text:
User:Physchim62/German images

The German images listed on this page were submitted to Wikipedia in good faith under the copyright tag PD-Germany, of which a recent version is reproduced below:

There is an ongoing dispute as to whether this template accurately reflects German copyright law.

German copyright law for photographs
The references in this section are to the Urheberrechtgesetz (UrhG, See External links).

Photographic works (Lichtbildwerke) are protected by copyright for seventy years after the death of the "author" (UrhG § 64), or for seventy years after the date of first publication in the case of anonymous works or works of unknown authorship (UrhG § 66).

Photographs (Lichtbilder) have a sui generis protection for fifty years after the date of first publication, or for fifty years after their production in the case of unpublished photographs (UrhG § 72).

The criterium for a work qualifying for copyright protection (as opposed to sui generis protection) is given in UrhG § 2(2):
 * Werke im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind nur persönliche geistige Schöpfungen.
 * Personal intellectual creations alone shall constitute works within the meaning of this Law. (WIPO translation)

Hence photographs taken automatically do not qualify for copyright protection as they are not "personal creations": they do, however, qualify for sui generis protection.

The sense of "intellectual" ("geistig") in the criterium should be construed widely, as in its general use in copyright Law. The corresponding term in the Berne Convention is "literary and artistic works", which includes "every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression". The Berne convention specifically includes "photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography" within its protection. (Berne Convention citations taken from Article 2(1))

From German Wikipedia:
 * In der juristischen Praxis ist die "persönliche geistige Schöpfung", die das Gesetz fordert, immer wieder ein Streitpunkt in konkreten Fällen: Je nach Werkgattung werden dabei in Gerichtsentscheidungen unterschiedliche Maßstäbe an die sog. Schaffenshöhe angelegt, was in der Folge dazu führt, dass zwar die meisten, aber nicht prinzipiell alle Ergebnisse menschlichen Schaffens in der Praxis urheberrechtlich geschützt sind.
 * In legal practice the "personal intellectual creation", which the Law demands [for copyright protection], is frequently a point at issue in real cases. Depending upon the kind of work, different yardsticks have been used in judicial rulings. The severity of the test has generally decreased, leading to the consequence that most, although in principle not all, results of human work are, in practice, protected by copyright. (Wikipedia translation)

German govenment images
The protection of German government works is covered by UrhG § 5:
 * (1) Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions shall not enjoy copyright protection.
 * (2) The same shall apply to other official works published in the official interest for public information, with the condition that the provisions of § 62(l)–(3) and § 63(1)&(2) concerning prohibited alterations and acknowledgment of sources shall apply mutatis mutandis. (WIPO translation)

As UhrG § 62(1), where it applies, prohibits alteration of a work, it is difficult (though not impossible) to include German government images in a GFDL document such as Wikipedia.

These provisions apply equally to images produced by the authorities of the Third Reich, as the Federal Republic of Germany is its legal successor. (Source: German Wikipedia)

Practice on German Wikipedia

 * German speakers should refer to the original page at de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte

German Wikipedia does not even mention the shorter sui generis protection of non-copyright photographs: it assumes that all images it uses fall under full, seventy-year copyright protection unless they are specifically licensed or public domain. It also warns users that the assertion of anonymity of the photographer is virtually impossible to prove.

The question of the use of official images under UrhG § 5(2) is controversial, with some German editors saying that the provision is incompatible with the GFDL while others assert that, in practice, there is not a problem.

Fair use
Images which are still under German copyright may qualify for fair use under U.S. copyright law.

GermanGov

FairuseWW2

''The copyright status of this photographic work from the World War 2 period is uncertain. The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law.

Unsourced World War II images - Unresolved
The uploaders, who are currently active, were contacted on 2005-06-19 and invited to reconsider the copyright tags for these images.
 * The images were tagged as PUIdisputed and listed on Possibly unfree images on 2005-08-05.

 * Image:Brecht.jpg has been removed from the corresponding German article as not PD.
 * Image:Ah berghof and Image:Interrogationofabritishpilot.jpg seems difficult to argue as fair use.

Unsourced World War II images - Resolved
All the uploaders who are currently active were contacted on 19 June 2005 and invited to reconsider the copyright tags for these images. Images with absent uploaders were tagged PUIdisputed and listed on WP:PUI.

Sourced images over 70 years old
These images are still tagged PD-Germany.

Unsourced images over 70 years old
These images are still tagged PD-Germany.

German government images
These images have been tagged GermanGov.

 * User:GeneralPatton provides the source for the Iron Cross images as "wartime propaganda postcards" on Image talk: EK 1class.png.

Images listed for deletion
This images have been listed (12 June 2005) on WP:IFD as orphans.

Other images
This image has been tagged PD-ineligible.

Other links to PD-Germany

 * User talk:Maury Markowitz
 * Images and media for deletion
 * User talk:Quadell
 * User:Quadell/copyright
 * User talk:Dbenbenn
 * Image talk:Surreydocks1941.jpg
 * Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags/archive1
 * Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/May 2005
 * Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005
 * Image talk:Wir stehen nicht allein.jpg

title: User:Physchim62/German images


text: User talk:83.167.231.236

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

title: User talk:83.167.231.236


text:
Talk:Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962

Problem with this article in The Beatles Wikipedia book
If you look at the book report on the talk page of The Beatles Wikipedia book, you will see that it says this article does not exist, but when you go to the book page and select it it will take you to the article. Given how the book report sees the article as nonexistent, I don't know if it'll show up in the printed book or downloaded book copy. I myself had problems generating both of these, but it could just be my computer. Could any of this trouble have anything to do with the somewhat unusual punctuation used in the article title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveman16 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like I have solved the problem by creating a redirect with the same title but without the semicolon: Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany 1962. Daveman16 (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

GA
This article should be put up for a GA review.--andreasegde (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a fine article, but I think it should make clear that Harrison appeared in court in person to stop the 1998 re-release; this generated a lot of publicity at the time but it's not really touched upon here. That should be expanded.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added another sentence about Harrison's role. - Mainstream Nerd (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre: "garage rock"?!
At least one person (mainly from IP address 85.6.152.21, but also 178.197.226.141) has been insisting on labelling the genre of the album as "garage rock", reverting edits that remove that label -- without any justification or reference provided.

As per my understanding of what "garage rock" is, including the information at the "Garage rock" Wikipedia article, this album most definitely does not qualify as "garage rock".

I'll remove that from the article once again, and link hither.

If anyone (not only the person making those edits) has anything to say about the subject, your comments are very welcome!

Thanks.

--Cotoco (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 * ... and it happened again, this time by 92.105.67.72 (then undone by 2600:1002:b12e:1fd2:1d19:32ba:74ca:8044, thank you).

 * Not sure if anything can or should be done about this, at this point. I'm guessing protecting the page is overkill; any opinions?

 * Thanks!
 * --Cotoco (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Again by 85.6.152.21.

 * --Cotoco (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I've warned the latest IP against edit warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Ghmyrtle! --Cotoco (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962. 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/20091016190419/http://www.starclub-germany.com/ to http://www.starclub-germany.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Brogol

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have.  You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox.  When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.  First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette.  Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame)  14:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Brogol


text:
Two Yanks in England

Two Yanks in England is an album by The Everly Brothers, released in 1966. Despite the album title and packaging, only half the tracks were recorded in England; six of the twelve tracks were recorded in Hollywood.

The backing band on half the recordings are members of The Hollies, augmented by session players. Eight of the twelve songs featured are credited to L. Ransford, the songwriting pseudonym of The Hollies' Allan Clarke, Tony Hicks and Graham Nash. Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones are also purported to play on the record as session musicians. Also, in an interview with Nash on David Dye's World Cafe, it was claimed Reggie Dwight (a.k.a. Elton John) played on the album. Nash repeated the assertion on Desert Island Discs on 12 January 2024, but his assertion is not supported by session logs, or by any other source.

Two singles were released from the album in the US; "Somebody Help Me" b/w "Hard Hard Year" in late 1966 and "Fifi the Flea" b/w "Like Every Time Before" in early 1967. Both singles failed to chart. In the UK, where "Somebody Help Me" had already been a No.1 hit for The Spencer Davis Group shortly before The Everly Brothers recorded it, just one single was released from the album: "I've Been Wrong Before" b/w "Hard Hard Year" (August 1966). This also failed to chart. "I've Been Wrong Before" should not be confused with the Randy Newman song of the same title recorded by both Dusty Springfield and Cilla Black the previous year, which Black had a modest hit with in the UK (No.17, May 1965). The last track on Side One of Two Yanks in England, "Pretty Flamingo", was a UK No.1 hit single for Manfred Mann at the time the recording of the album began (May 1966).

