text:
Talk:Lewis Mumford

Mumford's 3 epoch's of civilization
Cut the following from the article for the time being. I believe his categorization of history is important, however, I think the following snippet is pretty awkward without an adequate description of the aspects and implications of his categorization of history.

I've read Myth of the Machine (1 and 2) and didn't really see much about the below. Perhaps the following ideas were explored in another book. Someone who has read that book will come along may happen upon the below and create at least a stub concerning the below:

 * Mumford divides human civilization into three distinct epochs:

 * Eotechnic (the middle ages)
 * Paleotechnic (the time of the industrial revolution) and
 * Neotechnic (later, present-day)

Yeago 06:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * These are described in much detail in Technics and Civilization. I've returned this section to the article, and will expand on them at a later time.--mtz206 14:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I really do look forward to it.Yeago 02:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Despite this discussion from five years ago, Mumford's eo-, paleo-, and neotechnic division is still not in the article. This division is one of the best know aspects of Mumford's work.  It is central to his Technics and Civilization (1934), one of his most influential works, although Mumford did not continue to use this schema in his later works.  Is anyone going to put it back in?  --Histotech (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've re-instated it now. DaveApter (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Important work developing idea of Regional Planning and the US Regional Planning Association?
As someone who's read several books about Mumford it's disappointing that his work developing the idea of Regional Planning, or as one of the key members of the group that led to the founding of the US Regional_Plan_Association isn't mentioned (though he later split with the group and disagreed with their published plans, his role intellectually was very important). I don't think this is adequately captured in either the 'Urban Civilisation' section or mentioning his interest in Geddes at the start. --PatSunter (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Philosopher or Historian
I dithered on this categorization a long time and errored, probably, in thinking that he could be only one and not the other. And I agree, he really is both. I've categorized him again as a philosopher of tech; but left the history category, too.

It's an excellent article that explains his concepts well. --RedJ 17 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Its really no problem. I should have just readded Hist/Tech instead of reverting. Doh well, thanks for returning to correct the problem. =)Yeago 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mumford is often cited as something of a founding father of the discipline of Philosophy of Technology, so it's not a stretch to refer to him as a philosopher. He was certainly a student of philosophy, and his books contain numerous references to the greats (e.g., Plato, Marx). I don't have a lot of evidence to support the judgment, but I suspect that he would have not claimed to be a philosopher though. Part of the difficulty is that it is so tempting to think that, if he were writing today, he would simply be described as a "social critic," which can for better or worse cover a lot of territory. Social historian would also be a reasonably accurate label for LM. C d h (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
Please stop the edit war over the Ellsworth Toohey addition and discuss the issue instead. If you have a point to make, make it here instead of trying to fit it in the edit summary. Please don't force me to protect this article. - EurekaLott 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

trivia
the trivia and renamed trivia section was removed because it is not pertinent to the article, it is trivia. it may be pertinent to an article about toohey, but the inverse it not the case. here it is trivia, no matter what it is called. it is also not encyclopedic. if there are reasons to include it that answer the not trivia and is encyclopedic, and is relevant to mumford, then perhaps it could be included. at this time, i and other editors have not seen that reason. --Buridan 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The inverse is the case. Rand and Mumford were contemporaries who had personal correspondence. You and one other stranger to this article have agreed, but you both display no knowledge about either of the topics in dispute. We do not remove things from articles merely because they do not appear to be in perfect form. Moreover, while there is certainly a Wiki-witchunt concerning 'trivia' in articles (largely intoxicated by the fear of slippery slopes), there is absolutely no precedent for removing a 'References in Pop culture' section--especially of someone who has such few popular references. They exist in thousands of articles. Certainly if Mumford appeared in South Park that would be Trivia, however, he was the basis for a major antagonist in a very popular book published in his own day and age. Different thing.Yeago 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no such things as 'stranger to articles' just as there are no such things as 'owners of articles'   this is not encyclopedic content, if it were, I'd have no issue.  References in pop culture is just your renamed trivia, nothing of substance has been added to make it any more significant.  it is still trivial.  it is something that at most belongs on the character's page, it does not belong here, as it does not describe Mumford, it describes a character that some people claim is based on Mumford.  That is why it is trivial.  It might belong in wikipedia, just not on this page. --Buridan 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. An appropriate item in "trivia" would have been "Lewis Mumford owned the same fridge for 20 years"--an atomized fact which deserves no representation unless woven into the article relevantly. A biographical and contemporary reference in a major 20th century work is not trivia. It was miscategorized as trivia and was corrected. As for phrases like "[the character] doesn't describe Mumford", that is really best left up to the interested researcher/reader and not you, despite how glorious you find your opinion in deciding what is and isn't relevant. It is an interesting lead for further questions to the reader that deserves to exist in both places. Were it not a contemporary reference, or a reference made by a perfect stranger to M I would agree with you. But I do not. When this bin of "trivia" as you call it is overfull, please come back and solve an actual problem instead of foisting your ideology. It is the terrible habit of all humans to think their ideas are the One True Way which inspired WP:IAR, and I refer you to it.
 * Yes, there are strangers to articles: those who know nothing of the topic or its background. Except the casual know-nothinger sits and reads and seeks to not be a stranger or moves on, rather than attempting to tell those who are familiar with it what belongs and doesn't.Yeago 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * if you are making some claim about me knowing nothing about mumford, you might want to reconsider.  as for your claims to this not being an unrelated fact, it is.  It is about a character in a book that may or may not be described in the future as like mumford.  that you put this trivia in here makes it more likely that the idea will be generally accepted as fact, which might not be the case.   That there are several citation is good, but the thing is that it still doesn't belong on the mumford article, it belongs on the toohey article.  here it is trivia about mumford, there it might not be.  here is the test of triviality... is the fact incidental to his life... the answer is yes.    is it a key fact one that you would find in any other encyclopedic article about mumford?  no.  it is incidental and describes the book, not the man, thus in this context it is trivia at best and at worse the perpetuation of a point of view. --Buridan 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can agree that pushing a point of view that may be wrong is not a good thing. And I agree that I have not found a primary source for the snippet, only a consensus among more or less reputable sources. Nonetheless, as a person interested in Mumford I found this reference fascinating and believe others interested in Mumford would too. I'm open to other suggestions, be it See Also or External links. But I think its wrong to exclude what may potentially interest someone simply because its inclusion doesn't strike you as 'encyclopedic'. It was something I wish I had heard earlier, when I stumbled upon it.Yeago 22:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * your fascination does not changes it's pertinence to the greater audience. there is a should there that you accept that is 'people should be fascinated like me'... and the problem is that... perhaps they shouldn't.  it isn't a bit of trivia that is neutral, it is trivia backed by an ideological position that critiques  mumford.  now i'm all for a good strong, well cited section of critique, and if that references your novel, that'd be cool, but... as it is, to be encyclopedic it needs to be pertinent to the nature of the subject.  this bit of info is not pertinent.  sure, if you read an analysis of that book, suddenly this bit of info becomes pertinent, but without that it is a bit fo informaiton that might lead people astray.  that is the worst bit of trivia.  ---Buridan 02:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps they shouldn't". Keyword being 'Perhaps.' These are really just subjective opinions we're talking about on this point. You think one way; I, another.
 * We do not deal with potential NPOV issues by removing outright removal, we qualify the text. Just because further analysis doesn't exist doesn't mean we should exclude the starting point for such a direction of the article. We certainly shouldn't word it so that people are led astray. And please do not call it 'my novel.' I have absolutely no attachments to this novel, nor have I even read it or have an opinion of Ayn Rand. I think if you actually yield some of your inner thoughts we can have a real discussion, but this whole 'trivia' argument seems only to be justification. First it was 'link cruft' then it wasn't properly cited, and now its NPOV.Yeago 04:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yep, all good reason to remove something. when i saw it, i said... ok, what is this and why is it here...  it is a link primarily between rand and mumford that promotes rand and critiques mumford in one link.   in promoting rand, critiquing mumford as the only mention on the page it is npov, it is link cruft, as there is no justification of inclusion, no similar links in the section, just one link, and finally it is trivia.  it should be removed because of those reasons.  note i also claim it is not encyclopedic and at best it should be put elsewhere. --Buridan 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right but your primary thesis--that it is there to promote rand and critique Mumford--is not correct. That is not why I added it and therefore it is not NPOV. If anything I dislike Rand and promote Mumford, but those intentions were not contained in the addition. That's precisely it, you look at it and see it somewhat against your view and so all these other justifications comes spiralling out of it.Yeago 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * author intent does not matter, neither does ownership. it is the audience that matters.  it isn't against my view, it is that it is trivia and only the mostly loosely of related trivia.    --Buridan 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Welp, I'm for inclusion because I think those interested in Mumford would find it interesting. I understand you have an ax to grind with Rand followers inserting her into everything, but her inclusion here is not part of that. If you have any suggestions please let me know.Yeago 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to leave it removed until there is a majority or consensus that wants it included based on a reason beyond 'yeago thinks its cool'. --Buridan 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to leave it in the article until sufficient reason is given be sides 'Buridan has an Ayn Rand shaped ax to grind'.Yeago 21:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * in the last few days, there are two people supporting deletes, the reasons are trivia, non-encyclopedic, and linkcruft.  the other side is one person who cites he likes it and it is useful.  is that a summary that you agree with? --Buridan 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope.Yeago 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * how then would your summarize the parties in this debate and their positions?--Buridan 22:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know what angling you are attempting but please understand I also am a firm believer in "link relativity" (things must be notable and relevant in their context, not merely notable). I was interested to find out about Toohey because it came from a notable contemporary of M. I think others will be surprised to learn this piece of information. I am skeptical of debating with you because, after some research, you seem to have some reproach towards Ayn Rand-ites splicing her everywhere (your removal of her reference at Thomas Aquinas was very very called for). But you never yielded this, it had to be uncovered. People often cite 'trivia' or 'original research' or 'npov' when they really just have some secret grief.Yeago 22:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * are you arguing that my edits are not in good faith?  or are you trying to say somewhat unclearly that you have no positive argument beyond, 'you like the link and find it useful'?  because if you have no further argument, you should just say so.  I have solid wikipedia positions, I have stated them, unless you have some rejoinder then you are just reverting because you want the article to be your way.  I'd prefer to think that you are acting in good faith, and that you have solid reasons, so let's hear them. --Buridan 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll have to call mediators or something buddy. I've already explained them a million times. Your opinion is that its trivia; mine, not. I do not see that fundamental argument changing.Yeago 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * no, you just said why you like it and found it useful, you never said why it was not trivial to mumford's article. i agree it isn't trivial for the book article, but here it is.  context is important.  if you have a bunch more references in popular culture, that would help, but with only one reference, this is clearly just, as it is according to the history, renamed trivia.  --Buridan 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Several times I did. Scan for 'contemporary'. Moreover, just because there are no other 'references' doesn't mean they won't exist later, see stub tag. If indeed you feel its 'merely a renamed trivia section' then you have the option of using the trivia section flag.Yeago 19:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem trivial to me that a well-known, famous author recorded in her journals that a key character in a novel commonly studied in US high schools and colleges is based in part on a famous person, regardless of how that character reflects on the subject. If Mumford were alive, there might be some concern about the Wikipedia biographical information policy, but he's not. And we're not talking about an external link here, we're talking about a link to another article that links to this one. The deleted material cites several references that all agree that Rand wrote this, so it's verifiable and not original research. It seems to me that this should be restored. RossPatterson 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * in what way is it not trivia in relation to mumford? i agree it is not trivia in relation to the book.  the citations that were provided do not give page numbers and the other side of the link isn't cited either.  verifiable trivia is still trivia, and not encyclopedic.  --Buridan 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Whether one agrees with Rand or not, the criticism implied in her casting Mumford as a villain in The Fountainhead makes it more than just trivia. Rand's opinions are non-trivial by virtue of being hers, just as Mumford's are.  The section should stay in the article.  And as to the references, I found them quite easy to understand - in one case I was brought directly to a page in Google's book search with the search terms highlighted.  That's a darn site better than many other citations on Wikipedia.  RossPatterson 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * actually no, a person's opinion out of context is trivia, even rand's or mumfords when they are. the title of the section was trivia for many months, when  deleted it as trivia, it was labeled trivia.  i know this has references and i admit it belongs as part of the book's article, but here and in relation to mumford in general you have to admit that it is of little importance.  it might be important to rand, and thus it belongs on her page, but to mumford, no, it is a trivial fact, a fact yes, but trivial. the problems with it though is that beyond trivial, it is non-neutral and we do not know whether it is really true, or whether it is an oft repeated spurious assertion.--Buridan 10:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The neutral point of view policy doesn't require that all statements in an article be neutral, but rather that the article as a whole be written neutrally. The policy is very clear: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."  This article is pretty neutral, even though its language is occasionally too enthusiastic.  Yeago's addition of Rand's inspiration doesn't change that neutral perspective significantly.

