text:
Talk:Indoor tanning

Title
Does anyone mind if this is moved to Indoor tanning? SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Makes more sense that "tanning bed." It's presumably only that because both "tanning bed" and "tanning booth" existed before. --tronvillain (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I'll probably go ahead and move it, in that case. If someone objects, we can move it back and open an RM. SarahSV (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Short on time: a few years ago, I might have argued, but the sources now seem to generalise it this way and even within the industry we now do. While it might seem a little odd at first (to me), it does make sense as the common name.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest edits
Hi, I'm going to revert your edits, because you're either adding material that's already there (e.g. physicians are in the lead paragraph to which you added them again, as is ultraviolet being in group 1), or you're moving the article in the direction of tanning beds not being a problem. And the external links you restored are in the article as sources.

Re: the vitamin D section, most researchers (not just "many") say that the health risks outweigh the benefits. Not all, but it's clear from the literature that most say people should take supplements instead. If you disagree with "most", please produce a few MEDRS-compliant sources here that say otherwise, so that we can judge how representative the opposite view is. SarahSV (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Understandable. Appreciate you taking the time to explain. Thanks - --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 * , again, you're adding material that is already there, leading to repetition or contradiction. If you want to edit the medical aspects, please do two things. First, read the article through so that you know what is there already. Second, read the medical sources and make sure you check their sources. They are not straightforward on any of the points in the article. The issues are complex.

 * Also, don't use other people's summaries of sources. For example, the FDA did not estimate that 30 million people use beds every year in the US. That's probably a tanning industry figure that the FDA used casually. The article refers to this in a footnote. Finally, please no more sentences such as: "although A says X, Y is also true." SarahSV (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael, it's not clear what is meant by this, so I've moved it here (this article is about indoor tanning, so the material about sunscreen isn't relevant):

"In a study funded by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Lin et al. reviewed nearly 200 studies and articles on the relationships of sun and UV exposure to basal and squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, and other diseases and concluded that more studies were required. They cited the need for more detailed assessment of indoor tanning and sunscreen research in studies that consistently test for both environmental and host factors. They concluded that, although there were indications in many studies that sun and UV exposure had a potential to cause harm, changes in the technologies of both sunscreens and indoor tanning equipment had not been accounted for. It will take decades, they wrote, of studies to determine the actual protective nature of regular sunscreen use and the potential that current technology tanning beds may effect melanoma risk. These studies are necessary and should continue, according to the authors."

Can you summarize here the point about indoor tanning? SarahSV (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Sure. "In a review of nearly 200 studies on the relationships of sun and UV exposure to several skin cancers, the authors concluded that, although there were indications in many studies that sun and UV exposure had a potential to cause harm, changes in the technologies of indoor tanning equipment had not been accounted for. It will take decades, they wrote, of studies to determine the potential that current technology tanning beds may effect melanoma risk. These studies are necessary and should continue, according to the authors." --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not what the paper says. The more accurate conclusion is this quote from the paper "On the basis of 5 fair- or good-quality cohort studies and 7 fair- or good-quality case–control studies, increasing intermittent sun exposure in childhood and during one's lifetime is associated with an increased risk for both squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma (range of ORs, 1.27 to 3.86) " Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

23:14, 10 January 2017 revision - Michael Powerhouse
What I've added:

 * New section headers for the three different studies (by year)
 * Descriptions of subsequent, updated studies after the 2007 IARC study

Why the text is needed:

 * The new text adds more research-backed detail regarding the cancer risks of tanning beds. It also differentiates the risk from at-home tanning beds vs. tanning beds used in tanning salons.

Request:

 * This page has been historically difficult to edit, with a handful of editors doing most of the editing (and deletions). Please engage in discussion here first if you do not like the revision, instead of merely deleting it.

Thank you, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * , you summarized the 2012 study as "there was an associated summary relative risk of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.08–1.34)". Can you say what that means so that it's more digestible for the readers? SarahSV (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Some of the new text has been copied or very closely paraphrased from this letter to the editor, which is cited in the article but not after the words in question (not that that would make it okay). I don't want to spend a lot of time comparing the texts, but for example:

 * Source: "For North America, the authors considered 8 studies to be credible and they calculated a meta analysis giving an overall odds ratio of melanoma of 1.23 (95% C.I. 1.03, 1.47) for ever having used indoor tanning; a statistically significant increase."

 * Wikipedia: "For the North American region, the authors considered eight studies within the meta-analysis to be credible; they gave an overall odds ratio of melanoma of 1.23 (95% C.I. 1.03, 1.47) for ever having used indoor tanning."

 * Source: "As indicated, these individual studies combined data from indoor tanning at home and indoor tanning at commercial tanning salons."

 * Wikipedia: "These studies combined data from home based indoor tanning and indoor tanning done at commercial salons."

 * Source: "Three of these eight acceptable North American studies also provided a separate analysis of home and commercial tanning salon use."

 * Wikipedia: "Among these eight studies, three studies provided a separate analysis of home versus commercial based tanning salon use."

 * Michael, please summarize the sources in your own words and propose the edit here. SarahSV (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi SarahSV. Thank you for your help with me on this. Here is my proposed new language, which will include the references:

 * Thanks, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi Michael, I can't see the 2014 study, but the abstract concludes: "Using tanning beds is associated with a subsequent melanoma diagnosis. Exposure from more than 10 tanning sessions is most strongly associated and there was no statistically significant difference in this association before and after 2000, suggesting that newer tanning technology is not safer than older models."

 * I wonder whether it's worth using, because it also says: "The quality of evidence contributing to review results ranges from poor to mediocre."

 * What conclusions do the authors reach that are not in the abstract? SarahSV (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 * This article already makes the melanoma association pretty clear. I'd be willing to compromise and add the language you suggested. My goal here was to clarify that the original 2007 IARC analysis used less studies than the subsequent studies, and that the later studies showed a slightly smaller risk of getting melanoma. Another main point I felt was germane to the article was the difference in melanoma risk in home-based beds vs. salon-based beds.

 * Regarding the full 2014 study, I didn't see it (I know we're supposed to go deeper than the abstract). I can contact the WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request desk to see if someone can locate the study for me.

 * In the meantime, would this text be acceptable to you? I think it's fair and balanced:

 * --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi Michael, thank you, that's helpful. You would need to read the whole paper before summarizing it, and there's no reason to use Hoel's summary. The Resource Exchange is a good place to ask; if someone does supply the paper, I'd appreciate seeing it too. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Someone got the paper for me on the Resource Exchange. As soon as he emails it to me, I'll send you an email - just reply and I'll send you the PDF. Thanks, Sarah. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * That's great, thanks. SarahSV (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Here is my new proposed text. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

 * Thanks, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Seeing no objection after two days, I'm going to post this text today. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of text in 6.1 Risks > Cancer risk
Thank you for your help recently.

I have another proposal - I think the following text should be deleted because the content is too old. The study being cited is from 10 years ago. Because it is biomedical information, the WP:MEDRS criteria (WP:MEDDATE) of five years or earlier should be applied.

Section: 6.1 Risks > Cancer risk

What do you think of this? I wanted to run the idea past you.

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 * It was because of the 2007 paper that the IARC raised the classification of tanning devices to group 1, so it needs to be included. SarahSV (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I understand the need to keep the information about IARC raising the classification of tanning devices to group 1. I propose we keep the citation for that, but we delete the old statistics because we I found and posted (with your help) more updated statistics, per WP:MEDDATE: "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 * We say "Following that study, the IARC placed UV-emitting tanning devices on its highest cancer-risk category, 'carcinogenic to humans'." Are you suggesting we say "following that study" without telling the reader what the study said? SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 * WP:MEDDATE doesn't imply the wholesale deletions of anything older than five years. In this case expert opinion doesn't appear to have changed, and the older review isn't necessarily "superseded", especially when it's the current IARC review. --tronvillain (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Wait... it's not the most recent IARC review, this 2012 review is. And while it mentions the review that mentions the numbers already in this article, it also says The second meta-analysis(Hirst et al., 2009) included an additional nested case–control study of melanoma (Han et al., 2006), bringing the total number of melanoma cases to 7855, and the summary relative risk for melanoma in relation to ever versus never use of sunbeds was reported as 1.22 (95%CI: 1.07–1.39). Why not switch to this one? --tronvillain (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I would leave it unless you have a more recent equivalent study to put in it's place. Just because the study is older, that doesn't mean we are forced to remove the citation.  Policy favors newer references but doesn't force us to abandon older ones.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Image I'd like to add to the article
Caption of the photo from - I added this earlier but somebody removed it for whatever reason. I think it's a great historical picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs)

 * I believe user Palosirkka is asking to have the image added back to the page although formatted kind of strange so forgive me for moving some of their talk page comment without permission. I removed the picture a while ago as I don't see the "great historical" benefit of having it in the article. When removed, I asked what it had to do with indoor tanning and never received a response. I still don't see how it serves the reader of the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal. BD2412  T 18:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it would be sensational to have a picture of indoor tanning in an article about indoor tanning. I don't understand why you object it. --Palosirkka (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you say, "sensational"? BD2412  T 16:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Indoor tanning


text: User talk:83.235.253.147

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

title: User talk:83.235.253.147


text:
Ted Howard (author)

Ted Howard (born 1950, Ohio) is a political activist and author. He is the founder and Executive Director of The Democracy Collaborative, as well as chairman of the board of ocean advocacy group Blue Frontier Campaign. He was the Minter Senior Fellow for Social Justice with the Cleveland Foundation from 2010-2014.

