text:
Swansea Vale Railway

The Swansea Vale Railway (SVR) was a railway line connecting the port of Swansea in South Wales to industries and coalfields along the River Tawe on the northern margin of Swansea, by taking over a tramroad in 1846. It was extended to Brynamman in 1868. Passengers were carried from 1860, and a loop line through Morriston was built.

The company was profitable but it was always short of capital, and it looked for a larger company to buy it out. The Midland Railway did so in 1874 when it leased the network, and it absorbed it in 1876. The Midland Railway used the line to get access to Swansea, which it had long sought. After 1923 the Midland's successor transferred the through traffic to another route.

Road omnibus services abstracted much of the local passenger business, and only anthracite traffic kept the line going. When that industry declined the railway mineral traffic followed, and from 1965 closures set in. Parts of the network continued for a time, but by 1983 the entire line was closed.

Before the railway
The South Wales coalfield extends to the sea at Swansea, and therefore was immediately accessible to shipping at a time, before the nineteenth century, when land transport was limited to what pack animals could carry on their backs.

At that time the extraction of copper in Cornwall became an important industry, and as a great deal of coal is required to smelt copper, it became the practice to bring the copper to Swansea by ship and smelt it there.

This specific sector of the metal industry became so dominant that Swansea was given the nickname Copperopolis. The works engaged in this industry were located on the banks of the River Tawe at first, but the construction of the Swansea Canal, opened in 1798, and the development of railways enabled allied metal industries to operate, and to be located further from water transport terminals.

Anthracite coal of high quality was available around Llansamlet, and an early wooden wagonway was built from there to a wharf on the River Tawe by George Kirkhouse; it was operational sometime after 1750. John Scott acquired control of mines on the Gwernllwynchwth Estate and after 1812 built a tram road from there to Foxhole, on the Tawe near its mouth.

In 1834 the Benson family purchased land at the Tyrllandwr Estate and as Swansea harbour developed this gave the family, led by Starling Benson, considerable wharfage land, encouraging the business of shipping coal. The needed transport and in 1839 they commissioned George Bush to survey for a railway. The west bank of the Tawe was heavily developed at this time and his scheme was on the east bank to Abercrave. Public notice was given in 1840 of the intention to build this railway, but in fact it lapsed, probably due to opposition from the Duke of Beaufort.

Nevertheless, Benson and his partners repaired and modernised the 1812 tramroad and made some extension to it over land in their possession, thus not needing Parliamentary authorisation.

Transition to a railway
In 1845 the partners transferred their interest to a joint stock company, and in 1846 the tramroad was formally purchased. The name "Swansea Vale Railway" was first used at this time. This appears to mark the change from operating as a tramroad to being a railway.

South Wales Railway
The South Wales Railway was authorised in 1845 to build a broad gauge railway from near Gloucester to Milford Haven, connecting South Wales with the Great Western Railway network to London. Its route intersected the route of the Swansea Vale Railway.

The SVR hoped to sell its line to the South Wales Railway, and the SWR was amenable, but did not have the Parliamentary powers to make the purchase. As a means of by-passing this obstacle, the South Wales Railway sponsored a nominally independent company, the Swansea Valley Railway, to take over the SVR and alter it to the broad gauge.

The Swansea Valley Railway Bill was passed in Parliament on 2 July 1847, but with the condition that it could not be sold on to the South Wales Railway until at last half of the authorised capital had been raised and expended on construction. As there was no intention to raise capital or construct anything, this resulted in a stalemate.

In March 1850 the construction of the South Wales Railway reached Llansamlet, and a flat crossing was made by the SWR of the SVR line. To optimise their own gradients they lifted the SVR track, which was of stone block sleeper construction, and this caused a minor argument as the SVR had not been asked for permission.

Continuing independently
It was now obvious to the Swansea Vale Railway directors that their line would remain independent for the foreseeable future, so they assessed what needed to be done to secure the future. Some attempts were made to obtain authorisation for passenger operation, and finally in 1855 the Company obtained an Act of Parliament incorporating it, and authorising passenger operation, and permitting extension to Pontardawe, and southwards to the New Cut in Swansea. To neutralise objections in Parliament from the South Wales Railway, it undertook that a third rail (to make mixed gauge track) would be laid southward from the intersection with the South Wales Railway, allowing broad gauge traffic access down to Swansea. The capital of the newly incorporated company was £117,000.

The South Wales Railway agreed to alter the intersection so as to separate the levels of the two lines, and to build a transhipment shed there to reload goods from narrow gauge to broad gauge wagons. These works were completed in 1857.

In 1855 the SVR railway was said to be open for a distance of $6 1/2$ miles and only carrying mineral traffic; this amounted to 1,000 tons per day with an annual income exceeding £5,000.

In 1856 the Company obtained a further Act authorising further northward extension to Ystalyfera and Ystradgynlais.

Through the period from 1856 the company seems to have had trouble raising money for capital works, and a preference share issue was authorised in 1859, although the trading position of the railway was profitable throughout this period.

Passengers
Passenger operation had been authorised and the preparations made for opening from Swansea to Pontardawe for passengers. Captain Ross of the Board of Trade visited the line but he found deficiencies and declined to permit passenger running. Improvements were made and when Colonel Rich of the Board of Trade made a follow-up visit on 20 February 1860 he was satisfied, and passenger trains started running the following day, 21 February 1860. The passenger business was buoyant, and further third-class carriages had to be acquired. Receipts for the half year to August 1860 were £4,912 compared with the previous £3,693, and operating expenses were now £1,740, and rent and rates £683. In later years the practice was usually that the preference shareholders were paid their full dividend but that ordinary shareholders got nothing.

Extending the line
The northward extension had been authorised, but actual construction was slow, largely due to the poor level of subscription for shares. In September 1860 the board decided to open the line as far as a temporary terminus at Ynisygeinon. Late in 1860 the passenger service was extended to that place.

The extension to Ystalyfera was opened on 20 November 1861.

Swansea Vale and Neath & Brecon Junction Railway
An essential part of any through route between Hereford and Swansea was the completion of the Swansea Vale and Neath & Brecon Junction Railway, commonly referred to as The Junction Line. This was to run between Colbren Junction on the N&BR to Ynysygeinon on the SVR. Even without Midland Railway involvement, this had been desirable for the N&BR company, giving better access to Swansea than running via Neath.

The Swansea Vale and Neath & Brecon Junction Railway was promoted in 1863 to build a line connecting the Swansea Vale Railway at Ynysygeinon with the Neath and Brecon Railway at Colbren. The Swansea Vale Railway considered that it would abstract traffic from its line, and it decided to petition against it in Parliament. This was not successful, and the SVR&N&BR obtained the Royal Assent to its Act on 29 July 1864.

The SVR&B&NJR ran into serious financial difficulty; it was unable to secure the subscriptions for shares that it needed to start construction. It entered into a complex arrangement with a contractor, John Dickson, but he fell into bankruptcy at a time when he himself was heavily indebted to the company. For some time, work on the SV&N&BJR was in abeyance. As a moribund company whose only asset was the power to build a line, it was absorbed by the Neath and Brecon Railway in July 1869, and construction was completed, and it was opened to traffic on 19 November 1873.

From that time the N&BR started to run a passenger service between Brecon and Swansea, using the SVR&N&BJR line and the Swansea Vale Railway, over which it had running powers.

The SV&N&BJR was to be leased by the N&BR on completion, but when it was clear that no progress toward that goal was being made, it was amalgamated with the Neath and Brecon Railway on 26 July 1869.

Brynamman
The Llanelly Railway had reached Brynamman from the west in 1842 and was well established in serving the pits there. The coal industry there and in the vicinity was of prime importance and the SVR decided to build a line to it. In 1863 the SVR submitted a Bill for more capital at a level of £48,000 to pay for the Brynamman extension and more rolling stock.

It was probably opened to goods traffic in stages, and to passengers throughout on 2 March 1868. The branch off it from Gwys to Brynhenllys Colliery did not open until 1875.

The Llanelly Railway at Brynamman was considered to be an ally, not a competitor, and a connection between the two companies at Brynamman was under construction. The Llanelly Railway was running passenger trains to Brynamman from 20 March 1865.

Through goods and mineral traffic was soon being run over this route, from Swansea to the West Midlands via Brynamman, representing a more convenient through route.

Revenue increased to £9512 by the middle of 1864; the increase was said to be largely due to traffic coming from Llanelly Railway and the Vale of Neath Railway (which was by now mixed gauge) via the Swansea and Neath Railway.

Morriston Loop
The main line had been built on the eastern bank, as it was less developed and land acquisition was expected to be cheaper. Of course, most of the industry and population were on the western bank, and the railway could not serve them directly. The Board decided to propose a Morriston branch; it was to be a loop line off the existing main line, leaving at Upper Bank station and rejoining the original line at Glais. Powers for the construction were granted in 1867.