 * As to the inspiration being true or not, the verifiability policy says in its opening line, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Yeago has provided several references that cite Rand's journals stating that he was.  That should be enough to support verifiability.

 * The Toohey info should stay in the article. In fact, it looks like it should be more than just one sentence in a section hiding beneath the references.  RossPatterson 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * it should stay in wikipedia, it should not stay in this article. this article is about mumford, the toohey is trivial to mumford, it is not trivial to other things, but it is trivial here. --Buridan 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this debate is coloured by POV questions - given that Rand's character (supposedly based on Mumford) appears to convey Rand's negative opinion of Mumford, and given also that Rand herself appears to arouse strong POV in some contributors. So I wonder whether anyone can find a different example we could discuss more productively, that might avoid some of these POV questions. For example, suppose that J. K. Rowling announced that one of her characters (Horace Slughorn perhaps) was based on a real-life person (Dick Cheney perhaps). Supposing that this fact could be verified, how/where would it be represented in Wikipedia? But this is a made-up example - are there any real examples elsewhere we could draw from? --RichardVeryard 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Good idea. Here are a couple of examples:
 * The character of Oliver Barrett IV in Erich Segal's Love Story is based on Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones, from the days when both men were roommates at Harvard. To my knowlege, the only mentions of this in Wikipedia are in the Al Gore controversies and Tommy Lee Jones articles.  It is not mentioned in Erich Segal or in Love Story (novel).  Al Gore controversies is listed as a See also in Al Gore.  Regardless of whether you consider Barrett to be a paragon of manhood or a ***-whipped wimp, Wikipedia provides you with the link between Barrett and Gore, and does it in a Gore-focused article.
 * Al Gore's Penguin Army video is an entire article about a video parody of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth The lead includes an image of Gore's head superimposed on what appears to be the body of the Batman villain, The Penguin and surrounded by Tuxes (Image:PenguinGore.JPG).  The article is listed as a See also in Al Gore.  According to the article, the video was produced by a lobbying group whose clients include General Motors and ExxonMobil and uploaded to YouTube masquerading as an amateur home composition.  In short, the main topic of the article places Gore in a negative light.
 * Just a couple that I researched a week ago while forming the opinions I've expressed above. I'm sure there are others, but I knew to look for the Love Story case.  RossPatterson 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I find examples all the time. Take the article Payola. After reading the intro, it segues into a few references in pop culture--one by the Dead Kennedy's. Is the reference by DK about Payola relevant to Payola? According to Buridan's logic: NO. The Dead Kennedy's had nothing to do with the Payola scandal, they merely happened to be a contemporary, notable contributer. It should be removed because it is Trivial, and moreover it represents a Non-neutral view about the practice of Payola.

 * I don't think there is any concern about NPOV. I added the questionable reference and, if you check My Contributions, you can see I am an *avid* contributer to Mumford and I have *never* contributed to any Rand article, except in relation to Mumford. Of course I will be hounded by accusations of "bad faith" but I've looked at his contributions and user page and he clearly has an agenda for removing Rand where he feels she doesn't belong. In at least one case I happen to agree with his judgment.Yeago 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * let's keep in mind that the novel isn't 'popular culture' and that the section that the article was under until yeago renamed it in an attempt to keep it was trivia. so for many many months, yeago recognized it as trivia... now it isn't.   now it is popular culture... and it isn't that either. --Buridan 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I never said Yeago was infallible. In my opinion the section was mistitled as Trivia.  I'm not sure References in pop culture is right either, but it's better.  Actually, looking at the Influence section, I think that's where it belongs. RossPatterson 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be hard pressed to find any reliable scholarship saying that rand was an influence, or that this particular bit of trivia constitutes something influential to mumford. this bit of information is just trivia to mumford's article.  even when it is cited, it is trivia.  --Buridan 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got the relationship backwards. Here and below.Yeago 14:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * that would have to go on rand, not here, as I'd argue that there is real question as to whether this constitutes influence still.  here it is trivia, there or on the book page, it might not be.--Buridan 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeago is correct. The Influence section is about Mumford's influence on others, and that's exactly what we're discussing here — Mumford's influence on Rand as expressed in her novel.  RossPatterson 15:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the fact that letters between the two appear in his posthumous publication of letters would have been good enough. If he had corresponded with Richard Nixon or Franco (dictator) I don't think there would be a problem. Its really an added bonus that she went on to frame him as a societal enemy. Even if it were some more obscure novel of hers I'd agree with you Buridan, but, I may be wrong in saying she's "pop culture" but who hasn't heard of The Fountainhead?Yeago 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * actually it would be an issue there too if it wasn't significant to mumford's life in any demonstrable sense. would you say for instance that my correspondence with the head of a school at LSE or with a Senator constitutes influence, or is significant?  I wouldn't, for this to have signicance, it needs to be more than 'it exists', 'they corresponded', and 'people say'.  if it is merely a position that some people find cool or fun, but doesn't really tell you anything much about the person.  as i said, this bit of knowledge belongs on the book page, where it can be explained in depth and you can understand that mumford is one of 4 people that people think rand said was her inspiration.  --Buridan 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier comment, I am not accusing anybody in particular of POV. But it seems to me that this issue is consuming an enormous amount of energy, and I find it hard to understand why it should matter that much to anyone UNLESS there is some real or imagined POV somewhere. (For example, people reacting against what they perceive as POV in other people.) --RichardVeryard 09:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure what the pov of preservation on this page is, but the negativity associated with rand and the tendency of people to link her from any page imaginable with the slimmest of trivia is one of the reasons i deleted this. i looked saw it was trivia when looking at rand's linked to list and deleted it as trivia, which it was abled at the time. then yeago renamed it to pop culture. as i've said... if you had say 10 or 15 other references to pop culture, i could see this staying as one of many, but just sitting there alone without context, it is still trivia and belongs on the book page.--Buridan 10:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here comes the cabalist....
Oops, sorry guys, didn't realise you wanted discussion here and not at MEDCAB. So, rather then read through the above section, I'd like to start fresh here. If each involved user could make one short statement (separate them with level 3 headings), it would be a good way of getting started. Thanks, Giggy  UCP 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1
Mumford's appearance as the antagonist in a major, contemporary literary work deserves mention in the article.Yeago 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

