text:
User talk:Calton/Archive02

Links to index pages
I don't think the links to index pages (e.g. "See USS Albacore for other ships of that name.") need to be at the top of the articles. They're more of a ==See Also== feature. It's a good thing to have disambiguation links at the top, so that if someone types Albacore, and didn't mean the fish, they can go on without having to scroll down the page (though in fact that page has the links to other Albacores at the bottom!). But if someone types (or follows a link to) "USS Albacore (SS-218)", they presumably know where they intend to go. —wwoods 10:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries/minor edit flag
Hi, I see you flagged your changes to WP:AN/3RR (among many others) as a minor edit. Use of this flag for that edit was inappropriate. Help:Minor edit gives guidelines on when it's appropriate to use that flag; please follow them. And before you say that in your opinion, your change was minor, please note that that page says:

 * consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option

so whether you think they are minor is less important than what other editors think. While I'm at it, please always fill in edit summaries with a description of your change. Edit summary says:

 * Always fill the summary field.

(Emphasis in the original.) Thanks! Noel (talk) 18:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, you again made a substantial edit and marked it as "minor". And I see from looking at Special:Contributions/Calton that you are still marking all your edits as "minor". Please stop doing this. Perhaps you have the "Mark all edits minor by default" flag in your Special:Preferences checked by accident? Noel (talk) 14:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The link to the page was to enable you to see for yourself that there really is such a policy, and that I wasn't misinterpreting it. (Finding applicable policy documents on Wikipedia can sometimes be a bit of work.) I didn't bother to cut-and-paste a large block of text over because I assumed you'd simply read it there. (Also, you don't need to add the ":" to Template: references as long as you link to them with  - they only get expanded in-place with  . Images and Categories do need the ":", of course...) Noel (talk) 12:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Big Pink Yorkshire
Re. what you wrote on my talk page: this article absolutely nothing to do with me! Grinner 12:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * You certainly are a super sleuth! But I still protest my innocence; this IP connection is "open" to anybody at the university. The Suilven image comment was me, I got logged out that time. Grinner 14:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate link
Thanks, Calton, for helping me replace the link. :-) Something must have happened when I was moving the text around. --Deathphoenix 14:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GRider
Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 10:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:Aeropus II of Macedon
Every time he creates one of these public accounts, he's going to get blocked. RickK 21:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments re: user Wareware
Greetings. :-) I just wanted to drop by and thank you for taking the time to respond.  I think it's terrible that some Wiki users would prefer to reprimand me when I tire of such attacks and respond with mere sarcasm -- and ignore Wareware's comments entirely.  They'd rather pretend they don't see the racist poison he spews on a regular basis.  Wikipedia is truly appalling in that way.  No wonder there are so few blacks here.  Anyway, I followed your advice and left a message on the admin page.  We'll see what shakes out.  Peace 2 u -- and thanks again for taking the time for trying to make Wikipedia a better website, a better community.  :-) deeceevoice 23:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh noes
Wait, too bad you don't own this wiki. There is absolutely nothing around here that says I can't have an article on my bloody userpage -- and I'm going to, whether you like it or not. You come to my userpage, acting all authoritive and godlike (when really, you're not even a sysop yourself. Hell, you're just like me!) and setting some sort of a "deadline". I immediantly thought "Oh noes, Calton is going to ask an admin to delete my article that I worked hard on before some jackass came and accused my favourite painter of not existing". Oh, but then I realised that you CAN'T. Let the bloody VfD finish, and try not to act so pissy to newer people.

In other news, I have emailed the owner of SKIR to ask if they could send me their sections of their webpage so I could prove Saito has existed. So hold your horses, oh-authority, and I'll be adding some images to the article (that or send them to your email if they're non-fairuse-able). Sheesh. Suffice 17:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taipei Times
I've heard of it, somebody mentioned it on the wikien-l a few days ago. It could warrant a story, but I don't know if I'll have time to get around to it. If you're interested and think it's worth the effort, you could certainly start drafting an article for The Signpost yourself.

A vaguely related news item that has also come up this week is the new WikiWax index. See Surfwax releases "quick index" to 600k Wikipedia terms. Tying those two together might make for a decent story. --Michael Snow 21:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alleged Double Voting
If you or anyone else have any actual evidence (rather than circumstantial evidence and bad faith assumptions) that demonstrates that I'm someone else, or that someone else is me (or whatever other conspiracy is currently flavour of the month), then publish it. I've already given a more than adequate response to the recent allegations to the contrary. --Centauri 06:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've already done all the explaining I need to - as my edit history will reveal when you get around to actually looking at it. --Centauri 09:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually,

 * Actually, looking at recent edit histories, I'd say you have a point. (* = Centauri, # = Gene Poole). Any admin responses to this? Should this be on RFC? Radiant_* 11:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

* 10:29, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calton (→Alleged Double Voting) (top) # 08:17, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia (schools ?) * 07:54, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Mothman (top) * 07:34, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calton (alleged double voting) # 06:04, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Saklan Valley School (→Saklan Valley School) # 04:01, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Coppell High School (→Coppell High School) # 03:42, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Canopic jar (rewrite section on heart + brain to correct mistakes) (top) # 03:34, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Mummy (top) * 03:29, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies (→Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies) (top) * 03:24, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ashley House (→Ashley House) * 03:21, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/You Kicked My Dog (→You Kicked My Dog) # 03:16, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jayjg (advice) # 03:04, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Egyptian pyramids (→Temporary removal) (top) # 03:03, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Egyptian pyramids # 00:32, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Seborga (→Not a neutral article) (top) * 00:10, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gene Poole (→You're a sockpuppet!) (top) # 00:05, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Centauri (friday amusements) * 23:59, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gene Poole * 22:54, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Thryduulf (olchfa footbridge) (top) * 22:51, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User:GRider/Schoolwatch (→Listed on VfD) (top) * 22:47, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harlaw Academy (→Harlaw Academy)

 * You know, back in December, a sock puppet felt that Centauri was a Gene Poole sock puppet here. At first, I did not believe him, but then I starting developing suspicions here and here.  Another point: Centauri has the same point of view as Gene Poole on Sealand.  Both users have the exact point of view concerning deleting articles.  I am very suspicious about the whole affair here at this point. Samboy 21:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey there!
Just waving "Hi" - you might remember me as from The WELL. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion votes

 * I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic RfAr
I received your message regarding my presentation of evidence in Netoholic's case. I believe I have provided many references to evidence along with my arguments. Argument is certainly allowed in the rules and as evidenced in prior cases. All argument is supported with reference to evidence. I just got done reformatting a large portion of this and Netoholic will likely be removing his section so this could be causing some confusion while we transition.

Thanks. --Wgfinley 08:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image
Hi Calton, thanks for your message. I decided a week or so ago not to edit that topic again, as it seemed that there were people involved who had interests other than trying to be encyclopedic; when the discussion started to become abusive, I disengaged and don't want to re-engage. I'm sorry. It happens in these controversial areas. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Copied from SlimVirgin's talk page, since she keeps deleting it.

Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism
At Talk:Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism, you wrote ''Anyway, I've used another program and I've now managed to see what's written on the star. It isn't sheriff.''

What program did you use and what was that word? And are you going to get a refund on that program? Because this image (Image:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png) indicates your program doesn't work very well. Any comments? --Calton | Talk 01:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't want to get involved either. On the other hand, you made an explicit and firm statement of a fact -- which turned out to be flat wrong. I, for one, think an explanation is called for. What program did you use to reveal something not in the picture and how did it lead to this misinterpretation? What was this word that you say it said? --Calton | Talk 03:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You know, for an administrator you're not showing a great deal of integrity here. --Calton | Talk 21:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Please don't question my integrity. That isn't fair, and it's the kind of personal abuse that seems to surround this particular topic, which is why I disengaged from it, and I really don't want to get involved again. I said everything I had to say, and haven't looked at the issue since then and therefore can't comment. The statement that I made was not, in my view, flat wrong; and in your view, it was. To reconcile our views, I'd have to debate it again, and I don't want to. To conclude from this that I lack integrity is to make a quantum leap that I hope you'll reconsider; and the only reason I've deleted your reference to the subject from my talk page is that I don't want to keep looking at it, not that I'm trying to hide it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

You know, it's none of my business, but you're not showing a lot of WikiLove to SlimVirgin. Even if you think she is misguided, you could just let the issue go. It's beginning to look a lot like you're hounding her. How is that improving the article? She does not have to explain herself. This is not a court of law. This is a place where friends come together and work to build an encyclopaedia. Now, both you and SlimVirgin are good editors. Neither of you is gaining anything from this spat and Wikipedia certainly isn't. If she wants to delete the comments and just move on, let her. Why not? What's to gain for you from making this an unpleasant environment for other editors? I apologise for the interruption. Normal service is now resumed. Grace Note 08:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * ''Copied from Grace Note's user page, since petulantly deleted:

 * =="You know, it's none of my business..."==

 * And you should have stopped right there, especially since you misunderstand and mischaracterize what's happening, and toss in some passive-aggressive insults to boot. Is "integrity" such a difficult concept for you?

