the article other than to create a feeling of "GUT is complex and you will never understand it." - JustinWick 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * You are right on several counts: all or almost all of those diagrams should be removed. Its also true that "GUT is complex and you will never understand it." although it may be possible to give the lay reader some inkling, which this article currently fails to do. linas 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

GUT and religion?
I've heard from various sources, that GUT could possibly scientificlly disprove any possibility of divine intervention, making it quite contreversial in the science world. I think this shoud be included in the article. Anyone else? (annon poster User:204.38.47.183 on 10 Feb 2006)

 * If you've heard it from various sources, list those sources so they can, if noteworthy, be cited, and so the claim's origin and noteworthiness can be assessed. Whether it's included in the article or not, though (which will be based on whether it's a common or noteworthy enough view to bothering mentioning), it's patent nonsense. "Disproving" religion is like disproving spirituality, leprechauns, or Batman; it's absurd and a waste of time. If you mean that it contradicts certain religious hypotheses or doctrines, that may be, although I doubt it does so any more than the field of cosmology and astrophysics in general has; I don't recall the Bible mentioning anything about the electroweak force or quantum physics. -Silence 18:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Bullshit. GUT no more disproves divine intervention than does QCD or any other theory of physics. Adding sources that claim that any physical theory disproves divine anything is entirely inappropriate for this article (or any other physics article). If its truly notable, and not some crank web page, then a philosophy article might be merited. But I really doubt a non-crank would ever say such a thing. linas 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps Clockmaker hypothesis is of interest. linas 00:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wiktionary
One place this page could start with is the definition listed in the Wiktionary. I was interested in learning details about GUT and so naturally went to Wikipedia to get some general information. The first sentence in Wikipedia on GUT completely floored me. I had never heard of hypercharge and quantum chromodynamics. Sure they sounded vaguely familiar but I had to look them all up to find out that they were not that close to what I was expecting to find out about GUT which is:

"A theory that unifies the weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force and the gravitational force"

This above is the definition found in Wiktionary. Granted according to the Wikipedia page, this definition is not entirely correct, but it is a good starting point because it uses terms that are more familiar to anyone with a standard college ed. If someone started here, they could connect the dots between these familiar terms and the more advanced ideas such as "gauge theory, quantum chromodynamics, etc."

Sue Lange

 * Such a definition would be incorrect, so this change is inadvisable. Perhaps somebody should look at changing the Wiktionary definition? -- Xerxes 17:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * How about "A theory that unifies the weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetic force"? -- trlkly 01:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Even if the definition is incorrect, it is a starting point. Lay people have heard gravity mentioned with the theory before, so it would be important to note that it is not part of the theory. MMetro 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar on physical cosmology?
Why is there a sidebar on physical cosmology in this article? It doesn't have anything directly to do with grand unification. HEL 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What counts as unification?
It's unclear from the article if the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) symmetry that we're familiar with from the standard model counts as a unification, in the sense that it describes all forces in quantum mechanics at once. This symmetry while successfull, appear somewhat contrived, but that alone wouldn't be enough to motivate all the newer theories listed here.

Wrong title?
AFAIK, "Grand unification theory" is not a term used by physicists. Instead as per the lede, one talks about "Grand Unified Theories" (GUTs), and also the process of developing them, namely "Grand unification". I guess this is a minor point as GUT and Grand Unified Theory redirect here. Does anyone else think it would be worth asking an admin to delete the Grand unified theory redirect and move this article there (this being the only way to retain the history & talk pages, I believe)? PaddyLeahy

Proper intro and understanding
As mentioned elsewhere on this talk page... this article is unreasonably complex and offers very little for almost every reader. I am enrolled in an honours degree in Physics and most of this article is far too intimidating for me to read. It should definitely have a section such as Basic overview of Grand Unification Theory so that someone interested can at least know a little about it without having to read 100 other articles.

Also, the point of the first section (the one before an actual section is defined.. aka the opening) is to give a very simple and direct explanation of the article. Frankly, " "does not seem like a simple and direct explanation. Lets start by listing some concepts that should not be in the opening: gauge symmetries, hyperchage, chrmodynamics, gauge coupling strength.. etc. Seems to me like only the last sentence is any good, minus the number. I would write something like: " "

Unless someone else thinks they can do a much better job, and are willing to invest the time, I will try to rework and reword the opening to be less intimidating and more inviting. Please discuss here and make suggestions or give reasons for why the opening should be so convoluted --DFRussia 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you're on the right track. Clarity should be first and foremost. I trust that if you do make an error, somebody else will have the knowledge to correct you. So let us know on the talk page when you've started, and good luck. MMetro 20:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I started with my first suggestion. Whenever I have more time I will try to make more contributions --DFRussia 03:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Does the above even MEAN anything? As far as I can tell, you wrote a book and started a company to market the book.  You say sent some motion to a federal court which was unopposed -- but there's no indication of what is was, whether is was relevant, or whether it was even looked at.  Furthermore, even if that was correct, federal district courts aren't arbiters of science. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that DaleRitter removed his comment that I commented on. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 * That's clearly not the case, see . "A proposed 1 ppm standard for workplace benzene exposure set under this interpretation was challenged in court, eventually leading to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision [Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980)], commonly known as the "benzene decision," which imposed fundamental changes in the interpretation of the OSHAct mandate. The court ruled that, before issuing a standard, OSHA must first demonstrate that the chemical posed a "significant risk." Unless the risk is significant, the material does not become a "toxic material" or "harmful physical agent" controllable under the act, and its presence cannot be said to meaningfully lead to an unhealthy workplace. A key part of this finding was that the §3(8) definition of a standard as a "reasonably necessary or appropriate" action was taken as grounds that action under §6(b)(5) must be shown to be necessary in some quantitative sense. While stating that "OSHA is not required to support its finding that a significant risk exists with anything approaching scientific certainty," the court ruled that the case for significant risk could in principle be made using quantitative risk analysis. On the question of how large a cancer risk is "significant," Justice Stevens, in his opinion, stated that this was OSHA's responsibility, conceded to be a matter of policy, but that "If, for example, the odds are one in a billion..., the risk clearly could not be considered significant. On the other hand, if the odds are one in a thousand..., a reasonable person might well consider the risk significant and take appropriate steps to decrease or eliminate it."

 * By the way, here's the docket for the court at that time which just says "CERTIFICATE of service by pltf of initial disclosures to

counsel on 2/28/01". I think the bit about a court ruling is just gibberish spammed (impressively) to make it look scientific. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New Grand Unification Theory
Nassim Haramein has come up with a Grand Unification Theory using different results from Einstein's field equations. His argument is that scientists before didn't account for all factors, but his theories work all around. His work is currently under peer-review. An external link to his site is on his wiki page. Ace blazer (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * That alone doesn't make it mainstream. There are many many more proposed models in the peer reviewed literature than can or should possibly be mentioned in a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknochel (talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

tree
something to add? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, definitely something to add. Would help a lot.  64.72.43.69 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 * You should really split gravity into celestial and terrestrial gravity, since Newton's work unified the concepts. Perhaps merge color and strong forces?  Also I first tried reading the diagram from L -> R, which momentarily confused me.  Okay, I'm stupid.  But I'm sure some others will as well. --Michael C. Price talk 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The diagram should be inverted: the disparate forces and theories involved should be at the top, and unification leads to the Superforce at the bottom, because we are converging towards a final answer, rather than diverging from an original concept. MMetro (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MMetro, and to remove possible confusion of the sort mentioned by MCP, can we add arrows? --DFRussia (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Although i think the graphic is nice and one should implement something like it, I always have a problem with the way it is displayed - What does it exactly mean if two lines meet? The electromagnetic and weak forces are not really unified in the "electroweak force", which consists of two separate ones, Hypercharge and weak isospin. Maybe one should somehow indicate this composite nature of the weak interactions. Anyone has an idea? Aknochel (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check WP:Editor assistance/Requests
Could anyone watching this page please have a look at Editor assistance/Requests ? It's beyond me, a mere mathematician. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The bottom half of this article is still a mess
I think the feynman graphs for proton decay should be put in an appropriate context (section on proton decay) or deleted. The section "ingredients" is partly redundant. Anyone wants to give it a shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknochel (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

grand unified theroy could be stated in terms of vacuum energy
In my opinion, Grand Unified theory should be stated in terms of changes to the Vacuum energy.--e:Y,?:G 22:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs)

