text:
Gertrude (Hamlet)

In William Shakespeare's play Hamlet, Gertrude is Hamlet's mother and Queen of Denmark. Her relationship with Hamlet is somewhat turbulent, since he resents her marrying her husband's brother Claudius after he murdered the king (young Hamlet's father, King Hamlet). Gertrude reveals no guilt in her marriage with Claudius after the recent murder of her husband, and Hamlet begins to show signs of jealousy towards Claudius. According to Hamlet, she scarcely mourned her husband's death before marrying Claudius.

Her name may derive from Gertrude of Bavaria, who was Queen of Denmark in the late 12th century.

Role in the play
Gertrude is first seen in Act 1 Scene 2 as she tries to cheer Hamlet over the loss of his father, begging him to stay at home rather than going back to school in Wittenberg. Her worry over him continues into the second act, as she sides with King Claudius in sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to raise the spirits of her son. Also, rather than ascribing Hamlet's sudden madness to Ophelia's rejection (as thought by Polonius), she believes the cause to be his father, King Hamlet's death and her quick, subsequent marriage to Claudius: "I doubt it is no other but the main; His father's death and our o'erhasty marriage." In Act three, she eagerly listens to the report of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern on their attempt to cheer him, and supports the King and Polonius' plan to watch Hamlet from a hidden vantage point as he speaks with Ophelia, with the hope that her presence will heal him.

In the next act, Gertrude tells Claudius of Polonius' murder, convinced that Hamlet is truly mad. She also shows genuine compassion and affection as she watches along with others as Ophelia sings and acts in absolute madness. At Ophelia's burial, she expresses her former hope that the young woman might have married her son: "I hoped thou shouldest have been my Hamlet's wife." When Hamlet appears and grapples with Laertes, she asks him to stop and for someone to hold him back—saying that he may be in a fit of madness now, but that will alleviate soon. At the beginning of the play, Gertrude lies more with her husband than her son; however, after the closet scene the whole situation is switched.

In the final scene, Gertrude notices Hamlet is tired during the fight with Laertes, and offers to wipe his brow. She drinks a cup of poison intended for Hamlet by the King, against the King's wishes, and dies, shouting in agony as she falls:

""No, no, the drink,—O my dear Hamlet—The drink, the drink! I am poison'd.""

Other characters' views of the Queen are largely negative. When the Ghost of her former husband appears to Hamlet, he describes her as a "seeming virtuous queen", but orders Hamlet not to confront her about it and leave her judgement to heaven. However, his love for her while living was benevolent, as Hamlet states that his father would have held back the elements if they "visited her face too roughly".

Hamlet sees her as an example of the weakness of women (which affects his relationship with Ophelia) and constantly hurt in his reflections of how quickly (less than a month) she remarried.

Interpretations
There have been numerous attempts to account for Gertrude's state of mind during the play. It could be argued that as she does not confess to any sins before she dies, she did not participate in her husband's murder. However, other considerations do point to Gertrude's complicity. After repeated erratic threats towards his mother to no response, Hamlet threatens to discover the true nature of Gertrude's character by setting up a mirror, at which point she projects a killer:

HAMLET: You go not till I set you up a glass where you may see the inmost part of you.

QUEEN: What wilt thou do? Thou wilt not murder me? Help, ho!

In the 1919 essay "Hamlet and his problems" T. S. Eliot suggests that the main cause of Hamlet's internal dilemma is Gertrude's sinful behaviour. He states, "Shakespeare's Hamlet... is a play dealing with the effect of a mother's guilt upon her son."

In 1924, the social reformer Lillie Buffum Chace Wyman published a study, Gertrude of Denmark: An Interpretive Romance, an early attempt to give Gertrude's own perspective on her life and the events of the play. Wyman explicitly "interrogates the nineteenth-century cult of the self-sacrificing mother", critiquing the influence it had on interpretations of the play by both male critics and actresses playing Gertrude.

In the 1940s, Ernest Jones—a psychoanalyst and Freud's biographer—developed Freud's ideas into a series of essays that culminated in his book Hamlet and Oedipus (1949). Influenced by Jones's psychoanalytic approach, several productions have portrayed the "closet scene", where Hamlet confronts his mother in her private quarters, in a sexual light. In this reading, Hamlet is disgusted by his mother's "incestuous" relationship with Claudius while simultaneously fearful of killing him, as this would clear Hamlet's path to his mother's bed.

Carolyn Heilbrun's 1957 essay "Hamlet's Mother" defends Gertrude, arguing that the text never hints that Gertrude knew of Claudius poisoning King Hamlet. This analysis has been championed by many feminist critics. Heilbrun argued that men have for centuries completely misinterpreted Gertrude, believing what Hamlet said about her rather than the actual text of the play. By this account, no clear evidence suggests that Gertrude is an adulteress: she is merely adapting to the circumstances of her husband's death for the good of the kingdom.

Performances
Women were almost exclusively banned from appearing as actresses on the stage until approximately 1660 and in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods, troupes appeared that were composed entirely of boy players. Indeed, they are famously mentioned in Hamlet, in which a group of travelling actors has left the city due to rivalry with a troupe of "little eyases" (unfledged hawks).

Eileen Herlie portrayed Gertrude in Laurence Olivier's Hamlet.

Glenn Close played Gertrude to Mel Gibson's Prince Hamlet in Franco Zeffirelli's Hamlet.

Julie Christie appeared as Gertrude in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. Despite her classical training as an actor, it was her first venture into Shakespeare.

In Michael Almereyda's modernized Hamlet, Ethan Hawke plays Hamlet as a film student, while Diane Venora plays Gertrude, wife to the former and present CEOs of "Denmark Corporation".

Blair Brown played Gertrude in a 2000 television version starring Campbell Scott as Hamlet.

In the 2009 adaptation starring David Tennant, Gertrude is portrayed by Penny Downie.

In Ryan Imhoff's Chicago production of "The Hamlet Project", Gertrude is played by Angela Morris.

Tabu played Gertrude who was named Ghazala in the 2014 Bollywood adaptation of Hamlet, Haider.

In Heiner Müller's play Hamletmachine, Gertrude is referred to as "the bitch who bore" Hamlet.

Naomi Watts is Gertrude in Claire McCarthy's 2018 Ophelia.

Influences
Gertrude and Claudius, a John Updike novel, serves as a prequel to the events of the play. It follows Gertrude from her wedding to King Hamlet, through an affair with Claudius, and its murderous results, until the very beginning of the play. Gertrude also appears as a character in Howard Barker's Gertrude—The Cry, which uses some of the characters from Hamlet.

Hamlet has played "a relatively small role" in the appropriation of Shakespeare's plays by women writers. Margaret Atwood's "Gertrude Talks Back", in her 1992 collection of short stories Good Bones, sees the title character setting her son straight about Old Hamlet's murder: "It wasn't Claudius, darling, it was me!"

The character of Gemma Teller Morrow on the FX show Sons of Anarchy, which incorporates plot elements from Hamlet, is influenced by and shares many traits with Queen Gertrude.

title: Gertrude (Hamlet)


text: User talk:195.8.175.33

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

title: User talk:195.8.175.33


text: File:Rhapsody symphony of the enchanted lands.jpg


text:
Talk:Outline of communication

-

Simplifying this page
May I humbly suggest that this page be divided / simplified. Personally, I find the sheer number of links present a tad overwhelming. However, I'm not sure I can think of a more concise method of organization off hand. Perhaps a page that talks about theory, a page that talks about history (the current 'history of communication' page is a tad misleading as far as the academic discipline of communication), and a page that talks about communication scholars.

Suggestion
topics which will help the beginner become familiar with the field of communications. For a comprehensive list, see List of communication topics.
 * This list helps the beginner become familiar with communications as much as a list of functions helps someone learn how to program for the first time. Can we at least organize/sort the topics into more logical groupings instead of alphabetical lists? - Magic5ball 23:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Doing an online course
And in the course of my course, one of the links I was sent to was this page, from here, so just wanted to give a shout of "right on" to whoever maintains/watchs this page...congratulations on a thorough list. JamieJones talk 00:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As per the above, I would like to present the following:

JamieJones talk 03:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ocean of Links
The links in this page are like an ocean. Its very difficult to find anything. I'm going to attempt to bullet these, and possible group them further so that it is easy to read, but also not 10 pages long.Chapium 20:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Types vs Modes of communication
What distinguishes a mode of communication from a type of communication? The section on this seems to overlap.

I think this article is overly detailed. Television and radio are listed (types of Electronic Mass communication), Telephone (another form of electronic communication), etc. I think the main areas are missed in this article. This article really needs to be merged into Communication and Communication studies (unless this page serves another purpose that I am unaware of). Chapium 20:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines"
See Village pump (proposals).

The Transhumanist 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for this page and all the pages of the set this page belongs to
See the proposal at the Village pump

The Transhumanist 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for outlines
Guidelines for the development of outlines are being drafted at Outlines.

Your input and feedback is welcomed and encouraged.

The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The "History of" section needs links!
Please add some relevant links to the history section.

Links can be found in the "History of" article for this subject, in the "History of" category for this subject, or in the corresponding navigation templates. Or you could search for topics on Google - most topics turn blue when added to Wikipedia as internal links.

