text:
Talk:Two Treatises of Government

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikereynolds4444.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Slavery
Why is there no mention of Locke's complete disregard for the African slave trade in this article? All his arguments concerning slavery obliterate any rationale for the African trade, so how could this be justifiable from a Lockean perspective? It is interesting to note that Locke had substantial investments in the trade. Either way, Locke completely ignores the natural rights of Africans and their slavery which is infinitely more prominent in his society than the slavery he depicts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.22.96 (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that most scholars "roundly reject" Locke as apologising for slavery is not borne out by my research (Locke, Natural Law, and New World Slavery James Farr Political Theory, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Aug., 2008), pp. 495-522 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452649

For example, seems to say otherwise, as do others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.189.1 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Outside Force?
Hi. I do Lincoln-Douglas Debate and it would be a great help if someone could answer this: Did Locke believe that only the people had the right of revolution, or did he believe that an outside force had the right to maintain human rights? Sir Elderberry 14:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
This was requested on June 4, 2005! Of Civil Government refers to the Second Treatise only: the title of the whole work is Two Treatises of Government. Those with university access can probably check a page image of the title page at Early English Books Online, if your university subscribes to the service, but I don't think this should be a controversial change. I'd post the picture, but ProQuest has the copyright for this particular image. --RJC 17:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the beginning of the article it is said:  "Locke claims in the Preface to the work that its purpose is to justify William of Orange's ascension to the throne of England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, though recent scholarship has suggested that the bulk of the writing was completed between 1679-1682."

Towards the end it is said: "However, in his seminal edition of the Two Treatises, Peter Laslett has placed much of Locke's political philosophy within its historical context,''' resulting in the view that Locke's thesis of the legitimate right to rebellion reflects a desire to legitimise the 1689 Glorious Revolution." ''' This is conflicting, either the first part needs to be placed down towards the bottom, to make it apparent that this idea is being refuted, or one of the two needs to be removed. -anonymous April 29, 2006

--I understand what you mean, but these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Locke's work is both a governmental treatise and tract. Historically, it served both purposes, refuting Filmer's argument about patrilinear kingship, and thus simultaneously justifying the Revolution and William's ascension. LifeScience 17:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
Commencing major rewrite- I haven't deleted any content (except to correct some errors), though I have added quite a bit and provided a structure for more to be added. I have also brought the formatting more in line with the Style Guide. So long as there is not major opposition to this overhaul, I plan to work on it over the coming weeks. I feel this is necessary for a couple of reasons. First, the article as it stands is very sparse and focuses only on property. Second, and more controversially, I think that what is there is misleading. Locke is taken by some to be the champion of an incipent capitalism, and some do interpret him as being simply the defender of a certain class interest (society as the protection of the propertied). This interpretation is losing ground, however, and I haven't seen it seriously advanced in years. Locke is known in most circles, however, as an advocate of natural rights and of the right of revolution, and the article should reflect this.

To maintain NPOV, however, I suggest expanding the scope of the article. There should be a greater discussion of Locke's theory of natural rights, the state of nature, the law of nature, and parental power, along with the concern for estate, in the justification for political society. I would also suggest that there should be some focus on what legitimate government looks like in the Two Treatises: the rule of law, separation of powers, the law of nature in society, prerogative, etc.

I think that additional subcategories should be added to the categories I have inserted into the text. This will preserve a coherent organizational structure as further edits occur.

I hope this meets with general approval. --RJC 19:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * obviously this will be difficult to gain consensus on; "Locke is taken by some to be the champion of an incipent capitalism, and some do interpret him as being simply the defender of a certain class interest". This is the Macpherson argument although I agree that it has, to some extent, gone as an interpretation. I'm reminded of a quote from Vaughn in which she claims "to see Locke as nothing more than an apologist for capitalism is ridiculous" (might be wrong on the exact wording there - but could look it up w/ reference). I would also like to see something about the need for charity within Locke's work - this seems to be where quite a bit of the "action" is in terms of interpreting Locke - Tully and Waldron agree about charity being one of the "laws of nature" within Locke's work ("Charity gives every Man a Title to so much out of another's Plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise; and a Man can no more justly make use of another's necessity, to force him to become his Vassal...", First Treatise. S. 42). Of course, even after all these years it's never easy and the extent to which a person can be forced to work for another to avoid charity is disputed because of the "vassal" problem - which nicely leads onto a discussion about if capitalism is even possible within Locke's theory (according to Tully it isn't, not least because you can't force someone to work for you if that is the only way they could eat). Anyway, that's some of the things I would suggest... which I could help with.
 * See also, Tully (1980) "a discourse on property: John locke and his adversaries", Waldron (1988) "the right to private property", Macpherson "the political theory of possessive individualism", Vaughn (1980) "John Locke: economist and social scientist"

Moved
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --violet/riga (t) 20:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

False Information
Marudubshinki is posting false information about Lockean ideals. I attempted to correct the falsehoods, but he reverted it. Specifically, Marudubshinki upholds that a liberal democracy is a "moral imperative" following Locke's guidelines. Nothing could be further from the truth. I submit two credible sources to disprove this lie. From Stanford's online encyclopedia of philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/): "

Ruth Grant has persuasively argued that the establishment of civil government is in effect a two step process. Universal consent is necessary to form a political community. Consent to join a community once given is binding and cannot be withdrawn. This makes political communities stable. Grant writes: "Having established that the membership in a community entails the obligation to abide by the will of the community, the question remains: Who rules?" (Grant, 1987 p. 115) The answer to this question is determined by majority rule. The point is that universal consent is necessary to establish a political community, majority consent to answer the question who is to rule such a community. Universal consent and majority consent are thus different in kind, not just in degree. Grant writes:

Locke's argument for the right of the majority is the theoretical ground for the distinction between duty to society and duty to government, the distinction that permits an argument for resistance without anarchy. When the designated government dissolves, men remain obligated to society acting through majority rule. '''It is entirely possible for the majority to confer the rule of the community on a king and his heirs, or a group of oligarchs or on a democratic assembly. Thus, the social contract is not inextricably linked to democracy. Still, a government of any kind must perform the legitimate function of a civil government.'''"

Secondly, I submit a selection from Jackson Spievolgel's Western Civilization: Since 1500. I quote, "Locke was hardly an advocate of political democracy..." found on page 430.

I ask that Marudubshinki, or anyone else who feels that Locke demands a democracy, to post information suggesting otherwise.

 * I haven't added any false information; I and another've reverted your removal of text, that is all

 * Sorry, this came from a not-at-all careful reading while doing recent changes patrol. Entirely my mistake, as the proposition that Locke was a democrat of any sort is certainly quite disputable. If Locke would endorse any sort of liberal democracy the emphasis would certainly be on "liberal." Apologies all round, but please note that use of edit summaries can avoid this sort of problem in the future. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Mea culpa, I am a new user. I was just frustrated that people were going back and changing what I had corrected.