 * What is that supposed to mean? Aknochel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

I would want to put scales of different physical theory in a table or a graph to see how they work and where are there ranges within the physical realm. For example: vacuum energy is approximated from 10^-19 joules per cubic centimeter of "free space" to 10^107 joules per cubic centimeter. In compression to the string theory if it is to be a quantum gravity theory the scale is 10^-33 centimeter.--e:Y,?:G 17:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs) --e:Y,?:G 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WTF
What is this article supposed to be about? Is this some kind of an in joke or what? Where some parts of this article are somewhat intelligible, the following paragraphe just does not make any sense to me what so ever. What are $$\mathbf 5$$ and $$\mathbf{10}$$?!? (What about a definition of the terms that are being introduced?)

"The two smallest irreducible representations of $$SU(5)$$ are $$\mathbf 5$$ and $$\mathbf{10}$$. In the standard assignment, the $$\mathbf 5$$ contains the charge conjugates of the right-handed down-type quark color triplet and a left-handed lepton isospin doublet, while the $$\mathbf{10}$$ contains the six up-type quark components, the left-handed down-type quark color triplet, and the right-handed electron."

And do you realy mean "isospin" rather than "weak isospin"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.197.147 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * It is conventional to refer to a group's representation by the dimension of that representation. Words like singlet, doublet, triplet, etc may be more familiar to you. It also common among Particle physicist to refer to the weak isospin simply as isospin, and to refer to the more traditional isospin as flavor isospin. That makes sense since the former is more important than the later. Dauto (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * There is a link to the appropriate wikipedia article on representations of lie algebras right in front of it. That part of the article is not really intended for "general audience" I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.34.177 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Sure, seems reasonable. And if I'm writing an article about a rare disese, I'll just include a link to a related diagnotic test, before launching into medical jargon; I'll then shrug and say "What, aren't doctors the only ones reading Wikipedia?"

Misinterpreting Einstein
I am disappointed that a requirement for grand unification is the common interpretation of general relativity as being in conflict with quantum mechanics. In his book "Meaning of Relativity" 5th Edition, Einstein writes, (pg. 165) "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomenon it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers." By setting such a condition the authors have precluded any valid theory. Further, they disallow any non-mainstream theories being listed, and this closes off access to any that may actually be correct, and blocks research into alternate models. T Byron G (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Squaring the Circle
I think that any serious TOE should start with squaring the circle, so I propose a new section that deals with it. 4.242.236.220 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

An unverified claim
This is a new take that I haven't previously seen. It's the same thing developed by Carl Sagan. How can we include a citation to Sagan's work while this idea is considered?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1klrDdOGsNghFnRjYvud73MZjK55J7mI9HDRgE7e4jfY/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TajhLogosWhin (talk • contribs) 03:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unification theory relativity and light years
A space ship is going in a revolution around the Earth two light years away going at a speed so fast that it revolves around the Earth directly over you constantly.

You look up at it and it appears as a fixed point in the sky directly over you constantly as it speeds through space directly over you as the world spins.

Then it decides to go straight thus the distance shooting off of the revolving circle becomes elongated and the light year distance between you too becomes stretched.

Thus the light year distance, the broadcast image of the space ship is stretched and time appears to slow down.

Thus time doesn't actually slow down. The broadcast image does. The people in the spaceship would appear to slow down and so would you. That is only appearance though. Time is not actually slowing down for either of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.114.150 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Changed "masses" to "energies" 1st sentence 4th paragraph
The physics at the temperature of the GUT symmetry breaking is unclear about whether mass existed at that time. Therefore "masses" is misleading and likely confusing to a non-expert reader. Another acceptable alternative would be "mass-energy". BuzzBloom (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you have been told (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-can-a-particle-be-a-combination-of-other-particles.834311/page-2#post-5277517), your understanding of this subject is incorrect. The original text was correct and I have reverted this change. Blennow (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability of "Ultra Unification" subsection?
The section seems to be a summary of a single published paper. At a quick glance, it's not highly cited. I also saw there is no Template:Notability_section, the page says notability only applies to articles. How do I request an expert to review notability of the section? Anyone can propose a theory that goes beyond GUT, but does that merit inclusion of its summary into a subsection? ACaseOfWednesdays (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 * The section appears to have been written by the author of the original paper, as a way to publicize his own work. The theory is rather vague and does not make concrete measurable predictions. As such, it has not been accepted as something useful or even meaningful by the physics community, and it definitely does not deserve a section on Wikipedia. 147.96.60.49 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grand Unified Theory


text:
Talk:Toyota Previa

4th Generation?
The current information on a "4th Generation Estima" seems to be suspicious. Anyone care to provide evidence for the outlandish features and distant time frame claimed by the author? Thanks. Superchan7 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

0th Generation?
In Australia there was a Tarago not currently listed on this page. Manufactured from about 1984 till 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.209.164 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC) This vehicle is discussed in the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Van. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.236.198 (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Odd" POV
I removed:
 * It was an odd mid-engined rear wheel drive vehicle, replacing the simply-named Van. The Previa was criticized for its rounded "one-box" styling and low-output 2.4 L I4 engine, which was located under the driver's seat.

Saying it is 'odd' seems rather pov, and the engine is not under the driver's seat especially. If so it would be offset but in fact is in the middle. Lets hope we can add a more helpful description! Billlion 23:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eggvan
An odd term, but it does indeed "check out"! See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=eggvan&btnG=Google+Search for results. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

3rd gen Toyota Estima
There's a 3.0L engine in the 2nd gen Toyota Estima Aeras(special version with body kits)in Malaysia.And there is also a new 3rd gen version of the estima. I think we should add the new info about the 3rd gen estima on this page and redirect the toyota estima page to this page. Tourqe 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It does seem somewhat odd, considering that they are basically the same vehicle. I'll put up merge tags and see what people think.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging Toyota Previa and Toyota Estima
What do you think? I consider it a good idea to merge the two, since they basically cover the same vehicle. Support? Oppose? Comments? Let's build some consensus... SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree - same car, so having two articles is distracting. The Previa article doesn't even link to jp:wikipedia. Since the vehicle was called Previa in English markets, I think the Estima article should fold into Previa. Combining them is a job though - each has good text. BTW - does the Estima S3 still have a mid-engine layout?76.168.255.60 07:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The Toyota Previa is not a Toyota Estima so Merging would be a bad think linking the 2 articles is the best way to go.

 * Yes it is! Read the article, please!--Airplaneman (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed
I removed "it was the evolution of the toyota van or van wagon " because it just sat there, exactly like that, at the end of the intro. Maybe, "It evolved from the Toyota van or station wagon" would go?--Airplaneman (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

3rd gen
Yes please cover the third gen, it is out now and i think it should be written up asap

Merging
I agree with the merging due to the length of the Estima article as long as sufficient linking was put in place

Under which title?
The original name of the vehicle is Estima but that's only used in Japan. In the rest of the world it's called the Previa except in Australia where it's called the Tarago. Unfortunately in Australia, the name Tarago was also used on the Ace range.

Result? - Confusion.

Experts would know it as the Estima range but Joe Public might not. However, several versions only exist as Estimas, not as Previas so merging the two would produce a very complex article.

