text:
Suzuki Bandit series

The Suzuki Bandit is a series of standard motorcycles produced by Suzuki since 1989. The Bandit series includes the following models:
 * GSX150, 147 cc liquid-cooled (2018–present)
 * GSF250, 248 cc liquid-cooled (1989–2000)
 * GSF400, 398 cc liquid-cooled (1989–1997)
 * GSF600, 599 cc SACS (1995–2004)
 * GSF650, 656 cc SACS (2005–2006), 656 cc liquid-cooled (2007–2016)
 * GSF750, 748 cc SACS (1996–1999)
 * GSF1200, 1,157 cc SACS (1996–2007)
 * GSF1250, 1,255 cc liquid-cooled (2007–2016)

With the exception of GSX150, which is powered by a DOHC single cylinder engine, all Bandit models have DOHC inline-four engines with 4 valves per cylinder. The GSF600 engine is based on the GSX600F engine, retuned for more mid-range torque. The GSF1200 engine is a bored out version of the GSX-R1100 engine, also retuned for more mid-range torque. The GSF650 and GSF1250 models use fuel-injected, liquid-cooled engines, the GSF1250 having an auxiliary balance shaft to reduce vibrations.

'S' versions have a half-fairing, and starting from model year 2000, they also have dual headlights. 'N' versions are unfaired naked bikes with a single headlight. The availability of the 'S' and 'N' versions varies with country and model year.

The Bandit series earned a reputation as "hooligan bikes". With more recent revisions, however, the bike has taken on a more streamlined and modern feel, taking it more towards sports tourer territory. The GSF1200 remains popular with stunt riders, and is used by a wheelie school in the UK.

GSF250 and GSF400
Launched in 1989, the GSF250 and GSF400 are naked street motorcycles, with liquid-cooled, inline four cylinder engines derived from the GSX-R250 and GSX-R400 motorcycles, mounted as a stressed member in a steel trellis frame with single rear shock absorber. Apart from the engines and transmission, the "baby Bandits" share many of their parts. Limited editions have a retro-styled top fairing. 'N' designated models have clip-on handlebars. "GSF" and "Bandit" nomenclature are both used across the series' chronology and market geography.

The first generation GSF250 (GJ74A) produces 45 bhp, while the GSF400 (GK75A) produces 59 bhp. The GSF400 manages the extra power with a 525 chain and double disk front brakes (single disk in North America), compared to a 520 chain and single front disk on the GSF250.

From 1991, the GSF400V received variable inlet timing via solenoid-controlled rocker arm engaging with supplementary cams. Although these models are commonly referred to as "GSF400V-V", the '-V' actually denotes the 1997 Suzuki model year motorcycles. VVT models are usually recognised by a red engine cover and some instances of a light grey engine cover. The GSF250V arrived later, in 1995.

In 1992, engine adjustments improved low-mid range torque trading off peak power reduced to 53 bhp for the GSF400 and 40 bhp for the GSF250.

In 1995, the second generation GSF250V (GJ77A) and GSF400(V) (GK7AA) introduced significant updates, including new styling, fuel tank, swingarm, air filter assembly, exhaust, seat, controls, console, etc.

GSF250 models

 * GSF250 - model years 'K' (1989), 'L' (1990), 'M' (1991), 'N' (1992), 'P' (1993), 'R' (1994).
 * GSF250V - model years 'S' (1995), 'Y' (2000).
 * GSF250Z - limited, model years 'M' (1991), 'N' (1992), 'P' (1993).
 * GSF250VZ - limited, model year 'S' (1995).

GSF400 models

 * GSF400 - model years 'K' (1989), 'L' (1990), 'M' (1991), 'N' (1992), 'P' (1993), 'R' (1994), 'S' (1995).
 * GSF400V - VC engine, model years 'M' (1991), 'N' (1992), 'P' (1993), 'R' (1994), 'S' (1995), 'V' (1997).
 * GSF400Z - limited, model years 'L' (1990, SUZUKI 70th Anniversary "LIMITED" edition), 'M' (1991).
 * GSF400VZ - VC engine, limited, model years 'M' (1991), 'N' (1992), 'P' (1993), 'V' (1997).

GSF600
1995

The naked GSF600 N Bandit was released in February. It was based on the styling of the pre-existing GSF400 Bandit, with a retuned engine from the GSX600. The 600 Bandits came with a 15 tooth front sprocket and 48 tooth rear sprocket connected by a 530V 110 link chain.

1996

The faired Bandit S model was introduced, where the bikini half-fairing had its debut.

1997

Minor changes: A clutch switch (requiring the clutch to be pulled in when starting the motorcycle, for safety reasons) and carburettor heaters.

1998

The N model had passenger grab rails added. However, the S model had no changes.

1999

Debut of a new rear shock absorber, providing rebound as well as preload adjustment.

2000

The first major changes were made this year.

 * New rear bodywork.
 * Fully electronic instrumentation.
 * New carburettors with throttle position sensor.
 * Additional fuel filter.
 * Nissin brake callipers.
 * 20 L fuel tank (up from 19).
 * Improvements to frame and steering geometry.
 * Seat height lowered.
 * S model: New modern styled half fairing, with twin headlights.

2001

No significant changes.

2002

Fuel gauge now as standard.

2003

No significant changes.

2004

No significant changes.

