text:
Talk:Drug abuse/Archive 1

Tagged for reasons below and overuse of "most" without adequate citation. I'm not into NPOVing this all by myself. Zosodada 03:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Scientifically there is little difference when comparing recreational use of alcohol to that recreational use of marijuana."

I'm not going to change this, but I ask: WTF? I'm no scientist, but somehow I highly doubt the factuality of this statement. Apples and oranges. --68.38.159.93 22:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This was comparing the recreational use, not comparing the drugs themselves. Both drugs are used for similar recreational purposes -- as a social lubricant, and as a destressor at the end of a work day. In actuality I was being lenient towards the status quo, because factually alcohol is far more subject to anti-social use and abuse. So yes, there is more difference than I implied -- but only such that would put marijuana into a more favourable light. --Thoric 18:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Weasel words
Most of this article is composed of nothing but weasel words. --Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

deletion of links
Please stop deleting the link to recreational drug use. It occurs immediately under the heading 'advocates of recreational drug use'. It is a relevant link. Guttlekraw 15:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The link to recreational drug use has never been deleted. It has always beeen included in see also.  Please read the article before editing it. --Viriditas  | Talk 20:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been in the see also section, but it is directy relevant to the section of the same title. There are a lot of links in the article - are you advocating taking them all out and putting them in the see also, or just the ones that don't suit your point of view? Guttlekraw 21:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is your insertion of POV into multiple articles. In this case, you have distorted the context of this article (like you have done in many other articles).  First of all, you've been asked to cite sources on other articles, so you should start doing that here as well.  Your current additions are not sourced, and may in fact be in error.  The lead clearly states, Drug abuse or substance abuse is the use of any chemical substance...in a way that society deems harmful to the user or others.  You then added, The definition is necesarily controversial and subjective since perceptions of abuse and social norms change over time and place.  That's all nice and good, but you need to provide a reference.  Regarding alcohol abuse you wrote, No comparable term is in common use to describe damaging use of cigarettes. That is clearly false, as it is referred to as substance abuse ("Averaging 10 or more cigarettes a day for a period of 1 or more years, on the other hand, served as the sole criterion for tobacco abuse") in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.  See this article as an example.  Finally, you added back in a duplicate link to recreational drug use in relation to the statement, there are those who advocate strongly that the right to use drugs (see recreational drug use and responsible drug use), even to the point of harming oneself, is an individual right.  While I would agree with this addition, it does not read well, and would be better qualified as an additional sentence that does not break up the text. --Viriditas  | Talk 21:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for getting to the point, I will concentrate on your comments re this article. I added sources to the comments about changing perceptions, referencing opium as an example. Is that satisfactory, or would you like more? I agree with your comment on tobacco, and added the term. I re-worked the reference in the advocacy paragraph, since we both seem to agree that the link is valid. Let me know what you think, Guttlekraw 21:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment please?
Can someone else weigh in on this one? Linking the name of a section seems relevant to me. I'd like other's opinions. Guttlekraw 21:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain where the controversy is. What link was removed?  Where was it before?  It's hard to tell from the history. --Thoric 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, Guttlekraw is on a campaign to remove the term drug abuse from the Wikipedia. In doing so, he has gone so far as to change direct quotes from medical journals, distort accepted summaries of movies and books, and introduce glaring errors of fact (he claimed that tobbacco addiction wasn't classified as substance abuse).  In waging his edit war, he has shown no regard for the 3RR, nor for the NPOV policy.  He has been consistently asked to cite sources but he shows no understanding of that concept.  He has also changed links that link to drug abuse, even when such links were directly substantiated by references of fact.  --Viriditas  | Talk 22:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't we stick to the facts on this article. Viriditas objected to a link to recreational drug use under the sub-heading 'advocates for recreational drug use'. While full of bluster on what he thinks I did on other pages, he now seems to agree that this link is relevant, despite having removed it many times without explaining why. I think this is issue is solved now (see above) sorry to have wasted your time Thoric. Viriditas - I have added sources, and tried to accomodate your extremely onerous and unusual requests as far as possible, and in trying to compromise have been hounded by your insistance that in trying to propose new versions I am breaching some rule or other. I am reaching the end of my patience with your unreasonable behaviour. Guttlekraw 22:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to have great difficulty "sticking to facts", and your mischaracterizaton of my reasoning and my edits is unjustified. I have explained on your talk page and on related talk pages what is wrong with your edits but you refuse to take responsibility, instead placing the blame on others.  You have violated mulitple policies in your attempt to rid the Wikipedia of the term, drug abuse.  I do not agree with your edits and I will be changing them.  Unlike you, I adhere to policy, and I'm currently constrained by the 3RR.  I think it's quite telling that you refer to Wikipedia policy as "extremely onerous and unusual requests".  You aren't interested in contributing to an encyclopedia.  Your purpose here is to push your POV. --Viriditas  | Talk 23:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As usual, you have ignored the substance of the content here and instead focussed on your personal attacks. Are you saying that you have changed your mind about the comments you made above about agreeing that the links are appropriate? I do not want to remove the term 'drug abuse', but I want to use it appropriately, as a value judgement made by some people, where possible, citing who thinks the drug use in question is an abuse. Stating that you intend to revert my attempts at compromise as soon as you are technically able is not editing in good faith. Please try to be more constructive, and offer an alternative instead of simply reverting. Guttlekraw 23:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You aren't editing in good faith, as you are motivated by a POV campaign to distort the Wikipedia. The number of errors you are introducing into articles increases exponentially with every edit you make. I intend to revert your edits to remove the errors, nothing more.  --Viriditas  | Talk 23:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware, I addressed the one legitimate error (on tobacco name issues), there are no other 'errors' that you have pointed out, aside from the one of not agreeing with your point of view. Once again I would like to ask you to focus less on personal attacks and more on proposing alternatives to individual 'errors' that you are talking about. I am confident that a common understanding can be reached if you will stop your crusade based on the principle of reverting me. Guttlekraw 23:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am especially disheartened by your personal crusade to insert your POV into the Wikipedia at the expense of facts and in violation of known policies and guidelines. You did not take responsibility for your changes on Sex education, where you changed a direct quote from a scientific study that referenced drug abuse to instead read, recreational drug use.  Changing direct quotes to suit your POV is a violation of policy.  This is a pattern that you have across multiple articles.  When these things are pointed out to you, you blame the person who catches your errors.  Currently, you have still refused to cite sources (perhaps you still haven't read the policy page?) when you make statements like, "the definition is necesarily controversial and subjective since perceptions of abuse and social norms change over time and place".  This is ironic, considering I just pointed out, as an example, the criteria of tobacco abuse, for example, which is not considered distinct from drug abuse (other than the fact that it's legal), yet you inserted your POV that it was.  Again and again, you continue to do this.  I can only conclude that reverting you on sight is the best policy.  --Viriditas  | Talk 23:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erm? Hello? If you want to talk about sex education I suggest you do it on that page. This is the drug abuse page. What sources do you still want me to cite? I have referenced the "the definition is necesarily controversial and subjective since perceptions of abuse and social norms change over time and place" to the opium page, which contains a long history of how opium was socially acceptable in some times and places and now is not. Do you want more detailed references on this page? If so, say that instead of reverting. I simply don't agree that when most people use the term 'drug abuse' they are thinking of tobacco use. I am happy to be disproved if you can source that. Please try to stick to the point instead of this endless smoke and mirrors about other pages and issues that have been addressed already. If the edits are so heinous, I am surprised that no-one else has bothered to comment, apart from one person who could not see what the problem was. Guttlekraw 23:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point with your usual misdirection and misplacing of blame. Your changes to the sex education page were identical to the changes you made to this and a number of other pages (A Scanner Darkly, Francis Ford Coppola, etc.) in your zeal to rid the Wikipedia of the term, "drug abuse".  Until you become familiar with policy, I have said everything there is to say about your edits.  I recommend that you study, Verifiability, Cite sources, and NPOV.  --Viriditas  | Talk 00:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the point, we are talking about drug abuse. Are you saying that the opium page is not sufficient reference? Please try to answer the question, it's hard to feel that I am having a conversation with you if every effort at compromise is met with the same irrelevant smoke and mirrors. Drug abuse. Is the opium reference sufficient? If not, I'll add more. Guttlekraw 00:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not a reference for what you have written. How many times do I have to point you to Cite sources? --Viriditas  | Talk 00:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So let me get this right, you want me to reference an external social history of opium? That's easy, although probably less useful to a reader. a timeline showing major events in the history of opium - this shows that major sections of society used opium in the past without considering it abuse. Another history of opium, showing the same thing. Another history of opium with quotes from famous historical figures extolling it's virtues. I could go on. And on. And on. Which of these would you like me to add to the beginning of the article to show that definition of abuse has changed over time and location? How many do you want? Guttlekraw 03:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * None of what you just posted has anything to do with citing sources for the content that you have added to this and other articles. I'm beginning to think that you don't understand the purpose of this article, nor the encyclopedia. --Viriditas  | Talk 04:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition
I have asked you to take this discussion to the talk page of drug abuse. Whether you agree with it or not, the reference is Medine Plus Medical Encyclopedia, run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Regarding your comments, you again seem to have not understood what you have read. I have now explained this to you twice. The defintion does not say that the use of illicit drugs is "abuse". Read it again until you understand it. Advocacy groups are relevant to political topics, but they have no bearing on scientific or medical definitions. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm sure certain statements by some advocacy groups might be relevant, but not if your intent is to redefine things outside their expertise, as you are trying to do, and have been doing on various articles. Please respond on the Talk:Drug abuse page. --Viriditas | Talk 04:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So you are ok giving this referenced definition, along with others (referenced) from orgs that disagree? Guttlekraw 04:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, you are attempting to politicize the medical concept of drug abuse.  Are you claiming that the concept of drug abuse/substance abuse is invalid?  If so, feel free to post reputable sources on this talk page which purport to demonstrate that drug abuse/substance abuse does not exist.  Let me also add, good luck. --Viriditas  | Talk 04:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Drug Use In America: Problem in Perspective, Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972 - ''Drug abuse is another way of saying drug problem. Now immortalized in the titles of federal and state governmental agencies (and we might add, in our own), this term has the virtue of rallying all parties to a common cause: no one could possibly be for abuse of drugs any more than they could be for abuse of minorities, power or children. By the same token, the term also obscures the fact that "abuse" is undefined where drugs are concerned. Neither the public, its policy makers nor the expert community share a common understanding of its meaning or of the nature of the phenomenon to which it refers.'' - will this do as an alternative? It goes on to say: ''These data illustrate that drug abuse is an entirely subjective concept. It is any drug use the respondent frowns upon. Most respondents disapprove of the use of medically-distributed pills for other than medical purposes (those sanctioned by a physician), any use of heroin, and any use which suggests that the user is dependent or seeking pleasure.'' Guttlekraw 04:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that you have taken a time machine and travelled here from 1972. I guess you have a lot of catching up to do.  --Viriditas  | Talk 04:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Are we speaking the same language at all? I thought that you were asking for evidence that the definitions and norms had changed over time. More interesting stuff on historical defs here. It's political already. Sorry.
 * You are looking for contempory sources that disagree with the NIH? An easy one would be the British Medical Association: In the context of the current diagnostic criteria the concept of substance abuse has a specific meaning, namely, a destructive pattern of substance use, leading to significant social, occupational, or medical impairment. Substance abuse may be thought of as problematic substance use that does not rise to the level of substance dependence(addiction). By definition, all substance dependence includes substance abuse. But substance abuse may and sometimes does occur without the presence of the full substance dependence(addiction) syndrome. They are clearly not 'pro-drug', but their definition excludes use that is not 'destructive'. Guttlekraw 04:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That statement by the BMA does not in any way invalidate the claim by the NIH, but in fact, adds to and clarifies it. Look, you may be new to Wikipedia and to drug abuse research, so I'm going to cut you a little slack.  Why don't you do some more research?  I'm working on about a dozen articles at once, and this article is probably going to be moved to substance abuse in the very near future, so you may want to search using that term as well as drug abuse.  Feel free to edit, change, and modify this article in any way, as long as you cite sources and follow the general guidelines and policies -- and even if you don't -- somebody will come along and correct your work.  --Viriditas  | Talk 06:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your patronising tone is less easily forgivable than your ignorance. Constant personal attacks don't cover up the fact that your argument is vacuous. You know this, and so constantly ignore the facts. The BMA has a different definition of drug abuse to the NIH. That is the point I was making. Now that you can no longer ignore that fact you want to change the name of the article entirely. I'm getting a little tired of this. Guttlekraw 15:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The only person who has made personal attacks is you, and the "patronising tone" that you perceive is actually written into policy, which I was quoting. Your repeated ignorance of policy, consensus, and inability to cite sources after being politely reminded is indicative of your refusal to follow the rules.  I suggest that you stop blaming others for your actions and start taking responsibility for your mistakes. --Viriditas  | Talk 21:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Text moved from main article
This text was moved from the article for many reasons, many of which have to do with lack of citations, weasel words, and POV. Some of this text would be appropriate in the substance abuse article, that has yet to be created. I will probably move much of this text there after I create the article. . After thinking about it, this type  of content belongs on this page, not substance abuse. I would like to include the below content (but cited and reworked) in a section on moderation vs. abuse. I think the main points of this section are important, and should be incorporated into the article with references. --Viriditas | Talk 23:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advocation Of Recreational Drug Use
There are those who advocate strongly that the right to use drugs, even to the point of harming oneself, is an individual right. Issues around advocacy for recreational and responsible drug use are covered in those articles. There are others who argue that some drugs, such as marijuana can used in a relatively safe non-abusive manner, similar to moderate use of alcohol, and that those drugs should be legal while harder drugs should remain illegal for recreational use. Both of these groups believe not all illicit drug use is automatically abusive and that only when harm comes to others should society intervene. This model is already followed in many countries for alcohol and cigarettes, and in a few countries for additional substances like marijuana.