It was submitted for inspection to the Board of Trade for passenger operation, and Colonel Hutchinson visited for the purpose; everything was satisfactory and the first part of the line between Morriston and Upper Bank was opened for goods traffic on 6 October 1871. The section probably opened for passenger traffic on 15 March 1871.

The full length of the Morriston Loop was opened on 2 October 1871 and from that date all passenger trains ran via Morriston and Clydach, with a new station at Glais. The old station at Llansamlet was retained for goods but closed to passengers and Birchgrove closed completely, so the old main line between Glais and Upper Bank was now operated by goods trains only.

In the second half of 1872, the dividend on ordinary shares for the year reached 6%.

The Midland Railway
For some time, the directors of the SVR had believed that sale to a larger company was the solution to their long-standing financial difficulties. Richard Moon and a party of directors of the London and North Western Railway visited the Llanelly Railway in April 1864, and had special train trip over Swansea Vale Railway, but the LNWR was really interested in completion of what became the Central Wales line and expressed no desire to treat with the Swansea Vale.

The Midland Railway was negotiating with the Hereford, Hay and Brecon Railway in 1869. The Midland had a presence in Hereford from Worcester and was known to aspire to reach South Wales. It was obvious that a route over the HH&BR, the Neath and Brecon Railway and the Swansea Vale Railway would achieve that objective.

On 13 December 1869 the Swansea Vale Railway Board had formal discussions with representatives of the Midland Railway; the negotiation was successful but did not lead to an immediate arrangement. Nevertheless, in August 1870 the Midland Railway agreed to lend £10,000 to the Swansea Vale Railway; the sum was later raised to £20,000.

On 23 August 1872 it was announced that the directors had agreed with the Midland Railway, that they would lease the Swansea Vale Railway. SVR shareholders would receive a permanent 6% dividend. Incidentally the Midland Railway was not interested in this kind of arrangement with the Neath and Brecon Railway, (which had taken over the SVJ&N&BR), as the N&BR was considerably over-capitalised, following a series of financial improprieties and the failure of a contractor who was also financing much of the construction personally.

The capital of the Swansea Vale Railway at this time was £230,392, and there were loans in existence to the extent of £328,040.

The lease of the Swansea Vale Railway by the Midland was authorised by Act of 30 July 1874; the Midland actually took possession in September 1874.

From this time the Swansea Vale Railway Company was only a financial entity, receiving the lease charge. Nevertheless, considerable capital expenditure was now being undertaken by the Midland Railway on bringing the SVR track and structures up to date, and this complicated the financial relationship. Accordingly, it was agreed that the Midland Company would absorb the SVR; an Act to authorise this was obtained on 11 August 1876 and the SVR Company wound up its affairs and ceased to exist.

The SVR under Midland control
When the Midland Railway took full control of the SVR and the SVR&N&BJR, it had already been running its trains on the line under running powers arrangements.

The high dividends paid in the final years of the SVR's independent existence had been achieved by not doing enough maintenance of the line or locomotives. There were a number of track-related derailments in the early period of Midland ownership, and Miles et al attribute them to lack of maintenance. The Midland was no doubt aware of the poor state of the infrastructure of the network it had acquired, and it quickly set about modernising it; track replacement was an early priority, followed by the renewal of some bridges.

Two bridges at Brynamman were renewed in 1875, and the Midland installed signal boxes and block signalling (for the first time probably) during 1875 and 1876.

In 1876 the Midland opened a new goods depot at Swansea on the link line between Swansea St Thomas station and the Eastern Docks. The line was owned by the GWR and access to the depot was under running powers.

The Swansea Vale Railway had running powers over the Neath and Brecon Railway, so the Midland Railway, as successor to the SVR, ran through trains over the N&BR. The Midland Railway offered to operate all the N&BR domestic trains north of Colbren Junction for one third of receipts, about £4,000 annually. The N&BR reluctantly accepted this arrangement from 1 July 1877 for five years, and the N&BR only operated trains between Colbren Junction and Neath. The arrangement was renewed until in 1889, with the arrival of Sir Edward Watkin as Chairman, the N&BR tried to negotiate better terms. When the talks broke down the Midland Railway abruptly discontinued the through trains on 1 July 1889. For several days there was no service whatever on the N&BR route. The matter went to arbitration and the Midland Railway resumed working the trains from 22 July 1889.

In 1881 the GWR built a branch line to Morriston, and it extended northwards from Morriston itself to Tyrcanol, a distance of about half a mile. The GWR requested a junction at this point, as the two lines were very close together, and this was installed in May 1881; however, it was never used, and it was removed in 1883.

In June 1891 a new marshalling yard was commissioned at Ynysygeinon to handle the colliery traffic coming down the valley.

The GWR had long felt that its network around Swansea was inadequate for efficient handling of its traffic, and in 1911 it promoted the Swansea District line, a new route by-passing Swansea. It intersected the Midland line north of Morriston and was opened in 1913.

At the same time the GWR got authorisation for a line ten miles long from Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen to the Swansea District Line through the Upper Clydach Valley and Pontardawe. Actual construction was delayed by GWR and then by World War I, but a part of it opened in 1922 from Felin Fran to Clydach and in 1923 to Trebanos just south of Potardawe.

From 31 December 1916 the through carriages from Swansea to Birmingham were withdrawn. The transit was very slow, and patronage had never been enough to justify the service.

After 1918 the effect of passenger road omnibuses was felt by the line; at this period, they were slower than the trains, but they ran direct to the centre of Swansea, and often more conveniently through the centre of towns and villages on the route. St Thomas station had been complained of in the past for its lack of proximity to the centre of Swansea.

Grouping of the railways
Following the Railways Act 1922 most of the main line railways of Great Britain were compulsorily merged into one or other of four new large companies, the "groups"; this took effect during 1922. The Midland Railway and the LNWR became constituents of the new London, Midland and Scottish Railway.

The LMS therefore had two routes from Swansea to the Midlands and north, and the former LNWR route was considered to be more convenient operationally.

The discontinuation of the Swansea to Birmingham through carriages in 1916 was now followed by the suspension of through carriages from Swansea to Brecon, from 31 December 1930. The GWR took over responsibility for local passenger and goods services south of Colbren and the LMS ran a connecting service from Colbren on the Neath and Brecon line to Ynysygeinon, but this was unsuccessful, and was itself discontinued from 12 September 1932. On the same date the through goods traffic was re-routed to the former LNWR line.

The SVR network continued to prosper, mainly because of the high-quality anthracite mined within its area; this was considered a premium product, and much was exported to Canada and to France.

Nationalisation
The railways of Great Britain were nationalised at the beginning of 1948. The passenger business had collapsed in the 1930s and the new owner, British Railways, took stock of the situation; the assessment resulted in SVR passenger services being withdrawn from 25 September 1950.

At the same time the traditional industries were by now in steep decline, and many of the anthracite mines closed down. As these were by far the dominant business of the former SVR network, it too suffered.

The Morriston Loop was severed between Glais Junction and the Mond Works just to the north of Clydach in 1956, and the section between Clydach and Morriston closed in 1965.

The Brynamman line was cut back to Gurnos in September 1964. Traffic from Ynyscedwyn ceased 1968 resulting in closure of the line north of the Imperial Smelting Works at Llansamlet, and the entire Llansamlet line closed in 1971.

Traffic to Llansamlet itself ceased in 1973; the Llansamlet line was closed formally in September 1982, having been dormant for many years. The entire line closed formally on 24 May 1983 and SVR ceased to be a commercial railway.

Heritage railway
After closure, a heritage group named the Swansea Vale Railway Society, leased a section of track between Upper Bank and Six Pit; in 2007 the lease expired, and the group merged with the Gwili Railway in Carmarthen, and moved most of their rolling stock there.

Main line

 * Swansea; opened 21 February 1860; known as Swansea St Thomas from about 1887; closed 25 September 1950;
 * Upper Bank; opened 1 September 1863; closed 25 September 1950; divergence of Morriston Loop;
 * Six Pit Junction;
 * Llansamlet; opened 21 February 1860; closed 1 March 1875;
 * Birchgrove; opened 5 May 1866, trains called on Saturdays only; closed 1 March 1875
 * Glais; opened 21 February 1860; closed 1 March 1875 on opening of Morriston Loop;
 * Glais Junction; convergence of Morriston Loop;
 * Pontardawe; opened 21 February 1860; closed 25 September 1950;
 * Ynysygeinon; opened 21 January 1861; closed February 1862;
 * Ynysygeinon Junction;
 * Ystalyfera; opened 20 November 1861; closed 25 September 1950;
 * Gurnos Junction;
 * Cwmtwrch Well Halt; opened 14 December 1935; closed 25 September 1950;
 * Gwys; opened 2 March 1868; closed 25 September 1950;
 * Caelliau branch junction;
 * Gwaun-cae-Gurwen Colliers' Platform; opened 7 December 1896; renamed Cwmllynfell 1 July 1909; closed 25 September 1950;
 * Brynamman; opened 2 March 1868; renamed Brynamman East 1 January 1950; closed 25 September 1950.