Career
Howard has been involved with the Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland, Ohio, which was based in part on the Mondragon Cooperatives in the Basque Region of Spain. Characterized in press accounts as "The Cleveland Model," Evergreen is an effort to create green jobs in low-income neighborhoods using the purchasing power of the City's anchor institutions (hospitals, universities, etc.) to create local worker cooperative businesses.

Howard has co-authored several books with economist Jeremy Rifkin, including Entropy: A New World View, Voices of the American Revolution, and Who Should Play God?. While at The Hunger Project, he and Dana Meadows et al. co-wrote Ending Hunger: An Idea Whose Time has Come.

He and the Democracy Collaborative's research director Steve Dubb have collaborated on a number of articles with political economist Gar Alperovitz, most recently "The Cleveland Model," which appeared in The Nation, and "Cleveland's Worker-Owned Boom" in Yes Magazine. Howard is also the co-author of the Democracy Collaborative reports The Anchor Dashboard: Aligning Institutional Practice to Meet Low-Income Community Needs and The Anchor Mission: Leveraging the Power of Anchor Institutions to Build Community Wealth.

In 2010, Utne Reader magazine named Howard as one of the "25 Visionaries Who Are Changing Your World" for his foundation of the Democracy Collaborative. He was named an Innovative Idea Champion in 2010 by CFED.

title: Ted Howard (author)


text:
Talk:Calaverite

Untitled
From the sulfide category heading: The Sulfide Class includes the Sulfides as well as the Selenides, the Tellurides, the Antimonides, the Arsenides, and the Sulfosalts. This follows the Dana classification system which includes several minor anion groups within the sulfide class. Vsmith 01:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Calaverite


text:
Talk:Open-fields doctrine

Untitled
Though interesting, this article looks like it was pulled wholesale from some other source. A quick Google shows another page with the same information (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Open-fields-doctrine), but it appears to have gleaned its information from Wikipedia rather than vice versa. I'm hesitant to call this a copyvio problem since I see nothing it was taken from, but at the very least, it needs to be wikified. --Xanzzibar 01:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Redirect
The reasonable expectation of privacy test is one of the pillars of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. It should be titled as its own article instead of being a redirect to open fields. There are other areas outside of open fields where there isn't a REP, like with evidence found in public, trash, pen registers, aerial surveillance, field tests, canine sniffs, etc.--Whitenoise101 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Telecommunications
This page is listed in the category 'Privacy of telecommunications.' I don't really see how this relates to telecommunications. I left the category in for now in case I just missed the connection but am suggesting it be removed. --AndrewBuck 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC) The concept of expectation of privacy can be interpeted as right to privacy. (r.stalnaker)

Cleanup
This article reads like soemthing written by a lawyer for another lawyer. I'd take a hack at this but I think it really needs somebody with an understanding of the subject matter to express this for a more general audience. -- Whpq 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ug. Can't agree with that. I'd hope a lawyer would do a better job than putting in circular statements like "Under this “new” analysis of the Fourth Amendment, privacy expectations deemed unreasonable by society cannot be validated by any steps taken by the defendant to shield the area from view." which basically boils down to "if a court deems something per se unreasonable, then it's per se unreasonable." I changed a few areas in the article, but I'm not sure if I actually improved it much. It probably needs an entirely new re-write and I'm not up to it at the moment. - 24.20.247.221 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems like the GPS tracking decision disagrees that it's a "new" analysis, instead the Katz decision adds to, and does not replace, the original meaning.  Karl Shea  09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation for redirect to Fourth Amendment
I believe the most logical and beneficial place to access this information is within the Fourth Amendment artical. Specifically, I suggest that "open fields doctrine" be redirected there so it can be viewed in the subsection on "Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement for searches." There, the open fields doctrine can be properly considered in context with other exceptions (e.g., the automobile and plain view exceptions) which would make understanding the concepts underlying the doctrine more accessible for everyone. Of course, I am open to discussion about the redirect, please speak up if you don't think that is a good idea. Mr. schmitty 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. It's a subcategory of reasonable expectation of privacy, which itself is a subcategory of the Fourth Amendment. --Whitenoise101 02:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Syntax/grammar?
"== Distinguishing open fields from curtilage ==

While open fields are not be protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area..."

State exemptions
''Courts have continuously held that entry into an open field—whether trespass or not—is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what steps a person takes, he or she cannot create a reasonable privacy expectation in an open field ...''

Not true. The highest courts of four states—Montana, New York, Oregon and Washington—have held that their state constitutions give greater protection than the U.S. Constitution does here and the open-fields doctrine does not apply, at least if a landowner has done something like post the property lines to assert his interest.

I will be writing a subsection about this ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * OK, as noted in the article now, I found that Vermont's Supreme Court held this way too.
 * Also, interesting paper here arguing that the Court has misread the common law on trespass by assuming English and American law were harmonious on the subject as of the late 18th century, which the author says contradicts the historical record as every colony/state had laws on the books that permitted some sort of public access for at least hunting purposes and often limited a landowner's right to deny such access to those locations he had formally and physically enclosed] (and even then, trespass was more of a tort that allowed him only to recover for damages to the property). Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Open-fields doctrine


text:
Tenerife lace

Tenerife lace or "roseta canaria" is a needle lace from Canary Islands. The first name comes from the fact that the lace made on the islands (Lanzarote and Tenerife) was exported from that island. The origin of this lace is uncertain and it is not known on which island the technique was born.

History
Tenerife (or Teneriffe) lace is a style of needle lace that evolved from earlier styles of cutwork lace that generated medallions and rounded motifs in fabric by cutting and stitching groups of threads in existing fabric pieces. A characteristic example of this kind of cutwork can be seen in a sampler by Sarah Thral from 1644. Because of the nature of the frequently rounded structure with angular radiations, it was reminiscent of the sun and also acquired the name "sol lace". Eventually, the fabric skeleton was eliminated and a framework of threads established with a supporting structure of pins was used to create the foundation for the lace, and needle techniques were used to create the designs.

17th century Spanish Sol lace was a form of drawn thread work with circular patterns built up on a skeleton of woven threads. It is believed that this skill was transported to South America with European colonization. The name Sol lace was retained in Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru.

By the 19th century the way the lace was made had changed and there were differences between the methods used for the lace known as Tenerife in Spain and Ñandutí in Paraguay and other parts of South America. Examples of fragments, collars, handkerchiefs made in this style can be found in museums today.

In the early 20th century, women patented various devices to provide the framework for the structure of the threads, also referred to as hand looms. In 1901, Ada Sykes Dixon received a patent for her pin holder for lacework, which was assigned to William Briggs & Co Ltd. Augusta Proctor created one style described as a "Holder for Lacework" in 1903. An instruction book was also provided to accompany the Proctor wheel or square style rigid frames These items are now antique collectibles, and can sometimes be found available for purchase, such as these brass Briggs cushion version and plain examples. Similarly, Proctor square or circular samples can still be located.

Competing instruction books were published to help guide the crafter in the creation of various Teneriffe motifs and using different devices. The "Palma" style device advertised that no pins were required, and the handheld model had grooves for making the needle actions easier.

In the 1930s - 1940s Tenerife lace was sometimes called Polka Spider Web Lace.

In the 1950s, a Koppo Cushion style of lace pillow was devised and sold. This flexible and useful pillow style is still in use today, and can be recreated using instructions and descriptions in the patent guidelines. In the later 20th century, a revival of interest in the history and style of Teneriffe lace led to the publication of several works about this lace with historical details and patterns.

How it is made
In Tenerife lace, the wheel-like motifs are made separately. The thread is first taken to-and-fro across the fabric-covered circular cards, blocks, or cushions around pins stuck around the edge. Once these radial threads are in place the pattern is woven in with a needle. The finished motif is released by removing the pins and the motifs are later sewn together.