The counter argument is that all recreational drugs are abusive, even soft drugs in moderation, and thus any recreational drug use harms the individual and often other members of society. They also argue that addictive substances, by definition, limit the individual's ability to make a free choice in their use of drugs, and therefore drugs should be controlled and criminalized at a societal level. Some people argue that while it may be true that some drugs can be used recreationally in a non-abuses manner, the majority of individuals will likely abuse the drug. Thus a blanket prohibition is justified as it the only realistic way to protect the majority individuals who will likely abuse them. There are many countries that prohibit the use of all addictive substances including alcohol, and the Prohibition movement in the United States was an eventually revoked attempt to do just that.

For many of those favoring the continued criminalization of all currently illegal drugs, the recreational use of such drugs is synonymous in their minds with drug abuse, and thus they use the term "drug abuse" to refer to any recreational use of drugs.

Refs to be added

 * 1) Gruszecki AC et al. (2005). "Unexplained sudden death and the likelihood of drug abuse."  J Forensic Sci. Mar;50(2):419-22.
 * 2) Fishbein DH et al.(2005). "Risky decision making and the anterior cingulate cortex in abstinent drug abusers and nonusers."  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res.  Apr;23(1):119-36.
 * 3) Miller, WR. (2005). "Treating alcohol and drug abuse." Addiction.  Apr;100(4):566-7.
 * 4) Keawkingkeo, S. (2005). "Community drug abuse prevention in a Hmong village in Thailand."  J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. Feb;43(2):22-9.
 * 5) Hursh SR, et al. (2005). "The economics of drug abuse: a quantitative assessment of drug demand." Mol Interv. Feb;5(1):20-8.

Sociology of drug abuse section needed
It should, "focus on several important social dimensions, including stress, poverty, domestic and societal violence and various diseases that are spread by drug abuse and addiction." (Qureshi et al.) --Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV
I removed some of the more severe pov that you introduced here, I think this new version is ok, except that picking a research paper that says 'drug use is bad' and then claiming that this is undisputed fact is clearly wrong. We must present the diversity of views on this topic, not just your point of view. Guttlekraw 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You must be reading an entirely different article. What paper or section claims that "drug use is bad"? Are you still having difficulty understanding the difference between drug use and abuse? --Viriditas  | Talk 00:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I understand the difference. Clearly you do not. Use is a fact, abuse is an opinion. Spanking is a fact, child abuse is an opinion. Guttlekraw 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merger
This page is to be refined and merged as a small subtopic of substance abuse. Most of the information that is building up here should (and does) exist on other pages that discuss those topics primarily. Wikipedia articles should stick to the topic at hand, and provide links to related topics with their own page. This way we can keep the holy wars organized and have a Why Drugs are Good page and a Why Drugs are Bad page, and as long as each page clearly points to the other, people are free to argue their POV in the proper location. (BTW, I was joking about those article names -- I was trying to make my point clear.) --Thoric 19:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to temporarily put the merger on hold as I work out the differences between the terms, "drug abuse" and the clinical diagnosis (and treatment) of "substance abuse". My medical dictionary defines both differently, and I have placed both definitions on those respective pages; Substance abuse is a clinical diagnosis, and has a specific meaning.  There is of course,  overlap between the two articles at this point, and that needs to be addressed.  So far, the term "drug abuse" appears to be a subset of "substance abuse", however this may not always be the case if for example, one is not diagnosed as a "substance abuser" as stated by the DSM IV.  I would like to continue my research before any merge is completed.  It would also be helpful if we could bring in any experts from the fields of pharmacology and medicine.  --Viriditas  | Talk 00:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The medical difference is that drug abuse is specific to substances legally classified as "drugs"... basically anything in under the Controlled Substances Act, sections I through IV.  Substance abuse would additionally include anything under the CSA sections V and VI, as well as alcohol, nicotine, and just about anything people abuse... besides perhaps food, although that likely should be included.  Beware that much of the medical literature has been stigmatised by legal status and government pressure.  Scientific study shows that while lab rats (and even non-human primates) have little cognitive control over their "drug of choice", humans have quite a bit more "free will" on the matter.  It is well documented that addicts can switch their addiction between substances and onto behaviors with little difficulty (for example from cocaine, to alcohol, to sex, to gambling).  The line between drugs such as cocaine, heroin and marijuana versus drugs such as alcohol, nicotine and caffeine is completely a product of 80 odd years of propaganda, completely without scientific basis.  I think that at the very least, this article should be renamed to "Illegal substance abuse", and have the Drug abuse page as a disambiguation page with links to both Substance abuse and Illegal substance abuse.  --Thoric 00:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement with the differences between drug abuse and substance abuse. Could you modify both articles to reflect those changes?  Regarding the medical literature, I have tried to avoid any politically-motiviated conclusions, choosing to quote from what appear to be neutral studies that help illustrate the issues.  I can't see any reason to rename the article, "Illegal substance abuse" as much of drug abuse is legal.  I would be more interested in clarifying the differences.   --Viriditas  | Talk 00:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * True, I just noticed I made a suggestion which contradicts what I stated at the beginning of my paragraph (it's been a long day). In this case, the Drug abuse entry should be made to include all controlled substances (I-IV), rather than focusing primarily on schedules I and II even if they are the most abused substances (next to alcohol and tobacco).  The drug abuse entry should also be subject to the same definition as the substance abuse page... namely stating that abuse is "A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress".  It is important that non-abusive use does not fall under the same heading as abuse, otherwise the article will be subject to POV Jihad ;)  --Thoric | Talk 00:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issues with your suggestions, although the definitions for both articles appear to be different. Again, I would like to find a consensus for keeping the pages separate based on different definitions.  I have no interest in including non-abusive use under drug abuse, and would be especially interested in explaining the difference with references.  I would actually like to move most of those discussions to the appropriate drug pages like you suggested, although a brief summary might be fine, with main or related link pointers.  Of coures, this article might have to be merged in any case, so I'm prepared for that if need be.  BTW, if you have any references to non-American citations (in English) that would be a welcome addition to this page. --Viriditas  | Talk 01:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Drug abuse is a subset of substance abuse. I suggest the two are kept seperate. There is a lot of science about drug abuse; much less has been written about substance abuse as a whole (e.g. personality structure predisposing to any addiction). JFW | T@lk  15:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Plenty has been written about substance abuse beyond CSA schedules I-IV. No drug is abused more than alcohol is, yet "drug abuse" (which excludes alcohol) gets far, far more attention regardless of being a small drip out of a large keg (or cask).  I agree to keeping them separate as long as it is clear in the definition that the distinction between drug abuse and substance abuse is more a legal one than a scientific one.  (BTW, the science in question is based on decades of anti-drug agency funded research... essentially, "we'll give you funding if you can show the negative effects of these drugs, and we retain the right to interpret the data for our own purposes, and suppress any mention of non-detrimental effects").  There's absolutely no question that alcohol abuse is a far larger problem than marijuana abuse (which is CSA schedule I by the way).  --Thoric 21:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed outline