On balance I think it best they stay separate but cross linked.

T.E.O.C. 15:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Since in English-speaking countries, the vehicle was primarily known as "Previa", it seems that would be the logical choice for a merger. The other issues can be addressed through redirects and good, old-fashioned disambiguation.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The names Estima Emina and Estima Lucida are not only used in Japan, as there is a thriving import market in the UK. It might be worth mentioning this to avoid the confusion described above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norman21 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding platforms and relatives
The article needs mentioning that since 2nd generation Estima/Previa is based on contemporary Camry platform. Plus, Alphard is the closest Estima's relative, differing only externally in a more boxy body. North-American-specific Sienna shares the same platform. Bolkhov 08:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move
Why is this under Toyota Previa? Where in the world is it still sold as the Previa? Everywhere I've seen it, it's the Estima (and in AUS, the Tarago). Ever since the Sienna's NA introduction, the Previa has vanished. Please tell me if I am wrong. Luigi6138 00:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It is how it was released in the Anglosphere. Keep it how it is. Reginmund 02:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Leave it as-is.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose - released as "Previa" in most English-sepaking countries. It may not still be sold under "Previa", but at the time it was released in the Angolsphere, this is what it was called. Leave the way it is. Raime 14:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Previa name still used in mainland China, Hong Kong SAR (except Estima Hybrid and JDM imports) and ROC/Taiwan areas. Superchan7 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated Picture
The first picture should be updated with the current 3rd generation Previa to provide a worldwide perspective to this article. The Previa is no longer sold in NA, but this article should not have a NA bias as the car continues to sell in Eurasia and is particularly successful in the Far East. If people here approve I am willing to provide such a picture. I agree with merging Previa/Estima. Off-topic: the 3rd generation is a beautiful car. Superchan7 02:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Bear in mind, please, that the third generation Previa is NOT (not yet, anyway) being offered for sale by Toyota in any of the western European markets that I know about - which is quite a lot of them.  It IS being sold in Japan and with its Australian name in Australia, and maybe in other Asian markets known to you. It is possible that grey imports from Japan will turn up in European rhd markets (ie UK, Ireland, Malta and ... um) in due course:  I guess that depends a little bit on the currency movements, whether it's worthwhile for lots of people to go through all the cost and hassle of exporting a second hand car halfway round the planet:  so far, two years after the thing was launched in Asia, I've seen precisely ONE of the latest versions in the UK (and with a UK license plate).   But meantime, if you want to think of the Previa as a car sold world wide, think of Versions I and II.   If you want to think of it as a current model, then think of it as an Asian market model.   Quite where this takes us with the discussion of which version should appear in the top info box I don't know:  as long as all the three versions appear somewhere on the page, I would not myself become too agitated about which is at the top of the list, as long as it's a reasonably 'good' - clear and appropriate - picture.   But since you appear to think the car is widely sold in Eurasia, and it's not, I guess you may wish to reevaluate your own suggestion.

 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Your point is well taken, but I pictured the intent of the article as providing a current view of the Previa/Estima line. You are very correct in that the third generation is not sold worldwide as an officially licensed and supported Toyota product. Superchan7 (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Second generation (2000-2005)
In the article: "This first generation Estima Hybrid used a single electric motor and a mechanical CVT in its transmission."

According to hybrid-vehicle.net: 'The Japanese Estima Hybrid uses a 2.4 liter, four-cylinder engine couple with front and rear electric motors driving the 4WD configuration. This four-wheel drive system has been dubbed E-Four, which regulates a rear-mounted, rear-wheel propelled electric motor and coordinates electric power distribution to all four wheels.' and 'The Toyota Estima Hybrid Minivan is the world's first hybrid minivan and first mass-produced hybrid 4-wheel drive vehicle.' (For Toyota press release, see ) Shouldn't there be two motors? North wiki (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Terrible horn"? Really?
We apparently have at least one editor who has decided that since "editorialistic" and "encyclopedic" both start with the same letter, that it's okay to confuse one with the other. I'm just going to tag it for now. I honestly don't know what else to do with it.Boomshadow talk contribs 16:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Toyota Canarado
I have removed reference to the "Toyota Canarado" as an alternative name for Asia-Pacific markets from the article. There does not appear to be evidence of this name, except for websites based on the actual en.wiki article and for parts websites offering Estima/Previa/Tarago/Canarado parts. For example, there are no images, news, reviews, used car listings, etc of this car available online. This appears to be a long-standing hoax added on 13 January 2013 by Special:Contributions/27.252.142.139: and. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Aggro

 * Ford Europe's third generation Galaxy, launched in 2006, was also aggressively priced

That has too much testosterone for ease of comprehension. Priced low, or priced high? -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Estima in the Caribbean
There is a number of Toyota Estima sold in the caribbean and these are late gen 2013-15. It is not very common but is observed to be an attractive vehicle. There is an issue of acquiring replacment part at reasonable cost which hinders vehicle sale (Chenrycheif (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)).

 * They are probably grey market imports - which means that Toyota doesn't officially support them in your country. This is common to all grey market imports anywhere in the world.  Stepho  talk 22:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Toyota Previa


text:
User talk:Hyacinth/Etc.

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Wikipedia:Categorization
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization I hope you would add more explanation to this. Thanks! JesseW 01:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the   template (or even    for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Multi-licensing), you could replace   with    -- Ram-Man 22:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights
Hi. I noticed that some images that you've uploaded are lacking the copyright details, can you please add them? As far as I understand the system, impilicitically the images are copyrighted to you at the moment, which would technically prevent others from editing them (excluding fair use). See Copyrights. If you want them to be freely copied, just put on them. Nice contributions anyway. :) --kooo 10:21, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images
Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

 * Image:Interval_cycles_C1-C4_and_C6.PNG
 * Image:Iron_Butterfly_In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida_Riff.PNG
 * Image:Iron_Butterfly_In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida_Riff.mp3
 * Image:Iron_Man_riff.PNG
 * Image:Iron_Man_riff.mp3

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License,  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:03, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Missoula Entry
Hi Hyancinth. Just wanted to let you know I posted a comment to the Talk:Missoula, Montana talk page, reviving a question that came up some months ago. Hope we can talk it out. - Luke Powell 02:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello
Umm ok this is the nuttiest way I've had to try and talk to you but hey it works... Micky I wanted to give you your x-mes presents but I'm going to helena on tuesday but I'll be back for first night, sooo you should give me a call and maybe we can ring in the new year togeather for a bit... ohhh and I can take a few minutes to hop in the sack with your boyfriend. ok I'll check this later to see if you got my message. ~from Janette

Homophobic Vandalism
I have reason to believe that the following are all sockpuppets of each other

User:148.136.141.172, User:Rienzo, User:Baffinisland, User:Lady Tara, User:Nasse

I believe that one of them recently vandalised your user page

if you wish to add evidence to the arbitration against any of them, you can do so at Requests for arbitration/Rienzo/Evidence

CheeseDreams 01:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism
Please check history before making pronouncements. Thank you. Stirling Newberry 19:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid I find your input so far on this to be both rude and unhelpful. Stirling Newberry 20:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was rude of me and short tempered, I am currently involved in two editor wars and so was inclined to be curt. I do fine work and I should be giving you the benefit of every doubt rather than being snappish.