 * Read your own words, absorb their meaning, and save your scolding for someone who invited it. --Calton | Talk 12:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, SlimVirgin is a nice person and a good editor. You're a little shit. I tried to talk to you like a human being, you're aggressive. I don't take away a good impression of you. I approached you in friendship. You bit the hand held out to you. Don't talk to me about "integrity", dude, you have no idea what it means. Grace Note 13:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Copied from Grace Note's user page, since petulantly deleted:

 * Speaking of reading your own words:

 * You know, SlimVirgin is a nice person and a good editor.

 * A good editor owns up up to his/her mistakes, and certainly doesn't go to great lengths to dodge or hide from them. A good editor also doesn't require an accomplice to blow smoke for him/her.

 * You're a little shit.

 * My, your dedication to the principle of Wikilove is firm. If you're gonna talk the talk, you should walk the walk. Or is Wikilove only for the little people?

 * ''I tried to talk to you like a human being...I approached you in friendship."

 * Horsefeathers. You tried to scold me about something which, as you said yourself, was none of your business. You delivered passive-aggressive insults, and, called on it, have skipped the "passive" part. I didn't have to scratch very deep to see what was underneath that smarmy veneer.

 * ...you're aggressive.

 * Pot, kettle. Or is Wikilove only for the little people?

 * I don't take away a good impression of you. You bit the hand held out to you.

 * What hand would that be? Was I supposed to say, "Gosh, ma'am, can I have some more?" If you want to practice your busybody skills, I'm sure you have neighbors that are in dire need of straightening out their personal habits, unqualified parents roaming the public square in need of your advice on child-rearing, and the badly dressed wandering the aisles of your local Marks & Spencer who desperately need fashion tips. Go for it!

 * Don't talk to me about "integrity", dude, you have no idea what it means.

 * Far out! Like, of course I totally do: you, on the other hand, seem to believe it means "defend someone blindly and aggressively without thought to objective circumstances", or so your actions lead me to believe. Maybe "integrity" IS a difficult concept for you.

 * To bring it down to its basics: It was a simple question or two I originally had for SlimVirgin, but the more that she avoids the question, the more suspiscious I've become. Maybe for you niceness (or, at least, niceness in others) trumps factuality, but not for me, but before you work yourself into a further lather, you might ask yourself, what was so tough about the questions I originally asked SlimVirgin? --Calton | Talk 01:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I adore your impersonation of a 12-year-old boy. I picture you wagging your finger at me. I'm not actually obliged to stand by and watch you harass a decent editor though. She told you she doesn't want to talk about it. Now I'm telling you I don't want to talk to you any more about this subject. I've said all I want to say about it. I am going to rob you of your opportunity to dicksize with me by simply ignoring you.

This place is about "niceness", Calton. That is the objective circumstance here. It's not about trying to be number one or overcoming your fears about yourself by demeaning others. You're doing nothing productive here. Neither am I, so this is more than enough.Grace Note 02:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Copied from Grace Note's user page, since petulantly deleted:

 * I adore your impersonation of a 12-year-old boy. I picture you wagging your finger at me. See Psychological projection. Or is Wikilove only for the little people?

 * She told you she doesn't want to talk about it. Fine with me. However, it was only when I pointed out that doing so was a fine demonstration of a lack of integrity that both of you went off the deep end. That assertion still stands no matter how much smoke you blow.

 * I am going to rob you of your opportunity to dicksize with me by simply ignoring you....This place is about "niceness", Calton. That is the objective circumstance here. Your overreaction shows me how skin-deep your gasiness about Wikilove really is. No, this not about "dicksizing", nor is this place "niceness": it's about creating an encyclopedia. If SlimVirgin wants to make an absurd claim then refuse to justify it (making it difficult to assign good faith to future claims), if you want to preach Love for Your Fellow Man and then scream like a fishwife when contradicted (making it difficult to attribute sincerity to future utterances); well, none of those are particularly productive, are they?

 * Some (unsolicited -- ironic, I know) advice. Don't give out advice you're unwilling to even minimally follow. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rounded S?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Davos_Switzerland_G8_Summit.jpg#Rounded_S.3F AP versus PDF. Please comment here or in the image talk page (if you choose to comment, that is), rather than on my talk page.] El_C 13:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

China-geo-stub
Hi Calton - it took over four months of fierce debate to come up with a wording for the China-geo-stub that was acceptable to as many wikipedians as possible. PLEASE do change it. I don't think anyone wants to start the raging arguments that ensued last time. (have a look at WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria for just one of about six different parts of Wikipedia where the battle took place)! Grutness|hello? 06:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Yes I meant "please don't..." Personally I agree with you, but terms such as "China", "Mainland China", "Republic of China", etc can be very touchy for some, particluarly those who live there. Also there is a separate stub for Hong Kong, so it does make some sense. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 07:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Netbux
Please reconsider your vote to delete the article Netbux, which has been completely re-written. Your delete vote reflects your attitute to the previous version of the page, but I am sure your vote will be to keep the current version. Thanks. THE KING 08:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:JCOTW
Hi, if you have an interest, pleaee visit WP:JCOTW and vote, thanks. -- Aphaea *  04:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks!
hey, thanks for doing all that work on the day-pages. i appreciate the edits you're making. Kingturtle 06:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate to be a pest, but if you delete names from an article, please do not mark it as a minor edit. some people have their settings so they don't see minor edits at all. cheers! Kingturtle 08:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey W. Parker
I have added some more info which may suggest notability. It's still a work in progress though. You may want to watchlist to see if you want to change your vote later. Thanks, 205.217.105.2 19:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Get a Life
do you spend every waking moment on this thing? (Unsigned comment by User:4.46.47.124 13 May 2005, 15:51 (UTC))

On Nehru
Hi Calton, appreciate your enthusiasm, but your insistence that the non-aligned movement did not have any dictators and Nehru was never a socialist and that India never had a state-contreolled economy, and statements by PBS, Parliament of India, Frontline (India), Forbes Magazine, Encyclopedia Brittanica are all conspiracies to defame Wikipedia is incorrect. India *is* still a largely state-controlled economy. It has improved since 1991 ever since it started dismantling the Nehrucian economy, what you read in the mainstream press is not the result of any grand conspiracy. (Unsigned message from User::67.121.92.254, 16:46, 15 May 2005)

Biting newcomers
You're not very welcome for that rant on my talkpage. You have obviously taken offense at the fact that I'm actually explaining to the new user how the article might benefit from her contributions.

You seem to have absolutely no idea how often people insert links of dubious significance into medical articles. Perhaps it's different in your area of interest. A brief look at Alzheimer's disease shows the accrued matter of endless insertions without any good structure.

As there is no supercilious attitude, I've got nothing to lose. JFW | T@lk  15:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN size
Hi, I know it's gotten a bit big (~80K); I just did a big round of archiving on it a few days ago, and I've been busy with other things since; just getting around to doing another round of archiving. (Actually, once I get things all caught up, I think I'm going to try and get someone else to take over the archiving - I've been doing it for 6 months, but it's getting really old.) Noel (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverts
Did you already read the discussion on Gdansk talk? Do it and then "spin" all articles back ...--Witkacy 04:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

School VfD's
Hi,

I noticed you voted to delete on a number of elementary/middle school VfD pages. For example, the following caught my eye, on Votes_for_deletion/All_Saints'_Academy:
 * Delete. Isn't worth the storage space, no matter how low disk-storage costs have gotten. --Calton | Talk 03:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Please try to keep things in perspective. Surely this article is far more important, and far more worthy of a WP page, than, say for example, just about any article in Category:Soviet Navy submarines? Good lord, the Soviets are gone, the cold war is over, the damned boats have sank already; why bother wasting electrons on submarines, (or railway lines, for that matter; I notice you are interested in these too), and then VfD'ing schools? Surely, some hobunk elementary school in the middle of nowhere is more noteworthy and encyclopaedic than some rusty railway line or some smelly submarine? I mean, if the schools collapse, who is going to have the education, the knowledge, the know-how to pilot the subs? The Chinese? The Indians? linas 00:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Calton; to reply to your post, I picked on soviet submarines simply because that is fairly clearly a topic that is not encyclopedic, and yet Wikipedia has a bunch of articles on them, and they are not getting VfD'ed. I'm sorry I didn't quite get this point across; I am not suggesting that all of the submarine articles should get VfD'ed. What I was trying to say is that WP articles on grade schools and high schools are more important than, for example, articles on submarines. I did not mean to offend and imply that your interests are boring or not noteworthy; I'm just trying to say that you should keep perspective: just as you seem to have a distaste for articles about schools, realize that others may have distaste for, for example, submarines. linas 01:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe I shouldn't have picked on submarines; I'm sorry if I offended. Let me try a different category; I hope I don't offend by pointing at Pokemon characters.  There's a prime example of the absurd penchants to document the bizarrest things.  Good lord, there seem to be 300 or 400 of these beasts, they all seem to get WP articles.  Maybe now its clear why some hobunk school deserves a WP article?  We'd have to VfD 400 pokemon articles and I don't think that would go anywhere at all.  linas 01:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

linus's comments
Thank you for explaining. I couldn't tell if he was serious or it was just some elaborate joke he was playing. I'm still a little suspicious that he might just be having a laugh at my expense. In any event, I appreciate your clearing that up. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