Track listing
All tracks composed by L. Ransford a.k.a. Allan Clarke, Tony Hicks and Graham Nash; except where indicated
 * Side one
 * 1) "Somebody Help Me" (Jackie Edwards) – 2:02
 * 2) "So Lonely" – 2:40
 * 3) "Kiss Your Man Goodbye" (Don Everly, Phil Everly) – 2:35
 * 4) "Signs That Will Never Change" – 3:05
 * 5) "Like Every Time Before" – 1:56
 * 6) "Pretty Flamingo" (Mark Barkan) – 2:36
 * Side two
 * 1) "I've Been Wrong Before" – 2:13
 * 2) "Have You Ever Loved Somebody?" – 2:55
 * 3) "The Collector" (Sonny Curtis, Don Everly, Phil Everly) – 2:37
 * 4) "Don't Run and Hide" – 2:36
 * 5) "Fifi the Flea" – 2:42
 * 6) "Hard Hard Year" – 2:56

The Hollies versions
The Hollies have also released own versions of their songs:
 * "So Lonely" (1965, was B-side to "Look Through Any Window")
 * "Signs That Will Never Change" (1967, would become B-side to "Carrie Anne.")
 * "Like Every Time Before" (1968 European single b-side, 1988 Rarities album & "Butterfly" Bonus Track)
 * "I've Been Wrong Before" (1965, Hollies album track, as "I've Been Wrong")
 * "Have You Ever Loved Somebody?" (1967, Evolution album track, also released by The Searchers and Paul and Barry Ryan in 1966)
 * "Don't Run and Hide" (1966, B-side to "Bus Stop")
 * "Fifi the Flea" and "Hard Hard Year" (1966, Would You Believe? album tracks)

Recording details
Tracks 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 & 12
 * Recorded May 14, 1966, Decca Studio, West Hampstead, London, UK
 * Don & Phil Everly (vocals); Tony Hicks, Bobby Elliott, Graham Nash and Bernie Calvert (instrumentation); with Jimmy Page (guitar), John Paul Jones (bass), Andy White (drums), Arthur Greenslade (keyboards).

Tracks 2, 3, 7 & 9
 * Recorded June 2, 1966, at United Recording Corporation, Hollywood, California, USA
 * Don & Phil Everly (vocals); James Burton, Glen Campbell, Al Casey, Jay Lacy, Don Lanier, Bud Coleman (guitars); Terry Slater (bass); Jim Gordon (drums); Don Randi, Billy Liebert (keyboards).

Tracks 1 & 6
 * Recorded June 3, 1966, at United Recording Corporation, Hollywood, California, USA
 * Personnel same as June 2 session, but with Leslie Milton (drums) in place of Jim Gordon, and the addition of Larry Knechtel as another keyboard player. Knechtel also overdubbed some keyboard parts onto the June 2 session tracks.

title: Two Yanks in England


text:
Talk:Meet the Fockers

Meet the Little Focker
I heard that there would be a sequel to "Meet the Fockers" called "Meet the Little Focker". Is it true? Bubble bunny

Is there somewhere that we can write to prevent this from happening? Ttenchantr 06:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Old but LOL. 77.97.224.17 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The article feels like a promo
The whole article seems written up by the film publicist. There is no objective POV. There is a need for extensive re-writes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.216.191.105 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Plot
This is my first time editing any article with anything more than correcting puncuation or changing syntax and word flow. So, any suggestions for improvement are welcome, or even discussion on how I could have improved it. Soulnebula 06:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Meet the Fuckers
Meet the Fuckers is a series of pornographic movies. it shouldn't redirect to Meet the Fockers.Fegor (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Meet the Fockers


text:
User talk:Subaru~enwiki

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have.  You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox.  When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.  First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette.  Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame)  14:47, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Subaru. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Subaru~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Subaru~enwiki


text:
Chris Green

Chris Green may refer to:

Sports

 * Chris Green (American football) (born 1968), NFL defensive back
 * Chris Green (baseball) (born 1960), former Major League Baseball pitcher
 * Chris Green (cricketer) (born 1993), Australian cricketer
 * Chris Green (horseman) (1820–1874), British steeplechase rider and trainer
 * Chris Green (rugby league) (born 1989), English rugby league player

Other

 * Chris Green (politician) (born 1973), Conservative MP, British politician
 * Chris Green (railway manager) (born 1943), British railwayman
 * Chris Green (White Ribbon Campaign), executive director of the White Ribbon Campaign
 * Chris D. Green, Canadian psychologist and historian of psychology

title: Chris Green


text:
HMS Abeille (1796)

HMS Abeille was a French Navy 14-gun cutter launched in 1793 under the name Bonnet Rouge that HMS Dryad (1795) captured in 1796. She was taken into the Royal Navy as HMS Abeille, but apparently never served and was broken up in 1798.

French service and capture
Abeille was a Montagne-class cutter built to a design by Daniel Denÿs and launched in October 1793 at Saint-Malo as Bonnet Rouge.

Between March and July 1795, while under the command of ensigne de vaiseau Denis, she cruised between Brest and Loctudy, and return. She then cruised in the Gulf of Gascony with the division under the command of Contre-Admiral Vence. She was at the First Battle of Groix in June 1795, but like all the smaller vessels, did not participate in the action.

She was officially renamed Abeille on 30 May 1795. Later, under the command of lieutenant de vaisseau Denis-Lagarde, she was stationed at the Île de Batz.

On 2 May 1796, Dryad, under Acting-Commander John Pullin, captured Abeille some 16 or 17 leagues off The Lizard. At the time, Abeille was three days out of Brest and had not taken anything. The Royal Navy took her into service under her existing name.

Fate
There is no record that HMS Abeille ever actually served in the Royal Navy. She was broken up in 1798.

title: HMS Abeille (1796)


text:
Talk:Hoe (food)

's edits
I checked a couple of news articles about Busan Hoe Expo 2002 and Jo Yeongje's campaign for language cleansing. As both events happened in Busan, maybe the problem is specific to there. --Nanshu 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

afaik, sashimi, when used in korean, refers to the japanese dish in japanese restaurants. koreans generally do not refer to the gochujang-dipped, thicker-cut, lettuce-wrapped hwe as "sashimi." it's a different dish. Appleby 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

From the very beginning, I'm talking about Saengseonhoe (~=Sashimi). --Nanshu 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as I know, we don't distinguish Japanese raw fish and Korean raw fish in Korea, at least in the langugae. In colloquial language, "hoe" and "chobap" are more widely preferred to "sashimi" and "sushi", which are used by Japanese restaurant in Korea, probably to show they're Japanese for real. "Sashimi" is also a slang for the sharp knife used by criminal gangs to stab people.

 * Dictionary definition of hoe is raw flesh or raw vegetable. But when we say hoe, it generally means Saengseonhoe(raw fish). We also have raw beef as a dish, which we call yukhoe to disambiguate.

 * --Puzzlet Chung 02:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hoe-Sashimi controversy
Nanshu has added the following highly POV paragraph to the end of the article:

 * In South Korea, sashimi-related Japanese terms became a target of linguistic purism due to Korean anti-Japanism. In 2005, Professor Cho Young-je of Pukyong National University, who made researches on hoe, began a campaign to replace "sasimi" (사시미) and other Japanese words with Korean ones (actually, some of them were Sino-Korean). In 2002, Busan held "Busan Hoe Expo. 2002" even though "sashimi" was better known for English-speaking people and only a farming tool or a "whore" came to their minds when thinking of "hoe".

Since I have made no deep research into the issue, I can only speak from my own experience: When I first ate the dish back in early 2002, it was only referred to as "hoe" and never as "sashimi" and has been since the countless times I have had it ("sashimi" in Korean is the Japanese dish.) So if a nation-wide linguistic purge of the Japanese term did take place, it must have been earlier than 2002 and definitely earlier than 2005!

In addition, the last phrase is plain wrong since Korean hoe /hø/ is not at all pronounced as English hoe /həʊ/.