The Llanelly Railway station had opened on 20 March 1865; renamed Brynamman West 1950; closed 18 August 1958.

Morriston loop

 * Upper Bank; above;
 * Morriston; opened 2 March 1871; relocated 1 March 1875; renamed Morriston East January 1950; closed 25 September 1950;
 * Cwm Clydach; opened 1 March 1875; renamed Clydach on Tawe 1 November 1901; renamed Clydach on Tawe South January 1950; closed 25 September 1950;
 * Glais; second station; opened March 1875; closed 25 September 1950;
 * Glais Junction; above.

title: Swansea Vale Railway


text:
VTV Vaša Televízia

VTV was one of the first Slovak private TV channels. It started broadcasting on 22 April 1995 via the Eutelsat 2F2 satellite (position 10° East) in analogue, free-to-air form. Since the overwhelming majority of Slovak satellite receivers were fixed on the Astra satellite at 19.2° east, VTV failed to get enough viewers and ended with bankruptcy in January 2000.

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

title: VTV Vaša Televízia


text:
Talk:Dark Jedi

Request for Cleanup

 * Support and Propose I feel that the introduction is too long for a wikipedia article. The introduction should be only a few sentences and give a reader immediate access to the gist of the article.  The sections and section titles should be amended to make this article more readable to the non-specialist. --Davidkinnen 22:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. I too feel the intro is lopsided indeed. A bit of chopping and surgery, and the article will be as right as rain. --Maru 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Two questions
Is the Force lightning (typical of the Dark Side) specially associated with the Sith, to the point that mastering it makes one a Sith? Or is it so that somehow one MUST be a Sith to really master that power? The current text makes it appear so.

Also, is there any reason why a Dark Jedi necessarily seeks other powers besides the Force? --Luis Dantas 10:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It always seemed to me that the Sith did things entirely different from the Jedi- ie Dark Jedi do precisely what Jedi do- except, evilly, I guess. Whereas Sith enslave and mutate entire species, cause stars to go nova, possess from beyond the grave etc. There always seemed to be a qualitative difference, so I'd go with 'to learn to wield lightning effectively, one must posess the Sith skill set, and thus be a Sith'.
 * As for your second question, Dark Jedi are megalomaniacal, power-hungry (lust is of the Dark Side). So it makes perfect sense they'd try to diversify past just Force powers. Never know when one might run into ysalamiri, after all... --maru 19:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Simply for the sake of disagreeing, Yoda is able to control lightning in E2, does that make him a sith?! (LOL) 70.105.106.147 23:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * For the sake of disagreeing, I'll merely point out that redirecting is vastly different from aiming and generating Force lightning. --Maru (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Grey Jedi
I am not sure it is worth having such a lengthy section about Grey Jedi when there is a separate article. Also, the current wording implies that all Grey Jedi except Kyle Katarn eventually surrended to the Dark Side and failed to recover. I do not think that holds true. At least Qui-Gon and arguably Ulic were not pawns of the Dark Side at the time of their deaths. Luis Dantas 19:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did all this info come from, anyway? I found something about Jacen Solo going off into the galaxy at the end of Legacy of the Force as a Grey Jedi Master, which I've never seen proven canonically. Mindgiver 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why must they not affiliated with the Sith?
As far as I know, any Sith that can use the force (ie: not Sith troopers), is a Dark Jedi. A Dark Jedi just is anyone who uses the dark side of the Force (and not the light). In Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, you encounter many "Dark Jedi" who are members of the Sith Empire. -Xol 23:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All this is true. What is your point? Jon Hart 17:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Quoted from this article: "...[Dark Jedi] meet two requirements. One, they do not hold themselves to the dogma of either the Jedi or the Sith..." - but yet many Dark Jedi are Sith. -Xol 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true, so Darth Maul, Darth Tyranus, and Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker should be removed from the list of Dark Jedi because they were Sith Lords, and followed the dogma of the Sith. Palpatine/Darth Sidious was also a Sith Lord.  It was Darth Tyranus/Count Dooku who wanted a Sith army (so says the official Episode III novelization), not Darth Sidious.  I suppose what the article is saying is that they pick out prospective apprentices and start to train them while they themselves are apprentices.  This would make the prospective apprentices Dark Jedi until the Sith Apprentice's Master is dead, at which point the Dark Jedi becoms a Sith Apprentice.  Maul and Starkiller may have been trained in this fashion, but Dooku and Vader were named Sith Apprentices after the death of their predecessors.  As it is, Maul became an official Sith Lord, so he should be off the list. 75.157.104.55 (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Legacy of the Force?
Ok, firstly I'll apologize as wikipedia isnt something I'm familiar with. Ive spotted some potential problems in this article and would like to make a note of them. If my format here is incorrect feel free to correct it, thanks.

Quoted from the article: "The most prominent Grey Jedi character in the Expanded Universe is Vergere, introduced in the Legacy of the Force as a former Jedi who had spent decades with the warlike Yuuzhan Vong. Vergere believed that the Force had no completely "light" or "dark" side, and should be viewed outside the scope of conventional morality. Beginning in the Legacy series, she took young Jedi Jacen Solo on as her informal pupil, much to the consternation of his uncle, Luke Skywalker.

The Grey Jedi will not intervene on either side, choosing instead to watch and follow their own code, defending themselves and maintaining the line. As a result, Luke Skwalker will see many Jedi leave to join the Grey and the ranks of darkness will as well. Foremost of these will be Jacen Solo, who, at the end of Legacy of the Force, will disappear for a time, becoming a Grey Master.[citation needed]"

Corrections: Vergere was introduced well before the legacy of the force series, as the article on vergere shows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergere#Vergere

Claiming that she was "introduced" in the Legacy series is quite misleading, as she was killed during the New Jedi Order series, and had been dead for some time before Legacy even began.

She also "she took young Jedi Jacen Solo on as her informal pupil," during the NJO series. However, during the majority of her "training" of him, he was presumed dead by almost the entire galaxy. Therefore the "much to the consternation of his uncle, Luke Skywalker." is also quite misleading.

I have read every book released so far in the Legacy series, and a lot of speculation as well, and I havent seen any mention of "As a result, Luke Skwalker will see many Jedi leave to join the Grey and the ranks of darkness will as well. Foremost of these will be Jacen Solo, who, at the end of Legacy of the Force, will disappear for a time, becoming a Grey Master." In fact, in the latest book released in the series, Jacen is pursuing the path of becoming a Sith Master(coached by the Lumiya). There's little doubt of this, as there is involvement in the sith planet of Ziost, sith abilities, and sith lore. He is also planning to murder either his parents or young daughter, which is quite a Sith-like thing to do.

Again, I apologize for my lack of wiki know how, my edit of this page will almost definitely need some sort of revision.

Tuesdayiscoming 03:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Objection
I think the current picture should be deleted, it is a fan mod and therefore noncanocial, im gonna delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.163.248 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No please dont.(76.211.141.41 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

LUKE?
just curious, why is luke skywalker listed as a notable dark jedi? if that's true, then the rebel alliance is in deep shit.

 * At one point Luke allowed himself to succumb to the Dark Side and become the resurrected Sidious' Sith Apprentice, but he didn't get a "Darth" title. That's why he's listed as a Dark Jedi. 75.157.104.55 (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dark Jedi


text:
Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt/Archive 7

New edits
mostly the ladino minority supporting FRG is just not true. There is huge support in provinces like Quietzaltenango amongst the indigenous population; I would say quite the opposite is actually the case. The constitional ban is for all presidents, I thought, and certainly not just for dictators. I think it is Mayans not Mayas in English How certain are we the CIA backed the 1982 coup? Cos if we aren't 100% sure the sentence needs rewording. Changed fear to terror scorched earth time. I wonder who put in the claim that 2600 were killed during the scorched earth time; have changed this to 26, 000 till I can get a reasonable figure. i will be back. --SqueakBox 00:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * It sounds to me like Montt was a junior officer who had minimal involvement in the 1954 Castillo Armas-led coup and was only connected to the U.S. through a brief time at the SOA. The Reagan administration may have had kind (anti-Communist myopia/diplomacy) words for him, but they did as well for Videla and we never actively supported them. It seems to me like this was just a plan formulated by Montt to cleanse the guerrillas and he probably acted on his own initiative -- the U.S. didn't try to restore him to power after he was deposed in 1983. J. Parker Stone 02:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll assert again: after extensive research in the appropriate data repositories, I don't believe there's any evidence he participated in the 1954 coup, period -- he was a junior officer assigned to a barracks out of the action. Meanwhile there's been scant attention paid to his 1960s training by the US (not at the SOA, at the special forces school) and at the Italian West Point. Surely that's more relevant, no matter which side you're on. I think the SOA is a complete red herring disrupting this article. But that's just me, apparently. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you're a brave man, taking on Ríos Montt and Fujimori in the same week... Just one comment: my understanding was that the disqualification from seeking the presidency did only apply to those who had come to power through "breaking the constitutional order" -- dictators and golpistas and the like. Take a look at Art 186 of the constitution here. There's a fair dollop of background chisme here, too, if you're in the mood. Enjoy, –Hajor 03:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that FRG is right wing. I think they see themselves as left-wing, and right-wing is not an adequate description of them. The riots section was chaos. It was chronologically not in order, and there werte 2 separate pieces about it that were saying exactly the same thing. I have repaired this, and generally got everything in the right order, but I fear it needs a lot more work, especially on the development of the FRG, undoubtedly his greatest achievement.--SqueakBox 17:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