GSF650
2005

The Bandit 650 and half-faired Bandit 650S launch took place at Tarragona, Spain.
 * Engine displacement increased by 56 cc to improve low- and mid-range performance
 * Seat and handlebars adjustable for height (seat: 770 mm/30.3 in or 790 mm/31.1 in)
 * New engine internals provide for reduced friction, together with smoother performance and increased power
 * Revised four-into-two exhaust system
 * Reshaped fuel tank
 * New halogen headlight
 * New LCD digital display combining speedometer, odometer, tripmeter, fuel gauge and clock
 * Increased rigidity within chassis and upgraded suspension
 * Overall weight reduced
 * ABS available as an option
 * Speedometer/odometer switchable between Metric and Imperial
 * Suzuki PAIR (Pulsed AIR) exhaust air injection system

2006

No significant changes.

2007

Suzuki designed a new, water-cooled engine specifically for the 2007 Bandit 650, unlike earlier models where they used re-worked engines from other models. Most of the chassis and bodywork remained unchanged from the 2005 model, though.

 * Meets Euro3 emission standards
 * 656 cc displacement, inline-four all-aluminium liquid-cooled engine
 * Electronic Fuel Injection with dual throttle valve system (similar to Suzuki's GSX-R and V-Strom)
 * 10% stiffer frame and longer swingarm
 * Stiffer rear shock but softer front fork
 * Claimed 85 hp at 10,500 rpm (up 7 hp)
 * 12,500 rpm redline
 * Same 20 L fuel tank as previous model, but the fuel pump takes about 1 L
 * Hydraulic clutch
 * 14 kg heavier

The 2007 Bandit 650 was reviewed by Bike magazine as being "de-criminalised" compared to its early brethren, but a good bike for beginners.

No longer available in the US.

2008

No longer available in Canada. Replaced by new Bandit-derived fully faired GSX650F in North America.

2009

In November 2008, Suzuki announced the following changes for the 2009 GSF650N and GSX650S.
 * Sleeker headlights
 * Slightly different frame covers
 * Slimmer tail lights
 * Re-shaped exhaust ends
 * Single instrument housing with analogue tachometer, digital LCD speedo, fuel gauge, clock, and gear indicator

Suzuki also announced the following changes.
 * GSF650N only: more angular headlights.
 * GSF650S only: re-styled cowling with stacked high and low beam multi-reflector headlights, storage in fairing, and new mirrors and indicators.

GSX650F
The GSX650F, produced from 2008, is essentially a variation on the Bandit 650, with much the same specification and components. Although built on a Bandit chassis, the additional lower fairing gives it a sportier look similar to that of the GSX-R series. The engine has also had a small amount of remapping to encourage revs, and the suspension is tweaked. It also has a different, one-piece seat.

GSF750
The Bandit 750 was a Japan only model that used parts from both the 600 and 1200 models; the front frame cradle was identical to the 600, the rear subframe was identical to the 1200 with bolt on pillion footpeg hangers, the clocks were 1200 items with a higher red-line on the rev counter of 12,000rpm (vs 10,000 for the 1200), including a fuel gauge which was absent from the 600 models of the time. The running gear and suspension were also the same as the 600. The engine, although visually identical to the 600, had a capacity of 748 cc, The carburettors were similar to the 600 apart from jetting, whereas the exhaust was identical to the 1200. The 750 came with a 6 speed gearbox like the 600 - as opposed to the 5 speed on the 1200. Power was a claimed 85 bhp. All machines were restricted to 180 km/h to comply with Japanese regulations, but are easily de-restricted to a true maximum speed of 220 km/h.

GSF1200

1996

The Bandit 1200 was generally released in January 1996, but a few were registered in 1995. It is powered by a re-tuned and higher capacity version of the GSX-R1100 engine. Other differences from the 600 cc models include fuel gauge, higher specification suspension, hydraulically operated clutch, larger diameter front brake discs, and 5-speed gearbox as opposed to the 6-speed gearbox of the 600 Bandit.

Many Suzuki motorcycles have the engine size cast into side of the cylinder block; 1200 Bandits (1,157 cc) do not have this but, apparently, some early production 1995 models do have 1,156 cc cast into the block. The 1200 Bandits have 15 tooth front sprockets and 45 tooth rear sprockets connected by 530V, 110 link rear chains.

1997

No changes. A version of the S Bandit with anti-lock braking was introduced for certain world markets. The 1997 ABS (anti-lock braking system) 1200 Bandit used a 114 link chain as opposed to the standard 110 link chain.

1998–2000

No significant changes.

2001

The 1200 Bandits received a similar revamp to the one the 600 Bandits received the previous year:

 * New rear bodywork.
 * Fully electronic instrumentation.
 * New carburettors.
 * Suzuki PAIR (Pulsed Air Injection), feeding clean air into the exhaust outlet to help eliminate unburnt fuel from emissions.
 * Additional fuel filter.
 * Tokico brake callipers (six pistons at the front).
 * 20 litre fuel tank (up from 19).
 * Improvements to frame and steering geometry.
 * Seat lowered.
 * S model: New modern styled fairing, with twin headlights.

2004

2004 models added a 2-way catalytic converter (for some markets) to the exhaust system, and minor modifications to the exhaust metalwork.

2005

2005 models (K5 and SK5) were the last of the 2nd Generation 1200 Bandits.

2006

2006 (K6 and SK6) models received a revamp with a new shape tank, side panels, a height adjustable seat and a longer hexagonal-section swinging arm. The faired "S" versions also have a new shape fairing and mirrors along with a totally redesigned headlight system with over and under beams rather than the previous side by side system. These new models were offered with ABS brakes as an option. ABS brakes were fitted as standard on the UK specification SA model. Some markets also received height-adjustable handlebars. There were minor revisions to the transmission internal ratios as well. The 2006 Bandit 1200s were not sold in the US but continued to be sold elsewhere around the world. The SK6 version is in generation 3 of the Bandit 1200S line and thus is the sole generation 3 model of the 1200 Bandit. This was the last of the SACS-engined Bandits with a motor design and technology that first saw the light of day in 1985 in the GSX-R750.