The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines
"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Outline of communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927224727/http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/communicating/Communicating_for_change_and_impact.doc to http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/communicating/Communicating_for_change_and_impact.doc

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Outline of human communication
User:SuggestBot pointed me towards Human communication as a page I might want to edit, which is tagged for cleanup. While a full article might be worth writing, it occurred to me that it might be a good case for an outline. It already gives a list of blue-linked topics to read for communication broken up by group type (with oneself, with multiple people, within a group, within an organization, etc), and it could be broken up in other ways similarly (mode: written, verbal, gestural, ...; intent: informative, expressive, persuasive, ...; register: formal, informal, slang, vulgarity, ...; relationship to truth: nonsense, lies, evasiveness, honesty, ...; transmission: physical writing, live speech, recorded speech, video, digital equivalents, ...; target-type: human-human, human-machine, human-animal, ...; ...) plus related topics such as translation, linguistics, the history of these various things, ... . Even in outline this might be too broad to be manageable, but perhaps with judicious links to sub-outlines it could work. Since it's such a large topic, I don't know that a prose article can reasonably work. Of course, having said that, even more expansive topics such as philosophy, art and science do have solid prose articles, so perhaps I'm just being timid. What do you think? Would your normal prescription be to aim to have both, one for encyclopedic description and the other for navigability? I don't really believe I'm qualified to do justice to either but I'm interested in learning more about the outline approach and how it slots in to other types of article writing, and this seemed like an interesting example. Mortee (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Outline of communication covers exactly what you were talking about, and so I've moved this thread to its talk page. Yes, "communication" is of wider scope than "human communication", but currently that's the only kind of communication covered by the outline.  It looks like this outline needs a section on "animal communication" and another on "automated communication".  I think those can be added without making the outline too long.  When an outline gets too long, we simply split part of it off into a new outline, per WP:SPLIT.
 * By the way, there is no subject too broad for Wikipedia to handle, in any of its root formats (prose article, outline, index, category, portal, etc.), again, due to WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY. I highly recommend working on both human communication and the outline of communication. And don't forget about telecommunication, and outline of telecommunication.
 * In answer to your question, yes, on broad subjects where there are at least 30 Wikipedia articles about the subject, I would aim to have an outline in addition to a prose article.
 * Concerning qualifications, you are eminently qualified to edit articles on any topic on Wikipedia: you know how to read and write, you are interested, and you are willing to work for free! You're hired!
 * I wrote an article recently, automatic taxonomy construction, without knowing much of anything about the subject when I started. I knew a lot more when I was done. And then an amazing thing happened: others came along and improved it. And so, it is a much better article now. It's the wiki way: collaboration.  We are all part of a big team.  As long as you don't mind others editing your work, then you'll do fine here.
 * I look forward to seeing your work on any subject you might be interested in. Have fun. The Transhumanist 05:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you; I hadn't seen the Outline of Communication page but you're correct of course that this is the right place for the dicussion. I'm still (very slowly) exploring the outline concept so wasn't sure if it currently accommodated recursion enough to handle very abstract concepts but I agree that there's no reason why it shouldn't and it doesn't need fundamental changes to allow editors to build that in. Mortee (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this triggered another thought: since outlines are in a way analagous to categories (hierarchical categorisations of information intended to aid exploration) but are clearly different in form, has there been discussion before about the idea of having a separate page-space for outlines? For a lot of abstract pages X, having a category X and an outline X both make sense. Perhaps outlines should live at Outline:x rather than trying to co-exist in the main article space with other pages that have a very different intent, style, set of policies etc. It might make sense for outlines to live in a parallel space in that way, but presumably that would require some serious buy-in from Wikimedia and their devs, which in turn would need them (outlines) to prove their worth in a substantial way as compared to other means of navigating between articles... Hmm. I'll ponder this some more. Mortee (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This idea has come up in the past, and has been discussed ad nauseam. Here are the basics as I understand them... Knowledge (the encyclopedia's content) can be formatted in two ways: as prose or lists. Lists fall under the MOS:LIST, WP:EMBED, and WP:STAND guidelines. Lists are an ecosystem of encyclopedia content, the parts of which can be embedded in articles or stand alone as articles, and include item lists, outlines, indexes, glossaries, tables, and timelines. As an ecosystem of content, lists are an integral part of the encyclopedia itself, which is why their home is the main namespace, intermixed with prose.
 * Stand-alone lists are articles, and outlines are simply branched lists. Lists of all types migrate in and out of prose articles, and item lists migrate in and out of outlines. "Outline of" articles are topic lists, and "List of" articles are item lists. Items are topics too, and so many item lists are included in outlines.  There is no difference between a "List of" article and a branch of an outline.  Outlines contain thousands of item lists.  Hundreds of item lists have been split off from outlines, and hundreds more have been merged into them.
 * Thus, Wikipedia's content is an integrated mixture of prose and lists. Portals have their own namespace because of WP:SRTA — they mix elements of the project in with encyclopedic content. Categories have their own namespace because they are auto-generated, and can't be edited directly (which makes them not articles – Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). Neither prose articles or list articles have their own namespace, because they are both encyclopedic content, and are thus both included in the main namespace, that is, in the encyclopedia itself. I hope this explanation helps. Thank you for asking. The Transhumanist 05:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was very generous of you to boil this down for me. I expected there would have been conversations before and linking to those would have been a more than adequate response; summarising them as lucidly as you have done is kind. I'll certainly look a bit more at the outlines involved here and see if I can contribute.
 * By the way, is there a manual of style for outlines? I looked briefly but didn't find one. It would be good to know if there are (or to help to develop) standards about, for example, how much they should focus on simply giving a structured list of links to other articles vs giving commentary or other linking text between those. Mortee (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, the bare vs. fleshed out issue. Initially, I thought they should be bare, but you can't stop progress on a wiki. For example, the outline department used to be called the "Basic topics lists" department, starting with between 30 and 50 pages.  It was a collection of lists of the main topics on their respective subjects.  They included maybe the 50 or so main topics for each subject. They were to complement the already existing and more general "Lists of x topics".  Well, the basics topics WikiProject became well-supported, with lots of editing going on.  Editors came on there, and just kept adding more topics. The "List of basic geography topics", for instance, grew to be hundreds and hundreds of entries long (with all the country names, every conceivable land form type, etc.). Soon, the basic topics lists were far more comprehensive than the topics lists department's lists.  It was embarrassing. And if you culled them down, they just overgrew again. You couldn't prune those trees fast enough. Not just that, this happened to all the new pages too. It became an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" situation. So, we eventually changed the department name to "Outlines", and absorbed the general topics lists into it. Now there's over 720 of them.
 * The concept of evolution and growth also applies to outlines in their current form. Annotations are a standard feature of lists.  And so there are many editors who like to add annotations.  They rarely read the outline guideline before editing outlines.  And so annotations just kept popping up.  Well, I found that the annotations help in topic selection.  So, the outlines are like a restaurant menu, and the annotations describe each dish, to help the person browsing decide which link to click on next.  Without annotations, you have to click, wait for the page to load, then you see it's not what you were looking for, then you have to backtrack, find where you were on the page, and continue your browse. That's tedious. Annotations save time. So there are very strong arguments for having and not having annotations, but based on the basic topics growth fiasco, and that all lists are allowed to have annotations, removing them like pulling weeds is probably not feasible or desirable. They've been an established feature of outlines since the beginning of Wikipedia (outlines existed on WP long before the outline department -- they just weren't called "outlines"). Some of the very best outlines are annotated, and hundreds of outlines now include annotations. Removing them would definitely be a step backwards, and would unlikely achieve consensus. So, I'm working on a script, that may eventually become a gadget, for hiding/showing annotations at the push of a button.  To enjoy the benefits of both worlds (annotated and bare).
 * By the way, guidance, instructions, and tips are presented at Outlines. Enjoy. The Transhumanist 18:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again! Mortee (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Outline of communication


text: Category:Sham Shui Po

title: Category:Sham Shui Po


text:
The Listener (magazine)

The Listener was a weekly magazine established by the BBC in January 1929 which ceased publication in 1991. The entire digitised archive was made available for purchase online to libraries, educational and research institutions in 2011.

It was first published on 16 January 1929, under the editorship of Richard S. Lambert, and was developed as a medium of record for the reproduction of broadcast talks. It also previewed major literary and musical broadcasts, reviewed new books, and printed a selected list of the more intellectual broadcasts for the coming week.

Its published aim was to be "a medium for intelligent reception of broadcast programmes by way of amplification and explanation of those features which cannot now be dealt with in the editorial columns of the Radio Times". The title reflected the fact that at the time the BBC broadcast via radio only.

(The BBC version of The Listener was preceded by another magazine with the same title which was the Journal of the Wireless League.)

The first issue was published as a four-page insert in the Wireless World magazine on 24 March 1926. The Listener was described as The Journal of the Wireless League and was edited by Prof. A. M. Low. A comment from the BBC was included: "The B.B.C. welcomes The Listener. We have always before us the need for constant progress and we gladly listen to constructive criticism and help from the large body of listeners you represent. The Listener should be a milestone in the advance of British Broadcasting."

History
The Newspaper Proprietors' Association considered its launch to be "an illegitimate stretching of official activity" and, after consultation between Reith and the Prime Minister, a number of compromises were agreed to, including an upper limit of 10% original contributed material not related to broadcasting. Another compromise was a limit to the amount of advertising it could carry.

It came to be seen as one of a trio of weekly magazines, the other two being The Spectator and the New Statesman, though it was distinguished from them by not being associated with a political party. The management of the other two magazines were occasionally critical of what they saw as the privileged financial position of their subsidised rival.

Above all, The Listener represented the BBC's cultural mission (strongly emphasised by John Reith). It gradually declined after 1960 as British society changed, the BBC became more plural, and other sources of information became more readily available.