The bit about blaming leftist Catholic priests for his election defeat does not fit in with him having lost to a right wing candidate. left it for the moment but any suggestions? --SqueakBox 22:21, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * It actually does. It only fails to make sense if you expect to find the left-right 'specturm' of the rich Western democracies, but Central American politics does not really fit this pattern so easily. 172 12:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with you that Central American and especially Guatemalan politics doesn't fit well into the left-right 'specturm' of the rich Western democracies, and I have removed (a while back) many of what I saw as western assumptions about Rios and Guatemala that were in the article. You haven't explained how this particular statement can be written to make sense as I think we should assume the average reader doesn't really understand CA politics, and especially Guatemalan politics, ie we need to explain ourselves more clearly than would be the case say dealing with US or UK politics, SqueakBox 16:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

For the moment I have left the stuff about the civil war post Montt, but, like Plan de Sánchez massacre it is in the wrong place. I think these (all good) materials need moving to an article on the civil war, and have plans to create such an article, which could incorporate a lot of material that doesn't seem to be anywhere, like the peace accords. It is important to differetiate between Montt and the civil war to avoid POV; he wasn't solely responsible. --SqueakBox 14:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Foreign names
What is the wikipolicy on articles with accents and such? Since this is the English wikiversion shouldn't we omit the accents in the title and include them in the text (see: Jorge Rafael Videla)?

New edits
And there was me thinking 172 maybe knew something about Guatemalan politics. I feel he has just been reverting the work of monthds of editing to his version, with some very traditional western ideas about Guatemala, and an obsession with condemning Rios Montt, centring the article on western ideas about him. I fel very angry that my edits have just been reverted with no attempt at justification, other than an insinuation that I don't understand Guatemalan politics, and my name stuck on an edit summary. How long have you spent in Guatemala? I do not appreciate 172 just reverting to a very old version of his, as if none of my edits have any importance. I also feel the version I have reverted to is a great deal more neutral and balanced than 172's. my only otherr option would have been to edit sentence by sentence, removing the repetitions that 172 has reput in and which I had already. For instance  Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history. was followed by  was among the bloodiest strongmen in Latin American history. in the next sentence. And I had already got rid of these kind of repetitions. The vast tract about his alleged war crimes dominating the opening had also been removed as inappropriate, POV, and American centred (this is an article about a Chapin). I don't like Rios, but I don't let that affect my editing, whereas I feel 172's dislike of Rios dominates the version I have just reverted, and which I had removed over many edits. He also reverted my piece, which I justified on this page, with him claiming that the majority of Rios supporters are Ladinos, but 172 decided to revert this without explanation. Anyone who knows much about Guatemalan politics knows this is simply not true. it is the campesinos who have been a great block of support for Rios Montt. My sources for this are Guatemalan newspapers, and the election results from Nov 2003, with the strongest support in Quetzaltenango and Huehuetenango, the indigenous strongholds. It may be an unpalatable fact but it doesn't make it less real, SqueakBox 17:31, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed that you are able to launch such a devastating attack based solely on one ambiguous wording concerning the Ladinos and a couple of other phrasings that are just matters of style... Even so, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and text will be scuttled around a lot over the course of many revisions, often with mistakes like duplications of text from time to time... Regarding the substantive points, first, I did not originally add the reference to the Ladinos in the intro, and I must have been failing to notice it. So thank you for pointing it out. In my last edit I clarified the wording. Second, you are not telling me anything new about his support among certain sectors of the campesinos. He won this support through old-style patrimonialism and paternalism, which is certainly clear enough in the section on fusiles y frijoles. Thus I reject your charge that I misunderstand the diverse class make-up of his base of support. 172 19:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, First, I see no mention of your name in the recent page history, only Trey Stone. To what are you referring? Second, if you disagree with his edits, let's go through them one by one. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Intro
His version:
 * ''José Efraín Ríos Montt (born June 16, 1926 in Huehuetenango, Guatemala) is a former President of Guatemala and former president of the Congress of Guatemala. In 2003, as the candidate of the ruling right-wing Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG), he made a failed attempt to be elected president.

Your version:
 * ''José Efraín Ríos Montt (born June 16, 1926 in Huehuetenango, Guatemala) is the former President of Guatemala (1982-83) and former head of the National Congress. In 1989, he founded the Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG) party, and was its candidate in the presidential elections of 2003, but he failed to reach the second round.

Commments
 * I prefer your text but would add his "ruling rightwing". -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to have right wing. FRG's message is of a left wing ideology: to some extent rob from the rich to give to the poor. While Montt's presidency can be characterised as right wing one, he has right wing links, and is clearly not seen as of the left by the international left, FRG were pure left wing rhetoric. So I think it is best not to label the government either left or right wing. SqueakBox 18:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, Montt was somewhat critical of the austerity regime of much of the 1990s, but he was a critic of these neoliberal reforms from the right. By your reasoning, economic nationalists who project a kind of populist tone like Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen would be espousing a "leftwing ideology." 172 19:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

His version:
 * Ríos Montt is best known for heading a military regime (1982–1983) and presiding over some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala's 36-year civil war, which ended with a peace treaty in 1996. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the Army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos ''caught in the crossfire. Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history.
 * ''Ríos Montt, popularly known as "the general," remains one of the most controversial figures in Guatemalan history. Regarded by many as a genocidal neo-fascist, the former military ruler is seen by his supporters, mostly the ladino minority, as a strong leader capable of restoring order to this turbulent nation. The Mayan Indian population suffered greatly under his rule. It is not unlikely that his government deliberately targeted Mayans under the pretext of pursuing guerrillas, a modern expression of deep-seated racism against the native population. Guatemala's highest court, which recently had several judges appointed from Ríos Montt's political party, approved his candidacy for president, ostensibly ignoring a constitutional ban against former dictators running for president. Nonetheless, despite widespread intimidation, violence and fraud during the campaign, including the deaths of 30 political opponents, Ríos Montt lost the 2004 presidential election

Your version:
 * A staunch anti-Communist popularly known as El general'', he is one of the most controversial figures in Guatemalan history. Regarded by many as a genocidal neo-fascist and among the bloodiest strongmen in modern Latin American history, he is seen by his supporters as a strong leader committed to democracy and capable of restoring order to the country.

Commments
 * His has much valuable information, but the second half of his second paragraph could use some trimming; I would move the last two sentences, about the 2004 (sic) election, the body of the article. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the bit about the support being from the ladino majority as exactly the opposite of the truth. He had least support in the ladino heartland (Guatemala City) and the most in the campsesino strongholds of Quetzaltenango and Huehuetenango, ironically amongst those who suffered the most from his earlier slaughters. Even his staunchest adversaries such as El Periodico agree with me on this, and indeed partly opposed the FRG because they saw it as essentially anti big business. as a strong leader capable of restoring order to this turbulent nation is fine, maybe someone else had removed that, i thought I had kept it in as clearly it is true. indeed much content should be in there, and was almost certainly not removed by me, though I did edit substantially the version that 172 has now restored, as if my contributions did not exist, SqueakBox 18:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your point concerning the Ladinos is addressed above. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Body
His version:
 * The general's ties with the United States military go back fifty years when he received training by the Pentagon. In 1950 Ríos Montt graduated as a cadet at the School of the Americas in Panama, which at the time educated students in counterinsurgency tactics for the purposes of combatting potential "communist" influence in the region.

Your version:
 * Ríos Montt entered the Military Academy of Guatemala'' in 1943 before receiving training by the US Pentagon, graduating as a cadet at the School of the Americas at Fort Gulick in Panama, which at the time educated students in jungle warfare tactics for the purposes of combating perceived communist influence in the region.

Commments Okay, Trey has also been in here changing a lot. It feels between the 2 of them my edits have been destroyed. i will probably rewrite the whole thing now, SqueakBox 18:36, May 27, 2005 (UTC) The focus on counterinsurgency did not come until JFK. J. Parker Stone 04:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "counterinsurgency tactics" is certainly more accurate than "jungle warfare tactics". -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't take it personally. Sorry, but by mistake I removed a couple of your edits, which is no big deal. It takes seconds to restore content. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

His version:
 * ''In 1954, the young officer played a minor role in the successful CIA-organized coup against Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, who was widely regarded as a communist in Washington. Arbenz had legalized the Communist Guatemalan Labor Party and was nationalizing lands owned by the United Fruit Company in which U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was personally invested.