GSF1250
2007

The GSF1250 Bandit range is launched. It has a new petrol injection, water-cooled engine which is compliant with Euro 3 emission regulations. The new engine generates similar power and torque to the earlier 1,200cc engine but the torque of 108 Nm is available at the lower engine speed of 3,750 RPM. An auxiliary balance shaft reduces engine vibrations. The GSF1250 also has a new six-speed constant mesh gearbox with the input shaft mounted below the crankshaft to reduce the length of the engine. This allows a longer swingarm.

The GSF1250SA version has ABS and Autumn 2007 saw the introduction of the limited edition Street Fighter, featuring a single seat with matching rear cowling, Renthal handlebars, and Yoshimura silencer.

2008

The 2007 GSF1250 and GSX1250SA are unchanged.

The 1250GT Grand Touring version is introduced with a three-box hard luggage system, fairing lowers and sat-nav.

2009

2009 models carry over the same engines. The cylinders were once again plated with Suzuki's "Composite Electrochemical Material", and carried over the secondary balancer shaft.

In May 2009, it was announced that there will be a limited edition Bandit 1250SA 'Z'. It has a pearl mirage white paint scheme, with revised graphics and metallic silver wheels. Only 100 examples came to the UK.

2010

In September 2009 it was announced that 2010 will see the release of the GSX1250FA in Europe. It has the same engine and chassis as before, but a full fairing will make it similar in style to the smaller GSX650F.

The standard 1250A and 1250SA models for 2010 will feature a black engine.

2011

GSX1250FA remains unchanged from 2010 but comes to the US as a 2011 model.

2015

Suzuki reintroduced the GSF1250SA Bandit with a new half-fairing designed to wrap around the radiator shrouds, and added a front vent below the headlight to smooth out airflow behind the fairing.

GSX1250F
In some markets, including both the UK and US, Suzuki has dropped the 'Bandit' name for the GSX1250 models. Produced from 2010 and last appearing as a 2012 model, it is essentially a fully faired version of the Bandit 1250 with top and side cases, windshield and more in its accessories list. Together with its partially faired model sibling it got a CARB certification and should return to the US market as a 2016 model.

GSX150
The first single-cylinder Bandit motorcycle, the GSX150 was introduced at the August 2018 Gaikindo Indonesia International Auto Show in South Tangerang. The GSX150 was built to accommodate Indonesian market demand for more comfortable commuter bike. It is based on the GSX-S150 standard motorcycle (itself based on the GSX-R150 sport bike) with changes on the headlight, taillight and chassis to support a lower tandem seat.

In March 2019, the GSX150 was launched in Thailand and is imported from Indonesia.

title: Suzuki Bandit series


text:
User:Nublar

 * o

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

title: User:Nublar


text:
Talk:Superior general of the Society of Jesus

The Conspiracy Theory Section is Biased
Who is whoever is maintaining this article to be saying that Black Pope conspiracy theories are "not taken seriously by credible scholars?" That is biased and when someone tried to fix it they just added it again and deleted a credible source that was added as well. Stop messing around with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfive11 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Jesuits are well known to have a left leaning political attitude. They have participated heavily in peoples movement in Latin America and in Asia. I dont want to censor anybody but I editing the content and trying to put in a balanced viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engti (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what got entirely edited out of this article? Based on this discussion I'm seeing, there is more information available about this particular character that is available. I would think it beneficial if all viewpoints were laid down. That includes any extreme perspective, if it has sources. Of course, extremism would have to be cited, and fair treatment to the argument be executed... i.e. no belittling the perspective, as it affects the neutrality of the article. --OneRyt (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The "Conspiracy Theory" section has been deleted without explanation?  Mr  JM 15:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Superior General or Father General?
I've been examining the text of the bulls incorporating the society and confirming its institute as well as the Constitutions, and I don't see any official usage of "Father General." Instead, I see Praepositus Generalis in Regimini militantis Ecclesiae of Pope Paul III and the same in Exposcit debitum of Pope Julius III, both in the Formula of the Institute. This translates to "Superior General" in English. I also see Praepositus Generalis in part IX chapter 1 of the constitutions and anywhere the Superior General is referred to in the Constitutions.

"Father General" would be renedered in Latin Pater Generalis. I don't see this. In fact, I would relegate this title to the status of a style or form of address but not the formal name of the office as this article claims it to be. It would be equivalent to having "Your Holiness" as the article title for Pope or Bishop of Rome.

For these reasons, I propose moving this article to Superior General of the Society of Jesus. Pmadrid 01:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Further evidence of the office being "Superior General" and the address being "Father General" are two letters from the Holy See's Secretariat of State, dated 8 Apr and 10 June 1995, and a personal letter from the Pope dated 27 Sep 1995. All three are addressed to "Very Reverend Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, S.J., Superior General of the Society of Jesus".  The letters from the Secretariat then greeted him as "Very Reverend Father General".  All three letters are in Appendix Five of Documents of the Thirty-Fourth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, ISBN 880810-19-0. Pmadrid 01:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Black Pope
I have created a separate entry for the term Black Pope. For the reasons on the talk page (including partial non-overlap) it should be kept separate. Jackiespeel 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It's just a nickname that will never grow beyond three sentences unless it starts repeating the content of this article. I see no need for a merge. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Savidan, did you mean to actually write "see no need for a separate article", as implied by your first sentence? That would be suggested by the fact that you argue for a merge on Talk:Black Pope. —Lowellian (reply) 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says the term "Black Pope" is derogatory. I've never noticed this. In the Catholic press it's used often and always in a neutral fashion. In fact, it's somewhat complimentary, because it reflects the degree of power this person has within the Church.24.44.252.192 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)captcrisis