The problem on Surrealism is very much that there is an active - the word "cult" has been used, but prefer to think of it as a subculture - that thinks of "Surrealism" as Breton's system for social revolution, and thus desires "Surrealism" the page to conform to dogma, rather than the documentable use and influence of the wider movement. I am currently trying to get the article up to the full spectrum of information on Surrealism. Stirling Newberry 20:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism

I've reached my limit with these two. They behave well enough to avoid sanction and then go back to their nonsense. Stirling Newberry 21:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Stirling Newberry 01:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia templates
Please stop listing template talk pages in Category:Wikipedia templates. You've misunderstood what that category is for, which is for pages realted to templates on Wikipedia. Templates themselves should not need to be categorized. - Please help me clean up by undoing your edits. -- Netoholic @ 23:32, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Because there are hundreds of templates. It is impractical to categorize them when we have this mechanism. -- Netoholic @ 05:25, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

 * But that is one list, not a categorization (many lists?). Wouldn't it be useful to have a list of all music related templates? Hyacinth 18:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure a -list- is fine, and very common. Don't confuse a category with a list though.  For your music templates, create a page somewhere and list the templates, just don't categorize them.  Hopefully the distinction makes sense. -- Netoholic @ 03:33, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Myth article
You "unreverted" the Myth article because you claim that no explanation was given on the talk page. I already explained that CS Lewis is not considered notable and that the only reason Ungtss is listing that there is because of the particular religious spin he wants to put on things, to go along with his longstanding attempt to put religion and Creationism dogma on the Deluge (mythology) article. You are playing right into the hands of someone who admits his only goal here is to advance Creationism over the so-called "arrogant pseudo-intellectualism" of scientists and mythologists. But I went and added even more explanation to the page, but of course I'm sure that the person harassing me there is going to cause more trouble. DreamGuy 04:36, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Template:History by time period
Please stop adding this template to articles. It is deeply and irrevocably Eurocentric. - SimonP 04:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that list is meant to be exhaustive, and an exhaustive list would have hundreds of eras. - SimonP 04:08, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, though sometimes prehistoric only means "without writing" so some periods of prehistory can also come after periods of history. - SimonP 04:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also note that Template:History of Europe has existed for some time, so Template:European history by time period is not needed. - SimonP 04:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Template:History by continent is great. I'm surprised it didn't already exist. - SimonP 05:26, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

FA criteria
Your edits are very strange and I do not see how they are helpful. Further reading instead of references is entirely ambiguous and unnaceptable. Please read the talk page for Cite sources for more on that. You are greatly weakening a criteria and that is working against the goal of verifiability. - Taxman 14:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Confirm queried sources
Hi. I'm not sure what menace you think may be created by introducing the Confirm queried sources page as a policy without defining "in good faith". I'd be grateful if you would elaborate as I feel unable to address your concerns without knowing what potential problems who think the current draft of the proposal would create. Kind regards, jguk 09:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English
Hyacinth, I have no idea what edit you are referring to, but I'm pretty confident that if I said something wasn't good English it wasn't. If it was a typo, sorry; it probably wasn't an obvious typo, or I'd have said "typo". My edit summaries are sincere attempts to describe my edits. No disparagement of an individual was intended. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

vacation
Hope you're ok Hyacinth; you'll be missed. Sorry to hear that, and I hope the new job and new place works out for you ... please come back as soon as you can. Best wishes, Antandrus 03:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What he said. Take care; hope to see you back soon. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 10:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you both. I should be editing again, but far less than any time before. Hyacinth 21:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:No negative headings & Template:Headingstalk
FYI: Both of these templates are currently listed for deletion at WP:TFD. Blank Verse  ∅ 15:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If you are the only one using those two templates, I would suggest that you move them to a subpage under your User page where you can still use them as templates (e.g. ) the same way that some of the Wiki greeters have created the custom greet messages they use.  Blank Verse  ∅  05:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self-link bold vs. Manual bold
Hi,

Re: Shakuhachi page, about this diff between my version and yours.

Both my code " The shakuhachi " and yours " The shakuhachi " result in the same thing: bolding the title word shakuhachi (since a self-link is instead displayed as bold).

However, the autolink version made the code directly reusable elsewhere as cut-n-pasted excerpt (short definitions, dab page, etc.). This is especially true in the case of illustrations: the whole code (table, image, and its caption) can be cut-n-pasted into another page, and the title name will immediately turn into the right wikilink outside of its native page.

I've read somewhere about the fact that self-links automatically turning into mere bold text was precisely intended to for those uses, for lead sections and illustrations. Since I can't quote you chapter & verse of the documentation page that was stating or implying that, I won't fight over your change, but I think it's something to keep in mind and ponder for another time.

Regards, ←#6 talk 23:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

templates userfied
Hi there! Two of your templates have been moved to your userspace, after discussion on WP:TFD. They are now found at User:Hyacinth/Headingstalk and User:Hyacinth/No negative headings. If you have any other such templates you may want to consider moving them to your userspace yourself (using the 'move' button). Yours, Radiant_ >|< 07:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Userfy?
That means to move something to someone's userspace, e.g. User:Hyacinth/Some Random Article. This is usually applicable if a user writes about himself, or if a template is only used by a single user. See WP:GVFD for details. Radiant_ >|< 16:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

edit to Independent Advocacy
Hi Hyacinth. Thanks for your message. But I'm really unhappy about the edit you made to the intro to this article. The links to advocacy and advocate are misleading as these articles have different meanings to the meaning of the current article. Also the introduction is taken from published information that was agreed after a long process of editing by a group of professional independent advocates. There are specific reasons why it was worded in this way. I realise it doesn't come across as 'objective', but this is so that ordinary people can understand it. This also relates directly to your Alan Watts quote: if ordinary people can't understand it, it probably doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean. Visctrix 00:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

User categorization
Greetings! Your user page hasn't been vandalized :-) --it was updated to use the new User Categorization scheme. I have categorized your User Page as a Wikipedian in Montana (Category:Wikipedians in Montana) since your name was listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Montana page.  The Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Montana page is scheduled for deletion.  Thanks!   Roby Wayne  Talk •  Hist 23:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi Hyacinth - hope you can help. ..

Wondered if you could spare the time to take a quick peek at the Technology page - some dude just chopped nearly all the work I put in and made changes in emphasis that I'm not convinced about even though he claims a longish pedigree in history of technology.

Hope your finances are improving. ..

Rossfi 21:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hyacinth/Etc.


text:
Talk:Cohomology operation

Charles,

What do you mean when you say the Steenrod algebra is related to the symmetric group? -dave

Alodyne 23:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Just seen this. There is some general 'philosophy' about this, which I supposed went back to Cohomology Operations:Lectures by N.E. Steenrod edited by David B.A. Epstein. I think it came up when people realised that in the case of K-theory the operations are closely tied into the theory of symmetric functions. Charles Matthews 10:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cohomology operation


text:
Talk:Ralph Reed

POV, Citations, and General Cleanup
I would disagree that the article should be scrapped, but I definitely think that this article is heavily, heavily slanted against Reed to the extent that the article violates WP:POV. I'm a Democrat, and actually edited this page a few months back to remove some whitewashing of Reed that had been added, but the article as it stands now is about 15% biography and about 85% a listing of negative information about Reed. A lot of the negative info is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article - the section on the high school plagiarism immediately comes to mind. I realize that Reed has been a very important conservative political figure, but a lot of the information here goes far beyond what Reed is actually notable for. The quotations are particularly skewed, and several of them are not properly cited.

In fact, this article needs citations to be added and properly formatted throughout the entire article. Far too many statements are unsourced, and most of the statements that are sourced are not in the proper format.

For these reasons, I am adding tags for POV and citations. I also considered adding a general cleanup tag because I noticed several spelling errors and obvious typos, but I'll leave that tag off for now. Niremetal 06:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources???
Why are there almost no sources/footnotes/references? That is sorely missing from this article. -- Sholom 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (PS: what's the tag that should be used for that?)

Liberal Bias
This article is crap. It should be trashed and done over from scratch w/o the bias.

--69.37.124.25 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because Reed is such a swell freaking guy. KyuzoGator (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are so biased that you don't even realize you just confirmed what he was saying: That the article is in reality a Liberal hatchet job.131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You should edit it yourself instead of ordering others to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.141.129 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
The into feels more like a a newsfalsh than an introduction to an encyclopedia article--for instance, the news of his recent defeat in Georgia. Plus, I don't feel the phrase "right wing" belongs in the into, even if it is true. I t just feels too POV-y. Would anyone care if I edited these things?

