text:
Talk:Antisemitism/SV

SV
While its fair to that a part of a large edit does not belong, a blanket revert is never "considered and measured." You claim that the section "defending Jesus" as "explicitly disapprov[ing] of condemnation" is an "off-topic apologetic." The notion that articles be segregated along certain lines, has long been an excuse to offer little (or no) context. The notion of "off-topic" is a common excuse for having a single-sided article section without any contrary or balancing view. If thats the nature of this article, maybe Wikinfo's POV-separated articles would be better place for it.

Jayjg:"This section, however, was about passages in the New Testament that have been considered to be or used as a justification for anti-Semitism...What's more, it's not particularly relevant, nor are the specific speakers; the section is not discussing sayings of Jesus which are considered anti-Semitic, but statements in the New Testament which are considered anti-Semitic;" By whom does the section say these statement "are considered anti-Semitic?" And would this 'considered by nameless' section be without any counterpoint? Wouldnt that kind of article be considered less than NPOV? Would you be claiming that the statements of Jesus are "anti-Semitic," and that the article should hold this view - unchallenged and replete with distortions, including over-generalized context, unattributed quotes, and a highly POV (and baseless) in-text comment "[i.e. "the Jews"]."

The only material aspect of this whole section (aside from dealing with the quotes and their misinterpretations) is how the distiction between non-believer and believer became generalized to all "the Jews." Do not simply repeat past flawed interpretation without context. Note that the very meaning of who is a Jew has never been very consistent either, so how can it be criticised that others (including John the Apostle) do not make 'proper distinctions?' Thats another debate of course.

Jg:"[the Samartian town story] does not say one shouldn't condemn Jews, it says Jesus doesn't want to call down fire from heaven to destroy a town." This might be a fair point, were it not directly contradictory to the notion that his condemnations were directed specifically at Jews. You could argue that the 'Samaritans were not Jews at all,' and that the term 'Pharisees really means "[i.e. "the Jews"]" but those are likewise assertions that belong need jusification, somehow, correct? "Jesus, John, Stephen, Paul, whoever, it doesn't really matter, they're all "holy writ"." - This statement is simply wrong.

Jg:"quoted from John, the text is explicit that it refers to the Jews: John 8:31 "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him etc." John is full of references to "the Jews"." This is a fair point, and should be the basis for an examination of the text. But note that John refers to "the Jews" in an ethnically descriptive sense; Jesus wasnt talking to Gentiles (Romans etc) at that particular moment, and note that included among "the Jews" are "those who remain in [his] word" which impies not only 'those who dismiss his word' but 'those who fall short' as well. Hence by proper rational interpretation, these do not line up with the ethnic distinctions of Jew, gentile, etc.

Jg:"The fact that the section does not distinguish between the Jews and the Pharisees is precisely the point; for most of Christian history the church didn't either, and as a result these passages were interpreted this way. Many Christians still do interpret them this way. For someone to come along now and say "well, they interpreted it all wrong, this is what they really meant, so it's not anti-Semitism at all" is not only a historical anachronism, but the height of POV." This statement has some merits if only because its direct and to the point. My main criticism of the section was that this approach of simply mirroring past flaws in distinction, rather than explaining them in any context other than "anti-Semitism," is hugely flawed, and "the height of POV" to boot. I dont know how modern and authoritative reinterpretations can be called "the height of POV", especially by someone who doesnt care to even make distinctions between middle-age, and contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.

Anti-Semitism is an irrational point of view, correct? Hence all interpretations of anti-Semitic meaning in the New Testament can be considered irrational, correct? I'm sure you would agree that the Christian religion itself, based on the teachings of Jesus, is not inherently anti-Semitic, correct? Similarly, the blanket interpretation of Jesus' teachings as anti-Semitic is not a rational view, just as anti-Semitism itself is not rational, correct? There is no "rational" anti-Semitism. And similarly condemning an entire belief system of Christianity as "irrational" is not rational. This is surely not the point you want to convey, thouth that does seem to be what you are arguing, when you say: "particularly in light of the many condemnations by Jesus listed in the New Testament." You seem to be asserting a connection between the "many condemnations" (sources please) and an anti-Semitic condemnation of all Jews. Not only is this assertion rife with POV, but the claim that it should go unchallenged is completely antithetical to the (holy) NPOV structure of articles. -SV|t|add 22:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi SV, I'll respond to your comments tomorrow, when I have more time to read them carefully. My opening statement is that I think the section needs to be balanced and improved as well, but that those edits were not the way to do it. Jayjg (talk)  23:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jg
While its fair to that a part of a large edit does not belong, a blanket revert is never "considered and measured."
 * Blanket reverts
 * First, it wasn't a blanket revert. Second, that's your opinion; in actuality, I carefully read through the changes, and decided that none were worth retaining.  Third if you object so strongly to blanket reverts, then why did you do the same to me? Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You claim that the section "defending Jesus" as "explicitly disapprov[ing] of condemnation" is an "off-topic apologetic." The notion that articles be segregated along certain lines, has long been an excuse to offer little (or no) context. The notion of "off-topic" is a common excuse for having a single-sided article section without any contrary or balancing view. If thats the nature of this article, maybe Wikinfo's POV-separated articles would be better place for it.
 * Off-topic apologetic?
 * The topic of the main article is anti-Semitism, and the topic of the subsection is anti-Semitism in the New Testament. Whether or not Jesus disapproved of condemnation is irrelevant to whether passages in the New Testament have been or are seen as anti-Semitic, or used as a pretext for anti-Semitism. Moreover, even if it were on topic, it's an extremely weak argument, since Jesus is quoted in the gospels as regularly condemning all sorts of people. But the worst problem of all is that it is No original research, at least until you can find someone who actually makes this argument in defending the New Testament against accusations of anti-Semitism.Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who makes these claims?
Jayjg:"This section, however, was about passages in the New Testament that have been considered to be or used as a justification for anti-Semitism...What's more, it's not particularly relevant, nor are the specific speakers; the section is not discussing sayings of Jesus which are considered anti-Semitic, but statements in the New Testament which are considered anti-Semitic;" By whom does the section say these statement "are considered anti-Semitic?" And would this 'considered by nameless' section be without any counterpoint? Wouldnt that kind of article be considered less than NPOV? Would you be claiming that the statements of Jesus are "anti-Semitic," and that the article should hold this view - unchallenged and replete with distortions, including over-generalized context, unattributed quotes, and a highly POV (and baseless) in-text comment "[i.e. "the Jews"]."
 * The sources of those who claim those passages are anti-Semitic do indeed need to be sourced, which is something I hope to do next week. The primary sources for these claims are 1) Groups which claim the passages are anti-Semitic 2) Groups which claim the passages have been accused of being anti-Semitic, but are actually not, and 3) Groups which use these passages to promote anti-Semitism.  All three sources exist, but pulling it all together will take time. Ideally the section should present the views of those who argue they are anti-Semitic, followed by the views of those who insist they are not; this should also deal with your complaint about lack of context; without doubt, some of those defending the verses will insist they were all taken out of context. Regarding the attribution, I fail to understand the relevance; if the verses have been accused of supporting anti-Semitism, then what difference does it make who said them? As for the in-text comment ("the Jews"), since the chapter the quote is coming from immediately preceding that explicity mentions "The Jews", I'm not sure why you state it is highly POV or baseless.