 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) Medical, legal, and sociological definitions
 * 3) Problems with defintions
 * 4) Issues with abuse potential for listing as schedule I or II (i.e., cannabis does not seem to meet this requirement) (Related article: Cannabis rescheduling in the United States)
 * 5) Crime or disease?
 * 6) History of nonmedical drug consumption (Main article: History of drug use)
 * 7) Basic science, clinical, social issues
 * 8) Moderation vs. abuse
 * 9) Addiction (Main article: Drug addiction)
 * 10) Crime (Related article: Prohibition (drugs))
 * 11) Commonly abused drugs
 * 12) Alcohol (Related article: Alcohol abuse)
 * 13) General risks (diseases)
 * 14) Neuroscience
 * 15) Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult (Related article: Alcoholic beverage)
 * 16) Benefits {Related article: Alcohol consumption and health)
 * 17) Cannabis
 * 18) General risks (diseases)
 * 19) Neuroscience
 * 20) Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
 * 21) Benefits (Related article: Medical marijuana)
 * 22) Opiates
 * 23) General risks (diseases)
 * 24) Neuroscience
 * 25) Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
 * 26) Benefits
 * 27) Cocaine and other stimulants
 * 28) General risks (diseases)
 * 29) Neuroscience
 * 30) Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
 * 31) Benefits
 * 32) Inhalants
 * 33) General risks (diseases)
 * 34) Neuroscience
 * 35) Adverse effects on organ systems, from prenatal to adult
 * 36) Benefits
 * 37) Other drugs
 * 38) Anabolic steroids
 * 39) Secondary stimulants
 * 40) Nicotine
 * 41) Caffeine
 * 42) Management and treatment (Main article: Substance abuse)
 * 43) Pharmacotherapies
 * 44) Other therapies
 * 45) Harm reduction
 * 46) Acupuncture
 * 47) Entheogens
 * 48) References

Please make comments and/or suggestions below. --Viriditas | Talk 12:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The outline looks great so far :) I think for commonly abused drugs, either under "other drugs" or its own section you need to mention abuse of prescription drugs, and non-prescription drugs.  Plenty of people abuse prescription pain killers (oxycontin), stimulants (ritalin) and tranquilizers (valium), as well as over-the-counter cold medications, cough syrup, codeine containing preparations, and heck... even plain old aspirin ;)  --Thoric 14:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement, but why the list of 'commonly abused drugs'? Since you've introduced the multiple definitions above, acording to whom are they commonly abused? What you actually seem to be doing is listing possible effects of drug use, and I think that would be better off in another page. I also think that putting harm reduction in there under treatments is important. Guttlekraw 18:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that section is about the long-term consequences of drug abuse, not drug use. For commonly abused drugs, see the Handbook of the Medical Consequences of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Handbook of Psychotrophic Drugs (13th Revised Edition), and the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. --Viriditas  | Talk 22:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are mind bogglingly ignorant. Citing one source, and claiming that that represents all opinions is not acceptable. Get beyond googling for articles that support your view and educate yourself before you begin lecturing others. The fact that one medical or legal authority defines abuse one way does not mean that all do. I have provided you citations for other reputable medical and legal sources that define it differently. The section refers to long term use of drugs. Whether or not long term use is equal to abuse is a matter of opinion. Guttlekraw 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I do agree that Harm reduction deserves mention as a form of treatment (other therapies?) Several countries are exploring this option, and a few have been practicing it for a few decades.  Methadone treatment is not all that far off from heroin maintenance.  Needle exchanges exist all over the place.  Canada has implemented safe injection sites that supply clean needles with medical supervision, and are about to start a limited trial of heroin maintenance clinics.  Non-profit organizations also exist which give out clean needles, crack pipe kits and information on how to minimize the harm you do to yourself and others.  --Thoric 23:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I would like to add the bulk of that content to substance abuse. --Viriditas  | Talk 23:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If you agree that harm reduction deserves a mention, why do you keep removing it? Think. Please. Guttlekraw 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You aren't fooling anyone with complex reverts. --Viriditas | Talk 03:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The outline looks good. Obviousley the article has a long ways to go to reach that ideal. I feel making the distinction between medical and legal definitions is important. Also, I do not understand what is meant by 1.1.2 in the outline: "Issues with abuse potential for listing as schedule I or II...." Osmodiar 04:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Section 1.1.2 is a response to a suggestion by Thoric made further up in the discussion, and pertains to U.S. drug law. He wrote: The medical difference is that drug abuse is specific to substances legally classified as "drugs"... basically anything in under the Controlled Substances Act, sections I through IV. Substance abuse would additionally include anything under the CSA sections V and VI, as well as alcohol, nicotine, and just about anything people abuse... besides perhaps food, although that likely should be included. --Viriditas  | Talk 05:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Content to be added
There's some good information here if anyone is interested in adding it to the article.

Neurobiology of drug abuse

 * Knowlton, Leslie. (Feb 1, 2005). "Why Are Drugs Abused By Humans?". Psychiatric Times.

Opiates

 * Harding, Anne. (March 28, 2005). "A delicate balance: opiates are more common, but more controversial than ever." The Scientist. v19 i6 pS38(2).

Inhalants
--Viriditas | Talk 13:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wu, Li-Tzy, et al. (Oct, 2004) "Inhalant abuse and dependence among adolescents in the United States". Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. v43 i10 p1206(9).

Content moved to Talk:Substance abuse for merge
See Talk:Substance abuse for old content from this article that needs to be cleaned-up, cited, and merged. It would be nice if someone could work on the rec. drug use section that was removed, and add it back in to this article. I tried to add it back in, but it needs a lot of work, and I'm about to sign off. --Viriditas | Talk 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is beyond what I can put up with.
You just destroyed two articles, replacing both with stubs that summarize your point of view. Stop this vandalism and discuss these radical controversial changes before you make them. Guttlekraw 14:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree the resulting article should be developed "offline" so to speak rather than replace the current articles with stubs in progress. Viriditas agrees, and I'm hoping that you will also discuss your views here, and help us collect references to support them.  I believe we're all pretty much in agreement as to the direction of the articles, just hitting a few minor rough patches.  We must try to avoid butting heads and bruising egos, and remember that we're working towards a common goal.  --Thoric 21:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, much of this page has been proposed for merging into substance abuse and is waiting patiently on the talk page for someone to help do just that. I think that the stub version of my last known edit to drug abuse allows us to proceed along a clear path.  Obviously, we will need to make mention of the information that has been proposed for merge, and I make that clear in the last section of the proposed outline.  While there is certainly merit to what you say about working offline, I was hoping that we could work together online. --Viriditas  | Talk 21:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant offline from the "live" page -- i.e. in a section of the talk page (somewhere not prone to reverts), certainly not "go work on it on your own computer" ;) Or better yet, how about we work on it at User:Viriditas/Drug abuse? --Thoric 22:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's one solution. We should all be able to work on this page, but Guttlekraw won't abide by policy.  Should I have to change my editing habits to accommadate his learning curve?  I'm going to upload a version of the page that I would like for us to work on, however this is a compromise, because I have attempted to merge this content with substance abuse, but nobody has helped. I seem to be the only person actively working on these pages, with Guttlekraw sitting on the sidelines reverting.  It's one thing for him to be a rude and obnoxious newbie, but it's another for him to refuse to contribute to these articles in any meaningful way except by reverting to unsourced and unmerged versions.--Viriditas  | Talk 22:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to find a solution to the revert war ;) I'm sorry I haven't been able to be more helpful, but my week has been insanely busy.  Major rewrites are a lot of (often thankless) work, but the result will certainly be worth it.  --Thoric 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. BTW, I've taken your previous suggestions to heart and I've merged the removed content back in for the time being.  Let me know what you think.  I want to add your comments about controlled substances next.  Feel free to add them if you have the time.--Viriditas  | Talk 23:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Drug abuse/Archive 1


text: Category:Songs with music by Sammy Fain

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

title: Category:Songs with music by Sammy Fain


text:
Cristina (singer)

Cristina Monet Zilkha ( Monet-Palaci, January 17, 1959 – April 1, 2020), known during her recording career simply as Cristina, was an American singer and writer, best known for her no wave recordings made for ZE Records in the late 1970s and early 1980s in New York City. She "was a pioneer in blending the artsiness and attitude of punk with the joyful energy of disco and pop.... [which] helped pave the way for the massive successes of her contemporaries, like Madonna and Cyndi Lauper, and anticipated the rise of confrontational but danceable alt-pop acts..." in a mode that was at once "campy, self-aware, and infectious."