2
It is unclear that it is mumford or one of 3 other people, and it is trivial to mumford's life and article in any case. --Buridan 13:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3
I agree with Buridan's take on the matter: the claim that the character is based on Mumford is unverified speculation; and, even if true, adds nothing to an understanding of his life, work, or importance. --- Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

4
I agree with Yeago, this is interesting and worthwhile material. It seems to me like it belongs in the Influence section, which discusses Mumford's influences on others. Sorry for the late comment, I've been offline for a week. RossPatterson 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

5
I find the arguments on both sides reasonable but not overwhelming, and I do not care how it is resolved. But I am puzzled why so much time and energy should be devoted to such an unimportant matter, and I suspect there may be some other agenda (actual or imagined). --RichardVeryard 09:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediator's comments so far
I'll assume no-one else is going to comment (if you do, go above this and notify me). It seems that the issue is about the "references in popular culture" section, concerning Mumford being the inspiration for a character in The Fountainhead. This has been reverted as "trivia"

If this is the case, why can't we just do what it says at Wikipedia:Handling trivia - Integrate the information about the novel into the article. I think it could be slotted into the Life section, but this isn't about my choice, but about a compromise with you guys. So what do you say to:
 * 1) Keeping the information in the article, per Handling trivia.
 * 2) Putting the information in the "life" section.
 * 3) Putting it somewhere else in the article.

Opinions? Comments? Giggy UCP 01:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the information isn't about mumford's life or really about mumford at all, it is about a character in a novel that may or may not be based on mumford, though we have a walled-garden type citation set that shows it is citable as such. even if you integrate it, it is still trivial in relation to his life, it isn't trivial in relation to the novel.  I'd say
 * 4) the information should not be in the article. it should be put on the book's page, but only if a primary source can be provided.--Buridan 10:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This has been suggested by someone else. I am for adding it to the 'Influences' or 'Life' section. Enough good sources have been found. I can't afford to view the Mumford or Rand letter collections, where the mention originates.Yeago 12:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree you have sources, but without a primary source, this may be fabrication. the primary source is what the other sources refer to, but we do not yet have, though there is no necessity to having it, it just moves this from trivial opinion to trivial fact.  even if we have that eventually, it still should go on another page. --Buridan 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh good. I suppose we'd better VfD Jesus, too. =). The source for Mumford's inspiration is given at The Fountainhead: "Mayhew, Robert (2007). Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-1578-2 (pp. 57).". There's yer primary source. Feel free to VfD Jesus still, however. I'm not really interested in your rebuttals unless the mediator declares it appropriate.Yeago 21:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * that is what is called a secondary source, a primary source would be the place where ayn rand says it, not a place where someone thinks she may have said it. --Buridan 21:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I were citing usenet I may agree, but once the suspicion gets into the notable world its usable here. Published scholarly books are certainly far within inclusive criteria.Yeago 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * primary sources contain the original material, seconday sources talk about the material. it is just a definition.  in this case, it is secondary, it is fine to include as i've admited, but for mumford it is trivial.--Buridan 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need a primary source, although it would be preferred. Secondary sources are enough, so is there any other reason this (which is clearly a reliable source) can't be included in the article? If it's true, it seems notable and relevant to me. Obviously it should be in the novel's article too.  Giggy  UCP 01:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * can you explain how it is relevant... it is about a book that may have no relation.  this is trivia, it has nothing to do with mumford's life unless you know otherwise.  --Buridan 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * it is about a book that may have no relation - it may have no relation, yet it is cited independently and discussed at some length? To take a random quote from the article, "In light of the international significance of Mumford's writings, the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., has designated an impressive auditorium as the Lewis Mumford Room." - how does THAT have anything to do with this life?  Giggy  UCP 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * that would be an honor that establishes notability given by a notable institution that actually exists. we have 4 different people that may be rand's evil personae, all or none of them may be the case, but it is trivial in any case, as it describes the book, whereas the room is clear attribution by a major institution, not a possible mention in a fictional novel.  that is the difference between something that is incidentally about one's life and something that honors one's life. --Buridan 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Rand apeing Mumford in her book be a similar establishment of notability, by notable personage? Obviously, the difference here is negative-honor. =)
 * Also, 4 different people? I heard there was one other inspiration. 4?Yeago 01:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 other, sorry, 4 total is what i've seen elsewhere. it may have been in wikipedia, else it was in one of your citations.--Buridan 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * and no rand aping mumford in her book, if that is what she did, is not the same at any rate as a room in LOC.--Buridan 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not be "as notable" but it still meets the notability guidelines. There is nothing there about relative notability.  Do you say it's notable?  Giggy  UCP 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly with Buridan over the principle of "link relativity" or "relative notability". For instance, he recently removed a reference to Ayn Rand from Thomas Aquinas. There is every reason in the world to do this. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a policy written up on link relativity (and I'd almost rather there not be, given the waves of witchhunts like WP:OR).Yeago 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * note, i did not make claims about notability, i said it was trivial in terms of his life, which it is. if we want to put everything that is notable in relation to mumford we'd have to put many hundreds of bits of trivia here, but we do not include the trivial where it is not contextually pertinent.   we include stuff about a book, on the books page, especially when it is disputably in relation to its putative designee, but to include the trivia here is pointless other than as yeago notes 'use value', which isn't a value for inclusion.  I do not deny that i remove quite a bit of rand references from other articles when they are clearly trivia to that article. i hold the principle that rand does not need to appear on every topic in which there may be some minor relation claimed by one of her followers. this is one of those.  --Buridan 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle! I disagree in application! =) Oh, and whoa... this is not 'one of those' as none 'of her followers' had any part in including the reference or discussing it here. Yeago 20:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (<--)Yes, I also agree in principle (dunno what I was thinking). But how do you disagree in application, Yeago?  Giggy  UCP 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply because they are contemporary American literary figures who had correspondence.Yeago 02:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Should i get a mention on vint cerf's or joiichi ito's page because we've had correspondence? given of course that someone eventually writes a wikipedia page for me, heh....? I'd say no... as there is no clear relation of influence, much like here there is just a possibility that people cite.--Buridan 08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, so Yeago is saying it should be included per correspondence? Er....how does he/she rebutt Buridan's comment then? Giggy  UCP 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am saying that because of this correspondence, as well as their contemporaneity, Rand's use of Mumford in The Fountainhead is relevant in the Mumford article. If it were a more minor character and not a main villain, if the author was instead Daniele Steele, or any number of other factors I would agree. If Mumford appeared in a Saturday Night Live skit as a curmudgeonly old nihilist it would not be included. One has a proximity to the author that the other simply does not.Yeago 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to from here?
So as far as I can see, one side wishes to include the information about Mumford being the inspiration for the book, as it's relevant to the article, because it influences a major, notable character in the book.

The other side says this is pointless and irrelevant trivia in terms of Mumford's life, and that it should only go in the book's article.

Both sides seem to agree on having the info in the book's article, so we won't dispute that. The only dispute is if Mumford being the inspiration for the character is a significant part of his life.

Also, it seems both sides agree on the concept of "relative notability." So let's go from here. How relatively notable is the book to Mumford's life? How much of an impact did it have on his life? Short, sweet answers if possible :) Giggy  UCP 06:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * none, i've never seen mumford cite or refer to it in any of his works.--Buridan 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't disagree with Buridan here, however, the question seems to ignore the object—after all, I am seeking its inclusion in the Influences section not the Influenced by section.
 * Also 'how relatively notable is the book to Mumford's life' ...to who? To Mumford? The book seems to be negligible. To the reader, scholar, critic of Mumford? Potentially very much so, as the book is a major reference representing contemporary thought on his character.Yeago 17:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * then we have to ask... do we present the researcher with trivia, or do we present them with citations to follow, as a researcher, this little bit of knowledge would only be interesting to me if i had a fairly narrow project dealing with ayn rand's book, and wouldn't have much use as best as i can imagine, coming to terms with things about mumford. the book is not about mumford, the character is not mumford, and is arguably based on mumford and a few other people.  so i currently don't see where it fits here.  It is useful information and people can find it in search or by looking for things that link to mumford.  --Buridan 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You make so many foregone conclusions I simply cannot reply (at least not according to the direction of 'short, sweet) as above. From your opening sentence I will say 1) nobody said anything about not providing citations 2) Mumford criticism on the whole is relatively scant (especially at the popular-reading level) so research need not be Rand-oriented 3) Mumford's presence as Toohey certainly could help >me< come to terms with things about Mumford (in pursuit of #2).Yeago 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The influences section currently contains a short list of authors who were influenced by Mumford. Why not add another name to the list?  Giggy  UCP 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * that might work, but it seems a stretch. it would be best just to let it go.--Buridan 22:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just Rand and not Toohey? Seems potentially misleading.Yeago 13:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And Rand and Toohey then? Giggy  Talk 04:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I think.Yeago 12:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Buridan, your say? Giggy  Talk 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are you really unsure about what Buridan's say is? Or my own for that matter? He's for exclusion and I'm for inclusion. Isn't it up to you to make a decision?Yeago 14:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem that rand has much place here either way, and toohey has less of a place.  unless you can show some relation of influence.  I could see putting rand under influencees here if mumford was an influence on her page, but no.  as for the book citation... it is mumford or any of 3 other people as the basis of the character, seems completely spurious and trivial to me.