Only material aspect of the section
The only material aspect of this whole section (aside from dealing with the quotes and their misinterpretations) is how the distiction between non-believer and believer became generalized to all "the Jews." Do not simply repeat past flawed interpretation without context. Note that the very meaning of who is a Jew has never been very consistent either, so how can it be criticised that others (including John the Apostle) do not make 'proper distinctions?' Thats another debate of course.
 * No, the only material aspect of the situation is description of the views of those who believe the verses are anti-Semitic, and those who believe they are not. Remember, that's what NPOV is all about; it's not intended to trumpet the truth, or re-enact disputes, but merely to characterize them.  As I said above, once both sides of the dispute have their say, issues of context should disappear; detractors of the verses will insist they are not taken out of context, and explain why, and defenders of the verses will insist they are taken out of context, and explain why. And please note, it is only your personal POV that the past interpretation is "flawed"; there are certainly some Christians who still understand the verses that way, and you can only conjecture as to what the original intent of the authors was. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jg:"[the Samartian town story] does not say one shouldn't condemn Jews, it says Jesus doesn't want to call down fire from heaven to destroy a town." This might be a fair point, were it not directly contradictory to the notion that his condemnations were directed specifically at Jews. You could argue that the 'Samaritans were not Jews at all,' and that the term 'Pharisees really means "[i.e. "the Jews"]" but those are likewise assertions that belong need jusification, somehow, correct?
 * Samaritan town story
 * Not really. Jesus doesn't talk about condemnations there, he talks about calling down fire from heaven, so it is off-topic.  More importantly, it is No original research, at least until you can find someone who actually makes this argument in defending the New Testament against accusations of anti-Semitism; see "Off-topic apologetic?" above. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Jesus, John, Stephen, Paul, whoever, it doesn't really matter, they're all "holy writ"." - This statement is simply wrong.
 * Does who said what matter?
 * That's not a strong argument. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you didnt make one to respond to. SV|t|add 01:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John and "the Jews"
Jg:"quoted from John, the text is explicit that it refers to the Jews: John 8:31 "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him etc." John is full of references to "the Jews"." This is a fair point, and should be the basis for an examination of the text. But note that John refers to "the Jews" in an ethnically descriptive sense; Jesus wasnt talking to Gentiles (Romans etc) at that particular moment, and note that included among "the Jews" are "those who remain in [his] word" which impies not only 'those who dismiss his word' but 'those who fall short' as well. Hence by proper rational interpretation, these do not line up with the ethnic distinctions of Jew, gentile, etc.
 * Well, that's certainly one POV, and might even be correct. But don't forget, as strongly as you might believe that, you can't go around inserting your own personal beliefs into articles.  It's entirely possible someone uses that argument as a defence against accusations of anti-Semitism in the New Testament; in that case, it would be quite valid to include it. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "as strongly as you believe it" - Nonsense, Jay. Read it for yourself - Thats the whole point of this excersise; that someone like yourself who seeks to make a critical point of the New Testament might actually base it on an direct reading and understanding of the material you want to criticise. Its fairly easy when the object of criticism is a book that's in the public domain, that anyone has access to, and can read and compare as they see fit. Certainly we can agree that in the past, when Bibles were in Latin, and when people couldnt read, and even when they did, the kind of bigoted interpretation was supported in the culture... - then certainly we are not in disagreement.

But how is that different from anything else, including the interpretation of the Old Testament? For example Josephus says that Sodom was destroyed by the Assyrians(?) because the Sodomites (prosperous and fruitful) wouldnt trade with them. Why then does the Bible give a much less plausible explanation, by NPOV standards, and yet the Bible is considered NPOV when Josephus is considered biased? Hence, just as Judaism is no less fundamentally based on a selective interpretation of history, that was excusable in times of antiquity, likewise the denomination/interpretation of "what is anti-Semitism" is similarly based in an ethnocentric sphere. Thus the only remaining material difference, besides universalism's effect of broadening of the Christian demographic, is the context of now, as a time different from then. Theres really nothing controversial in the above, if you read it correctly, but it does demolish the claim that "anti-Semitism," in order to be "NPOV" must adhere to a commoner's or insiders point of view. -SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I'm not following your argument. My intent here is merely to quote, or summarize the positions, of people who claim that the New Testament (or verses in it) are anti-Semitic, and people who claim the opposite.  I don't think we can determine the "truth" here, even if this were the place for it (which it is not). Jayjg (talk)  02:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anachronistic interpretations
Jg:"The fact that the section does not distinguish between the Jews and the Pharisees is precisely the point; for most of Christian history the church didn't either, and as a result these passages were interpreted this way. Many Christians still do interpret them this way. For someone to come along now and say "well, they interpreted it all wrong, this is what they really meant, so it's not anti-Semitism at all" is not only a historical anachronism, but the height of POV." This statement has some merits if only because its direct and to the point. My main criticism of the section was that this approach of simply mirroring past flaws in distinction, rather than explaining them in any context other than "anti-Semitism," is hugely flawed, and "the height of POV" to boot. I dont know how modern and authoritative reinterpretations can be called "the height of POV", especially by someone who doesnt care to even make distinctions between middle-age, and contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.
 * It amazes me that you would make statements insisting that past interpretations were "flawed", and current ones are "authoritative", and not see that it is highly POV. I'm sure that some of the papers defending the New Testament against accusations of anti-Semitism will make this argument, and so (once sourced) they should be included, but it's not up to Wikipedia to proclaim that modern interpretations are correct and authoritative, and past ones are flawed. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Its a modern pov that needs to be relected, Jay. I could just as easily that that someone who cites anti-semitism in the bible is living in the past, and has a "historical" pov. "Once sourced" please remove the offensive material now, until you do properly source them then. -SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not understanding much of your argumentation here, but I do intend to find sources for both sides. I've had an extremely busy week, and have had much less time than usual for Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk)  02:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is an irrational point of view, correct? Hence all interpretations of anti-Semitic meaning in the New Testament can be considered irrational, correct?
 * Anti-Semitism is irrational
 * Well, I think anti-Semitism is irrational, but your argument that "all interpretations of anti-Semitic meaning in the New Testament can be considered irrational" is only true if you assume that the New Testament isn't anti-Semitic; your argument here is circular. If the authors of the New Testament were indeed anti-Semitic, then interpretations that found anti-Semitic meaning in it would be entirely rational. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if we can agree that its irrational, how then can New Testament material be used for its "purposes?" "Irrational purpose" is a contradiction in terms, no? I agree that the majority in times of antiquity have held these views, but I dont defer to the Biblically ignorant to characterize interpretation of scripture, either.-SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, "irrational purpose" is not a contradiction in terms, and the New Testament is quoted in the exact same way by some for that very purpose today. Jayjg (talk)  02:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Im afraid that many would disagree with you that "irrational and purpose" are largely oxymoronic when used together. :) "...is quoted in the exact same way by some..." Well, many would argue that simply quoting racist pamphleture would be lazy - quoting the lowest types of interpretation rather than the more elevated ones.

 * I have to say, that it seems odd that people would ask for "sources" for any positive interpretation of a major religious text, as if though these were on a par with negative ones. The text itself should speak for itself, and the definition of "proper interpretation" should be by definition the most positive interpretation that can be made.
 * An encyclopedia just might be more interested in asserting the more elevated views as dominant, and this should not be seen as expressing a POV, but rather a "correct" or de-biased interpretation of that literature, as these are open to be read by anyone. Granted, if one is operating under the POV assumption that the literature itself contains "incorrect" views, then of course I would encourage the attribution to other sources. But in the context of any religion or religious source, the deference seems to be toward the benevolence of the texts themselves.

 * But this all would seem to present the obstacle that Wikipedians cannot themselves even cite original sources, but rather rely on the interpretations of those sources by scholars of sources. In other words, is this simply going to default to a some say, some say type of article? Is "cite sources" and "research" a euphemism to mean that the Bible will not be cited directly, but only through second-handed quotation?
 * Well at least (it would seem) Ive demolished any basis for directly citing the bible as "anti-Semitic" material, which is a good thing. Though its understandable that the call for sources is used to maintain the pov status quo, and hence revert any contrary edits made to the article, nevertheless the outcome should be that all of us involved should be able to write much better on the subject. Regards, and I'm reading your links now. -SV|t 23:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: ""Christians are morally obligated to understand the New Testament’s harsh words against Jews and Judaism in their original contexts, without translating those polemics into antisemitism."" http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=1542] - Note that this text asserts that "harsh words...in their original contexts do not equate to anti-semitism, except through biased translation. I think this states most of the point quite clearly, though, again the assertion that Jews and Judaism were targets is inaccurate. Jesus preached a "correct" interpretation of Judaism, not Christianity, and much of Christianity has since assumed that Judaism is de-facto "incorrect," without considering the historic context, and the basic essence of Jesus' personal Judaism. -SV