Early life
Cristina Monet Zilkha was born Cristina Monet-Palaci on January 17, 1956, in Manhattan to writer-illustrator Dorothy Monet and French psychoanalyst Jacques Palaci (1915-1995) (president of the National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis, friend of Heinz Kohut,  Austrian-born American psychoanalyst and author of Remembering Reik). She grew up in the United States, England, Italy, and France. Cristina studied drama at the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama and attended Harvard University. During a leave from Harvard, she was in a motorcycle accident in which a friend died, and she decided not to re-enroll.

Career
Cristina was working as a writer for The Village Voice when she met Michael Zilkha, who later became her husband. A wealthy heir to England's Mothercare retail empire, Michael started ZE Records with Michel Esteban. Zilkha persuaded her to record a song titled "Disco Clone", an eccentric pastiche dance record written by Ronald Melrose, a classmate of hers at Harvard. The original recording, released as ZE001 in 1978, was produced by John Cale and was the first to be issued on the ZE label. A later version featured the uncredited Kevin Kline trying to seduce Cristina, replacing Anthony Haden-Guest on the original record.

Though initially recorded as a tongue-in-cheek pastiche, "Disco Clone" was a cult success and encouraged ZE to release a full-length album in 1980, which was produced by August Darnell of Kid Creole & The Coconuts, and including songs written by Cristina. The album was reissued as Doll in the Box. Cristina also issued on a 12" single a cover of Peggy Lee's "Is That All There Is?" with new, satirical lyrics. Its authors Leiber and Stoller sued and successfully got it withdrawn for many years. Later, she released a cover of the Beatles' "Drive My Car" (also released as "Baby You Can Drive My Car"). She released the track "Things Fall Apart", produced by Was (Not Was), on ZE's Christmas Record, in 1981.

Cristina's second album Sleep It Off, on which she retained her sardonic tone, was produced by Don Was and released in 1984 with a sleeve design by Jean-Paul Goude (a year before he used the same idea for Grace Jones). The lyrics, many written by Cristina, satirized urban decadence with often dry, sarcastic delivery. The record flopped, and Cristina retired to domestic life with her husband in Texas. The song "What's a Girl to Do?" from this album was included in the Ladytron compilation Softcore Jukebox in 2003, and has been claimed by critic Richie Unterberger as "arguably her signature track". The album was re-released in 2004 with six bonus tracks, two of which were produced (and one co-written) by Robert Palmer. In 2005, she collaborated with New York musician Alex Gimeno aka Ursula 10000 on the track "Urgent/Anxious" off his Here Comes Tomorrow album.

She later contributed learned essays and reviews to publications such as London's Times Literary Supplement while battling autoimmune disorders, including relapsing polychondritis. Her two albums for ZE were reissued in 2004, after Michael Esteban revived the label.

Personal life and death
Cristina Monet Palaci married entrepreneur Michael Zilkha. They divorced in 1990, and she returned to New York City.

Cristina had had several autoimmune disorders, including relapsing polychondritis for almost two decades.

On April 1, 2020, Cristina died in New York at the age of 61 after testing positive for COVID-19.

Legacy
Critic Richie Unterberger at Billboard summed up her career as follows:"While Cristina never achieved mainstream success, her wry songwriting, deadpan delivery and infectious beats proved roundly ahead of their time, a touchstone for the electroclash movement of the early '00s, and a precedent for later post-modern pop superstars like Lady Gaga and Lana Del Rey." Singer-songwriter Zola Jesus wrote: "Cristina was a HUGE inspiration to me... I loved how she was too weird for the pop world and too pop for the weird world."

Studio albums

 * Cristina (1980, ZE Records)
 * Sleep It Off (1984, Mercury Records)
 * Doll in the Box (2004, ZE Records) – Expanded re-issue of Cristina

Singles

 * "Disco Clone" (1978)
 * "Is That All There Is?" (1980)
 * "Drive My Car" (also released as "Baby You Can Drive My Car") (1980)
 * "La Poupée qui fait non" (1980)
 * "Things Fall Apart" (1982)
 * "Ticket to the Tropics" (1984)

title: Cristina (singer)


text:
Alex Frost

Alex Frost is an American actor best known for his roles in Elephant and Drillbit Taylor.

Education and career
Frost attended high school at the Arts & Communication Magnet Academy in Beaverton, Oregon. He grew up playing piano.

Frost had a starring role in Gus Van Sant's 2003 film Elephant, in which he played a high school student who commits a school shooting. The film was set in Frost's hometown of Portland, Oregon, with the director avoiding Hollywood actors in order to find real local teenagers. Frost's musical experience was a key factor in him auditioning for the role.

Since Elephant, Frost has worked on a number of films, including The Queen of Cactus Cove, The Lost and The Standard. He appeared in a Season 3 episode of NCIS entitled "Ravenous". He played the primary antagonist in the Owen Wilson movie Drillbit Taylor, released on March 21, 2008, by Paramount Pictures. He appeared in two films in 2009, Calvin Marshall and The Vicious Kind. He appeared in The Wheeler Boys, premiered in the 2010 LA Film Festival.

In September 2023, Frost signed with Brave Artists Management for representation.

title: Alex Frost


text:
Capistrano Beach, Dana Point, California

Capistrano Beach or Capo Beach, is a coastal neighborhood in the city of Dana Point in Orange County, California. It is bordered by San Clemente to the south and Doheny State Beach to the north.

Capistrano Beach is situated along the coast on the southern end of Dana Point. Some homes are situated atop a cliff overlooking Coast Highway and the Capistrano Beach park. Several celebrities live in the town area, notably on Beach Road, where Hobie Alter conceived of the popular Hobie Cat catamaran.

History
Rancho Boca de la Playa, granted to Don Emigdio Vejar, was the initial land title issued in the area now known as Capistrano Beach. The land was sold to Juan Abila in 1860, and then purchased by Marcus A Forster in 1886. Forster sold a strip of the land to the San Bernardino and San Diego Railway. The railway, in collaboration with the California Central Railway, built a rail line between Los Angeles and San Diego, with a station at Capistrano. The station was initially named San Juan by the Sea, but in 1910 was changed to Serra, the name of the newly formed school district.

Development of Capistrano Beach started in 1925 with residential homes on the bluff. The Capistrano Beach Club was built along the shore of the new development. In 1929, the Petroleum Securities Company (owned by Edward L. Doheny) became the new owners of the Capistrano Beach development. In 1931, following the death of Doheny's son, he donated over 40 acres to the state for Doheny State Beach. Capistrano Beach became part of the city of Dana Point in 1989.

During the excavation of the land during development in 1929, the bones of a mastodon (or possibly a mammoth) were discovered. The bones were taken to the Los Angeles National History Hall for display.

The 1180 ft wooden pier was popular for strolling, sightseeing, and fishing. The pier was severely damaged by waves in 1964, after which it was condemned and demolished in 1965. The Capistrano Beach Club became rundown and, in the late 1960s, was dismantled.

During storms in 2018, a boardwalk collapsed and an outdoor basketball court was severely damaged after being undermined by erosion caused by the waves. The storm exposed old cars put there decades prior as part of a now corroded sea wall. More boulders were placed to protect the basketball court that was damaged.

The Serra Siding project is proposed along the shoreline that would build 1.2 miles of additional siding track. The project would create additional train capacity along this busy corridor.


text:
Talk:Code name

Typo
The sentence it was extended both throughout NATO as the NATO reporting name for aircraft, rockets and missiles uses the word both in a way that suggests something is missing though I cannot determine what that would be. (unsigned by User:85.164.107.7)

 * As it was probably, as you say, a typo, I've removed it; thanks for pointing it out, and in future remember that you can just edit it yourself - if you spot any obvious mistakes like this, just click "edit this page", correct them, and click "save"; it really is that simple! - IMSoP 17:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft recognition reporting names
I'm not an expert on this, but IMHO this section is badly written. I have seen this subject on Discovery and there is a lot more than what is presented here. I understand the US started the system to classify unkown Japanese aircraft, and it was adopted as the NATO reporting name system. The US had some sort of technical intelligence team doing this work in WWII. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and interest could rework this. --Gadget850 13:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * More information on this would be useful. Does WP have a comprehensive list of WWII code names? Drutt (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I don't see a need to merge, the two articles seem to refer to two different topics. One is used strictly for secretcy, the other is used for various reasons, including secretcy. hateless 05:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC) °±SHIROA±° — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.96.77 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Codename as a working title
For a working title of something, a codename only applies to computer and video game related stuff. --PJ Pete

 * Actually, a codename in this sense applies to all manner of products and prototypes and concepts. The name can change, be more or less secret, and even be adopted for general usage. This word sense alone is complex, and could benefit from its own article. It's partly for this that I'm suggesting splitting and renaming the current Code name article. See Section below, Code names in broadest sense.

 * Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know when the convention of referring to a specific plan as "Operation " (or equivalents like " -Go" in Japanese) began? The article credits US and UK for starting to use irrelevant names for obfuscation but doesn't give a citation. KevinBTheobald (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What about movies?
I frequently read that some movies (usually much anticipated sequels, e.g. the Star Wars films since Return of the Jedi) are filmed and/or shipped to theaters using code names to prevent leaks. Could someone with more knowledge of this use add this to the article?