Mumford's correspondence
Several books have been published of Mumford's correspondence with various important figures, including Van Wyck Brooks, Frederic J. Osborn (an associate of Ebenezer Howard, not Fred Osborne), David Liebovitz, Patrick Geddes, Frank Lloyd Wright and Henry Murray. (Lewis Mumford: A Bibliography / K. Published Collections of Letters) None of these are mentioned in the Mumford article. Just to put the dispute about Ayn Rand into some proportion. --RichardVeryard 12:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that seems rather silly, as books have been filled about these correspondences. On second glance the article only mentions that he critiqued Wright, not their decades-long friendship!Yeago 13:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mumford is not mentioned at all in the Frank Lloyd Wright article. But the FLW article does mention an alleged characterization of FLW in a book called (yes you've guessed it) Fountainhead ... --RichardVeryard 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha, pretty funny about the reference there, too. As for the lack of reference to Mumford, they were great friends for decades, that's just silly.Yeago 19:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kepler?
I removed the following, and bring it here for discussion:

 * In cataloguing the "obsession" of classic thinkers with space travel, Mumford turns his attention to an obscure work by Johannes Kepler entitled Somnium where Kepler speculates about the possibilities of lunar travel (supposedly attainable as early as 1609). Mumford cites this work as an example of a science-driven transition from Heaven to space travel as the salvation and ultimate goal of the human race—a recurring theme of Mumford's writings loosely summarized as sun worship which, according to Mumford, is a psychotic emanation from the "collective psyche" of mankind.

 * After illustrating Kepler's "keen grasp of the embarrassing details" and inferring interior compulsions were to blame, Mumford charges Kepler with being "steeped in sun-worship". While these inflections lie below the level of outright attack they are dismissive of Kepler's reasoning and even speculate as to his subconscious motivations.

First of all, this is unreferenced, so one cannot even know the source of this information. Second, I would question how important this is to Mumford's writing. Why does it deserve its own section? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mumford discusses this in detail in pages 45-50 of The Pentagon of Power, Vol 2 of The Myth of the Machine, and refers to it further at about half a dozen points in the book. DaveApter (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Epitaph
In the event anybody makes it this far down the page, I have a question / suggestion: Does anybody know if his "requested" epitaph was put on his tombstone? - If so, (with a cited source, of course) this info would make an interesting addition to the article. His quote -- from Wikiquote:
 * I would die happy if I knew that on my tombstone could be written these words, "This man was an absolute fool. None of the disastrous things that he reluctantly predicted ever came to pass!"

E74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Family life, Illegitmacy, Relationships, Marriage, Lovers
Okay, the ideas are what's most important, but I came here to learn more about just who Mumford was as a person -- something you can't get from his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.174.225 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis Mumford. 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/20130826194408/http://www.nea.gov/honors/medals/medalists_year.html to http://www.nea.gov/honors/medals/medalists_year.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Mumford and Jane Jacobs
Lewis Mumford is mentioned as a major theorist in urban planning in the Jane Jacobs article. Mumford & Jacobs have each been influential thinkers I’ve paid some attention to. Jane’s daughter, (Mary) Burgin Jacobs, has been a friend and one-time neighbor of mine. It was through Burgin that I had the pleasure of meeting Jane one time, decades ago. Burgin feels, and I agree, the contrast, in certain respects, between her mother’s and Mumford’s views has been obvious and significant.

I believe someone could do a good job with bringing in the contrasts (and criticisms) each respectfully had with the other. Since urban planning hasn’t been a major focus in my life, I wouldn’t be an appropriate person to bring this into the Mumford article (nor into the one about Jane).

Please, if you have the background & knowledge, do bring this contrast in viewpoints (and spheres of influence) into the article.Joel Russ (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Bioviability
"Mumford was deeply concerned with the relationship between technics and bioviability. The latter term, not used by Mumford, characterizes an area's capability to support life up through its levels of complexity."

This reads very strangely – if the relationship is central to Mumford's work, but "bioviability" is not the term that he uses, it would make sense to at least begin by setting it out in the terms he does use. I don't know enough about Mumford's work to suggest an edit, but wanted to flag this up in the hope that someone better informed can take a look. 81.26.251.117 (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lewis Mumford


text:
Ruby Hutchison

Ruby Florence Hutchison (15 February 1892 – 17 December 1974) was an Australian politician. She was a Labor Party member of the Western Australian Legislative Council from 1954 to 1971, representing Suburban Province (1954–1965) and North-East Metropolitan Province (1965–1971).

She was the first woman to be elected to the Legislative Council, the fourth woman to be elected to the Parliament of Western Australia, and with her third marriage in 1966 to Frederick Lavery, the first woman in Australia to serve in parliament alongside her husband.

Prior to entering politics, she was a homemaker, ran boarding houses, and worked as a dressmaker. She was active in community organisations, among her roles being as the founding chairperson of the Epilepsy Association of Western Australia and a founding member of the Australian Consumers Association in Western Australia.

The Ruby Hutchison Memorial Lecture is held annually in her honour by the ACCC and CHOICE.

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

title: Ruby Hutchison


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUBAR (album)

 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 no consensus. — Xezbeth 06:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

FUBAR (album)
album to be released in Sept 2005. Speculation. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball... --nixie 07:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculation until released. --NormanEinstein 13:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete crystal ball Tobycat 05:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep you don't need a crystal ball to verify that information. If it gets released it would be notable. If it somehow won't get released, it would be quite notable too.  Grue   09:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is speculation in the same way that the 2006 World Cup is speculation. --Bletch 20:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, not speculation. Kappa 21:36, 11 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 .


text:
Talk:List of United States military conflicts

Untitled
This page appears to have grown to encompass all conflicts, not just military. Should this page be broken up?

Philippine-American War
This page lists the "Philippine Insurrection (1899-1902)" as a stage of the "Philippine-American War (1899–1913)". However, according to the Philippine-American War article, the term "Philippine Insurrection" is just another term for the Philippine-American War. Philippine Insurrection redirects to Philippine-American War. So what's the real deal? Coffee 14:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Arcadia Lake (Oklahoma)

Arcadia Lake is a reservoir in Central Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, United States. The lake is located northeast of Oklahoma City in eastern Edmond, just east of Interstate 35.

The lake has a surface area of 1,820 acres (7 km²) and has about 26 miles (42 km) of shoreline.

The lake was created in 1984 by an earthen dam on the Deep Fork River begun in 1980. This lake was constructed as a cooperative effort between the City of Edmond and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It was created to control floods in the Deep Fork River Basin, supply water to the city of Edmond, and provide recreational resources to the surrounding communities.

Recreational opportunities at Arcadia Lake include fishing, boating, camping, mountain biking, hiking, disc golf and equestrian trails. Waterskiing and Jet Skiing are both allowed in designated areas. Horse rentals are not available, so visitors must bring their own mounts. Facilities include picnic areas, a Frisbee golf course, pavilions, boat ramps, designated swim beaches and an enclosed and heated fishing dock that is handicapped accessible. Arcadia Lake also features RV campsites with full hookups and primitive tent campsites. Parks around the lake include Scissortail Park, Spring Creek Park, Central State Park and Edmond Park.

title: Arcadia Lake (Oklahoma)


text: User talk:68.52.134.9

title: User talk:68.52.134.9


text:
Talk:69 Boyz

Untitled
Was the band name inspired by the 69 sex position? --SuperDude 06:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, what on earth led these guys to choose such an unbearably gay name?207.157.121.50 11:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

I'm removing and  because the image doesn't exist and there aren't any quotes.. - N (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Let Me Ride The Donkey" is actually 12 Gauge's "Dunkie Butt." References removed. Keenon mob 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 69 Boyz.png

title: Talk:69 Boyz


text:
Adam Scott (actor)

Adam Paul Scott (born April 3, 1973 ) is an American actor and comedian. He is best known for his role as Ben Wyatt in the NBC sitcom Parks and Recreation, for which he was twice nominated for the Critics' Choice Television Award for Best Actor in a Comedy Series. He has also appeared as Derek Huff in the film Step Brothers, Johnny Meyer in The Aviator, Henry Pollard in the Starz sitcom Party Down, Ed Mackenzie in the HBO series Big Little Lies, and Trevor in the NBC series The Good Place. In 2022, he began starring in the Apple TV+ psychological drama series Severance, for which he received numerous award nominations, including for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, as well as best actor nominations from the Screen Actors Guild, Golden Globes, Critics' Choice, and more.