List of Holocaust victims
But you have to admit that there are people who should have a Wikipedia page, but don't as of yet? The red links can be an invitation for someone to create an article. In fact, I just created a stub based on a red link in the List of Holocaust victims page, on the notable French poet/literary critic Benjamin Fondane. Don't know much about him as of yet, but he seems to be notable enough, and I might expand it. Eixo 05:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

But you're ignoring my main point: a red link can be an invitation to create an article on a person who should have an article but does not, as of yet. Are you saying that Wikipedia lists should only have blue links? Eixo 05:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've put the point in bold, so it will be easier for you to spot. Eixo 06:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't address your direct answer because I thought your last reply was rude. As for your solution to my "trivial" point: that's not, for the moment, how Wikipedia works, as any of these pages will show you. Your solution would elliminate the invitation represented by the red links - right there on the article page - for anyone to add an article on a subject if they find it notable, or remove it if not. Eixo 15:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The examples I chose were representative, and I also gave you the justification. An intellect of a certain calibre should be able to extract precedence from individual examples, without requiring a rigid policy. But if that’s a problem, then check out Lists, where it says “Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.” Which is more or less the exact point I was making. Eixo 01:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have struggled long and hard to make any sense of your last response, but I got stuck on my alleged “inability to make choices”. In any case, since that was probably some sort of personal attack, I’ll ignore it, and move on to the substance of the debate. What it seems you have failed to understand is that, since Wikipedia is a community, the dichotomy between what is precedence and what is policy is a false one. Wikipedia works the way users want it to work. I am quite happy about the way lists are operated at the moment, if you are not, you will have to argue against it in public fora.

Anyway, you say you’re not interested in the issue, and I’m not really interested in continuing the debate on your level, so why don’t we just call it quits? Eixo 14:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

PRC is not a nation
Could you please read the nation article? It is not correct to describe the PRC as a nation (thought you would have an argument for the China article). For one example of many of a state being described with its primary characteristics to begin, see the Taiwan article.

Whoops, I meant the Republic of China article, not the Taiwan article.

My, my my.
You sure do make a lot of friends.

I know you're not likely to understand this, but my argument (logical, not rancorous) was in the form of the date—namely dd Mmmm yyyy as opposed to Mmmm dd yyyy, and not the minutiae of whether or not a comma was needed or appropriate anywhwere. After all, I used the example of 3/11/05 at one point in my argument which has no commas at all. It was the form. Yep, about 98% of my point. You managed to miss 100% of it. Well done. Duckecho 23:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I will not revert your edit; Either way is ok
I just wanted to let you know that your style edit on the Schiavo page is not a critical issue, and I will not revert it, if you feel, with your skills in English literature, that the "surgical" word is superfluous and not needed. You did check out the "diff" at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=14763933&oldid=14756196 didn't you. In any case, the editors on the Schiavo talk page frequently argue over much larger matters. I wish all the disputed edits were like this one, where either option was OK. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that your opinion was considered as useful; perhaps some of the other editors who know how to will look at the diffs and weigh in or maybe not. Your comment on your front page about WIKI suggesting WIKI is rather addictive and sucks you in is quite correct: Don't let it, unless it is just for enjoyment. I, too, didn't know that WIKI could be edited by anyone, until I, too, discovered some problems, and took a "closer look." Have a nice day, Calton, way over there in Japan.--G ordon W atts D ot C om 07:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bold text

title: User talk:Calton/Archive02


text:
Talk:Theobromine

Gorillas & Chimpanzees
Gorillas and Chimpanzees should perhaps be mentioned, as they spread many plants rich in Theobromine, with native species like Cola gabonensis ("cola of the gorillas") and the introduced species Theobroma cacao. See - MEDICINAL PROPERTIES IN THE DIET OF GORILLAS and Wild chimps help spread cacao trees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:BC16:1901:ACBA:210B:BD0:5BF7 (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Theobromine


text:
Gigi (singer)

Ejigayehu Shibabaw, known by her stage name Gigi (born 1974), is an Ethiopian singer. She has performed the music of Ethiopia in combination with a wide variety of other genres, often in collaboration with her former husband Bill Laswell, a bassist and producer.

Early life and career
Gigi was born and raised in Chagni in northwestern Ethiopia. She has described learning traditional songs from an Ethiopian Orthodox priest in the family home. She lived in Kenya for a few years before moving to San Francisco in about 1998.

Gigi recorded two albums for the expatriate Ethiopian community, but it was her 2001 album, titled simply Gigi, that brought her widespread attention. She was noticed by Palm Pictures owner Chris Blackwell, who had years earlier introduced reggae to the mainstream through his former label, Island Records. Blackwell and Gigi's producer (and later, husband) Bill Laswell, decided to use American jazz musicians (including Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter, Pharoah Sanders, and others) to accompany Gigi on the album.

The result was a fusion of contemporary and traditional sounds. The album was a critical success internationally and generated controversy in her home country for such a radical break with Ethiopian popular music. This release was soon followed by Illuminated Audio, an ambient dub style remix of the album by Laswell.

2003 saw the release of Zion Roots, under the band name Abyssinia Infinite. Bill Laswell played guitar and keyboard (instead of his usual bass), and several of Gigi's family members contributed vocals. The album was a return to a mainly acoustic sound for Gigi, incorporating instruments such as the krar and the tabla.

Gigi's voice can be heard in the Hollywood film Beyond Borders (2003), in which Angelina Jolie portrays an aid worker during the 1984 - 1985 famine in Ethiopia.

She released her Three album, Gold and Wax on Palm Pictures, in 2006.

She has also appeared in "Running From the Light" in Buckethead's Enter the Chicken (2005). In 2010, she recorded Mesgana Ethiopia with Material, released on the M.O.D. Technologies label.

Her 2001 song "Guramayle" appears in the 2006 documentary God Grew Tired of Us. It plays over opening and closing credits.

Personal life
Gigi was married to her producer Bill Laswell. Her younger sister, singer Tigist Shibabaw, died under unknown circumstances in 2008.

As leader

 * Tsehay, 1997
 * One Ethiopia, 1998
 * Gigi (Guramayle), 2001
 * Illuminated Audio, 2003
 * Abyssinia Infinite: Zion Roots, 2003
 * Gold & Wax, 2006
 * Mesgana Ethiopia, 2010

Other appearances

 * Future2Future by Herbie Hancock
 * Sacred System: Dub Chamber 4 (Book of Exit) by Bill Laswell
 * Realize by Karsh Kale
 * Live at Stern Grove by Tabla Beat Science
 * Enter The Chicken by Buckethead
 * Radioaxiom by Bill Laswell and Jah Wobble
 * Daylightless by Fanu (in Salem and Semena-Worck tracks)
 * Shin.e - Lightyears by Shin Terai and Buckethead

title: Gigi (singer)


text:
UWF Television Championship

The UWF Television Championship, promoted by the Universal Wrestling Federation, started out as the Mid-South Television Championship in 1984 and was then represented by a medal. It was renamed when Mid-South Wrestling changed its name to the UWF in 1986 and the title medal was replaced by a belt. The TV title was the mid-level wrestlers' title during its existence. The title's final appearance was during Nikita Koloff's interview on the November 28, 1987 edition of World Championship Wrestling, with Koloff then declaring the NWA TV title was the only TV title, effectively unifying the UWF TV title into its NWA counterpart and retiring the former title.

title: UWF Television Championship


text:
Breakthrough T1D

Breakthrough T1D is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that funds type 1 diabetes (T1D) research, provides a broad array of community and activist services to the T1D population and actively advocates for regulation favorable to medical research and approval of new and improved treatment modalities. It was initially founded as the JDF, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, before changing its name to Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, later shortened to JDRF. As of 2024 it is known as Breakthrough T1D.

History
JDRF was founded to find a cure for juvenile diabetes; in the 2000s, it broadened its research efforts to include ways to better manage the disease and ways to prevent it.

In 2005 the board of JDRF committed to supporting work on medical devices to manage blood glucose, known as artificial pancreas technology. The Board was urged to do so by Jeffrey Brewer, who founded and sold Citysearch, and had become interested in juvenile diabetes and medical devices after his son was diagnosed with the condition. The focus was on integrating continuous glucose monitors (CGM's) and insulin pumps via a computerized program that would use blood glucose levels obtained through the CGM to calculate an insulin dosage to be dispensed through the insulin pump. The first such device was approved in 2016.

JDRF has advocated for stem cell research; in a 2004 article in The Wall Street Journal, the authors observed that the JDRF "... has become adept at unleashing an army of hard-to-resist lobbyists – made up of determined parents and their afflicted children – on researchers, politicians and potential donors."

In 2011, the FDA made it a priority to clarify the requirements for approval for such a closed-loop monitoring and drug delivery device for T1D, and announced it was preparing draft guidelines. JDRF launched a campaign to influence those guidelines to be lenient. After the first closed-loop device was approved in 2016, JDRF lobbied insurance companies to cover it. The campaign also put resources into educating people with diabetes on how to navigate health insurance in the United States, and into lobbying Congress to continue funding diabetes research through the NIH.