I tried to rephrase this to make it NPOV but failed to salvage any information from it. I say we simply remove it. -- Himasaram 10:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Saengseonhoe is Saengseonhoe, Sashimi is Sashimi. That's all. According to Annals of Joseon Dynasty,Koreans already had eaten Saengseonhoe such name of 어회(魚膾). Apart from this,It's very nonsence to raise a problem to linguistic purism or Sino-Korean word use. It seemed to be some Japanese nationalists consider Korean's Koreaized renaming from Japanese loanword as cultural steal from Japan. Wow, how silly they are. If they were right, Those which highly protect their language from loanword- Turkish,Icelandic,Chinese are all culture stolers. aren't they? Chinese renamed America's computer as "電腦" Icelandic as "Tölva" Turkish as "Bilgisayar" Were they really steal America's culture,and denied the fact that American's invention? so how about Japanese? Modern Japanese borrowed huge words from Western languages not use origin word, but translated by Sino-japanese. According your strange opinions, this may be undestood Japanese's cultural steal from western languages and culture,and Sino-Japanese itself cultural steal from China, aren't they? Other ways think,you japaneses prefers the word milk as ミルク than 牛乳 in colloquial use. Someday, a Japanese scholar told that it should be used as Japanese word 牛乳 not loan word ミルク because care the too many use of katakana word.(日本語の乱れ). By the way, a american man scrapped the article, and insist like this, "Milk is wide known word in the world, and Japanese have kept use the word. so, it's anti-America linguistic purism. and, 牛乳 itself not a pure Japanese word but sino-Japanese word. That's nonsense. He raised such 牛乳飲み比べ大会(Competitive drinking milk) and said gyuunyuu is bizarre sound to English speaker. What about this? That's what you Japanese nationalists who fall into the anti-Korean obsessionalneurosis are doing.Iziizi (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * law ハ nature ノ world ニ於ル如ク human world ヲ govern シテ居ル
 * 法律ハ自然ノ世界ニ於ル如ク人類世界ヲ統治シテ居ル

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi's vandalism
's vandalism campaign continue on Korean-related articles that I previously edited, and likely link to Japan that he cares, or I would like to edit. He and I are on some kind of unofficial probation by admin, User:Theresa knott, so I could not edit any article he edits within 5 days. However, the probation is to prevent from disputing each other, but he's using the rule and gaming the system to provoke me to breach the probation like he did and got blocked.

For example, he blanked cited information at Empress Myeongseong and deleted lead section Korean independence movements without any reason. In any case, the user did not read this article properly and see the early 19th Korean painting, which depicts Koreans eating hoe. The title is also "Gangbyeon hoeeum", literally "Eating hoe near a river".Image:Kim.Deuksin-Gangbyeon.hoeeum.jpg The painter, Kim Deuksin is a Joseon royal court painter and regarded important figure in Korean art history, so I believe Sennen would not dare to doubt about the painting. If he continues this vandalism and would not restore the previously blanked info from the aformentioned aritlces, well see what would be rewarded for his disruptions.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for showing that painting, I think the sanctions against us are clearly not working, and are actually restricting both of us from editing wikipedia in a constructive manner. But in the spirit of good will, compromise etc, I will revert my edit, until I have time to verify the "hoe" issue. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Can you provide a source where the title of this painting is given (and also where the painting is hung today)? Also, is there a source showing that in that century, this food comprised uncooked rather than cooked fish? Badagnani (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you follow the link, you will find the needed info in Korean. The picture by Kim Deuksin is stored at Gansong Art Museum.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * BTW Caspian, I would appreciate it if you did not refer to my edits as vandalism, your tone is overly aggressive and does not help any content disputes that we may be having. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. you still has not restored the lead section of Korean independence movement and others. And you left many factual errors to the articles that you edited in the past 2 weeks, so the labeling is valid as long as you do not fix them. I've been writing a history and origin section. That would be twofold of the current content. You believe eating raw fish originated in Japan, but even that practice came from China according to my sources, and in namasu (sashimi is one form of it) says so. Besides, some Japanese nationalist editors had vandalized the page many times for a while, so you picked the really good one. Please refrain from doing such things before editing. I want to believe that you would be different from those kind of people. Best regards. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Over two years has passed and no one noticed the mistake concerning Kim Deuksin's painting yet. The　translated title of the painting should be "Carousing near a river", not "Eating hoe near a river" as suggested above. Although the characters' pronunciation is the same, the hoe of the official title (江邊會飮) is not 膾 (which is the character for the dish) but 會 (which means meet(ing) and, if combinded with 飮, "drinking together"). Indeed, looking at the painting, it is hard to tell if the fish some of the fishermen are sharing is cooked or not. It should be further added that we can not acritically assume that the title which the painting is referred to nowadays is the one used when it was painted, unless it was inscribed by the author on the paining itself, which is not the case. Sorciopeloso (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
What is the etymology/origin of the Korean word "hoe"? Badagnani (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is from the Chinese character, .--Caspian blue (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Historically, were all hoe dishes raw? If so, are there old Korean sources (cookbooks or similar) that give definitions of hoe as it was prepared hundreds of years ago? Because the Wiktionary definition of that character doesn't state "raw," just "minced." Badagnani (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the wikidictionary should be implemented. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, often the definition of a particular character in Chinese isn't the same definition that's used in Japan, Korea, or Vietnam. And even within China a character can change its meaning over time. So I'm just raising questions, which would need confirmation with sources. Badagnani (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I said, the dictionary should be implemented. You make me say the same thing repeatedly. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't make sense of what you're saying. In English, one can't say that a dictionary can be "implemented." So I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. Can you please be more clear? Badagnani (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

History section
Can anyone insert the below content to article with some credit of my name or this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHoe_(dish)&diff=233831894&oldid=233831253 because I can't work as such at this time. This is only third of what I have to translate from Korean sources, but still be useful for the article. Thanks in advance --Caspian blue (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * This seems good, but I think it needs to be examined more deeply how the term kuai was used in China, and exactly which foods it referred to, and whether they were always raw. Badagnani (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you add them first please? I could not find such source at this time that you want to know. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Sjschen has confirmed that 膾 does imply "raw"-ness in Chinese, despite Wiktionary's definition. Badagnani (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Please, can everyone read this before we continue discussion? I would like to hear responses from our contributors about this article, and how it squares with what they know about the consumption of raw fish in the cuisines of China, Korea, and Japan. Badagnani (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * That needs more time for me to read and analysize the content because this article is about "Korean dish". If you're not interested in helping me, I would ask it to another. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I asked everyone to read the article, and give their thoughts about it, in good faith. Some of what you are implying goes counter to what is found therein. Badagnani (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * A further source, with very detailed history, may be found at zh:生魚片. One last one may be found here (see the second to last post, which lists a few sources that could also be considered). Badagnani (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Who is the everyone? I politely asked you to add them because I could not currently edit the article, but you demand other things to me. Besides, I fully stick to my source, so if the source conflict to my source, you can add the issue by yourself because I CAN"T edit the article as I said. (I have had no time to read the article). --Caspian blue (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * As with everything else on Wikipedia, there's no hurry. Just chime in once you've had a chance to read it. Badagnani (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No thanks. If I need some help, I would go to Sjchen for the next time. I'm in hurry so asked you, regardless of our long conflicts. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive blanking
Can someone please restore the discussion blanked massively in this edit? I don't wish to enter an edit war, and it's important that the history of this discussion be preserved. Thanks in advance, Badagnani (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani's false accusation
Now, you're abusing the term "massive blanking" again. You're warned for such false accusation many times. I said, I left the diff pertaining to the information at the talk that I added, and you falsely accused me of blanking massive information that I inserted. You have to take the responsibility. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

History section
I have added a detailed history section explaining how it was introduced from China to Korea. And thank you very much to Badagnani for improving it. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding my expansion on the section, but you just added it as if that is your credit. And then falsely accused me here and there. That is not good practice. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I think it needs much expansion, from old Korean sources. Right now it relies primarily on Chinese ones. Much more on the Chinese history can be found at Kuai (dish). Interactions between Japanese namasu and sashimi and Korean raw-fish traditions over the past several hundred years (including during the Japanese occupation of Korea) could also be explored. Did Japanese during that time attempt to teach Koreans that their hoe was of Japanese origin? Or did the Japanese themselves assume this? This kind of thing should be explored, through the location of relevant sources. The assumption Sennen goroshi made (and probably others as well) that hoe must have come from Japanese sashimi, turned out to be wrong, as it was based on the assumption that it couldn't have come from China, as the Chinese eschew raw fish. We know now that, at least in ancient times, that wasn't true. Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Badagnani - Yeah, I am a little worried about the history section at the moment, perhaps with a few more sources, I might trust it a little more, but at the moment, it seems quite close to original research. But hopefully when a few more sources this could become a good article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 * See Kuai (dish), with many Chinese historical sources being added in actual Chinese text. Badagnani (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Romanization
Actually, Hal-ah hoe is supposed to be Hwal-uh hoe. That's how they say it in South Korea.--김무선 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edited romanization for Hal-ah hoe.--김무선 (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA?
Unfortunately, the link target does not contain the symbol employed (Voiceless bilabial fricative, ɸ, IPA 126) which means that either I tend to assume the former as according to Voiceless bilabial fricative the character (rather: the corresponding sound) is not used in Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.58.197 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) the letter used is wrong or
 * 2) the link target page is wrong (the character should be covered but is missing by mistake).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoe (food). 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/20090727213836/http://www.afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?no=248&l=Lunyu to http://www.afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?no=248&l=Lunyu