Machine made chemical lace samples of popular lace styles also included Teneriffe lace motifs. An extant sample was probably made on a Schiffli embroidery machine, and comes from a reference book put together by The Midland Lace Company of Nottingham who made both Leavers (Nottingham) Lace and Embroidered Laces on huge machines. The reference book would have been used as inspiration for lace designers and contained a wide range of styles and techniques. The embroidery would have been worked on a sacrificial backing, which could have been removed either by the application of heat, chemicals or water depending on the material used.

Gallery
 File:Tenerife_Silk_Lace_Handkerchief.jpg File:Runner_(ST401)_-_Tatting_-_MoMu_Antwerp.jpg File:Tenerife_lace_Uthaugsgården.jpg File:Ada Sykes Dixon Patent.jpg File:Proctor Teneriffe Lace booklet.jpg File:Proctor Teneriffe lace making square.jpg File:Proctor Teneriffe lace making wheel.jpg File:Proctor Teneriffe Lace Device Patent.jpg File:Palma Teneriffe device Patent US769492.png File:Palma advertisement.png File:Koppo Patent diagram for a Teneriffe lacemaking tool.jpg File:Koppo cushion, side view.jpg File:Koppo cushion, top view.jpg File:Teneriffe machine lace magnified.jpg File:Bibliothèque DMC - 35 - La Dentelle Ténériffe - La Frivolité.jpg

title: Tenerife lace


text: Talk:Tenerife lace

title: Talk:Tenerife lace


text:
Suedehead: The Best of Morrissey

Suedehead: The Best of Morrissey is a compilation album by English singer Morrissey, released on 8 September 1997. It contains material released during Morrissey's EMI period.

Content
The album's material ranges from 1988's Viva Hate to his 1994's Vauxhall and I album, also containing his 1995 non-album singles "Boxers" and "Sunny". Although Suedehead predominantly contains singles, it also has several rarities including "Pregnant for the Last Time", a cover of "That's Entertainment" originally by The Jam and the complete version of "Interlude", a duet with Siouxsie of Siouxsie and the Banshees. It has since been deleted from the EMI catalogue as of 14 December 2010 alongside Beethoven Was Deaf and World of Morrissey.

Track listing

 * 1) "Suedehead" – 3:56
 * 2) "Sunny" – 2:44
 * 3) "Boxers" – 3:30
 * 4) "Tomorrow" (album version) – 4:04
 * 5) "Interlude" (featuring Siouxsie) – 5:48
 * 6) "Everyday Is Like Sunday" – 3:34
 * 7) "That's Entertainment" (The Jam cover) – 3:57
 * 8) "Hold On to Your Friends" – 4:03
 * 9) "My Love Life" – 4:26
 * 10) "Interesting Drug" – 3:27
 * 11) "Our Frank" – 3:26
 * 12) "Piccadilly Palare" – 3:25
 * 13) "Ouija Board, Ouija Board" – 4:25
 * 14) "You're the One for Me, Fatty" – 3:00
 * 15) "We Hate It When Our Friends Become Successful" – 2:30
 * 16) "The Last of the Famous International Playboys" – 3:39
 * 17) "Pregnant for the Last Time" – 2:41
 * 18) "November Spawned a Monster" – 5:25
 * 19) "The More You Ignore Me, the Closer I Get" – 3:43

title: Suedehead: The Best of Morrissey


text:
Talk:Alençon lace

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alençon lace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815014457/http://www.paysdalencontourisme.com/welcome_857_fr.html to http://www.paysdalencontourisme.com/welcome_857_fr.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alençon lace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140315142650/http://www.louiszeliemartin-alencon.com/eng/the-message/z%C3%A9lie-s-life/ to http://www.louiszeliemartin-alencon.com/eng/the-message/z%C3%A9lie-s-life/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140315143024/http://www.louiszeliemartin-alencon.com/eng/the-message/the-life-of-st-th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se/ to http://www.louiszeliemartin-alencon.com/eng/the-message/the-life-of-st-th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119104955/http://www.paysdalencontourisme.com/musee-beaux-arts-dentelle-alencon_784_fr.html to http://www.paysdalencontourisme.com/musee-beaux-arts-dentelle-alencon_784_fr.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alençon lace


text:
Sidney Root

Sidney Root (March 11, 1824 – February 13, 1897) an American businessman.

Root was born in Montague in western Massachusetts, but early in his life his family moved to Vermont, where his boyhood days were spent in the shadow of the Green Mountains. On his father's plantation he acquired the industrious habits which characterized him through life. Though prevented by reason of his father's limited resources from attending school more than three months in the year, he made the most of his meager opportunities and soon found architecture was the passion of his youthful mind. He possessed exceptional talents for skillful and accurate designing, but his practical father considering that such an accomplishment was comparatively worthless, refused to encourage it, and so apprenticed his fourteen-year-old son to an indifferent sort of a jeweler who taught him the business of watch-making.

In the early 1840s, he came to Lumpkin, Georgia, to clerk for Vermont-native William A. Rawson who married Root's sister in 1843. He did well but wanted larger opportunities. In the early summer of 1857 he came to Atlanta to co-partner a dry-goods business with Mr. J.N. Beach. In the autumn of that year, on the railroad from St. Louis to Chicago, he met with accident which broke his hand and arm in five places.

In the Spring of 1861, he decided to support secession over union. At the beginning of the American Civil War he helped organize the Board of Direct Trade to ensure Confederate trade to Europe was not disrupted. In this capacity he was sent to Europe but he returned home only to find his immense property interests destroyed by the Union and himself under arrest. As soon as he obtained his release he sold out his remaining fragments of real estate to Gov. Joseph E. Brown and went to New York, where he again established himself in business, maintaining connection with Liverpool and Charleston. He also helped establish the Mount Olivet Church at the request of freed African-Americans. He remained in New York until 1878 when he closed out his business in the metropolis and came to Atlanta. Back in Atlanta he continued his philanthropy work. He served as a trustee for Spellman Seminary, and through his association with Colonel Lemuel P. Grant, was given charge of constructing the L.P. Grant Park and being its Park Superintendent.

From the date of his return until the time of his death he was one of its foremost citizens and when it was decided to hold the International Cotton Exposition in 1881, Mr. Root was commissioned to visit Europe in behalf of the enterprise where he successfully sold shares in the corporation.

Root was a great lover of nature and he suggested old colleague Lemuel Grant donate land to create a park. Soon after, in 1883, Root was named park commissioner by mayor John B. Goodwin in which office he was largely responsible for the construction of Grant Park. He served as chairman of the city's board of park commissioners for years, bringing to bear his artistic tastes as well as his ripe experience in beautifying what was then a resort at Grant Park.

His two sons were architects: John Wellborn Root, chief architect of the World Columbian Exposition and Walter Root in Kansas City.

He died on February 13, 1897, at his daughter's house in Atlanta. His obituary in the New York Times proclaimed that he was Jefferson Davis's closest friend after the Civil War.

title: Sidney Root


text:
Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/March 10

 * March 10

 * 1902 – An antitrust suit is filed against Northern Securities Company, a holding company controlling Northern Pacific Railway, Great Northern Railway, Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad and others.
 * 1923 – Norfolk and Western Railroad takes delivery of its first Y3a class 2-8-8-2 steam locomotive from ALCO.
 * 1975 – JR East introduces Shiosai services using 9-car 183 series EMUs, replacing five of the seven daily diesel-powered Inubō (犬吠) express services that operated between Shinjuku/Ryōgoku and Chōshi.
 * 1995 – Union Pacific Railroad announces its intent to purchase the Chicago and North Western Railway (pictured).

title: Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/March 10


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli terrorism

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. I count 33 Keep, 28 Delete, and 3 Merge (counting "rename" as a vote to keep, since we can't delete & rename), which is roughly 44% Delete, 51% Keep, 5% merge; soundly No Consensus. Essjay ·   Talk 01:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * A slight recount, as it appears the number of votes was a bit off: I see 30 Keeps and 30 Deletes. (The nominator's vote, even if the identity is in question, should be counted as a delete). Reviewing the "rename" votes appears that they are likewise split: there are 5 "Keep, but rename" (counted as Keeps), and 3 Rename OR Merge-- which should default to merge, rather than "keep" -- since we can't, as you say, keep & merge. Plus, there are 3 clear "Merge with State Terrorism." (1 vote to delete the "troll nominator" was not counted either way). My feeling is that in this instance, Merge votes should be considered a special form of "delete"-- with a request to removing the separate article, and combine the factual info into another one. Thus, they should not be counted against "Delete" in the final tally. Thus, it's pretty much 50/50. Still a No Consensus, of course-- which is just why VfDs will continue to be problematic. --LeFlyman 06:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This one was a difficult one to close. I considered leaving it alone, but it was the last one in the archive, so I decided to suck it up and close it. I used a pencil & paper to tally votes, but I'm not suprised I missed some; it was just so blasted confusing. Anyhow, no consensus seems to be the right call. -- Essjay ·  Talk 07:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli terrorism
Pardon me for having to edit this already existant VfD page, I do not happen to know how to archive this previous VfD page. I bring this page to a VfD delete for a variety of reasons:

 * 1) I feel it is inherently biased
 * 2) A page of this manner already exists dealing with Israeli state terrorism and this should be merged there AT THE MOST
 * 3) This page could easily be renamed Jewish Terrorism as that it what it deals with and such a page is inherently biased as it attacks Jews
 * 4) This page has been heavily edited by known anti-Semitic and anti-Caucasian racists [personal attack removed] ... and despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable, these claims have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia
 * 5) The last time it was brought to VfD vote, there was not really a true concensus met and there should be a revote. --ProudWHITEIsraeli 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See also /Closed June 11, 2005 vote

PLEASE NOTE: User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid is a strawman sockpuppet (see the link for further details of what that is). His intent, aside from making Jews and Israelis look bad, is to ensure that this VfD fails. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Speedy keep Take a look at this guy's user name and profile. This is a troll nomination.  CanadianCaesar 00:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, a "troll". Trust me, Im here to fight against trolls, not be one. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that why you called User: Mustafaa a racist? CanadianCaesar 02:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as if it wasnt so blatant that you are a left-wing nut, you have just proved yourself a RACIST. What about my name? What exactly is wrong with being PROUD of your ethnicity and heritage? Simply because I am White and happen to be PROUD of it I am a troll? -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking of trolling...--Calton | Talk 06:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zionist terrorism is a valid article but the Israelis don't currently practice terrorism as it is currently understood but military operations. Although I would appreciate more information about the nominator.Capitalistroadster 01:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 'despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable'. This is news to me. This topic either as presented or merged with State Terrorism is worthy of inclusion. I am sure it will undergo a lot of revision as editors put their spin on it but that is no reason for deletion.--Porturology 01:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Maybe you live in California or New York or some such place, but the majority of REAL Americans Citizens (and that word CITIZENS is vital and entails much) as well as the majority of the world, recognize that all these attacks on Israel ARE laughable and are racist and just products of the Socialist Propaganda Machine. Sorry if your left-wing fanatical delusions have severed your ties to reality. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are being exceptionally rude. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a madeup concept. Perhaps Israeli-sponsored terrorism would work, but actions of a military do not fall under the definition of terrorism. freestylefrappe 01:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete about time this came up for VfD. This page is lacking any real documented incidents of "Israeli terrorism", instead it recasts Israeli efforts against terrorism as being themselves terrorist.  Klonimus 02:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reasons as Klonimus. Carioca 02:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have concerns about the nominator and whether this is a good-faith nomination. I also want to distance myself from his comments about Mustafaa. Nevertheless, the page should be deleted because it's a POV personal essay. It doesn't define terrorism, it's unencyclopedic with no sources, and it has no chance of becoming encyclopedic, because there are no reputable or scholarly sources who would agree that the incidents listed are examples of terrorism. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Brother, I assure you my nomination is completely in good faith, I merely seek to rid the world of the sick propaganda that the Socialist Establishment espouses, namely articles such as this one. My comments about "Mustafaa" were not meant as a personal attack and I am sorry if they have been interpreted in such manner, however I do not rescind my statements one bit. I beleive it has been established time and time again on wikipedia that Mustafaa is biased against Whites and Jews and anyone who is proud of their Whiteness and adherance to Judaism. Do I even need to point further than to the Islamic-Arab allusion his username alludes to than to prove that he is a Socialist Racist? But thank you for backing me up, I wish I could state myself so eloquently as you but yes, this article is very POV and has ZERO encyclopedic content. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Fernando Rizo has reprimanded me for my comments here and I would just like to say I apologize somewhat for my tone and vocabulary but I stand by my beliefs. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 03:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This page needs cleanup, and definetly needs sourcing; but it does discuss a a very real issue in our world. Though as it stands it is a poor article.  And second, due to the hurtful and biogted way this VfD started I believe it should be closed and broguh up for vote again in a few weeks; this has gotten off to such a bad start it need some time so cooler heads can prevail, be they for deletion or not. Additionally (my thanks to Guettarda) this page does not meet criteria under Deletion_policy--LouieS 03:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hurtful and bigoted? I dont feel an ounce of pain over "hurting" Racists and Communists. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not meet the criteria listed under Deletion_policy.  In addition, why are the nominator's personal attacks still on this page?  Guettarda 04:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it violates WP:NOT is not a soapbox, as well as no original research. Klonimus 05:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Controversy is not a good reason to delete an article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-NPOV and unencyclopedic in intent.  --TJive 05:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with State terrorism, again. El_C 06:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Surprise surprise, a KNOWN AND OPEN COMMUNIST wanting to keep the article. Who woulda guessed? -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * �`אמת, מי El_C 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the troll nominator. Let the article cool for a month and if someone with credibility who can defend the nomination appropriately wants to renominate it, reopen the discussion. This is going to go nowhere because whether the outcome of this VfD is delete or keep it will be for all the wrong reasons. -EDM 06:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, POV or lack there of is not grounds for deletion, only editing. --LouieS 06:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with EDM. The personal attacks on this page make it difficult to reach a reasonable consensus--Porturology 06:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Ruy Lopez 06:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep calling a well respected user like Mustafaa a racist is indicative of the nominators extreme POV, and inappropriate views.     07:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Barring the nominator's user name, I think the article should be kept, but a rename sounds good. The word "terrorist" by itself is breaking NPOV - what you might call a terrorist, I or others will call them freedom fighters, or vice versa. The new title, IMHO, should be Violence committed by Israel. Plus, it could be hard to merge this article into State terrorism, since some of the acts committed by Israelis were not under the direction of the Israeli Government or, as pointed out, retaliation against attacks from the groups residing in the West Bank and Gaza. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. We can't delete articles just because someone doesn't like them. The article is perfectly NPOV and represents all points of view fairly. Besides, the claim that there is a 'popular consensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable', is... well, laughable. - ulayiti (talk)  08:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ive addressed this before, please read above before commenting. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Represents views that are held by a notable number of people.  --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk ·· · 09:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remind me WHERE these views are held by a notable number of people? Outside of California and NY and other filthy overcrowded inner-cities such as that? Have you ever met an American White (we are the majority after all) CITIZEN who holds these views? Didnt think so. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa there. (raises hand) White Kansas American citizen here. I don't know that it's useful to assign right/wrong to the actions of the governments of Israel or Palestine, but to say that we should completely "whitewash" the articles in Wikipedia is downright offensive. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to something more neutral. Agentsoo 09:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How about naming it to something more TRUTHFUL such as "Unverified Racist Accusations Aimed at Jews and Whites, Written By Biased Racist Arab Communists" -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Troll nomination; WP:POINT. Delete it (the nomination, I mean). If this isn't possible (if this VfD must be taken seriously), then keep the article and have it edited as necessary. Nothing obviously wrong with the title, either. -- Hoary 09:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Acusing a country as "terrorist" conflicts with NPOV for one. The page requested to be deleted is an excelent example of what wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Israel terorises by buldosing palestinian settlemensts? Come on. With that logic I am a terrorist for helping buld a dam. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha, exactly friend. Moving dirt, moving "Palestinians", no difference. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should never reflect the views of people who equate human beings with dirt. Debate over. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. AFAIK, facts do not necessarily conflict with NPOV. Sam Hocevar 10:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be couched in weasly language if you want to make it ultra-NPOV. Dunc|☺ 10:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Israeli-Palestinian conflict page. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Stop putting this article up for VFD again and again...Heraclius 14:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when did the fact taht an article has been up for VfD before preclude it from being put up again? I feel this is completely legitimate. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is the parenthetical abuse and cheerleading really necessary TelAvivKid (ProudWHITEIsraeli), or could we please have a fair an civil vote in the spirit of Wikipedia?