The FDA lobbying campaign was part of a gradual realignment of the organization to focus on issues other than helping find a cure for JD, but to help treat and manage the disease. This broadened scope meant that the organization increasingly directed its funds to education and advocacy, along with research funding. This included lobbying insurance companies to pay for CGM devices, educating patients on how to advocate for themselves, and lobbying Congress for more NIH funding.

In 1974, four years after JDRF was founded in the United States, a group of parents determined to find a cure for their children living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) came together and began JDRF Canada, launching the largest funder and advocate for T1D research in Canada. The UK arm of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation (JDRF) was founded by Richard Lawson in 1986. In 1988 he became Director. The Foundation is now known as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) and is "the leading global organisation funding Type 1 Diabetes research".

In 2019, JDRF International appointed its first-ever CEO and President with Type 1 Diabetes, Dr. Aaron Kowalski. Prior to taking this role, Kowalski served as JDRF's Chief Mission Officer for five years.

Research
In 2018, JDRF provided $85 million (37% of their total income) to T1D scientific research grants; they provided $156.4 million (67% of their total income) in 2008.

Noted philanthropists

 * Woody Johnson, heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune
 * Jack Benaroya
 * Barbara Davis
 * Delta Tau Delta fraternity (official national philanthropy)
 * Sheraton Grand Seattle - hosts annual 'Gingerbread Village' to raise funds for JDRF

title: Breakthrough T1D


text:
Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11/Not a documentary

Has the film been removed from services. It seems it’s not available on iTunes anymore. Was it pulled for disinformation. A lot of heavy implications in the movie that Bush stole the election. Is this an effort to rationalise corporate media and social media’s policies of banning and repressing any voices that claim Biden stole the 2020 election?

I mean this won best film at Cannes and now it’s not available anywhere.

Moore's Film NOT Documentary
A documentary film is one that holds facts as such, not distorted to favor a bias. Documentary labeling this film by Moore gives documentary film makers a bad name- we might as well call Sci-Fi movies documentaries as well. As much interest as one may have in the issue of Moore's movie one must realize that opinion is not fact, misrepresentation of reality is not fact and blatent lies are not fact. This movie is an op-ed piece of off-color political entertainment and should not be construed as fact or documentary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haamerhed (talk • contribs) 04:42 UTC, 7 Jun 2005.

I've decided to make a documentary film about this discussion. I will be sure to include the fact that Wiki describes Moore's movie as fictional- now if my information is wrong is my film still a documentary? Haamer.

 * I've seen this argument put on one or two extreme rightwing websites. It seems to be an attempt to rule polemic pieces as a separate genre from documentary. While the idea of classifying political opinion pieces separately from other documentary pieces may have its merits, it is not normal practice. Film-makers, critics and the general public alike, all describe such pieces as documentaries. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem with calling Farenheit 9/11 a documentary is that Michael Moore deliberately attempted to misinform viewers of his movie. Documentary implies that he itended to inform his viewers. Lets consider what I consider to be the most egregious example of this, the segment near then end when he talks about congressmen sending their children to war.
 * Moore claims that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq". In fact, at the time of the movie there were six children of congressmen serving in the military and two serving in Iraq. Moore doesn't count the son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter (who quit his job after 9/11 and was deployed to Iraq in February 2004) because he is a second lieutenant (and therefore not an enlisted man). But his comments are specifically designed to make viewers believe that only one son of congressman was serving in our military, even though Moore knew otherwise.
 * Moore edits the film to make it appear as if Representative Kennedy refuses to help him pass out his flyers. In fact, Moore's own transcript contains the following exchange: "Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that? Kennedy: How would I help you? Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress. Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."
 * Moore depicts Representative Castle as being unwilling to send any of his children to Iraq, but fails to inform viewers that Representative Castle has no children.
 * Moore uses the entirety of the segment to make the point that fewer members of congress sent their children to Iraq than did reqular Americans. The reality is that on average children of Congressmen were significantly MORE likely to have fought in Iraq than children without a parent serving in congress.
 * The entire segment was deliberately designed to create a false impression. I don't have a problem with POV documentaries (on the contrary, I LOVE them including left wing films like Bowling for Columbine and Fog of War), but when you deliberately design a film to communicate information that you know to be false (As I think the above evidence clearly proves Michael Moore did) it is a propaganda film.
 * Nobody ever calls a film they like a propaganda film. They are usually labeled documentaries or newsreels. But you can't change what something is by labeling it diferently. --Jsolinsky 19:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you can't change what it is by labeling it as propaganda. The film industry, IMDB, the press consider it a documentary. So it'll be a documentary here on Wikipedia. We've been over this argument many times, please read the archive. Rhobite 19:35, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * IMDB lists it as a documentary because they don't have a category for propaganda.
 * IMDB also lists Triumph des Willens by Leni Riefenstahl in the same category, but it describes the film thusly "The infamous propaganda film of the 1934 Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, Germany"
 * IMDB further says this about its genre classifications "Most movies can easily be described with certain umbrella terms, such as Westerns, dramas, or comedies. Of course, some films defy such ready qualification, so realize that these are generalizations."
 * Wikipedia says this "there has been some debate over whether or not these three films are actual documentaries or not" in reference to Farenheit 9/11 and other films
 * I've reviewed the archive. Given the clear evidence that Farenheit 9/11 is propaganda, the absence of any contrary evidence, and the acknowledgement by IMDB that their genre classifications are generalizations and that their documentary category includes propaganda, I don't see how you can remedy calling Farenheit 9/11 a documentary with NPOV. ESPECIALLY since Wikipedia itself says that there is a controversey surrounding the use of this label.--Jsolinsky 20:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I won't get into a discussion on this subject here because I've discussed allegations similar to yours elsewhere. You have to recognise that what you're doing here is precisely what you're accusing Moore of doing--expressing your opinion and representing it as fact. There are other interpretations of the facts upon which you base your statements about F9/11. It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong about that, there is a firm consensus that polemics and op eds fall firmly within the scope of the term documentary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have NEVER written on an entry thet "Farenheit 9/11 is not a documentary". That would be POV (my POV). I am accusing you of expressing your POV that is a documentary by putting it in wikipedia entries. As I have written elsewhere, once I clean up the F9/11 controversy info, I intend to put out an RfC.
 * As far as there being a firm consensus that F911 is a documentary, then why does the very entry that you cite (documentary film) say otherwise. --Jsolinsky 01:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've read documentary film and the most that can be said about that article is that it acknowledges that some people have questioned whether F9/11 is a documentary. It is a bit like an article about Earth acknowledging the existence of people who question the earth's roundness. By all neutral standards, F9/11 is a documentary. If Ann Coulter made a movie in which she presented her opinion, that would also be a documentary. It would be extremely naive to believe that a documentary necessarily presents a point of view that every single viewer wll agree with. It's a documentary that presents Michael Moore's point of view, just as Cosmos presented Carl Sagan's (intensely secular, vehemently anti-war) point of view and the many David Attenborough documentary series present Attenborough's naturalist, conservationist and ecologist point of view.

"If Ann Coulter made a movie in which she presented her opinion, that would also be a documentary." Or if Ron Howard made a movie called "The Da Vinci Code" it also would be a documentary- Haamer.

"It is a bit like an article about Earth acknowledging the existence of people who question the earth's roundness. By all neutral standards, F9/11 is a documentary." More appropriately it would be like watching a movie that declares the Earth flat and critics call it "The Truth". The simple and plain fact of the matter- if it isn't true- it's not documentary. Haamer.

It suddenly occurs to me that your main problem with Moore's movie may well be that you think that a documentary must not be presented in such a manner as to emphasize and support a political argument. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've written elsewhere, I like Documentaries with a point of view, Moore's earlier work included. My problem is best summarized by the following definition submitted by somebody else in the next section: "Documentary film is a broad category of cinematic expression united by the intent to remain factual or non-fictional."