 * Would also apply to things like book adaptations. Even fully-original movies often have a "working title," but that's mainly so the producers can get to work while the marketing department spends months deciding on a title.  You can sometimes see working titles mentioned in IMDB in the trivia sections. KevinBTheobald (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Color usage
Under "German code names" we see this quote: "in the post War period the British Ministry of Supply adopted the Rainbow Codes system which randomly combined a color and a noun (from a list) to create the name for projects."

The following section, "Ironic code names of other powers," says "The names of colors are generally avoided in British and American practice to avoid confusion with meteorological reporting practices."

This is contradictory. Which is it? I think the second is incorrect. Apart from it lacking a source, there are examples of American projects with color names, such as Have Blue. 24.199.34.242 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, "Ironic code names" must be quoting a "best practices" or limited rule-of-thumb in some unspecified context. The military loves to use colors in code words!" Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Code names in broadest sense
Code names are used quite broadly in language. At the moment, Cant (language) comes closest to capturing this. This article is largely about military or commercial code names.

There's an issue about the interrelated structure of these Wiki articles:

 * Argot
 * Cant (language)
 * CIA cryptonym
 * Code name
 * Code word
 * Doublespeak
 * List of computer technology code names
 * List of Microsoft software codenames
 * List of Intel codenames
 * Rainbow codes
 * Secret language (which redirects, questionably, to Language game)

A Wiki search on "code name" should direct to the most generalized usage? (And this article should be broken into Code name (military) and Code name (commercial)?

The most generalized usage would be something like Cant (language), combined with this statement from The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. (Paraphrase) There are three reasons to make a language unintelligible to all but a few initiates: to mark a person's membership of a group, to ensure secrecy, and as a pastime.

Thoughts?

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 * To which I'd add there needs to be a separate page for cryptonyms, as used by intel agencies for their agents ( TRICYCLE comes immediately to mind), which aren't codenames as I've usually understood the term.   TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Agree. I've already broken the article up a bit, to try to move the focus away from the military alone, and think it would make a great deal of sense to split the existing article into a code name (military) and code name (commercial).  There are certainly other senses as well; cryptonyms and films has been mentioned, and I'm sure there are others.  A big part of the solution will be creating a good disambiguation page.  70.250.185.165 (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?
I'm not sure why, but the first line has "Blah blah get to the point!" in it, which i doubt should be there. feel free to delete this post when fixed. 3:15, November 28, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.77.136 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Military nicknames
Is there a page somewhere for the two-word military nicknames as described here:

U.S. Military Code Names

I'm looking for a similar list here at Wikipedia, but can't find it, despite listings such as HAVE QUICK. I feel like the situation is a little clearer, now that code word (disambiguation) has been disambiguated, but I'm still not sure whether these two-word phrases are typically called "code words", "nicknames", or something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.148.89 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Also, Allied reporting name, for the Japanese a/c of WW2, would seem to be useful...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Good example of where this would be useful is on the page LGM-30 Minuteman, where it could be used to help clarify what all thes names mean. 70.247.160.227 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Biology
I've found this use of codename in biology for defining an anctient dino. Predator X. I think it would be interesting to add it here.--Oleg Str (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Badly edited
I recall that I put in a section of the code names of military operations in the First World War. Something like the first sentence remains in the section, "Military Origins", then the paragraph deals with the Second World War without saying that the time frame has changed. I won't mention other details, it's in the records. 4.154.226.232 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed text
I just removed this text: "Operation Desert Shield was what the build-up in Saudi Arabia was blatantly referred to in the press, before war was declared. During this time, "Desert Storm" was secret. When the war broke out, the name Operation Desert Storm—but not the tactical details—was also broken to the press." It's untrue. Desert Shield was the defense of Saudi Arabia and build-up for counterattack. Desert Storm was the counterattack that liberated Kuwait. Desert Sortie (omitted from original entry) was the return to home station. I was in all three. It was a multiphase operation, not an attempt to use a false operation name. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Linux?
Given that Microsoft and Apple OSes made the grade, should Debian, Ubuntu, get an "honorable mention"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinCole (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Wotan Citation
I'm a little concerned by the lack of citations in the German Code Names Section, specifically regarding the Wotan story. I can't find many other mentions of it anywhere, and half of them I can find cite wikipedia as a source. This citation is used on the "Battle of the Beams" article: It's the closest I've found, and really only offers a passing mention of Wotan's single eye. From this source, it seems there was more evidence available to British Intelligence and that it would be misleading to attribute the "solving" of the code entirely to the name. Then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the text.

In either case, I think it could be a valuable source for the Wotan section. Also, I apologize If I've messed up the format here. First time poster, and I'm not sure I get ref tags. Edit: I've found a much better source that should shed light on this topic. (Jones, R (1978). Most Secret War. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd. p. 120. ISBN 0-241-89746-7.)

JimothyJonesLads (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Code name


text:
In the Cool, Cool, Cool of the Evening

"In the Cool, Cool, Cool of the Evening" is a popular song with music by Hoagy Carmichael and lyrics by Johnny Mercer. It was originally planned to feature it in a Paramount film written for Betty Hutton that never took off, which was to be called The Mack Sennett Girl (aka Keystone Girl). The song was buried in Paramount's files until it was rediscovered and then used in the 1951 film Here Comes the Groom and won the Academy Award for Best Original Song.

The recording by Bing Crosby and Jane Wyman with Matty Matlock's All Stars and the Four Hits and a Miss was recorded on June 20, 1951, and released by Decca Records as catalog number 27678. It first reached the Billboard Best Seller chart on September 21, 1951, and lasted six weeks on the chart, peaking at number 11.

Other recordings

 * Dean Martin recorded the song on April 9, 1951, for Capitol Records.
 * Harry James released a recording on the album Hollywood's Best (Columbia B-319 and CL-6224) (1952) with Rosemary Clooney on vocals.
 * Mavis Rivers included the song on her album The Simple Life (1960)
 * Frankie Laine and Jo Stafford recorded the song as a duet in 1951 for Columbia Records.
 * Frank Sinatra included the song on his album Sinatra Sings Days of Wine and Roses, Moon River, and Other Academy Award Winners (1964).
 * Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire included the song on their album A Couple of Song and Dance Men (1975).
 * Crystal Gayle included the song on her album Crystal Gayle Sings the Heart and Soul of Hoagy Carmichael (1999).
 * Bette Midler included the song on her album Bette Midler Sings the Rosemary Clooney Songbook (2003).

title: In the Cool, Cool, Cool of the Evening


text:
USS Cony

USS Cony (DD/DDE-508), a Fletcher-class destroyer, was a ship of the United States Navy named for Joseph S. Cony (1834–1867), a naval officer during the Civil War.

Cony was launched 16 August 1942 by Bath Iron Works Corp., Bath, Maine, sponsored by Mrs. William R. Sleight, a first cousin of Joseph S. Cony in whose honor the destroyer is named, in part of the largest mass launch to that point in the war shipbuilding program and the largest in Maine's history in which five British Ocean type freighters, the Liberty SS Ethan Allen, USS Conway (DD-507) and Cony were launched. The ship was commissioned 30 October 1942 at Boston.

1943
Cony escorted a troop convoy from Norfolk to Nouméa, New Caledonia, where she arrived 27 January 1943. She patrolled between Espiritu Santo and Efate, and on 6 March joined in the bombardment of the Vila-Stanmore area on Kolombangara, continuing her patrol and escort duties until clearing for overhaul at San Francisco 28 April. She returned to action waters at Espiritu Santo 1 August, and after screening a group of transports to Guadalcanal, she brought fire support and was Admiral Theodore S. Wilkinson's flagship for the landings on Vella Lavella on 15 August. She continued patrols and escorted supplies to Vella Lavella until returning to Espiritu Santo 8 September.

From 20 September 1943, Cony patrolled through the Solomons, and from 1 to 3 October joined in a sweep against Japanese barges attempting to evacuate Kolombangara. On 27 October, she sailed to cover the landings on the Treasuries. Here complete surprise was achieved, but Japanese reaction came quickly, and later that day 10 enemy dive bombers, escorted by 39 enemy fighters, attacked Cony and Philip (DD-498). Aided by American fighter aircraft, Cony and her sister splashed 4 dive bombers and 1 fighter, but Cony received two bomb hits on her main deck, and these with a near miss killed 8 of her men, wounded 10, and caused considerable damage. She was towed into Port Purvis on Florida Island for emergency repairs, and sailed on to Mare Island Naval Shipyard for a complete overhaul.

1944
Returning to Port Purvis 27 March 1944, Cony patrolled along the southwest coast of Bougainville, hunting Japanese barges and submarines, and giving fire support to troops ashore in the Empress Augusta Bay area. She sailed from Port Purvis 4 May for Majuro and Pearl Harbor, where she joined the screen of a transport group bound for Eniwetok and the Saipan landings on 15 June. Cony screened the transports as they unloaded and carried out antisubmarine patrol until 14 July, when she sailed to replenish at Eniwetok. Six days later she sailed for preinvasion bombardment on Tinian, remaining to patrol in the antisubmarine screen when the landings on Tinian began on 24 July.

Cony returned to Guadalcanal 24 August 1944 to prepare for the assault on the Palau Islands. She screened carriers as they launched air raids supporting the landings on Peleliu between 15 and 30 September, then put into Manus to replenish. The destroyer put to sea once more 12 October, screening and providing fire support for underwater demolition teams and bombardment groups in Leyte Gulf between 19 and 21 October as the landings began. As Japanese forces entered Leyte Gulf on 24 October to begin the Battle of Surigao Strait phase of the epic Battle for Leyte Gulf, Cony took her station with the battleships and cruisers in the battleline, joining in the furious firing of the night action, and pursuing and constantly dueling with Japanese destroyer Asagumo, finally sunk in the morning of 25 October with the aid of fire from another destroyer and two cruisers.