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) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hoe (food)


text:
User talk:Quid~enwiki

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have.  You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox.  When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.  First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette.  Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame)  14:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/ai/aqs/aqs-checklist-5.pdf Quid

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Quid. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Quid~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Quid~enwiki


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YBP

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

YBP
Dictionary definition. Transwiki to Wiktionary. -- Pablo D. Flores 14:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should this even be transwikied? -- BD2412 talk 15:46, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
 * Delete: Simply a redundant TLA. You have to already know what it is to ask what it is. Geogre 18:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no reason to keep it. -Mariano 07:50, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia has pages for Anno Domini and Common Era, with appropriate redirection at BC, AD, BCE, and CE. Also, the notation YBP appears in some Wikipedia articles, for example Population bottleneck, Laysan, and Bering land bridge.  I suggest that if we allow its usage in our articles, we should have an article on it just like we do for related abbreviations.  At the least, it should redirect to Common Era, which should then mention the term.  Conversely, if we don't have an article on it, we shouldn't use it in other articles.  So far, Manual of Style doesn't take a position on this issue, that I can see. —Triskaideka 14:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YBP


text:
Talk:List of defunct NFL franchises

merge the lot
I have not seen a single article on a defunct team that should be an article. I think it would make more sense to move all text here. If it ever happens that a team's paragraph gets big, then it might be moved to a separate article. --MarSch 14:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am more hesitant to do that now after I listed the season-by-season records on each team's article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah, I can see that won't fit. --MarSch 01:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleveland Browns
Readding Cleveland Browns as the team was effectively defunct for that time period. --Duemellon 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Browns are considered by the league to have "suspended operations" in 1997-98, not "defunct". See Talk:Baltimore Ravens. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that this article says, "Note that the purpose of the list is for NFL teams that no longer exist" (emphasis added). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If they labelled them "suspended operations" then it's fine. The "no longer exist" tag, however, isn't necessarily clear when considering some of the franchises closing in the 50's. The Colts didn't really end, they moved cities. Why aren't the LA, err... Oakland... err... LA... err... Oakland Raiders put in that category? The Texans are back, in a different city, based on the same previous entity. So, I'm not arguing to keep Cleveland, but now wondering why those are/aren't considered "defunct"? --Duemellon 10:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Colts that are on this page are not the same franchise that Johnny U played for. The Raiders are not a defunct team. a defunct team means a franchise that no longer plays anywhere not just in the same city. The Oilers are now the Titans. The Houston Texans are not related to either the 1952 Dallas Texans or the 1960s AFL Dallas Texans except for the same nickname. see also NFL franchise moves and mergers

Smith03 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * What makes it a defunct team? Continuity in what manner? Ownership? Uniforms? City? Nickname? continual seasons of play? Is it the shared historical data? The "defunct" label seems a bit unclear in those regards. Could you (whoever) clarify it in this article? --Duemellon 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re-issuing the request: Please define "defunct" teams & why one is defunct while others aren't? --Duemellon 12:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A defunct team means a franchise that no longer plays anywhere not just in the same city as they started out in. The Browns were not a defunct team because the NFL inactivated the franchise for 3 season while a new stadium was being built. The team (players) became part of a new franchise (Ravens). A defunct franchise is one that fails and the there are no plans to bring back the franchise. The Browns were not the first franchise to be inactive in the NFL. During World War 2 the Cleveland Rams were inactive for the 1943 season due to lack of players the Eagles and Steelers merged teams and the Cardinals and Steelers merged in 1944 for a season so those franchises were also inactive during those years. Again the Baltimore Colts team on this page is not the same team that started in 1953. The Colts that are on this page was a team from the AAFC that joined the NFL in 1950 after the 1950 season the team was sold back to the NFL by it owner therefor it became defunct the current Colts franchise/team started in 1953 after a new owner bought the rights to the defunct Dallas Texans (1952) franchise. The reason the Texans are not Colts is because the owner of the team in Dallas sold the franchise back to the NFL during the 1952 season. The league than folded the franchise after the season. The league sold the Texans spot to a group in Baltimore hence the new Colts in 1953. The Colts than moved to Indianapolis in 84 but it the same franchise just a new town. The Raiders have played every season since 1960 just because a team moves to a new town does not mean a team is defunct. The Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders are the same franchise. A team because defunct when the ownership sales the team back to the league and the league than cancels the franchise (what happen to 1952 Texans). You may want to check out Pro Football Research Association they have many free articles that explain very well and different franchises. Also there is a difference between the terms franchise and team. A franchise becomes defunct (although most people myself included use the terms interchangeable). The franchise is the legal entity that entitles a person the right to own operate a team. If the franchise right is revoke or surrender the franchise is folded. Again in the case of the Browns the league did not revoke the franchise they held the franchise in trust until a new owner was chosen (actually a new stadium was built). Again look at PFRA for more info on the topic. But this list reflects what the NFL considers to be defunct. Smith03 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * In an attempt to simplify what you are saying (as that's a whole heap of unsegmented sentences), if the team had given the rights to the team back to the league, it was defunct for that period of time. Is that the credentials for a defunct team? --Duemellon 11:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

First you are welcome for my attempt to answer your question. secondly yeah that is a nice way to boii it down. If the franchise was returned to the league it becomes defunct, However the NFL held the Browns frachise in trust until a new owner was found, kind of like how baseball owned the Expos/Nationals only in case of the Browns no team took the field. Just curious why did you wait 8 months to reply to question that you had asked in the first place? Smith03 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Why wait so long? It's just that some things aren't really that important. I do suggest you include that definition, in clear terms, in this article. "Defunct" is a general term & could be interpretted many ways without that point of clarificaiton --Duemellon 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It seemed important enough to you back in Sept and Oct that you "Re-issued the request". Also you are welcome to edit the article to include that defintion. I do tend to write alot of unsegmented sentences  Smith03 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankford
I am removing Frankford Yellow Jackets because they moved to become the Eagles. --Alien joe (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC) The Houston Oilers are the same franchise as the Tennessee Titans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.125.4 (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of defunct National Football League franchises. 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/20131006174728/http://www.databasefootball.com/teams/teamlist.htm to http://www.databasefootball.com/teams/teamlist.htm

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) 20:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Football League which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of defunct NFL franchises


text:
Talk:Ulleungdo

Seeing Dokdo?
My maths are not at their best anymore, but this sentence (16:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)):

 * coastal cliff from which the Liancourt Rocks (known in Korea as Dokdo) can be discerned in the distance

under the Tourism section puzzles me. Engaging good old Pythagoras (a²+b²=c², with a=Earth radius, c=Earth radius+height, b=distance seen) I calculated that I can see as far as 112km from the highest peak of Ulleung-do (984m), which includes Dokdo (apparently some 90km). Now, given that Dokdo itself reaches 179m, I tried the inverse calculation, which turns out that this cliff mentioned in the article needs to be 815m above sea level... This is not my understanding of a cliff... (also, of course, I only used the average Earth radius of 6371km which may be way off locally).

I really wonder whether anyone could enlighten me on this. If my maths are correct, I suggest this sentence be rewritten. Kokiri 16:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Kokiri, here's my calculation. Let r=radius of the Earth (use your 6371 km), a=height above sea level of some spot on Ulleung-do, b=height above sea level of highest spot on Dokdo (179 m).  If you stand at the top of Dokdo, the horizon on open water is a distance h away; and the horizon on open wwww.novell.com/linux/ater from your vantage point on Ulleung-do is a distance g away.  By Pythagoras, g²+r²=(r+a)², and h²+r²=(r+b)².  In order for your point on Ulleung-do to see the top of Dokdo, these two horizons must overlap.  If d=distance from Dokdo to Ulleung-do, the requirement is g+h>d.  Plugging this in and solving for the height (and dropping small terms), you should have a line of sight to the tip of Dokdo from any point on Ulleung-do that's at height a if sqrt(a) > d / sqrt(2r) - sqrt(b).  In this case, I get 140 m. That's still pretty tall, but not unreasonable.  The Dokdo Observatory is on top of Manghyang-bong, 317 m according to the map here (page 33 of the pdf): .  From there you should have a line of sight to the part of Dokdo that's 55 m above sea level or higher.  --Reuben 20:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, very helpful. Kokiri 21:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No problem! It would probably be good to add some details there as it could be a controversial point because of Liancourt Rocks / Dokdo / Takeshima. --Reuben 21:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Population
The article should say how many people live on the island. AnonMoos 17:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Dagelet as Ulleungdo?
There is contradicting information even within Wikipedia. First of all, if you look up "Argonaut" on Wikipedia, you find a link to Ulleungdo.