Michael Moore INTENTIONALY deceived viewers of 9/11. He deliberately chose words and edited footage to create a movie with the intent and effect of convincing viewers of "facts" which Moore himself knew were false. That crosses the line for me. --Jsolinsky 02:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You're entitled to your opinion that Moore deceived his viewers, and to the opinion that he did so intentionally. These are opinions.  When you state them as fact, well you have the burden of proof.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Here is conclusive proof that Moore intentionally deceived his viewers (the film is rife with similar examples. I use this one because Moore was actually present when the documented events occured and he is consequently damned by his own transcripts. In other areas of the film, Moore could plausibly plead ignorance.):
 * Lets consider just the segment near then end when he talks about congressmen sending their children to war.
 * Moore edits the film to make it appear as if Representative Kennedy refuses to help him pass out his flyers. In fact, Moore's own transcript contains the following exchange: "Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that? Kennedy: How would I help you? Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress. Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."
 * Moore claims that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq". In fact, at the time of the movie there were six children of congressmen serving in the military and two serving in Iraq. Moore doesn't count the son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter (who quit his job after 9/11 and was deployed to Iraq in February 2004) because he is a second lieutenant (and therefore not an enlisted man). But his comments are specifically designed to make viewers believe that only one son of congressman was serving in our military, even though Moore knew otherwise (hence his use of the word enlisted).
 * Moore depicts Representative Castle as being unwilling to send any of his children to Iraq, but fails to inform viewers that Representative Castle has no children.
 * Moore uses the entirety of the segment to make the point that fewer members of congress sent their children to Iraq than did reqular Americans. The reality is that on average children of Congressmen were significantly MORE likely to have fought in Iraq than children without a parent serving in congress.
 * The entire segment was deliberately designed to create a false impression. It worked, viewers of Farenheit 9/11 almost universally left the theatre accepting as fact an entire line of argument that was demonstrably false. --Jsolinsky 07:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, there is a documentary about Moore's Mocumentary that bears that burden; http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

 * These are accusations that I've seen before. They state assumptions about the purpose of certain edits and the conclusion that Moore intends the audience to draw.  Then they state facts that conflict with those assumptions and claim that this is evidence that the film maker deliberately misled.   I never understand why people who present these "proofs" don't see that making assumptions is distinct from stating facts. Whenever I see such assumptions being made, I ask myself: is this a fair assumption? Particularly I ask myself: did this scene have the effect on me when I watched the movie that this person is saying Moore intended it to have?  The answer so far has always been "no, far from it."  In the absence of that, the statement that Moore intended me to draw a conclusion that I did not in fact draw seems outlandish at the very least. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you actually telling me that Michael Moore did not intend his audiences to believe that children of congressmen are less likely to serve in iraq than children of non-congressmen? Are you actually telling me that YOU watched F911 and did NOT come away with the belief that children of congressmen were less likely to fight in Iraq? If so you are the first such person I have met. I have talked to about 40 people about the film, and every one of them left the theatre believing this (and the vast majority of them voted for Kerry). I certainly left the theatre believing this.

 * Your claim seems so preposterous it almost has to be a troll, but I'll bite anyway. What do you think that Michael Moore was trying to communicate to his audiences when he went around Washington DC approaching Congressmen about sending their children to Iraq?--Jsolinsky 23:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This isn't a place for rhetoric. Your arguments do depend on reasoning based on certain assumptions.  Ridiculing someone else's descriptions of their experience of the movie doesn't make your statements about Moore's intentions more factual.  The fact that your statements are based on assumptions means that we cannot state them as fact.  If I had sat through the movie and gleaned the impressions that you claim Moore intended me to, perhaps I'd have some sympathy with your position, but it still would not make the inference a fact.

 * The impression I got from the Congress sequence was that Moore wanted to demonstrate that people sending young men and women to fight were less willing to send their own. He did so by his trademark cartoon-style confrontation--just walk up and ask a Congressman if he'll get his son to sign up to fight in Iraq, and film the reaction.  A cheap shot, but immense fun to watch.  As a matter of fact, at the start of the Iraq war only the son of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota) was serving in the military in Iraq.  The sons of  Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) and Duncan Hunter (R-California) reportedly were sent to Iraq later in 2003. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I never understand why people who present these "proofs" don't see that making assumptions is distinct from stating facts.". And I don't see why movies making assumptions are classified as fact (you know- the distinguishing characteristic of a documentary.). Haamer.

 * I should have stated it more carefully. The people making the assumptions (and reaching questionable conclusions) are those who state that Moore deceived his audience and did so deliberately. -Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Repointing the finger doesn't change the fact that clever cut-n-paste by Moore to create assumptions is held by those that appreciate his drivel as fact. The reason I'm even at this discussion is because of accusations that Hamid Karzai was an advisor to Unocal Oil- Wiki states "most notably in the documentary film" F911. Karzai denies it, Unocal denies it- there are no documents to prove it and it is not the truth. If we label political propoganda a documentary it better be the facts. It's not a factual movie hence it's not documentary- I don't care what his topic is. It really is that simple. Haamer.

 * I'm not sure what you mean by "repointing the finger." Now you argue that "clever cut-n-paste by Moore [can] create assumptions."  That's a subtle switch of argument and doesn't address what I have said.  A documentary can contain factual errors and still be a documentary, so I'm not sure where you're going with the Karzai thing. It originated in a Le Monde report which has since been refuted by Karzai and Unocal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Ok. You're right Moore's film is perfectly factual and he didn't intend to manipulate the truth for his own profit during a highly heated political battle. So why won't Moore himself call it a documentary? "Castigating the allegedly lazy President, Moore says, "Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes." Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did not read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore’s assertion appears to be a complete fabrication." Because he knows the truth- it's not a documentary. "[Moore response: Regarding Karzai, cites the article in Le Monde, and two later articles which appear to use Le Monde's information. Moore's translation is: "He was a consultant for the American oil company Unocal, while they studied the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." The actual sentence was "Après Kaboul et l'Inde ou il a étudié le droit, il a parfait sa formation aux Etats-Unis ou il fut un moment consultant de l'enterprise pétrolière américaine Unocal, quand celle-ci étudiant la construction d'un oléduc en Afghanistan." Translated: After Kabul and India where he had studied law, he completed his training in the United States where he was briefly (literally: "for a moment") a consultant for the American petroleum business Unocal, when it was studying the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." Neither Le Monde nor Moore has provided any evidence to substantiate the claim about Unocal and Karzai." Inserting the bit about Karzai in his film without checking out the validity of the one source he used (le monde) is irresponsible "documentary".  Investigating sources is paramount to relaying truthfulness if that indeed is the goal- truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.138.10 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC. }

What makes you ask why Moore doesn't call the film a documentary? On his website in his personal letter he calls it "the #1 movie in the country, the largest grossing documentary ever." I'm not sure what your point is about Moore's translation. Clearly he's trimmed excess words but kept the sense. If Le Monde, Christian Science Monitor have their facts wrong then it would be wrong to include this piece in the movie. However you have not presented any evidence that the newspapers are wrong and the oil company and the politician are telling the truth, so really it's a matter of who you find more credible, journalists or politicians and oil men.

I'll leave it there because clearly you're making a political argument rather than a factual one, and jumping to unwarranted conclusions on flimsy evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You keep suggesting this argument is political rather than factual, I am not debating the content of the film I am arguing it's validity. Your argument is that if it's in print it's factual enough for documentary, for example your evidence that Moore will outright call his film "documentary" proper is a comment on his ratings, not the film. This is exactly the point we are debating- should Moore's movie be a contender with movie makers that actually relate truth? Or is there a place for his film further down the reality ladder somewhere amongst the mockumentary men? WMD ( http://www.iraqitruthproject.com/ ) begins with an ambush interview of Michael Moore by Evan Coyne Maloney in which Michael Moore admits that Farenheit 9/11 is not a documentary. Michael Moore says Farenheit 9/11 " is like an Op Ed for the newspaper." Haamer.

 * Indeed, and Moore's reference to it as an op-ed is quoted in the article, as is the denunciation of it as "propaganda". If we were to decide that one criterion of "documentary" is complete neutrality, then most documentaries would be booted from the category.  If we were to decide that a film isn't a documentary unless it's completely free of errors (or unless its errors fall below some arbitrary limit set by the High Council of Wikipedia), then we're going to be forever engaged in disputes about particular assertions in particular documentaries.  Some people disagree with Fahrenheit 9/11.  Fine, I disagree with a lot of the lies in the film Stolen Honor, but I haven't tried to remove it from the Category:Documentary films.  It belongs there for the same reasons Moore's film does. JamesMLane 13:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This argument should never had made it this far, further up clear intentions of deception were uncovered and no reasonable rebuttle was made, no one is saying that documentaries have to be neutral, the just have to be based on facts, which part of this movie is, and parts are not, as mentioned above. This isn't up for debate, it's NOT a documentary. I can understand wishing the whole thing was true, Bush isn't the greatest president, but blindly believing Moore and ignoring that there are lawsuits because Moore knowingly misrepresented them in order to prove his point. Tony Sidaway, YOU have made this political above you describe how you enjoy watching the cheapshots at the senators about whether they would send their children to Iraq, we don't need your political views and don't let them guide you in your Wikipedia writing. Furthermore, ignoring the facts above, discrediting none of them, you have failed to disprove this film being a propaganda. There is nothing wrong with the film being labeled a propaganda, and not a documentary. Propaganda has served useful purposes, and as has this (if you agree with it). This is a propaganda because it is not entirely factual, not because it has a point of view.Arcade123 08:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What is "Documentary" film?
Webster defines it as; 1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing 2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE

Wiki defines it as; Documentary film is a broad category of cinematic expression united by the intent to remain factual or non-fictional.