Early life
Scott was born on April 3, 1973, in Santa Cruz, California, to Anne ( Quartararo) and Dougald Scott, both of whom are retired teachers. His parents divorced when he was a child. His father is of Scottish descent, while his mother is of half Italian (Sicilian) and half Irish descent. He has two older siblings, Shannon and David. He graduated from Harbor High School and the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in Los Angeles, California.

Film
Scott has appeared in several feature films, including Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), The Lesser Evil (1998), High Crimes (2002), The Aviator (2004), Torque (2004), Monster-in-Law (2005), Knocked Up (2007), Step Brothers (2008), The Vicious Kind (2009), Piranha 3D (2010), Friends with Kids (2012), The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013), and Krampus (2015).

Scott attributes his pivot from dramatic to comedic roles to landing the part of Derek Huff in Step Brothers (2008), as he learned comedic improvisation from his co-stars, Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, and Kathryn Hahn.

He played antagonist Ted Hendricks, Walter Mitty's boss, in the 2013 Ben Stiller remake of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. His other major studio comedies include Hot Tub Time Machine 2 and the Christmas comedy-horror film Krampus, both in 2015.

Scott has appeared in and produced numerous independent films. He starred as Caleb Sinclaire in the 2010 film The Vicious Kind, for which Scott was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award for Best Actor. The film itself received positive reviews, and he won two individual awards at two separate film festivals. He starred in two films by Matt Bissonette, Who Loves the Sun (2006) and Passenger Side (2009), released on DVD on October 26, 2010. He appeared in the films Our Idiot Brother (2011) with Paul Rudd and Leslye Hedland's Bachelorette (2012). He had lead roles in Friends with Kids (2012) and A.C.O.D. (2013).

In 2015, he executive produced and starred in the comedy film The Overnight.

Scott and Paul Rudd teamed up again to act in and produce the indie comedy Fun Mom Dinner (2017).

Television
Scott's early television roles include Griff Hawkins in Boy Meets World, Josh on Party of Five, a law intern on Murder One, as well as David's love interest, Ben Cooper, on Six Feet Under.

His first series regular role was on the controversial and sexually-explicit HBO drama Tell Me You Love Me (2007) as Palek, a husband struggling to conceive with his wife. In the first two seasons of the HBO baseball comedy series Eastbound & Down, Scott played a cocaine-addicted baseball front office representative.

From 2009 to 2010, he starred as Henry Pollard in the Starz network show Party Down. For this performance, he earned an Entertainment Weekly Ewwy nomination for Best Actor in a Comedy Series.

In 2010, Scott joined the cast of NBC's acclaimed comedy series Parks and Recreation, in which he played Ben Wyatt, a state auditor who arrives in the fictional town of Pawnee, Indiana, to evaluate the town's funds and eventually becomes the love interest of Leslie Knope. He appeared as a guest star in the second season before becoming a main character for the remainder of the series, which ended in 2015.

Scott and his wife created and produced four Adult Swim mockumentary specials, The Greatest Event in Television History, about remaking opening credits sequences of 1980s television shows.

Scott continued his streak of comedic roles in several episodes of Ken Marino's The Bachelor parody Burning Love and on David Wain's Wet Hot American Summer: Ten Years Later. From 2016 to 2018, Scott appeared in five episodes of the acclaimed Michael Schur show The Good Place as Trevor, a demon.

In 2017 and 2019, Scott took a turn to dramatic work by appearing in HBO's Big Little Lies as Ed Mackenzie, husband of main character Madeline Mackenzie, played by Reese Witherspoon.

Scott starred with Craig Robinson in the sitcom Ghosted, which premiered on October 1, 2017, on Fox, lasting just one season. He and his wife executive produced the show.

In 2020, Scott hosted the one-season ABC game show Don't, executive produced by Ryan Reynolds.

In 2022, Scott began starring in and producing the Apple TV+ show Severance, which is produced and directed by Ben Stiller. His performance was critically acclaimed.

The cult hit Party Down was revived in 2023, with Scott reprising the character of Henry Pollard.

Scott has had numerous guest appearances, including in the Adult Swim comedy Childrens Hospital and HBO's Veep. He has appeared on CSI: Miami and Law & Order. He was also on the show NTSF:SD:SUV::, in the episode "The Risky Business of Being Alone in Your Home", and has also appeared in the Comedy Central television show Nick Swardson's Pretend Time, as a newscaster in the episode "Relapse into Refreshment". He has appeared in a series of commercials for ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball.

Podcasting
With Scott Aukerman, Scott is the co-host and co-creator of the Earwolf podcast U Talkin' U2 To Me, launched in February 2014. The series is introduced at the outset of each episode as "the comprehensive and encyclopedic compendium of all things U2," though it generally uses discussion of the band as a jumping off point for improv and absurdist humor. In February 2018, Scott and Aukerman launched another podcast in the same format, this time covering the career and work of the band R.E.M., titled R U Talkin' R.E.M. Re: Me?. A third podcast, R U Talkin' RHCP Re: Me?, debuted in July 2020, in which Scott and Aukerman discuss the Red Hot Chili Peppers; the podcast's format was almost immediately abandoned in favor of discussing Talking Heads and, as of the second episode, was renamed U Talkin' Talking Heads 2 My Talking Head. In September 2023 the show began to focus on discussing the work of Bruce Springsteen, and was renamed U Springin' Springsteen On My Bean?.

Scott has been a guest on many podcasts including Comedy Bang! Bang!, How Did This Get Made?, Armchair Expert with Dax Shepard, and Kevin Pollak's Chat Show.

Personal life
Scott married producer Naomi Sablan in 2005. They have two children.

Scott is a "die-hard" fan of the band R.E.M., much like his character in Parks and Recreation. In 1992, he appeared as an extra in the music video to their song "Drive".

During an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Scott revealed he invited actor Mark Hamill to one of his childhood birthday parties. Guest host Kristen Bell surprised Scott with the guest appearance of Hamill wielding a lightsaber in observance of Star Wars Day.

title: Adam Scott (actor)


text:
Talk:Helmert–Wolf blocking

F. R. Helmert did not use matrix notation and therefore the sparse structures of his large equation systems are not that easily recognizable.

title: Talk:Helmert–Wolf blocking


text:
Harry Chappas

Harry Perry Chappas (born October 26, 1957) is a former shortstop with the Chicago White Sox in parts of three seasons, from 1978 until 1980. Though he appeared in only 72 career games, he became a cult hero on the South Side due primarily to his stature. Chappas was measured by Harry Caray and publicly declared to be 5ft 3in, an inch or two shorter than established star Freddie Patek. He was one of the shortest players in Major League history, although Chappas stated in an interview in Sports Illustrated that he was closer to 5ft 5in, and implied that team owner Bill Veeck exaggerated his short stature for publicity reasons.

Chappas' professional baseball career began with the barnstorming ex-Negro league Indianapolis Clowns, who had become racially integrated, and had developed into more of an entertainment product than a competitive team. When Chappas later made his major league debut, he became the final player and first white player to make the major leagues from a team formerly a member of the Negro leagues.

Chappas signed with the White Sox in 1976 as a sixth round draft pick. He impressed Veeck with good performances for the Appleton Foxes in 1978. This earned Chappas a September callup, during which he hit an effective .267 in 20 games.

Primarily due to his height, he gained more and more national interest, highlighted by an appearance on the cover of Sports Illustrated during spring training in 1979. In spring training that year, Chappas unseated veteran Don Kessinger and became the opening day shortstop. He lost his job after two weeks after missing a sign as a baserunner, only returning in September. Chappas made the opening day roster the following year as well, but only as a reserve player, and he was subsequently sent to the minors after hitting .160 in 50 at bats.

Overall, Chappas hit .245 in the majors and hit a single home run, off the Brewers' Bill Travers, in 1979.

title: Harry Chappas


text:
Last Ninja

Last Ninja is a series of video games published by System 3. The first game in the series titled The Last Ninja, was released in 1987 for the Commodore 64 and was one of the most successful games for the system. In 1988, System 3 released Last Ninja 2, and in 1991 the third game in the series, Last Ninja 3. In 1990, Last Ninja Remix was released for 8-bit systems. This was Last Ninja 2 with new music, a new introductory sequence, slightly changed graphics (most notably the screen border) and fixed bugs. Confusingly, the 16-bit versions of the original The Last Ninja game were also released in 1990 as Ninja Remix.

Plot
The protagonist of The Last Ninja series is Armakuni, the sole survivor of a ninjutsu clan that was destroyed by an evil shogun named Kunitoki. This struggle leads Armakuni to the island of Lin Fen (in the first Last Ninja) to modern-day New York City (in Last Ninja 2) and to the mystical Buddhist temple in Tibet (in Last Ninja 3). In each of the games, Kunitoki is the final adversary and every time eludes death after a somewhat decisive victory from Armakuni.