The first editor, Richard S. Lambert, left in 1939 after successfully suing Sir Cecil Levita for slander over allegations that he was unfit for his job because of his credulity in believing in Gef, the talking mongoose.

1980s & early 1990s
Following the report of the Peacock Committee in 1986, all the BBC’s commercial activities, including The Listener, were moved into BBC Enterprises Limited. Management was now mainly answerable for the magazine’s commercial performance rather than its literary standards.

In 1987 The Listener was spun out to a new company jointly owned by the BBC and rival broadcaster ITV. Seeing The Listener’s eclecticism as a lack of focus, the new company appointed Alan Coren from Punch as editor in 1987 to try to establish a clearer identity as a humorous weekly, moving slightly away from the more intellectual and artistic aspects for which the magazine had also been known.

The attempt did not work, perhaps because the change of direction alienated subscribers who had valued the eclecticism, and the company replaced Coren with Peter Fiddick in 1989. In 1990 ITV pulled out of the joint deal, the BBC found itself unable to support it on its own, and the last issue of The Listener was published on 3 January 1991.

2010s
In 2011 the magazines were scanned for digitally preserved archiving. Issues are available via the educational publisher Gale, behind a paywall. Online access can be obtained from publishers Gale.com. Cost of access to the archive starts at 760 British pounds for an annual subscription (2022 price).

Contributors
In its early decades The Listener attracted celebrated contributors including H. E. Bates, E. M. Forster, T. S. Eliot, Julian Huxley, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Rose Macaulay, Virginia Woolf, G. K. Chesterton, Herbert Read, Hans Keller and John Kenneth Galbraith. It also provided an important platform for new writers and poets. W. H. Auden, Edwin Muir, Christopher Isherwood, Stephen Spender, Sylvia Plath and Philip Larkin all had early works published in The Listener. Later, regular columnists included John Cole, Stephen Fry and Roy Hattersley. Barry Fantoni provided the magazine with cartoons and illustrations for twenty-one years.

Crossword
The Listener crossword puzzle, introduced in 1930, is generally regarded as the most difficult cryptic crossword to appear in a national weekly. It survived the closure of The Listener and now appears in The Times on a Saturday, along with other puzzles and game articles on the last four pages of the "Saturday Review" section.

Solvers are invited to send in their solutions, with each of three randomly drawn correct solutions winning a prize of a book provided by the sponsors, Chambers. An annual list of statistics is also compiled for regular solvers to compare their performances. In most years only a handful of solvers are able to complete and submit all 52 puzzles correctly. The leading solver each year is awarded the Solver Silver Salver, and the all-correct solvers vote for the best puzzle of the year — the setter of which is awarded the Ascot Gold Cup.

Editors

 * Richard S. Lambert 1929–1939
 * Alan Thomas
 * Maurice Percy Ashley, 1958–1967
 * Karl Miller, 1967–1973
 * George Edwin Scott, 1974–1979
 * Anthony Howard, 1979–1981
 * Russell Twisk, 1981–1987
 * Alan Coren 1987–1989
 * Peter Fiddick, 1989–1991

Arts and literary editors included J. R. Ackerley 1935–1959, and Anthony Thwaite. Assistant Editors included Janet Adam Smith 1930–1935.

title: The Listener (magazine)


text:
Symphony of Enchanted Lands

Symphony of Enchanted Lands is the second studio album by Italian symphonic power metal band Rhapsody, released in 1998. It is the second part of the Emerald Sword Saga.

Band members

 * Fabio Lione - lead & backing vocals
 * Luca Turilli - electric & acoustic guitars, part of the choirs
 * Alex Staropoli - keyboards, harpsichord, piano, part of the choirs
 * Alessandro Lotta - bass
 * Daniele Carbonera - drums and percussion

Guest musicians

 * Sascha Paeth - acoustic guitars, mandolin, balalaika
 * Don Kosaken - Russian choirs
 * Helmstedter Kammerchor, conducted by Andreas Lamken - sacred choirs
 * Thomas Rettke, Robert Hunecke-Rizzo, Ricky Rizzo, Cinzia Rizzo, Tatiana Bloch, Davide Calabrese, Michele Mayer, Giuliano Tarlon, Cristiano Adacher, Manuel Staropoli - choirs
 * Constanze Backes - female baroque voice on "Symphony of Enchanted Lands"
 * Sir Jay Lansford - Narrator spoken parts
 * Erik Steenbock - marching drums
 * Manuel Staropoli - baroque recorders & baroque oboe
 * Matthias Brommann - lead violin
 * Claas Harders - viola da gamba
 * Ulrike Wildenhof, Almut Schlicker, Stefanie Holk, Friedrike Bauer, Matthias Brommann - violins
 * Marie-Theres Strumpf, Cosima Bergk, Jan Larsen - violas
 * Hagen Kuhr - cello
 * Andre Neygenfind - contrabass
 * Stefan Horz - harpsichord

Production

 * Produced by Sascha Paeth and Miro.
 * Engineered, mixed and mastered by Sascha Paeth and Miro at Gate Studio in Wolfsburg, Germany
 * All Artwork by: Eric Philippe
 * Photography by: Karsten Koch, Hannover

title: Symphony of Enchanted Lands


text:
Fetch-and-add

In computer science, the fetch-and-add (FAA) CPU instruction atomically increments the contents of a memory location by a specified value.

That is, fetch-and-add performs the following operation: increment the value at address $x$ by $a$, where $x$ is a memory location and $a$ is some value, and return the original value at $x$.

in such a way that if this operation is executed by one process in a concurrent system, no other process will ever see an intermediate result.

Fetch-and-add can be used to implement concurrency control structures such as mutex locks and semaphores.

Overview
The motivation for having an atomic fetch-and-add is that operations that appear in programming languages as are not safe in a concurrent system, where multiple processes or threads are running concurrently (either in a multi-processor system, or preemptively scheduled onto some single-core systems). The reason is that such an operation is actually implemented as multiple machine instructions:

 * 1) load $x$ into a register;
 * 2) add $a$ to register;
 * 3) store register value back into $x$.

When one process is doing and another is doing  concurrently, there is a data race. They might both fetch $x_{old}$ and operate on that, then both store their results with the effect that one overwrites the other and the stored value becomes either $x_{old} + a$ or $x_{old} + b$, not $x_{old} + a + b$ as might be expected.

In uniprocessor systems with no kernel preemption supported, it is sufficient to disable interrupts before accessing a critical section. However, in multiprocessor systems (even with interrupts disabled) two or more processors could be attempting to access the same memory at the same time. The fetch-and-add instruction allows any processor to atomically increment a value in memory, preventing such multiple processor collisions.

Maurice Herlihy (1991) proved that fetch-and-add has a finite consensus number, in contrast to the compare-and-swap operation. The fetch-and-add operation can solve the wait-free consensus problem for no more than two concurrent processes.

Implementation
The fetch-and-add instruction behaves like the following function. Crucially, the entire function is executed atomically: no process can interrupt the function mid-execution and hence see a state that only exists during the execution of the function. This code only serves to help explain the behaviour of fetch-and-add; atomicity requires explicit hardware support and hence can not be implemented as a simple high level function.

< > function FetchAndAdd(address location, int inc) { int value := *location *location := value + inc return value }

To implement a mutual exclusion lock, we define the operation FetchAndIncrement, which is equivalent to FetchAndAdd with inc=1. With this operation, a mutual exclusion lock can be implemented using the ticket lock algorithm as:

record locktype { int ticketnumber int turn } procedure LockInit(locktype* lock) { lock.ticketnumber := 0 lock.turn := 0 } procedure Lock(locktype* lock) { int myturn := FetchAndIncrement(&lock.ticketnumber) // must be atomic, since many threads might ask for a lock at the same time while lock.turn ≠ myturn skip // spin until lock is acquired } procedure UnLock(locktype* lock) { FetchAndIncrement(&lock.turn) // this need not be atomic, since only the possessor of the lock will execute this }

These routines provide a mutual-exclusion lock when following conditions are met:
 * Locktype data structure is initialized with function LockInit before use
 * Number of tasks waiting for the lock does not exceed INT_MAX at any time
 * Integer datatype used in lock values can 'wrap around' when continuously incremented

Hardware and software support
An atomic fetch_add function appears in the C++11 standard. It is available as a proprietary extension to C in the Itanium ABI specification, and (with the same syntax) in GCC.

x86 implementation
In the x86 architecture, the instruction ADD with the destination operand specifying a memory location is a fetch-and-add instruction that has been there since the 8086 (it just wasn't called that then), and with the LOCK prefix, is atomic across multiple processors. However, it could not return the original value of the memory location (though it returned some flags) until the 486 introduced the XADD instruction.

The following is a C implementation for the GCC compiler, for both 32- and 64-bit x86 Intel platforms, based on extended asm syntax:

History
Fetch-and-add was introduced by the Ultracomputer project, which also produced a multiprocessor supporting fetch-and-add and containing custom VLSI switches that were able to combine concurrent memory references (including fetch-and-adds) to prevent them from serializing at the memory module containing the destination operand.

title: Fetch-and-add


text:
Talk:IEEE 802

Comment
It might be nice to have a little bit of history about the development of the 802 standards. I will start to see what I can find. -- Grubber 12:04 June 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't .12 been disbanded?