--LouieS 16:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I doubt User:TelAvivKid is a real Israeli. Considering the hatred most white supremecists have for Jews, and the fact that the families of most Israelis came from the Middle East rather than Europe, I don't think you'd see many racists of this type among real Israelis. My guess is that "TelAvivKid" is a troll or someone trying to smear actual Israelis.
 * Can somebody please block the damn troll. -EDM 16:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you ignore just how damn racist he is, at least he is absurd to the point of humor! --LouieS 17:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * He's not racist, he's making it up, and doing it poorly. -EDM 21:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - both the article and the troll. I'm no fan of Israel, but calling its actions 'terrorist' is clearly POV (perhaps even mine). An article concering Israeli behavior in the occupied territories etc (which I'm sure we have elsewhere) could discuss how many have spoke of this as state terrorism - but in the title? Inherently POV. --Doc (?) 19:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The title is just dandy, too.  —RaD Man (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - The very title is POV (the subject may be worth mentioning in State terrorism and/or IDF, though).--Doron 20:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A better title would be Alleged Israeli atrocities, and it should be moved, but that can be done boldly after appropriate discussion on the Talk page. I am sure we will end up with redirects from "Israeli atrocities", links from the relevant dab pages, and so on, which seems right and proper.  Robert A West 20:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Controversial subjects should still be treated in Wikipedia. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. I think it's a poorly written article, and poorly titled, but the subject matter is absolutely legit. Nandesuka 22:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Regarding some of the reasons:
 * "It is inherently biased" -- having a section about Security within Microsoft Windows is not inherently biased, but instead provides a balanced view of the issue-- this page should do the same
 * "it attacks Jews" -- The page is restricted to actions by the governement of Israel, and is supposed to deal with the "interpretation of israeli policy and action in the past". It has nothing to do with a religion or culture.
 * "This page has been heavily edited by known anti-Semitic and anti-Caucasian racists" -- You cannot go around making personal attacks in your vfd (calling User: Mustafaa racist, for example).
 * "despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable, these claims have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia" -- this can be added to the page, but I would include some sources because I think this might be contentious.
 * "The last time it was brought to VfD vote, there was not really a true concensus met and there should be a revote."-- I'm not sure we're looking for consensus, just a majority. Consensus will probably take longer ;)
 * Given the lack of consensus, I am beginning to think that the title is definitely POV. I would support renaming to "Alleged Israeli state terrorism", or merging with State Terrorism, regardless I think there should be a link to this information from Israel.
 * MisterSheik 23:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete unredeemable POV, soapbox, original research. I would accept an article titled "Israel military action" or similar, or includion of documented information in a violence against civilians article. But this as is will never meet WP guidelines, IMO. DavidH 23:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which part is original research? :) MisterSheik 23:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename to something more neutral, or merge into a more appropriate page. This slop is already covered in excrutiating detail. — RJH 00:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for any of the numerous reasons above. If it can be renamed something more neutral, and the quality improved, all the better. Sabine's Sunbird 01:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Inherently POV -- and as mentioned above, fails the "What Wikipedia is Not" Test ("Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine" -- see, in particular the Propaganda list items Appeal to fear, Stereotyping and Scapegoating. --LeFlyman 02:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete article as an editorial soap box and merge salvagable information with state terrorism. There is absolutely no reason that Israel should be singled out because of some warped definition by fringe loonies. Guy Montag 02:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * To clarify my vote last time this came up for VfD,  Strong Delete. My rationale?  To quote my vote last time:  "Merge with State terrorism, and replace this article thereafter with a redirect thereto.  This is a contentious topic, and it's patently obvious, unfortunately, that a number of editors are allowing their personal POVs to interfere with their votes on this issue.  Until Iranian terrorism, Iraqi terrorism (which is currently a redirect to the anti-"Freedom coalition" nonsense going on in Iraq, rather than what would be relevent, in keeping with the content of this article (i.e., Israeli terrorism), Yemeni terrorism (or Yemenite terrorism)), Libyan terrorism, Syrian terrorism, Egyptian terrorism and Indonesian terrorism get their own articles, this one is completely unjustified.  This is nothing more than POV-pushing, and anyone who votes to keep it belies any claim they make to being a NPOV editor."  Tomer TALK  02:54, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per Tomer --Eliezer | £�,�åV�,� m�,� å m�,�§§åg�,�  03:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge the less inflammatory parts with State terrorism: there might someday be an actual article of this title, but this article in no way, shape, or form is it or evrn the kernel of it. Oh, and censor the confused little troll who nominated it. --Calton | Talk 06:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid is a strawman sockpuppet (see the link for further details of what that is). His intent, aside from making Jews and Israelis look bad, is to ensure that this VfD fails. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It's the kind of thing User:Alberuni would do, who's also from Atlanta, Georgia. It must have killed him to make all those spelling mistakes on purpose. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, why would he start it in the first place if he wanted it to fail? - ulayiti (talk)  11:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For a laugh. And by being obnoxious, he's hoping people will vote for the article as a vote against him. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any specific user whose sockpuppet he is accused of being? I'll admit to not being too familiar with the "whites and Jews unite" racial supremacist theory, but then again this is the internets, to paraphrase a quote.  --TJive 21:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably banned user Alberuni, who likes nothing better than to cause trouble for Israel and Jews in general. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I assumed that it was just an under-educated Israeli adolescent who doesn't realize how dumb he comes off claiming to be a proud "White" when in many places in the world Jews aren't consider "white" or "caucasian" (an inherent misnomer.) Sadly, Israelis can be prejudicial and racist against their own; within Israel there's still residual devisiveness between Ashkanazim (European Jews) and Sefardim (generally, non-European Jews), although that's disappearing in favor of prejudice against "new" immigrants from former Soviet states and (particularly) those from Ethiopia (Falasha). Whatever this user's personal racist beliefs, they should not form the reason to vote for/against deletion. The article should be judged on its own merits, or lack thereof. (However, I would point out to TelAvivKid that arguing about others' votes makes his/her case unsympathetic.) --LeFlyman 17:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, he wanted you to assume it was an "under-educated Israeli adolescent". In fact, it was a strawman sockpuppet of an American Muslim, and his personal racist beliefs are about Jews. Jayjg (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any proof that it's an American Muslim or are you just blaming people at random?Heraclius 15:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Your question is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma, and the person running this strawman sockpuppet has been identified above. Jayjg (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no "fallacies" in casual discussions. This is not a debate (thank God).  But the only evidence you have for him being an American Muslim is that the behavior seems like that of User:Alberuni.  Looking at his page, I see no evidence of him being an American Muslim.Heraclius 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You see no evidence that Alberuni was an American Muslim? Whatever. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think what's confusing to the previous commenter (and myself) is the claim that TelAvivKid/ProudWhiteIsraeli is the same person as the banned user, Alberuni. Is there any actual evidence, or just supposition (as stated above, that it's "probably" him) ? --LeFlyman 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been following it, and it looks like pure conjecture to me that TelAvivKid is in any way firectly related to Alberuni; unless there is something we arent being told. --LouieS 20:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Heraclius and LouieS may have started editing after Alberuni's reign of terror. He was a highly disruptive editor who was running over a dozen sock puppets at one point, deeply anti-Semitic, racist, and abusive. Those on the receiving end of it became familiar with his trademarks, which I won't describe here, but they're evident in this user. If it's not Alberuni, the user has been invited to get in touch to discuss the issue, and I'm sure s/he'll do that if there's been any unfairness. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete (pov) merge to Israel and State Terrorism accordingly. DiceDiceBaby 06:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The assassinations belong in State terrorism. The rest of the article duplicates others, or is unsubstantiated filler. --Uncle Bungle 14:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep The title is fine (if you agree that the title Palestinian terrorism is fine). As regards the suggested name change to an apparently less POV title, if this is carried through, then the SAME SHOULD BE DONE WITH Palestinian terrorism. --Mpatel 14:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and ban anyone that puts this up for vfd again anytime soon. --Dv 18:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE, doesn't exist. <font style="background: black" face="Courier" color=#FFFFFF> Grue  19:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is POV. PMLF 23:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. If there are POV problems, try the edit button. Shem(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete --Briangotts (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per MisterSheik. Rename if necessary. Shem(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is an Israeli terrorrism. Not so wide as the Islamic one, although it exists. It's more ponctual. An example? Iztak Rabin was not killed by palestinians. José San Martin 02:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC) (my grandfather was jewish).
 * The murder of Yitzhak Rabin was an assassination by a politically extreme individual, not a terrorist action by an entire society. There is a vast difference, and claiming this as proof of supposed "Israeli Terrorism" is the logical fallacy known as "guilt by association" -- as well as false premise. Oh and referencing an ancestor as Jewish as somehow relevant to this matter is a form of "Special pleading". --LeFlyman 04:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete article, and then merge any still relevant information that is not original research into State Terrorism. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per a good two thirds of the reasons listed above. Junjk 07:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as José San Martin. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or delete all "Xyz terrorism" articles. If wikipedia wants to be in the "terrorism" blame game then it should keep them all, if not then delete them all. Israelis are not the chosen people. --Magabund 19:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough, from what I can tell no other country has a "Country terrorism" article devoted to it. No "American terrorism", "British terrorism", "Chinese terrorism", "Zimbabwean terrorism" etc. I guess, on Wikipedia, Israel is indeed "chosen" for special treatment. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  01:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. Why not a Hebrew terrorism? I think there's only a wrong name, not a wrong article. José San Martin 01:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Israeli" does not equal "Jewish". Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are religions; Israel is a multi-religious country. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the George Carlin quote fully applies here:"Israeli murderers are called commandos, but Arab murderers are called terrorists".Heraclius 02:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It does? I don't see how; Baruch Goldstein, for example, is clearly listed as a terrorist in the Terrorism article. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  03:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My comment is unrelated to the one above it.Heraclius 03:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The juxtaposition of Israeli and Arab murderers seems to imply that there are no Arab Israelis, whereas there are over 1,100,000, around a fifth of the population. SlimVirgin <fontcolor="Purple">(talk) 05:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the word "Palestinian" would be better, but I wanted to preserve the integrity of the quote.Heraclius 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * While I agree with Slim and Jayig; I think its worht noting that perhaps this article is talking about the wrong things. You have to look at the fact that Israel in the not so didtant past sanctioned torture.  Beond that, Israeli Tarrorim has a phenomenon is worht mention; that is simply because it exsists in a good portion of people's minds in our world, in needs to be adressed.  I think this page addresses it in entirely the worng way.  Rahter we should be looking at how and why people came to look at Israeli actions as terrorism in the first place, who those people are and why they came to their conclusions. --LouieS 14:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Louie, fairies exist in the minds of lots of people in the world, but that doesn't make them real. Our policies say we should cite the views of published majority- and significant-minority opinion (not tiny-minority opinion). When I last looked, not a single source was cited, so the article as it stands violates our content policies, and were it to be cleaned up to be in accordance with them, much of its current content would have to be deleted. The point is that it's unfair to single Israel out when there's no article on British terrorism, French terrorism, Italian terrorism, and so on. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not a proponent of the singling out either. I think the solution here is to extend the information relating to other examples of state terrorism.  Surely, this would help put things into perspective.   This can start by extending the country sections of the State terrorism article -- if a country's section becomes large, a new article should be created.  I think the "don't single anyone out" argument should always be dealt with by extending the information that we represent rather than removing information.  Should we not have created an article on Windows until we have Linux?  The detractors can add balance by adding information rather than removing it.
 * Regarding sources, we already have a number of sources at the bottom of the page and in the text. I think that regardless of your viewpoint, the notability of the article is evident given the sources and the surrounding debate.  We have an article on Sasquatch -- doesn't mean he exists :). MisterSheik 17:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename or Move - Including the word "terrorism" is inherently POV, likewise all other articles whose titles inclde the word. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per Tomer -- Mario 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: First off this is TelAvivKid/ProudWHITEIsraeli, I had to make this account because once again my account was banned (read: censored). This account will probably be banned soon too since SlimVirgin said I can't return until I "prove I am not Alberinu". Right. Well that should be easy :-/. No worries though, I was just on a friends account reading this and decided to answer some questions, Ill probably stop editing after this. First off I am not Alberuni, I dont even know who that is, but if hes anti-Semitic then he deserves to be banned or whatever. For you nosy Commie bastards that want to know more about me, I am in my 20s originally from Tel-Aviv, now living in the United States, HAPPY? I started reading Wiki about 2 months ago and have been especially reading this page until I decided to stand up for Jews everywhere and VfD this POS. I'd just like to say all you a-holes who have accused me of racism while being blind to your own hatred of the White Race, you are truly HYPOCRITES. How come I dont see any articles about how the damn Mexicans are terrorizing the US by coming over here ILLEGALY and lowering our standard of living? How come I dont see any articles on how East Asians are increasinly taking over Slavic lands in Asia ILLEGALLY and IMMORRALY? Huh? Racists. -MissRebelsGuy 22:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You first claimed you were originally from Jerusalem. Now you claim you're originally from Tel Aviv.  It's hard to keep the story straight, isn't it? Tagid li mashehu, ha'im atah medaber ivrit? Im kein, tichtov mashehu b'ivrit po, bevakahsa. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  23:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for all of the reasons others have given above. Much of the content is covered elsewhere, the rest can be merged into other articles (eg State Terrorism etc). The concept of '(insert country here) terrorism' makes little sense anyway, given that terrorism, by definition, is by a non-state actor. Batmanand 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as José San Martin. JamesBurns 05:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: ?באמת ישראלי, ולא אלברוני, מה שמך בעברית "ProudWHITEIsraeli" יש לי שאלה...אם אתה ,משתמש  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  06:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per excellent points Tomer made on July 31. I also would like to question the authenticity of the nominator.  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 10:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Haham hanuka 18:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or move I think that if this is not OK then Palestinian terrorism should be changed as well. MicahMN | Talk 18:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Incognito 21:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. some of the information is noteable and should be merged into other articles (perhaps Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). it doesn't fit the definition of terrorism, however.  ObsidianOrder 12:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. JustMe2005 15:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unbehagen 22:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC).