Proto-Capitalism
I'm removing this heading, which has no information. It seems adequately covered under the "Property" section and I don't see how it could be divided without essentially fracturing the section. I suppose if someone was willing it could be added but it is currently useless. --Jackson 10:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Literary Present
It is required both grammatically and stylistically to maintain the present tense when writing about a literary work or other writing. Although I have only made minor grammatical changes to improve the mechanical aspects of this article, I would sincerely recommend that the entire article be written as to maintain the present tense. At the moment, it is slightly awkward to read. For example, before my changes, a sentence read: "If a state overstepped its..." Clearly, "if" applies to a future situation, and should not be referred to in past tense. Further, Locke's ideas and concepts are not limited to the text's time period. Though people may no longer agree with it, or it is not considered a 'contemporary' political document, the text is still in existence, and therefore, applies in a present tense. Although this in itself is not a large change with regards to the general content (which I find correct), it is an important edit that effects the overall readability, and by extension, the academic 'feel' of the article.LifeScience 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Filmer
There should clearly be some mention of Filmer here as there are a large number of scholars who believe that Locke was responding to Filmer's Patriarchia in the Two Treatises as well. The focus on Hobbes is deceiving. Awadewit 23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. He's mentioned in the section on the First Treatise.  RJC Talk 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. What I meant to write, but did not, was that there should be some mention of Filmer in the section on the Second Treatise. It was not only the First Treatise that attacked Filmer's theory, as I understand it. Also, the "Critical interpretations" section focuses a lot on Hobbes. Awadewit 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I think that Filmer gets mentioned a couple of times in the Second Treatise, but I don't know of any scholars who think that it was written to refute him.  I think Laslett (or Ashcraft) suggests that Locke interrupted the composition of the Second Treatise to write the First, i.e., that his attack on Filmer was really something of a side matter.  Hobbes gets mentioned in the "critical interpretations" section because a lot of the secondary literature focuses on the relationship between Hobbes and Locke.  RJC Talk 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually Laslett argues in his introduction to the Cambridge edition of the Two Treatises that both of Locke's Treatises are part of his rebuttal to Filmer.
 * "As early as 1679 Locke had begun a work on government, and a work with the immediate object of refuting Filmer. He had begun it, it would seem, with Shaftesbury's connivance, perhaps at his request and with his assistance in the matter of sources. But the work he had begun was not the First Treatise, but the Second. He seems to have reached paragraph number 22 of that Treatise, possibly number 57 and even number 236, almost the very end, when he changed his mind sometime in 1680, and decided to write the First Treatise too. We need not look far for the reason why he did this. It was the appearance of Patriarcha in January 1680, together with the enormous growth of Filmer's influence which went on during the rest of that year. The reply he had originally planned was insufficient because it left out of account the most important work of the man he was criticizing and did not contain the phrase-by-phrase refutation which he recognized was now needed." (59)
 * Also, although I haven't read widely on Lockean political philosophy, I have noticed that scholars discuss interpretations other than the Hobbesian and Kantian ones. Laslett, for example, in his introduction (to keep going with that source), writes:
 * "If Locke wrote his book as a refutation of Sir Robert Filmer, then he cannot have written it as a refutation of Thomas Hobbes." (67)
 * "Filmer's tracts occupy for the Second Treatise the position which has traditionally been reserved for the works of Hobbes." (68)
 * "We must describe Two Treatises, then, as a deliberate and polemically effective refutation of the writings of Sir Robert Filmer" (75-6)
 * It is because of statements like these that I feel the "Second Treatise" section and the "Critical interpretations" section need to emphasize Filmer more and de-emphasize Hobbes. I feel that the Hobbes school is being given undue weight. Awadewit 16:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. I apologize.  Laslett does see Locke as responding to Filmer.  Do you want to add a paragraph on Laslett's interpretation?  Incidentally, great job reworking the article. RJC Talk 01:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will add something soon. I am reading the Two Treatises as we write as well as stacks of criticism, so I thought it might be a good time to edit the article. I will probably be working on it off and on over the next few months. Awadewit 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you make of the fact that Laslett suggests that "the text of the Second Treatise, although written against patriarchalism, could have been originally composed without his having seen Patriarcha at all" (p. 58)? I'm revising a book manuscript, and have gotten around to rereading Laslett.  RJC Talk 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, well you are way ahead of me. I am only revising a dissertation chapter. These are the questions that popped into my mind when I reread the passage you pointed to: What do Filmer's other texts say about patriarchalism? If they make arguments for it, how different are those arguments from the Patriarcha? If Filmer's texts are repetitious, I wouldn't think that it mattered all that much that Locke wrote a lot of the Second Treatise without having seen Patriarcha because he could have read Filmer's other texts and thus still been refuting Filmer's argument (then, of course, you would have to establish Locke read those other texts). It seems to me, though, from Laslett and other critics that I have read that Filmer represented the patriarchal view at this time - is that your understanding? I myself have not read Filmer (I am more interested in Locke as a philosopher of education and identity), but I assume you have read all of his works and can answer these questions. Are you suggesting that the Second Treatise was not written against any particular work or philosopher but rather against an "-ism"? Awadewit Talk 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it just seemed incongruent when I read it today. You're right, of course:  Filmer's other works advance a patriarchal position, as well.  RJC Talk 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New sections
I think that we need two new sections: "Historical context" (to explain the broader history surrounding this text - it will be obscure to many readers, I think) and "Reception" (how was Locke's work received in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? how was it used?). Awadewit 19:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Would anybody be opposed to my cutting the "Interpretations" section and trying to work the interpretations into the discussion of the Treatises itself? To me the section is privileging an obscure academic debate of the Treatise and skews the focus of the article away from the primary text. By trying to integrate the interpretations into a discussion about the text, I feel that we would be giving more weight to the text rather than to the critics, which is what I believe the page is supposed to do. Awadewit Talk 07:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I think that we should keep the section. How would one integrate both Macphearson's and Laslett's views on property, for example?  Or Strauss' and Dunn's on the law of nature?  That would make the entire article read like an obscure academic debate.  And the Two Treatises, unlike perhaps other books, are mired in controversy:  an article that failed to note this would miss an essential feature.  The best resolution I can think of is to treat the debate thematically.  As to the new section on historical context, haven't we already done that by linking to the articles on the Glorious Revolution, the Exclusion Crisis, the Rye House Plot, etc.?  I'm not sure what repeating all of that information here would accomplish, other than to make the article look more like Ashcraft's Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises:  long on English history, short on Locke. RJC Talk 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with you that it should be thematic and I was thinking that we would put the most important interpretations into the article itself. Something like this in the section on property: "Locke's definition of property has been interpreted in three major ways..." or whatever the number turns out to be. I would hope that we could avoid making the article turn into a petty academic debate, but I don't actually see how we can structure the article fairly in any other way because we can't present the "pure" Locke and then all of the interpretations - the whole point is that any presentation of Locke will be an interpretation. And, by the way, Locke's Two Treatises is not unique to controversy. I think that Plato's Republic or some of Rousseau's texts have got it beat, in philosophy anyway. (I'm not done with the "Historical context" section, by the way. That was just me moving stuff around from the lead and fudging with it a bit.) Awadewit Talk 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Bit of a question on the "Historical context" section. Do you think that we need to present Ashcraft's view there? From what I've read, most scholars agree with Laslett and since wikipedia is supposed to present the consensus view, that is what I was trying to do. Also, according to Goldie, Laslett is consensus (if you want a source on him being the consensus). My idea with the "Historical context" section was not to present lots of competing theories (that could come in the publication section or later) but actually to present a "standard" history of the time for readers unfamiliar with it. Many students read this text who have very little knowledge of the history surrounding it - that is what I thought the "Historical context" would be for - what Laslett, Aschcraft and everybody else would agree on. I do not believe that users are industrious enough to click on all of those links and I do believe that articles on pieces of literature and philosophy should situate them in their historical context as a courtesy to the reader. Awadewit Talk 02:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Despite all of the controversies, the text is not so contested that we couldn't say anything of substance without taking sides or saying "here is what people say regarding Locke's law of nature." Laslett suggests that the Hobbesian undertones may be due to Locke's unsuccessful attempt to break from Hobbes's influence; Strauss, that they are Locke's true position.  But both agree that Locke's statements in part support the medieval natural law tradition, and in part point toward a more hedonistic understanding; there is a great deal of substance that can be stated without coming down on either side.  So, I think that we can keep the general format as it is.  As to Ashcraft, I'd say that he is essential.  I was unaware that Goldie had sided with Laslett; I know that Milton wrote a piece called something like "Dating Locke's Second Treatise" that's in my office on the dispute.  In any event, Locke scholarship is so fragmented, so split into warring ghettos, that everyone claims to be the consensus position (except for Straussians — we just claim to be right).  Ashcraft's treatment is certainly the most exhaustive that I've seen. RJC Talk 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I still feel that the page is privileging 20th-century academic debates, though, by separating them out. For example, what about the nineteenth century? My reception section only covers the 18th century (and I haven't even gotten to the Continent yet). What do you think about integrating a "Modern academic controversies" subsection into the larger "Reception and legacy" section? Awadewit Talk 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Also, it is not just Goldie that is siding with Laslett. Every "introductory" work I have read so far on Locke sides with Laslett and mentions Ashcraft in a footnote (if they mention him at all). That is why I thought we should side with Laslett as well, when it comes to the dating. Awadewit Talk 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's a problem if we privilege 20th/21st Century scholarly opinion over 19th or 18th Century views: what is good from the earlier periods should have a contemporary defender if it is to find inclusion in the article.  And Locke's reception and influence is a matter of scholarly dispute, so I don't see what is gained by subsuming modern controversies under the heading of reception and legacy.

 * Well, since I am coming at this from a literary and a historical perspective rather than a philosophical perspective, I am not looking for what is "good" or "right" necessarily. I am not even sure that such things exist in the way you suggest. I do not feel that it is fair to exclude the interpreters of other centuries; they used Locke for their own purposes and those should be explained here. Those purposes are not ours and those interpretations are not ours. Further, of course the influence is a matter of dispute, but we can handle it the way such things are handled on every other page about literary influence - we go with what the general agreement is or if this is some major disagreement, we outline that. I think that this page has to reflect both a philosophical and a literary understanding of Locke. Awadewit Talk 07:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

 * As to the Laslett/Ashcraft debate, I read or reread some of the material today, and I don't think that Laslett's status as the consensus position is meant quite the way you take it. Goldie's introduction to the 6-vol. set on Locke's reception says that every scholar agrees with Laslett's view in its general aspect, though there are some disagreements as to details.  Ashcraft agrees with Laslett in this way:  the Two Treatises were written before the Revolution.  Goldie himself, however, sides with Ashcraft, and J. R. Milton lists him among those who follow Ashcraft's dating in "Dating Locke's Second Treatise.  Milton ultimately comes down on Ashcraft's side, as well.