During my days of filming academia the topic of truth was very easily learned through the efforts and errors of documentary work on the Kent State shootings. While news footage was edited to appear as if the Guard had fired two volleys, that misrepresentation alone was enough to cost a reporter his job. (name fails me) On the other hand; responsible reporting, documenting & transcribing on film what really happened took time, effort and patience to compile. http://may4archive.org/may4movie.shtml Now why should all the effort of producing a factual documentary- a documentary by definition- be pandered because there is an "Umbrella" term for movies that emulate this genre, yet fail to meet the reality check? Labeling Michael Moore's F911 a documentary pimps the hard work of documentary film makers and trivializes the truth we hold paramount in production. If his film qualifies as documentary- you have to change the definition of documentary. How about this one, "Documentary film- any story told in cinema with an authoritative voice accompanied by news footage."
 * You're going to have to take your case to IMDB.com and try and sell it there, as IMDB is pretty much the most authoratative source on moviess there is (unless you can name a better source) and it calls F9/11 a documentary, thus we call it a documentary. --kizzle 17:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

So what you're telling me is that a discussion about the validity of Moore's fiction is out of the question because another website- without arbitration- has declared Moore's movie a 'documentary'...well why do I bother coming to the 'Wiki" site if IMDB has ALL the answers?! Haamer.
 * Another source is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. I don't know whether they ever formally ruled on the status of Fahrenheit 9/11, because Moore submitted it for "Best Picture" rather than "Best Documentary Feature".  At the time, though, there was media discussion about Moore's decision, with the clear implication being that he could have submitted it in the Documentary category.  The Academy's definition is:
 * An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
 * "Non-fiction" generally means (and the Wikipedia article Non-fiction agrees) that it's presented as factual, even if it's actually untrue. Moore's earlier film Bowling for Columbine was attacked on many of the same grounds as Fahrenheit 9/11, but it won as Best Documentary Feature.  The phrase "as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction" supports this -- even if a particular film got some facts wrong, it's still emphasizing facts, and so is a documentary (even Stolen Honor or other such propaganda). JamesMLane 19:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * way to outdo me again, jerk :) --kizzle 19:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's payback for your voting the wrong way on the Bush poll. :)  JamesMLane 10:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Now it's a poll? I always thought it was a request for comments. Regardless, Moore's movie is a propaganda documentary at the very least..his removal from considerations for any potential Oscars to ensure it would be seen on video by voters prior to the 2004 elections is all the proof we need.--MONGO 15:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If it were to be assumed that Moore's movie isn't propaganda, this would not change his desire to show it prior to the 2004 elections. So you're saying if it wasn't propaganda, he wouldn't have shown it? --kizzle 00:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine did well in awards and F911 did well at Cannes...he made the arrangements to ensure the movie would get on video before the elctions and by doing so he knew it would be eliminated from any Oscar considerations...but did it anyway. I can't say that he wouldn't have shown it...but I can say that it seems a little "timely"...although, due to the potentialities of bigger revenues some could also claim that his motivations were apolitical and instead based on money...somehow, I would not be inclined to believe this to be the case.--MONGO 07:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I agree he tried to release it on video to sway potential voters, he even admitted as much on his web-site. I just don't see how this a priori renders F9/11 propaganda? --kizzle 21:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps caling it propaganda isn't best...regardless, his efforts didn't work...the more the Democrats allow the hollywood bunch to do their talking for them, the more mainstream/centrist Americans become alienated and the harder it will be for the Democrats to regain the White House.--MONGO 21:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm real sick of that line, heard it about a billion times. You must watch Fox News a lot.  Kerry didn't lose because of F9/11, nor did it have a negative effect on his poll numbers, unless you want to cite a poll to prove me wrong.  It actually had the opposite, and helped the base along with undecideds.  Just because Kerry lost, doesn't mean you can look at everything he did and say, see that's why he lost.  If Bush arbitrarily had 120,000 less votes in Ohio, you could cite about a billion reasons why he lost overall.

 * The best way Democrats can regain the White House is to somehow educate the mainstream/centrist/republicans is that these people represent a fringe extremist section of the Republican party, and do not, in fact, speak for the majority of people except for hard-core chickenhawks who believe that the best Midde-Eastern policy is to get our hands in their political system as much as possible to avoid a Pan-Arabic movement that spurns World War III. 95% of Americans (upper middle-class, middle-class, and the poor), even those in the heartland, care about is having a good job, caring for their family, and being able to express their ideas in a free society.  Somehow, these people must be taught that the Republican party as run today only represents the 5% that cares about how their stock is doing, and how they can increase the shareholder price of their corporation by firing US workers and hiring labor for a quarter of the price in India.  That is how the Democrats will win, not whether or not some movie comes out.  Your attribution of significance to Michael Moore is over-emphasized, it is the Democratic party which needs to change, not Hollywood, who, in making movies, has a right to express their beliefs just like any other American, or is there an inverse relationship between the amount of fame you have and your right to freedom of speech?  Extremism is bad in either direction, be it Michael Moore or George W. Bush (meaning Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz), once people know these extremists for who they are and vote their conscience rather than their personal ability to make money off the candidate or that you could see yourself "buying a beer" with him, we can keep them out of the White House altogether and not be in the deep shit we are in, with the rest of the world who hates us, a country with a president's approval ratings the worst since the last president to forcefully resign in shame from the office, and a war with no end in sight, no exit strategy, and less troops and recruits by the day. --kizzle 22:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good God, man! I'm sorry this turned into some confrontational thing...I certainly didn't mean to insult. I was only stating that the Democratic party will be better off if it can find other mouthpieces for them than the hollywood elitist. I am going to ship this to my user page so you can yell at me there.
 * Haha, Mongo, you know I got respect for you, didn't mean the above in any emotional sense, just you struck a nerve with your comment that I felt needed to be addressed, so read the above without any malice on my part :) --kizzle 23:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Somehow, these people must be taught...", Somehow indeed. The lesson in this topic is TRUTH. It isn't about how to win elections, it isn't about how to make a movie and it for sure isn't about Hollywood. The simple fact of the matter, once again, is M. Moores movie isn't factual, it is presented to favor a bias and it is a MISREPRESENTATION of REALITY. If F911 is the tool you use to "somehow" teach "these" people- they're simply gonna learn a lie. Haamer.
 * No, Michael Moore is a douchebag who occasionally misrepresents facts and truths to better his side. This does not invalidate every single breath he has taken, and many of his criticisms are valid.  And the tool I was referring to in order to "teach" people about the true nature of the Republican party is not any film, but merely traditional grass-roots politicking and news sans think-tanks. --kizzle 05:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"No, Michael Moore is a douchebag who occasionally misrepresents facts and truths to better his side." Wasn't that Moore's condemnation of Bush? I don't understand his logic. Haamer.

Take that banter somewhere else; this is not a message board. Reginmund 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, lets get back to the definition of a documentary. I will list several definitions.

documentary

adjective 1. 	(1.a.)relating to or consisting of or derived from documents 2. 	(1.b.)emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; objective art" [syn: objective]

noun 1. 	(2.)a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

American Heritage Dictionary doc•u•men•ta•ry adj.

1. (3.a.)Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. (3.b)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

doc•u•men•ta•ry adjective, noun, plural -ries. –adjective

1.	(4.a.)Also, doc•u•men•tal - pertaining to, consisting of, or derived from documents: a documentary history of France. 2.	(4.b.)Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi.

If you want sources for these definitions go to dictionary.com type in documentary and then click on the first 3 cite sources, and you will have sources.

 * First off, definition number
 * 1. a. This (I am guessing) will be the definition of debate, his film is meant to be based off documents, but he knowingly and blatantly misrepresented people (Peter Damon) being one such example. I AM NOT saying that the rest of the film is not factual, just that a few segments are, and these segments are very clearly not accidents in misrepresenting the truth, we can go into that later if that still isn't established. I find that this definition to be too broad for our argument, because it can be argued that as long as someone has an interview and draws conclusions based on that interview (no matter if they are completely opposite the truth) then they are basing their conclusions on documents, which I'm find morally unacceptable. This could be used to distort or conceal the truth, which documentaries are supposed to report, at any and every turn, solely at the author's discretion. I don't find this fitting in the character of a documentary, but lets continue...

 * 1. b. I find that this definition hammers home the point.  We have already established that the film is ABOUT Moore proving his point, not providing a neutral setting. There are also instances of fictional matter in his film, mentioned above in the film's discussion page. And lastly, the entire movie is an interpretation of data to fit Moore's point. Although I personally, agree with Moore, his film does not fall under a documentary and even the judges at the Oscar's felt that way (please don't take this as more than it's worth, just an interesting side note). This definition also brings up an example "objective art".   To me, this is very clear, but lets continue...

 * 2. Another definition that might cause conflict, as it should, because it is not as specific as the other definitions. Moore's film does present facts about persons and events. This definition doesn't specify whether it can also include inaccuracies and misrepresentations, let alone interpretation, and POV etc. Refer to (1.a.) for my beliefs on these broad definitions.

 * 3.a. This is another broad definition. Refer to (1.a)

 * 3.b. Objectively. (here's that word again).

 * 4.a. This definition brings up an interesting example, "a documentary of France." This makes me think of a History Channel special which brings out the story of the development of France. Though this is not a political topic, it is a good example that documentaries should be entirely factually based and when facts are not available, these documentaries make that clear and explain scientists' best guesses and what evidence leads them to believe so. Moore's film is designed to sway people to his POV, which a true documentary, such as a History Channel Special, does not.

 * 4.b. This definition brings up ‘purports to be factually accurate’ and ‘contains no fictional elements’. Some believe Moore strove to be factually accurate through the entire film, but I believe they just haven’t heard of people such as Peter Damon, who were represented as the polar opposite of what they actually believed. A quick recap of Peter Damon’s story: In Fahrenheit 9/11, Peter is clearly portrayed as anti-war and Moore would make us believe he feels abandoned, and maybe even deceived by his country/president. His appearance in the film is cut out of a recycled NBC interview and at the end of the interview newsman Brian Williams adds, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are ... completely behind the war effort," can it be any more clear?