Your version:
 * ''In 1954, the young officer played a minor role in Operation PBSUCCESS successful CIA-organized coup against left-wing Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, after which Ríos Montt steadily rose through the military ranks.

Commments
 * His version offers some vital information, notably the conception that Arbenz was considered a communist in Washington and the United Fruit matter. Conversial? I don't think so.-- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

His version:
 * ''Following the coup, Ríos Montt's rise in the ruling military junta was steady and almost unimpeded. In 1970, under President Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio, he became a general and chief of staff for the Guatemalan army, which suppressed peasant uprisings and served as armed guards for landowning oligarchs.
 * In 1973, he resigned from his post in the Washington embassy to participate in the March 1974 presidential elections as candidate for the National Opposition Front'' (FNO). His career suffered a minor setback in that year when his apparent victory in the presidential election was invalidated and the presidency went to Kjell Eugenio Laugerud García. Ríos Montt apparently blamed his defeat on Guatemala's Catholic priests, who had questioned the mistreatment of the Catholic Mayas, and claimed that the priests were leftist agents.

Your version:

 * In 1970, he became a general and chief of staff for the Guatemalan army in the government of Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio. In 1973, he resigned from his post in the Washington embassy to participate in the March 1974 presidential elections as candidate for the National Opposition Front'' (FNO), a centre-left grouping. He lost the election to the right-wing Kjell Eugenio Laugerud García by 70,000 votes. He denounced a massive electoral fraud, blaming Catholic priests who had questioned the mistreatment of the Catholic Mayans, and claimed that the priests were leftist agents. It is claimed that he was given a payoff of several hundred thousand dollars along with a post as military attaché in the embassy in Madrid, Spain, where he stayed until 1977.

Commments
 * Is it debable whether the army protected the interests of the landowners? I would merge line that into your text. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why has 172 removed the bit about the stash of money and being in Madrid? The first a common belief, the second a matter of public fact, SqueakBox 18:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Already answered this question. That sentence was removed by accident. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

His version:

 * ''Given Montt's staunch anticommunism and ties to the United States, the Reagan administration continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982. During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Rios Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."1

Your version:

 * ''The United States administration of Ronald Reagan resumed military aid to Guatemala, cut off in 1977 by the Carter administration. Given Montt's background, they continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982. During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Rios Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."1

Commments I prefer mine but will leave 172's, SqueakBox 19:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Stylistically prefer 172's version, but I would tweak it slightly and incorporate your comment about the Carter cutoff. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd include the comment about the Carter cutoff too. I did not intend to remove it. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

His version:
 * ''Reagan later agreed in January 1983 to sell Guatemala millions of dollars worth of helicopter spare parts, a decision that did not require approval from Congress. In turn, Guatemala was eager to resurrect the Central American Defense Council, defunct since 1969, in order to join forces with the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Honduras in retaliations against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Your version:

 * ''The US agreed in January 1983 to sell Guatemala helicopter spare parts. In turn, Guatemala was eager to resurrect the Central American Defense Council, defunct since 1969, in order to join forces with the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Honduras against the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Commments I suspect POV but will leave for now, SqueakBox 19:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * His version supplies more information and is preferable. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, the U.S. has long been a major actor in Central American politics. The Cold War is over, so there is no reason for you to feel threatened by not sweeping this this reality under the rug. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

His version:
 * ''Guatemalan campaigners on behalf of Maya survivors of Guatemala's civil war, such as Nobel laureate and Mayan human rights advocate Rigoberta Menchú, were stunned in March 1999 when U.S. President Bill Clinton apologized for the United States support of Ríos Montt's regime. Clinton declared: "For the United States, it is important I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong and the United States must not repeat that mistake."

Commments I will revert to 172 except opening paragraph and rewite, SqueakBox 18:36, May 27, 2005 (UTC) Was already here. 172 duplicated. I think it better where I put it for chronological reasons, SqueakBox 19:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would reword this slightly, but I think it should be included, though its location could be dabated. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph that 172 duplicated (please take care when editing, I had moved not removed that paragraph but moved it (for chronlogical purposes), and mostly replace my version of the In 1970....until 1977 paragraph as well as reverting the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph may still cause controversy. please source your claim that FRG support is mostly amongst Ladinos, as I would be interested to see any such claims. Also source the claim that it is a right wing government. Many thanks to Viajero for attempting to mediate, and now we have to wait to see what 172 thinks, SqueakBox 19:07, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already responded to both of these points. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * According to his user page, 172 doesn't edit here regularly, so we will have to proceed without him. -- Viajero | Talk 19:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well lets see what Trey does? I will, anyway, keep my eye more closely on this page. Indeed I only checked out what was happening after seeing my name in 172's edit summary on this talk page in my watchlist. I am happy with the current version without agreeing with every last sentence, which is the nature of collaborative editing, never the easiest thing, but very much a aprt of the challenge of being here, SqueakBox 19:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Edit war
It appears 172 justt wnats to revert my work without explanation. he only wants to tolerate his version, removing facts and anything that contradicts his POV obsession against Rios Montt. Source his unimpeded rise to power. Source he didn't go to Madrid in 74, etc. use theis page to express your points, don't ignore the hard work being done here, SqueakBox 19:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to compare versions? I restored the damn reference to Madrid in '74-- hardly anything to get riled up about anyway. 172 19:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Pretty poor excuse for the inaccuracies you are putting. Why not revert to the fantasy that there was an election in 2004, one could argue, but I won't, SqueakBox 20:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Opps. Well, I should not have skimmed through the version of the intro that I'd restored so fast and I should increase the size of the text on my browser. Sorry. 172 20:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(put in before last comment (edit conflict):
 * Why did you remove the bit about being in Madrid again, then claimedhere that you hadn't. I have put it in again now, yes I know about diffs and lots about wikipedia. can you stop cussing? Can you stop reverting my edits on sight? Why revert to the untruth that the election was in 2004? Why not just accept that I can edit this piece too. it seems I am trying to reach a compromise and you are not, SqueakBox 20:18, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Get a grip man. If I ever removed the bit about Madrid, it was by accident. If I removed it, sorry that that cost you-- I guess 10?-- seconds to restore. If that's the worst fate you suffer today, consider yourself lucky. 172 23:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Madrid twice, 2004 election twice, duplicated text, reverting updated material back to a 2003 version of the Supreme Court decision,the list goes on of your bad edits due to your edit warring, and then you have the audacity to tell me to get a grip. Please apologise for such an aggressive and unfounded srtatement. I don't need this harrassment, SqueakBox 00:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I won't. You have been failing to assume good faith consistently, and your overblown responses to a few little mistakes that took seconds to fix are worse than my silly little errors, in terms of poisoning the atmosphere. I still recommend getting a grip. 172 12:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove the NPOV notice without satisfying me the article is not NPOV. That you see your reverted version as NPOV is totally irrelevant. I have been updating info that ppears to have been written in 2003, but 172 just reverts, obsessed with his own POV and getting his own way. What you call mistakes in editing (eg duplication amongst others) could just be considered sloppy and lazy editing from someone who seems incredibly angry that anyone has dared to change this article in the last few months, and is determined to impose his POV with a series of edit wars, reverting my edits without reason or justification, and completely ignoring Viajero's attempts at mediation or my attempts at compromise. his snide assumptions that I know nothing about either Wikipeida or Guatemala are a veiled personalk attack, SqueakBox 20:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 20:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I responded to all of your substantive points concerning the content, as far as I'm aware. Perhaps I'm overlooking something on this page, as the dialogue is getting a bit confusing to keep track of, but I cannot find a basis for a neutrality dispute. Please clarify what is bothering you. 172 23:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Telling me to get a grip is just more insults. That you kept reverting a lot of my material is what I have the problem with. You removed the Madrid bit twice, you duplicated a paragraph, you twice falsely put about an imaginary 2004 Presidential election while claiming to know all about Guatemalan subtle politics, you reverted my updates back to text that appeared as if 2003 was still with us, are 4 examples of what I consider your hurried and unthought out reversions. With your mass changing of the article, reverting again and again while adopting an intimidating approach have made me put the NPOV sticker on the article until others can get a look at it. You still haven't made any effort to explain your massive changes. Then you have the cheek to tell me to get a grip. Please can you change your attitude into a less aggressive and rude and arrogant one, SqueakBox 23:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Again, this isn't telling me anything new. Yes, however many times this makes it, I admit to making a few careless mistakes. But we all make mistakes, and there's no reason to still be ranting about them after a day. I stumble across errors in work of mine that has been published all the time-- even when there have been other editors; and that's paper, not Wikipedia, so these mistakes cannot be corrected... Now, rants aside, can you please finally explain the specific problems you have with the text as it stands now? 172 12:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If you had made genuine mistakes I would be sympathetic. I think you were reverting my material without even looking at it, and I have no sympathy for that, SqueakBox 16:03, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I did check to see if there was new material. I kept almost all of it, but must have overlooked a couple of those additions by accident. That was nothing personal against you. In fact, I didn't even remember interacting with you before I'd Wikipedia in early March... Now, again, can you please tell me what kinds of problems you have with the current version of the article instead of keeping up with that chip on your shoulders? 172 19:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I note you were up in front of the arbcom for exactly the behaviour I am complaining about. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, that is your imagination. I think the opening is way too long, should not be more than 2 paragraphs at the most. Otherwise I am ironing out any problems now that you have slowed down on the edit warring, but it is too American rather Guatemalan centred and still has an anti Montt POV (not entirely your edits by any means), and they don't help create a more NPOV piece, SqueakBox 19:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * What you bring up is irrelevant mud-slinging. Now, again, for third time, what are the specific problems you have with the version as it stands now? Quit trying to make me the issue. 172 19:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