In white
The article says the term black pope is used because the Father General wears black as opposed to the Popes white, then there is a picture of the Father Genreal in completely white vestmants. Could a short explenation be given beneath the picture if it is holliday garb or something so as to allay the confussion. Thanks. Basejumper2 08:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

His church (if he has one)
In Church of the Gesù it says, "...the Gesù was also the home of the Superior General of the Society of Jesus until the suppression of the order in 1773." Yet neither that article nor this one say where the Superior General is currently based out of. Does he have a church, is he at large, or something else? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization
It is not appear that the title of this page should be capitalized, nor the term as used throughout the article. It is not being used as a title before a name, and the generic office of superior general is certainly not to be capitalized when standing on its own. natemup (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Stuart Reginald Harris
777 77.99.228.39 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Cambridge Rindge and Latin School

Register Forum
Wouldn't it be best to just copy the part about the register forum into the register forum main article (which i created quite a while ago . . . *g*)? -user:buch

 * Sure, I don't see why not. Perhaps then change the section to " See main article: Register Forum "?? May I ask how you came to write such an article, seeing as you are, according to the Userpage you listed (which you did not write from), from Germany? If you'd contact me, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, mysekurity 6 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Controversy section
I just wanted to drop a note to say that I added that section, and as a student and Cambridge resident during that time period - I can attest to it being factual, with no malice intent. --Mespinola 14:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to mention that your discussion of the Pilot School as part of the standard House system in CRLS is factually incorrect.

The Cambridge Pilot School was founded in 1969 by several educators and graduate students from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and graduated its first class in 1971. Pilot had the notable distinction of being the first Alternative (or Charter) High School in the nation, and the model for succeeding programs across the US (and several in Canada). The Cambridge Pilot School was housed in its own building on the Harvard campus until 1979, when it moved to the top floor of the new CRLS building. The Pilot School retained its independent status (with its own Principal, staff, school budget, admissions process, graduation, etc.) until June of 2000, when the school was officially abolished after graduating its final class. The remaining students and staff were absorbed into CRLS, under the new C, R, L and S house system. All of this information is available from the Cambridge School District's archive records.

The relationship between Pilot and Rindge was a co-operative one, with Pilot students eligible to take classes from the Rindge catalog, provided they were enrolled in a minimum number of Pilot classes. Further Matt Damon, Traci Bingham, and Max Casella were actually graduates of Pilot School, although they did perform in Rindge theater productions as part of the co-operative enrollment between the schools. This last comes from personal knowledge, as I had the good fortune to attend classes with all three.

Tazcat2k (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Q&A:
Well and good, Mespinola, but you don't say what time period you are actually talking about in that section. You leave out House A, and don't discuss the name changes of Houses C and D (B and C -> Leadership, D->Academy) in 1990 or 1991, so I'm assuming you're discussing a period before then.

 * I did mention House A. I was there as a student from 1986-1990, and prior to 86 I was occasionally there studying music. I couldn't offer any information about the name changes because that was after my time and I have no direct knowledge about how those names were chosen or the circumstances surrounding the issue at that time. --Mespinola 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Circa my own first-hand experience, 1989-1993, all of the houses were supposed to be equally representative of the student body by race (narrowly defined), gender and neighborhood. At least that's what they told kids who didn't get into Pilot. So if the school was 35% black, so was each House. Houses were different sizes, and when B+C were combined in 1990, it was the biggest house and had the most black students - but it also had the most white students.

 * During my time there, that absolutely was not the status quo. --Mespinola 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct that things were ethnically divided, it certainly felt that way. All the white kids in House C might have come from East Cambridge, where there is a traditional Portuguese community, and all the ones in Fundamental might have come from Cambridgeport. Of course, now everybody has to be rich to live in Cambridge, unless you're in public housing.

 * That is very much what I saw in House C as well. Most of my years at CRLS I was down the hall in House B (FWIW, I am non-Anglo white). Freshmen year I tried out Oc-Ed (RSTA) for the computers course, but as a Freshmen they FORCED us to take a "sampler" of *ALL* vocational studies.  I have to admit, I am very happy with what I was able to get out of Carpentry and Welding. --Mespinola 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, houses were *not* equally representative by family income or class, and as students often wanted to be near their friends from elementary school, and as friendships by 8th grade often follow class lines, it ended up that middle-class families were choosing Pilot and House A (or if they didn't get in there, private schools), whereas working class kids were choosing B and C and D and RSTA.

I never had a sense that Fundamental had upper-class kids - upper class kids went to private schools.

 * The kids that were in the classes I occasional took in Fundamental were mostly upper class, mostly from West Cambridge. This was the same impression I had from strolling the hallways as well.  Many of these students I went to Longfellow Elementary with while enrolled in the ISP (Intensive Studies Program), as well as kids I knew from West Cambridge where my girlfriend lived and where I played soccer (a seemingly preferred sport to the upper-class kids I knew).  This is all to the best of my recollection. --Mespinola 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I failed to mention that, yes, I agree with you that many upper-class kids I knew did go to area private schools as well (such as BBN). Perhaps the article should be revised to indicate mid-to upper-class whites. A three tier class system can sometimes be obscuring --Mespinola 21:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The schools efforts to maintain each house's diversity was exasperated by the fact that House D/Academy held the English-as-a-second-language classes. Since race was narrowly defined in terms of balancing houses, blacks who were Haitian were put in House D, effectively ghettoizing them (along with Koreans, Cape Verdeans...).

The controversy, in 2000 when the school was rearranged (one of the times), was that students in Pilot and maybe other houses were performing better on standardized tests than the other students. This was chalked up to economic/class distribution and not to racial distribution.