Furthermore, there's this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Letts-Popular-Atlas-1883-Russia-in-Asia-Chinese-Empire-etc.jpg If you look at that map, Argonaut and Dagelet are marked as separate islands off the eastern coast of Korea. Looking at their locations on the map, Argonaut should be Ulleungdo and Dagelet corresponds to the location of Dokdo.

If someone could conjure up a proper source for this it would be helpful. Unbal3 (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Consistency
Article (and article title if necessary) should be consistent on whether it should be written "Ulleungdo" or "Ulleung-do". As it stands, the article happily alternates with a slight preference for the non-hyphenated version. --131Platypi (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ulleungdo


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boaisy

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Boaisy
Dic def of neologism that doesn't seem to have gained any acceptance/usage--25 displayed hits, but all are for a forum user ID, and an odd spelling of "Boise" (as in Idaho)--none for this usage. Niteowlneils 14:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Not notable. --Phroziac 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, not notable. -- BD2412 talk 18:23, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
 * Delete: Failed neologism, probably patterned on the US Navy's BOHICA ("Bend Over Here It Comes Again") for any inevitable misery inflicted by the chain of command. Geogre 18:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. JamesBurns 05:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boaisy


text:
User:Derbeth/Sandbox

User:Essjay - cool templates

title: User:Derbeth/Sandbox


text:
Category:Lakes of Slovenia

This category is for articles pertaining to lakes and reservoirs in Slovenia.

Note: Some of the entities may be found under their non-Slovene names.

title: Category:Lakes of Slovenia


text: Category:Prime ministers of Rhodesia

title: Category:Prime ministers of Rhodesia


text:
Talk:Brans–Dicke theory

GR does not have parameters?!
I find your statement that GR lacks for tunable parameters to be odd. Technically, the EFE are $$G_{\mu\nu} = \kappa T_{\mu\nu}$$, where $$\kappa = 8 \pi G/c^4$$. G is a value that is very much tuned to fit observation.

I agree with your overall point, but I see GR as having only one tunable parameter, where as Brans-Dicke theory has two.

--EMS | Talk 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Newtonian G aliases to the definition of the kg, and c is defined as a fixed value (but any variation of it would imply a problem with clock rates not obeying the Equivalence Principle.) Therefore G is not a fundamentally adjustable parameter. The Brans-Dicke $$\omega$$ is dimensionless, so to adjust it is meaningful. To adjust G is to change the definition of the kg. In fact, it is commonly said that the way we weigh the Sun (in kg) is to determine G with a laboratory balance experiment. Pdn 16:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True, but G is still set to fit the observations made with the balance experiment.

As a practical matter, all fundamental constants are tunable parameters. It is just that for the most part they have been well tuned already. To me, one of the strengths of GR is that is does not introduce and new parameters into the mix.

Look at it this way: If Brans-Dicke theory should be proven to be correct, the determined value of ω would become another established physical constant. --EMS | Talk 18:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't completely agree. On that page of "physical constants" most of them are just conversion factors or arbitrary numbers. For example, the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum were introduced to allow conversion between practical engineering units like volts,amperes, farads, henrys, and esu or emu. They are not tunable and have no significance except to relate laboratory equipment to things like the real value of e as expressed in the fine structure constant. Again, the laboratory balance experiment that measures G depends on calibrating the masses against a standard kept in France. They are trying to get rid of that standard and are getting close - so maybe the kg will soon be defined by counting atoms of some isotope like Carbon 12. Even so, the number of atoms chosen (of order Avogadro's number) will be an arbitrary number selected by international agreement. It will not be a constant of nature any more than the conversion between renmimbi and dollars - or at least not much more. Perhaps I should have used pints and gallons - the conversion factor of 8 (as I recall) is not a constant of nature, but an agreed or legally established number. Returning to G, I would also like to point out that the year is a measurable number of seconds and the distance to the Sun a measurable number of light-seconds. Thus when we assign a value to G consistent with the Earth's orbit (you can add relativistic corrections but it does not affect the scaling) we are setting up a gravitational mass for the Sun, and when we measure G in the lab we are enabling a conversion of that to a multiple of the mass of a bar of metal in Sevres, France - that is all - no real physics, though you might get a grant for it! Pdn 20:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be doing a wonderful job of missing the point. Basically my point is that the Brans-Dicke constant ω, if its practical value is not infinite, has the same standing as G: It then is a constant of nature who use is needed to properly describe the behavior of objects in a gravitational field.

How would the value of ω be set? Answer: Through observations of the behavior of objects in strong gravitational fields.

How has the value of G been set? Answer: Through observations of the behavior of objects in weak gravitational fields.

When Newton set up his gravitational theory, noone knew the masses of the Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. G itself therefore was a "tunable parameter" at the start. However, it is now a well-known and well-used quantity. To some extent it is still being tuned, but that there is a gravitational constant and that its use is needed in much of physics is a given. The trouble with ω in the context of Brans-Dicke theory is that it is a new constant, unused in other contexts, and acting in addition to the action of the well-established parameter G. So it is of little wonder that it is "deprecated" given the lack of unique observational support for Brans-Dicke theory.

When push comes to shove, this is a matter of semantics. To me anything that acts as scaling factor for purposes of setting two values the same is a "parameter" in the sense used by Chris. That is the reason for my query. --EMS | Talk 21:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * G is dimensionful and is thus a mere irrelevant conversion factor which can be set equal to 1, 1/(8 pi) or whatever value one finds convenient. See here. Count Iblis 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but please see the below. If you keep the mass of the proton fixed, then it certainly does matter. –Joke 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Joke, I didn't see your comments below! I certainly agree with your point. Ultimately, only dimensionless quantities matter. By changing G you just redefine the Plank mass in terms of SI units. Then, if you keep the proton mass fixed in terms of SI units you do make a relavant change, because the ratio of the proton mass to the Planck mass changes.Count Iblis 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Writing the Riemann Tensor
First, thanks to EMS for showing me a better way to write indexed objects in Wiki (plainly, there are little differences between Wiki and Latex). Since I am learning to wikiwrite by observation of how others do it, this is helpful!

I am with Pdn on the "tunable parameter" issue, and this is certainly the standard view, but I would agree that this requires better explanation. If I recall correctly, Steve Carlip has given a very nice one in one of his past posts to sci.physics.research. I'll try to find that and use it as the basis for a better explanation of what "no tunable parameters" means.

By a happy chance, Brans just posted to the ArXiv a history of Brans/Dicke theory, and several new papers on how astronomical observations might lead to better bounds on $$omega$$, so I plan to add that citation and amend my description of the theory. I may also be able to obtain some feedback from Brans himself on the article, since he has obviously recently been thinking about it-- that would be nice!
 * --Chris Hillman —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 15 June 2005 (UTC)

 * Chris - You may agree with Pdn, but you seem to see why I raised a red flag on the "parameter" issue. I think that the real issue is that it is not immediately obvious as to what ω should be to within a order of magnitude.  As a result, this theory is not well-constrained.

 * On the Wiki TeX issue: You're welcome. However, the syntax I used is one I came up with to force proper placement of tensor indeces in LaTeX.  Here on Wikipedia, the Wiki translator cannot place superscripted indeces directly above subscripted indeces for in-line math.  That is what created the difficulties that I resolved.  But you are right in that Wiki math is a specialized subset of TeX math.  My advice is to regularly use the "Editting help" pages.  They are like any other manual:  They get more helpful as you get more experienced with the product.