 * SV, you are re-enacting the dispute, rather than presenting it, which is not what Wikipedia Talk: pages are for. It's not for us to decide whether or not the New Testament, or various verses in it, are truly anti-Semitic, or have merely been misinterpreted/misused.  Instead, we must simply present the facts:
 * 1) The New Testament and/or various verses in the New Testament have accused of being anti-Semitic.
 * 2) Various verses in the New Testament have been (and, by some groups, still are) interpreted in anti-Semitic ways, and this fact is acknowledged by most mainstream Christian groups.
 * 3) Most Christian groups today believe those anti-Semitic intepretations to be incorrect, for a variety of reasons.
 * I've provided a number of sources outlining this issue; all that's left is to present the issue in a NPOV way, citing the accusations of anti-Semitism, the historical and current usage in anti-Semitic ways, and the various responses of Christians/Christian groups. I've been extremely busy over the past two weeks, and have had little time to do this, aside from finding sources, but I expect to have more time next week. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Christianity anti-Semitic?
I'm sure you would agree that the Christian religion itself, based on the teachings of Jesus, is not inherently anti-Semitic, correct? Similarly, the blanket interpretation of Jesus' teachings as anti-Semitic is not a rational view, just as anti-Semitism itself is not rational, correct? There is no "rational" anti-Semitism. And similarly condemning an entire belief system of Christianity as "irrational" is not rational. This is surely not the point you want to convey, thouth that does seem to be what you are arguing, when you say: "particularly in light of the many condemnations by Jesus listed in the New Testament." You seem to be asserting a connection between the "many condemnations" (sources please) and an anti-Semitic condemnation of all Jews. Not only is this assertion rife with POV, but the claim that it should go unchallenged is completely antithetical to the (holy) NPOV structure of articles. -SV|t|add 22:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * SV, there are so many assumptions in that section it's hard to know where to begin. You assume that Christianity is faithfully following the teachings of Jesus, and that the New Testament faithfully reproduces them, etc.  In any event, the article itself makes no claims that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, or irrational; rather, it (ideally) explores the topic of whether or not verses in the New Testament have been used for anti-Semitic purposes, or are inherently anti-Semitic.  I don't think the former can be denied, and to deal properly with the latter, cited statements or arguments from both sides must be produced.  That is exactly what the holy NPOV is all about, not about inserting original research attempting to "defend the faith". Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Its assuming none of those things Jay. Rather its asking a question: Is this the base from which you are operating? If so, then my comments were intended to make you reflect back upon you own comments as not being NPOV. I think thats the only problem here, frankly, is your assumption that your views are NPOV, and that a section that asserts a connection between anti-semitism and Christianity remain in a shoddy state, unchallenged by objectivity or even demands for attribution.

"In any event, the article itself makes no claims that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, or irrational" No, but it implies it by its unattributed listing of "holy writ" and inuendo "[i.e. the Jews]." "It (ideally) explores the topic of whether or not verses in the New Testament have been used for anti-Semitic purposes, or are inherently anti-Semitic." This would be nice, but its still has the inverted focus on what's "considered to be" over what "is". Again, you dont cite sources for who "considers" what to be what, and I look forward to seeing those. Its not my intent to "defend the faith" just as I'm sure it wasn't your intention to disparage it. -SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sv2
I think were largely in agreement and now are better understanding the others concerns. Ill respond to some of your points tomorrow, and look forward to your "charachteriz[ation]" of the various sources you intend to cite. Regards -SV|t|add 01:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to SR
SR:"The thrust of Jayjg's last comment is that although Jayjg has spelled out his views to explain why he reverted SV's, SV did not respond to that explanation, or provide one of his own, for reverting. Compromise and collaboration are impossible if people won't respond to one another's comments." I was late in responding, forgive me. -SV

"As for the article itself, SV, I think I agree with Jayjg, at least on some points. Christian anti-Semitism is a tricky topic and I think your edits were motivated by a desire to be even-handed. That is a worthy goal, but I don't think the particular changes you made effectively accomplish that." But what could? And what would not be an improvement over whats there now?

"First of all, some of what you wrote is inaccurate -- Jesus and his apostles did not just criticize Saducees and Pharisees, they did speak of Jews in general. Moreover, all Jews today are heirs of the Pharisees, and in retrospect, an attack on Pharisees is an attack on all Jews today. Indeed, some have suggested that the NT attacks against the Pharisees were inserted after Jesus was murdered, at the time that the Pharisees had emerged as the hegemonic form of Judaism and especially the form of Judaism directly competing with early Christians for Jewish supporters."
 * "Some have suggested..." whom? "All Jews today are heirs" is besides the point, isnt it? "....Is an attack on all Jews today" This is a rather broad statement, which isnt really relevant even if it were distinctly "true." Yes, that could be one interpretation, but its not the correct one, if one reads the Gospels with any consistency. The term "the Jews", as I pointed out to Jay, as used in the New Testament, are ethnic general terms for distinguishing the people Jesus was ministering to at the time from the Gentiles, Samaritans, etc. Of course, this interpretation has not been characteristic of many past interpretations, and that's fair to cite an article on "past interpretations of anti-Semitism" but its not fair to say that "NT = (or contains) AS."
 * Notice that the very terms Pharisee, Gentile, etc. are "Jewish terms" and hence can be reinterpreted in accordance with Jewish history and heritage as its understood today. But thats not their meaning in Christian history. Jesus was denouncing hypocrites and posers, who mixed together money and influence with religion, which (according to Jesus) was disfavorable to God. True, one could make the flimsy argument (and many have) that these are de-facto denouncements toward Jews in general. But for example, similar characterizations of other Jews are equally common in the Old Testament, though in an older language that tended to attribute all failures to a "disobedience of God" and other deviations from "the proper way." The wisdom of Solomon became the folly of Solomon... 'the Kingdom of Israel was not part of the covenant (unfit to rule),' etc. Theres nothing anti-Semitic about reproach. The apparent consistency in the old testament might be attributed to the documentary hypothesis, etc, but at least that's fairly controversial among non-dogmatic interpretations of scripture.
 * To make the point: If I ever call someone a "Pharisee" today, I would mean it to connote a member of particular ancient conservative political affiliation, whom, according to the characterizations of the "favorite philosopher of the West" tended to say, "Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing;' but 'whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!'" and so on. Certainly, by that defintion, it can be said that we have "Pharisees" around today, but no reasonable or literate person ("no true Scotsman") today could say that the ancestral lineage supercedes the actual meaning, and that meaning is hardly genetic, racial, or even cultural. One could argue that there are plenty of "Pharisees" (again by Jesus' characterisation) in the various conservative parties today, many of whom claim to be Christian. Of course that too is JPOV from circa 30CE, but that at least shows that the characterization of the members of a political sect of 2000 years ago cannot be said to be "anti-Semitic" as the term "anti-Semitic" is understood today, just as calling a Republican a hypocrite for mixing his money with his religion, is not a denouncement of all Christians. I dont see anything controversial about that point, or how it really needs a talk-show like debate. If we can agree on that, maybe we can also agree to iron out the kinks in the definition of "anti-Semitism" itself, which likewise may differ according to POV. You wouldnt argue that anti-Semitism, if it has a literal objective definition, can only be defined by its targets?

SR:"Now, I do not think that any of what I just said belongs in the article. But it does show how tricky it is to talk about these things, and why there is a need to be as accurate as possible. Second, I just disagree completely with your use of the phrase "true" or "truth." Everyone thinks their religion or their version of their religion or their politics is "true." For an article to affirm that a particular view of Christianity is the "true" version is a flagrant violation of NPOV. Yes, there are different interpretations of the NT, but no one here has the right or authority to say which one's are true and which one's are false. Yes, Christianity has changed over the years -- Vatican II being one example. But again, it is not for us to say which version is right."
 * I agree. "But then again is not for us to say which version is right" - this does indeed go many ways, professor. :) -SV

"This article is not on Christianity, it is on anti-Semitism. The section on anti-Semitism in the NT should not list statements any of us think are anti-Semetic (which only invites someone else to explain why they are not anti-Semitic, which is an equally inappropriate thing to do). Wikipedia articles never express the views of their authors. They provide an account of other peoples views. So let's try to find out which passages in the NT have actually been used to promote anti-Semitism, and which verses Jews believe are anti-Semitic, and provide that information (even if we do not agree, personally). Then we should have a very brief statement that some Christians interpret these verses differently and a link to another article that can go into detail." Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What does it mean that the article "is on anti-Semitism"? Does this mean that its free to make assertions and associations about Christianity without any counterpoint or contradiction? Of course, not, and I know you dont agree with that characterisation, but I dont see how is possible to call the section NPOV at all, if the matter is simply one of my interpretation versus your interpretation. "Correct interpretation" should supercede. Wouldnt that be nice: Why do the views expressed on wikipedia have to reflexively reflect the ignorance of the world? "Which verses Jews believe are anti-Semitic" YMAKWIGTS, but someone of my persuasion (disagreeable) would not be able get away for a second with an assertion like "[all] Jews beleive..." anything. Why then should any such 'all-encompassing view' be unchallenged when it comes from elsewhere? Pardon the hodgepodge of rambling. -SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Course syllabus
Apparently this issue is the topic of a second year course at the University of Toronto:  The course seems to take for granted that anti-Jewish polemic exists in the New Testament. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Antisemitism/SV


text:
Talk:Aged

VfD
On April 26, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was redirect. See Votes for deletion/Aged for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 12:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Aged


text:
WAVE (TV)

WAVE (channel 3) is a television station in Louisville, Kentucky, United States, affiliated with NBC and owned by Gray Television. The station's studios are located on South Floyd Street in downtown Louisville, and its transmitter is located in Floyds Knobs, Indiana.