 * So, there are two questions, it seems. 1) Was the book substantially completed before Locke went into exile in 1683? to which the consensus answer is yes and is often attributed to Laslett.  2) Was the Second Treatise started first, in 1679–80, and then put aside to write the First Treatise (Laslett's position), or was the book composed in the order we now have it, over the years 1681–3 (Ashcraft's).  The consensus on the second question seems to lean toward Ashcraft. RJC Talk 04:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, yes. I was not being specific enough. I believe that the consensus is that Laslett is right about the earlier dating (i.e. 1679-81ish) but there are little squabbles about the remaining years. I am not sure about the consensus regarding the remaining squabbles. I am not sure that they are important for this page because in every introductory Locke book, they just mention Laslett as overturning the 1689 date. That, I believe, is the fundamental point for an encyclopedia entry on the Two Treatises. What is your opinion regarding that? I was simply going to mention the Laslett and leave it at that; too much detail and the reader will get lost, I think. Awadewit Talk 07:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I personally think that Ashcraft is right, based upon Milton's article, and I haven't read anything published since Ashcraft announced his break with Laslett that has supported Laslett's position (other than Laslett himself). Milton thinks that the issue is central to how we interpret the Two Treatises.  I disagree, but then again I'm against the entire Cambridge effort to interpret texts almost solely by the context.  If the Second Treatise belongs to the Exclusion Crisis (Laslett's date), then the "resistance" spoken of in Ch. 19 isn't revolution as we normally understand it:  it is a constitutional amendment in the form of the Exclusion Bill.  If it instead belongs to the latter period, after the death of the Exclusion Bill and Charles II's prorogation of Parliament, then it is perfectly reasonable that Locke should actually mean military revolution.  I think that the text unambiguously points toward revolution rather than legislative alteration, no matter when Locke wrote the Two Treatises, but if you think that the historical context is vital in the same way the the Cambridge historicists do, I don't think that you can be quiet about the dispute.  In any case, we're talking about a clause and a footnote or two, so I don't think we need to worry about information overload. RJC Talk 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

republicanism or liberalism?
i have added republicanism category, because locke was a typical representative of classical republicanism. but i would like to remowe classical liberalism category because liberalism is modern invention and there were no classical form of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.35.81 (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Such an edit would be a violation of NPOV, given the fact that the majority of scholars identify Locke with liberalism rather than with republicanism. Majority view or minority, it is a view with prominent adherents in the secondary literature.  RJC Talk Contribs 01:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Strauss, Armitage, and "Philosophic Tract"
I was the one who cut this paragraph of text from the article, which was then reversed.

 * Regarding the relation between Locke's thought and that of Hobbes, the core of the dispute centers on the literary character of the Two Treatises. Those who support a connection of any sort treat the work as having been intended, at least in part, as a philosophic tract, and therefore as potentially speaking beyond the immediate political context. Those who deny such a connection insist that the Two Treatises are nothing more than a particularly popular remnant of an ideologically driven political contest, and were not meant to address any broader questions.

Fair enough for the reversal; it was probably excessive on my part to cut it. However, it is a problematic piece of text, because it combines two issues: 1. Locke's relation to Hobbes, 2. Whether Locke intended this as a philosophic tract or a merely political one. The structure of the paragraph suggests that the answer to (1) hinges on our judgment about (2), but this seems clearly mistaken. It's quite possible that Locke could have intended this as a philosophical tract without having ever read Hobbes: he could have been responding to other elements of natural law theory or theology, etc., even without Hobbes' involvement in any way. So the question of their relation does not directly impact the literary character of the Two Treatises as a philosophic tract.

I described this as the introduction of POV because it coheres as an account primarily in light of an assumption that Locke was writing under persecution, so that he could not openly acknowledge his debts to Hobbes, even though he intended to write something that would be clear to attentive philosophical readers in the future. Thus this paragraph sets up only two options: that Locke wrote a philosophical tract without naming Hobbes under conditions of persecution, or that he didn't have any view on Hobbes and should be read in light of historicist presumptions (meaning in this case historical determinism). This set of options obviously doesn't exhaust the possibilities, however; plenty of people think Locke wrote a philosophic tract, but primarily in serious engagement with the religious and other views of his time - see e.g. Waldron's book.

Anyway, I've tried to rephrase the paragraph introduction, to make clear that the stakes of this paragraph only involve the Strauss/Cambridge School disagreement, rather than academic views on Locke as such. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.130.39 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Addendum to the above: I started to revise the paragraph after writing the above, and came to the conclusion that it can't be saved in current form, and that it needs a fuller revision of its basic structure and presumptions. However, I have no interest in starting an edit war.  So, what do others think about how its logical structure could be repaired?76.105.130.39 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 * While the the two questions (Locke/Hobbes, character of the Two Treatises) are logically distinct, they are combined in scholarly discussions. I wrote that paragraph to describe the literature, not reveal every position that a future scholar could conceivably (or ought) to take. True, this is a Straussian-Cambridge centered view, but I don't know of many people outside those camps that deal with the issue at all. I also don't see the POV issue here. It is true that each position is plausible only the basis of certain contested assertions, but neither position is presented as the truth. This is all that WP:NPOV requires. (By the way, Locke could have been responding to Hobbes without fear of persecution. Indeed, his failure to respond to Hobbes would mark the Two Treatises as an inferior work philosophically, as Hobbes was the last great philosophic thinker. The non-Straussians I know who see Locke as responding to Hobbes don't care why Locke didn't mention Hobbes. In any event, the paragraph says nothing about persecution.)  RJC  TalkContribs 02:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I've taken a cut at revising the paragraph in hopes of making the stakes clearer. In the previous version, the intro to the sentence made it sound as if the stakes were general, rather than localized to the Strauss/Cambridge pairing, so I've tried to narrow that somewhat.  What concerned me as POV was the framing of the options, which sounded deeply Straussian in description to me in its terminologies and apparent philosophic tract/historicism pairing.  I've tried to rephrase in ways that are less distinctive of that portrayal.  (The description of Strauss's view higher up made a point of mentioning Locke's disavowal, so persecution was already implied by that, as I read this paragraph.)  I agree that the literature has this odd structure of positions that move together, but I think the previous version will confuse unwary readers.  Maybe there was something in the emphasis of the previous paragraph that I'm missing, however?2601:7:2340:10:1001:30B8:DC38:2D74 (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In regard to another recent revert: you pointed me toward sections 123-126 about a lack of interest in justice or indifference to it. In fact, the relevant line is in 124: "yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases." Note the latter part of this sentence, which states his logical claim: men are bad judges of their own case. This doesn't show a lack of interest in justice. What it shows is a recurrent failure to judge well in one's own case, which is why we need a neutral judge. The point is about general reliability in one's own case, not about a rejection of justice. The other points just have to do with determinacy and enforcement, again not things that show that most people lack a respect for justice. There are some few who are like lions and tigers, and therefore enemies of mankind, but most people are respecters of the law of nature who make errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:2300:13F:1D9E:7539:9178:C4B0 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the "Conquest and slavery" section in its present form?
This section is not cited, and is written like a piece of Locke exegesis. It also contains claims that seem to be howlers, e.g., that there's some sort of near-consensus among Locke scholars that Locke wasn't trying to justify slavery. Look, a lot of people write about Locke in academia. Pick any bad thing, and there's probably someone who's trying to make a career showing that Locke defended it. Here's a good article evincing the lack of consensus about Locke's stance on slavery; "http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709512?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents". (Even though it's a paywall, you can read the first paragraph to get the idea.) I realize that it's unpleasant to delete existing content, but as it stands the present section seems misleading more than informative. Or if someone wants to rewrite it, by all means.50.191.21.222 (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Long term vandalism
I went back to this edit and eliminated some old vandalism and a few paragraphs added by one of the vandals that is unsourced and appears to be unrelated to the topic (see ). I'm not sure I caught everything so someone might want to followup. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Consistent structure to first and second treatises
The two sections on the two treatises need to be properly structured so that they both are similar in layout. The first is not sectioned out like the second and the intro to the second could use some expanding, along with proper citation of the first paragraph.

The article could also use more information on the reception of the work, perhaps even a section on modern influence. This section could include a picture of the modern print of the book.

Mikereynolds4444 (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Two Treatises of Government


text:
Category:Scottish representative peers

 * This category includes articles on Scottish peers who served as representative peers. A full list can be found at List of Scottish representative peers.

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

title: Category:Scottish representative peers


text:
Talk:Fat binary

source distribution is universal
I've pulled the pointless section on FreeBSD not needing Fat binaries, for loads of reasons.

It's not the only source-based system.

It HAS got binary apps, and there's even pkg_add for it

ELF doesn't even support Fat binaries, but we don't mention every other ELF-based system (Linux, every other BSD, BeOS, etc)

I could go on, but there's no need, really.