 * I am considering adding a section to this article on consistency with observation. The issues of the oblateness of the Sun and of dipole gravitational radiation are potentially fascinating.  At the least, they tell the story of the rise and fall (or at least decline) of this theory. --EMS | Talk 04:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Historical Origins
I don't think this article is unsatisfactory as it stands, because it fails to explain the historical origins of Brans/Dicke theory or to place it in the context of other topics which have articles like the Dirac large numbers hypothesis. The paper by Brans which I cited is a good source for this background, but I haven't found time to incorporate that material into a new section on Historical Origins, which should probably be placed between Introduction and Comparision with General Relativity. Anyone else wnat to have a go? ---CH —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 25 June 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Does Brans/Dicke theory obey the EP, as I said, or not, as the article on Robert H. Dicke says? Both: roughtly speaking, it obeys the WEP but not the SEP. So this needs to be clarified also. ---CH —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 25 June 2005 (UTC)

Logical Inconsistency?
"The Brans/Dicke theory is "less stringent" than general relativity in another sense: it admits more solutions. That is, some of the spacetimes which are exact solutions to the Einstein field equation of general relativity are also admissible in Brans/Dicke theory, but the converse is false": the statement in bold is equivalent to its converse, and both are equivalent to the statement that there exist spacetimes admissible in both theories (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore, the part of the article quoted is incorrect, because inconsistent. I imagine "some" should read "all", but I don't know, so I'm not changing it. Comments? Buster79 13:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, Buster, yeah this needs to be more clearly expressed, and more examples would probably help too. The confusion is due to the fact that in Brans-Dicke, to specify a solution you must give a Lorentzian manifold together with a scalar field on that manifold.  IIRC, the correct statement is that every vacuum solution of the EFE can be made into a vacuum Brans-Dicke solution by choosing a trivial scalar field, but various non-solutions to the vacuum EFE can also be made into a vacuum Brans-Dicke solution by choosing an appropriate scalar field.  When I have time, I'll try to remember to check this and fix the article.  It would be nice to generalize this to non-vacuum solutions such as electrovacuums, but AFAIK this has not be carefully investigated.---CH  (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry for the lag. I was going to leave it alone but it's bugging me.) I suppose the extra example is useful, but I think it contradicts, rather than clarifying, the sentence I quoted. Read that sentence again in context and concentrate hard. I still think the author should have written "all", not "some". Buster79 21:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The author was me. Looking at the Lagrangian, I guess your point is pretty obvious :-/  I just modified the offending paragraph to restate the relationship in a way which is not definitive (since I don't say much about nonvacuum equations) but should be correct as far as it goes.---CH  (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll sleep soundly tonight. Good work! Buster79 22:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Planned Improvements
I won't be able to get to this for an unknown amount of time, but I have been planning improvements to this article for some time: A critical and subtle point to explain here is why not all interpretations which attempt to answer the question, "will the physical metric please stand up?", are equally justifiable. I plan to add a few more references when I introduce this material.---CH 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * better explanation of motivation as described in cited Brans article,
 * Jordan frame versus Einstein frame,
 * discussion of weak-field limit, gtr limit,
 * discussion of how gravitational waves differ from gtr,
 * compare static spherically symmetric solutions with gtr.

 * I have copied these plans to the todo list I made above. ---CH 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Compatible with evidence?
The article contains
 * At present, both general relativity and the Brans-Dicke theory are compatible with all well accepted observational and experimental evidence.

While strictly true, it is meaningless since GR is a limit of Brans-Dicke theory. The latest constraint on the Brans-Dicke parameter is from Cassini-Huygens, and specifies ω > 40,000, which is pretty severe if you ask me. I'm being a jerk and not reading the whole discussion above, but you can think of both Brans-Dicke theory and GR as having exactly one tunable parameter. In the case of Brans-Dicke theory it is obviously ω. In GR, it is not G, since that is a dimensionful quantity, but rather the ratio of G to some relevant mass scale (say, G mp2, where mp is the proton mass scale, say, or the Higgs mass, or the QCD scale ΛQCD, and G is Newton's constant, which is the inverse Planck mass squared). This is something Frank Wilczek has been talking about recently, although in a slightly different context. –Joke 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, Joke, this is an important point and when I get a chance to rewrite the article, I think I will be able to convince you that my statement was not so trivial after all!  It turns out that saying that gtr is a limiting case of Brans-Dicke involves nontrivial assumptions related to Jordan versus Einstein "frames", and these assumptions turn out to be dubious! ---CH 22:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I would be very interested to hear this. As I was looking at the article, I saw the reference to Faroni. I will have a look at those papers. In the meantime, I have removed the statement as it doesn't seem to reflect the conventional wisdom. –Joke 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * P.S.: even if one accepts G/(fundamental length) scale as a "tunable parameter" for gtr, Brans-Dicke has one more tunable parameter. ---CH 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to edit the article to reflect this. I guess it depends if you consider boundary conditions for the entire universe to be tunable or environmental, which gets us into just the sort of philosophy that bores me to tears (see string landscape). –Joke 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see scalar-tensor theory (right now it is at Scalar-Tensor, but it really ought to be moved and I have put in a request – unfortunately someone has already created a redirect). I think that perhaps it should be merged with this article, as Brans-Dicke theory is the best-known example of a scalar tensor theory and their developments are really intertwined. The references to Bergmann and Wagoner I added are really good, and develop a theory similar to Brans-Dicke theory except where ω is now a function of φ and φ also has a "potential" term called λ. They are mentioned at parameterized post-Newtonian formalism: the PPN parameter β may be different from unity in these theories. –Joke 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * BTW, this project is currently rather high on my list. ---CH 22:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I will leave the page alone for the time being then. There is, I conjecture, an infinite reservoir of editing to be done on Wikipedia. –Joke 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think it is conventional to say Brans-Dicke theory rather than Brans/Dicke theory, and that like general relativity it never takes an article (e.g. the general theory of relativity, but general relativity and Brans-Dicke theory). –Joke 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I have abandoned my initial attempt (before I learned of a technical issue involving article namespace) to promulgate using terms like "von Neumann/Bessel-Hagen/de Sitter Theorem" for reasons which should be obvious from this example. (Real ones are easy enough to find.) ---CH 01:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative to" versus "competitor of"
DogsBreakfast changed a well-known competitor of to an alternative theory to. Brans-Dicke and other theories are often referred to in the research literature as either competitors or alternatives, but BD is often cited as the best known competitor of gtr. Therefore, I think the original phrase is a more suitable description for the introduction of this article, so I reverted the change. DB, if you disagree, can you say why? TIA ---CH 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with returning to the original wording as in this case it seems it might be justified, however in general I think claims to being the 'best known' are hard to verify, and as such I'd prefer to see the verifiable facts speak for themselves. If it really is the best-known, then can't we show this in some way, rather than just tell it, e.g. number of citations, or references in more popular publications, perhaps? --DogsBreakfast 13:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Clifford Will's "popular" 1986 book on general relativity and testing, "Was Einstein Right?" devotes a chapter to Brans-Dicke. It doesn't give that honour to any other GR-competitor. ErkDemon 17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, the beginning of the article, and the templates used, seem to suggest the wrong thing -- that the Brans-Dicke theory is sort of like homeopathy, or something goofy like that: a fringe theory that attracts a few enthusiasts. I think it would be more accurate to present it as a way of organizing and evaluating attempts to test General Relativity. If you can't even come up with a logically and mathematically consistent alternative to GR, then it becomes very difficult to plan any tests of GR, or to analyze the results of those tests. I think the joke was that when detailed tests of general relativity first started becoming practical, one of the research groups claimed to believe in GR on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and Brans-Dicke on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The general approach was that they had these parameters that could be constrained by experiment, and the extent to which GR was verified could be quantified in terms of the empirical restrictions on that parameter space. I think some people refer to this kind of thing as a test theory. although I could be misusing the term.--76.81.164.27 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To do list
As a courtesy, I have removed the todo list. I am leaving WP and doubt anyone else will know how to implement the suggested improvements since this was mostly a note to myself. Sadly, I am now abandoning this article to its fate. See User:Hillman/Archive for the last version I edited. ---CH 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

you need indeedd a specialist
since my english is rudimentary i would apreciate collaboration to define in layman terms the meaning of the brans-dicke and Smolin/zee theories, please do not erase, this articles needs a full explanation of its implications as most serious relativists consider today GR a specific case of the Higgs/brans field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.242.7 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange LaTeX behaviour
Next formula fails to display on my browser, Firefox 3.5.3, on Windows XP. The browser displays its source text without any rendering. What's wrong ? If I remove the \Box it renders all right, ditto if I insert "666" (with or without a space) before the "3".
 * $$\Box\phi = \frac{8\pi}{3+2\omega}T$$