Gameplay
Each game is divided into a number of self-contained locations, with the original game containing six such 'levels'. Each level is loaded separately, in sequence as the game progresses. The game overtakes the player back to the start of the current level. Each location was presented as a map of static isometric screens, with the player's character restricted to predefined paths (the scenery was inaccessible). By 8-bit standards, the graphics were very detailed, and on many platforms, the screen would take a second or so to draw itself when entered.

The gameplay generally consisted of fighting, exploration, and puzzle-solving. Movement and fighting were done on the joystick, and the keyboard was used to select items and weapons that the player had to acquire. The player could select one active weapon and one item at any given time. Many map screens contained opponents which the ninja could avoid (by exiting a screen before they caught him) or fight using his selected weapon (in later Last Ninja games defeated enemies would revive after a certain amount of time). Items would flash briefly when a screen was first entered and could be picked up when standing close to them, usually triggering a crouching animation that was also often employed when using the object. Most of the puzzles were of the item-finding or precision-jumping variety.

Games

 * The Last Ninja: Commodore 64 (1987), MS-DOS (1988), Acorn Electron (1988), BBC Micro (1988), Apple II GS (1988), Apple II (1989), Acorn Archimedes (1992), Virtual Console (2008)
 * Ninja Remix: Amiga (1990), Atari ST (1990)
 * Last Ninja 2: Commodore 64 (1988), ZX Spectrum (1988), Amstrad CPC (1988), Acorn Electron (1989), BBC Micro (1989), Amiga (1990), Atari ST (1990), MS-DOS (1990), NES (1990, as The Last Ninja), Virtual Console (2008)
 * Last Ninja Remix: Commodore 64 (1990), ZX Spectrum (1990), Amstrad CPC (1990)
 * Last Ninja 3: Commodore 64 (1991), Amiga (1991), Atari ST (1991), Amiga CD32 (1993), Virtual Console (2008)
 * Last Ninja 4: C64 (cancelled)
 * Last Ninja: IBM PC compatibles and possibly PlayStation (cancelled)
 * Last Ninja: The Return/The Last Ninja – Return to Lin Fen Island: PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube (cancelled)

Generally the games had been made with Commodore 64 as the lead platform, with other platforms getting less attention (sometimes the porters didn't even receive the C64 version's data, and had to reconstruct the entire game from scratch). Versions of The Last Ninja for the BBC Micro, Acorn Electron and Acorn Archimedes/RISC OS computers were published by Superior Software, while Activision published it for the Apple II GS.

One novel feature on the C64 version was the use of very distinctive oriental music in loading and in-game music for each level. These original music pieces on the first Last Ninja were composed by C64 musician Ben Daglish doing five tunes and Anthony Lees doing six tunes. In the sequel, Last Ninja 2, Matt Gray composed all the tunes. What separated The Last Ninja series from most other games was that in C64 version all three SID sound channels were dedicated to music playback, meaning that there were no in-game sounds. Reyn Ouwehand provided the new music used in the C64 version of Last Ninja Remix.

Last Ninja 4
In 1993, John Wells created a series of previews, music and a map for one level of a fourth game which he tried to convince System 3 to make. System 3 turned him down.

Originally set for an early 2004 release, a new Last Ninja game was shown at the E3 2003 Expo in Los Angeles, but has since been delayed. Released screenshots showed a game looking very similar to Tecmo's Ninja Gaiden, also in development at the time (released in early 2004). Retro Gamer reported they "that Play It is to release the original Last Ninja trilogy on PS2. The graphics will be enhanced, but the gameplay and puzzles will remain intact. Again, this will be released in the next few months and priced at a very economical £10. It will also serve as a perfect appetiser for the fully 3D'd up Last Ninja 4, due out next year". A new game has also been said to be cancelled at least three times, only to return to development. In 2007, System 3 CEO, Mark Cale, said the fourth Last Ninja was scrapped because it "simply wasn't good enough" and stated that Last Ninja would be returning in the form of a remade trilogy for Nintendo DS and Wii. Cale said: "We've scrapped the fourth game. I felt it wasn't representative of the market. For Last Ninja 4, I think you need to do something that recreates that kind of 'wow' factor of the original game, and in my mind it wasn't good enough to wear that badge – so why cash in on a great name? We may as well leave it as it is. There will definitely be a fourth game. It'll either be a retro version with updated graphics but the same gameplay, or something that's going to be an epic, like a Final Fantasy game but with a more arcade feel". No news of the game have been made and the project appears to be shelved.

Reception
In 2010, GamePro included Armakuni in their article "Top Ten video game ninjas". Virgin Media included him on the list of top ten video game ninja heroes, but commenting the series itself "hasn't aged all that gracefully".

title: Last Ninja


text:
User:Garglebutt/Sandbox

test

title: User:Garglebutt/Sandbox


text:
User:Group6

This is Group 6 of an Information Technology Auditing class (ACCT 542) for Seattle University.

title: User:Group6


text:
Joe Chithalen

Francis Joseph (Joe) Chithalen (November 17, 1967 – May 1, 1999) was a Canadian musician. He was a bassist for a number of bands in the Kingston music scene of the 1990s, most notably Weeping Tile, The Mahones, Bucket, and Wild Blues Yonder.

Death
On May 1, 1999, Chithalen died in Amsterdam shortly after a Mahones concert, said to be from ingesting food containing peanuts. His former Weeping Tile bandmate Sarah Harmer wrote "You Were Here", the title track from her 2000 solo album, in memory of Chithalen.

After his death, The Joe Chithalen Memorial Musical Instrument Lending Library (JOE'S M.I.L.L.) was established in Kingston, Ontario by some of his friends, family and past bandmates (including the late Wally High). The Library loans instruments to aspiring musicians who can't afford them. Some of Chithalen's own bass guitars and other stringed instruments sit in the lending Library, and are occasionally loaned out for performances.

title: Joe Chithalen


text:
Talk:Sepia Mutiny

Untitled
Are weblogs encyclopedia material? --Wetman 06:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not unless their notability can be established. Some are, but most aren't. RickK 07:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * This one certainly is not. A deletion should be considered. Padishah5000 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree fully. Sepia Mutiny has provided a forum for Indian-American unity and has become an icon among 20-something Indian-Americans over the last few years. While you may disagree with the content of the site, to ignore the fact that it has become a focal point for thousands of young Indian-Americans caught between two rapidly changing cultures would be contrary to the basic philosophy of Wikipedia. I am not involved in Sepia Mutiny as an editor or contributor, but the site is being discussed across America in the newly born community of Indian-Americans as we try to acknowledge our roots while still being aware of their limitations. Similar to recent cultural icons like Punjabi MC and Russell Peters, I cannot over-emphasize the impact the site has had on our community. I will Wikify the article in the meantime however as I do agree that its current format needs work. Chantoke 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Our website has been cited or our bloggers interviewed by the BBC, MSNBC, Salon, Newsweek, Slate, ABC and 100s of other blogs. If that isn't relevant for a Wikipedia readership then I don't know what is.

- I tried updating the format some. I think it's heading in a good direction. Really think some discussion should occur before such an important part of the internet community is disregarded as not being 'notable'. I went ahead and removed the deletion subheading--if there any issues with this feel free to contact me. Would love to hear your thoughts. Otherwise will continue to improve the piece. Chantoke 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

-

I updated the names of a few bloggers, there is no real information confirming their names. --Desinole 20:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Racial Identity
The part about the race of the bloggers is incomplete, two of the four bloggers are not regulars and I am not sure it adds any value to the information. 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)--Desinole

 * I am not so sure about the new updates on the 20th. A lot of it seems like unnecessary information. For example the Racial identity section could fall under social context. The entire post now looks like a lesson in South Asian history combined with information about the blog, I suggest that we go back to the 4th September edit. Everything after that seems to be adding fluff.--Desinole 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Anna is a very prominent blogger. Are you talking about Ennis or Taz when you refer to bloggers without prominance?  It is not a lesson in South Asian history.  It describes the way the bloggers identify their own race. Why do you feel that the section should be removed when it is cited?Dark Tea  ©  02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, you have not identified the race of all bloggers. I am not sure on what the Abrahamic faith has to do with race. And finally, I do know that Anna is prominent, but Taz and Vinodh are not regulars on SM. So I am not sure it adds any value to the information.--Desinole 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement "you have not identified the race of all bloggers" sounds like a perfect solution fallacy. When more information becomes available about the racial identity of the other bloggers, then we will add the information.  You appear to lack a consistent stance on the direction you want for the section.  First, you highlight that all of the bloggers do not have their race represented, presumeably as a problem, then you complain that some of the less prominant bloggers listed do not add to the article.  You criticize both too much and too little in the same analysis, so which is it?  You can remove the tidbit of the Abrahamic faith if you want.Dark Tea  ©  03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sepia Mutiny. 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/20070410011000/http://www.asata.org/issue/hateviolence/content to http://www.asata.org/issue/hateviolence/content

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) 06:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sepia Mutiny


text: Category:Semiconductor technology

title: Category:Semiconductor technology


text:
Talk:USS Yorktown (CV-5)

Untitled
OK first of all, alot of this article seems to be ripped off from http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv05-yorktown/cv05-yorktown.html

Many paragraphs have been directly copied.

the error mentioned later in this passage was also copied Rekov 20 May 2006

Pics of Yorktowns wreckage should be displayed.