--Kiand 17:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i notice that the current intro mentions source distribution generically. it's true that source distribution makes a program more portable, even to unknown processors, but it's more of an abstract notion than an easy recipe. source code for a large app usually doesn't just port over. often it takes a lot of work to adapt it to the new environment and new compiler. Whiner01 09:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're going to produce a fat binary, you're also going to have to do the source code work to make it build for all the platforms the fat binary will support, so it's not as if fat binaries require less developer work. Guy Harris (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

installer
about using an installer to chose the suitable binary: how is the installer supposed to execute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.1.143 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

a logical quesion. if there are two install programs, you could accidentally launch the PowerPC install, which would run emulated and install the PowerPC version without blinking. that would not be good. in a dual release that does not use fat binaries at all, they would have to make the main install program a PowerPC program so that it will will run on either platform. the updated install program would have to detect emulation and then decide for you which version to install (or offer you a choice, if it's polite). if it is runing on the new x86 architecture and is about to install the x86 version, it could continue in the PowerPC installer to finish the x86 installation, or it could launch an x86 installer program that will do the same.

even if they never install the application as fat binaries, they could be cute and use a fat-binary program as the installer. assuming the two codes are compiled from the same source, the source code would have to be written to detect emulation and then offer you a choice or decide for you.

as mentioned elsewhere, the installer need not be an executable. if the package file contains only data or directives that are not in machine code, then it can easily be platform independent. the PowerPC installer would ignore the sections in the package that refer to x86 options and follow only the PowerPC-relevant information, resulting in an install for the PowerPC. the x86 installer would understand all sections of the file, including the new x86 options, so it would install appropriately for the x86 architecture. Whiner01 09:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * That wouldn't work with OS X drag-install applications, where there is no installer, although if a dmg can have a script associated with it that's run before the Finder opens up the window for it, the script could remove one of the bundles and rename the other bundle to have the appropriate name. Guy Harris 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * if the package file contains only data or directives that are not in machine code ...which is usually the case for macOS installers (other than the program being installed). And if some machine-code executable needs to be run as part of the installation process, it would presumably be built as a fat binary. Guy Harris (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

installer
The Installer part has to go... doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.7 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It does have to go. Only Windows has this obsession with installers being self-executable; on most other platforms you have an installer app that uses platform-independent files. BeOS's SoftwareValet supports this, and I presume Apple's .pkg system does too. --Kiand 16:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Apple's package format does support that. (I don't know whether Windows Installer packages do or not.) Guy Harris (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

some Windows drivers and apps actually do install by launching an .inf file, which contains only text data. Or by launching advpack.dll on the .inf file. Then there's .msi (Microsoft Installer) files, which are probably not executable either. Whiner01 09:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

out of synch
a weird possibility: the existence of two executable parts creates the possibility for them to get out of synch. like an HTML e-mail with an alternate text version, nothing enforces that the two have to say or do the same thing, even though they are supposed to. the two codes could do very different things. on a computer with one architecture, the code for the other architecture could get corrupted and no one would notice. in fact, the other code could be used as a data space or a hiding place. since the two executable parts are not simple translations of each other, there is no simple utility to compare the parts to make sure that they match. the only way to revalidate a file would be to compare it to a backup copy of the same file. or keep a checksum of the original and re-verify it.

User Guy Harris, in his recent edit, mentioned that OS X has a command, "lipo" which, presumably from its name, "removes the fat" from a fat binary file -- removes from it the unused executable code for the other processor. discarding the unused sections eliminates the wondering about what might be there, as well as freeing up the space they took. Whiner01 09:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

32bit vs 64bit also called fat binaries?
Apple's seems to refer to binaries that include 32-bit and 64-bit code as Fat Binaries. From http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/:
 * Tiger simplifies software distribution with support for fat binaries, applications that contain both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries within a single file. Using fat binaries, network administrators distribute a single version of an application to all users regardless of their system capabilities. Once installed on a user’s system, the fat binary automatically selects the appropriate code for the system without user intervention. This greatly simplifies administration, installation and distribution of applications.

Should this be mentioned in the article?

--Sneeper 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes. It's the same mechanism.  The Mach-O header for a binary has "CPU type" and "CPU subtype" fields, indicating what the binary requires, and a "fat" binary has multiple binaries in it with different headers.  The CPU type distinguishes 32-bit PowerPC from 64-bit PowerPC from x86; a Universal binary is a fat binary with x86 and 32-bit PPC binaries, but a fat binary could also have 32-bit PPC and 64-bit PPC binaries, and could even have had it before the first x86 Macs came out.  Such a binary would probably be a command-line app, given that those are the only 64-bit binaries supported (none of the Apple frameworks are 32-bit/64-bit fat, they're all 32-bit-only).  It would even be possible to have a 3-way fat binary, with PPC, PPC64, and x86. Guy Harris 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Dual-mode (32/64) binaries are becoming more and more relevant now. --Synetech (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mach-O File Format doesn't support Fat Binaries
According to [1] The Mach-O File Format doesn't support Fat Binaries. A Fat Binary contains a Header (struct fat_header) and nfat_arch's fat_arch structures (struct fat_arch). The structures describes the size and offsets of the Mach-O files in the archive.

References:

[1] Apple Computer, Inc. "Universal Binaries and 32-bit/64-Bit PowerPC Binaries". Mac OS X ABI Mach-O File Format Reference. http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/MachORuntime/index.html. Retrieved on 02.11.2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.90.28 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, now speaks of fat binaries as being in a special archive format containing one or more Mach-O binaries.  (Yes, you could have a one-architecture fat binary, although I'm not sure there's much use in doing so.) Guy Harris (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

NeXT Four-architecture FAT Binaries?
I never used NeXT, but in this blog posting (see entry for Friday June 03) someone who did claims:

''NeXTSTEP used to support FAT binary for four architectures - Motorola 68k, Intel x86, HP PA and Sun SPARC (NIHS). And it worked pretty well. Gcc compiler for NeXTSTEP had an option to produce objects for all four targets at the same time, and linker and runtime loader all supported this very well. A single executable file can contain object codes for four different architectures, and many applications were distributed for all four (NIHS), or at least for 68k and x86 (NI). ''

If this can be verified it would be very interesting to see some more detail.

Dan Shearer 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * That's what's described in the "NeXTSTEP Multi-Architecture Binaries" section of the article. Guy Harris 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * When the article says "both on NeXT's Motorola 68k-based hardware and on Intel IA-32-based PC's running NeXTSTEP, with a single
 * binary file for both platforms" I think it should say whatever the accurate words are to indicate that 4 architectures were
 * supported in production rather than just 2, as stated. Many people are familiar with 2-architecture fat binaries in various places
 * but this example of 4 architectures is I am sure very little-known.
 * 81.187.51.64 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Right after that the article says "It was later used to allow OPENSTEP applications to run on PCs and the various RISC platforms OPENSTEP supported." That's the "four architectures" part; it doesn't explicitly say "four architectures", it leaves that up to the NEXTSTEP page, which says "The last version, 3.3, was released in early 1995, by which time it ran not only on Motorola 68000 family processors, but also IBM PC compatible x86, Sun SPARC, and HP PA-RISC." Guy Harris 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mechanism for Family-Mode Applications?
Back in the OS/2 1.2 days we had family mode applications. I have no idea what the executable file format was nor the execution mechanism, but I know that if you threw the right compiler switch you got a "family mode" application, a single binary that worked on both DOS and OS/2, and later both MS and IBM OS/2, and all relevant DOSs. I'm assuming it was a FAT binary. Anyone know where facts can be found?