Pretty one-sided
Wrong -- This article was not taken from the Stop Ralph Reed site. It is the other way around. The Stop Ralph Reed site takes material from the article. How is the article not Neutral? What facts are misstated?

I'm as liberal as anyone, but this article is anything but neutral. Its text is taken almost word for word from Stop Ralph Reed, a Web site dedicated solely to to bashing him. Oh yea, and it's paid for by his political opponent Greg Hecht.

Should this stuff really be on Wikipedia? 130.179.38.96 01:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I just nominated this page for NPOV. I'm an ardent Democrat, so while I took my joy in reading all of the dirt on Ralph Reed, this article is a total hatchet job on the guy, in my opinion, and is clearly heavily biased. I'm not the person to fix this, but I couldn't let the serious issues with this piece sit here unignored.--Bgaulke 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If you are going to assert NPOV you need to state the facts that you feel are missing or unfairly presented. Simply saying that you feel the piece is one sided is not enough. At this point Reed is one of the three ringleaders in the original Jack Abramoff scandal, the $1.7 million shakedown of the indian tribes. He is not a bit player in that activity and now Abramoff is talking it is unlikely that many former Abramoff associates have a political career left. The only reason that Reed is not the front page story is that Abramoff has admitted to having purloined over $20 million, so the Abramoff-Reed-Norquist scam is not the main event. Even so it is not NPOV to discuss it and there really is no substantive counter case. --Gorgonzilla 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I will admit that the scandals in Mr. Reed's life seem to outnumber the sucesses, but perhaps that is the fault of the subject and not the biography. You can't condemn an article merely because it casts the subject in an unfavorable light when it is based on factual evidence. I honestly can't find many instances where the language of the article is overly negative, and any negativity that the article exudes comes from the facts presented in it. I will agree that if more positive information about Mr. Reed can be found it should be included, but there is going to be a negative bias to the article based on the facts of Mr. Reed's life no matter what. -- Fearfulsymmetry 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the guy one bit, but I am trying to find information about him to use as background for a panel discussion I am leading. And regrettably (and most unusually) Wikipedia is a worthless resource for that purpose. If Jack Abramoff had not become big news the past few months, there'd be very little information here. Considering Reed has had an enormous impact on America and political discourse in America (which some people are glad for and others dislike), I am stunned that there is so little here that's unrelated to his connections with Abramoff. Before visiting this site, I actually didn't know he had any connections to Abramoff, so I learned that much about him. But little else. It would match my uninformed expectations of Reed prior to reading this article for me to see him knee deep in dirty tricks. But the article amounts to a harangue about Reed and his buddy Abramoff by assisting readers with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to see that Reed and Abramoff are two peas in a pod. I'm sure many -- perhaps all -- facts here are correct, but why, in an article about Ralph Reed, do we need to know that he introduced Abramoff to his wife? If we're not trying to make a repetitive connection to help sway an election outcome, why would this even rate a mention? The patent agenda discredits everything else. I'd really like to see the facts about Ralph Reed, and I was thinking that I'd learn he was a skunk. But this source can't be trusted because it is outcome-oriented in the selection and focus of the facts that populate this article. -- WikiVisitor 00:32, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Thanks for the feedback, I would say if you need any more info on Reed you should go get Gang of Five from the library, as Reed is a featured figure in that book; as a matter of fact there is a whole chapter that covers his life from 1980-1985 and gives much insight on his essential personality. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be right if Wikipedia simply paraphrased all of Gang of Fives biographical material on Reed.

 * There's also his autobiography Active Faith, but I haven't read that so I don't know if it's good.

 * But I have to ask, if you came because you didn't know much about him, and you didn't find out what you expected - then what did you expect? We would need to know that to make the article better. What critical piece of his life are we missing? KWH 05:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember -- perhaps in error -- that he was a key figure in the anti-abortion movement and making the Moral Majority movement of the mid-80s into a youth movement of sorts, plus his being a high-achiever in the Christian Coalition circles -- where he had earned a reputation that was earned quite independent of the others. I was in law school in the South at the time and there were many law students I knew who wanted to work for him on internships or as starting jobs. He was that influential. Personally, I didn't pay much attention at the time, but until a year ago the name Ralph Reed was instantly recognizable while Jack Abramoff's would have evoked a "Jack Who?" reaction. To think that Reed's early days were spent in anyone's shadow seems out of synch with my recollection. That's why it seems to me that casting his biography in the context of Abramoff is very slanted. The context of Abramoff is fleeting and (to me) smacks of little more than an attempt to make Abramoff's problems stick to Reed. It sounds like it's deserved and I believe the connection merits a mention, but the Abramoff-Reed connection is harped on to the exclusion of describing the more enduring legacy (that I recall) of Reed being his own man and a visionary (for his agenda) and a leader. I had hoped to get a better idea of why he was so influential as a young man...and the answer here seems to be: "because he spent lots of time with big bad Jack Abramoff." Five or ten years from now, Abramoff will fade from the news, but I have a feeling Reed will have left an even bigger mark on America during that time. So, what made him such a leader (with no value judgment attached to whether he was working for good or evil)? And why has he had staying power? I wish he wasn't running for answer because there's just too much garbage to sift through to get to those answers. -- WikiVisitor 14:22, 23 April 2006 (EDT)

Article is incredibly biaed against Reed. Put a NPOV tag on it. The quotations from him are all incredibly negative, including his quote to Abramoff. There's no positive quote from his days at the Christian Coalition that can be used for balance? Just a terrible, terrible article.

I disagree that with the statement there are no positive quotes. The quote from Reed urging that one not demonize gay people was very positive. William Malmstrom 71.131.6.149 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Separated
Some interesting discussion of this guy's work.

I separated off the bit about the Abramoff scandal because much of it is duplicated on the page on Abramoff. The idea here is to have one central article on the scandal and pointers to it. --Gorgonzilla 23:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Source for the baboon comment? It is pretty explosive if true.--Gorgonzilla 00:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Support and Plans
"Reed is widely believed to be planning to run for Governor of Georgia in 2010 and President in 2012 or 2016."

I read this often in the Georgia press so I understand it's inclusion. However, I suggest as an enclyclopedia entry it needs to have actual foundation. When I read that in a press/pol column it can be seen to be written with a possible tilt to be "believable" when it may actually come from editorial thin air. And, widely believed: what is the circumferance of this wide belief? A case could be made that in Georgia or in Republican political circles it is widely believed, but probably hardly anyone in Wisconsin, for example, even knows there is a race for Lt Gov in Georgia. So I suggest the content behind this statement be maintained, but recomposed. "Implying the support of President." Again, I read this often in the Georgia press but the sentence here is vague and does not have foundational facts.

Perhaps, in both instances it is enough to say, "In the Spring of 2005 it was widely reported in the Georgia press that Reed is believed to..." and ..."Georgia press reported that President Bush..."

However, in August 2005 Georgia press reports indicated that the President was publicly distancing himself from Reed after the casino stories.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Gov. Perdue will not be able to run again in 2010 due to a term limit, so whoever becomes Lt. Gov. this year will be in a strong position to run for governor in 2010 with a semi-incumbency advantage. It's likely enough that all of the Lt. Gov. candidates this year have that in mind.  Should we mention this? --Jim Henry 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Casinos

 * Emails from the Committee, in the main article I think I put a direct link to them, it should also be here. The name of Committee should be stated.

 * "white collar criminal defense attorney". Yes he is, but I think especially since no prosecutions are underway that using that entire phrasing is prejudicial. Using the phrase "he has retained legal counsel" is non-judgemental and also is more accurate to use at this point in the investigation because he is retained counsel to be provide legal advice more than to provide specific legal advice for any criminal proceedings.