The racial controversies you are mentioning sound interesting though - did they exist prior to 1989, or after 2000, or was I oblivious or what?

 * From what I was told from my upper-classmen friends, it had been visibly that way from the student perspective for some years (I cannot recall how many) - getting worse each year. Before enrolling at CRLS, I was already aware of this situation and knew what to expect. --Mespinola 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And after writing all that, I'm not sure that any of this belongs in Wikipedia - it was certainly interesting for those of us who were there, but it doesn't reflect the school as it is now. (Or does it?)

 * That's a good question. I think that if you want to refer to the schools history and legacy - then yes I think it does - as it is a part of that history (good or bad). The Boston area has a significant historical mark in terms of racism and public schooling. Cambridge is also reflected in this, and I think its relevant to remember it - as many students do that were there during those times. I tried to keep my recollection of the events as factual as possible, writing in as NPOV (neutral point-of-view) as possible. --Mespinola 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

--

Links to be integrated later when Verizon DSL is stable again in Cambridge, MA
Some of the links I have waiting to integrate whenever Verizon DSL decides to get 'stable' again in Cambridge, Mass. (Waiting since Saturday.) CaribDigita (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/massachusetts/districts/cambridge/cambridge-rindge-and-latin-9327
 * https://www.niche.com/k12/cambridge-rindge-and-latin-school-cambridge-ma/
 * https://www.greatschools.org/massachusetts/cambridge/434-Cambridge-Rindge-And-Latin-School/
 * https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?ID=250327000436
 * https://profiles.doe.mass.edu/general/general.aspx?topNavID=1&leftNavId=100&orgcode=00490506&orgtypecode=6
 * https://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/MA-01-CS23

title: Talk:Cambridge Rindge and Latin School


text:
User talk:Jigglyman

I just instant-messaged Sara Gould Finkle. She said it was "nice." → Jarlaxle Artemis   01:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

She thought it was me. "haha tahtw anst yopu?" Jigglyman

Dafur conflict edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Jigglyman! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Keith Crofford -

title: User talk:Jigglyman


text: User talk:Fiamekeeper

title: User talk:Fiamekeeper


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Stuart

 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 01:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Colin Stuart
Not notable. --W(t) 01:30, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. DS1953 01:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even the slightest attempt at notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 01:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Such articles should easily be speedy deletions because no reasonable Wikipedian would vote to keep. Postdlf 01:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, of course. --Delirium 01:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. God bless, Postdlf, I hear you. Mr Bound 02:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 16:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Create a "special place" for vanity bands and non-notable college students; move the article there; then tell them, "oh we didn't delete your article, we moved it to the special place!" Until then, Delete. -- BD2412 talk 22:17, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, the boy already tried blanking the page after the vfd. StopTheFiling 22:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete That sort of stuff is for a user page not for wikipedia! --Rschen7754 02:06, Jun 15, 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 .


text:
Homotopy category

In mathematics, the homotopy category is a category built from the category of topological spaces which in a sense identifies two spaces that have the same shape. The phrase is in fact used for two different (but related) categories, as discussed below.

More generally, instead of starting with the category of topological spaces, one may start with any model category and define its associated homotopy category, with a construction introduced by Quillen in 1967. In this way, homotopy theory can be applied to many other categories in geometry and algebra.

The naive homotopy category
The category of topological spaces Top has topological spaces as objects and as morphisms the continuous maps between them. The older definition of the homotopy category hTop, called the naive homotopy category for clarity in this article, has the same objects, and a morphism is a homotopy class of continuous maps. That is, two continuous maps f : X → Y are considered the same in the naive homotopy category if one can be continuously deformed to the other. There is a functor from Top to hTop that sends spaces to themselves and morphisms to their homotopy classes. A map f : X → Y is called a homotopy equivalence if it becomes an isomorphism in the naive homotopy category.

Example: The circle S1, the plane R2 minus the origin, and the Möbius strip are all homotopy equivalent, although these topological spaces are not homeomorphic.

The notation [X,Y ] is often used for the hom-set from a space X to a space Y in the naive homotopy category (but it is also used for the related categories discussed below).

The homotopy category, following Quillen
Quillen (1967) emphasized another category which further simplifies the category of topological spaces. Homotopy theorists have to work with both categories from time to time, but the consensus is that Quillen's version is more important, and so it is often called simply the "homotopy category".

One first defines a weak homotopy equivalence: a continuous map is called a weak homotopy equivalence if it induces a bijection on sets of path components and a bijection on homotopy groups with arbitrary base points. Then the (true) homotopy category is defined by localizing the category of topological spaces with respect to the weak homotopy equivalences. That is, the objects are still the topological spaces, but an inverse morphism is added for each weak homotopy equivalence. This has the effect that a continuous map becomes an isomorphism in the homotopy category if and only if it is a weak homotopy equivalence. There are obvious functors from the category of topological spaces to the naive homotopy category (as defined above), and from there to the homotopy category.

Results of J.H.C. Whitehead, in particular Whitehead's theorem and the existence of CW approximations, give a more explicit description of the homotopy category. Namely, the homotopy category is equivalent to the full subcategory of the naive homotopy category that consists of CW complexes. In this respect, the homotopy category strips away much of the complexity of the category of topological spaces.

Example: Let X be the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, ...} and let Y be the set {0} ∪ {1, 1/2, 1/3, ...}, both with the subspace topology from the real line. Define f : X → Y by mapping 0 to 0 and n to 1/n for n positive. Then f is continuous, and in fact a weak homotopy equivalence, but it is not a homotopy equivalence. Thus the naive homotopy category distinguishes spaces such as X and Y, whereas they become isomorphic in the homotopy category.

