text:
Homunculus (manga)

Homunculus (ホムンクルス) is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Hideo Yamamoto. It was serialized in Shogakukan's seinen manga magazine Weekly Big Comic Spirits from March 2003 to February 2011, with its chapters collected in 15 tankōbon volumes. A live-action film adaptation, directed by Takashi Shimizu and starring Gō Ayano premiered in April 2021.

Plot
Trepanation is the procedure of drilling holes in a person's head, supposedly increasing the circulation of blood and helping to improve the pressure inside one's skull, bringing out a person's sixth sense and causing them to gain superhuman powers such as ESP, being able to see ghosts, and controlling objects remotely with one's mind. This is speculative fiction based on the concept of trepanation.

Susumu Nakoshi is a 34-year-old homeless man living out of his car. For two weeks, he has declined his fellow homeless men's invitations to set up a tent with them, preferring to sleep in his car. However, one day, he is accosted by a strange-looking man searching for participants to subject themselves to trepanation. Nakoshi tells the man to leave, and discards the flier he'd placed on his windshield. However, when his car is towed, he agrees to let medical student Manabu Itoh drill a hole in his skull in exchange for 700,000 yen. Itoh claims to be interested in trepanation for the sake of science; he is interested in humans, fascinated with ESP and the sixth sense, and wants to disprove the existence of the occult. Itoh's father owns a lab facility, as his father is a rich hospital director. Itoh performs the trepanation surgery on Nakoshi and does a variety of ESP tests. When Nakoshi reveals that he sees distorted humans when using only the left side of his body, Itoh researches and discovers that Nakoshi can see homunculi.

Itoh explains psychoanalytic theory to Nakoshi after the yakuza incident.

Characters

 * Susumu Nakoshi (名越 進)
 * A 34-year-old man. At the beginning of the series, he is shown to be recently homeless and living out of his car. He is living between two worlds, that of the upper class and that of the homeless. He is a former employee of a foreign bank, and a pathological liar. After the trepanation procedure, he gains the ability to see peoples homunculi or "distortions".
 * A 34-year-old man. At the beginning of the series, he is shown to be recently homeless and living out of his car. He is living between two worlds, that of the upper class and that of the homeless. He is a former employee of a foreign bank, and a pathological liar. After the trepanation procedure, he gains the ability to see peoples homunculi or "distortions".

 * Manabu Ito (伊藤 学)
 * A 22-year-old medical student who proposes the trepanation experiment and investigates material relevant to Nakoshi's reports. She is transgender, but hides this fact from her ailing father, a high-ranking doctor at a hospital whom she has a strained relationship with.
 * A 22-year-old medical student who proposes the trepanation experiment and investigates material relevant to Nakoshi's reports. She is transgender, but hides this fact from her ailing father, a high-ranking doctor at a hospital whom she has a strained relationship with.

 * Yukari (ユカリ) / 1775
 * A 17-year-old girl working in a burusera salon and one of the first homunculi Nakoshi interacts with.

Manga
Homunculus, written and illustrated by Hideo Yamamoto, was serialized in Shogakukan's Weekly Big Comic Spirits from March 17, 2003, to February 21, 2011. Shogakukan collected its chapters in 15 tankōbon volumes, released from July 30, 2003, to April 28, 2011. They later republished the series in a ten-volume bunkoban edition from May 15, 2015, to January 15, 2016.

The manga is licensed in North America by Seven Seas Entertainment. They started publishing the series in a 2-in-1 five-volume omnibus edition on June 27, 2023.

Live-action film
In September 2020, it was announced that Homunculus would receive a live-action film adaptation. The film is directed by Takashi Shimizu and stars Gō Ayano. It premiered in Japan on April 2, 2021, and premiered exclusively on Netflix worldwide on April 22.

Reception
By September 2020, the Homunculus manga had over 4 million copies in circulation.

title: Homunculus (manga)


text:
Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 8

Why so extremely negative introduction?
Why is the introduction of Adolf Hitler now so extremely negative and mostly turned into POV statements? This is not in accordance with our NPOV policy. In the same time, the introduction of Joseph Stalin, the worst mass murderer of all times, is mostly positive and deals nearly only with his economic and scientific achievements and fails to mention his crimes adequately. A complete rewrite of one of them is in order.
 * We've had this discussion. Unfortunately, it wasn't much good, because as you can see, the intro is back to the good old "Hitler was a bad man" style of intro, including the word "reviled", on which whole tomes were written on this talk page. "Widely regarded" makes everything better, of course. Hum.
 * Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I'd say it's probably impossible to write an NPOV intro on Hitler that satisfies everyone with its clear neutrality. If you don't mention how he was a bad man with some loaded term like "reviled", some people are going to cry foul for covering up this admittedly "widely regarded" view of Hitler. If you do mention it, others are going to cry foul over such a deliberate POV angle, accurate or not. Who is right? Since the intro can't really be used for citations, and is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, there's really far too wide a battleground. Polls, perhaps? Eternal back-and-forth edits? Wait for someone with the Right Version we just haven't thought about yet to come around? I don't know.
 * Not playing devil's advocate for a moment, but coming from my personal view, I'd say "for crying out loud, how is it helping any reader to inform them Hitler was 'widely regared' as 'reviled'?" Even if you don't know who Hitler was (humor me, here) "reviled" is too big a judgement to toss around without immediately backing it up. Yes, I know what Hitler did, and once you've gotten the little issue of genocide past the reader, there might be more understanding for the "reviled" bit. But still.
 * For comparison, here is how Britannica's article starts. Their conventions differ from ours (they don't really start with a concise intro of everything) but it's still instructive.