I'm using the classic skin, and math option "HTML if very simple of else PNG" (but what I see is bare LaTeX source code, not HTML rendering of it). --FvdP (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Update: well, it works now, both here and in the article. Don't know what happened... --FvdP (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?
What is the point of Brans-Dicke theory? What was the motivation of Brans and Dicke for devising a theory more complex than GR that doesn't fit the data any better? I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems an article like this should answer them. Probably Brans and Dicke had some reason for disquiet with GR. What were those reasons? What physical insights did they have? 190.46.5.229 (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 * The motivation largely lies in Mach's principle. I agree the article should introduce that. Currently it is only in the "See also" section. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

comparison with general relativity (GR)
when comparing the action of the brans-dicke theory with the action of GR, the gravitational constant G pops up (so here one uses non-planck units) whereas in comparing the field equations of both theories G does not appear (planck units). So for consitency one should check weather the article uses planck units (G=1) or not. Since phi is a function of G, I would propose to not use planck units, since then the differences of the equations are more obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.164.122 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Self-creation cosmology
Tagging per the RFC on Talk:Self-creation cosmology. I am not the proposer of the RFC. Please discuss there. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Matter Term
The Lagrangian according to Brans/Dicke is given in the article as
 * (I) $$S=\frac{1}{16 \pi}\int d^4x\sqrt{-g} \;

\left(\phi R - \frac{\omega}{\phi}\partial_a\phi\partial^a\phi + \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{M}\right)$$

In general relativity it is given in the article as
 * (II) $$S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g} \; \left(\frac{R }{16\pi G} + \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{M}\right)$$

This is very starange, as for $$\phi = 1$$ (I) does not simplify to (II), because the right most term in (I) is
 * (I') $$\frac{1}{16 \pi}\int d^4x\sqrt{-g} \;\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{M}$$,

but in (II) it is
 * (II') $$\int d^4x\sqrt{-g} \; \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{M}$$

So we have a discrepancy of a factor $$16 \pi$$.

In order to make it even more clear we may have a look at German Wikipedia. The Brans/Dicke Lagrangian (German: Wirkung) is given as
 * (III) $$S = \frac{1}{16 \, \pi}\int \mathrm{d}^4x \sqrt{-g} \left( \phi \, R - \omega \, \phi^{-1}\partial_{\mu}\phi \, \partial^{\mu}\phi \right) + S_\mathrm{M}$$

and the value in general relativity (German: ART) is given as
 * (IV) $$S = \frac{1}{16 \, \pi}\int \mathrm{d}^4x \, \sqrt{-g} \, R + S_\mathrm{M}$$

Comparing (I) with (III) we conclude
 * $$S_\mathrm{M} = \frac{1}{16 \pi}\int d^4x\sqrt{-g} \;\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{M}$$,

but comparing (II) with (IV) it must be
 * $$S_\mathrm{M} = \int d^4x\sqrt{-g} \;\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{M}$$,

which almoust obviously is a contradiction.

Unfortunaltely there are no term specific online sources provided, so I am not the specialist to identify the incorrect term and correct it. But who knows what is right? --Ernsts (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Found the following article and equation (2.9) shows how the term (I) has to be corrected. Will do so. --Ernsts (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

String theory
I've seen it stated a few times (e.g. https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-why-physicists-think-string-theory-might-be-our-theory-of-everything-d4a653e15bf9 ) that string theory predicts Brans-Dicke. Should this be mentioned in the article? Seems notable and newsworthy to me. cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brans–Dicke theory


text:
Madame George

"Madame George" is a song by Northern Irish singer-songwriter Van Morrison. It appears on the album Astral Weeks, released in 1968. The song features Morrison performing the vocals and acoustic guitar. It also features a double bass, flute, drums, vibraphone, and a string quartet.

Recording and composition
"Madame George" was recorded during the first Astral Weeks session that took place on 25 September 1968, at Century Sound Studios in New York City with Lewis Merenstein as producer.

The main theme of the song is contentious. Some believe it is about leaving the past behind. The character of Madame George is considered by many to be a drag queen, although Morrison himself denied this in a Rolling Stone interview. He later claimed that the character was based on six or seven different people: "It's like a movie, a sketch, or a short story. In fact, most of the songs on Astral Weeks are like short stories. In terms of what they mean, they're as baffling to me as to anyone else. I haven't got a clue what that song is about or who Madame George might have been."

Van Morrison, speaking to biographer Ritchie Yorke about the writing and meaning of the song, said in part: "'Madame George' was recorded live. The vocal was live and the rhythm section and the flute too and the strings were the only overdub. The title of the song confuses one, I must say that. The original title was 'Madame Joy' but the way I wrote it down was 'Madame George'. Don't ask me why I do this because I just don't know. The song is just a stream of consciousness thing, as is 'Cyprus Avenue'...'Madame George'  just came right out.  The song is basically about a spiritual feeling."

An earlier recording with slightly altered lyrics and a much swifter tempo changes the tone considerably from the Astral Weeks recording, which is downbeat and nostalgic; the earlier recording is joyous, and seems to be from the point of view of a partygoer who sees the titular character. This version surfaced on the 1973 release T.B. Sheets, which compiled unreleased recordings Morrison had made for Bang Records in 1967.

This song contains a number of references to places and events in Van Morrison's native Belfast: Cyprus Avenue (also the title of another song on Astral Weeks) is a tree lined, up-market residential street in east Belfast; "throwing pennies at the bridges down below" was a practice of Northern Irish Unionists as they travelled on the train from Dublin to Belfast where the train crossed the River Boyne (site of the Battle of the Boyne, 1690); the train from Dublin arrived in Belfast at one end of Sandy Row, a working class staunchly Unionist/Protestant street and neighbourhood. Fitzroy may be a reference to Fitzroy Avenue, a narrow residential street in Belfast between the Ormeau Road and Rugby Road.

Comedian Frankie Boyle suggested it was a song about Van Morrison's mother in a video on Instagram. This is suggested by the line "With a childlike vision leaping into view Clicking, clacking of the high heeled shoe." Boyle suggests this is a child walking behind his mother down the street. This, according to Boyle is why Van Morrison is so miserable, as no one understands what he is saying.

Reception
The rock journalist Lester Bangs wrote in 1979 that the song "is the album's whirlpool. Possibly one of the most compassionate pieces of music ever made, it asks us, no, arranges that we see the plight of what I'll be brutal and call a lovelorn drag queen with such intense empathy that when the singer hurts him, we do too." Bangs also remarks that "Morrison has said in at least one interview that the song has nothing to do with any kind of transvestite – at least as far as he knows, he is quick to add – but that's bullshit." Indeed, the lyrics contain the lines "In the corner playing dominoes in drag/The one and only Madame George".

Artist Mark Wallinger said of "Madame George": "The sense of desire and loss expressed in this song is so sad because it dares one to try to hear it again as if for the first time. It describes our exile from our past. Radical, allusive, heartbreaking, and the ultimate three-chord trick."

In 1974, after he had recorded eight albums, Morrison told Ritchie Yorke when he asked him what he considered his finest single track and the one that he enjoyed the most that it was: "Definitely 'Madame George', definitely. I'm just starting to realize it more and more. It just seems to get at you... it just lays right in there, that whole track. The vocals and the instruments and the whole thing. I like that one."

Influence
Always a favorite of rock critics, "Madame George" is one of The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll and it was listed as No. 467 on the All Time 885 Greatest Songs compiled in 2004 by WXPN (88.5 FM) from listener's votes and No. 356 in 2014.

Madame George appears in the "Black Boys on Mopeds" lyrics of Sinéad O'Connor: "England's not the mythical land of Madame George and roses" suggesting that she is a legendary figure. David Gray pays tribute to the song on the final track of his album White Ladder, with his cover version of the Soft Cell song, "Say Hello, Wave Goodbye", which ends similarly and even borrows lyrics "Through the rain, hail, sleet and snow, say goodbye. Get on the train, the train and say goodbye". In David A. Stewart and the Spiritual Cowboy's song "Out of Reach", from the album Honest, there is a line that goes: "Madame George got played today, she almost forgot she could feel that way". Although not a direct imitation, the riff that the string quartet repeats at the end of the song is mimicked at the end of Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" (one of several indicators that Morrison had great influence on Springsteen), confirmed by Springsteen himself on Desert Island Discs talking to Kirsty Young. The American rock band Hat On, Drinking Wine takes their name from a lyric from the song: "He's much older now/With hat on, drinking wine."

When singer-songwriter Joan Armatrading appeared on Desert Island Discs talking to Sue Lawley on 29 January 1989, "Madame George" was selected as one of the eight records she would like to take to her desert island, and also as the one favoured record she would most want to save if the other seven were lost.