For topological spaces X and Y, the notation [X,Y ] may be used for the set of morphisms from X to Y in either the naive homotopy category or the true homotopy category, depending on the context.

Eilenberg–MacLane spaces
One motivation for these categories is that many invariants of topological spaces are defined on the naive homotopy category or even on the true homotopy category. For example, for a weak homotopy equivalence of topological spaces f : X → Y, the associated homomorphism f* : Hi (X,Z) → Hi (Y,Z) of singular homology groups is an isomorphism for all natural numbers i. It follows that, for each natural number i, singular homology Hi can be viewed as a functor from the homotopy category to the category of abelian groups. In particular, two homotopic maps from X to Y induce the same homomorphism on singular homology groups.

Singular cohomology has an even better property: it is a representable functor on the homotopy category. That is, for each abelian group A and natural number i, there is a CW complex K(A,i ) called an Eilenberg–MacLane space and a cohomology class u in H i(K(A,i ),A) such that the resulting function
 * $$[X,K(A,i)] \to H^i(X,A)$$

(giving by pulling u back to X) is bijective for all topological spaces X. Here [X,Y ] must be understood to mean the set of maps in the true homotopy category, if one wants this statement to hold for all topological spaces X. It holds in the naive homotopy category if X is a CW complex.

Pointed version
One useful variant is the homotopy category of pointed spaces. A pointed space means a pair (X,x) with X a topological space and x a point in X, called the base point. The category Top* of pointed spaces has objects the pointed spaces, and a morphism f : X → Y is a continuous map that takes the base point of X to the base point of Y. The naive homotopy category of pointed spaces has the same objects, and morphisms are homotopy classes of pointed maps (meaning that the base point remains fixed throughout the homotopy). Finally, the "true" homotopy category of pointed spaces is obtained from the category Top* by inverting the pointed maps that are weak homotopy equivalences.

For pointed spaces X and Y, [X,Y ] may denote the set of morphisms from X to Y in either version of the homotopy category of pointed spaces, depending on the context.

Several basic constructions in homotopy theory are naturally defined on the category of pointed spaces (or on the associated homotopy category), not on the category of spaces. For example, the suspension ΣX and the loop space ΩX are defined for a pointed space X and produce another pointed space. Also, the smash product X∧Y is an important functor of pointed spaces X and Y. For example, the suspension can be defined as
 * $$\Sigma X = S^1\wedge X.$$

The suspension and loop space functors form an adjoint pair of functors, in the sense that there is a natural isomorphism

 * $$[\Sigma X, Y] \cong [X,\Omega Y]$$

for all spaces X and Y.

Concrete categories
While the objects of a homotopy category are sets (with additional structure), the morphisms are not actual functions between them, but rather classes of functions (in the naive homotopy category) or "zigzags" of functions (in the homotopy category). Indeed, Freyd showed that neither the naive homotopy category of pointed spaces nor the homotopy category of pointed spaces is a concrete category. That is, there is no faithful functor from these categories to the category of sets.

Model categories
There is a more general concept: the homotopy category of a model category. A model category is a category C with three distinguished types of morphisms called fibrations, cofibrations and weak equivalences, satisfying several axioms. The associated homotopy category is defined by localizing C with respect to the weak equivalences.

This construction, applied to the model category of topological spaces with its standard model structure (sometimes called the Quillen model structure), gives the homotopy category defined above. Many other model structures have been considered on the category of topological spaces, depending on how much one wants to simplify the category. For example, in the Hurewicz model structure on topological spaces, the associated homotopy category is the naive homotopy category defined above.

The same homotopy category can arise from many different model categories. An important example is the standard model structure on simplicial sets: the associated homotopy category is equivalent to the homotopy category of topological spaces, even though simplicial sets are combinatorially defined objects that lack any topology. Some topologists prefer instead to work with compactly generated weak Hausdorff spaces; again, with the standard model structure, the associated homotopy category is equivalent to the homotopy category of all topological spaces.

For a more algebraic example of a model category, let A be a Grothendieck abelian category, for example the category of modules over a ring or the category of sheaves of abelian groups on a topological space. Then there is a model structure on the category of chain complexes of objects in A, with the weak equivalences being the quasi-isomorphisms. The resulting homotopy category is called the derived category D A.

Finally, the stable homotopy category is defined as the homotopy category associated to a model structure on the category of spectra. Various different categories of spectra have been considered, but all the accepted definitions yield the same homotopy category.

title: Homotopy category


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubx

 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 01:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dubx
Non-notable conlang. I tried to find how many hits Google returns, but most are of pages filled with nonsense text which by coincidence happen to have the characters "dubx" in them. Google gets one hit when searching for "dubx conlang." Whimemsz 01:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 01:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Two to seven speakers? It would be notable if it were a dying language, but not one just being developed. Mr Bound 02:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Come back when it has become an international way of communication as intended. (Constructed languages need major press attention, wide use and be out of the development phase.) - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per MgM StopTheFiling 23:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough yet. Come back when it is.democracys 00:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, below the notability threshold. Can one describe in a sentence or two in what sense the language is notable in the world outside the Wikipedia? Not why the conlang is special, since every creative work is special, but in what sense it is notable, or what kind of attention it has gotten? --Cam 01:22, Jun 19, 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/Dubx


text:
Talk:Cégep de Saint-Laurent

Militancy
CEGEP Saint-Laurent is the most militant CEGEP in Quebec. - what does it mean that a school is militant? RickK 01:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * S-L has the most student walkouts, protests, student strikes. More student marches have significant numbers of S-L students as organizers. 132.205.44.134 03:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cégep de Saint-Laurent


text:
Idealism in international relations

Idealism in the foreign policy context holds that a nation-state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its conduct and rhetoric in international affairs. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Both within and outside of the United States, American president Woodrow Wilson is widely considered an early advocate of idealism and codifier of its practical meaning; specific actions cited include the issuing of the famous "Fourteen Points".

Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, the particular set of viewpoints arising amongst the so-called "institution builders" after World War II. Organizations that came about as a direct result of the war's outcome include the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations (UN) among others.

In the broader, philosophical sense, this internationally minded viewpoint can be thought of as an extension of the moral idealism advocated by different thinkers during and after the "Age of Enlightenment". That particular era involved multiple prominent individuals promoting a general sense of benevolence and government based upon strong personal character, with international conflict criticized as against the principles of reason.

More generally, academic Michael W. Doyle has described idealism as based on the belief that other nations' stated positive intentions can be relied on, whereas realism holds that said intentions are in the long run subject to the security dilemma described by thinker John H. Herz. Although realism in the context of foreign affairs is traditionally seen as the opposite of idealism, numerous scholars and individual leaders in charge of different nations have sought to synthesize the two schools of thought.

Scholar Hedley Bull has written: "By the 'idealists' we have in mind writers such as Sir Alfred Zimmern, S. H. Bailey, Philip Noel-Baker, and David Mitrany in the United Kingdom, and James T. Shotwell, Pitman Potter, and Parker T. Moon in the United States. ... The distinctive characteristic of these writers was their belief in progress: the belief, in particular, that the system of international relations that had given rise to the First World War was capable of being transformed into a fundamentally more peaceful and just world order; that under the impact of the awakening of democracy, the growth of 'the international mind', the development of the League of Nations, the good works of men of peace or the enlightenment spread by their own teaching, it was in fact being transformed; and that their responsibility as students of international relations was to assist this march of progress to overcome the ignorance, the prejudices, the ill-will, and the sinister interests that stood in its way."

History

Since the 1880s, there has been growing study of the major writers of this idealist tradition of thought in international relations, including Sir Alfred Zimmern, Norman Angell, John Maynard Keynes, John A. Hobson, Leonard Woolf, Gilbert Murray, Florence Stawell (known as Melian Stawell), Philip Henry Kerr, 11th Marquess of Lothian, Arnold J. Toynbee, Lester Pearson and David Davies.

Much of this writing has contrasted these idealist writers with 'realists' in the tradition of E. H. Carr, whose The Twenty Years' Crisis (1939) both coined the term 'idealist' and was a fierce and effective assault on the inter-war idealists. Idealism is centered on the notion that states are rational actors capable of ensuring lasting peace and security rather than resorting to war.

Idealism is also marked by the prominent role played by international law and international organizations in its conception of policy formation. One of the most well-known tenets of modern idealist thinking is democratic peace theory, which holds that states with similar modes of democratic governance do not fight one another. Wilson's idealistic thought was embodied in his Fourteen points speech, and in the creation of the League of Nations.

Idealism transcends the left-right political spectrum. Idealists can include both human rights campaigners (advocates for a cause traditionally, but not always, associated with the left) and promoters of American neoconservatism, with the latter ideological movement usually associated with the right.

Idealism may find itself in opposition to realism, a worldview which argues that a nation's national interest is more important than ethical or moral considerations; however, there need be no conflict between the two (see Neoconservatism for an example of a confluence of the two). Realist thinkers include Hans Morgenthau, Niccolò Machiavelli, Otto von Bismarck, George F. Kennan and others. Recent practitioners of Idealism in the United States have included Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Link finds that Wilson from his earliest days had imbibed the beliefs of his denomination - in the omnipotence of God, the morality of the Universe, a system of rewards and punishments and the notion that nations, as well as man, transgressed the laws of God at their peril. Blum (1956) argues that he learned from William Ewart Gladstone a mystic conviction in the superiority of Anglo-Saxons, in their righteous duty to make the world over in their image. Moral principle, constitutionalism, and faith in God were among the prerequisites for alleviating human strife. While he interpreted international law within such a brittle, moral cast, Wilson remained remarkably insensitive to new and changing social forces and conditions of the 20th century. He expected too much justice in a morally brutal world which disregarded the self-righteous resolutions of parliaments and statesmen like himself. Wilson's triumph was as a teacher of international morality to generations yet unborn. Daniel Patrick Moynihan sees Wilson's vision of world order anticipated humanity prevailing through the "Holy Ghost of Reason," a vision which rested on religious faith.

Wilson's views were based on the future welfare of humankind. He called for a world made safe democracy, this was organized around political, economic and social standards. These principles were stated in his 14-point peace program. Wilson thought of this program as an American commitment to show man kind the way of liberty. The core of Wilson's program was a League of Nations committed to peace, and bringing down tyranny which was thought to be the root of war. The idea was that if democracy could be widespread peace and prosperity would prevail.

Wilson's diplomatic policies had a profound influence on shaping the world. Diplomatic historian Walter Russell Mead has explained:
 * Wilson's principles survived the eclipse of the Versailles system and they still guide European politics today: self-determination, democratic government, collective security, international law, and a league of nations. Wilson may not have gotten everything he wanted at Versailles, and his treaty was never ratified by the Senate, but his vision and his diplomacy, for better or worse, set the tone for the twentieth century. France, Germany, Italy, and Britain may have sneered at Wilson, but every one of these powers today conducts its European policy along Wilsonian lines. What was once dismissed as visionary is now accepted as fundamental. This was no mean achievement, and no European statesman of the twentieth century has had as lasting, as benign, or as widespread an influence.