Added a link to the OSI page. -- Maxwell Rain 19:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Subordinate standards
Some of the decimal parts of the 802 standards have really stubby articles - these stray paragraphs could usefully be dropped into the 802 article. (I've made a similar criticism on the IEC standards where someone has created stubs for the decimal fractionso of several IEC standards). --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

802.13ah or 802.3ah?
In the article IEEE 802.13 is said not to have been used. At the same time it says that IEEE 802.13ah Defines "Copper for the first mile" for Metro Area Networks (proposed). How can that be? The IEEE web site has no reference to 802.13ah but it does have a reference to 802.3ah "Ethernet in the First Mile". the article is therefore muddled and I propose deletion of the reference to 802.13ah. Comments? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I've done some more research. Googling "IEEE 802.13ah" gives five hits, one of which is this WP article. Another is a clear reference to this article and one more looks suspiciously like a cut and paste of this article. The fourth hit is truncated with a server runtime error just after the reference to 802.13 (hmmmm...). That leaves one bona fide looking hit, which is the reason I haven't done the deletion. My thinking is that it must be a typo. If I Google "IEEE 802.3ah" I get 71,700 hits. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and made the edit. The Network World reference above includes a "Related Content" section, which refers to 802.3ah, not 802.13ah. Also WP's own IEEE 802.3 article refers to 802.3ah. The evidence is overwhelming. If anyone disagrees please revert and cite a source. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * This is correct. The IEEE's website (which should be authoritative!) shows 803.3ah as 'Ethernet in the First Mile'. Whether we need a separate citation for each of the working groups is another question -- my feeling is that we don't. BPMullins | Talk 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

802.13
Distributed Systems (University of Duisburg and Essen) p.68 indicates that it was unused because 13 is unlucky. Other unreliable references indicate that 802.13 was used for 100BASE-X Ethernet. We'll leave it as unused for now but if anyone has a reliable ref that indicates what happened here, that would be appreciated. --Kvng (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

802.15.1 bluetooth disbanded
IS it correct that 802.15.1 bluetooth has been disbanded? DGerman (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:IEEE 802


text:
Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 7

Merge request
I have requested a merge from AIDS reappraisal because we ought not to have two pages, one presenting the "mainstream" POV and another presenting the "dissenting" POV. We should strive to make all our articles NPOV. Problems exist in both articles presently, and both are in need of cleanup and balance. I think at least a partial merge will bring more attention to the real controversies that exist while putting more scrutiny on the claims that ought to be given less weight (and the evidence which makes them less believable, etc.). Whig 04:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rather than sharing your general philosophical bent, do you have a concrete suggestion on what you find of value in the reappraisal article that this article would benefit from incorporating. Rather than sticking a template on top of the article, perhaps you could make an actual suggestion of what merits merging? In general, articles about controversies suck, and the reappraisal article is no exception. Moving suckiness here isn't going to improve here. Until the recent tinkering, there was more than adequate coverage of revisionism here. - Nunh-huh 04:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The term "revisionism" is pretty weighted. Do you think there are any meritous facts in the AIDS reappraisal article at all? Whig 05:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's consider this section:

Although HIV cannot be found in the blood of people with AIDS, a range of antibody, antigen, RNA tests and cell culture techniques provide indirect evidence of HIV activity. These tests, when performed on healthy people, may also provide similar evidence, clouding the issue somewhat, especially as even if HIV may cause some people to develop AIDS, some people have been identified as "long-term non-progressors" and never develop symptomology consistent with a diagnosis of AIDS. Indirect evidence aside, HIV has never been isolated directly.

Accurate? If so, it should be merged. If not, it should be corrected in the AIDS reappraisal article. Whig 05:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The AIDS article cannot contain all accurate statements about AIDS. "If accurate, include it" is an inappropriate heuristic. The question to be asked is "would incorporation of this material improve the article". If so, it should be incorporated, if not, not. Reasons an accurate statement might not improve an article is that it is trivial, or it adds very little additional information, is repetitive, or is not terribly pertinent.  - Nunh-huh 06:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * An excellent point, but if this statement is true, and is relevant to the claim that AIDS=HIV (which the article presently states) then it is properly included. If HIV is not found in the blood of people with AIDS, then it tends to discount the claim. Perhaps prior HIV infection triggers an immune response which, perhaps like multiple sclerosis, results in an abnormal immune system thereafter. In this case, we could say that HIV triggers AIDS in vulnerable people (excluding non-progressors), but we could not fairly say that AIDS is simply HIV infection. If this makes the article a bit more complex than otherwise, that may seem unfortunate, but our desire should be accuracy rather than simplicity. Whig 03:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * WHen denialists say "HIV is not found in the blood of people with AIDS", they mean that the whole, intact, virus can not be isolated. The virus, however, is present in people with AIDS; its presense can be assessed by checking for viral RNA and proteins, so the "alternative" theory that you've conjured up is unnecessary. Such speculations certainly have no place in the AIDS article. - Nunh-huh 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Can we please abstain from calling people who pose questions "denialists"? It is ad hominem and does not advance the discussion at all. As I understand the matter, and please correct me if my understanding is incorrect, "checking for viral RNA and proteins" are based on use of the polymerase chain reaction, which Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, disputes as being proof of an exogenous virus. Other interpretations seem to exist, and I am unaware of studies that support or refute them, such as that the PCR results may indicate part of the germ line. In any case, I don't think (but stand to be corrected) viral load tests are commonly used to diagnose AIDS, nor whether studies have been done to find whether they may exist in people who test negative for HIV antibodies. To a lay person like myself, it is hard to know that one interpretation is correct and another wrong merely based upon the number of people on either side of the dispute. This is, in any case, a real factual dispute, is it not? If not, then what agenda do you suppose prominent scientists like Mullis have for disagreeing with the mainstream?

 * You can certainly call the denialists anything you choose. It's not an ad hominem term. PCR is used in some tests of viral RNA, but in no tests of proteins. Viral load tests are used routinely in the management of AIDS. I can't guess why Mullis chooses to disagree with everyone else, or fails to recognize years of clinical experience. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I just watched a show on Discovery earlier today about T.rex and a recent dispute over whether it was a carnivore or a carrion eater. The carnivore position has been held as mainstream for many decades, yet the measurement of the forelimbs led one iconoclastic scientist to question that consensus, and based on the information presented and the opinions of many other researchers, apparently the carrion eater hypothesis now has at least a certain amount of legitimate support. If the "whole, intact, virus can not be isolated" according to your own statement above, and if it is undisputed, then it is a fact that ought to be included with appropriately cited interpretations. Whig 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you isolate a "whole, intact, virus" from the bloodstream of a person with a rhinovirus-caused headcold? No. Nonetheless, rhinoviruses do cause headcolds. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * "A virus isolated from the nasal secretions of a calf with acute respiratory disease was found to possess the general properties of rhinoviruses. Serologically it was related to the M-17 strain, a type 1 bovine rhinovirus, but distinct from the EC11 strain representing type 2. Seroconversion in neutralising antibody to the isolate was demonstrated in paired serum samples derived from the calf. This is the first report of bovine rhinovirus isolation in the Sudan and Africa. Whether bovine rhinoviruses play any significant role in bovine respiratory disease in the Sudan is not known and has yet to be determined." That was a result from a quick Google search for rhinovirus isolation, and while it didn't involve isolation from the bloodstream of "a person with a rhinovirus-caused headcold" it does seem likely that some such rhinoviruses have been isolated from similar nasal secretions. Has this truly never been done? In any case, as I understand it, the problem with rhinoviruses in general is that there are so many and they mutate so quickly, plus the health impact is generally so minor as to not be worth trying to create vaccines. Influenza, however, has clearly been isolated and immunizations are commonly given to vulnerable people. Whig 05:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infection pattern
In North America and Western Europe, AIDS affects specific groups of people, and is fragmented into distinct sub-epidemics with different AIDS-defining diseases. According to the definition from WHO and the US health authority CDC, AIDS in Africa looks completely different from the corresponding syndrome in North America and Western Europe; one example that has been cited is that in Africa AIDS affects roughly equal numbers of men and women, while in North America and Western Europe it affects more men than women. Another statistic that is sometimes cited is that AIDS is highly correlated with drug use in Western countries, while it is associated with malnutrition and poor living conditions in Africa.

Accurate? If so, it should be merged. If not, it should be corrected in the AIDS reappraisal article. Whig 05:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This passage is used in the revisionist article in order to use the (outdated) WHO definition to cast doubt upon causation, when in fact the inadequacy of the old definition is that as an operational definition it fails to discriminate who is HIV positive and who is not. I don't believe there's any important facts in this passage that haven't appeared in the AIDS article, though of course I can't tell if they are in the current revision, as it's being continually tinkered with. - Nunh-huh 06:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If this definition is outdated and no longer accurate, can you provide the more up-to-date and accurate definition? Is there now a universal definition which applies in the US, Canada, Europe and Africa? Why does AIDS remain a predominantly male disease in North America and Europe if it is claimed to affect relatively equal numbers of men and women in Africa? Is this a definitional problem, is this due to different vectors of infection (unsanitary needles in Africa, for instance), or is there some other reason for this disparity? Whig 03:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Diseases are not defined, they are described. Operational definitions must be used before an etiology is known: in AIDS, the etiology is now known and operational definitions are useful only where testing for the virus is impractical or economically infeasible, and for prognostic indications. Please read the references I've left you on my talk page. This is not a definitional problem: different socioeconomic and sexual sociologic factors account for differences in diseasse distribution in various nations and continents. - Nunh-huh 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Is the etiology of AIDS in North America and Europe known to be the same as the etiology of AIDS in Africa? The references you left me on your talk page don't answer this question.