History
The station first signed on the air on November 24, 1948, originally broadcasting on VHF channel 5 with an effective radiated power of 24,100 watts. WAVE was the first television station to sign on in the state of Kentucky, and the 41st to debut in the United States.

The station has been a primary NBC affiliate since its debut, owing to its sister radio station's longtime affiliation with the NBC Red Network; however, it also initially carried secondary affiliations with ABC, CBS and the DuMont Television Network. The national coaxial cable did not reach Louisville until 1950; prior to that, NBC programs were shown on film, as was national and foreign news.

On May 7, 1949, WAVE-TV became the first television station in the United States to present a live telecast of the Kentucky Derby. The station shipped a canned newsreel of the event to NBC to broadcast nationally. The telecast was the first use of a Zoomar Lens in a television sports broadcast. The lens was loaned to WAVE by inventor Frank Back. Not long after the Derby, WAVE acquired a Zoomar lens of its own, which was frequently loaned to the other stations owned by WAVE-TV.

WAVE-TV lost CBS programming when WHAS-TV (channel 11, now an ABC affiliate) signed on in March 1950; it later lost DuMont when the network folded in August 1956. Channel 3 continued to share ABC programming with WHAS-TV until WLKY (channel 32) signed on as a full-time affiliate in September 1961. It has remained with NBC since then, and as such, WAVE is the only commercial television station in the Louisville market that has never changed its primary network affiliation.

In 1953, WAVE-TV moved to VHF channel 3, due to signal interference issues with fellow NBC affiliate WLWT in Cincinnati. The move included a new, 100,000 watt transmitter and 600 ft tower atop a 925 ft (above sea level) knob above New Albany, Indiana. This increased WAVE-TV's coverage by 66%. WAVE-TV made history again in 1954 as it became the first station in Louisville to broadcast programming in color; viewers were treated to a vivid image of the new NBC Peacock logo when it made its 1956 debut.

During 1958–59, WAVE-TV produced in its studios educational programs for Jefferson County Schools—the forerunner of WFPK-TV (channel 15, now WKPC-TV). From 1954 to 1962, WAVE-TV also produced in its studio Tomorrow's Champions, a police-sponsored program for young amateur boxers. Muhammad Ali (then Cassius Clay) got his start there.

In July 1959, having long since outgrown its original studio facility on East Broadway (which now houses the Louisville offices for Metro United Way), WAVE-TV moved into its current downtown facility at 725 South Floyd Street. The new, specially designed building was dedicated with a commissioned opera, Beatrice, by Lee Hoiby. George Norton's wife, Jane Morton Norton, an accomplished artist herself, also commissioned original paintings for the building and statues for the adjacent WAVE Garden. The Garden, facing on Broadway, is a small park with water and greenery, now dedicated to the late George Norton. Three years later, in 1962, channel 3 became the first station in the region to transmit live, locally produced programming in color. By 1966, it was the only Kentucky station that processed its own news footage on color film and, in 1969, WAVE-TV became the first station in the market to employ a certified television meteorologist (Tom Wills) and operate its own weather-forecasting system.

The station notably refers to its coverage area as "WAVE Country", echoing a popular jingle and image campaign that the station introduced in the early 1970s. In fact, that very jingle served as the image campaign of the Al Ham-composed news music package "Home Country".

On January 18, 2022, WAVE-TV reintroduced a logo inspired by the station's 1960s logo (which has remained on the station's studio building since its opening and been restored in subsequent remodels), consisting of its call letters in a circle broken by a curved sine wave, which became the station's signature logo motif. It also dropped mention of channel 3 in most of its branding.

Ownership
WAVE-TV was founded and owned by George W. Norton Jr., a lawyer and financier who had also put WAVE radio (970 AM, now WGTK) on the air in 1933. Over the years, the Nortons acquired three other television stations and two other radio stations. They purchased WFIE-TV (Evansville, Indiana) in 1956; WFRV-TV (Green Bay, Wisconsin) and semi-satellite WJMN-TV (Marquette, Michigan) in 1961; and WMT-AM-FM-TV (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) in 1968, all of which shared a common logotype style. Following the last acquisition, the Norton holdings became known as Orion Broadcasting, "after a prominent and brilliant constellation". With WAVE-TV-AM serving as the flagship station, Orion greatly expanded its news, weather, editorials, agricultural programs, and documentaries. News bureaus were set up in Frankfort, Kentucky, and Washington, D.C. As a result, WAVE-TV-AM won a number of national awards, including a Peabody in 1978.

Orion merged with Liberty Corporation in 1981. WAVE-TV then became part of Liberty's broadcast arm, Cosmos Broadcasting. WAVE radio was then sold off; the WAVE cluster had been grandfathered when the FCC banned common ownership of radio and television stations in the same market in the 1960s, but lost its grandfathered protection with the Liberty merger. As the radio station promptly changed its call sign to WAVG, Cosmos dropped the "-TV" suffix from the WAVE callsign in 1987. In 1991, the station began transmitting its signal from a new broadcast tower in Oldham County; the 1,739 ft transmitter tower (which is 70% taller than most television broadcast towers), which is the tallest structure in the state, cost $5 million to build and helped to improve WAVE's signal coverage. When the Liberty Corporation exited the insurance industry in 2000, WAVE came directly under the Liberty banner; in August 2005, Liberty announced that it would merge with Montgomery, Alabama–based Raycom Media; the sale was finalized on January 31, 2006. This brought it a new sister station nearby in the Cincinnati market to the north, Fox affiliate WXIX-TV.

Sale to Gray Television
On June 25, 2018, Atlanta-based Gray Television announced it had reached an agreement with Raycom to merge their respective broadcasting assets (consisting of Raycom's 63 existing owned-and/or-operated television stations, including WAVE), and Gray's 93 television stations) under Gray's corporate umbrella. The cash-and-stock merger transaction valued at $3.6 billion – in which Gray shareholders would acquire preferred stock currently held by Raycom – resulted in WAVE gaining new sister stations in nearby markets, including CBS affiliate WKYT-TV in Lexington (and its semi-satellite WYMT-TV in Hazard) and ABC/Fox affiliate WBKO in Bowling Green, in addition to its current Raycom sister stations. The sale was approved on December 20, and was completed on January 2, 2019.

With the acquisition of Meredith Corporation's Local Media division (including WSMV-TV in Nashville) on December 1, 2021, Gray now owns stations in every market in or surrounding Kentucky.

News operation
WAVE presently broadcasts $53 1/2$ hours of locally produced newscasts each week (with nine hours each weekday, four hours on Saturdays and $4 1/2$ hours on Sundays); in addition, the station produces two live call-in discussion programs each weekday, Listens Live at 12:30 p.m. (following WAVE News at Noon) and WAVE Country with Dawne Gee at 2 p.m. (before InvestigateTV+ at 2:30 p.m.).

In the early days, both WAVE television and radio news was done live with Livingston Gilbert; he anchored for 39 years until his 1980 retirement.

Channel 3 was the ratings leader in the Louisville market for over 20 years, before WHAS-TV overtook it at #1 in the 1970s. The station has spent most of the last four decades as runner-up to WHAS-TV, though in recent years it has had to fend off a spirited challenge from WLKY. Louisville is also one of the few markets in the country where all four of the major network-affiliated stations have roughly equal ratings in recent years, although WLKY pulled ahead of WAVE, WHAS-TV and Fox affiliate WDRB (channel 41) during the May 2011 Nielsen ratings period.

On July 9, 1990, WAVE debuted the first 5 p.m. newscast in the Louisville market; titled FirstNews, it was anchored by veteran broadcaster Jackie Hays, who went on to become the longest-serving female anchor in the station's history (before WAVE, Hays anchored at then-NBC affiliate KYW-TV in Philadelphia; that station is currently a CBS O&O). Hays and co-anchor Don Schroeder were voted "Best TV News Anchor Team" and the station itself was chosen as "Best Source for Local News" by readers of Louisville Magazine. Jackie Hays retired from WAVE in 2009 and was inducted into the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame in 2011. Former chief meteorologist Tom Wills holds the record as the station's longest-tenured on-air personality, having been with WAVE from 1969 until his retirement in July 2009; Wills stated that he would serve as a fill-in whenever one of the station's meteorologists was on vacation, and announced that he was considering a return to the University of Louisville to teach meteorology as he did for several years. The station celebrated his 40-year tenure with the station during a special two-hour edition of WAVE 3 Listens Live, in which Wills's family and co-workers appeared as guests.