Dan Shearer 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds more like compiling the program into some kind of DOS compatibility mode than a fat binary. It's still the same cpu architecture... and as far as I know, OS/2 could run most DOS programs, right? Unsound (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

VMS / Alpha
This article seems to be Mac-centric; should mention VMS / Dec Alpha dual mode executables, among other things... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

DOS / Windows Dual-EXEs
How about a mention of the little-used trick of combining DOS and Windows versions of a program so that it can run under either environment. It’s been a while, so I don’t recall off hand the method other than it limited the DOS version to 64K because it would be in the header and required a check-jump combo. --Synetech (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning, since even Microsoft used it at least once: earlier versions of regedit.exe could run both under DOS and Windows 95. Technically ALL Windows and .Net executables always contain code for Windows and DOS, just that the DOS part by default only displays "This program cannot be run in DOS mode" or similar. The trick is to replace the message with some more useful program. --Azarien (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge Universal binary to Fat binary
In my opinion, the article Universal binary should be merged into the article Fat binary. As it stands, Universal binary is just one particular name for Fat binary - not even a MacOS-specific one, since others such as Mozilla use the name as well. Any objections to the merge? Thanks, Quarl (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think this would be a good idea because it would give the generic Fat binary article undue weight towards Apple solutions, or some of the stuff from the Universal binary article had to be removed. I think it is better to have a small summary of Universal binaries in the Fat binary article (as now) and keep the Universal binary article for a more detailed description (which could still see significant expansion). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Fat binaries" are a general concept not unique to OS X; "universal binaries" are the flavor of fat binaries on OS X, and, as per Matthiaspaul's comment, have a bunch of OS X-specific details that are worthy of description in the universal binary page but too specific for the fat binary page. Guy Harris (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fat binary


text:
Talk:Midwest League

Untitled
Is this an 'A' grade league? It seems to be, shouldn't this be noted in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.101 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MidwestLeague.png
Image:MidwestLeague.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed cut of Burlington and Clinton by MiLB
The MiLB (Minor League Baseball) plans to reduce the number of minor league affiliates from 160 to 118, the eradication of four short-season A and Advanced Rookie Leagues, and most likely, the Burlington Bees and Clinton LumberJacks. 2605:E000:100D:C571:8C36:F847:196F:592 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC) https://www.thehawkeye.com/business/20200421/minor-leagues-set-to-accept-cut-to-120-affiliates-could-include-burlington-bees

title: Talk:Midwest League


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roodaka

 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 - kept, could be merged - SimonP 14:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Roodaka
More Legocruft, or more specificially Bioniclecruft. Theres a whole category of it at Category:Bionicle, full of quite poorly written articles on characters from Bionicle. Far from notable and probably worse than Pokémoncruft :/ As a side note, i'm only adding this one and i'll leave others to decide whether its worthy VfDing some of the other 57. Hedley 17:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not paper.  -cruft is a scale issue which is defeated by the very small cost of this being on the server. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not paper.  If someone can expand it, it would be nice.  But can people please stop using 'cruft' as a reason for deletion! Sonic Mew 20:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:FICT. <old coot>Back in my day, our Lego didn't come with stories. We had to make 'em up ourselves. You know, imagination.</old coot> A и D я 01D  TALK  EMAIL  20:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. First I've heard of it, but the Google hit count is respectable (1,290 hits). Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  20:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Legocruft. Lego stuff was designed to be put together. (No, really, this stuff would be far more useful in one big article than in many little ones.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, fictional thing from notable universe, or merge if someone thinks that's the best use of their time. Kappa 23:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable. JamesBurns 04:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 10:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge all into Bionicle or list of Bionicle characters. -Sean Curtin 03:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge all Wikipedia is not toilet paper. Proto 10:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roodaka


text:
Talk:List of monarchs of Brazil

List of Brazilian monarchs
Shouldn't this page say some thing like the discovery of Brazil by Europiens (That's probably mispelled and I apologize), as opposed to just "the discovery of Brazil"? After all, It's not like no one lived their beforehand.
 * I, for one, share your sentiment. It now talks about the arrival of the Portugese. Colonel Tom 03:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders?
Do we really need the pretenders section of the article? It's supposed to be about actual ruling monarchs not claimants. Spongie555 (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to List of monarchs of Brazil Mike Cline (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Brazilian monarchs → List of monarchs of Brazil – The title: List of Brazilian monarchs gives a false conatation that these monarchs are in fact all Brazilian, as in being from Brazil. Monarchs of Brazil would be a better choice because it doesnt allow confusion whether, lets say, King Manuel I of Portugal was Brazilian or Portuguese Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Support: Less ambiguous and more accurate title. Shrigley (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this would remove people originating from the region now known as Brazil who were not monarchs a territory known as "Brazil". (such as tribal chieftains) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --Lecen (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

John VI among the monarchs of the Empire of Brazil
King John VI is currently included among the monarchs of the Empire of Brazil because the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro, on the recognition of the independence of Brazil, signed on 29 August 1825, granted him the Titular rank of Emperor of Brazil. I however submit that John VI should not be included in the list of monarchs of the Empire of Brazil, for the following reason: as Titular Emperor, John VI was not monarch of the Empire. In fact, the monarch at the time was Emperor Pedro I, that reigned from 12 October 1822 until 7 April 1831, including the whole period of 1825-1826 when John VI was Titular Emperor under the Rio de Janeiro treaty. This is a list of monarchs, not a list of those who held the imperial title. Thus, only the Sovereigns should be listed. For example, Queens consort and Empresses Consort are not listed. And John VI's role as Titular Emperor of Brazil cannot even be compared to the Portuguese tradition of Kings-consort. During the joint reign of a Portuguese Queen and her King-consort, documents of state were issued on behalf of the reigning couple. But during King John VI's titular emperorship of Brazil, all acts of state in Brazil were issued only in the name of Emperor Pedro I, the actual monarch. Historians concurr on this point: all history books mention a "first Reign", of Pedro I, and a "Second Reign", of Pedro II; there is no "reign" of the titular Emperor, precisely because John VI was not a sovereign, and not even a joint sovereign, of the Brazilian Empire; he merely held a courtsey title of Emperor, just like Empresses and Queens consort hold coutsey imperial and royal titles. So, the titular emperor, not being a monarch of the Empire of Brazil, should be excluded from the list. King John VI must continue to be listed as King of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, of course. A final point: even if John VI were to continue being listed as one of the Emperors of the Empire of Brazil, his "reign" should be counted not from the date of the signature of the Rio de Janeiro treaty, but from the date of the treaty's ratification, 15 November 1825, when it entered into force. For the above reasons, I propose that John VI be excluded from the "Empire of Brazil" section of monarchs of Brazil, and, failing that, I propose that the date of the start of his "reign" as Emperor be changed as described above.--189.25.34.157 (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the reason stated in detail above, I today removed John VI from the "Empire of Brazil" section of Brazilian monarchs, as indeed his titular emperorship was just a coutsey stile and did not make him the Empire's monarch. A final note: months ago, John VI was not listed as a monarch of the Empire of Brazil. Then, he was suddenly included as a monarch of the Empire, without discussion in the talk page. Given that his was just a titular emperorship, his inclusion among the monarchs of the Empire should not have been made in the first place without prior discussion of the question. --Antonio Basto (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Name consistancy
Can we get the name consistant here? I see Portuguese and English all over the place.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You should blame Wikipedia's policy. It allows this "Fruit salad" of names written in different languages. People in here prefer John VI of Portugal, John II of France, John II of Castile, instead of "João VI of Portugal", "Jean II of France" and "Juan II of Castile". It gets worse when we place those monarchs amidst people of their countries. It's weird to see a bunch of Portuguese and then a Portuguese king with an English name. But that's how things are. --Lecen (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Important notice
I'm going to to work on this list and improve it. My goal is to make it a Featured List. Please wait until I'm done. --Lecen (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Colonial rulers
I suggest removing the Portuguese monarchs who ruled the colony from this list. They weren't Kings of Brazil any more than King James II was King of New Jersey or Joe Biden is President of California. —GoldRingChip 17:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection in several weeks, I've removed the section. —GoldRingChip 16:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @GoldRingChip, Brazil ended colonial status on December 16 1815 and became a consituent kingdom within the United kingdom of portugal brazil and the algarves legally having the same status as the Kingdom of portugal UnsungHistory (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://dbpedia.org/page/United_Kingdom_of_Portugal,_Brazil_and_the_Algarves as my source UnsungHistory (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Lack of citations
the sections of Kingdom of Brazil (1815–1822) and Empire of Brazil (1822–1889) does not cite any sources UnsungHistory (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of monarchs of Brazil


text: File:Afc lcd LCDSoundsystem.gif

title: File:Afc lcd LCDSoundsystem.gif


text:
Database audit

Database auditing involves observing a database to be aware of the actions of database users. Database administrators and consultants often set up auditing for security purposes, for example, to ensure that those without the permission to access information do not access it.

title: Database audit


text:
Halifax Atlantic

Halifax Atlantic is a provincial electoral district in Nova Scotia, Canada, that elects one member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly.

The Member of the Legislative Assembly since 2013 has been Brendan Maguire of the Progressive Conservative Association of Nova Scotia.

It is located in the Halifax Regional Municipality, just south of the Halifax peninsula. It includes Spryfield, Herring Cove, Sambro, and Harrietsfield.

Geography
The land area of Halifax Atlantic is 158 km2.