 * The link to the website I left there does. The link alone won't do much: you'll have to read it. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quoting:

 * HAART has had a significant impact on survival 10 years after HIV infection in all age groups: "Survival after introduction of HAART in people with known duration of HIV-1 infection. The CASCADE Collaboration. Concerted Action on Serconversion to AIDS and Death in Europe." Lancet. 2000;355:1158-1159.
 * HAART has dramatically increased the time from HIV infection to AIDS: Tassie JM, Grabar S, Lancar R, et al. "Time to AIDS from 1992 to 1999 in HIV-1-infected subjects with known data of infection." J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:81-87.
 * HAART has increased the chance of surviving for 2 years after AIDS onset: Fordyce EJ, Singh TP, Nash D, et al. "Survival rates in NYC in the era of combination ART." J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:111-118
 * Reduction of maternal-child transmission risk: Connor EM, Sperling RS, Gelber R, et al. "Reduction of maternal-infant transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with zidovudine treatment." N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1173-1180.

 * None of these seem from their titles to be about etiology at all, much less a comparison of North American, European and African AIDS. Whig 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the link you didn't list deals with the strawman of expecting identical disease patterns in disparate cultures.. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is AIDS inconsistently defined?
Some of the approximately 30 AIDS-defining diseases, including Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), are considered diagnostic of AIDS only when HIV antibodies are present. In the absence of such evidence, these diseases are thought to be related to other immune problems, and are not diagnosed as AIDS. The definition of AIDS is an example of circular logic: because diagnosis with AIDS requires the presence of HIV antibodies, there can be no AIDS without HIV, by definition. Moreover, many of the AIDS-defining diseases, such as cervical cancer, have nothing to do with immune deficiency, and should not be considered part of the definition of AIDS.

AIDS was originally defined without reference to HIV—by necessity, since AIDS was defined as a syndrome before HIV was discovered. The first definition of AIDS by the CDC in September 1982 listed 13 diseases, "at least moderately predictive of a defect in cell-mediated immunity, occurring in a person with no known cause for diminished resistance to that disease." Supporters of the HIV theory claim that it is not uncommon in medical science for a disease to first be described in terms of its physical manifestations, and to later have its definition altered as its causes become more evident.

HIV was discovered in 1984, and a year later, after discussion with epidemiologists, the CDC changed its operational definition of AIDS to add a small additional number of conditions which would be considered AIDS-defining if (and only if) they occurred in conjunction with a positive HIV test. The original list of conditions continued to trigger an AIDS diagnosis with or without a positive HIV test. Once the idea that HIV causes AIDS had become widely accepted, it was added to the definition of the syndrome.

As experience with the disease continued, it became clear that it was associated with a broader array of illnesses than those initially identified. In 1987 the CDC added some of these to the case definition, including encephalopathy and wasting syndrome. These had not been in the initial definition because they are not conditions that are recorded during epidemiological surveillance.

It became apparent, however, that the operational case definition did not adequately reflect clinical experience. There were patients who were HIV infected but who did not have AIDS-defining illnesses who were doing poorly, and others who had AIDS-defining illnesses (such as one Kaposi's sarcoma lesion) yet were doing well. In January, 1993, the definition was again changed, to trigger an AIDS diagnosis on the basis of a CD4 cell count below 200 or a CD4 percentage below 14, and adding additional indicator diseases based on epidemiological observation: invasive cervical cancer, pulmonary tuberculosis and recurrent pneumonia. The core list of diseases identified in the original definition of the disease in 1982 continue to be AIDS-defining, even if an HIV test is not performed.

It is for these reasons that the changing AIDS definition is merely a reflection of a broadened understanding of the disease, rather than a "circular" definition requiring a specific etiology. There is a strong correlation between HIV and AIDS, and thus it is perfectly natural for the presence of HIV antibodies to be a defining characteristic of AIDS.

There is no consistent definition of AIDS across political or international boundaries. In Africa, a laboratory test is not required for a diagnosis of AIDS—this is because impoverished nations consider the test too expensive for routine use. This leaves global AIDS epidemiology without clear standards or norms.

Accurate? If so, it should be merged. If not, it should be corrected in the AIDS reappraisal article. Whig 05:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I personally find this section to be internally inconsistent and needs serious copyediting anyhow. Whig 05:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's intentionally misleading, as it suggests that AIDS is a disease that is "defined" rather than described. Why are you suggesting a section you find internally inconsistent as beneficial? - Nunh-huh 06:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to assume that inconsistencies are intentional deception, rather there have been multiple editors who have made statements that contradict other statements made by other editors. I'm certainly not in favor of adding this section without substantial cleanup. The internal inconsistency that I see here is that one statement claims that the description employs circular logic (if AIDS is described by a set of conditions "in the presence of HIV antibodies" where the exact same set of conditions "in the absence of HIV antibodies" would not be considered AIDS, then it seems circular to me), whereas another statement claims that the description is not circular but just a "broadened understanding" (this seems like a non sequitur to me). Perhaps what is needed is a more clarified description/definition (which, see the section above this where I've asked what the up-to-date and accurate definition is). Whig 03:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see the link I left you on my talk page. It will explain why the charge of circular logic is invalid.- Nunh-huh 05:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For those joining us, I believe Nunh-huh refers to this link: — it's interesting reading, though it begins with a strawman analogy to cigarette smoking and lung cancer, and I haven't yet had time to review it fully. Does this article fairly and accurately reflect your personal position, Nunh-huh? Whig 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't prescribe to dogmas, but don't recall anything significant there that's wrong. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the "AIDS defining illness" Kaposi's sarcoma I found the following link that may be interesting: — the contention seems to be that KS correlates with amyl nitrite use, though this may be only a co-factor. Could anyone with some medical background comment? Whig 05:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, KS correllates with amyl nitrates correlates with being a gay male. Which is of no particular importance, because KS is caused by a human herpes virus. - Nunh-huh 06:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Which goes back to my question above, if AIDS correlates in North America and Europe with gay males, but does not correlate with homosexuality in Africa, we have an issue that should be resolved in the article. Whig 03:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an "issue" to be dealt with in the denialist article, as it relates only to their (strawman) expectation that diseases should occur in the same socioeconomic groups on different continents. - Nunh-huh

 * I don't see the strawman here, if we have one etiology (HIV) and one disease (AIDS), there may be different vectors (anal sex vs. unsanitary needle sharing or untreated venereal diseases) causing different communities to be affected in North America and Europe vs. Africa.

 * The strawman is the idea that patterns should be the same. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * However, if we do not see proportionately much heterosexual HIV/AIDS in North America, and we do in Africa, the reason for this difference should be identified as well as possible. Whig 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm going to spend some time reading the link you sent, and hopefully it will shed some light and perhaps persuade me that the mainstream view is correct. Even if so, I think that means we should incorporate what evidence exists to support the mainstream view where it has been questioned. If there is no ambiguity, then the article should make this clear with proper references and citations. Whig 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the past, such "support" has been deited out of the denialist article. I'm sure you'll work hard to incorporate the references you've been given in the appropriate articles, once you've read them. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I've read the Steven B. Harris article you provided, and he makes some persuasive points. I'd like to see critical responses, however, as the article itself said, "Skeptic usually features several voices on one subject, but because of the length we decided to allow the AIDS skeptics to respond in the next issue" — no link for which is apparent. In regard to the journal citations above, I'm not really qualified to evaluate them, and I don't have ready access to said journals, so I wouldn't really know how properly to incorporate them, but you should certainly take use these resources to provide attributed statements and responses in the respective articles. I think even Harris makes some points which are actually critical of the current AIDS article however. At the very least, it would be nice to paraphase (can we quote as fair use?) the paragraph where he points out:

 * There is nothing in the HIV/AIDS theory which demands that any particular transmission mechanism be the chief cause of the spread of HIV infection in any given place, or which demands that the HIV virus be as infectious in one locality as another. For example, it now seems likely from many studies that sexual transmission of HIV often requires mucosal tissue trauma, which is much more likely with anal intercourse, and/or a concomitant inflammation or ulcer from a second sexually transmitted disease. Because transmission may be inefficient even so, promiscuity also greatly enhances the chance of HIV spread. These requirement(s) for efficient HIV sexual transfer easily explain the difference between spread of HIV in tropical Africa vs. the developed countries. They also adequately explain why a disease which spreads well sexually only in populations with an extreme level of both promiscuity and rectal mucosal trauma (i.e., one sub-segment of American homosexual men) has not yet become a generally spreading sexually-transmitted disease epidemic in the U.S.
 * Whig 04:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Whig, please keep this giant quote out of the article. If you insist on creating a section about the fringe belief that AIDS is not caused by HIV when it occurs in Africa, please keep it in the AIDS reappraisal article. I don't think this article should waste time responding to these claims. Rhobite 06:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Rhobite, if you read my comments above, you should know that I disagree strongly with the idea that we ought to constrain such discussion to a separate ghetto. The sheer fact of the non-heterosexual spread (or should that be heterosexual non-spread) of AIDS in North America and Europe is enough to cause many people to question the medical establishment, which for years did predict a general epidemic outside of the original risk groups. At the same time, it is cited that this general epidemic currently does exist in Africa and the developing world. If we fail to address this disparity, without even providing possible reasons for it, our readers will reasonably infer that the AIDS reappraisers are addressing genuine issues that the main article does not. At the same time, I can see a reasonable desire to keep the main article to a manageable size, and therefore we might address things in a relatively summary form here and link to other articles for more detail. Whig 17:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 7


text:
Talk:Adelaide Botanic Garden

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Adelaide Botanic Garden. 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/20140126023703/http://fbga.asn.au/MuseumEconomicBotany.htm to http://www.fbga.asn.au/MuseumEconomicBotany.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Adelaide Botanic Garden


text:
Category:Carcinologists

Carcinologists are those scientists who study crustaceans. See also List of carcinologists.

title: Category:Carcinologists


text:
Dharma Yukam

Dharma Yukam is the state of absolute bliss as per Ayyavazhi mythology. Dharma Yukam is described in the Akilam seventeen in Akilathirattu Ammanai. It is related to Dharmic moksha and to Abrahamic heaven.