Meteorologist John Belski, who left channel 3 in September 2010 (he now works as a severe weather specialist for WLKY), received numerous awards during his 20+ years at WAVE, including being named "Best Of Louisville" by the readers of Louisville Magazine for a number of years and was named "Best of Kentucky" by the readers of Kentucky Monthly magazine, as well as receiving the LEO's Readers' Choice Award and a "Best of the Best" award from Louisville Magazine (which is given to people and organizations that have won the "Best of Louisville" award more than 10 times). Belski anchored severe weather coverage that earned him and the station several Emmy Awards; he was also presented the prestigious Mark Trail Award for bringing public awareness to weather radios as a lifeline during severe weather, which was presented to Belski on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Sports director Kent Taylor was voted "Kentucky TV Sportscaster of the Year" by the Associated Press in 2008, 2009 and 2012.

On June 30, 2008, WAVE became the first television station in the Louisville market to begin broadcasting its local newscasts in high definition. WAVE is the only one of two stations that broadcast at least some portion of their newscasts in HD; footage shot in-studio is broadcast in high definition, while all news video from on-remote locations is broadcast in standard definition.

In March 2011, WAVE and WHAS-TV began sharing a news helicopter supplied by St. Louis-based Helicopters Inc., through a Local News Service agreement, allowing the two stations to share news video, especially during breaking news events, while also partitioning time for individual use of the chopper. The starboard side of the copter displays a "Sky 11" decal (referencing WHAS-TV), while the port side carries the "Air 3" logo (referencing WAVE).

Following a disappointing November 2011 sweeps period, WAVE moved its midday newscast from noon to 11 a.m. in January 2012. With the change, WAVE is the only station in the market whose midday newscast airs in the 11 a.m. timeslot (however, WDRB has carried a newscast at 11:30 a.m. since 1999). The midday newscast was rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on independent station WBNA (channel 21). In 2013, WAVE began airing rebroadcasts of its 7 and 7:30 p.m. newscasts on its Bounce TV-affiliated third digital subchannel at 8 p.m. In 2016, the 7 and 7:30 p.m. newscasts began simulcasting live on Bounce 3.2.

The station added a half-hour 3 p.m. newscast on January 28, 2019; it expanded to a full hour on September 9. On April 24, 2020, WAVE added an additional hour of news each weekday at 4 p.m.

Notable former on-air staff

 * Foster Brooks – show host; now deceased
 * Mary Ann Childers – reporter (last at WBBM-TV in Chicago, now retired)
 * Allen Denton – anchor (later with KNTV in San Jose, and KUSI-TV in San Diego)
 * Emily Gimmel – teen feature reporter (now at WKYT-TV in Lexington)
 * Steve Kmetko – anchor (1981–1982); later an E! host
 * Dave Nakdimen – reporter (1961–1997); now deceased

Sports programming
During the 1990s and 2000s, WAVE carried Southeastern Conference football and basketball through Jefferson-Pilot Sports (later Lincoln Financial Sports) which merged into Raycom Sports in 2007–08, although some football games were aired on WBKI-TV or WFTE (now WBKI). This ended in 2009 when Raycom Sports, coincidentally a subsidiary of WAVE-TV's current owner, lost the rights to ESPN Regional Television at the end of the 2008–09 basketball season. The SEC syndication package by ESPN Plus ended up with WBNA throughout the 2009–2014 existence of the syndicated SEC Network (later SEC TV).

In 2014, after the University of Louisville joined the Atlantic Coast Conference, WAVE and WHAS-TV began sharing Raycom Sports' ACC Network package until its discontinuation in 2019.

As NBC has held the rights to the Kentucky Derby since 2001, WAVE has been designated as the "Official Station" for the Derby, which includes live coverage of the race itself.

Subchannels
The station's signal is multiplexed: {{legend|#DFEBF6|Broadcast on behalf of another station}}

WAVE-DT2 carried This TV programming from 2008 until 2014, when it was replaced by Bounce TV, with This moving to WKYI-CD. Bounce TV was carried on WAVE-DT3 (channel 3.3) until it was moved up to channel 3.2 to make way for the Grit TV network in late 2014.

Analog-to-digital conversion
WAVE discontinued regular programming on its analog signal, over VHF channel 3, on June 12, 2009, the official date on which full-power television stations in the United States transitioned from analog to digital broadcasts under federal mandate. The station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 47, using virtual channel 3.

Out-of-market coverage
WAVE is available on cable providers in the eastern portion of the Evansville market (in Dubois and Perry counties), the southern portion of the Indianapolis (in Lawrence County) and Cincinnati (in Ripley and Switzerland counties in Indiana, and Owen County in Kentucky) markets, the northern portion of the small Bowling Green market (in Hart County), and on cable providers in the westernmost portion of the Lexington market (in Anderson County). WAVE had been carried on Frankfort Plant Board's cable system in Frankfort, which is part of the Lexington market; cable providers in Frankfort have carried stations from both Lexington and Louisville for decades. On December 20, 2017, the Frankfort Plant Board announced that it would drop WAVE and competitor WHAS on January 1, 2018 in order to curb rising retransmission consent costs that were being passed on to its customers. While they announced the continued carriage of WHAS on December 29, 2017; WAVE was still dropped on January 1. On December 28, 2020, the FPB Board of Directors voted to approve a retransmission consent agreement with Gray Television negotiated by the National Cable Television Cooperative for WAVE and in-market CBS affiliate WKYT, bringing the NBC affiliate back starting in January 2021. After the three-year hiatus, WAVE officially returned to its former channel slots on 3 and 503 on January 12, 2021. FPB also began carrying Grit from WAVE-DT4 on channel 98 following the discontinuation of the network on in-market ABC affiliate WTVQ-DT's seventh subchannel. The latter practice ended when in-market NBC affiliate WLEX-TV replaced their MeTV affiliation with Grit in September 2022.

WAVE was also available to all customers of the cable system of Glasgow, Kentucky-based South Central Rural Telephone Cooperative (SCRTC), which serve Barren, Hart, and Metcalfe counties in the Bowling Green media market, Green and Larue counties (within the Louisville market), as well as Monroe County, which is in the Nashville media market. WAVE and WHAS were dropped in January 2018 from the SCRTC's systems in Barren, Hart, Metcalfe and Monroe Counties due to local NBC affiliate WNKY (and in Monroe County's case, WSMV-TV) claiming market exclusivity. WAVE's Bounce TV subchannel was replaced with that of WCZU-LD.

title: WAVE (TV)


text:
File talk:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png

From WP:IFD:
 * Image:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png -- OR CV -- this image is a scan of a newspaper clipping, it's an orphan and a copyright vio. --Wgfinley 19:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The clipping is fair use (citation for the purpose of criticism), it is not orphaned, the source is properly attributed, and I might still need it (or a crop of it, showing just the image) for the Anti-WEF protests in Switzerland, January 2003 article. And anyway, if you think something was a CV, list it at WP:CP, not here. Lupo 19:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:CP is for suspected copyvios, this is an obvious one, not only is it a vio of an AP photo, it's a vio of the caption the newspaper used, it's plain and simple copyright infringement and I can see no reasonable case for fair use on this. --Wgfinley 21:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You might want to read my response to your notice on my talk page. I do not agree with your assessment. Nor do I agree with your interpretation of the roles of WP:CP and WP:IFD. BTW, it's a Keystone image, not an AP one. Not that it would matter much, but at least get your facts straight. Lupo 22:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Might want to look at it again before chiding me on facts -- image clearly credited: "Fabrice Coffini/Associated Press/Keystone" -- since Keystone is a European agency I'm assuming AP purchased the rights for use in the US, you got the image from a US paper, whatever the case, it's clearly marked AP. --Wgfinley 07:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not deleted. dbenbenn | talk 22:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: File talk:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png


text:
Nahnu Jund Allah Jund Al-watan

"Naḥnu Jund Allāh Jund al-Waṭan" (نحن جند الله جند الوطن; "We are Soldiers of God, Soldiers of the Homeland") is the national anthem of Sudan. The words were written by the poet Ahmed Mohammed Saleh and the tune was composed by Ahmed Morjan in 1955. It is officially called the Republican Salute (especially when played musically), as it is called for short, the Flag Anthem or Flag Salute.

History
The current national anthem of Sudan was originally the organizational anthem of the Sudan Defence Force prior to independence. The poem "We are the Soldiers of God, the Soldiers of Homeland" was chosen among other poems that participated in a general competition about poetic works praising the strength of the Sudan Defence Force in 1955. When Sudan gained independence in 1956, the first four verses of the poem were chosen to be the national anthem.