After voyaging to Manus for replenishment, Cony returned to Leyte Gulf for patrol duties 16 November 1944. On the nights of 29–30 November and 1–2 December she joined in sweeps of Ormoc Bay, hunting Japanese shipping. Targets were few, but her group sent a barge to the bottom on their second foray, and bombarded enemy positions on the shores of the bay in preparation for the landings in Ormoc Bay a few days later. Cony put into Kossol Roads from 4 to 10 December, then sailed to screen carriers providing air cover for attack groups passing from Leyte to Mindoro, returning to Kossol Roads 19 December.

1945
Cony arrived at Manus 23 December 1944 and sailed 8 days later to screen transports to the Lingayen Gulf landings on 9 January 1945. She cleared the Gulf 11 January to screen empty transports and cargo ships to San Pedro Bay, Leyte, and then took up patrol duty in Lingayen Gulf. The destroyer covered the reconnaissance and sweeping of Baler Bay between 26 February and 10 March by destroyer escort Formoe (DE-509), minesweepers Sentry (AM-299) and Salute (AM-294), and stood by to provide fire support during the landings on Caballo Island in Manila Bay on 27 March. She bombarded Parang between 14 and 19 April, and patrolled in Davao Gulf early in May. On 7 June she sailed from Subic Bay to cover the landings at Brunei Bay, Borneo, on 9 June, and sailed on a fire-support mission aiding minesweeping operations and underwater demolition teams near Balikpapan, Borneo, from 13 June to 2 July.

Returning to San Pedro Bay, Cony sailed on 11 July 1945 to escort transports to landings at Saragani Bay, Mindanao, providing fire support to the forces ashore until 13 July. Through August, she made an escort voyage between Leyte and Ulithi, and on 8 September, arrived in the approaches of the Yangtze River to act as navigational ship during minesweeping operations. Between 29 September and 6 October, she called at Shanghai, then sailed to investigate the compliance with the surrender terms of Japanese troops on Raffles Island in the Chusan Archipelago just off the China coast south of Shanghai. After making a mail run to Okinawa, she served as harbor entrance control ship at Shanghai until 19 November, when she sailed to Taiwan to serve as navigational ship for minesweeping operations in the Taiwan Straits. She sailed for home from Shanghai 20 December, and after calling at San Diego and New York, arrived at Charleston, S.C., 13 March 1946. There she was decommissioned and placed in reserve 18 June 1946.

1949 – 1960
Reclassified DDE-508 on 26 March 1949, Cony was converted to an escort destroyer, specially equipped for antisubmarine warfare, and recommissioned 17 November 1949. After training and operations along the east coast and in the Caribbean, she sailed from her home-port, Norfolk, 14 May 1951, on a cruise round the world, during which she operated in the Korean war zone from 18 June to 28 October, returning home by way of the Suez Canal, and arriving at Norfolk 20 December 1951. In September 1953, she again cleared on a distant deployment, taking part in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Operation "Mariner", then exercising with the Royal Navy in antisubmarine operations off Northern Ireland before continuing to a tour of duty with the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. In 1955 and 1957, she again served in the Mediterranean, and in September and October 1957, joined in NATO antisubmarine exercises in the English Channel. Local operations and cruises to the Caribbean marked 1958, and in 1959 and 1960. Cony joined Task Force Alfa, an experimental tactical group concentrating on antisubmarine warfare, in its operations along the east coast. With this group, she visited Quebec City, Canada, in June 1960.

1961 – 1969
Cony took part in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961.

Cony reverted to DD-508 30 June 1962. In October 1962, she took part in the blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. On 27 October, Cony intercepted the Soviet submarine B-59, an incident which nearly led to war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Cony was decommissioned and stricken 2 July 1969. She was sunk as a target off Puerto Rico 20 March 1970.

Honors
Cony received 11 battle stars for World War II service, and two for Korean War service.

title: USS Cony


text: File:Immolationdawnofpossession.jpg

title: File:Immolationdawnofpossession.jpg


text:
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an encyclopedia of philosophy edited by Edward Craig that was first published by Routledge in 1998. Originally published in both 10 volumes of print and as a CD-ROM, in 2002 it was made available online on a subscription basis. The online version is regularly updated with new articles and revisions to existing articles. It has 1,300 contributors providing over 2,000 scholarly articles.

Single-volume editions
Two single-volume editions of the encyclopedia have been published, The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published in 1999 (ISBN 978-0415223645), and The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published in 2005 (ISBN 978-0415324953). The Concise version has the same number of entries as the ten-volume set, each entry in the Concise version being the summary of the topic that precedes each article in the 10-volume work. The Shorter version has over 900 articles, each with more in depth coverage than the corresponding entry (if present) in the Concise encyclopedia.

title: Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy


text: Talk:Nimbus 2000

title: Talk:Nimbus 2000


text:
Talk:Broomsticks in Harry Potter

Other Broomsticks
I expanded the information (and added, in some cases) for brooms other than the Nimbus series, Cleansweeps, Comets, and Firebolt. Staxringold 16:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I read in book four that there are brooms for little kids should we list these?user:ivel

Naughty broomstick
http://www.mlcsmith.com/humor/nimbus_2000/

merge
makes more sense here--Balloonguy 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was the nimbus 2000 toy contreversial?
72.24.191.233 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a vibrating toy that was designed to be placed between the legs. Some parents were dismayed when their children discovered that vibrating toys placed between the legs feel really, really good. (Sexual toys, for various reasons that are too complex to explain here, are quite controversial in many social groups within the United States.) 76.197.9.181 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nimbus2000.jpg
Image:Nimbus2000.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nimbus2000 2001.jpg
Image:Nimbus2000 2001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Broomsticks in Harry Potter


text:
Talk:Discourse community

Untitled
With the current wave of community building outside of geographical communities (i/e communities of practice, communities of action, communities of purpose, etc.) growing, has anyone done work on reframing the basic concept of community?
 * James Paul Gee critiques the use of "community" beyond local boundaries (such as a neighborhood) and develops the concept of "affinity groups." But "communities of practice," itself, is a reaction to the idea of discourse communities (see Ann John discussion in Text, Role, and Context). Communities form around practices and doesn't mean they share the same values and beliefs regarding things beyond the shard practices (and their associated values and beliefs). In this way, communities of practice may be an adequate term for online communities.Crowdsourced (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabrina.Chowdhury001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Page Number for Nystrand Reference
I checked on this article to see if perhaps there has been some development beyond the D.C., and was surprised to see Nystrand cited (I wasn't aware he coined the term), but owning this book, I haven't been able to find "discourse community" anywhere in Nystrand's contributions to this collection. Could someone (perhaps Ntennis) tell me what page this is found on? Thanks. Crowdsourced (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nystrand, M. (1982). Rhetoric’s ‘audience’ and linguistics’ ‘speech community’: Implications for understanding writing, reading, and text.” (1982). In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What Writers Know: The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse (pp. 1-28). New York and London: Academic Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnystrand (talk • contribs) 20:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This article fails to adequately define the concept before diving headfirst into complex analysis
We really need something that reads more like http://shrike.depaul.edu/~jwhite7/discoursecommunitydef.htm (but in an encyclopedic tone). And don't SOFIXIT me, I don't think I can do it.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  05:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is about writing a paper, not about discourse communities themselves
It doesn't even explain what a discourse community is, apart from the definition in one sentence.

64.189.63.51 (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that "It doesn't even explain what a discourse community is, apart from the definition in one sentence"? The whole section starting with Nystrand and moving to Swales introduces a list of characteristics of discourse communities. Crowdsourced (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We would like to add "Rhetoric" as a main component of discourse community, or expand on the related items section. Why hasn't this been done yet? Ejrandall2 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding rhetoric as a main component
Here is a source that was found regarding Contemporary Rhetorical Communities. It states, "Thus a contemporary rhetorical community is less a collection of people joined by shared beliefs and values than a public space or forum that permits these people to engage each other and form limited or local communities of belief." Incorporating this factor suggests an introduction to a democratic system in discourse communities.

Do you think we (me and three other students are working on this article) could add this?

Source: Zappen, James P., Laura J. Gurak, and Stephen Doheny-Farina. "Rhetoric, Community, and Cyberspace." Rhetoric Review 1997: 400. JSTOR Journals. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.Ejrandall2 (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The intro immediately sets readers on the wrong track
"A discourse community is a group of people who share a set of discourses, understood as basic values and assumptions, and ways of communicating about those goals. Linguist John Swales defined discourse communities as "groups that have goals or purposes, and use communication to achieve these goals."

There is so much wrong with this opening definition, which I have unfortunately come across too many times in my students' DC papers. Discourse is quite simply written and spoken communication. It is not "understood as "basic values and assumptions," which are abstract nouns. This inaccurate statement is finished with an illogical one: "use communication to achieve these goals." That they have and share goals has to be stated before claiming that they use communication to achieve them.

The concept of discourse communities is pretty simple, but too many public contributors want to change or swap Swales' language with their own inaccurate interpretations. The focus is discourse. We all do it on a daily basis, and sometimes we do it with a shared purpose, but that doesn't mean we have become a DC. For example, if a group of neighbors come together with the sole purpose/goal of helping another neighbor remove a downed tree, they might communicate verbally to accomplish that task. Neighbor 1 says "let's take off the limbs first; N2 says "that makes sense," and N3 says "I'll drag them to the curb." Are they a DC? No. They will only come together for this shared goal one time. They do not utilize mechanisms and genres for communicating, and they did not use a unique lexis (relevant words, abbreviations, and terminology built over time and out of necessity). In fact, they could have grunted and pointed and still accomplished their goal of removing the downed tree).