POV
Will you please leave the NPOV template alone. I am not satisfied the conflict has been resolved. You want both your own version and for it to appear to be NPOV, having your cake and eating it. This kind of offensive behaviour is clearly not new with you, and I don't believe an Rfc is out of the question, given your history, if this behaviour continues, SqueakBox 19:31, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as I feel unable to edit freely you are the problem. You revert virtually all my edits without explanation, SqueakBox 19:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I keep on removing the NPOV notice because you ignore me otherwise. You still haven't told me the specific problems you have with the version as it stands right now, even though I have asked you more times than I can even recall. Regarding the Rfc, if you want to waste your time, go ahead. I could care less. I'm not even going to be editing Wikipedia once I'm done dealing with you on this article. Also, a reasonable person who reads our dialogue will have a much different take on things. You have been all over my case for nothing from the beginning, not the other way around. 172 19:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the evidence shows you have been attacking me from the start, and behaving in an unreasonable fashion. your professional work excuse is pathetic. we don't get paid here, thus i for one will not put up with the sort of crap that i would while working when i am here. i have told you that i think the article is too anti Montt and too American centred, but more deeply i don't feel free to edit, therefore there is a conflict. Why do you seem incapable of respecting my judgement on this? What exactly do you mean by dealing with me? being so unpleasant that I decide to leave wikipedia? (after all you admit the rules don't apply to you. Are you just trolling? SqueakBox 20:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying that you feel that the article is too 'anti-Montt' and 'U.S.-centered' does not suffice as an explanation. This tells us about you, but not the article. Your point on 'U.S.-centrism' is hard to justify. The U.S. was a major actor in Guatemalan politics throughout the twentieth century. Montt's career has closely followed his ties with the U.S... I am willing to consider your first point. You will have to explain what kind of omissions that you think you notice, or why you find certain coverage skewed. 172 21:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the current version of the second half of the intro:

 * ''José Efraín Ríos Montt (born 16 June 1926 in Huehuetenango, Guatemala) is a former President of Guatemala and former president of the Congress of Guatemala. In 2003, as the candidate of the ruling Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG), he made a failed attempt to be elected president. Human-rights groups claim that Ríos Montt, a staunch anticommunist who has had ties to the United States for over five decades (via the Pentagon's School of the Americas), the CIA, presidential administrations, and the evangelical religious right), was among the bloodiest strongmen in Latin American history.

 * ''Best known outside Guatemala for heading a military regime (1982–1983) which presided over some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala's 36-year civil war, which ended with a peace treaty in 1996. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos caught in the crossfire when not deliberately targeted. Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history.

 * ''Popularly known as "the general," Ríos Montt remains one of the most controversial figures in Guatemalan history. Regarded by his opponents as a genocidal neo-fascist, the former military ruler is seen by his supporters as a strong leader capable of restoring order, justice and equality to this turbulent nation. Some sectors of the indigenous Mayan population suffered greatly under his rule, and it is not unlikely that his government deliberately targeted some of them under the pretext of pursuing guerrillas, a modern expression of racism against the native population. However, many segments of the indigenous population still support Ríos Montt and the FRG, partly explained by his long history of supporting public works projects, offers of free fertilizer in rural areas, and compensation for the Self Defense Civil Patrols (PAC), which were used by the government in their fight against the guerrillas. It has also been pointed out that the Mayans support for Ríos Montt is indicative of the success of the eighties extermination campaaigns, with all the natural opponents of the FRG having been massacred.

 * ''Guatemala's highest court, which had had several judges appointed from the FRG, approved his candidacy for president in July 2003, ostensibly ignoring a constitutional ban against former dictators running for president, which had prevented him from standing at earlier Presidential elections, and which he claimed had been written specifically to prevent him from standing. Nonetheless, despite widespread intimidation, violence and fraud during the campaign, including the deaths of 30 political opponents, Ríos Montt lost the 2003 presidential election.

It is a little long for my tastes. On the other hand, there is much useful information here. Here is my attempt consolidate it slightly:

 * José Efraín Ríos Montt (born June 16, 1926 in Huehuetenango, Guatemala) is a former President of Guatemala and former president of the Congress of Guatemala. In the 2003 presidential elections, he ran an unsuccesful candidate of the ruling Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG), despite a constitutional ban against former dictators running for president,

 * Popularly known as "the general," Ríos Montt remains one of the most controversial figures in Guatemalan history. Regarded by his opponents as a genocidal neo-fascist, the former military ruler is seen by his supporters as a strong leader capable of restoring order, justice and equality to this turbulent nation. Human-rights groups claim that Ríos Montt, a staunch anticommunist who has had ties to the United States for over five decades (via the Pentagon's School of the Americas), the CIA, presidential administrations, and the evangelical religious right), has been among the bloodiest strongmen in Latin American history.

 * Ríos Montt is best known outside Guatemala for heading a military regime (1982–1983) which presided over some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala's 36-year civil war, finally ended with a peace treaty in 1996. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos caught in the crossfire when not deliberately targeted. Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history.

 * Some sectors of the indigenous Mayan population suffered greatly under his rule, and it is thought that his government deliberately targeted some of them under the pretext of pursuing guerrillas, a modern expression of racism against the native population. However, many segments of the indigenous population still support Ríos Montt and the FRG, partly explained by his long history of supporting public works projects, offers of free fertilizer in rural areas, and compensation for the Self Defense Civil Patrols (PAC), which were used by the government in their fight against the guerrillas.

I have removed these lines:

 * It has also been pointed out that the Mayans support for Ríos Montt is indicative of the success of the eighties extermination campaaigns, with all the natural opponents of the FRG having been massacred.

 * Guatemala's highest court, which had had several judges appointed from the FRG, approved his candidacy for president in July 2003, ostensibly ignoring a constitutional ban against former dictators running for president, which had prevented him from standing at earlier Presidential elections, and which he claimed had been written specifically to prevent him from standing. Nonetheless, despite widespread intimidation, violence and fraud during the campaign, including the deaths of 30 political opponents, Ríos Montt lost the 2003 presidential election.

Can these be incorporated in the main body of the text or should they been included in the intro? -- Viajero | Talk 19:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely from a stylistic perspective. Please make the changes that you are proposing. 172 19:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Call me craazy is a personal attack. please withdraw it, or I will be unable to engage in any serious debat about rios with you, Viajero, I am happy with your proposed edits. i do not understand your reticence to have the NPOV tag, this is not an aggressive statement. Even you admit there is a conflict. As an ex admin you know full well that saying you are about to leave is no excuse for the way you behave now, SqueakBox 20:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not call you "crazy"; my comment referred to other comments... I still fail to see a reason for the NPOV tag. It is apparent that you dislike me. I don't care about that, so in that respect there really isn't a conflict. However, I do care to find out what you dislike about the current version of the article. I assmume that you are currently dissatisfied with it, given your insistence on adding the POV tag. 172 21:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Why the POV template?
I don't know you, 172, so I wouldn't go so far as to say I dislike you (there is only one editor I dislike at wikipedia). I can also see that you are informed about Guatemala. So these are the main reasons I think the article is POV:

Human-rights groups claim that Ríos Montt, a staunch anticommunist who has had ties to the United States for over five decades (via the Pentagon's School of the Americas), the CIA, presidential administrations, and the evangelical religious right), has been among the bloodiest strongmen in Latin American history. should not be in the second paragraph, or anywhere in the opening: it makes the article American centred and is POV against him: too much anti and not enough pro for NPOV.
 * This sentence is about Rios Montt and his ties to the U.S., not the U.S... Thinking in terms of 'pro' and 'anti' is a far too simplistic rubric when dealing with history. But even if you insist on it, his support among some sectors of the Guatemalan population is mentioned later in the intro. 172 22:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

''Ríos Montt is best known outside Guatemala for heading a military regime (1982–1983) which presided over some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala's 36-year civil war, finally ended with a peace treaty in 1996. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos caught in the crossfire. Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history.''