Statistics
Population: 21,360 (2003)

'''Avg. Income:''' $27,570 (2003)

Members of the Legislative Assembly
This riding has elected the following members of the Legislative Assembly:

2013

 * Liberal
 * Brendan Maguire
 * align="right"|3,244
 * align="right"|42.54
 * align="right"|

 * New Democratic Party
 * Tanis Crosby
 * align="right"|2,564
 * align="right"| 33.63
 * align="right"|

 * Progressive Conservative
 * Ryan Brennan
 * align="right"|1,817
 * align="right"|23.83
 * align="right"|
 * }

title: Halifax Atlantic


text: User:Rspeer/Template:Voting system criteria


text:
Devil ray

Devil ray may refer to:
 * Rays of the genus Mobula, cartilaginous fish including:
 * Pygmy devil ray, Mobula eregoodootenkee
 * Lesser devil ray, Mobula hypostoma
 * Spinetail mobula, Mobula japanica
 * Shortfin devil ray, Mobula kuhlii
 * Devil fish, Mobula mobular
 * Munk's devil ray, Mobula munkiana
 * Lesser Guinean devil ray, Mobula rochebrunei
 * Chilean devil ray, Mobula tarapacana
 * Bentfin devil ray, Mobula thurstoni
 * Manta ray, Manta birostris, the largest of the rays
 * Tampa Bay Rays, an American League baseball team based St. Petersburg, Florida, known as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays from 1998–2007
 * Several of the franchise's affiliated minor league baseball teams use "Devil Rays" or "Rays" as a nickname:
 * Southwest Michigan Devil Rays of Battle Creek, Michigan, in the single 'A' Class Midwest League
 * Princeton Rays of Princeton, West Virginia, in the 'R' Class Appalachian League

 * Devil Ray, a Justice League Unlimited villain based on the DC Comics villain Black Manta

title: Devil ray


text:
User:Physchim62/Style guidelines

These guidelines have been put together by the WikiProject Chemicals to help editors improve the 1000 or so articles on Wikipedia which are about chemical compounds.

Title
There is a misconception among certain editors that the title of a chemical compound article must be the systematic name of the compound: this is not always the case.

General rule
From Naming conventions:
 * "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

IUPAC preferred name vs. Systematic name
IUPAC recommends the use of non-systematic names for some organic compounds, and these recommendations should be followed in article titles. Examples:

Element names
Traditionally, the names of three elements have been spelt differently in US and British English. With the onset of computer searching of databases it became necessary to standardize these spellings as follows:

These international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article.

Use of Stock nomenclature
Stock nomenclature for inorganic compounds is based on the indication of the oxidation number (as a roman numeral, in parentheses) of each of the major elements in the compound, e.g. iron(III) chloride. It is widely, if sometimes incorrectly, used on Wikipedia for the titles of articles about inorganic compounds. It is not obligatory, as there are other acceptable methods for naming these compounds, but it is often preferred as the most common non-ambiguous name for a substance. The following guidelines are based on current WikiBestPractice:
 * 1) Only the cationic element (i.e. the element whose name appears unchanged in the compound name) is assigned its oxidation number. Except in rare cases (none at present), we do not assign the oxidation number in the anion: hence potassium permanganate not potassium manganate(VII), sodium hypochlorite not sodium chlorate(I).
 * 2) There is no space between the end of the element name and the opening parenthesis: hence silver(I) fluoride not silver (I) fluoride. Note that this is an exception to the usual English style for parentheses.
 * 3) It is not necessary to specify the oxidation number when there is no possibility of ambiguity in the compound title: hence sodium chloride not sodium(I) chloride.
 * 4) Stock nomenclature should only be used for ionic compounds. Compounds with a substantial degree of covalancy should be named by stoichiometric nomenclature: hence titanium tetrachloride not titanium(IV) chloride.
 * 5) Stock nomenclature should not be used for compounds with mixed or non-integral oxidation numbers: hence triiron tetraoxide not iron(II,III) oxide (in fact, this article is difficult to name and, as an exception, redirects to magnetite).

Drug-related articles
See also WikiProject Drugs Where a compound has a WHO International Nonproprietary Name (INN), this should be used as the article title.

Prefixes
For technical reasons, it is not recommended to use non-numerical prefixes in article titles. This includes:

Note that iso in such compounds as isopropanol is not only permitted but recommended. No hyphen is used in these cases.

When the chosen aticle title starts with a number, the first letter of the compound name should be capitalized: hence 1,1,1-Trichloroethane not 1,1,1-trichloroethane. A redirect from the uncapitalized version should be created to simplify linking from other articles. See also Capitalization below.

Redirects

 * From Deletion policy: "Don't worry, redirects are cheap."

Redirects should be created for:
 * Alternative names for the compound, including acronyms where appropriate;
 * Alternative capitalizations, where there is a numerical prefix in the article title.

Infobox
WikiProject Chemicals strongly recommends the use of chemical infoboxes for the following reasons:
 * If basic (often numerical) data is included in the article text, the readability of the article is reduced.
 * They reflect a certain consensus as to what data is appropriate for an encyclopedic article.
 * They promote a common visual style among Wikipedia articles on a given subject area.
 * They are well supported by the MediaWiki software (unlike HTML tables), and easily adapted (by individual editors) to the different needs of different articles.

Three chemboxes are currently available:
 * chembox simple inorganic and chembox simple organic are good for short articles (stubs and slightly-more-than-stubs);
 * chembox is more appropriate for full-length articles.

To include a chembox in an article:
 * 1) Edit the article to include   (or  or , as appropriate) as the first line of the article source code.
 * 2) Save your edit with the Edit summary "Chembox added".
 * 3) Re-edit the article to fill in the spaces in the infobox, and to make whatever other changes are necessary for the particular compound.

For formatting reasons, the code for the infobox should be at the very beginning of the source code.

Safety
The hazards associated with a chemical compound are an integral part of the description of that compound.

Two main rules:
 * The description of hazards should avoid speculation. This is partly an extension of Wikipedia NPOV policy, but not entirely. There is no need to include a section which merely states "all chemical compounds should be treated with the utmost precaution": such a section tells the reader nothing. If there are no known (or reasonably suspected) hazards, there is nothing for Wikipedia to say.
 * The description of hazards should avoid hyperbole. The role of Wikipedia is to give balanced and accurate information, to allow its readers to reach their own conclusions.

Descriptions of hazards should, as far as possible, be based on published, peer-reviewed sources (which should, of course, be cited at the appropriate point in the article). A list of resources for chemical safety information is given in the external links section of these guidelines.

Chemical structures and reaction schemes
From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals: This is the procedure I currently use for my images:

 * ChemDraw molecule editor settings:
 * Line width: 0.107 cm
 * Bond length: 2.566 cm
 * Font: Arial 45 pt
 * Save as: TIFF black/white bitmap.
 * Image processing (Photoshop or Irfan view):
 * Add canvas of 75 pixels to all four sides (Photoshop: Image:Canvas Size, relative, 150 pixels width, 150 pixels height)
 * Save as a PNG black/white bitmap.
 * Wikimedia Commons:
 * Upload under http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload (bookmark address)
 * Paste the summary template from below.
 * Add the substance's article link to en.wikipedia, the user name, and the date.
 * Linking:
 * As if it were uploaded to en.wikipedia.
 * Add the horizontal image size "|200px|" (no frame) or "|thumb|200px|" (frame) to the image link:
 *  [[Image:Ethylene glycol chemical structure.png|thumb|150px|Chemical structure of ethylene glycol]]

Wikimedia Commons summary template:

 * * Description: Chemical structure of.
 * * Author, date of creation: selfmade by w:User_talk:, 11 April 2005.
 * * Source: -
 * * Copyright: GNU Free Documentation License. (GFDL)
 * * Comments: high-resolution b/w PNG; ChemDraw / Photoshop.

Cacycle 15:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nomenclature

 * IUPAC Provisional Recommendations for the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (2004)
 * IUPAC Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry (online version of the "Blue Book")
 * IUPAC Recommendations on Organic & Biochemical Nomenclature, Symbols, Terminology, etc. (includes IUBMB Recommendations for biochemistry)

Properties

 * WebElements
 * NIST Standard Reference Database

Safety information

 * International Chemical Safety Cards
 * Concise International Chemical Assessment Documents
 * IARC Monographs Database
 * OSHA (US)
 * OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits site
 * NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards
 * NIOSH IDLH site
 * EPA AEGL (US)
 * CDC Emergency Preparedness & Response (US)
 * NTP Report on Carcinogens (11th Edn.)
 * European Chemicals Bureau
 * HSE (UK)
 * CSST (Canada)
 * NICNAS Reports (Australia)
 * Institut national de recherche et de sécurité (France) (in French)

Suppliers

 * Sigma-Aldrich Co.

title: User:Physchim62/Style guidelines


text:
Talk:Al Kaline

Name
Were Al Kaline's parents chemists or something? How is it that no one ever remarks on his name? Krakatoa 22:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I grew up in Detroit as a Kaline fan and marveled at "Al Kaline" batteries. I guess you just had to be there then to hear people remark on it. I mean, how often does anyone who isn't a Tigers fan mention him outside of Cooperstown? --Habap 04:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I grew up in Detroit in the 1960s, when Kaline was playing, and I occasionally heard references to the "alkaline" nature of his name.John Paul Parks (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The perfect name for a baseball player. Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably in part because the pronunciation is different. Al KAY-line vs. al-kuh-LINE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.160.211 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
"With earlier legend Ty Cobb having been more respected and feared than loved, Kaline is the most popular player ever to play for the Tigers, and possibly the most popular athlete in Detroit history."