text:
Talk:Skewness

Unbiased skewness
In the article, the following was stated: "In general, the ratios $${\displaystyle b_{1}}$$ and $${\displaystyle G_{1}}$$ are both biased estimators of the population skewness $${\displaystyle \gamma _{1}}$$; their expected values can even have the opposite sign from the true skewness."

However, the $${\displaystyle b_{1}}$$ and $${\displaystyle G_{1}}$$ are both unbiased rather than biased! See e.g. SciPy source code: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/v1.1.0/scipy/stats/stats.py#L1002-L1074 --17 kutalmis bercin (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Pic
HOW ABOUT A POSITIVE SKEW VERSES NEGATIVE SKEW PICTURE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justcop4 (talk • contribs).

Early comments
The statement about unbiasedness of the estimate of skewness given needs further qualification for two reasons.

Firstly, if the sample is from a finite population, the observations are dependent, while the proof of unbiasedness requires independence.

Secondly, the standardised third moment is a ratio. It is usually impossible that the expectation of a ratio can be written in a simple form that generalises to all distributions. In fact the estimator for the central third moment in the numerator is unbiased, and the variance in the denominator is unbiased (but its 3/2 power is biased). [It is well known that the square root of the sample variance--the sample standard deviation--is biased; there is a correction for bias for specific distributions, but no general correction.] By the linearisation method (or delta method) we can say that the ratio is approximately unbiased. User:Terry Moore 11 Jun 2005

Adding two graphs here to illustrate visually the difference between left and right skew would be enormously beneficial. I got them confused until someone drew it on the board in stats class.

Needs better intro
[ I hope I fixed this; this discussion section should be removed --Lingwitt 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ]
 * Generally discussions are not 'removed', but merely, eventually, 'archived'. — DIV (128.250.204.118 06:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Almost impossible for a lay person without knowledge of statistics to understand this article. There needs to be a more general introduction given. --MateoP 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the article being unclear to a layperson, many of us are concerned with interpreting our data than the beauty of the underlying method, though agreeably, a basic understanding of the methodology and assumptions enables one to use the appropriate tool effectively. In this case, a quick guide to the interpretation of the resultant statistic is important. How does a skewness of 1 compare to a skewness of 0.5 or -1 etc.? Perhaps that could be covered in the graph if not in the text.216.129.143.26 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) GaryG

Comment from main article moved to appropriate page: Section to develop: Why should we care about skew? what difference does it make! Pgadfor 03:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing assumption?
I think the following paragraph cannot hold under general conditions:

Skewness affects Mean the most and Mode the least. For a positivevely skewed distribution, Mean > Median > Mode and for a negatively skewed distribution, Mean < Median < Mode

One can always add a narrow "peak" to the density function, so that the skewness is not altered significantly but the mode is. Perhaps something with unimodality of the distribution? Or is it to be taken just as a rule of thumb? 88.101.32.104 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's incorrect, so I've removed it. --Zundark 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

An objective introduction should not include apparently biased references to the inferior quality of unspecified textbooks, especially when the author has not specified the overall textbook population to which the textbooks are being compared. Surely, not ALL textbook discussions of the median are inferior to the introduction presented by the smug author. The author should justify the comments about textbooks, including a justification of the value of the textbook comments themselves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.104.100 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Positive versus negative skewness mixed up
When looking at the skewness for the Maxwell-Boltzmann-distribution it appeared to me that the definitions of positive and negative skewness got mixed up. The Maxwell-Boltzmann-distribution has a negative skewness, but according to the current definition, it should have a longer left tail, which clearly is not the case. I checked Mathworld for their definition, and this one seems to contradict the definition of Wikipedia. Even if I am mistaken, this definition should be clarified and a picture would definitily help. -- Pspijker 22:31 September 1st, 2006