 * A fundamental difficulty Reed has in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia is that there is the appearance that he used his anti-casino lobbying business to (1) perhaps generate cash out of Abramoff to flow through his own business and (2) to have it appear Alabama was against casinos when in reality there may have been a hidden agenda within Reed's lobby business to keep the competitive threat of Alabama casinos from Mississippi casinos.  It's my understanding Reed may not have told his Alabama clients this was why he was lobbying on their behalf.

 * This political/business/lobbying practice is the basis of an unethical practice allegation separate from the financial funding unethical allegation. While they may appear or will appear in the linked scandal article I believe they are essential in this summary paragraph. I would like to see clarity on this.

Kyle Andrew Brown 01:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

eLottery
This is an entire section that needs to be written. The point being that Reed not only worked in concert with gambling moneys in Abramoff's Indian Tribe scandal, but also was getting money from eLottery for lobbying for the defeat of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. See http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0304metreed.html for some info. -- Sholom 02:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

my edits
I made a few modest edits, which were reverted by another with an ES suggesting I was pushing POV. I disagree. What I did was tone down a well-poisoning intro and add a few "fact" tags. Those are fully reasonable edits and I have restored them. Any questions, please dialog here. Merecat 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Please justify anjd get concensus on the edits first. The net effect is to remove all the evidence connecting Reed to Ambamoff. These are facts here, two concicted criminals are caught discussing Reed's involvement in their scheme. The fact that they refer to him as a willing partner is significant. I have reverted them -- Gorgonzilla 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your repeated wholesale reverts of the "citaion needed" tags which I inserted is self-evident bad faith. I urge you to desist before our disagreement here takes on a formal process. Also, the edit I made to the intro still links directy to the "scandal" article. What I have done is make the intro language more NPOV. What specifically about that edit, do you have a problem with? Merecat 20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Your repeated fact tagging could be considered vexatious. For example, you facted "At the CRNC, Abramoff, Norquist and Reed formed what was known as the "Abramoff-Norquist-Reed triumvirate." See this. Now the cite at the end of the paragraph does say page 143, but I think that's forgivable since it could have been from another edition. I'm not saying that all the tagged items are defensibly verifiable, but that one was easy to find.KWH 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't consider it good faith to fact tag information so basic to Reed's career as his activities as part of the Abramoff-Norquist-Reed triumvirate during his college career. When you fact tag an article it should not be a method of suppressing information you would rather not see. There should be a good faith dispute as to its accuracy. A few minutes with Google would quickly establish that these points are not seriously contended. --Gorgonzilla 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"wackos"
I'm weighing in that I don't think the "religious wackos" quote merits mention w/r/t Ralph Reed. The context was a memo from Scanlon's Capitol Campaign strategies to the Coushatta tribal representative. Although Abramoff and Scanlon used Reed as a consultant in this campaign, I think it's a bridge too far to consider this a part of Reed's biography. It's already mentioned at Michael Scanlon, and should probably be mentioned at Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal, once that gets rewritten a bit. KWH 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this and a few more of the quotes which I believe go a bit too far. (below) The ones which I left are the only ones which I believe have biographical interest.KWH 07:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "There was always something just a little phoney about him. Was it his sissie GQ baby-face? Or maybe the oiliness of his diction?  To me he just came across as a caricature, too much of the exaggerated Boy Scout with a phoney "aw-shucks" that alternated with righteous confidence. Even though media attention and media attacks made him a natural 'underdog' to whom most conservatives and Christians would rally, he just left some doubts." - Georgia Heritage Council organizer Steve Scoggins

 * "His M.O. is to tell evangelical Christians that his cause of the moment, for which he has been hired, is their religious duty, and therefore they need to write regulators, turn up at meetings, or whatever. As an evangelical myself, I resent Christianity being used simply to help Reed's business." - Bob Irvin, former Republican leader of the Georgia House of Representatives

 * "You know that song about the Rhinestone Cowboy, 'There's been a load of compromising on the road to my horizon.' The Bible says you can't serve God and Mammon."  Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson to the New York Times on the Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal

 * "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information [from] the Christian right, Christian radio, e-mail, the Internet and telephone trees." E-mail from Abramoff's partner Michael Scanlon to former outside lawyer Kathryn Van Hoof describing Reed's importance to a lobbying project for the Coushatta tribe, reprinted in Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Nov. 3, 2005.

 * Hmmm...it feels like you're just removing the critical quotes... --User At Work 22:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * 1 and 2 are just direct slam jobs on Reed by stated opponents of his campaign. Why should Wikipedia give them a soapbox? #3 - I don't know the full context, but I don't think Robertson was commenting directly on Reed, but Abramoff and the Abramoff scandal (in which Reed is a player). I could be wrong. and #4 - I've already stated the problem on that elsewhere - it's a very notable quote to ascribe to Scanlon, but it's a bridge too far to try to tie it to Reed's biographical article. So 2 of these are just slam jobs, and 2 are barely even about the biographical subject.
 * Of what remains on the page, only 2 out of 6 ascribe any sort of virtue to Reed, saying that the Christian Coalition was a potent force, and his mother saying she knew he would be a success. 2 are negative, linking him to Abramoff, humping in corporate accounts, etc. And 2 are from Reed himself, and are arguably neutral (the militaristic metaphors might excite supporters or turn off critics). As far as I'm concerned, the article could have two quotes - the 'guerilla warfare' quote and the quote from his mother. Those are the only ones which (to me) lend any biographical insight in an NPOV manner. KWH 12:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't moan about the quotes - his mother's quote about him is one of the most damning I have ever read. She knew his character better than anyone I presume.

X-Files
I removed the numerous links to the individual cartoons on this site, for reference and verifiability purposes we should only need one - more tends to belabor the point and might even be seen as advertising. KWH 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed about 6 more links to the same site - that was a bit excessive. KWH 07:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Use of Nonprofit Funds
This one sentence section talks about the trip to Scotland. While Abramoff clearly did something wrong with trip, and so did the govt officials on this trip (Safavian, et al), Reed was just another lobbyist at the time, and so it's not apparent to me that there was anything wrong with Reed's going there. If that's the case, is this one-sentence-section relevant at all? (I mean, it's kinda cool that he was on the trip -- it's like an all-star team of current and possible future convicted felons -- but, as written, it implies Reed did something wrong by being part of the trip). Thoughts? -- Sholom 02:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Any information on what this grifter's net worth is?74.190.188.129 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Defeat In Georgia Primary
Thank GOD the Republican voters of Georgia had a sane moment and sent Ralph Reed packing out of public life.. The Republicans in this state have enough problems, having Reed in a high public office would have made us one of the embarassments of the nation....

 * How does this, exactly, help the article? Aaрон Кинни  (t) 05:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism
An anon removed "but was fired for plagarism". If someone can find a citation for this statement, please post it. Thanks. Wjhonson 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Conservative bias
Sounds like a conservative talking point. I feel like the article is trying to convince me of something, as opposed to the stating of facts.

"With a Ph.D. in American History from Emory University, Reed built the Christian Coalition movement with an eye toward social reform movements that had gone before him. Reed understood that the long tale of religious involvement in American life should be embraced by all Americans because it had served our country well and unified believers of many denominational stripes. He observed that devout Christians and religious rhetoric had been driving forces behind nearly every social movement in America whether of the right or of the left. From abolition to the New Deal, from the labor movement to civil rights, Christian believers had been instrumental to the expansion of social justice in America. The Christian Coalition sought to stand on those historic movements as it united Catholics, observant Jews, as well as reaching out to African-Americans."

Why the recent re-write is unacceptable
We have a couple of new editors who have decided that because they don’t like the tone of the article, they can re-write it completely without any discussion or consent of other editors. Here’s why this is unacceptable.