I-168 sunk her. NOT I-158 See combinedfleet.com

Veljko Stevanovich 25. 11. 2005. 19:30 UTC+1

Length
This article is rather long. I don't suggest that material be removed, but rather that work be done to divide it into more sections and otherwise organize it.--Lewk_of_Serthic 01:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What does "Struck 2 October 1942" mean?
The table at right contains that line of text... yet it also says the Yorktown was sunk on 7 June 1942. I suggest either the "struck" line should be omitted, the date corrected if applicable, or some explanation given of what it means for a ship to be "struck" after it is "sunk".

I'll remove the line of text unless someone chimes in with a more specific fix...

Kirkpete (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * "Struck" refers to the ship's removal from the Naval Vessel Register, the register of Navy assets. It's not unusual for this to take place at a later date; it takes some time for an official determination of whether a ship is unrecoverable. Maralia (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, now I would argue for striking the line as immaterial. Alternatively, this explanation should be incorporated in the table somehow... but I don't think it's worth the space. Kirkpete (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Excessive copying, lack of quotations - possible plagiarism?
I am not the first person to notice that the text of this Wikipedia entry on the Yorktown is virtually identical to text found elsewhere on the internet. User Rekov said the following up above (apologies for copying, there's no section header prior to his/her comment for a quick reference):

 * OK first of all, alot of this article seems to be ripped off from :http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv05-yorktown/cv05-yorktown.html
 * Many paragraphs have been directly copied.
 * the error mentioned later in this [Talk page] passage was also copied Rekov 20 May 2006

It seems that after that, someone added the following notices to the article at the end of the Reference section:

 * This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here.
 * This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Naval History & Heritage Command.

The thing is that this wikipedia article doesn't just "incorporate text" and "incorporate material," there are many parts that are a word for word duplication or that have very minor changes. Moreover, the whole organization of the Wikipedia article is an exact copy of the original. It is a good chronological organization but still

The original Wikipedia article was pretty much just a copy and paste Here's what I think is the original text of the Wikipedia article, as there is no link to a previous version. It was apparently created on March 11, 2003:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Yorktown_(CV-5)&oldid=739489

Here is a capture on October 15, 2002 by the Internet Wayback machine of the website that User Rekov references:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021015010303/http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv05-yorktown/cv05-yorktown.html

That web site, just like this Wikipedia article says that it is: "From: Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, published by the Naval Historical Center"

You can see that the two articles are virtually identical even in including such non-encyclopedic, editorializing phrases as "The early news from the Pacific was bleak" and "disaster struck" and "five days later when American fighting men in Hawaii were rudely awakened to find their country at war."

In fact, it seems that what appear to be original page numbers 534-538 that appear in brackets in the original Wikipedia article are from the text of the original. Here's a link to one online text version of original article ("Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VIII, 1981, pp. 533-38"):

http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/carriers/cv5.htm

At the end of the original Wikipedia the following appears:

 * (CV-5: dp. 19,800; l. 809' 6"; b. 83' 1"; dr. 28' 0"; s. 32.5 k.; cpl. 2.919; a. 8 5", 22 .50-cal mg., ac. 81-85; cl. Yorktown.)

Whatever that means, it's identical to text at the top of the first version of this article.

Now, there have been changes made to this article since its 2003 creation. The fanciful language has been removed and the tone of the article is much improved. There are even 11 instances of a citation to "Yorktown". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History & Heritage Command. 7 April 2014." [By the way, this citation provides incomplete information because the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is a multi-volume work and the article on the Yorktown is in volume VIII. The publication date may also be wrong unless 2014 refers to the date last accessed online].

However, there are still significant portions of this article that are still either identical to the original text or identical except for stylistic changes. For example "Va." was changed to "Virginia" or "Hampton Roads" was changed to "Hampton Roads, Virginia." Similarly,

 * The third Yorktown (CV-5) was laid down on 21 May 1934 at Newport News, Va., by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co.; launched on 4 April 1936; sponsored by Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt; and commissioned at the Naval Operating Base (NOB), Norfolk, Va., on 30 September 1937, Capt. Ernest D. McWhorter in command.

Was changed to
 * Yorktown was laid down on 21 May 1934 at Newport News, Virginia, by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co.; launched on 4 April 1936; sponsored by Eleanor Roosevelt; and commissioned at the Naval Station Norfolk (NS Norfolk), Norfolk, Virginia, on 30 September 1937, Captain Ernest D. McWhorter in command.

I don't have access to Volume VIII of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and the text for that volume does not appear in Google Books. However, it appears that the article on the Yorktown was uploaded to the internet in 12/31/2015 by the Navy with slight changes; it also apparently lists Robert J. Cressman as the author. Robert Cressman has a 2000 book that is listed in the Wikipedia article as "Further reading." I don't know if he was the original author of the article in 1981. The link provided in the citations as well as the link at the end notice about incorporation of public domain material point to this page. Anybody reading this article who actually follows the link, will see that the Wikipedia article still largely consists of that same text with some slight changes and some slight additions.

Here's just one example of a large chunk of nearly identical text. The Wikipedia article:

 * Yorktown operated off the eastern seaboard, ranging from Chesapeake Bay to Guantanamo Bay, into 1939. As flagship for Carrier Division 2, she participated in her first war game—Fleet Problem XX—along with her sister-ship Enterprise in February 1939. The scenario for the exercise called for one fleet to control the sea lanes in the Caribbean against the incursion of a foreign European power while maintaining sufficient naval strength to protect vital American interests in the Pacific. The maneuvers were witnessed, in part, by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, embarked in the heavy cruiser Houston.
 * The critique of the operation revealed that carrier operations—a part of the scenarios for the annual exercises since the entry of Langley into the war games in 1925—had achieved a new peak of efficiency. Despite the inexperience of Yorktown and Enterprise—comparative newcomers to the Fleet—both carriers made significant contributions to the success of the problem. The planners had studied the employment of carriers and their embarked air groups in connection with convoy escort, antisubmarine defense, and various attack measures against surface ships and shore installations. In short, they worked to develop the tactics that would be used when war actually came.

 * Pacific Fleet
 * Following Fleet Problem XX, Yorktown returned briefly to Hampton Roads before sailing for the Pacific on 20 April 1939. Transiting the Panama Canal a week later, Yorktown soon commenced a regular routine of operations with the Pacific Fleet. The Second World War started on 1 September 1939, but the USA was not yet involved. Operating out of San Diego, California into 1940, the carrier participated in Fleet Problem XXI that April. Yorktown was one of six ships to receive the new RCA CXAM radar in 1940.

The original text from the 1981 article:

 * Yorktown operated off the eastern seaboard, ranging from Chesapeake Bay to Guantanamo Bay, into 1939. As flagship for Carrier Division (CarDiv) 2, she participated in her first war game — Fleet Problem XX — along with her sistership USS Enterprise (CV-6) in February 1939. The scenario for the exercise called for one fleet to control the sea lanes in the Caribbean against the incursion of a foreign European power while maintaining sufficient naval strength to protect vital American interests in the Pacific. The maneuvers were witnessed, in part, by President Roosevelt, embarked in the heavy cruiser USS Houston (CA-30).
 * The critique of the operation revealed that carrier operations — a part of the scenarios for the annual exercises since the entry of USS Langley (CV-1) into the war games in 1925 — had achieved a new peak of efficiency. Despite the inexperience of Yorktown and Enterprise — comparative newcomers to the Fleet — both carriers made significant contributions to the success of the problem. The planners had studied the employment of carriers and their embarked air groups in connection with convoy escort, antisubmarine defense, and various attack measures against surface ships and shore installations. In short, they worked to develop the tactics that would be used when war actually came.
 * Following Fleet Problem XX, Yorktown returned briefly to Hampton Roads before sailing for the Pacific on 20 April. Transiting the Panama Canal a week later, Yorktown soon commenced a regular routine of operations with the Pacific Fleet. Operating out of San Diego into 1940, the carrier participated in Fleet Problem XXI that April.
 * Fleet Problem XXI — a two-part exercise — included some of the operations that would characterize future warfare in the Pacific. The first part of the exercise was devoted to training in making plans and estimates; in screening and scouting; in coordination of combatant units; and in employing fleet and standard dispositions. The second phase included training in convoy protection, the seizure of advanced bases, and, ultimately, the decisive engagement between the opposing fleets. The last pre-war exercise of its type, Fleet Problem XXI, contained two exercises (comparatively minor at the time) where air operations played a major role. Fleet Joint Air Exercise 114A prophetically pointed out the need to coordinate Army and Navy defense plans for the Hawaiian Islands, and Fleet Exercise 114 proved that aircraft could be used for high altitude tracking of surface forces — a significant role for planes that would be fully realized in the war to come.