 * What makes you think the Maxwell-Boltzmann-distribution has a negative skewness? --Henrygb 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * According to the Wikipedia entry for the Maxwell-Boltzmann-distribution the skewness is defined as: 2*sqrt(2)*(5*pi-16)/((3*pi-8)^(3.0/2.0)), which is approximately -0.485692828, clearly negative. The similar definition is supported by Mathworld. When defining the skewness Mathworld says "Skewness is a measure of the degree of asymmetry of a distribution. If the left tail (tail at small end of the distribution) is more pronounced that the right tail (tail at the large end of the distribution), the function is said to have negative skewness. If the reverse is true, it has positive  skewness. If the two are equal, it has zero skewness." The difficulty lies within the word pronounced. This Wikipedia entry speaks about "a distribution has positive skew (right-skewed) if the right (higher value) tail is longer and negative skew (left-skewed) if the left (lower value) tail is longer". To my opinion skewness has nothing to do with the size of either tail, but more with the 'weight' associated with the tail. A reformulation of the definition on Wikipedia would help a lot. --Pspijker 08:00, 26 September 2006 (CEST)
 * I'm pretty sure the problem is with the formula for skewness in Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. I just simulated ten million samples from it (by simulating three component velocities from a normal distribution and calculating speed from them) and while the mean and the variance match the formulae given in the article, the skewness came out at +0.484. I think the source of the error was most likely the MathWorld article on the M-B distribution. I should probably go through the algebra to derive the skewness from the raw moments before I change the M-B dist article, but i'll remove the expert subject tag from this article now (I'm originally a physicist so i consider this sort of experimental mathematics proof to be perfectly adequate for all practical purposes, but it's still somehow satisfying to check the algebra even though when the two disagree it's nearly always my algebra that's at fault). Qwfp (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The incorrect sign (now corrected) can be confirmed algebraically by starting from the result for the chi distribution. Melcombe (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

incorrect formula for G1
The formula for G1 is incorrect. The coefficient on the g1 term should be inverted. See Zar, Biostatistical Analysis, 4th ed., p. 71, 6.9, where G1 is Zar's sqrt(b1). Using the k-statistic results of Stuart and Ord, p.422, 12.29, which present k-statistics in terms of the sample moments m2 and m3, you can do the algebra, getting g1 in terms of the ratio of k-statistics, and see that Zar is correct. -- J.D. Opdyke

 * I am no expert on this but MathWorld gives a different formula for $k3$ and $k2$, both involving the sample mean. They also allege an unbiased estimator for finite populations using a different regularization factor.  Could somebody please reconcile the two?  --Yecril (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tetrete?
What is a tetrete (in the description of the first figure)? I have never heard this term and cannot find a definition.
 * Looks as though it may have been a typographical error. DFH 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

range & table
Just like "Kurtosis of well-known distributions" in kurtosis article, can someone put a similar table in this article. and talk about the range of skewness, and the rang of kurtosis. Jackzhp 20:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

the variance of skewness
Can someone put a table to talk about the variance of skewness for different distribution? Jackzhp 23:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Distribution of Skewness and testing
A rough estimate of the "standard error of Skewness" (SES) for a normal distribution is sqrt(6/N), as seen on a few places out in the web: http://www.jalt.org/test/bro_1.htm and http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Skewness.html. http://www.xycoon.com/skewness_small_sample_test_1.htm has a small-N formula for the standard error of skewness, and says the distribution of skewness/SES ~ N(0,1). Is there some better reference to point to for a statistical test of Skewness? Drf5n (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Scale
Can somebody give a sense of skale to skewness? e.g. what does a skewness of 1 mean? What does a skewness of -1 mean? (rather than just positive or negative) 199.212.7.17 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Daniel

 * Consider a Bernoulli distribution with probability of success
 * $$p=\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{20}} \approx 0.2763932.$$
 * That has a skewness of 1. One with probability of success
 * $$p=\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{8}} \approx 0.1464466$$
 * has a skewness of 2, as does any exponential distribution.
 * To change the sign just take 1-p as the probability of success. --Rumping (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Snake tail
Eh? Isn't a statistical snake something entirely different? Jim.henderson (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the snakes, which appeared to be straightforward vandalism. Thanks for spotting them. How they survived for over a year I've no idea. Qwfp (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know a rank outsider can help a bit. Actually the article has a more fundamental problem. Apparently it's written by insiders for insiders, thus is full of mathematical rigor and no understanding for outsiders. That's why Daniel above didn't catch on to the fact that skew is denominated in terms of standard deviation; he probably doesn't have a grasp on that topic either and there's no use sending him to a similarly rigorous and opaque article. If I didn't have a slight acquaintace with the topic, this article would be completely mysterious. The only layman explanation I see in Wikipedia for why skewed distributions are important is in Lake Woebegone effect where it's only a side point. Where that explanation belongs, and a broader discussion of the significance of skew, with examples such as why most people are poorer than average but have more than the average number of legs, is in this article. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Example figures with skewness values
It would be nice to have a figure here that shows a bunch of probability density diagrams and their Skewness as examples.--131.111.176.9 (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Gabor

Multidimensional case?
I gather that the multidimensional case of skewness is a third-order tensor. Is that right? Should this article discuss the multidimensional case? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Example of a right-skewed distribution where the mean is left of the median
Someone should provide an example where the mean is not to the right of the median of a right-skewed distribution (a picture would be best). Since the article has a paragraph devoted to discussing the misconception regarding mean and skewness, there should be an example. Relatedly, the term "mass of a distribution" is used in this article when there is no explanation what that is. The reason I say that is because it is vital to understanding of mean and skewness. 71.64.105.56 (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction has a mistake related to the common mistake it points out
The sentence "If there is zero skewness (i.e., the distribution is symmetric) then the mean = median. (If, in addition, the distribution is unimodal, then the mean = median = mode.)" is wrong in the same way that the subsequent paragraph beginning "many textbooks" is describing a common misunderstanding.

Specifically, if you define skewness in terms of third moment, mean doesn't necessarily equal median when the third moment is zero.

e.g. consider a r.v. taking the value -4 with probability 1/3, 1 with probability 1/2, and 5 with probability 1/6 (you could write the numbers on a die - -4 on two faces, 1 on three and 5 on the last face). The mean is 0, the third central moment is 0, but the median is 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.86.193 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the attempt to correct the statement "...then the mean = median = mode. This is the case of a coin toss or the series 1,2,3,4,..." This seems incorrect for the 1,2,3,4,... example series, if by that you/we mean a uniform PMF over some set of natural numbers. A bounded uniform PMF has as many modes as it has possible values or bins. So the mode of the sequence 1,2,3,4,5 is the set 1,2,3,4,5. The median is 3. The mean is 3. So, mean = median ≠ mode. For the one-side-bounded uniform PMF, (e.g. a uniform PMF over the set 1,2,3,4,...,inf) the number of modes is infinite, but the values of the modes aren't all infinite,. However for this bounded-on-one-side uniform distribution, the mean and median go to positive infinity, in the limit (I think). So, again, mean = median ≠ mode. Hobsonlane (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What the heck does "gravitropic response of wheat coleoptiles" have to do with skewness?
I understand that the graph demonstrates skewness, but most people don't know what the words "gravitropic" or "coleoptiles" mean, so the graph provides no additional understanding of the meaning of skewness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.245.85 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but the shape of the distribution did help me visualize skewness. It might be better to replace the bio-science jargon in the caption with something like: "the tendency of wheat grass to respond to the force of gravity and grow upward" Someone reading up on skewness doesn't likely care if it's the protective sheath around the grass (coleoptiles) or the grass itself that's doing the growing upward away from gravity. The point is the plant responds to gravity in a nonlinear way (from what I can gather from the plot alone and no units or legend). A less jargonny caption would be less distracting from the core point (the shape of the distribution). Hobsonlane (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a bad error in the uncentered moment formula
Fixed, it appears someone else noticed the formula had issues since there was a citation needed note there. You can derive it from the original formula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.85.193 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on introduction
An editor recently made some modifications to the introduction which were later reverted by another editor (for different reasons than I am discussing here). The original changes attempted to be more mathematically specific and technically accurate. I would encourage editors, however, to remember that Wikipedia is, in theory, designed to be accessible to everyone. There is nothing inherently wrong with presenting qualitative descriptions that, while incomplete, give the reader a general picture of the concept without getting lost in the details (provided that the description is qualified as being "qualitative", "over-simplified", or in some other way incomplete). In particular, the introduction should attempt to be as accessible as possible to the widest audience. We can get into the technicalities later in the article (technicalities that may be over the heads of some readers).

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Skew askew?
The Wikipedia article on Skewness cites reference #14 (in Czech) concerning Cyhelsky's Skewness Coefficient. However, the formulation [(the number of observations below the mean minus the number of observations above the mean)/total number of observations] yields a negative value for a right-sided skew, which is commonly described as "positive" skewness. I don't read Czech. Perhaps someone who does read Czech could "check" to see whether the Wikipedia formulation should be revised to result in a negative coefficient when the data show a left-sided skew. Thinners (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Skewer askew
Concerning my "Skew askew" post and quoting Professor Rosanne - "Never mind." Data that skew to the right-side tail do have more values below the mean than above, and the Wikipedia expression for the Cyhilsky coefficient does yield a positive value. Thinners (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Applications"
I just read the article and was slightly perturbed by the "Applications" section. The skewness is a mathematical measure of a probability distribution and hence has no application as such. The fact that some stochastic models make assumptions about zero skewness and may not be useful to model processes that exhibit non-zero skewness does not mean that skewness is "useful" or is being "applied".