There is more than enough here to disqualify the film as being a documentary on two accounts. Not consistently pertaining to facts, and not NPOV. Please don’t go blab about the awards it won as a ‘documentary’ because according to the definition it is clearly not. I find dictionaries a more reliable source than film festivals and their judge panels (though apparently this is just me).

I propose we move on to find a genre for this film and remove this film from the documentary category, and cease to call it a documentary, though we should absolutely still keep all of the awards the film won as a documentary in the article (even though it is not one, it still is an award). I propose we make a section to organize a discussion in order to hash out the necessary changes. Thanks for reading :) Arcade123 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Some of the claims that Moore "lied" seems pretty silly. One enlisted child = 1 enlisted child, if the others are not "enlisted" by military terms, or meet requirements based on rank, then they do not. Anytime you say "depicts" you are saying "what I seen happen." Also I am not sure why a documentary can not be propaganda ... who said the two have to be seperate? Also if the film is winning awards as a documentary, then people alot more qualified then the random sampling of Wikipedia users, are making a judgement, we defer to just those people on Wikipedia and their classifications. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Arcade, you have not provided a singe fact that says that this film isn't a documentary. You haven't provided a single piece of evidence that shows that Moore lied. Moore used footage of a state trooper complaining about budget cuts. He never said that the trooper opposed the War. You say that he intended to deceive. You are wrong. You are assuming that he intended to deceive but you have absolutely no idea as to what his motives were. You are stating your opinion about how Moore intended to insinuate the footage when you truly don't know for a fact what his intentions were. What you are doing is providing original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. It is not a fact, I repeat NOT a fact that Moore intended to deceive. Don't you dare say it is again because it isn't You have no evidence of that; it is only how you perceived it. You are also assuming that because many people oppose the use of "documentary", means that they are right. This is also original research. Just because people oppose the film's classification as a documentary, doesn't mean that it isn't a documentary. There is much more Holocaust denial... that doesn't make it a fact either. The matter of fact is that you haven't provided a single fact that conflicts this film. You use weasel words such as "Moore would make you believe" and "twisted to insinuate". Again, this is not a fact, it is a weasel word which is prohibited on Wikipedia. I have already shown you the definition of a documentary and Fahrenheit 9/11 fits into it. It is a film that interprets given information for aesthetic and/or educational purposes. Reginmund 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, lets go through your accusations point by point, and re outline all of the facts that have been brought to bear earlier and on other discussion pages.

By the way, don’t tell me this is original research, these are the English ‘’’definitions’’’ of this ‘‘‘word’’’ if you have no time for the major points of the English language then you have wasted your time communicating with me because I refer to English dictionaries for my guides to the wonderful world of words. I have given you my sources as to these definitions and I am showing you that just because many people call something a documentary doesn’t mean it fits the English definition of one. Many people call Pluto a planet even though it is not. Many people say there are 9 planets, but there are 8. Just because something is generally accepted doesn’t make it true, you said so yourself. Don’t

You also say that I believe, because others do, that this film isn’t a documentary. This is untrue, I have been providing you with evidence and facts since my first post, and I will continue to do so.

 * 1. It is a fact that Moore represented Damon as anti-war, and made him out to feel abandoned.
 * 2. It is a fact that Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are ... completely behind the war effort,"
 * What does this mean to you Reginmund? Do you believe it is accidental? Could it be that Moore, wanted to get his point across at the expense of the facts?

 * Here's what you said "Don't you dare say it is again because it isn't You have no evidence of that" No evidence? Are you mad? Don't you tell me what and what not to say. I have been providing evidence and facts to support everything I have said, can you say the same? Lets continue...

“He never said that the trooper opposed the War. You say that he intended to deceive. You are wrong.” - Reginmund

We agree on ‘‘‘something’’’, it’s a start . Yes, Moore never did say anything that the trooper opposed the war. But, I never wrote anything about Moore misrepresenting the police officers opinions. I was highlighting the methods by which they were interviewed, by Moore’s employees acting as if they were doing a documentary on Oregon budget cuts. How am I wrong? What would you call this?

I have never mentioned ‘’’once’’’ that the state trooper’s feelings about the war were misrepresented, I said “his interview taken completely out of context and was blatantly deceived.” He was deceived, “Moore sent a crew to interview him under the guise of making a documentary about cutbacks in some state police programs.” Why would Moore do that? The piece was used in a different film and they officers were never contacted. How is this making conclusions? It is what it is.

You say you have shown me a definition, I have shown you the first 9 off of dictionary.com which collects definitions from numerous dictionaries. I suppose under ‘wikilaw’ your definition reigns supreme? Please! Though, I must state that I do appreciate you bringing up that definition. That means this film fits 1 out of 10, common definitions for the word “documentary.” I also find it interesting that you completely ignore the definitions of the English language provided to you in order to discredit me through a wiki technicality, but I will abide by these rules, seeing as this is Wikipedia. But, don’t be mistaken, I will not back down if it is falsely waved in my face.

Now, a couple questions, is it acceptable to use this as a singular definition for a documentary as it agrees with the definitions above? Otherwise I will keep listing all of them.A documentary is a factually based document with a neutral point-of-view.

I have provided two significant facts that are inaccurate, or were found through dishonest means. I have also provided you with the first 9 definitions of the word “documentary” off of dictionary.com which are the definitions as written by numerous dictionaries. Everyone seems to agree that Moore’s film is not NPOV, and I have shown that there are inaccuracies in his film. Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying have shown no evidence because it is what I have been doing the whole way through this.

For the record, I intend to communicate with those who help decide the Wikipedia definition of a ‘documentary’ and I wish to re categorize the ‘political films’ (on both sides of the spectrum) as something else, though I’m not sure what, I would love help with it . Reginmund, I mean no hard-feelings, I am simply trying to help Wikipedia be as accurate as possible because I read through it frequently to better my understanding of the world.

Quick word to Seven of Diamonds: 1.	Just because people call it a documentary doesn’t mean it is. 2.	The Oscars disqualified it from the documentary category. I am not suggesting we hide the awards it has won for being a documentary, I am just saying the film, along with many others, do not fit the definition of a documentary and Wikipedia is obliged to be as accurate as possible. I intend to change the genre of these (I’ll call them political propaganda for now) films on both sides of the political spectrum. I don’t want Wikipedia to be the grounds for Republicans or Democrats to make each other out to be like fools by selectively publishing facts in a ‘documentary’ because Wikipedia allows it to be called that. Arcade123 20:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One quick addition: I realize how I can appear biased because I have chosen a film on the left to be my initial example of a false documentary, but I assure, and you will be able to hold me accountable, that I believe Wikipedia needs to recategorize and define these films as what they are, political propaganda, not documentaries. If the film were on the right, I would do the same thing as this film, find lies/inaccuracies/discrepancies in the film and use that as part of the grounds to get it taken out of the documentary category and I would gladly appreciate any help in doing so. Arcade123 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"I have never mentioned once that the state trooper’s feelings about the war were misrepresented, I said his interview taken completely out of context and was blatantly deceived." - Arcade123

 * Have you any idea that what you just said means the same thing? You obviously have not been reading anything that I have been saying. I have provided a dictionary definition and referred you to it several times. Don't lie about that again.

 * Moore's use of putting a statement about how "soldiers should not be left behind" still does not state that the soldier's words were taken completely out of context. It doesn't at all imply that the soldier opposes the War. It just shows the result of the war and subliminally asking the question "Was the war worth this?" regardless of the soldier's creed. It again, does nothing to say that anything besides the fact that the soldier feels excruciating pain. That is a fact. However, it is not a fact that Moore intended to use the interview to deceive the soldier's words. You have no evidence as to whether or not he did. Thus, you are using original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. You are assuming that his interview was meant to say that he was pacifist just because. Again, this is original research to assume. You cannot assume. It is not a fact that Moore intended to deceive him. If you continue to step out of line and break Wikipedia's policies, I will not hesitate to tell you not to say it again because you are wrong and you are going against a policy which states original research as:

a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories

 * You are theorising that Moore used the interview with the intent to say that the soldier opposed the War just because the soldier believes that his interview was taken out of context. In reality, Moore never said or intended to do this. Don't again say that I am mad for not assuming that he did because it is wrong and it goes against policy.

 * You are also twisting my words. Stop it.

''He never said that the trooper opposed the War. You say that he intended to deceive. You are wrong.'' -Reginmund

I have never mentioned once that the state trooper’s feelings about the war were misrepresented, I said “his interview taken completely out of context and was blatantly deceived. -Arcade123

 * News flash! I didn't say that his feelings were misrepresented either! I said that you stated that Moore intended to deceive him. Looking at the text, you did say that he intended to deceive! I did say that you said that and I didn't say that you stated that Moore "misrepresented".