The re-write violates Wikipedia policy on consensus. Much of what is being deleted is made up of long-standing text regarding the facts of Reed’s life and career. Regarding consensus: ''everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. and When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus.''

The editors further declare supposed violations of the article on wiki’s rule regarding neutral point of view, but cite no examples.

They delete much important material with no discussion or reason given. Joegoodfriend 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reed Article
Alright, I'm new to this, so forgive my ignorance on some of the ground rules. Perhaps there is a better resolution than a mass revert. I feel this article is negatively biased. What do you think? Smaller scale revisions, with time allowed for others to decide yay or nay? RJWitherby

 * The short answer when dealing with a Wikipedia article which you feel is overweighted with negative information is to include more of what you consider "positive", rather than to try to eliminate or pare down the negative information. That way your edits are unlikely to be criticized. Unfortunately, the tendency with Wikipedia articles these days is to get larger and larger -- people resist creating smaller more specialized entries, although that too can help the bias/weighting issue. One thing to keep in mind is organization and flow. In other words, if one edits an article to be, let's say, more evenhanded, but also to be more confusing because organization and references have been eliminated, that will often be reverted.

 * A less salubrious method is to add referenced critical material to people on the "other" side; the pox-on-all-your-houses method. It's a more confrontational method of editing, but the end result is an encyclopedia which details the faults of all parties. --User At Work 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Learn the basics of wikipedia's policies on consensus, NPOV, citing sources and talk pages and soon other editors will be defending your changes. Joegoodfriend 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed the completely unattributed "we'll kill them all" quotation. --Rev Prez 21:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Abramoff Scandal
Reading that section, as a total outsider to this case, I must ask two questions. (i) Has Reed had recourse to defamation laws in cases where accusations against him have proven erroneous in this context? If so, shouldn't these be included in the article for NPOV reasons? (ii) To be complete, should there be references to any current books about the Abramoff scandal that are pertinent to discussions of this case, either apologists for Reed, or from his political opponents? It'd be great if both sides of the debate could be cited to demonstrate neutrality. Calibanu (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Calibanu

The last item in the quote section should be eliminated. It does not have a source listed. 66.245.65.147 (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Need to add
Ralph Reed published a novel that was released on 8/2010 called THE CONFIRMATION. Someone needs to include that info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.126.7 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit in external links
Revived link to Garrison Keillor op-ed on Reed casino scandal. It was labeled as a dead link. Mnoe817 (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

12 Gauge?
He has a son called "12 Gauge?" Iamvered (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Parking links here
I am parking some links to individual news articles here that I am removing from the article; These links may be worthwhile as citations for various facts, but they are mostly 8-10 years old, and don't all need to be in the external links section. If anyone has any interesting facts to glean from these sources, then please add them into the body of the article and cite as appropriate. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Articles
 * The Washington Times: "Reed said to see Georgia as path to the White House" by Ralph Z. Hallow, January 18, 2005
 * The Atlanta Journal Constitution: "Reed an albatross for GOP" by Bob Irvin, June 15, 2005
 * The Atlanta Journal Constitution: "20% of Reed's funds raised out of state" by James Salzer
 * The Atlanta Journal Constitution: "Reed e-mails upset anti-gambling allies" by Jim Galloway
 * The Atlanta Journal Constitution: "Reed lacks a conscience and the truth" by Jay Bookman
 * The Atlanta Journal Constitution: "Reed's fees all paid by casino" by Jim Galloway and Alan Judd, November 3, 2005.
 * Texas Observer: "Thin Reed: Will Abramoff's Deep Throat Swallow God's Mouthpiece?"
 * Cox News Service "Supporters ask, is Reed worth the gamble?" by Jim Galloway, January 13, 2006
 * The National Journal: "Reed in the Rough" by Peter H. Stone, July 7, 2006
 * "The Devil Inside" The Nation, March 30, 2006
 * Creative Loafing Atlanta's The Book of Ralph, a graphic political adventure
 * Bookman, Jay. "Commentary - The lies of lobbygate" Rutland Herald, April 4, 2006.
 * Garrison Keillor on the Reed scandal
 * Interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, June 10, 2008
 * Bookman, Jay. "Commentary - The lies of lobbygate" Rutland Herald, April 4, 2006.
 * Garrison Keillor on the Reed scandal
 * Interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, June 10, 2008

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ralph E. Reed, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140912165656/http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0603/gates-abramoff.php to http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0603/gates-abramoff.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Ralph E. Reed, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061019031006/http://www.decaturdaily.com:80/decaturdaily/news/050619/run.shtml to http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050619/run.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060214143915/http://www.ajc.com:80/metro/content/metro/stories/0204metreed.html to http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0204metreed.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928005101/http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4686774 to http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4686774
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080723200909/http://www.obligation.org/channelone/index.html to http://www.obligation.org/channelone/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Moved with support (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk ) 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

– I think it's clear with just a glance at the related articles that this Ralph Reed is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Ralph Reed". Ralph Reed (American Express) is two sentences long. Ralph Reed (baseball) is actually a redirect to Ted Reed, which is also two sentences long. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ralph E. Reed Jr. → Ralph Reed
 * Ralph Reed → Ralph Reed (disambiguation)
 * Support. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Statistics make the guy the most popular. George Ho (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Ralph E. Reed Jr.. 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/20140912165421/http://toccoafirstumc.org/troop77/eagle.shtml to http://toccoafirstumc.org/troop77/eagle.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911011538/http://www.localsearch.com/detail/Evangel-Assembly-of-God-0064871004.html to http://www.localsearch.com/detail/Evangel-Assembly-of-God-0064871004.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918194014/http://www.campaignmoney.org:80/reed/quotes to http://www.campaignmoney.org/reed/quotes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121065344/http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990817/961781.htm to http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990817/961781.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025164756/http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org:80/site2/news/crawford-ralph-reed-republicans.phtml to http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/news/crawford-ralph-reed-republicans.phtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.obligation.org/channelone/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ralph Reed. 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 tag to http://demo.openlogicsys.com/cc/blog/we%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2ve_come_long_way_baby_race_relations
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.campaignmoney.org/reed/quotes
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/news/crawford-ralph-reed-republicans.phtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628021530/http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Report.pdf to http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Report.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ralph Reed. 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/20101102053947/http://leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/difference.cfm to http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/Difference.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607230707/http://ffcoalition.com/our-team/ to http://ffcoalition.com/our-team/

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) 15:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ralph Reed


text:
Cannibal Holocaust (disambiguation)

Cannibal Holocaust is a 1980 film directed by Ruggero Deodato.

Cannibal Holocaust may also refer to:
 * Natura contro or Cannibal Holocaust II, a 1988 film directed by Antonio Climati
 * "Cannibal Holocaust", a song by Brutal Juice that was released as a single in 1992
 * Cannibal Holocaust (EP), a 2001 EP by Necrophagia, or the title song

title: Cannibal Holocaust (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Donaldism

To-do of this article
--Pryds 23:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know of an official English translation of Gisle's book but if such one exists, the quotations should probably follow that instead of my English translation of the Danish translation. Same thing with the names of the periods from the book.
 * As hinted in the article I am not aware of anyone having updated Gisle's time table after 1973 but this should probably be envestigated further.
 * There are probably more fanzines than those listed (probably even from non-listed countries). They need descriptions, or at least mentioning.
 * Some of the fanzines are simply put on a list because I don't know much about them and/or am not able to read them. They should probably have a more thorough description like the others.
 * Probably more...

As far as I know no donaldist has since updated the peiods from Gisles book - maybe it should be done. Nor have I ever heard of an english translatiion --(User: Anders Christian Sivebæk 23:27 8 August 2008]

Hmmm, I note that "klodrism" is translated to "fethrism", after Fethry Duck. Curiously, in the Swedish translation, the original word was used, instead of the translation "knasism", since it was claimed a translation would destroy the original meaning of the scientific terminology, or something like that... =S Also, in the Danish translation, apparently, "klodrism" instead of "vimsism".