I thus suggest changing the headline of this section and re-write it or delete it altogether. I'd personally just delete it. However, if the consensus is that the real world importance of skewed distributions is important and should be discussed, maybe the introduction would be a good place to write a sentence about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.140.104 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

sample variance in g1 formula
According to the Wikipedia page for variance, sample variance is the 1/(n-1) form, but the formula for g1 is using 1/n. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.110.55 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. See the different formulae for g1 and G1. Early workers in skewness used the g1 form and this has carried through into some later works. It is therefore impirtant to know what definition of sample skewness is being used, particularly for small samples. Melcombe (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

/* Definition */
Recently someone edited the formula for G1 and "corrected" the last term in the numerator. That "correction" was undone soon after, and the dance was repeated once more.

Just to make sure I am not mistaken: here's the full history for someone to double check. Previously (before July) we had for the numerator of gamma_1: E[X^3] - 3\mu\sigma^2 - \mu^3 which was changed to E[X^3] - 3\mu\sigma^2 + 2\mu^3 which I have now reverted to E[X^3] - 3\mu\sigma^2 - \mu^3

The reason should be obvious from the definition as the centralized moment. Please correct me if I'm wrong! (The previous edit(s) may have originated from some confusion between non-centralized and centralized moments as the numerator can also be written as E[X^3] - 3\mu E[X^2] + 2\mu^3 and is in fact how it is written on MathWorld). We may have to watch this formula for changes again to avoid an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.140.104 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Below is the editing history, and my deductions to why they were made:
 * 22 April 2011   = My revision, $$+ 2 \mu^3$$ changed to $$3\mu^3 - \mu^3$$, was to remove a redundant step in the calculation, to improve readability; however, this introduced a source of accidental errors by other editors (see below) due to them not understanding the flow of the working. To fix this original source of editing-errors, I will introduce an extra step into the working.
 * 9 July 2011     = First mistaken fix, $$- \mu^3$$ changed to $$+ 2\mu^3$$.
 * 11 July 2011    = First mistaken fix removed.
 * 27 July 2011    = @08:18 Second incident of the same mistaken fix.
 * 27 July 2011    = @15:22 Second mistaken fix has not been fixed, but the $$3\mu^3$$ was changed to $$3\mu^2 E[X]$$ for readability, and possibly to reduce people making the mistaken fix.
 * 1 August 2011   = @23:16 Second mistaken fix has been removed.
 * 1 August 2011   = @23:28 Variance converted back to $$ E[X^2] - E[X]^2$$, but also introduced an error. I am not sure of the reason behind this edit, as the standard deviation is known, so the variance is easily calculated; $$E[X^2]$$ is not known. Therefore, this edit will be reverted back to the original outcome. Please reply here to explain why this edit was made, if you feel that the revert was not called for.
 * 1 August 2011   = @23:29 Introduced error fixed.
 * 15 February 2012 = My edit to revert back to using the variance, and to prevent editors making the recurrent editing-mistake.
 * —Ricketts 123.243.217.67 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder
Positive and negative skew is something that is hard to remember -- does anyone know some helps to remind here? I usually think about it as "negative skew" => "there are negative values missing" (if the x-axis has lower/negative values on the left and higher/positive values on the right) and vice versa with positive skew. But there have to be better ways -- anyone came across any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.234.65 (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cyhelský's skewness coefficient
I've removed the item on Cyhelský's skewness as it does not have a proper academic published reference. In fact, a simple search on Google Scholar and Google Books, shows that no one mentions it, other than a couple of references back to this wikipedia article! I fear this is another case of Wikipedia being punked. Discussion please?

129.127.28.3 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reorganizing Introduction
I'm going to try to improve the introduction. The figure with the two graphs in the section below should be moved up to the introduction, so that the text can directly describe the graphs in that section! Also, the numerical examples are very confusing. It currently sounds as though the numbers in the examples are taken from the graph at the very top of the article. This doesn't make sense, obviously, since that graph lacks an x-axis.

Brad (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Pearson's first skewness
The "3" in this coefficient is simply wrong. The article here gives the impression there's a distinction between "mode skewness" and Pearson's first skewness coefficient. There simply isn't. The "3" in the *second* Pearson skewness coefficient arises because Pearson noticed (in his 1895 paper ) that often the median lay about 1/3 of the way from the mean to the mode (and so median-skewness should be multiplied by 3 to make it like the mode-skewness).

The MathWorld reference for this appears to simply be wrong. The "3" in relation to skewness involving the mode is not part of Pearson's work as far as I can see.

Glenbarnett (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Well spotted and researched! Feel free to go ahead and fix the article. Qwfp (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible Error on Page Pertaining to Sequences which Seem To Have Negative Skew
The page states: "We can transform this sequence into a negatively skewed distribution by adding a value far below the mean, e.g. (40, 49, 50, 51). Similarly, we can make the sequence positively skewed by adding a value far above the mean, e.g. (49, 50, 51, 60)."

Am I correct in stating that, in both cases, the sequence of numbers given is right-leaning? Of course, this might not necessarily imply that the information given is incorrect (though I think that a calculation of the skewness would have to be given in order to justify the assertions made). There is a possibility that the quoted comment is a mistake and that, in fact, both sequences have negative skew (as, indeed, they appear to using the inuitive notions introduced in the "Introduction" section). ASavantDude (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction Of Ideas Pertaining to the Mean's Relevance In Determining Skewness
On second thoughts, it does seem as if the quoted remarks are making assertions about the importance of the mean (and so the quoted remarks MAY be correct in some sense). However, this is a little confusing because the "Introduction" correlates the idea of negative skewness with right-leaning distributions (and vice versa) and then goes onto give examples, which are both right-leaning, but with negative and positive skewness, respectively. This would seem to be pedagogically unsound. ASavantDude (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Addition of 'Clarification Needed' Tag
For the reasons described above, I have included a clarification needed tag in the "Introduction" section. ASavantDude (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Applying the Ideas of the "Relationship of mean and median" section to the "Introduction" section To Resolve Confusion
Having had a chance to read the "Relationship of mean and median" section (which comes after the "Introduction" section), the following observations seem important: 1) The sequence (40, 49, 50, 51) has mean 47.5 and median 49.5, so mean < median, so (by the logic/definition of the "Relationship of mean and median" section), this sequence has NEGATIVE *nonparametric skew*.

2) The sequence (49, 50, 51, 60) has mean 52.5 and median 50.5, so mean > median, so this sequence has POSITIVE *nonparametric skew*.

However, this is clearly confusing in that, when a novice reads the article from beginning to end, they require concepts that are presented 'later', 'earlier on' in the article. Perhaps the "Introduction" section should mention the definition of *Non-parametric skewness*? It would be good to include some information about those situations where the different definitions of skewness agree with each other, and disagree with each other (including nonparametric skewness). Of course, this might make the article too long due to the number of definitions of skewness presented within the article (there are possibly 9 different definitions of skewness presented within the article, depending upon how you count them).

Perhaps the article could offer a calculation of the "Pearson's method coefficient of skewness" for these sequences, as this provides ONE objective definition of the skewness (though, to be fair, there are several definitions of skewness and applying them all in such a simple example would probably not be wise).

The order in which the ideas are presented in this article can clearly lead to confusion. ASavantDude (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Designation of the 3rd standardized moment
Tried to see if any of the other threads discussed this but did not find...

According to the standardized moment Wikipedia entry, the 3rd moment is designated as \gamma_3 and not as \gamma_1 as done everywhere in this article.

I believe it should be modified, unless I missed something... Scharleb (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not find a $$\gamma$$ anywhere there, and also not in linked articles. It's actually called $$\tilde{\mu}_3$$ (with a tilde) there. I don't know where the $$\gamma_1$$ notation comes from - but of course, there should be a source for it. Otherwise, "normalizing" it to $$\tilde{\mu}_3$$ might be helpful. --User:Haraldmmueller 07:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-negative?
The first example figure shows a distribution with positive skewness, but the caption described it as "non-negative (positive) skewness." This phrasing implies these terms are synonymous, and will likely mislead people unfamiliar with the terminology. Since the distribution clearly has non-zero skew, describing it as non-negative is unspecific, redundant and verbose. I propose the caption be changed to simply state it has positive skewness, and drop the unnecessary "non-negative."

82.32.76.32 (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Relationship between mean and median
Why keep the image "A general relationship of mean and median under differently skewed unimodal distribution" if the relationship is wrong? 93.147.160.21 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Skewness