 * Now, as you did say that Moore blatantly deceived him, that is also original research. Of course prohibited. You have no evidence that Moore intended to deceive. He documents state cutbacks. He never says that anything about the War. His theme is that the domestic problems such as this should be first priority over fighting a war. He never said that the War was the cause of the state budget cutbacks.

 * You are again assuming that he intended to deceive them just because the trooper thought that his words were taken to mean support for the War. Again, assuming is original research. Again, Moore used the footage to encourage support for domestic reform instead of the War as opposed to blaming the War for the cause.

 * Your dictionary definitions do not whatsoever omit the film as a documentary...

adjective 1.   (1.a.)relating to or consisting of or derived from documents 2.   (1.b.)emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; objective art"

 * This definition is of no use since it is the definition of an adjective. "Documentary" is not an adjective.

noun 1.   (2.)a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event

 * This fits in perfectly. Fahrenheit 9/11 presents facts. It presents the fact that a wounded soldier is distressed about his condition. It presents facts that the Oregon state troopers are suffering from budject cutbacks. It does nothing to say that either interviewees opposed the War.

1. (3.a.)Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. (3.b)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

 * Again, this works fine too. The film is based on documentation of a soldier in pain and a trooper in distress. No connection to their creeds whatsoever. Again, there is no fictional matter. Moore never said that they opposed the War.

1.      (4.a.)Also, doc•u•men•tal  - pertaining to, consisting of, or derived from documents: a documentary history of France. 2.   (4.b.)Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi.

 * Again, all of this work is derived from documentation of a soldier in pain and a trooper in distress. It is also a film that re-creates the actual events that a trooper is in distress and a soldier is in pain. Those are all facts. Those are all factually accurate. There is no say as to whether or not they supported or opposed the War. Therefore, there are no fictional elements.

these segments are very clearly not accidents in misrepresenting the truth - Arcade123

 * Clearly? I see Moore showing us a soldier in pain with the theme of determining whether or not the War was worth it. It doesn't say that he opposes the War, therefore it doesn't misrepresent the truth. It also shows a trooper distressed about the budget cuts with Moore's intent to show whether or not a war is more important that domestic problems.

 * You continue to make assumptions and original research throughout not only the debate as to whether or not this is a documentary, but to what I am saying. You "suppose" that my definitions reign supreme. I never said that. You are speculating again. You say that I ignore the difinitions due to a Wiki technicality. That is another lie. I said you cannot use speculation (i.e. original research) to prove a point. I never omitted a dictionary definition as a point. Don't purporte that it is "falsely waved in your face" unless it actually is. I have only stated actual Wikipedia policies and if you can find one that is not, be my guest. Otherwise, if you accuse me of such acts again, I will report you for incivility and even though you don't have to "back down" to a policy, I assure you, it will get you nowhere but blocked again.

A documentary is a factually based document with a neutral point-of-view. - Arcade123

 * For the sake of this encyclopaedia, stop making up rules. It says in no definition of a documentary film that a documentary should represent a neutral point of view. You ONCE AGAIN, are performing original research. Now, I'll give you a definition that was written by professional lexicographers unlike yourself. (Which makes the definition that you made up completely obsolete)

A motion picture that shapes and interprets factual material for purposes of education or entertainment. - Encyclopædia Britannica

 * This film is of course a motion picture and it shapes and interprets the factual material (already proven to be factual) for purposes of education and entertainment.

 * If you want to help this encyclopaedia, read this because you have no understanding of what you are not supposed to be doing. You have not provided facts, you have provided speculation, assuming that Moore intended to deceive them which is unproven and just because you believe so, doesn't mean other people do, including me. I don't want to waste any more time trying to explain to you a policy. If you use original research again (i.e. assume that Moore intended to deceive without any proof just because it looked like he did), I will not, repeat will not respond to another filibuster that you post. If you have any other arguments, let me know.

Reginmund 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11/Not a documentary


text:
Tyniec Sacramentarium

The Tyniec Sacramentary is an Ottonian illuminated manuscript written in c. 1072–1075, probably near Cologne.

History
It is one of the oldest surviving codices in Poland, where it first arrived during the Middle Ages, kept in Poland for almost 1,000 years. It was transcribed and decorated with illuminations in Cologne, probably at the Monastery of St Pantaleon around 1072–75. Shortly afterwards or in the 12th century it offered to the Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec near Kraków. It was stolen during the Swedish invasion in the 17th century. Repurchased in Kraków, it returned to Tyniec. In 1814 the manuscript was bought from the monks by Stanisław Kostka Zamoyski and included in the library of the Zamoyski family in the Blue Palace in Warsaw.

During World War II the Nazis tried to take the manuscript to Berlin, but thanks to the endeavours of librarians, scholars and diplomats, they left it in the Zamoyski Library. After the Warsaw Uprising the manuscript was secretly evacuated and hidden in the collegiate church at Łowicz. After the war in 1946, Jan Zamoyski, the final owner of the Zamoyski family fee tail, deposited the family library with the National Library of Poland. Since May 2024, the manuscript has been exhibited at the permanent exhibition in the Palace of the Commonwealth in Warsaw.

Description
The Sacramentary contains prayers for the priest celebrating Mass. Magnificently decorated, it is one of the most precious artefacts of the Ottonian manuscript painting school. The sumptuous form of The Sacramentary indicates that the codex belonged to the so-called king’s manuscripts, which reflected the monarchy’s splendour.

The manuscript consists of 470 pages. 38 of them is written in gold and silver on purple-stained parchment pages. Pages 7–30 contains a calendar. The manuscript contains 13 decorated initials (two full-page plaited initials) and two fullpage miniatures – the Crucifixion and the Maiestas Domini. It also contains the oldest musical notation in Poland in chironomic form.

title: Tyniec Sacramentarium


text:
René & Angela

René & Angela were an American R&B duo consisting of musical artists and producers René Moore and Angela Winbush. They formed in 1977 and disbanded in 1986. They are most remembered for their 1985 song "I'll Be Good".

Career
They recorded three albums for Capitol Records: their 1980 self-titled debut René & Angela, the second album Wall to Wall and their final album for the label, 1983's Rise.

They later moved to Mercury Records to release 1985's Street Called Desire. Despite the success of the album, the duo disbanded by the end of 1986. Disagreements and conflicts caused tension with the two singers. Moore claimed the source of tension was due to Winbush lending her songwriting and production talents to other artists – most notably, The Isley Brothers, with whom she wrote and produced their 1987 album Smooth Sailin'. However, Winbush said the demise of the group was due to Moore's violent behavior - including an onstage incident in Cleveland, Ohio in 1986, as well as Winbush singing sole lead on the song "Your Smile", which became a number one hit.

Winbush said of the dissolution of their partnership:

"'It was a shame to break up just when we finally got hot. PolyGram didn't want us to break up. But there was no choice. I couldn't work with him anymore.'"

The duo had a less than amicable split and the animosity was so intense that Moore and Winbush had to communicate through attorneys.

Moore and Winbush went on to successful solo careers as performers, songwriters, and producers. Moore lent his songwriting and production talents to Michael Jackson's 1991 Dangerous and 1995 HIStory albums and later formed Multi-Media Communications, which operated radio stations from 2008 to 2012. Winbush went on to score five top ten R&B hits as a solo artist and wrote and/or produced songs for The Isley Brothers, Sheena Easton, Stephanie Mills and Lalah Hathaway, among others.

Compilation albums

 * The Best of René & Angela: Come My Way (1996, Capitol)
 * Classic Masters (2002, Capitol)

title: René & Angela


text:
Arabis

Arabis, or rockcress, is a genus of flowering plants, within the family Brassicaceae.

Description
The species are herbaceous, annual or perennial plants, growing to 10–80 cm tall, usually densely hairy, with simple entire to lobed leaves 1–6 cm long, and small white four-petaled flowers. The fruit is a long, slender capsule containing 10-20 or more seeds. Natural habitat for Arabis species is rocky mountain/cliff sides or dry sites. Cultivation of Arabis is best suited for rock gardens or container gardens. This genus is pollinated by members of Apieae and Lepidoptera.

Taxonomy
Though traditionally recognized as a large genus with many Old World and New World members, more recent evaluations of the relationships among these species using genetic data suggest there are two major groups within the old genus Arabis. These two groups are not each other's closest relatives, so have been split into two separate genera. Most of the Old World members remain in the genus Arabis, whereas most of the New World members have been moved into the genus Boechera, with only a few remaining in Arabis.

Species

 * Selected species
 * Arabis aculeolata
 * Arabis alpina (alpine rockcress)
 * Arabis armena (Armenian rockcress)
 * Arabis auriculata
 * Arabis blepharophylla (coast rockcress)
 * Arabis caucasica
 * Arabis cypria
 * Arabis glabra (tower mustard)
 * Arabis hirsuta (hairy rockcress)
 * Arabis kazbegi (Kazbegian rockcress)
 * Arabis kennedyae
 * Arabis lemmonii
 * Arabis macdonaldiana
 * Arabis procurrens (spreading rock cress)
 * Arabis pycnocarpa (slender rock cress)
 * Arabis scabra (Bristol rockcress)
 * Arabis serotina

Cultivation
Some species, notably Arabis alpina, are cultivated as ornamental plants in gardens. Many others are regarded as weeds.

title: Arabis