Lyrics
As for the rest of the verses, they are not officially approved in the national anthem:

title: Nahnu Jund Allah Jund Al-watan


text:
Talk:Walkers-AdTranz Interurban Multiple Unit

Votes for deletion
This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen 64 22:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Distinction between Mk I and Mk II units
Why are there no separate pages for IMU 100 and IMU 120 sets? They have different power systems and features, despite being interoperable. The SMU 200 and SMU 220 sets have separate articles and they too are interoperable with one another (although of course the difference in in-service dates between the two SMU types is greater than for the IMU's). Then again there are only four 120's. SM247


text:
User talk:SteveWilhelm

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

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library

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

Sam Spade 22:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NetDynamics Inc

A tag has been placed on NetDynamics Inc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Shovon (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:SteveWilhelm


text:
Talk:InterCity Express (CityTrain)

Votes for deletion
This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen 64 22:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture Change
I have uploaded a new picture of the Inter City Express Class. If the Unit is to dirty, please feel free to revert back to the previous picture. Qld matt 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:InterCity Express (CityTrain)


text:
User:RobyWayne

The current time and date is:.

Born in 1971 in Louisville, Kentucky, USA, I am currently a Lead Technology Consultant for a small consulting firm in Woodridge, Illinois. Over the few decades, I have lived in several cities throughout the south east and midwest. I have since moved back to Louisville.

Where I Belong

 * Catholic Church of Wikipedia
 * Esperanza
 * Kentucky State Highways WikiProject

My useful Wiki links

 * #Wikipedia IRC Channel
 * WP:AFD, Articles for Deletion
 * WP:CP, Copyright Problems
 * WP:DAB, WP:DPL, Disambiguation
 * WP:IFD, Images for Deletion
 * WP:MEA, Missing encyclopaedic articles
 * WP:RC, Recent Changes
 * WP:RFA, Requests for Admin
 * WP:RM, Request Moves
 * WP:WSS/ST, Stubs
 * WP:TM, Template messages

Places I've Lived

 * Louisville, Kentucky
 * Charlotte, North Carolina
 * Roanoke, Virginia
 * Lynchburg, Virginia
 * Naperville, Illinois
 * Warsaw, Indiana
 * Fort Wayne, Indiana

Work Experience
As an application developer, I have nearly 21 years experience in RPG and the IBM System i also known as the iSeries or AS/400. I have worked in retail, distribution and manufacturing operations on applications such as PRMS, J. D. Edwards OneWorld, now known as PeopleSoft Enterprise One, BPCS and MANMAN. Currently, I develop in C and Java, most recently using the Grails Framework.

Colleges and Universities

 * University of Louisville
 * Central Piedmont Community College
 * Virginia Western Community College
 * Old Dominion University
 * Central Virginia Community College
 * Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne
 * Regis University

Milestone edits

 * {| border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"

 * - style="background:#cccccc;"
 * Edit Number || Date || Article || Description
 * - style="background:#ffffff"
 * 1 || April 20, 2005 || WAVE (TV) || Created
 * - style="background:#efefef"
 * 1,000 || September 13, 2005 || WNIT-TV || Added infobox
 * - style="background:#ffffff"
 * 5,000 || October 28, 2005 || User talk:212.120.9.3 || Second warning on vandalism to Tilde
 * - style="background:#ffffff"
 * 10,000 || To be announced || ||
 * }

es:Usuario:RobyWayne

title: User:RobyWayne


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andres Spognardi

Andres Spognardi
''The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. '' __NOINDEX__


text:
Breeches

Breeches are an article of  clothing covering the body from the waist down, with separate coverings for each leg, usually stopping just below the knee, though in some cases reaching to the ankles. Formerly a standard item of Western men's clothing, they had fallen out of use by the mid-19th century in favour of trousers.

Modern athletic garments used for English riding and fencing, although called breeches or britches, differ from breeches.

Etymology
Breeches is a double plural known since c. 1205, from Old English brēc, the plural of brōc "garment for the legs and trunk", from the Indo-European root "break", here apparently used in the sense "divide", "separate", as in Scottish Gaelic briogais ("trousers"), in Breton bragoù ("pants"), in Irish bríste ("trousers") and brycan or brogau in Welsh. Cognate with the Proto-Germanic word *brōk-, plural *brōkiz, itself most likely from the Proto-Indo-European root; whence also the Old Norse word brók, which shows up in the epithet of the Viking king Ragnar Loðbrók, Ragnar "Hairy-breeches".

Like other words for similar garments (e.g., pants, knickers, and shorts) the word breeches has been applied to both outer garments and undergarments. Breeches uses a plural form to reflect it has two legs; the word has no singular form (it is a plurale tantum). This construction is common in English and Italian (brache, plural of the never-used braca), but is no longer common in some other languages in which it was once common; e.g., the parallel modern broek.

At first breeches indicated a cloth worn as underwear by both men and women. Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield, uses the word breech as a synonym or perhaps a euphemism for anus in his letters.

In the latter 16th century, breeches began to replace hose (while the German Hosen, also a plural, ousted Bruch) as the general English term for men's lower outer garments, a usage that remained standard until knee-length breeches were replaced for everyday wear by long pantaloons or trousers. The difference was that hose were in principle separate garments for each leg, requiring the tunic or a cod-piece to cover the private parts; whereas breeches were sewn together as a single all-enveloping garment.

Until around the end of the 19th century (but later in some places), small boys wore special forms of dresses until they were "breeched", or given the adult male styles of clothes, at about the age of 6 to 8 (the age fell slowly to perhaps 3). Male and female children's styles were distinguished by chest and collar, as well as other aspects of attire, such as hairstyle.

During the French Revolution, breeches (culottes in French) were seen as a symbol of the nobility and more prosperous members of the bourgeoisie (including professionals such as lawyers, bankers, and physicians). Lower-class revolutionaries became known as sans-culottes ("without breeches"), as they could not afford breeches and wore pantaloons or trousers instead.

Britches
The spelling britches is a spelling variant, not a corruption, dating from the 17th century. Currently, britches reflects a common pronunciation often used in casual speech to mean trousers or pants in many English-speaking parts of the world. Breeks is a Scots or northern English spelling and pronunciation.

Breech
The singular form of the word has survived in the sense of the part of the body covered by breeches, (i.e., posterior, buttocks); paradoxically, the alliterative expression "bare breech" thus means without any inner or outer breeches.

This also led to the following words:
 * a (gun) breech is the part of a firearm behind the bore (since 1575 in gunnery).
 * breech birth in childbirth (since 1673).

Types

The terms breeches or knee-breeches specifically designate the knee-length garments worn by men from the later 16th century to the early 19th century. After that, they survived in England only in very formal wear, such as the livery worn by some servants into the early 20th century, and the court dress worn by others, such as King's Counsel, down to the present day on formal occasions.
 * Spanish breeches, stiff, ungathered breeches popular from the 1630s until the 1650s.
 * Petticoat breeches, very full, ungathered breeches popular from the 1650s until the early 1660s, giving the impression of a woman's petticoat.
 * Rhinegraves, full, gathered breeches popular from the early 1660s until the mid-1670s, often worn with an overskirt over them.
 * Fall front breeches, breeches with a panel or flap covering the front opening and fastened up with buttons at either corner.
 * Dress breeches are tight-fitting and have buttons and a strap and buckle (which are detachable) closure at the bottoms, made of velvet or barathea wool, used for livery, formal and court dress.
 * From the 1890s to the 1930s a form of breeches called knickerbockers or knickers (US) were in fashion with both men and boys. Like their 18th century predecessor, they reached and were fastened just below the knees, but the thighs were more loosely worn. There were various versions including "plus fours" for golf wear which reached down a further four inches below the knees, or "plus twos" that reached down only two inches, often used as apparel for the sport of bird-shooting, especially in Britain.
 * Vráka (βράκα) are the traditional breeches of the islands of Greece from the westernmost Ionian Islands to the easternmost, Cyprus, and the southern coast of the Peloponnese. Greek breeches are extremely roomy and are meant to be tucked inside tall boots just below the knee. They were originally meant to facilitate movement on fishing boats and sailing ships.

 * They are usually accompanied by a long, wide piece of cloth turned many times around the natural waist as a belt. As the vráka lack pockets, items (such as money) are stored inside the folds of this belt. Vrákes are usually made of sturdy cotton double cloth, usually dark blue or black, with brighter color cloth used as the belt. They were usually worn with white, long-sleeved shirts and a roomy waistcoat.

 * In Cyprus, the vráka was originally made of white material which was then sent to a dyer known as a poyatzyis (πογιατζιής in Cypriot Greek, related Standard Modern Greek μπογιάτζης, "painter", but semantically βαφέας, vaféas) to garment dye the vrákes after making-up.