''Some sectors of the indigenous Mayan population suffered greatly under his rule, and it is thought that his government deliberately targeted some of them under the pretext of pursuing guerrillas, a modern expression of racism against the native population. However, many segments of the indigenous population still support Ríos Montt and the FRG, partly explained by his long history of supporting public works projects, offers of free fertilizer in rural areas, and compensation for the Self Defense Civil Patrols (PAC), which were used by the government in their fight against the guerrillas.''

 * suffers from the same problems apart from the American centredness. It should be out of the opening paragraphs, and balanced with some much more positive appraisals of his life. I believe we need a smaller more neutral opening. That is what I had created months ago, after you left, and which you reverted yesterday morning, and which we got into an edit war over yesterday.
 * The "positive appraisals" are in the intro already. It makes it the are two sides to Rios Montt, the carrot and the stick (or better yet bullets and beans), just like any dictator. 172 22:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not happy with which suppressed peasant uprisings and served as armed guards for landowning oligarchs as it seems very POV, quite speculative, and anyway irrelevant, especially in an article that tends to be POV against him (he may deserve to have a POV article against him, but our responsibility os POV).
 * The problem with your argument is that the claim is accurate. However, if it makes you feel better, I won't care if you change "landed oligarchs" to (say) "landlords." 172 22:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC).
 * Well I doubt the Guatemalan army would agree with you. But that something is true is obviously not a good reason to include it, and my problem with this is not the wording, or the truth or otherwise of the statement, it is that it shouldn't be here at all, ie delete it, I say, as inappropriate and POV (just giving one side of the argument), SqueakBox 22:32, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * You will need to provide some credible evidence for claiming that it is untrue to back up your claim. Otherwise, it much stay, as it is important for understanding the nature of the factional divides during the era in which he was in power. 172 22:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing the factual accuracy but the relevance of this comment re 1973, 9 yeasrs before he was in power. If we were talking about when he was in power I would agree, and it is because we are talking 9 years earlier that i think it is POV and should be removed, as we have no idea of to what extent he was involved in army abuses at that time, and there is no need to build up the picture of an army he wasn't even in charge of, SqueakBox 22:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * It does relate to the period in which he was in power, as it is important for understanding the role of the military, which he would later head, in the civil war and its relationship with other factions in the conflict. Frankly, it would be highly unusual for an article on Guatemalan politics not to bring up the historic concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of landowning familes and multinational corporations. This is the only place in the article where this is alluded to, as far as I'm aware, so it is particularly important that it stay. 172 23:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No. I agree that we need to place somewhere about the role of the military in the conflict, ideally by using the events of 82-83, when he was in power, and doing so in a fair manner, and both remembering and mentioning that the FRG are bitterly opposed to the concentration of power in the hands of the oligarchy and multi national corporations, which is why they cannot be compared to the people you alluded to earlier, ie they have real elements of a left wing party. But it shouldn't be mentioned in connection with 73 as until he stood for president in that year we are dealing with an unimportant part of his career. I also think Montt's denial of knowledge of the massacres in 82-83 could go in hte opening if you insist on having such a long one, SqueakBox 23:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your observations concerning the rhetoric of the FRG through the 1990s and in recent years do not refute my point. My point was on the military's role in the conflict, which is a different institutional base from Rio Montt's party. 172 00:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

How about that to be getting on with. Until these issues get resolved, and basically the opening paragraph issues, I want the template to remain please, SqueakBox 22:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * Two comments:
 * "American centredness"? Heh? How is it possible to write about any Central American country in the 20th C without taking into account the signficant influence of the US? You know, our little patio atrás? It would be like writing about Eastern Europe while ignoring the USSR.
 * "and balanced with some much more positive appraisals of his life". This is the ping-pong approach. Say some good, say some bad. Sorry, completely disagree. Some (many?) politicians have done more bad than good, and it is not for Wikipedia to gloss this over with a contrived sense of "balance".
 * --Viajero | Talk 22:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In Guatemala Rios is a controversial figure, so good or bad aren't terms that could be used to describe him in the way they could with Hitler (who gets a notorious whitewash in wikipedia anyway). i think my feeling of American centred comes from this feeling that the outside world tends to see him as a bit of a baddy (American centredness, or whatever you want to call it) whereas in Guatemala he is seen as a much more controversial figure, with many supporters, especially amongst the poor, to whom he appeals with his rob the rich rhetoric (or this was certainly the case when I was last there 18 months ago, SqueakBox 23:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, the article makes it clear that he has some supports in the indigenous communities, as it should. That said, this observation is absolutely no reason to omit important content concerning his ties to the U.S. 172 00:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting we remove the 3 lower opening paragraphs in the intro, only that we move them and their content to lower down in the article. Certainly we should include the US links, which are well known through his evangelical beliefs.
 * His ties to the U.S. are essential for understanding the patterns of his career, and the article should not fail to mention them in the intro. Failing to mention U.S. involvement would be tantamount to failing to mention Soviet involvement in (say) the Husak and Kadar articles. 172 09:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we should mention the army role in repression, but in relation to 82/83 not to 73.
 * No, he was an army officer in for decades before the coup. 172 09:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe we could present his support in Guatemala in a much better light than the grudging way we do so right now placing the positive bits right at the bottom of the opening, and after having made clear what a monster he is considered. I don't consider this fair treatment. This is not my idea of POV, and I had tried to get all this out of the opening before your return, and still believe that lower down is where the last 3 and a half paragraphs of the opening deserve to be, SqueakBox 01:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for thinking of leaders as "good" or "bad." The article should report the essential facets of his career, tracing his consolidation and loss of power over time, without making value judgments, avoiding what Viajero just called a "ping pong" approach. However, if you can present important, verifiable data that has been omitted but should not be, as opposed to a vague feeling that the article ought to be more of a whitewash, I will be interested in considering such evidence. 172 09:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I also believe that if instead of reverting in the first place you had rewritten the article I would have a better opinion of you and your good faith. I believe you thought it was all the work of Trey Stone (based on your edit summaries) and so reverted chunks without consideration and with plenty of aggressive attitude, and that is why I have been very unhappy with your behaviour, SqueakBox 01:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, in the same sense that the personal impression that I have been getting of you has nothing to do with the content of the article. Focus just on the specifics of the article, then there will be no personal tensions. 172 09:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Impossible, I am afraid. You have done here what the arbcom censored you for before, ie edit warring and rudeness. Using your normal tactics you have made the atmosphere here so unpleasant I feel I cannot edit freely, therefore I have no option but to put the NPOV template on the article. Your attitude towards me has also deeply affected this process, so those feelings of yours are highly relevant. Are you really unaware of how much affect your feelings translated into your actions have on others? Why not wait and let things calm down? SqueakBox 16:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * You cannot support placing a NPOV template in an article based on your personal dislike of an editor. The NPOV templates refer to articles, not individual editors. In the meantime, I will ignore the brow-beating and focus on the specifics of the article, until a satisfactory version of the article can remain stable, without a flag discrediting it. 172 03:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have told you I want the NPOV because of the current opening and the inclusion of a very loaded and irrelevant statement in relation to 73. i notice you have stopped edit warring on sight. Maybe because you actually are finally taking the time to read what I write. but by removing the template without satisfying my points all i can assume is that you weant a fight, ie continuing to make editing here as unpleasant as possible. And then you have the cheek to go complaining about me. Why don't you calm down, and replace the NPOV template that I am asking you to replace, SqueakBox 04:44, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made arguments that the points that I have restored in the opening, along with the statement on 1973, are relevant, and you have failed to provide counterarguments dealing with my points, as opposed to attacking me. In addition, Viajero has also come out in favor of restoring those points in the intro; so if you want to look at this matter as a vote, it's not at two to one. That's why the POV template was removed. 172 05:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is why I said lets wait a few days. Two against one signifies a dispute. Your version because you are in the majority, my template to flag a dispute and guide readers to the talk page, they can think about the issue and contribute. i cannot understand your opposition to an NPOV template. As I said before, it seems like you want your cake and eat it too, o sea you want your own way, SqueakBox 05:14, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not say that because I was in a majority, my version should stand without an NPOV tag. (I brought that up as evidence that browbeating me does not detract from the merits of my edits, as they are also supported by a user whose reputation you do not attack (Viajero). Rather, I am saying that my version should stand, without the POV template, if and until you explain your counterarguments to my points and Viajero's. As for waiting for you for a few days, I am willing to do this, but I was ready to consider and respond to your points right away, making the present version the one that has been explained (and thus the one that ought to be posted). 172 06:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt/Archive 7


text:
Mara River (Nunavut)

The Mara River is a river in Nunavut which flows into the Burnside River to empty into Bathurst Inlet on the Arctic Ocean. It flows north from headwaters at Nose Lake and is 260 km long.

title: Mara River (Nunavut)


text:
Talk:Hieratic

--

What is the DIRECTION of writing? right to left? left to right? vertical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.247.24 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Changes
Re: standardisation of horizontal writing. "This may have been to prevent the scribe's hand from smudging his work (1), but it also may have been to facilitate easier consultation of a rolled document, as well as increasing writing speed (2)."