Vaikundar on throne
As soon as Vaikundar attained Vaikundam, he was welcomed by Devas and Narayana. Then the Kalai Muni and the Gnana Muni who witnessed the activities of Vaikundar while accompanying him narrated the events. Vaikundar was crowned by Narayana as the king to rule the fourteen worlds (lokas). Then as per Narayana they carried Vaikundar in a  'Ratha'  around the Vaikunda Loga playing drums and music. They brought Vaikundar along with the Devas and the Munis in front of Narayana.

Narayana proclaimed that Vaikundar is the head of Vaikundam hereafter. Then he ordered the Devas to go to Kailash and engrave on Mount Meru that, "As per the holy Agama Vaikundar is going to rule the whole worlds from today onwards." Narayana Crowned Vaikundar and gave him sovereign authority and other divine paraphernalia. Narayana, Siva and other Devas seated him on the throne.

Plea
Lord Vaikundar pleaded to Narayana for the uplift of his people, The Santror. Narayana replied that they would be saved from the evil of Kali and Kali Yuga and would achieve bliss and prosperity in the Dharma Yukam. Until then he asked Vaikundar to adopt austerity on the throne. He stated that test the faith of the people towards him (Vaikundar), a 'false deity' would claim to be god and could perform many miracles. Afterwards, the yuga will be destroyed and the people will be saved and will be given an eternal life of bliss.

Destruction of Kali Yuga
Lord Vaikundar realised that good people are those who suffer most while those with evil thoughts lead a happy life. He refers to the Agamas to know the time limits of this. He decided to destroy the Kali-yuga. Immediately. As Vaikundar thought of this destruction, nature started to respond, burning unwanted things and beings. The whole universe got excited due to this event.

Then Vaikundar thought of creating good things. Immediately good beings such as 'good people', 'good animals', 'good birds', 'good reptiles' and 'good plants' appeared. He ordered the ocean to wash out the bad things immediately.

Judgement to Kroni
Kroni was brought before Vaikundar and he recounted the events that took place right from his birth. He repeated the promise once he (as Kaliyan) made that, "If I tend to torture any Pandaram, I and all my means will go to hell". Kroni had nothing to say and surrendered all his powers and boons. The force of illusion took hold of him and put him into the flames of the abyss where the devils resided. Then the evil force along with him went into hell.

Then Vaikundar blew the conch announcing the victory. Hearing the sound all that signaled Dharma Yukam - "the virtue, the Sastras, the plants and trees, the reptiles and the birds, the divine women and their children" - all gathered around Vaikundar. He blessed them and instructed them to live fearlessly. He enjoined upon them to assemble in one place, to drink from the same well, and live happily as per the values of Dharma.

title: Dharma Yukam


text:
Talk:Information economy

completeness
Might help to mention Fritz Machlup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Machlup. Gaintes (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved incomplete content from article
In the following, this issue is roughly divided into three areas: production, consumption, and transaction of information. Each section deals with the economic changes pointed out by some, as well as their consequences for our economy and society.

 * 1) Production of Information
 * 2) Production of information goods and services are said to be increased over the last decades.
 * 3) Consumption of Information
 * 4) Increased consumption of information symbolic/semiotic dimension of consumption.
 * 5) Transaction of Information
 * 6) Increased role of communication

Please add this content back in when it is ready to be expanded. --Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Homework assignment moved from article to talk
There are nine definitions of information and another nine for knowledge in my Webster's Dictionary. Both can mean pretty much whatever someone wants them to mean. That's why we defined more than 400 terms in our work on knowledge services. But these relate to the nature of the stuff that is being traded. I think that this discourse is on a higher plane.

There are identifiable economic sectors, national economies, and a global economy. To me, the "information economy" and "knowledge economy" represent economic sectors that trade intellectual property within national and global economies. They both underpin the service sector of a national economy. Although I don't know how big something has to be considered an economic sector, both, in my opinion, are big enough to be so classed. I agree that both are subsets of the broader "Information Society." This, then considers the first of your valid defitional arguments.

Information is a "final valued product" that is traded through "provider/user (seller/buyer) transactions. A lot of people are making a lot of money by trading intellectual property in the form of information (just ask Google), so it is worthy of continued inclusion as an identifiable economic sector, along with agricultural produce, industrial products, and services. However, I personally feel that "information economy" is a transitional term that will gradually be subsumed within the "knowledge economy."

The magnitude of the knowledge sector of the US economy was first described by Machlup (1962), and the nature of knowledge work were first described by Drucker (1974). Although information (meaning within a context) is a lower-order form of IP than knowledge (understanding that enables prediction), that is not the main reason why the two are different from an economic perspective. Knowledge is the only commodity that has increasing returns of scale and, more importantly, begets more of itself; information cannot do this. Our work on knowledge services (regrettably deleted from Wikipedia as too avant-guarde) shows that knowledge is processed and used through a nine-step value chain and that knowledge markets are circular in nature. (see: ) It is the fundamentally different form of knowledge markets as well as their growing size that warrants their separate inclusion.

Many related terms (digital economy, Internet economy, network economy) refer to the nature of the infrastructure that underlies a national economy. They are also subsets of the informatiom and knowledge economies. I, for one, would support merging all these terms under economic infrastructures (which I confirmed does not exist, at the cost of loosing my original, unsaved comments)

You also considered the notion of economic traisitions, of which we are currently in the midst. No one knows what the new economic order will look like in a few decades, but I am confident that it will incorporate elements of everything that has been discussed here. However, economic transitions may be an appropriate term (for which I have no intention of searching!). Beyond that probably belongs in an "encyclopedia of speculation" and not wanting to be deleted again, I'll stop here.Albert Simard 21:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC) --

Radrik 23:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2 - Digital Futures
— Assignment last updated by Zmuhl (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Information economy


text:
Hardstep

Hardstep is a subgenre of drum and bass which emerged in the mid-1990s. It is characterized by a gritty production style that consists of an inner-city feel. The breaks are less choppy than oldschool jungle, and have faster and harder simple electronic melodies. One characteristic is an accentuated, and yet sparse percussive beat.

The genre found favor with junglists, and though it has been overtaken in popularity by techstep, the fans of the style still remain. Early hardstep artists include DJ Hype, and DJ Zinc.

title: Hardstep


text:
User:Dcfleck/temp

history
http://www.midwaycommemoration.org/www.midwaycommemoration.org/2005/History.htm http://www.425dxn.org/dc3mf/ffs.html http://www.wfu.edu/albatross/hawaii/history.htm http://www.radiojerry.com/frigate/

During the early months of the U.S.-Japanese conflict in WWII, Japanese seaplanes occasionally used FFS as a rendezvous point for refuelling by submarine. By mid-1942, increasing U.S. naval activity in the area prevented further Japanese use. After the Battle of Midway, the U.S. Navy built a Naval Air Station on Tern Island, enlarging the island sufficiently to support a 3300 ft. (1005 m) landing strip. The Station's main function was as an emergency landing site for planes flying between Hawaii and Midway.

[1] Then, on 5 March [1942], Japanese seaplanes, refueled from a submarine at French Frigate Shoals, Territory of Hawaii, conduct a small armed reconnaissance mission over Oahu. on 29 May, seaplane tender (destroyer) USS Thornton (AVD-11) arrived at French Frigate Shoals to relieve light minelayer USS Preble (DM-20) on patrol station there. The presence of U.S. ships at French Frigate Shoals prevented the Japanese from refueling flying boats to reconnoiter Pearl Harbor.

[4] During the early part of the war, the Japanese occasionally used it to refuel seaplanes from a submarine. In one instance a seaplane raid on Pearl Harbor was refueled from this location. When they tried to do this again, after the Battle of Midway, they found that a complete Naval Air Station had been constructed by the U.S. That attack plan was cancelled. The shoal was now an important emergency stopover and navigational point for aircraft flying between Hawaii and Midway. Tern Island had been enlarged from the size of a tennis court to an airfield bearing the resemblance of an aircraft carrier flight deck, 3300 feet long and 400 feet wide.

[2] French Frigate Shoals were annexed by the King of Hawaii in 1856, and sold the reefs in 1861 to the British Guano In 1859 a British Scientific Expedition under the leadership of Dr.H.Broox stood about 4 month on the reefs to collect stones and drawing the first publiced maps. Trade Company. In 1867 the American Pacific Island Company together with the Australian Copra and Guano LTD sold the reef and build up a station on Tern Island to mined phosphate till 1906, when it was mined out.

At the start of WW II, when Japanese troups bomed Pearl Habour, also Japanese troups landed on French Frigate and occupated the reef. Within only a few days a complete Japanese Military Base was errected on Tern Island. ????