Aside from teaching, I make jewelry out of vintage beads and findings. The word findings is part of my lexis, as is C-clasp, jump ring, crimp bead, and more. Members of my DC will recognize and utilize these words in their discourse. We share the same goal of making, learning about, sharing, and possibly selling unique jewelry creations. We share information - tips, tricks, designs, products - as well as feedback (try using nylon coated beading wire) through mechanisms such as group forums (FB, websites), Etsy, craft fairs, messenger, InstaGram, and more. We learn through genres - textbooks, Internet - and we have varying levels of discourse expertise (I had to learn what a crimp bead was and how to use it when I first started, etc.).

There's no need to overcomplicate the concept of a DC, but don't oversimplify it either. 2601:243:C005:C330:2C8B:49AF:4665:3D5C (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Discourse community


text:
Blues in the Night

"Blues in the Night" is a popular blues song which has become a pop standard and is generally considered to be part of the Great American Songbook. The music was written by Harold Arlen, the lyrics by Johnny Mercer, for a 1941 film begun with the working title Hot Nocturne, but finally released as Blues in the Night. The song is sung in the film by William Gillespie.

Composition
Arlen and Mercer wrote the entire score for the 1941 film Blues in the Night. One requirement was for a blues song to be sung in a jail cell. As usual with Mercer, the composer wrote the music first, then Mercer wrote the words. Arlen later recalled:

"The whole thing just poured out. And I knew in my guts, without even thinking what Johnny would write for a lyric, that this was strong, strong, strong! When Mercer wrote "Blues in the Night", I went over his lyric and I started to hum it over his desk. It sounded marvelous once I got to the second stanza but that first twelve was weak tea. On the third or fourth page of his work sheets I saw some lines—one of them was "My momma done tol' me, when I was in knee pants." I said, "Why don't you try that?" It was one of the very few times I've ever suggested anything like that to John."

When they finished writing the song, Mercer called a friend, singer Margaret Whiting, and asked if they could come over and play it for her. She suggested they come later because she had dinner guests—Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland, Mel Tormé, and Martha Raye. Instead, Arlen and Mercer went right over. Margaret Whiting remembered what happened then:

"They came in the back door, sat down at the piano and played the score of "Blues in the Night". I remember forever the reaction. Mel got up and said, "I can't believe it." Martha couldn't say a word. Mickey Rooney said, "That's the greatest thing I've ever heard." Judy Garland said, "Play it again." We had them play it seven times. Judy and I ran to the piano to see who was going to learn it first. It was a lovely night."

After the song was composed and the lyrics were written, African-American baritone William Gillespie (1908–1968) was hired to perform the song in the jail cell for the film. In his review of the film, critic Howard Thompson of The New York Times argued that Gillespie's "superbly chanted" version of the Arlen–Mercer song transformed the motion picture and arguably "nailed the film down for posterity."

Academy Award nomination
In 1942, "Blues in the Night" was one of nine songs nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Song. Observers expected that either "Blues in the Night" or "Chattanooga Choo Choo" would win, so that when "The Last Time I Saw Paris" actually won, neither its composer, Jerome Kern, nor lyricist, Oscar Hammerstein II, was present at the ceremony. Kern was so upset at winning with a song that had not been specifically written for a motion picture and that had been published and recorded before the film came out that he petitioned the Motion Picture Academy to change the rules. Since then, a nominated song has to have been written specifically for the motion picture in which it is performed.

Critical comment
Composer Alec Wilder said of this song, Blues in the Night' is certainly a landmark in the evolution of American popular music, lyrically as well as musically."

Famous phrases from the lyrics

 * "My momma done tol' me"
 * "when I was in knee pants"
 * "worrisome thing"
 * "a woman'll sweet talk"

Charting versions
Listed below are known versions of "Blues In the Night" that have made Billboard magazine's charts in the United States since 1941.

Recorded versions in the United Kingdom were by Shirley Bassey and Helen Shapiro.

Artie Shaw recorded the first version on September 2, 1941, for RCA Victor Records, which was released as Victor 27609 on October 3. It debuted at #10 on Billboard magazine's "Best Selling Retail Records chart" (BS chart) on November 21, 1941, but dropped to #21 the next week, then off.

The Woody Herman recording was released by Decca Records as catalog number 4030 in October 1941. It reached the BS chart in November, and hit #1 on February 14, 1942, finishing with a 21-week chart run.

Dinah Shore's version was released by Bluebird Records as catalog number 11436 on January 23, 1942. It reached the BS chart on February 14, 1942, to start an 11 week run, peaking at #4. It was the #27 BS record of 1942, and went on to sell one million records.

Jimmie Lunceford's two-sided platter was recorded on December 22, 1941, and released on Decca 4125 in January. Starting January 31, 1942, it ran 10 weeks on the BS chart, peaking at #4.

The Cab Calloway recording was released by OKeh Records as catalog number 6422. It reached the BS chart on January 31, 1942, to start a 9 week run, peaking at #8.

The Benny Goodman Sextet, with Peggy Lee on vocals, recorded "Blues in the Night" on December 24, 1941, released on Okeh 6553 in January 1942. It made the chart on February 14 at #20, but was never seen again.

The Rosemary Clooney recording was released by Columbia Records as catalog number 39813. The record first reached the Billboard magazine charts on September 26, 1952, and lasted 2 weeks on the chart, peaking at #29.

Other notable versions
In addition, the song was recorded at least three times by Jo Stafford. Her previously unreleased 1942 version with the Tommy Dorsey orchestra was included in the 1966 Reader's Digest box set The Glenn Miller Years. On October 15, 1943, she recorded it with Johnny Mercer, the Pied Pipers, and Paul Weston's Orchestra, in a version released as a single (catalog number 10001 ) and on an album (Songs by Johnny Mercer, catalog number CD1) by Capitol Records. On February 20, 1959, she recorded it with The Starlighters in a version released on an album (Ballad of the Blues, catalog number CL-1332) by Columbia Records.

Another version was by Billy Eckstine in his album Once More with Feeling (1960)

Dick Monda released a version of the song as a single in 1967.

Carlos Montoya recorded a flamenco version.

In 1995, the rock group Chicago included the song on their "Night & Day: Big Band" album. The arrangement by vocalist Bill Champlin features a guitar solo by Aerosmith's Joe Perry.

Ray Charles for his album Ain't It So (1979).