Argument: Author makes invalid speculation (1) and (2). Proposed action: Delete this line.

1. Smudging of work has nothing to do with vertical or horizontal scripting. It is caused by the direction of the script between left and right conflicting with the hand used by the writer. It will happen in all forms of writing where the stylus is grasped close to the page and this conflict occurs. A typical example occurs in classrooms (left > right script) when a left-handed person writes English in pen and smudges their work. If the same person wrote in vertical script their writing would still smudge unless the ink dried rapidly because the columns still would run left>right and the writing hand would still brush over the existing writing. Smudging would similarly occur if a right handed person wrote right>left either horizontally or vertically without due care.

2. The author's argument is only true if a scribe using vertical script would orient their 'page' in portrait format, rather than in landscape. By changing the page layout to a (horizontally scrolling) landscape format when using vertical script, there is essentially no difference in the speed by which one may draft or consult a rolled document. This layout has the same advantages as horizontal script in a (vertically scrolling) portrait layout so long as the reader/writer is equally familiar with both. HMS DigDug (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment
Well, the article has improved a lot, but it is still "start" class. It is still missing important information, such as how the script actually records the language (how similar is it to hieroglyphics?) and the "influence" section needs to be finished. An article can only be "B" class when all but the most minute details have been included. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image removed
The image to the left indicates left-to-right writing, which seems like erroneous: the src at omniglot.com claims that Hieratic was right-to-left writing. The image is misleading, so I removed it from the article. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 10:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusing definition and interrelation with cursive hieroglyphics
This article has three major problems: These three issues mean that the article is very confusing. I would try to fix it alone but I am not an expert in this. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) it says Hieratic is primarily an Abjad, which to my mind at least is a gross oversimplification. If I understand it correctly, the Abjad component came to the fore only in the late forms of the hieratic script. I don't have a source for this other than what is implied at History of the alphabet.
 * 2) it goes to great lengths to clarify the separation from cursive hieroglyphs, despite many works defining the latter as simply "Old Hieratic" or "Archaic Heiratic" (e.g. UCL here, Georg Moller here, and a book on Abusir here)
 * 3) it is silent on the various forms of Hieratic over its long period the term is used to cover (e.g. the UCL and George Moller links above)

 * Neither am I. I looked at the relevant entries in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt: "Scripts: An Overview" by Eugene Cruz-Uribe, "Script: Hieroglyphs" by David P. Silverman, and "Scripts: Hieratic" by Edward F. Wente. They say a little about issue #3. They don't directly say that hieratic was not an abjad, but they do say that hieratic corresponded fairly closely to hieroglyphic—which means it could not have been a pure abjad, because hieroglyphic script was not.

 * As for #3, the entries are confusing. Cruz-Uribe refers to cursive hieroglyphs: "It should be noted that a sub-script known as 'cursive hieroglyphs' was used. This sub-script appears to be closely tied to hieroglyphs, but it utilizes forms that are somewhat reminiscent of Hieratic. Some scholars suggest that this script was restricted in use in official religious texts and the training of scribes. This suggestion has some merit, since this sub-script continued in use up through the New Kingdom; however, one finds examples of it in some contexts, such as graffiti, that suggest more widespread use" (vol. III, pp. 194–195). The article on hieroglyphs doesn't explicitly use the term "cursive hieroglyphs", but it says: "In addition to these three scripts [hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic], yet another variety emerged from the Middle Kingdom on; it was employed in the writing of the funerary texts that we now call Coffin Texts and the Book of Going Forth by Day (Book of the Dead). Such texts, written in ink on wooden coffins and later on papyrus rolls, are in a script that is less pictorial than hieroglyphs but maintains the latter's basic iconic features" (vol. III, p. 198).

 * The article on hieratic says at one point, "The Middle Kingdom witnessed the development of a marked distinction between the clear uncial script and the more rapidly executed cursive business hand. Under Hyksos domination, good uncial Hieratic is exhibited in the literary Papyrus Westcar and a mathematical treatise" (vol. III, p. 209). I looked up images of P. Westcar, and its text is more hieroglyph-like than the typical swooshy hieratic, but not as much as the example at cursive hieroglyphs. But a little later, the article says: "Following the Ramessid period, the split between the clear uncial Hieratic, used mainly for religious texts, and the extremely cursive script of administrative documents becomes acute, making it difficult to discern the relationship of the two scripts. Religious documents, such as the Book of Going Forth by Day, reflect a phase in which the Hieratic is clearly influenced by hieroglyphic forms—indeed, occasional signs in these texts are quite clearly hieroglyphs" (vol. III, pp. 209–210). And when I looked at images of post-Ramessid Books of the Dead, some use what look to me like cursive hieroglyphs and others use hieratic. The Book of the Dead of Pinedjem II seems to use both in different places. So cursive hieroglyphs and uncial hieratic seem to blur the boundaries between hieroglyphic and hieratic, but the OEAE articles don't explicitly say so. A. Parrot (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi A. Parrot, that's really good insight and very interesting, thank you.
 * I am in full agreement with your conclusion, which ties to the other sources I reviewed - i.e. that the boundary between cursive hieroglyphics and hieratic appears to be blurred (and possibly defined differently by different scholars), but I haven't yet seen a source which explains this clearly enough to use to clean up the article.
 * I'll keep looking. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jim in Mission (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I'm new to this so please forgive my errors; I'm of the older generation. I wanted to point out that Mr Allen's book, explains the difference between cursive hieroglyphs and hieratic very well on page 6, with illustrations which show how different they are. Hieratic is much more abstract than cursive hieroglyphs. He says, "Hieratic was written with a reed brush and ink, usually on papyrus, and always written from right to left." Thanks for all the interesting reading that you and others have provided. For free. Jim in Mission (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hieratic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009200956/http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk/archive/00001055/ to http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk/archive/00001055/

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) 02:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed "Reformed Egyptian"
I removed the link for "Reformed Egyptian" from "See Also," as this is not an actual language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasquatchwithalopecia (talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Doug Weller  talk 19:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed font section
Hello. I removed your Hieratic and Demotic (Egyptian) additions because adding an entire section describing an external link isn't acceptable Wikipedia practice. Per External links: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." I don't know if you're associated with the fonts but the sections come off as WP:PROMOTION. If these aren't your fonts (per WP:ADV), and you feel they fall under the guidelines of what can normally be linked, I suggest you add the links to the external links section as a single line, like "Free, non-Unicode Hieratic Font". DRMcCreedy (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI: This discussion has moved to Talk:Demotic (Egyptian). DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hieratic


text:
Láskanie

Láskanie ("petting") is an erotic TV show by the main Slovak private TV channel TV Markíza. It was hosted by Kyla Cole between 2003 and 2004.

title: Láskanie


text:
New Politics (1950s)

New Politics was a term used in the United States in the 1950s to denote the ascending ideology of that country's Democratic Party during that decade. It is strongly identified with Adlai Stevenson, the party's unsuccessful candidate for president in both 1952 and 1956; in each case, Stevenson lost to Republican Dwight Eisenhower.

Ideology
The domestic policies advocated by the adherents of the New Politics movement stressed strong support for civil rights legislation, while in foreign affairs the movement favored a less aggressive posture toward the Soviet Union (criticizing "Cold War liberals" within the party such as Harry Truman and Dean Acheson), prompting its critics to accuse it of being "soft on Communism."

Followers
Younger adults accounted for many of its members, and provided it with an aura of youthful vibrance — this fact leading some opponents to attempt to link it to so-called "beatniks" (that term having been coined in 1958 by San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen). However, this may not have been accurate as most of the prominent "Beat" writers of that era expressed little if any interest in electoral politics.

History
The New Politics movement threw its support behind John F. Kennedy in his successful bid for the presidency in 1960, but was not happy with Kennedy's choice of Lyndon B. Johnson as his running mate. Soon thereafter, the New Politics movement found itself eclipsed by the more strident New Left as the putative purveyor of new ideas within the Democratic Party.

title: New Politics (1950s)


text:
WBCSD

WBCSD may refer to:
 * World Business Council for Sustainable Development
 * West Bolivar Consolidated School District

title: WBCSD


text:
Star Awards 2001

Star Awards 2001 is a television awards ceremony telecast on 25 November 2001 as part of the annual Star Awards organised by MediaCorp to honour its artistes who work on MediaCorp TV Channel 8. It is the first awards ceremony presented by the newly rebranded MediaCorp (formerly the TCS). The ceremony was hosted by Timothy Chao and Chinese actress Cheng Di.

Winners and nominees
Winners are listed first, highlighted in boldface.

Ceremony
Professional and Technical Awards were presented before the main ceremony via a clip montage due to time constraints. The main awards were presented during the ceremony.

title: Star Awards 2001