 * In contrast to its present-day use, black-coloured vrákes in Cyprus were worn as a formal dress in events such as weddings or for going to church on Sunday, whereas the everyday vráka that Cypriot men wore were of thin blue or white cloth in the summer, and thicker dark blue cloth (similar to the Cretan blue vráka) in the winter. In the hills, Cypriot men wore shorter vrákes in order to make their work easier and wore frangopodínes (φραγκοποδίνες, "Frankish boots", i.e. boots in a Western European style), a knee-length boot. In large cities of Cyprus, the vráka was always black.

 * Breeches (האלבע-הויזן) are still worn by many Hasidic men, particularly those of Galician or Hungarian origin, such as Satmar and Sanz
 * In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term breech-cloth or breech-clout was also used to describe the apron-like loincloths worn by some Indigenous peoples of the Americas.
 * In the Book of Exodus, the kohanim (priests) were commanded to wear white linen breeches, the priestly undergarments.

Riding breeches
Riding breeches are specifically designed for equestrian activities. Traditionally, they were tight in the legs, stopping about halfway down the calf, with buttons or laces in the calf section, and had a pronounced flare through the thighs that allowed freedom of movement for the rider. Before the invention of the fly front, they were made with flaps, 5 in to 8 in wide, called falls.

However, with the advent of modern stretch materials such as spandex, many modern breeches have no flare and fit skin-tight. In some cases, zippers and velcro fastenings have replaced laces and buttons at the calves as well. The flared style is seen at times, and is available to cavalry and other historic reenactors.

There are four main types of riding breeches:

 * Knee-patch breeches
 * Breeches that stop mid-calf, designed to be worn with tall boots, which come up to the knee, or with half chaps and short paddock boots. They have grippy material, usually suede leather or a "grippy" synthetic, only on the inside of the knee area. These are the only type of breeches worn by hunt seat riders. Show jumpers, eventers, show hunters, as well as some endurance riders, and pleasure riders also often use the breeches.

 * Full seat breeches
 * Breeches with suede or another grippy material from the knee, up the inner thigh, and across the buttocks. These breeches are primarily seen in dressage competition, where the "sticky" seat helps riders stay quiet and deep in the saddle as they sit the gaits of their horses. However, they are also worn by eventers and other riders. They are designed to be worn with tall boots or half chaps.

 * Jockeys' breeches
 * Also known as silks, jockeys' breeches are made from a white lightweight fabric, usually nylon and typically have elasticised lower legs. Some racing authorities have regulations that require a jockey's name to be inscribed along the thigh of the breeches.

 * Jodhpur breeches
 * These breeches, which are also called jodhpurs, are a type of riding pants with legs extending to the ankles, where they end in a small cuff that fits over the top of a low riding boot. They are commonly placed in a separate category from other types of breeches due to their additional length. They are most often worn by children. However, they are worn by adults in the show ring in the United Kingdom and Australia, and in the United States are seen on adults during riding lessons and for casual riding. These riding pants have elastic straps or "stirrups" that run under the rider's boots, and are usually worn with garters, to prevent them from riding up. They are meant to be worn with jodhpur boots, also known as "paddock boots", which come up just above the ankles. The advantage of jodhpurs is that expensive high riding boots are not required to protect the calf of the leg from rubbing against the horse's flank or the stirrup leathers.

 * Kentucky jodhpurs
 * Kentucky jodhpurs are full-length riding pants used exclusively in saddle seat style riding. Like hunt seat jodhpurs, they are close-fitting from waist to ankle, but differ in that they are much longer, ending with a flared bell bottom that fits over the jodhpur boot, usually extending longer than the heel of the boot in back, and covering the arch of the foot (but not the toe) in front. The overall look gives the impression of a rider with a long leg, a desired equitation standard. Like the hunt seat jodhpur, they have elastic straps that run under the boot to help hold the pant leg in place.

Color is important in selecting breeches for competition. Sanctioning organizations and tradition both dictate that show clothing is to be quiet, classic and conservative in design. White is common in dressage, and is also seen in show jumping. Beige is seen in most hunt seat-style equestrian disciplines, though light grays, "canary" (a dull yellow), rust, tan, and an olive-greenish colour are periodically popular with hunt seat competitors. Eventers wear classic colours for the dressage and stadium phase, but less classic colours may be seen on the cross-country course (especially at the lower levels) to match the "stable colours" of the rider. Saddle seat riders, whose riding clothing styles derived from men's business suits, wear Kentucky jodhpurs in dark colors, usually black, navy blue, or a shade that matches the riding coat.

Breeches may be front or side zip. Some competitors believe the side-zip to give a cleaner appearance and to be more flattering. Styles are also developing to parallel trends in street clothing, including low-rise breeches and brightly colored and patterned breeches & jodhpurs that are aimed primarily at children.

Riding breeches were formerly made of thick cavalry-twill and had flared thighs (balloon legs), until the invention and use of multi-stretch fabrics like Nylon and Spandex became widespread for riding in the 1960s. The balloon legs were there to accommodate the riders knees as they sat in the saddle, but fabrics that stretched in all four directions made such excess material unnecessary and the form-fitting and much thinner modern breeches and jodhpurs became normal.

Fencing breeches
Fencing breeches are worn in the sport of fencing to permit fencers to extend their legs more than they could wearing normal jogging trousers or tracksuit bottoms. Fencing breeches are also used as protective clothing for the legs.

title: Breeches


text: Template:Associations at the 1994 Commonwealth Games


text:
Talk:Eve Libertine

Untitled
Very little current information on Eve is available. However, I know some of us here are familiar with current and former residents of Dial House...come help us out here!-- Reverend Distopia

 * I know Eve well but don't really have anything 'encyclopedic' informationwise beyond what I've already contributed... She's written some recipes for the vegan cookbook I'm currently compiling if thats any help??? quercus robur 20:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, so its been like a year since my last posting of this, but shouldn't a biography maybe mention year of birth and early history (ie. pre-Crass) info, education, etc.? Reverend Distopia

Vegetarian/Vegan?
Is Eve a vegetarian or a vegan? If she's one or the other, would it be fair to categorize her as an English vegetarian or English vegan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Eve Libertine. 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/20060515181637/http://www.96gillespie.com:80/artists_profiles/jones.htm to http://www.96gillespie.com/artists_profiles/jones.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060222053150/http://www.southern.com:80/southern/label/CRC/09422.html to http://www.southern.com/southern/label/CRC/09422.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051224135343/http://www.peace-not-war.org:80/Music/Crass/index.html to http://www.peace-not-war.org/Music/Crass/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 01:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eve Libertine. 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/20060515181637/http://www.96gillespie.com/artists_profiles/jones.htm to http://www.96gillespie.com/artists_profiles/jones.htm

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) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eve Libertine. 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/20110713201533/http://www.lesateliersclaus.com/events/2010/6/25/gavin-glover-listen-little-man.html to http://www.lesateliersclaus.com/events/2010/6/25/gavin-glover-listen-little-man.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eve Libertine


text:
Masculinities Without Men?

Masculinities without Men? is a book by Jean Bobby Noble.

Summary
Noble explores how the construction of gender was thrown into crisis during the twentieth-century, resulting in a permanent rupture in the sex/gender system, and how masculinity became an unstable category, altered across time, region, social class, and ethnicity. Noble demonstrates that transgender and transsexual masculinity began to emerge as a unique category in late twentieth-century fiction, distinct from lesbian or female masculinity.

Reception
Masculinities without Men? has gotten some significant scholarly notice. However, reviews of the book have been mixed.

title: Masculinities Without Men?


text:
Hermann Müller (German botanist)

Heinrich Ludwig Hermann Müller (23 September 1829 – 25 August 1883) was a German botanist. Between 1864 and 1867 he edited an exsiccata series distributing bryophyte specimens under the title Westfalens Laubmoose, gesammelt und herausgegeben von Dr. H. Müller in Lippstadt. "Müller-Lippstadt" provided important evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution.

Career
Müller was an early investigator of coevolution. p27 He was the author in 1873 of Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten, a book translated at the suggestion of Darwin in 1883 as The Fertilisation of Flowers. He and Darwin corresponded; 36 letters between the two, or from Darwin concerning Müller, are recorded. Darwin cited him extensively in The Descent of Man for his information relating to the behavior of bees.

Hermann was the brother of Fritz Müller, p29 the German doctor who lived in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil and researched its natural history. Fritz Müller wrote the first book in support of Darwinian evolution in German,"Für Darwin"; he is also known as the discoverer of Müllerian mimicry. The work of both brothers was well known to Darwin.