Additional recorded versions (and further details on above versions)
(This is the first of four records in Capitol Records' first album, Songs by Johnny Mercer.)
 * Frank Sinatra on Sinatra Sings For Only The Lonely (1958)
 * Bobby Bland on Here's the Man! (1962)
 * Arlen himself recorded the song for his 1966 album, Harold Sings Arlen (With Friend).
 * Larry Adler and the John Kirby Orchestra (recorded January 20, 1944, released by Decca Records as catalog number 23524; later version of Decca 23524 released as a Larry Adler harmonica solo, both versions with the flip side "St. Louis Blues" )
 * Luis Arcaraz (released by RCA Victor Records as catalog number 20-4418, with the flip side "Stormy Weather" )
 * Louis Armstrong on Louis Armstrong Meets Oscar Peterson (1957)
 * The Four Seasons (1965)
 * Charlie Barnet and his orchestra (recorded October 5, 1941, released by Bluebird Records as catalog number 11327, with the flip side "Isle of Pines" )
 * Shirley Bassey
 * Tex Beneke (as "Blues in the Night March", released by RCA Victor Records as catalog number 20-3513, with the flip side "The One Who Gets You" )
 * Tony Bennett on The Beat of My Heart (1957)
 * Sam Butera (1964)
 * Cab Calloway and his orchestra (vocal: Calloway & The Palmer Brothers) (recorded September 10, 1941, released by OKeh Records as catalog number 6422, with the flip side "Says Who? Says You, Says I" )
 * Eva Cassidy
 * Chicago, Night & Day: Big Band, 1995
 * Rosemary Clooney with Percy Faith's orchestra (recorded April 1952, released by Columbia Records as catalog number 39813, with the flip side "Who Kissed Me Last Night?", re-released as catalog number 40031, with the flip side "Tenderly" )
 * Bing Crosby and John Scott Trotter's Orchestra (recorded January 27, 1942, released by Decca Records as catalog number 4183A, with the flip side "Miss You" ). Crosby also recorded the song in 1956 for his album Songs I Wish I Had Sung the First Time Around.
 * Doris Day (released by Columbia Records as catalog number 41103, with the flip side "Teacher's Pet" )
 * Jula de Palma in her album Jula in jazz (1958)
 * Ella Fitzgerald on Ella Swings Lightly (1958) and Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Harold Arlen Songbook (1961).
 * Judy Garland and the David Rose Orchestra (1941) (released by Decca Records as catalog number 4081A, with the flip side "The End of the Rainbow" )
 * Benny Goodman and his Sextet (vocal: Peggy Lee & Lou McGarity) (recorded December 24, 1941, released by OKeh Records as catalog number 6553, with the flip side "Where or When", also released by Harmony Records as catalog number Ha1012, with the flip side "Bewitched" )
 * Bob Grant (medley recorded July 1, 1944, released by Decca Records as catalog number 24311, with the flip side "My Devotion medley" )
 * Buddy Guy has often incorporated parts of the song in his arrangements of classic blues songs including "I've Got A Right To Love My Woman" from the 1980 live album The Dollar Done Fell and "Cheaper To Keep Her/Blues In The Night" from the 2005 album Bring 'Em In.
 * Woody Herman and his Orchestra (vocal: Woody Herman) (recorded September 10, 1941, released by Decca Records as catalog number 4030B, with the flip side "This Time the Dream's on Me" and as catalog number 25194, with the flip side "Laughing Boy Blues"; re-recorded May 7, 1947, released by Columbia Records as catalog number 37858, with the flip side "Blue Prelude" )
 * Harry James and his orchestra (recorded December 30, 1941, released by Columbia Records as catalog number 36500, with the flip side "All For Love" )
 * Quincy Jones His version was featured prominently in the Soundtrack of Ocean's Eleven (2001) - (the George Clooney Brad Pitt remake)
 * Ledisi, We All Love Ella: Celebrating the First Lady of Song (2007, Verve)
 * Little Milton, We're Gonna Make It (1965, Chess)
 * Guy Lombardo's Royal Canadians (vocal: Kenny Gardner; recorded January 27, 1942, released by Decca Records as catalog number 4177A, with the flip side "Frankie and Johnny")
 * Julie London on About the Blues (1957)
 * Clyde Lucas and his orchestra (vocal: Eadie Lang) (recorded November 1941, released by Elite Records as catalog number 5010B, with the flip side "I Said No")
 * Jimmie Lunceford and his Orchestra (vocal: Willie Smith; recorded December 22, 1941 in two parts, released by Decca Records as catalog number 4125A & 4125B, also released by Decca Records as catalog number 28441 both sides )
 * Nellie Lutcher (released by Decca Records as catalog number 29284, with the flip side "Breezin' Along with the Breeze" )
 * Katie Melua (Piece by Piece, 2005)
 * Johnny Mercer (released by Capitol Records as catalog number 1608, with the flip side "Candy" )
 * Johnny Mercer, Jo Stafford, and The Pied Pipers (recorded 1943, released by Capitol Records as catalog number 10001, with the flip side "On the Nodaway Road")
 * Van Morrison with Georgie Fame recorded (1995) on How Long Has This Been Going On
 * Art Pepper with strings, on his 1980 album Winter Moon, (recorded 3, 4 September 1980)
 * Betty Reilly (released by Capitol Records as catalog number 2888, with the flip side "The Peanut Vendor" )
 * Helen Shapiro
 * Artie Shaw and his Orchestra (vocal Hot Lips Page) (recorded September 2, 1941, released by Victor Records as catalog number 27609, with the flip side "This Time the Dream's on Me" )
 * Dinah Shore (recorded January 12, 1942, released by Bluebird Records as catalog number 11436, with the flip side "Sometimes", also released by RCA Victor Records as catalog number 20-1543, with the flip side "How Come You Do Me Like You Do" )
 * Kate Smith (recorded February 12, 1942, released by Columbia Records as catalog number 36534, with the flip side "How Do I Know It's Real?" )
 * Jo Stafford (1959)
 * Mel Torme Torme 1958 Verve
 * Alec Templeton (piano instrumental, recorded February 21, 1942, released by Decca Records as catalog number 18271A, with the flip side "Grieg Concerto in A Minor, Op. 16" )
 * Cal Tjader (arr. Clare Fischer) - Cal Tjader Plays Harold Arlen (recorded June 1960, released February 1962; reissued on CD in 2002 as Cal Tjader Plays Harold Arlen and West Side Story), scored for strings, harp, and a jazz quartet led by vibraphonist Tjader.
 * Joe Turner with the Freddie Slack Trio (recorded January 28, 1942, released by Decca Records as catalog number 8606, with the flip side "Cry Baby Blues" )
 * Joe Turner with Howard Biggs' Orchestra (recorded January 22, 1958, released by Atlantic Records as catalog number 1184, with the flip side "(We're Gonna) Jump for Joy" )
 * Fred Waring's Singers (recorded June 23, 1942, released by Decca Records as catalog number 29218, with the flip side "That Old Black Magic" )
 * Ann Hampton Callaway on her album of the same name "Blues in the Night", Telarc August 2006.
 * Lynda Carter on her 2009 album At Last.
 * Sylvia Brooks on her album Restless, 2012
 * James Anthony - Blue Again, but That's Life, CD 2017. Recorded 2012 and released 2017. Nelson Riddle's arrangement of Arlen/Mercer's score from the 1941 movie of the same name.
 * Anne Shelton recorded the song in 1942 & her version was featured in the BBC series The Singing Detective.

In popular culture

 * The song was frequently quoted by composer Carl Stalling in his musical scores for the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons for Warner Bros. studios in the 1940s and 1950s. The then-recent hit song is sung incessantly by Daffy Duck in the ironically-titled 1942 cartoon My Favorite Duck, in which Porky Pig is tormented by the duck while on a camping trip. Porky's preferred number in that cartoon is "On Moonlight Bay". At one point, Porky unconsciously starts to sing "My Mama Done Tol' Me," then stops, looks into the camera with a "Harumph!" and returns to "Moonlight Bay". Additionally, the musical riff "my mama done tol' me" is used to identify a black duck from 'South' Germany in the 1942 Looney Tunes cartoon The Ducktators, and the song is featured prominently (with revised lyrics) in the 1943 Merrie Melody cartoon Fifth Column Mouse as well as in Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs. In the 1942 cartoon, Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid, Bugs Bunny half-mutters the song, changing the lyrics to, "My mamma done told me, a buzzard is two faced..." The melody is also heard in Porky Pig's Feat, Early to Bet, The Hypo-Chondri-Cat, and others.
 * Eddie "Rochester" Anderson, would occasionally sing the beginning of the song on the Jack Benny radio program.
 * In the short-lived 1979 sitcom The Last Resort, Stephanie Faracy emphatically sang it while kneading bread dough.
 * In the Duck Dodgers season 2 episode, "Talent Show a Go-Go," the song is sung by the show's main antagonist Queen Tyr'ahnee, the Martian Queen.
 * In The Simpsons Season 26 episode, "The Musk Who Fell to Earth," lines from the song are sung by Carl during a flashback montage.

title: Blues in the Night


text:
Windsor Sculpture Park

The Windsor Sculpture Park, formerly known as the Odette Sculpture Park, is an open space in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, that shows 35 large-scale contemporary sculptures by world-renowned artists including Elisabeth Frink, Gerald Gladstone, and Sorel Etrog.

The park is located on the shore of the Detroit River, spanning from Assumption Park to Centennial Park, between the Ambassador Bridge (Huron Church Road) and the Art Gallery of Windsor (Church Street).

The Sculpture Park was funded by Mr and Mrs Louis Odette and the P & L Odette Foundation. The park is maintained by the city's Parks and Recreation Department, while the sculptures are cared for by the Cultural Affairs Department.

The City of Windsor provides free public guided tours of the five kilometre open air gallery. The tours are done in a vehicle called The Art Cart; an electric golf cart which can hold five people. Tours run on a first-come-first-served basis. Art Cart Tours depart from the base of the Great Canadian Flag at the foot of Ouellette Avenue. Fee-based tours require reservations. Fee-based tours are offered outside of public tour hours.

Works

 * Trees, Toni Putnam
 * Triptych, Gord Smith (sculptor)

Tembo Day
Each year, the citizens of Windsor are invited to participate in washing Tembo. Tembo, a large bronze sculpture located in the Windsor Sculpture Park was created by Derrick Stephan Hudson. The sculpture features a mother elephant as well as two young babies.

Each year, the citizens of Windsor are invited by the City of Windsor to help wash the elephants on Tembo Day. After a bath of gentle clean of warm water and soap using toothbrushes, Sculpture Conservation Assistants spend a couple of days applying wax to protect the sculpture in preparation for the winter

The goal of Tembo Day is to create a better understanding of the importance of maintaining and preserving the care for bronze sculptures along the Windsor Sculpture Park.

Tembo Day has gained recognition throughout Windsor for its engagement with the community and has been featured in the Windsor Star and CBC Windsor.

title: Windsor Sculpture Park


text:
Talk:Eleanor Parker

So Fix It
Parker was a very big name in Hollywood during the 40s and 50s, so I am correcting that. Masked Angel 18:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought this woman had died recently.

 * She died today, 9 December 2013. Quis separabit?  23:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eleanor Parker. 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/20161019011307/http://alankrode.com/public2/vigorish/Eleanor%20Parker%20Interview.pdf to http://alankrode.com/public2/vigorish/Eleanor%20Parker%20Interview.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205215309/http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/22221927/2013/05/10/yes-he-cannes-woodlands-teens-film-goes-international to http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/22221927/2013/05/10/yes-he-cannes-woodlands-teens-film-goes-international

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) 14:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Handling of ashes after cremation
I have reworded a portion of the text that read, "... with half of her ashes scattered at sea and the remainder buried at Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Hollywood Hills, Lot 3799, Eternal Love, the plot of her husband, Raymond Hirsch, who predeceased her in July 2001." The cited source says nothing about half-and-half distribution of her ashes. It mentions the cemetery and adds, "Other sources list her scattered at sea." Eddie Blick (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaking champagne bottle
I have commented out "Parker broke the champagne bottle on the nose of the California Zephyr train, to mark its inaugural journey from San Francisco on March 19, 1949." It appeared in the Warner Bros. subsection, but it has no apparent connection to the studio. Also, it is not cited. Perhaps someone will want to put it elsewhere in the article and supply a citation. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eleanor Parker


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KieliX

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KieliX
Software advertisement. Rl 18:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, only 109 google hits, which is very little for a computer science item on The Internet, indicates it is not notable. Thue | talk 20:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KieliX


text: File:Ent tw.jpg

title: File:Ent tw.jpg


text: User talk:69.220.132.252

title: User talk:69.220.132.252