Can someone find a way to make this more biassed? I certainly can't. Mglovesfun 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * How about "Given that Ty Cobb was a racist thug and a walking piece of slime, Kaline is the most popular player . . . ." ? I think that would be even more biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakatoa (talk • contribs)

 * But, MG, it is actually true. Kaline is probably the most revered athlete in Detroit history. It would help if we had a source stating that, but with his long, successful playing career followed by a successful tenure in the broadcast booth, it is hard to imagine an athlete who would surpass his popularity. Cobb had a dark side that was visible to all, while no football, hockey or basketball stars have had his longevity without blemishes. Perhaps if Alan Trammel was still managing the Tigers, he might someday approach it.... --Habap 16:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Definitely the most popular Tiger given his playing and broadcast careers taken together. (Cobb didn't hang around after his playing days were completed.) Most popular athlete in Detroit sports history? I'd say Gordie Howe and Steve Yzerman are close. Howenstein115 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Don't forget Barry Sanders or Isiah Thomas, who also spent their entire careers in the Motor City. Although for overall greatness, Howe, Yzerman and Kaline are a toss-up.Mdb1370 (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fact
The article says: "In 1955, Kaline hit .340 for the season, becoming the youngest player ever to win the American League batting title, when he was one day younger than Tigers hall-of-famer Ty Cobb."

Kaline was born December 19, 1934, and Cobb on December 18, 1886. That makes Kaline 48 years and one day younger. So, it would seem that on any given calendar day in 1955, Kaline would be a day younger than was Cobb in 1907. Fact is, they were exactly the same age to the day on every day of the respective years of 1907 and 1955. Cobb lost a day because 1900 was not a leap year. It's a tie! (See for the details.)  WHPratt (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt —Preceding unsigned comment added by WHPratt (talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've done for a few other issues, I'm proving this assertion via some programming. If Microsoft's date-time functions were unreliable, you'd have heard about it by now. This code can be run as a macro inside of MS Excel or MS Word, as well as in Visual Basic 6.

Sub CobbKaline Dim birth_Cobb As Date, reference_Cobb As Date, age_Cobb As Long, _ birth_Kaline As Date, reference_Kaline As Date, age_Kaline As Long 'Assign birth dates, 48 years apart birth_Cobb = "December 18, 1886" Debug.Print "Cobb born "; birth_Cobb birth_Kaline = "December 19, 1934" Debug.Print "Kaline born "; birth_Kaline 'Pick a reference date, the same in each key year (48 year offset) 'Any date will do, so long as they are the same day and month for both. reference_Cobb = "July 4, 1907" reference_Kaline = "July 4, 1955" 'Get the ages in days age_Cobb = DateDiff("d", birth_Cobb, reference_Cobb) Debug.Print "Cobb age in days on "; reference_Cobb; " is "; age_Cobb age_Kaline = DateDiff("d", birth_Kaline, reference_Kaline) Debug.Print "Kaline age in days on "; reference_Kaline; " is "; age_Kaline 'The apparent discrepancy is due to the fact that 1900 was not a leap year. 'Cobb aged 365 days in 1900, whereas Kaline aged 366 days in 1948, '  which was the comparable year. 'To emphasize this, let's see what happens when we cross the 20th-21st ' century boundary. 2000 *was* a leap year. Debug.Print "" Debug.Print "-- Repeat logic, simulating 21st century --" 'Add 100 years to everything birth_Cobb = DateAdd("yyyy", 100, birth_Cobb) Debug.Print "Cobb+100 born "; birth_Cobb birth_Kaline = DateAdd("yyyy", 100, birth_Kaline) Debug.Print "Kaline+100 born "; birth_Kaline reference_Cobb = DateAdd("yyyy", 100, reference_Cobb) reference_Kaline = DateAdd("yyyy", 100, reference_Kaline) 'Repeat the logic 'Get the ages in days age_Cobb = DateDiff("d", birth_Cobb, reference_Cobb) Debug.Print "Cobb+100 age in days on "; reference_Cobb; " is "; age_Cobb age_Kaline = DateDiff("d", birth_Kaline, reference_Kaline) Debug.Print "Kaline+100 age in days on "; reference_Kaline; " is "; age_Kaline 'Note that the birth date difference is not neutralized here. End Sub

Output:

Cobb born 12/18/1886 Kaline born 12/19/1934 Cobb age in days on 7/4/1907 is  7502 Kaline age in days on 7/4/1955 is  7502 -- Repeat logic, simulating 21st century -- Cobb+100 born 12/18/1986 Kaline+100 born 12/19/2034 Cobb+100 age in days on 7/4/2007 is  7503 Kaline+100 age in days on 7/4/2055 is  7502

Therefore, Kaline is not, exclusively, the youngest major league batting champion.WHPratt (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The "one day younger" reference is still in the article, even though I've demonstrated that the day in question is illusory. I'd agree that we probably can't go into this level of detail, shouldn't we say that both Cobb and Kaline wo batting titles at age 20 and let it go at that?

Interesting topic: Should we allow a disproven "fact" to stand because it requires a somewhat lengthy explanation? I'd be interested in any comments. WHPratt (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting information! I updated the article's reference with the source that you linked to, along with a digested version of the "lengthy explanation", which I put in the footnote. (Note, by the way, that the blogger you linked to concludes that Kaline has the record after all, on a different technicality!) JudahH (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad way of handling it. We discussed this on the SABR listserve maybe back in the mid-1990s, and nobody challenged the research.  Still, nobody else got the message, and that "one day younger" still turns up in any discussion of Kaline's batting title. WHPratt (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As it does here yet again. Sometimes you feel like giving up! WHPratt (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Al Kaline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130114020009/http://apps.detnews.com:80/apps/history/index.php?id=145 to http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=145
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227144518/http://archive.sportingnews.com:80/baseball/100/ to http://archive.sportingnews.com/baseball/100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Al Kaline. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/kalinal01
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/det/team/team_frontoffice_bio.jsp?loc=al_kaline
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/rare_feats/index.jsp?feature=two_homers_inning
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150613063546/http://blog.detroitathletic.com:80/2015/05/27/the-day-willie-horton-saved-al-kalines-life/ to http://blog.detroitathletic.com/2015/05/27/the-day-willie-horton-saved-al-kalines-life/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150725002953/http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org:80/3000_hit_club/kaline_al.htm to http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/3000_hit_club/kaline_al.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Al Kaline. 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 tag to http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/kalinal01.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114020009/http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=145 to http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=145

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Al Kaline. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/kalinal01
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/det/team/team_frontoffice_bio.jsp?loc=al_kaline
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/rare_feats/index.jsp?feature=two_homers_inning
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.detroitathletic.com/2015/05/27/the-day-willie-horton-saved-al-kalines-life/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/3000_hit_club/kaline_al.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20100325&content_id=8922348&vkey=pr_det&fext=.jsp&c_id=det
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001151237/http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/K/Kaline_Al.stm to http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/K/Kaline_Al.stm

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) 10:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Al Kaline


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT Characters in The Star Trek Universe