Anyone looking at these two documents and not seeing any quotation marks nor other indication that the text is taken from the Navy article could conclude that the Wikipedia article is plagiarized, despite the "This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The entry can be found here." The information and even the text may be in the public domain (1981 publication date?) or even be "public domain material" from the Navy, but quoted language must still be identified. It may not be a copyright violation for which compensation might be due, but that doesn't mean everything is fine.

I copied the text from the Wikipedia article and from the Navy article into Word and used the compare function on the two. Looking at the resulting comparison reveals that indeed, there are still major portions of the current article that are just copied and pasted from the original. I can provide the complete document with redlining and strike through text as a pdf document. I'm looking into seeing how I can post it or make it available online somewhere.

Moreover, some parts of what is quoted in the article is totally unnecessary for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. For example, the whole paragraph quoted above starting with "The critique of the operation revealed that carrier operations and ending with "had achieved a new peak of efficiency" just seems too trivial a detail to be included here.

IMO, this article reflects badly on the credibility of Wikipedia. Ileanadu (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Other changes that are needed
Because this article is largely copied from a Navy article, there is terminology here that the average Wikipedia user may not be familiar with. For example, article states that the ship was "laid down" on 21 May 1934, that it was"sponsored by" Eleanor Roosevelt and that "The maneuvers were witnessed, in part, by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, embarked in the heavy cruiser Houston."

There is no link to a definition of "laid down" so I did a search and found Keel laying and that tells me that's when the ship's building is officially begun. The use of proper terminology in the info box is fine, however in the text of the article terms of art or technical terms should be explained or a link provided for users of Wikipedia who are unfamiliar with the terminology. I could not find a quick reference to the meaning of "sponsored by. Is that the same as "christened by"? I imagine "embarked in" means "aboard the." If so, then the sentence about the maneuvers can be shortened and made clearer for all readers/users by changing to active voice and saying that "President Franklin Delano Roosevelt witnessed part of the maneuvers from aboard the heavy cruiser Houston."

These are just a couple of the changes that could turn this from an article intended for aficionados of Navy ships and Navy history to an encyclopedia article that needs to inform students as well as any English speaker (reader) who does not have a command of technical jargon. Ileanadu (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and turned "laid down" into a link.
 * I also looked up "sponsorship" and found an article which describes the process:

 * http://societyofsponsorsofusn.org/about/

 * I see it is more than just the christening of the ship and it appears the sponsor is always female, even if the ship is named for a woman, such as the USS Gabrielle Giffords. There should be a link to some explanation of what it means for a ship to be sponsored by someone. Ileanadu (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:USS Yorktown (CV-5)


text:
Progressive revelation (Baháʼí)

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Baháʼí Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance. Thus, the Baháʼí teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Baháʼu'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.

This teaching is an interaction of simpler teachings and their implications. The basic concept relates closely to Baháʼí views on God's essential unity, and the nature of prophets, termed Manifestations of God. It also ties into Baháʼí views of the purpose and nature of religion, laws, belief, culture and history. Hence revelation is seen as both progressive and continuous, and therefore never ceases.

Dispensations
Baháʼís believe God to be generally regular and periodic in revealing His will to mankind through messengers/prophets, which are named Manifestations of God. Each messenger in turn establishes a covenant and founds a religion. This process of revelation, according to the Baháʼí writings, is also never ceasing, which is contrary to many other belief systems that believe in a finality of their prophet/messenger. The general theme of the successive and continuous religions founded by Manifestations of God is that there is an evolutionary tendency, and that each Manifestation of God brings a larger measure of revelation (or religion) to humankind than the previous one. The differences in the revelation brought by the Manifestations of God is stated to be not inherent in the characteristics of the Manifestation of God, but instead attributed to the various worldly, societal and human factors; these differences are in accordance with the "conditions" and "varying requirements of the age" and the "spiritual capacity" of humanity. These differences are seen to be needed since human society has slowly and gradually evolved through higher stages of unification from the family to tribes and then nations.

Thus religious truth is seen to be relative to its recipients and not absolute; while the messengers proclaimed eternal moral and spiritual truths that are renewed by each messenger, they also changed their message to reflect the particular spiritual and material evolution of humanity at the time of the appearance of the messenger. In the Baháʼí view, since humanity's spiritual capacity and receptivity has increased over time, the extent to which these spiritual truths are expounded changes.

Baháʼu'lláh, the founder of the Baháʼí Faith, explained that the appearance of successive messengers was like the annual coming of Spring, which brings new life to the world which has come to neglect the teachings of the previous messenger. He also used an analogy of the world as the human body, and revelation as a robe of "justice and wisdom".

"Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared."

Baháʼu'lláh mentioned in the Kitáb-i-Íqán that God will renew the "City of God" about every thousand years, and specifically mentioned that a new Manifestation of God would not appear within 1000 years of Baháʼu'lláh's message.

Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, and Zoroaster were all named by Baháʼu'lláh as being among the establishers of religion, termed Manifestations of God, as well as himself, and his forerunner the Báb. Baháʼu'lláh also expressly or implicitly referred to Adam, Noah, Saleh, Húd, and an unnamed prophet of the Sabians as messengers of God. Bahà'u'llàh's works that exist today never mentioned Buddha or Krishna as manifestations, but his son 'Abdu'l-Bahà mentioned in his own works that Buddha and Krishna were indeed manifestations of God.

Universal cycles
In addition to the idea of religion being progressively revealed from the same God through different prophets/messengers, there also exists in Baháʼí literature, the idea of a universal cycle, which represents a series of dispensations, and is used to categorize human history and social evolution in a number of ways. It is viewed as a superset of the sequence of progressive revelations, and currently comprises two cycles.

The Adamic cycle, also known as the Prophetic cycle is stated to have begun approximately 6,000 years ago with a Manifestation of God referred to in various sacred scriptures as Adam, and ended with the dispensation of Muhammad. In this cycle, Baháʼí belief is that Manifestations of God continued to advance human civilization at regular intervals through progressive revelation. The Abrahamic religions and Dharmic religions are partial recognitions of this cycle, from a Baháʼí point of view.

In Baháʼí belief, the Baháʼí cycle, or Cycle of Fulfillment, began with the Báb and includes Baháʼu'lláh, and will last at least five hundred thousand years with numerous Manifestations of God appearing throughout that time. It is stated in Baháʼí literature that the Manifestations of God in the Adamic cycle, in addition to bringing their own teachings, foretold of the Cycle of Fulfillment.

Metaphors
The concept of progressive revelation is further explained in the Baháʼí writings in numerous metaphors. These metaphors include the daily and seasonal cycle and the progression through a school.

Daily and seasonal cycles
The coming of each new messenger and the teachings they bring is compared to the coming of Spring, as the teachings bring new life to the world made spiritually dead and cold because the teachings of the previous messenger have been neglected. The coming of the messenger is also described through the metaphor of daily cycle of the sun. The appearance of the Manifestation of God is here likened to the rise of the spiritual sun. The teachings of this messenger then extend and deepen towards noon and afternoon but as the sun sets the teachings are not as visible.

Religion as a school
The earliest forms of religion are seen, in many of the Baháʼí Writings, to be like early school. In this view humanity, like a child, has been maturing while gaining a greater ability to grasp complex ideas as it grows in years and progresses in school. Each time a divine messenger appears, the message given is suited to humanity's degree of maturation. In this view each religion may explain truth differently according to the needs of the recipients of the teachings. Baháʼu'lláh was asked several questions about the nature of differences in religions, God's messengers, and religious laws. His response was a reference to progressive revelation:

"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements."

Religious truth is of two kinds
Baháʼís believe that religious teachings are of two varieties: essential spiritual truth, and ephemeral social constructs. The latter may include laws of conduct, diet, institutions, ceremonies, and treatment of criminals. These may change dramatically from messenger to messenger. The former, however, are essential and do not change, except perhaps in their cultural presentation. So the Manifestation of God is seen as at once restoring the essential truth, returning the faithful to the correct practice. Simultaneously, the Manifestation eliminates redundant or corrupt social structures and creates such social organization as will support the improvement of mankind.

Types of religions and religious founders
Baháʼís accept the founders of the "major world religions" as Manifestations of God. The usual list Baháʼís commonly refer to include Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster (Zarathustra), Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Báb, and Baháʼu'lláh. In addition to the Manifestations of God, the Baháʼí writings include a category of lesser prophets who reflect the light of the Manifestations, but are not independent divine intermediaries; there is no definitive list of lesser prophets.

The Baháʼí writings also refer to some other figures who are not well known, or whose religions have all but disappeared. Furthermore, the existence of unnumbered previous religions of which we have no modern knowledge is confirmed by Shoghi Effendi:
 * "These religions are not the only true religions that have appeared in the world, but are the only ones still existing. There have always been divine Prophets and Messengers, to many of whom the Qur'án refers. But the only ones existing are those mentioned above."

Establishing texts
In the Kitáb-i-Íqán (in English, The Book of Certitude), Baháʼu'lláh describes the relationships between several Abrahamic prophets and how each accepted the previous, but was rejected by the previous prophet's followers. He uses these examples to highlight the legitimacy of the Báb to the reader, since the book was written in answer to some questions from the Báb's uncle.

title: Progressive revelation (Baháʼí)