[3] Although there are no records in historic Hawaiian lore, the earliest visitors to French Frigate Shoals probably came from the nearby Hawaiian Islands to the east which are known to have been settled by Polynesians between 1100 and 1300 AD. The Spanish and Portuguese began exploring the Pacific following Magellan's successful crossing in the 1520's. Early sailing vessels followed the Equatorial Current westward and the North Pacific Current eastward and the Hawaiian Islands were seldom, if ever, visited. Many writers believe that it was not until January 1778 that Captain James Cook, an Englishman, discovered the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands. Other Europeans soon visited the area.The discovery of French Frigate Shoals on 6 November 1786 was almost marred by disaster. The French explorer Jean Francois de Galaup, Comte de la Perouse, aboard his frigate, the Broussole, accompanied by the Astrolabe, was sailing westward on a tranquil sea from Monterey to Macao. At 0130 hours men on both ships sighted breakers directly ahead at a distance of only 2/10 mile. Both vessels were immediately brought about and headed south-southeast, passing as close as 1/10 mile to the breakers.

At daybreak, both ships reversed course, and at 0800 breakers were sighted north-northwest. Soon "a small island, or cleft rock, fifty toises [100 yards] at most in diameter, and about twenty or twenty-five [40 or 50 yards] in height' was sighted. Many years later this rock was named La Perouse Pinnacle after its discoverer.

La Perouse examined only the southeastern half of the atoll, as shown in his original 1786 map. He thought the rock was at the extreme northwest end of the reef and found only three sand-banks no more than four feet high. Before leaving he named his new discovery Basse des Fregates Frangaises, or Shoal of the French Frigates.

Several variations of la Perouse's original name have been used over the years: French Frigate Shoal, French Frigates Shoal, and French Frigate Shoals. The most recent ruling was in July 1954 when the U.S. Board of Geographic Names adopted French Frigate Shoals.

United States Possession

During the late 1700's and early 1800's European and American traders called at the larger Hawaiian islands and 1825 Honolulu had become the most important port in the entire Pacific. The United States became more and more interested in the Pacific and in August 1838 the United States Exploring Expedition put to sea under command of Lt. Charles Wilkes. This expedition spent some six months in the Hawaiian area; on 3 December 1841 they sighted French Frigate Shoals but were unable to land due to bad weather.

In early October 1858 the U.S. Schooner Fenimore Cooper, commanded by Lt. John M. Brooke, U.S. Navy, left San Francisco to sound out a route via Hawaii to Japan for a possible underwater telegraph cable. The Fenimore Cooper visited French Frigate Shoals from 3 to 7 January 1859; Brooke took depth soundings and charted the various islets for the first time. More importantly, however, Lt. Brooke took formal possession of French Frigate Shoals for the United States on 14 January in accordance with the U.S. Guano Act of August 1856.

Guano and Shipwrecks

Brooke also reported the discovery of guano at French Frigate Shoals, a fact which produced much excitement in Honolulu among guano investors. The bark Gambia sailed to the Shoals on 5 March 1859 and on the 23rd the American clipper ship Modern Times also set sail. Both ships returned with disappointing news concerning the size of the deposits and the cost of their removal.

The first wreck recorded on the Shoals was of the American whaling ship South Seaman, which wrecked on 13 March 1859. Fortunately the Hawaiian schooner Kamehameha IV was in the area and brought back to Honolulu 12 of the South Seaman's crew. The remaining 30 or so crewmen were left on one of the islands until the Kamehameha IV (chartered by the American consul) returned to pick them up.

The Gambia, under the command of Captain N.C. Brooks, again visited French Frigate Shoals in late April or early May 1859. While at the Shoals, Brooks noted an abundance of seals, turtle, fish, and birds.

On 14 April 1867 French Frigate Shoals was the site of the shipwreck of the bark Daniel Wood. All of the crew managed to reach one of the islands. On the 16th Captain Richmond, the second mate, and 6 men embarked for Honolulu in one of the ship's whaleboats, leaving 27 shipmates behind. They landed at Honolulu on the 24th. The U.S.S. Lackawanna was dispatched by the American Consul to rescue the rest of the crew. On 20 May the schooner Malolo sailed for the Shoals in search of the wreck of the Daniel Wood. The Malolo returned to Honolulu on 22 June without finding a trace of the wrecked ship. When U.S. Naval Hydrographic Office Maps 2, 3 and 4 showing the entire Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in detail were published in 1867, other countries became interested. The Japanese soon began to fish in the area. The Japanese-owned American-chartered schooner Ada, working out of Yokohama, visited French Frigate Shoals from 3 February to 1 May 1882 (Hornell, 1934). It left the Shoals with a cargo of sharks' flesh, fins and oil, turtle shells and oil, and birds' down.

The North Pacific Phosphate and Fertilizer Company was interested in mining guano on the central Pacific islands. A letter from J.P Hackfeld, secretary of the company, dated 6 January 1894, to James A. King, Minister of the Interior of the new Republic of Hawaii, requested that King order the lease by public auction of French Frigate Shoals, Kure, Midway, and Pearl and Hermes Reef for a term of 25 years and that the purchaser should have the exclusive right to mine guano, phosphate, fertilizers, and other materials. The islands were leased on 15 February 1894 for a period of 25 years to the North Pacific Phosphate and Fertilizer Company. This company was also granted exclusive rights to the guano deposits provided they would be worked within five years; otherwise, the rights would revert to the Hawaiian government. Since the Pacific Guano and Fertilizer Company never worked French Frigate Shoals, their guano rights presumably reverted in 1899; their lease, however, was probably valid. In order to obtain clear titles to the northwestern islands for the Republic of Hawaii, President Sanford B. Dole on 9 July 1895 appointed James A. King, Minister of the Interior, Republic of Hawaii, as Special Commissioner to take possession of French Frigate Shoals. On that same date, King sailed from Honolulu on the Revenue Cutter Lehua, commanded by Captain Berry, in pursuance of President Dole's commission. King, in a subsequent letter to Dole on 22 July, noted that the Lehua sighted the rock islet of French Frigate Shoals on 13 July, that he landed and took possession; on a nearby sand island they planted the Hawaiian Flag.

The U.S. Navy, as well as other U.S. Government agencies, became interested in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in the late 1890's and early 1900's. Hawaii became a United States Territory on 30 April 1900. On 28 and 29 May 1902 the U.S. Fish Commission Steamer Albatross stopped at the Shoals; among their activities was wildlife survey.

Preservation of wildlife was of prime importance in the early 1900's and President Theodore Roosevelt signed an Executive Order on 3 February 1909 setting aside all the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, except Midway, as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds. This preserve, to be known as the Hawaiian Island Reservation, was to be administered by the Department of Agriculture.

Subsequently, U.S. Revenue Cutter Service vessels were used to patrol the area for bird poachers. The USRC Thetis made several trips to the islands. Her stops at French Frigate Shoals include 19 December 1912, 9 September 1914, 20-21 March 1915, and 28 January 1916). The USS Hermes visited on 4-5 September 1918 on a similar inspection survey.

From 25 August to 30 September and from 10 October to 4 November 1914 the USS Rainbow conducted a hydrographic survey outside of the reef. The subsequent map, first printed in June 1915, is considered to be the first modern map of French Frigate Shoals.

As part of a biological survey of central Pacific islands, the Tanager Expedition, with 11 scientists, visited the atoll from 22 to 28 June 1923. Alexander Wetmore was the field director for this survey; his unpublished field notes reveal details on the avifauna present as well as a description of each island. Many scientific collections were made. This survey was the first overall scientific survey of French Frigate Shoals.

[4] Prior to World War II, the area had no particular strategic value. Eventually, the Coast Guard would take over the site and operate a low frequency radiobeacon and a double-pulsed Loran A station until the phase-out of Loran A. The station also served as a monitor station for the Central Pacific Loran C chain which had transmitter sites at Kure, Johnston, and Hawaii Islands. When Loran A was shut down, LORMONSTA Honolulu assumed the Loran C monitoring functions and the Coast Guard left French Frigate.

The Role of French Frigate Shoals during the early days of Space Flight. During the period of 1961-1963 the Pacific Missile Range (PMR) had a portable tracking station located at one end of Tern Island. Mr. Bill Wood was with Bendix Radio and assisted in operation of the tracking equipment. The information in this segment comes from his e-mail.

PMR had between 6 and 10 people aboard Tern during that very busy time, including a including a Navy CPO who had managed the Pearl Harbor Officer's Mess prior to retirement. The Coast Guard wisely let him run the mess deck for a year or so. The coasties were very sad to see him leave in 1963.

PMR tracked not only the USAF Discoverer spacecraft but also the Soviet Union's space efforts, including their first manned mission. The PMR lived in the arctic quonset hut located about halfway down the runway on Tern Island then, later, during the Starfish atomic tests, two house trailers were manufactured and shipped to the island. After PMR left, the trailers were moved to a location between the barracks and the signal/power building and became housing for the E-6 and above and the Commanding Officer.

After PMR left Tern Island, tracking was conducted on specially outfitted ships such as the USNS Longview on which Mr. Wood was assigned from 1963-1966. USAF helicopters assigned to these ships would occasionally pay a visit to French Frigate Shoals if they were within easy range. (The photo above was taken on one such visit. J.Lentz)

On another occasion, a Navy pilot had to eject from his aircraft and one of the USAF helos picked him up and brought him to Tern Island. A Navy S-2 from Barbers Point flew out to pick him up. I (J. Lentz) was on duty at the time and although I had my camera loaded and handy, ffsxfer1.jpg was the best view I could get of the transfer from my workplace.