Klodrism = fethrism
Too late... I'm afraid that at Gemstone, we've published a few articles actually translating klodrism to fethrism, so that's now its most-often used English name. I wonder why others objected to translating the name from Norwegian? 68.6.84.194 07:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * According to a note in the Swedish translation, (Ankismen, translated by Göran Ribe, 1976 edition, page 49, rough translation into English)

The authors have strongly opposed evry attempt to replace the word "klodrism" with a Swedish equivalent, claiming that would shake the foundations of what is Donaldist research. 惑乱 分からん 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about the real reason, maybe it's part of the academic humor that was so frequent in early Donaldism. Also, the authors even invented a pseudo-Latin form clodrismus. 惑乱 分からん 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources?
Are there any references to this subject in reliable sources? At present, all the sources provided are from 'Donaldist' groups themselves, which cannot be considered independent of the subject matter. Third-party references are needed to prove that this is a notable fandom/field of study. Robofish (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't say anything about the international perspective, but the German version has plenty of coverage, both passing and in-depth, for example:
 * 1 in Die Zeit
 * 1, 2 in Die Tageszeitung
 * 1 in Die Welt
 * 1 in Der Spiegel
 * 1 in Focus (German magazine)
 * Amalthea 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OR
This article seems to be all Original Research and could even be a hoax. Is there any external references in English that can be used as evidence that "Donaldism" actually exists? Liz Read! Talk! 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice I left a number of links in the section above. I didn't check them again, and didn't check the article, but the "Donaldism" fan club does certainly exist and I consider it notable. Amalthea  20:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Liz:There are only a few references in English because most of the original (English) texts are - to say it in a friendly manner - written in a very simple style. The translators, on the other hand, created their own versions, often including sophisticated allusions to their own cultural backgrounds, and gave every character an individual voice. (E.g. the German translation by Erika Fuchs includes alliterations, (mis-)quotes from German classics, allusions to real-live topics etc.) By the way, if you don't accept a source because it has been published in another language, 99% of all knowledge would be lost.--77.47.74.154 (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Stefan Diös" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Di%C3%B6s&redirect=no Stefan Diös] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donaldism


text:
Talk:SLA Industries

Criticism

 * Okay, I'd just like to say that this entry is, whilst extremely funny, totally fucked up.
 * unfucked, but fuckage kept for posterity. Should probably be removed at some point for the sake of cleanliness. Also merged "The Truth" into this article. Can someone verify that "The Truth" really is "The Truth"? It seems pretty silly. Luvcraft 22:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes Its accurate alright.

 * It's probably time to come out the closet and admit to writing the original fuckage. I am not affiliated with Nightfall Games in any way. The Truth section is accurate, although some explanation of why it reads so oddly is probably in order. I shall put my thinking head on. N3d 16:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've edited SLA Industries Writers Bible. This may present a fairer POV and explain why the truth sounds more than a little kooky. N3d 17:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also never heard the expression "Doing a SLA Industries". Nightfall is one of probably hundreds of RPG companies that have gone belly up since Gygax first trod on a four-sided die and leapt into the air shouting "THAC0!". N3d 17:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote that crap about doing a SLA Industries and exposed the truth; as I'm an annoyed fan of a squandered license. Perhaps not the best way to go about motivating people. And N3d...finish sacred steel, you suck for leaving it! User?I shall stay strictly incognito...
 * No you won't, Gary. You're right though, I do suck for halting SS. Consider this phase a sabbatical while I absorb more games and inspiration. You must concede that SS was lacking a Unique Selling Point, and the system was sorely lacking scaleability.--N3d 13:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Truth was not QUITE accurate.
Tim Dedopulos didn't release Truth until after it was leaked by someone. Currently no one knows who leaked it. Source: Dave Allsop. 91.157.148.55 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Binding
Should it be mentioned that the first Nightfall print run had pretty crappy binding in the books. I knew a number of people who looked after their gamebooks and all of them had the binding practically disintegrate on them. Douglasnicol (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have ammended a little bit of the details of the truth!

Changed the wording of the Truth section slightly. I know people put off SLA by reading this entry, so I'm trying to readress that slightly.82.110.109.212 15:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Section removed
What exactly was this? ==Preserved for Posterity== Here is a Station Analysis subscriber's "pre-vandalization" of this page, before it was replaced with correct information:
 * SLA Industries is the role-playing game design company that designed the classic RPG Nightfall in 1993. Nightfall centers on the lives of unemployed writers and artists living in the nightmarish metropolis "Glasgow", slaving away for "Nightfall, Ltd.", an uber-corporation headed by the mysterious Dave. Other power players include the tragi-gothic Jared, the dark sorceress Anne, and the terrifying Preceptor Tim. An expansion pack also introduced the powerful but unstable character Angus.

The writers are credited by their noms de plumes, including Slayer and Intruder. They also credit taking massive doses of Ethanol for the success of their product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BalthCat (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2006 September 23 (UTC)

—Asatruer 13:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A joke of some sort. That was the firt version of the article about SLA Industries that lasted up until old version 12681321. I kinda like it on the humour level, but it is probably best to have it gone.

Dave, Jared and Anne were the Nightfall games team and Tim joined two books later. Angus was involved much later. (comment by an original Nightfall games playtester/writer, corrected by jearle)

Setting
the game tended to be predisposed towards splatterpunk horror, noir, dark satire, and/or gunbunny high action.

Could this sentence be rewritten to use leighman's terms? "Gunbunny high action" sounds like a stoned artillery operator to me. *grin* --64.173.240.130 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:SLA Industries


text:
Kožlany

Kožlany is a town in Plzeň-North District in the Plzeň Region of the Czech Republic. It has about 1,500 inhabitants.

Administrative parts
The villages of Buček, Dřevec, Hedčany and Hodyně are administrative parts of Kožlany.

Geography
Kožlany is located about 28 km northeast of Plzeň. It lies in the Plasy Uplands. The highest point is at 481 m above sea level. The Javornice stream flows along the northern municipal border.

History
Kožlany was probably founded during the reign of King Ottokar I between 1200 and 1230. The first written mention of Kožlany is from 1238, when King Wenceslaus I took the settlement from the monastery in Plasy and gave the monastery the village of Žihle. In 1351, it was promoted to a town by King Charles IV. King George of Poděbrady donated Kožlany to Jošt of Gusidle, and since then the town has been owned by various lesser nobles.

The development of Kožlany was stopped by the Thirty Years' War. Even in the following decades, the town was plagued by troop movements, crop failures and high taxes. The town was then damaged by fires in 1768, 1773 and 1789.

Transport
Kožlany is located the railway line Prague–Kralovice via Rakovník. Historic trains run on it and it is only in operation during the summer tourist season on weekends.

Sights
The most important monument is the Church of Saint Lawrence. Originally a medieval church from the end of the 13th century, it was rebuilt in the Baroque style in 1769, after it was damaged by a fire.

The town hall dates from the 18th century. Originally a Baroque house, it has an Art Nouveau façade from 1911.

There is Jewish cemetery in the town, established between 1680 and 1700. In the cemetery are preserved gravestones from the 17th and 18th centuries.

The former school houses the town museum. The museum includes an exposition on life of Edvard Beneš, who is the most famous native. The museum was founded in 1946. The birth house of Edvard Beneš is protected as a cultural monument.

Notable people

 * Edvard Beneš (1884–1948), the second president of Czechoslovakia

title: Kožlany


text:
Talk:Black Moment of Panic

Removal of prod template
Single by notable band released on notable record label, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. --Myles Long 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Black Moment of Panic