American foreign relations since 1914 have rested on Wilsonian idealism, says historian David Kennedy, even if adjusted somewhat by the "realism" represented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger. Kennedy argues that every president since Wilson has "embraced the core precepts of Wilsonianism. Nixon himself hung Wilson's portrait in the White House Cabinet Room. Wilson's ideas continue to dominate American foreign policy in the twenty-first century. In the aftermath of 9/11 they have, if anything, taken on even greater vitality."

According to revisionist narrative, there was never a single 'great debate' between idealism and realism. Lucian M. Ashworth argues, the persistence of the notion that there was a real debate between idealism and realism, says less about the actual discussions of the time, and more about the marginalisation of liberal and normative thinking in the international relations in the post-war period. Richard Devetak wrote in his international relations textbook:"The structure of Carr’s masterpiece revolves around the dichotomy between realism and liberalism. In fact, he helped create the impression that the newly established discipline was dominated by a debate between realism and liberalism. This subsequently became known as the ‘first great debate’, although – as Andreas Osiander (1998), Peter Wilson (1998), Lucian Ashworth (1999), and Quirk and Vigneswaran (2005) have shown – no debate actually occurred, if by that we mean a series of exchanges between realists and liberals. Indeed, recent work suggests that the very idea of narrating the discipline’s history as a series of ‘great debates’ is questionable. Even so, it is important for students to learn and appreciate the stories the discipline has told about itself, which is why I persist with the narrative."

Descendant theories
Idealism proper has been argued to be a relatively short-lived school of thought, and advocates particularly suffered a crisis of confidence following the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of World War II. However, subsequent theories of international relations have significantly drawn elements from Wilsonian-style idealism when constructing their world views. In addition, scholars describing themselves either as idealists or as sympathetic to the school of thought have remained active in international relations studies.

Liberalism
Liberalism manifested as a tempered version of Wilson's idealism in the wake of World War II. Cognizant of the failures of idealism to prevent renewed isolationism following World War I in certain areas, and its inability to manage the balance of power in Europe to prevent the outbreak of a new war, liberal thinkers devised a set of international institutions based on rule of law and regularized interaction. These international organizations, such as the United Nations and the NATO, or even international regimes such as the Bretton Woods system, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), were calculated both to maintain a balance of power as well as regularize cooperation between nations.

Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism has drawn from historical liberalism its intense focus on the promotion of "universal values", in this case democracy, human rights, free trade, women's rights and minority protections. However, it differs in that it is less wedded to the importance of preserving international institutions and treaties while pursuing assertive or aggressive stances which it deems morally worthy, and is willing to use force or the threat of force, unilaterally if necessary, to push for its goals.

title: Idealism in international relations


text:
Supernaut

Supernaut may refer to:

 * "Supernaut" (song), a song by Black Sabbath on the 1972 album Black Sabbath, Vol 4
 * Supernaut (Australian band), an Australian glam/punk rock band from the 1970s
 * Supernaut (album), 1976
 * Supernaut (Serbian band), a Serbian alternative rock band

title: Supernaut


text:
Cool Rays

Cool Rays was a rock band formed by five Evergreen State College (Olympia, Washington, US) students in late 1980. The band is especially notable as Calvin Johnson's first ensemble and one of the earlier expressions of the Olympia music scene that developed in the 1980s and 1990s.

Johnson wrote most of the band's songs, with assistance on lyrics from Ed Gaidrich. The entire band worked together to set Johnson's lyrics to music. Cool Rays played at least one cover song: Jonathan Richman's "Modern World". The songwriting characteristics associated with Johnson's later work (simple stories, childlike sensibilities, use of catchy phrases from American vernacular, quirky juxtaposition of words and ideas, etc.) are present in their earliest form in his Cool Rays compositions, as is Johnson's "uniquely deep, droning singing voice"

Members

 * Calvin Johnson – vocals, guitar
 * Cathy Watson (see Doll Squad) – bass guitar
 * Ed Gaidrich— saxophone, vocals
 * Tony Traverso – guitar
 * Tracy Taylor – drums

Biography
During its short existence, the band played several concerts in Olympia and one in Portland, Oregon. The band had more musical creativity than musicianship, with two of the band members having taken up instruments for the first time just to be able to participate.

While certainly not the first amateur girl and boy band to come along, Cool Rays embodied what became some of the motivating ideas (and ideals) of the Olympia music scene: that one need not be a formally trained or professional (or stereotyped) musician to make music; local people should make their own music (rather than passively relying on the "corporate ogre" music business to provide it); and girls should play a more active role in the making of rock music.

Cool Rays benefited from a devoted following among certain students and downtown Olympia residents, however, the group's popularity did not spread far. In the late 1970s, many younger music listeners had not embraced punk and other emerging genres. Local tastes tended toward hard rock, psychedelic and folk-rock musical motifs.

The band dispersed in the summer of 1981, after the end of the Evergreen State College academic year.

Cool Rays is briefly referenced in Our Band Could Be Your Life by Michael Azerrad (Little Brown, 2001).

Discography
In spring 1981, Cool Rays made an unpublished audio cassette produced by Steve Fisk and recorded in the recording studios of the Evergreen State College. A few of the compositions from that cassette were subsequently released as part of compilations of Olympia- and Seattle-based artists:
 * SubPop5 (Sub Pop, 1981)
 * Absolute Elsewhere (Mr. Brown Records, 1982)
 * Let's Together (K Records, 1984)

title: Cool Rays


text: User talk:70.16.150.241

title: User talk:70.16.150.241


text:
Category:British marquesses

British marquesses.

title: Category:British marquesses


text: User talk:68.84.129.158

title: User talk:68.84.129.158


text: Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of England


text: User talk:210.177.248.129

title: User talk:210.177.248.129


text:
User talk:JahWaheKaTsung

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --W(t) 01:40, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

title: User talk:JahWaheKaTsung