Singer/songwriter Harry Styles has cited it as one of his favorite songs, and Astral Weeks as his favorite album.

It is included on the soundtrack of the Steve McQueen thriller “Widows” 2018.

Other releases
"Madame George" was featured on Morrison's album Astral Weeks Live at the Hollywood Bowl, released in 2009 to celebrate forty years since Astral Weeks was first released.

Covers

 * Marianne Faithfull performed this song on the 1994 Van Morrison tribute album No Prima Donna: The Songs of Van Morrison. Faithfull's version also plays over the closing credits of Dagmar Hirtz's film Moondance (1995). Faithfull's version of the song was also released as a single in 1994, with Morrison's "Queen of the Slipstream" as the B-side.
 * Jeff Buckley recorded a cover version of this song.
 * Energy Orchard covered "Madame George" on their 1993 album, Shinola.
 * Phoebe Snow covered "Madame George" on her 1998 album I Can't Complain.
 * Eric Bell released a live cover of the song on his album Live Tonite...Plus!.
 * Ursula Burns
 * Malian musicians Ali Farka Touré and Toumani Diabaté covered Madame George on their 2005 collaborative album In The Heart Of The Moon. This beautiful instrumental version, featuring Diabaté’s brilliant kora playing, is entitled Hawa Dolo.

Personnel

 * Van Morrison – vocals, acoustic guitar
 * Richard Davis – double bass
 * Connie Kay – drums
 * John Payne – flute
 * Larry Fallon – string arrangements

title: Madame George


text:
Bowling Green Assembly Plant

The Bowling Green Assembly Plant is a General Motors automobile factory in Bowling Green, Kentucky. It is a specialized plant assembling GM's Y-body sports cars, the Chevrolet Corvette and formerly the Cadillac XLR. It was first opened on June 1, 1981.

By 2023, the plant had produced approximately 1.1 million Corvettes. As of 2022, GM employed approximately 1,100 people in Bowling Green.

History
The first 300 Corvettes were hand built at a plant in Flint, Michigan in 1953. Production was moved the next year to a facility in St. Louis, Missouri and then finally ended up in 1981 at the Bowling Green Assembly Plant. General Motors opened the Bowling Green plant for production on June 1 that year, with most of the 900 Corvette workers from St. Louis transferring to the new plant. What was once an abandoned Chrysler industrial air-conditioning unit factory is now a 1.7 million square foot facility that employs almost one thousand people. The factory was built by the Chrysler Airtemp Division as the area provided the potential for skilled workers due to the high quality vocational training. In 1968, when plans for the factory were announced, Charles B. Gorey Jr., the vice president of the Chrysler Airtemp Division, announced that "production will require workers skilled in machine trades and most employees will be men." After the factory was acquired from Chrysler, General Motors spent an estimated $130 million to refurbish the factory and install its own assembly line. Guided tours of the plant are available throughout the year on weekdays, three times a day.

On December 11, 2021, an EF3 tornado damaged the roof and an entrance to the plant, briefly halting production. No employees were injured.

Workers
As of 2022, GM employed approximately 1,100 people in Bowling Green. The plant's workers are unionized, belonging to the United Auto Workers Local 2164.

Investments
Many large investments have been made to keep the plant as updated and cutting edge as possible. As the Corvette improves throughout the years, the technology to create it has to be revamped as well.

Performance Build Center
The performance build center allows engine aficionados to build their own specialty engines. With the relocation of the performance build center from Michigan to Bowling Green, it allows customers to be able to build and watch the production of their car now all in one location. The opening of this center in Bowling Green is adding 20 new or relocated jobs to the community as well.

The center is the source of all the hand assembled dry sump engines. These would be the 6.2L LS3 V8 engine of the grand sport coupe (manual transmission only), the 7.0L LS7 V8 Z06 engine, and the 6.2L supercharged LS9 engine for the ZR1.

Body shop
The new body shop now allows the aluminum frame to be produced in-house. The new shop also was designed to have the advancements to make the most complex frame design in Corvette's history. This new frame is 99 pounds lighter and 40% stiffer than the C6 frame. With the chassis being so strong, the C7 convertible will not need any additional structural reinforcements to the frame which is very rare.

Community involvement
Features a wildlife habitat that is spread across 75 acres. The space also features a 42,000 pounds of ground-up ergonomic mats recycled from the plant for a picnic area. The land also features sunflowers that were planted by students and blue bird boxes that were made and installed by a local Boy Scout troop. The plant employs an environmental team that chooses appropriate plant species for the grounds.

Vehicles produced
As of September, 2022:
 * Chevrolet Corvette Stingray
 * Chevrolet Corvette Z06

title: Bowling Green Assembly Plant


text:
User talk:RickAguirre

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have.  You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox.  When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.  First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette.  Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame)  14:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

 * Basically, everything is copyright unless it says it isn't and you can't use copyright material without explicit permission from the owner. The text Ailsa Mellon-Bruce should be removed but I don't have time to do it right now (as I have to get to a meeting) and you might well have rewritten it by the time I get back. It's quite simple to do by rephrasing but it must be "substantially" different (i.e. different in substance, not just one word changed.) These sites are good sources of info but you must rewrite and not simply cut and paste. Thanks for your contribution and please continue to learn more and contribute.Cutler 17:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say that User:Wetman has done just enough to the article! Cutler 17:19, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Republican Congressman Stephen G. Porter, a long-time congressional expert on narcotics and member of the American delegation to the Geneva opium conferences, persuaded a large number of his fellow congressmen to support his move to set up a new Bureau of Narcotics within the US Treasury Department. On 12 August 1930 his plan was adopted and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) came into existence. Porter, who was a Congressman for Pennsylvania, did not live to see his achievement for he died of cancer on 27 June in Pittsburgh.

Anslinger was appointed the first commissioner of the FBN, his appointment ratified by President Herbert Hoover the following month and confirmed by the US Senate in December. It seems likely that Porter had put Anslinger's name forward for the latter's wife, Martha Denniston, was politically connected through her uncle, Andrew Mellon, who was Secretary of the Treasury, and moreover her family were exceedingly wealthy steel mill owners and major contributors to the Republican Party. A staunch Republican himself, Anslinger received a salary of nine thousand dollars per annum and the brief to supervise, regulate and enforce the law concerning both licit and illicit habit-forming drugs within the USA.

Cannabis: a history by Martin Booth St Martin's Press, 2004 0-312-42494-9

title: User talk:RickAguirre


text:
Talk:Arab philosophy

Redirect?
Averroës can be considered an Arabic philosopher, but Avicenna was Persian. This article looks like it wants to be Islamic philosophy. That, and the fact that this isn't really NPOV (it's a contested interpretation of Platonism in Chistendom, even if I do share it), incline me to delete the content and redirect. Assuming that there is no objection.
 * A redirect seems sensible. Dast 12:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arab philosophy


text:
Merom

Merom may refer to:

 * Merom, Indiana, a town in the United States
 * Lake Merom, a former lake in the Hula Valley of Israel
 * Merom Golan, a kibbutz in the Golan Heights
 * Merom (microprocessor), code name for the mobile variant of the Intel Core 2 processor
 * Ancient Merom, thought to be located at the site of Meiron
 * Battle of the Waters of Merom in the Hebrew Bible

title: Merom


text:
User:Lawrence451~enwiki

Kegel, Otto German mathematician, substancial work in group theory, Scholar of Reinhold Baer.
 * 1934, Bethlehem (USA)

title: User:Lawrence451~enwiki


text:
Shinanomachi Station

Shinanomachi Station (信濃町駅) is a railway station on the Chūō-Sōbu Line in Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan, operated by the East Japan Railway Company (JR East).

Lines
The station is served by the Chūō-Sōbu Line.

Station layout
The station consists of a single island platform serving two tracks.

History
The station opened on 9 October 1894. With the privatization of Japanese National Railways (JNR) on 1 April 1987, the station came under the control of JR East.

Surrounding area

 * Keio University Medical School Hospital
 * Meiji-Jingu Stadium
 * Soka Gakkai Headquarters
 * Hall of the Great Vow for Kosen-rufu (Kosen-rufu Daiseido)
 * Soka Culture Center
 * Soka Gakkai Josei Toda International Centre (Soka Gakkai International Headquarters)
 * Soka Young Women's Centre
 * Komeito Headquarters
 * Seikyo Shimbun Headquarters
 * Min-On Music Museum

title: Shinanomachi Station