These next photos were provided by Mr. Wood who provides an interesting story behind the black marks at the end of the runway visible in several of them. tern1lra.jpg (128K) shows the entire length of Tern Island in vivid detail and was left as a large file to preserve the detail. The PMR site is at the bottom of the photo. tern2lra.jpg (78K) was also left fairly large and uncropped in order to show the beauty of the shoal waters in the central lagoon. skidmrk2.jpg shows the PMR site. The story behind the skidmarks will be forthcoming on the French Frigate Shoals Aviation & Space History page.

title: User:Dcfleck/temp


text:
User:Bloodstained Agar~enwiki

 moi@fr.wikipedia.org - me@en.wikipedia.org - moi@fr.wikibooks.org - me@en.wikibooks.org -

title: User:Bloodstained Agar~enwiki


text: Category:Geography of Burkina Faso

title: Category:Geography of Burkina Faso


text:
Talk:Eskimos

I find there is an article Eskimo, fine, but that Eskimos is a redirect to Inuit. I don't understand the nicities but this makes no sense to me. See also Talk:Eskimo. So, I am changing so Eskimos redirects to Eskimo and I'll look and see what links to Eskimos with a view to avoiding the term anyway. Thincat 12:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eskimos


text:
Talk:Zhan zhuang

—

I've tried to describe zhan zhuang in simple terms on the one hand, but to include mention of the main aspects of the practice.

Moved from article
The following is probably better off at Yiquan than here, as it only describes how the techniques is used in that style. Most other Chinese styles use post standing, and use it in different ways for different purposes:

The Yiquan method falls into two categories: Yangshen zhuang, health postures; and Jiji zhuang, combat postures.

The health postures are so called, because the body is allowed to become very relaxed while maintaining the posture. This relatively relaxed state is beneficial to health due to the calming effect on the mind and due to other effects such as the lowering of blood pressure and of heart rate.

Small adjustments are made to the posture that one has adopted, in order to minimise any localised muscular tension. As one becomes more proficient at achieving the relaxed state, one may become aware of a floating sensation due to the lack of any localised tension. Although many practitioners focus on the Yangshen postures as health methods, these postures are nevertheless considered to be useful for combat training, since the lack of localised tension allows any part of the body to be able, instantly to move in any direction, rapidly, without having to make any intermediate adjustments.

The Jiji zhuang, or combat postures have a different purpose from the health postures. In these postures, the practitioner adopts a stance similar to a health posture, i.e. with no localised tension, but now the practitioner tries to move every part of his body towards a particular direction, as if pushing or pulling; and at the same time he tries to prevent that movement from happening. The essential similarity with the health postures is that there is still no localised tension, even though mechanical work is being done. Since no movement occurs, the forces remain in a state of static equilibrium.

This training can be varied in several ways, whereby the direction of attempted movement is changed rapidly to improve responsiveness, for example; or where the degree of effort in the attempted movement is increased, in order to build strength.

--Fire Star 16:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to edit the page, but somehow things got screwed up (01:28, 26 January 2006 Mcherrill)

 * Mcherrill, please sign your contributions with ~ . The paragraph about Neijia you added is more suitable for the article Neijia. --JohJak2 13:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This Applies to All Chinese Martial Arts Pages
An often neglected aspect in the Wikipedia articles regarding things related to Chinese martial arts, is how demanding they are. I'm surprised to find there is no information on requirements such as the schools of olden times demanding a student work their way up to holding a stance for four hours. Four hours, that is, without resting; while I could be mistaken I believe master Yang Lu Chan, the founder of the Yang style of Tai Chi, required of all beginers to hold Zhan Zhuang for four hours. Zhan Zhuang is for the internal arts, what Ma Bu is for the exernal ones. For the Shaolin schools, and all related arts, Ma Bu is the very first stance learned, and for the internal schools, its Zhan Zhuang. It looks easy, but the exercise is brutal; just 20 minutes can be overwhelming, even if the shoulders are strong. Of course that's beside the point; I am just pointing out, that Wikipedia's Chinese martial arts articles should have stuff on the demands.

67.148.120.103 (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Photograph
I have only been doing taijiquan for a year now, but isn't the man in white on the photograph (the only one in full view) doing it very essentially wrong, with his elbows down like that? Also, his knees appear to be locked. (And he's wearing sunglasses, for crying out loud! :) ) In other words, don't we need a better photograph, especially since a picture is said to say more than an thousand words? (And at the moment the article isn't even that long, so there you go. :) )

Well, one out of three's not bad: There's nothing wrong with his elbows; in fact probably some of the others in the picture need to sink their elbows a little. And why can't he wear sunglasses?? But you might be right about the knees. No way to know if his knees really are locked out, but I agree it looks that way. Possibly there could be a better picture.35.129.66.46 (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

——HISTORY——

Besides the fact that the sources are based on a 2014 published book that is neither academic nor based on primary sources, we have a complete false history of the origins. This is very similar to the case when the claim is made that Tai Chi originates with Taoism, even though historians are very clear that it originates with Chen Wang Ting and is rooted in Shaolin which is only a few miles away from Chen village. Here again we have fancy Taoist claims, but the embracing posture which is claimed to be purely Taoist, actually originates from the famous Shaolin exercise of " Embracing the Urn". The problem with such unsupported claims are the fact that they contradict factual history supported by primary sources. For example, we have till this date not a single piece of evidence that Taoist exercises of any form were in any way concerned with topics other than health or spirituality prior to influence from Shaolin. As a matter of fact we have no evidence of any standing practice concerned with the development of martial power prior to Shaolin. Zhan Zhuang is actually completely rooted in Shaolin and the claim that internal styles are originally from Taoism fully contradicts the historical evidence, because the oldest documents that discuss internal boxing are from Shaolin and we see no such documents in Taoism until a millennia later. It is time that we do not rely on a categorization created on the turn of the early 19th century at the advent of Chinese nationalism.

title: Talk:Zhan zhuang


text:
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of gaps in Interstate Highways

List of gaps in Interstate Highways
woot --SPUI (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Object - no references; also it may be useful to separate current gaps from historic gaps - e.g. "I-39 had a gap between Rockford, Illinois and Portage, Wisconsin until the late 1990s, when signage was added along I-90 to fill the gap. " - so there is not a gap any more. It may be worth considering whether the information would be better presented as a table. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - along with ALoans's objections, I'd like the highway numbers to be either links or bold text to make them stand out and for some images to be added. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Some maps would be a good idea. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of monarchs of England and Scotland

List of British monarchs
Also looks very good to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Ditto. Now neutral in the light of today's addition to the talk page. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral, This isn't really a list of all the monarchs of Great Britain. It's only a list of the monarchs of England and Scotland before and after their union. Wales is in Great Britain, and it had monarchs before being incorporated into England. The Picts and the Isle of Man and Wessex, etc. were all "British" kingdoms with monarchs. So if the others are incorporated into this article, or this is moved to a better name, then I'll support it. --Dmcdevit 05:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, it lacks images. --Dmcdevit 06:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Images added. The title is rather difficult: I thought the lead paragraphs and first section explained its scope rather well.  Would List of Kings of England, of Scotland, of Great Britain, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be any better? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How about List of monarchs of England and Scotland? Other lists can then point to this one at the point where their kingdoms were joined to the English or Scottish thrones. --Theo (Talk) 13:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The brevity of this appeals more. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support well organized, although with a problematic name. Maybe it's the medievalist in me, but when I see British Kings, I think Vortigen, etc. List of monarchs of England and Scotland seems, to me, to be a good name for this article. Also, why start with Offa? - Dsmdgold 13:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a negative comment on my suggestion to change the title at Talk:List of British monarchs. There is also some (rather unhelpful) discussion of "why Offa" rather than Edgar or Aethelstan or Alfred the Great (as is used at List of monarchs of England and Kingdom of England). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oftentimes the creators are unwilling to do the needful. We could go the WP:RM route. I like Dsmgold's suggestion. And I'm sure it's the medievalist in me screaming about the independent kingdoms of Kent and Wessex and Sussex, etc. (And if you consider yourself a medievalist, maybe you could check out Black Death, I am having it peer reviewed right now.) I'll change my vote to support when the name's cleared up. --Dmcdevit 17:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the a name change would be a good idea too. --Spangineer ∞ 11:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Or better yet, why not just include the others that would fall under "British monarchs", as suggested by Dmcdevit? This list isn't by any means too long, and the addition might be helpful. --Spangineer ∞ 11:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spangineer - why not include Welsh rulers and then there wouldn't have to be any name change of the current list.--Sophitus 01:26, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, does not include rulers of Wales. Neutralitytalk 07:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * None of these people was (as far as I am aware) a "monarch of Wales". The list sets out its scope quite tightly in its header:  monarchs of England (although see the query above about when it should start), of Scotland, of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and of the United Kingdom.  If you want the Welsh principalities to be included, what about the kings of Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland ... (and the King of Ireland - or High King of Ireland - and the other Irish kingdoms...) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, pending whatever namechange is deemed necessary, if any, by those who know more about this than I. I like the format. Tuf-Kat 01:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, the introduction defines the list's scope sufficently. -- User:Docu
 * Object for the moment I'm afraid. Firstly, I think the naming issue needs to be resolved before this can be featured - yes, it's explained in the lead, but that doesn't alter the fact that the article title is inaccurate at present (I like the suggestion of List of monarchs of England and Scotland). Secondly, the table formatting doesn't work for me. If you're going to have England and Scotland next to each other in the table, it should be possible to look across from one and see who was ruling the other at the same time. If the timelines don't match up, you may as well just put one list below the other. OpenToppedBus - Talk 09:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:130.161.145.164

title: User talk:130.161.145.164