Müller was increasingly attacked by conservative circles in Germany for his ideas about evolution. The discussion escalated in 1879 and was even brought to the Prussian Assembly, after Müller had dealt in his teaching with a work by the German Darwinist and popular writer Ernst Krause. Yet, the Prussian state did not dismiss Müller.

Selected publications

 * Die Befruchtung der Blumen (The Fertilisation of Flowers, 1883) [Translated by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson with a Preface by Charles Darwin]

title: Hermann Müller (German botanist)


text:
Talk:Robert Vaughn Young

Dates?
Does anyone have dates when RVY joined and left the CoS, and when he did editing on Mission:Earth? Seems to me that these would help put the article in context -- how long he was in, how long after his editing experience he left... -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Scientologists
A person either is a scientologist or not. RVY is not a scientologist even if he once was and even if he still claims to be. --AI 20:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How would you know this Al, especially the part, "even if he still claims to be?" Just wondering. Dwain 21:56, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * "This category is for people who are publicly known as members or former members of the Church of Scientology." Don't go past your misunderstoods, AI. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My comment was actually about saying "even if he still claims to be" if someone claims to be something they should know whether they are or not. But you implied that you know he isn't even if he claimed he was. That was what my "How would you..." comment was aimed at. Dwain
 * Yes; my comment was another reply to AI, not a reply to your reply. My point was simply that, even if AI was the Pope of Scientology and had the power to excommunicate anyone from Scientology as he chose, he could not go back and rewrite history and erase the many years that RVY had been not only a Scientologist but a Scientologist trusted with major duties within the Church.  Since the category description clearly includes former members as well as current members, AI has already admitted that he belongs in the category. -- Antaeus Feldspar
 * I'm terribly sorry, I thought you were Al. Ooops!!! When you said, "Don't go past your misunderstoods, AI." I thought you were signing off as Al. I'm very sorry. My dyslexia strikes again. Peace. Dwain 03:25, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * RVY was for years an active member of Scientology and this played a big part in his biography. Therefore the category Scientologist is adequate. (Also in other cases people with several religious affiliations in the course of their lifes are in more than one category). --Irmgard 19:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notability
I consider the edits by Justanother to be an example of bad faith. A simple google search shows his notability, and also that he authored that book. --Tilman 19:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, RVY has authored an article for Quill and Der Spiegel, was interviewed by Focus, and appeared on german TV. In his scientology period he exposed the SS past of Paul Dickopf. There are large DA packs on him. --Tilman 19:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Writings Archived
Fortunately a lot of his writings and postings to alt.religion.scientology have been archived. He was one of the best human rights advocates in a.r.s. It's a damn shame that he didn't live long enough to see Anonymous come on board. Fredric Rice (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Vaughn Young. 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/20070926224132/http://www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/declaration-vaughn-10-25-93.htm to http://www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/declaration-vaughn-10-25-93.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601161307/http://www.nypress.com/20/22/news%26columns/feature.cfm to http://www.nypress.com/20/22/news%26columns/feature.cfm

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) 03:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert Vaughn Young


text:
Nizwa

Nizwa (نِزْوَى) is the largest city in Ad Dakhiliyah Region in Oman and was the capital of Oman proper. Nizwa is about 140 km (1.5 hour drive) from the Omani capital Muscat. The population is estimated at around 83,544 people.

Nizwa is one of the oldest cities in Oman, and was once a center of trade, religion, education and art. Its Jama (grand mosque) was formerly a center for Islamic learning. Nizwa acquired its importance because it has been an important meeting point at the base of the Western Hajar Mountains. Set amid a verdant spread of date palms, it is strategically located at the crossroads of routes linking the interior with Muscat and the lower reaches of Dhofar, thus serving as the link for a large part of the country. Today, Nizwa is a diverse prosperous place with numerous agricultural, historical and recreational aspects. Nizwa is a center for date growing and is the market place for the area.

Etymology
Historians cannot agree on the origins of the name of the city. Some suggest the name was derived from the Arabic verb (انزوا) which means being alone. Others say that the city was named after an old water spring.

History

Nizwa was the capital of Oman in the 6th and 7th centuries AD. With its deep connection to the root of Islam, Nizwa possesses a number of renowned mosques, such as Sultan Qaboos Jama (Friday mosque), So'al Mosque built in the 2nd century AH (9th century AD), Ash-Shawathinah Mosque in Uqr and Ash-Sharja Mosque. There are also Al-Ain Mosque, Ash-Sheikh Mosque and Shuraij Mosque in Tanuf built in 377 AH (around 1000 AD).

A handwritten letter from the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in 630 asked the locals of the mountain town of Nizwa to convert. The locals then sent a return delegation to Medina and embraced Islam. A tutor was sent by Muhammad to teach the new Muslims of Nizwa the fundamentals of the religion.

The explorer Ibn Battuta visited in the 14th century, noting Nizwa as "a city at the foot of a mountain, enveloped by orchards and streams, and with fine bazaars and splendid clean mosques."

In the early 1950s, the large round tower of the ancient fort built in the center of the town was bombed and rocketed by the British Royal Air Force, who were called in to assist the then-reigning Sultan Said bin Taimur in suppressing a revolt by leaders of the interior Imamate of Oman. The conflict was driven by a struggle for a share of Oman's newly discovered oil wealth.

Nizwa has become a more modern city since 1970 under the reign of Sultan Qaboos. Improvements include connections to Muscat via a two-lane highway, which has increased tourism. Communications have been improved to include broadband access, and the city is home to a substantial hospital. It is also a hub for education including a technical college, College of Applied Sciences, The University of Nizwa, and the training academy for the Royal Oman Police. There are now many hotels and tourism is promoted in the area.

Geography
Mountains surround Nizwa on every side and there is outstanding mountain scenery close by. Nizwa has an arid climate under the Köppen climate classification. In the winter from November until March the climate is pleasant, with temperatures as low as 12 degrees Celsius in January. In the summer, the climate is hot and dry with temperatures reaching 45 degrees Celsius in July.

Attractions
The main tourist attractions in the city are the Nizwa Fort, the traditional souq or market, and the Falaj Daris irrigation system, which was named a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2006. In the 1990s, the mosque, fort, and souq, which are located next to each other in the city centre, were renovated using traditional materials. In 1993, Nizwa won the award of 'Organisation of Arab Cities'.

Nizwa Fort

Nizwa Fort was built in 1668 AD by Imam Sultan Bin Saif Al Ya'rubi, and today is Oman's most visited national monument. The fort was the administrative seat of authority for the presiding imams and walis in times of peace and conflict. The main bulk of the fort took about 12 years to complete and was built above an underground stream. The fort is a reminder of the town's significance through turbulent periods in Oman's long history. It was a formidable stronghold against raiding forces that desired Nizwa's abundant natural wealth and its strategic crossroads location.

Nizwa Souq

The city, famous for its handicrafts and agricultural products, has an expansive souq with an array of products. It is one of the most important in the country besides Muttrah. The souq bustles with vendors selling everything from meat, fish, fruits and vegetables to spices, dates, gold and silverware. Nizwa is renowned for its silver jewelry which is considered to be the best in the country. Its people are masters in making khanjars (curved daggers), recognized for their distinctive style and patterns. They also make copperware, coffee pots, swords, leather goods and pottery.

Falaj Daris
Falaj Daris, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is the largest falaj, or irrigation system, in Oman. It provides the surrounding countryside with much-needed water for farming. Al Ghantuq and Dhoot are two other important irrigation systems in Nizwa. Farming is widely practiced and the town's immense palm farms stretch for eight kilometers along the course of two wadis, Kalbouh and Al Abiad.

Economy
Historically, Nizwa was known for producing mats from straw. As of 1920, the city was described as having a "thriving" metalworking industry.

Education

 * University of Nizwa
 * University of Technology and Applied Sciences
 * Indian School Nizwa, a high school for international students with an Indian majority
 * Pakistan School Nizwa, a co-educational Pakistani school, founded in 1994 under the patronage of Embassy of Pakistan

Transportation
A short drive from Nizwa centre is the old village of Tanuf, known for its seasonal waterfalls. Waterfalls in Tanuf are unique to the area within the steep mountain sides and the water reservoir.

Nizwa is connected to the U.A.E. city of Al Ain by road, via the Mezyad border post. This road also goes past the Provinces of Ibri and Dhank.

Notable people

 * Ahmed Al-Harrasi, scientist and a professor of organic chemistry at University of Nizwa
 * Arshad Al-Alawi, professional footballer
 * Alkhattab Alhinai, Deputy Chairman of Oman State Council
 * Bal'arab bin Himyar, Imam from the Yaruba dynasty

title: Nizwa