 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LGBT Characters in The Star Trek Universe
I know this'll start a huge controversy, but whatever. This article is nothing about a long non-encyclopedic essay on why the creators of Star Trek don't have gay characters. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 17:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm half expecting a 'discrimination' stance for any keep voters. LGBT articles can go too far - Category:Gay icons genuinely annoys me. Hedley 17:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's actually an interesting essay with real world connections, and analyses the series and its attempts to introduce gay characters quite well. Could do with a less clunky title, maybe, but I don't see why it's "not encyclopedic". --khaosworks 18:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I expected visiting the article to confirm my instinct to delete, but it does at least a fairly good job of explaining an issue with appropriate citation.  Wikipedia is not paper so it's not like the servers can't absorb this work.  I see no reason to delete it: it doesn't violate any policies, even if it is narrow in focus. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Suppliment: Perhaps we could rename to simply "LGBT Characters in Star Trek"? -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with this renaming. Demi T/C 18:12, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * Category:Gay icons and other homosexuality-related articles aren't really part of this discussion. The article needs some editing--it is not unbiased, but at the same time seems to be describing a real debate, and has sources to back at least some of this up. I'm not even sure it needs a tag, so I'm voting Keep. Demi T/C 18:11, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * Keep that is a debate that I already encountered years and years ago, and this is not an essay, but a summary of all the related things, both in the series and behind the screen. -- AlexR 18:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I say that almost reluctantly, because it's a long, thorough, well-written and presumably well-researched article. However, the whole thing could basically be summarized by "Star Trek doesn't have any gay characters" though it takes quite a few paragraphs to get there.  Much of the padding material consists of speculation and descriptions of characters who kinda-sorta might have been gay.  At best, it's a well-intentioned article which really needs to document its sources better.  At worst, it veers dangerously close to libel: "Some fans feel that...Berman and Paramount of selling out the progressive Roddenberry dream in favor of contemporary bigotry and a hypocritical commercial cop-out." See also Weasel words.  I definitely feel this is an interesting subject and should be posted and discussed somewhere, but isn't an encyclopedic topic.  If it absolutely must stay, I suggest squeezing it down into a paragraph or two and putting it in one of the main Trek articles or into a GLBT in culture article. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  19:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite somewhat as the insertion of sections looks somewhat forced in the flow of the text, and they should be able to be read out of order.     19:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Liberally condense and Merge. There's not much meat to this article, and most of it is original research couched in language like "some fans believe...", etc. This whole concept could easily be summarized in a paragraph or section in one of the main Star Trek articles, such as Society and Star Trek. A и D я 01D  TALK  EMAIL  20:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but revise to remove original research and filter for possible POV. There were some attempts to add LGBT sections to each of the series articles, but I think the issue is best left discussed all at once, as is the case here. I don't know if it's necessary to have subcategories. 23skidoo 20:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, why not? Hooray cruft~! Sam Spade 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wow. Brilliant article, could do with some POV tweaks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not move to a title that does not assert that there are, in fact, such characters? Although I would also support deleting.  I'm wavering on whether it is encyclopedic, but the current title doesn't make sense. 68.165.6.18 02:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, that was me. platypeanArchcow 02:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could use some work, but it's quite a bit better than a lot of articles here. Give it some time. Ground Zero 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. this article is interesting, and although it could use some work and perhaps a name change, it is informative and discusses an issue that apparently exists in the Trekkie community. Bonus Onus 03:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: interesting. Give it a better title, though, without an unpronounceable acronym that sounds like a kind of sandwich. No Account 03:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting. JamesBurns 04:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, especially notable given the press coverage received when DS9 scripted a lesbian kiss. Xoloz 05:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but the article does need plenty of references to back up it's claims, otherwise my vote should be changed to a merge. Axon 13:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is a good one and has plently of references to back up what it claims.  I fear that some homophobia is at work in the efforts to delete the page.  (unsigned comment by 216.239.18.174.) Xoloz 21:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well argued and interesting essay on a legitimate and not particularly POV. carmeld1 23:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems well-written and encyclopedic to me, not to mention notable and definitely tied into real-world events. -CunningLinguist 00:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It comes close to being original reserach, but doesn't quite cross the line IMHO. --Angr/undefined 06:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * An interesting topic, and a fairly unbiased approach. Oddly enough, by restricting itself to the TV series, it ignores that controversy about a TNG movie character who was supposed to be "gay", and the overt gayness of one of the SCE characters, in the (supposedly) authorised Pocket e-books series.  --Simon Cursitor 07:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article now addresses Lt. Hawk, of Star Trek: First Contact, the "almost" gay movie character, under the TNG section. I'm not sure if this is a recent edit. Xoloz 08:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to have a section on the Star Trek comic books/novels and one on the video games. Both are brief.  I fail to see how my article has "gone to far" it is simply explaing the factual history behind the controversy (among fans) over how the franchise has dealt with LGBT people, and why. ''(This comment added by 199.17.94.37 Demi T/C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))
 * Keep. This is a valid and ongoing point of contention regarding the Star Trek universe.  -Seth Mahoney 00:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Interesting, well-researched and important because of the iconic status of this TV franchise. --Ian Pitchford 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As said above, this article is quite interesting and well-researched.  --Doradus 15:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment for the author: I would like to see as many references as possible. For one thing, it will help to prevent this page from reappearing on VfD.  It can also help people who are interested in the topic do research of their own.  Thanks for the contribution!  -Seth Mahoney 19:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I absolutely agree with Ian. --62.245.160.218 20:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep, as long as this essay can be turned into a proper article, removing speculation and adding properly referenced facts. Exploding Boy 22:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per No original research and it appearing to be original research. I'm surprised no one has linked this policy yet, but it's clear to me that it should be deleted.  In fact, I'd consider renominating this for VFD when this one is up simply because this has a) been over looked and b) has a lot of votes.  Other than saying "there are no gays in Star Trek", I don't see much that isn't original research. Cburnett 06:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you can safely assume that most people who voted here know about the "no original research" policy. Hence, re-nominating this article for deletion would be completely unnecessary, to say the least. -- AlexR 07:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has plenty of sources - they just need to be worked into the text. --Ian Pitchford 10:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Highlights an important aspect of Star Trek in popular culture. The article has plenty of references that need to be linked and referenced more thorougly..Melvakar 11:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is an important slice of science fiction Americana.  The article has provided numerous cites to back up each and every quote and statement.
 * Keep. Stays just the right side of the original research line. OpenToppedBus - Talk 14:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:I don't think that this should be an article merely because it's not encyclopedic; additionally, while some of the information presented here is useful, much of it is mere speculation or discussion thereof. Moreover, I don't think that the title is appropriate for Wikipedia- not everyone knows what LGBT stands for (I myself can only hazard a guess as to its meaning given the context and still haven't figured out the T). In summary, this article should not continue to exist as it is. M412k 14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The T is for "Texan". ;-) Ground Zero 14:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
LCD Soundsystem (album)

LCD Soundsystem is the debut studio album by American rock band LCD Soundsystem. It was released on January 24, 2005, jointly through DFA and Capitol Records in the United States and EMI elsewhere. The album encompasses genres that range from dance-punk to electronica to indie rock to dance music. The album was critically acclaimed upon release and was nominated for the 2006 Grammy Award for Best Electronic/Dance Album. Many singles were released to promote the album, including the band's breakout "Daft Punk Is Playing at My House", which reached number one on the UK Dance Chart in March, 2005.

Reception
LCD Soundsystem received widespread acclaim from music critics. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 86, based on 35 reviews.

Andy Kellman of AllMusic wrote that LCD Soundsystem "has few weak spots and unfolds smoothly as you listen to it from beginning to end." In his review for Rolling Stone, Barry Walters said that the album showed that LCD Soundsystem were "both underground hitmakers and bona fide album artists." Drowned in Sound critic Gareth Dobson called it "a disparate yet cohesive collection of songs" and said that "the majority of LCD Soundsystem is an excellent thump into 2005." Simon Reynolds, writing in Blender, wrote that the album's "influences meld to form a seductive — if clearly deeply conflicted — self." While expressing disappointment that the album did not fully meet the expectations set by the band's early singles and lacked "very many surprises here, either in the bank of sounds Murphy pulls out, or in how he uses them", Dominique Leone of Pitchfork went on to award LCD Soundsystem the website's "Best New Music" accolade, though still concluding that it contained "plenty of good-not-great stuff" and was "a tad unfocused". Assigning the album a one-star honorable mention rating, Robert Christgau of The Village Voice noted Murphy's alternation between "dance guy or rock guy, optimist or cynic".

PopMatters' Matt Cibula praised the inclusion of the second disc of previously released material, but stated that "the real gems are to be found on the new stuff" and called LCD Soundsystem "a great record." Rob Ortenzi of Alternative Press described LCD Soundsystem as "an album that will survive the fleeting tastes of cosmopolitan hipsters" and stated that "in two records' time, Murphy will be as respected as The Sugarhill Gang, Brian Eno and Suicide." No Ripcord's Ben Bollig said that the album had "all the makings of a modern classic" and that "LCD Soundsystem is knowing and knowledgeable, inspired and inspirational. Intellectual without being snotty, encyclopaedic yet accessible, it takes the seemingly stalled electro model and kick-starts it into outer space."

Accolades
Online music magazine Pitchfork placed LCD Soundsystem at number 113 on their list of top 200 albums of the 2000s. It was also named the fifth best album of the decade by Resident Advisor. No Ripcord placed it at number 63 on their list of the Top 100 Albums of 2000–2009.

Personnel
Musicians
 * James Murphy – most sounds
 * Tim Goldsworthy – other sounds
 * Eric Broucek – other sounds
 * Tyler Pope – other sounds
 * Nancy Whang – other sounds
 * Patrick Mahoney – other sounds
 * Mandy Coon – other sounds

Production
 * The DFA – production, mixing
 * Andy Wallace – mixing
 * Alan Douches – mastering
 * Eric Broucek – assistance
 * Ian Hatton – engineering and programming assistance
 * Mike Lapierre – engineering and programming assistance
 * Steve Sisco – engineering and programming assistance
 * Josh Wilbur – engineering and programming assistance
 * John O'Mahony – engineering and programming assistance
 * Michael Vadino – art direction and design
 * James Murphy – art direction and design

Charts
As of January 2016, the album has sold about 147,000 copies in United States, according to Nielsen SoundScan. About 91,400 of those are physical copies, and about 55,100 of those are digital copies.

title: LCD Soundsystem (album)