byname Der Führer (German: “The Leader”)

born April 20, 1889, Braunau am Inn, Austria

died April 30, 1945, Berlin, Germany

leader of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party (from 1920/21) and chancellor (Kanzler) and Führer of Germany (1933–45). He was chancellor from January 30, 1933, and, after President Paul von Hindenburg's death, assumed the twin titles of Führer and chancellor (August 2, 1934).

Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was illegitimate. For a time he bore his mother's name, Schicklgruber, but by 1876 he had established his family claim to the surname Hitler. Adolf never used any other surname.
 * JRM · Talk 21:01, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I agree w both of you heartilly, and would like to see a balanced intro. We must always strive for NPOV, even if its unachievable! Sam Spade 22:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Saying that hitler was bad man in the intro is childish, even if one uses a $20 word "reviled". The current intro pretty much says what he did, and if a reader thinks that WWII and Holocaust were not that bad, we are not going to change their mind by saying "Watch out! Hitler was nasty boy" two lines of text above. Mikkalai 23:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I happen to think that 1k year thing is excellent prose, coupled w him having failed so utterly. Of course I did write it, so I'd like to hear the thoughts of others. Sam Spade 00:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with the evaluation of the prose, but this historical irony is so immaterial (in the sense of information delivery) IMO. There is plenty of fine reading around. Encyclopedia serves a different purpose. But I will not insistently argue here. Mikkalai 00:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What do others think? Someone want to break the tie? Sam Spade 00:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "No soliciting!" Mikkalai 01:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's say a reader who has never heard of Adolf Hitler comes to Wikipedia to find out about him. As far as I'm concerned, such a person is done a disservice if we point out that Hitler was "regarded as significant" but not that he is reviled--and, folks, saying that Hitler is "reviled" (not that he's "evil," which is not what we say) is a statement of fact.

I'd be happy with not mentioning (until later, perhaps) how Hitler is regarded, but if we do we must mention that it is in a negative way. To do otherwise it to appear strangely ignorant of Hitler's legacy. Demi T/C 01:11, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

You can't write an intro to Hitler that is remotely balanced if you omit to mention his reputation. To describe him, as was done recently, as simply "a German politician", is like describing Oliver Cromwell as a Member of Parliament for Huntingdon. We don't report our own opinion of him, but we *must* report the most widespread opinion of him. To omit that from the intro, ironically, unbalances the article when the intention is the exact opposite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think my version, plus the excision of "significant", works fine. The first paragraph of the lead describes him - he was fuhrer and reichskanzler of Germany, his nation controlled most of Europe during this time, and he was head of the Nazi party. All purely factual, all purely NPOV. The second para describes his role in the start of WW2 - again, purely factual and NPOV. (except perhaps for the mention of "unprecedented scale" but come on, it was) Anyone who gets beyond the first paragraph will get to the second paragraph, which makes it very clear that he was a bad man. It doesn't need to be stated explicitly. At first, I was against removing either "reviled" or "significant", but as it stands now, those are implied in the writing, which is probably a better option than saying to the reader, "HEY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HATE THIS GUY". And yes, putting "German politican" was needlessly sanitizing it. --Golbez 01:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

You know what I'd like? Something more than "Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in much of the world as synonymous with evil. Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are almost uniformly negative." From here to "widely reviled" is just not good enough. I know it's the proverbial elephant, but surely we can dig up some sources on how Hitler is viewed? At least we'd have something to justify those terms with. JRM · Talk 01:38, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

It's the introduction we're talking about. We *should* say he's widely reviled and that his significance in twentieth century history is regarded as great, because those are the most significant facts about Hitler--that long after his death his name is synonymous with evil, that even now it's illegal to publish his autobiography in Germany, and that he's held to blame for the conflagration of Europe. How can we possibly justify an opener that omits these facts? How could we call an article with such glaring omissions NPOV? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I dunno, it seems to work rather well right now. --Golbez 03:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, time to accept the consensus. I'm utterly baffled, the first two paragraphs seem to me to have lost all their former clarity and beauty (how did we end up with the tortuous "He implemented the racial policies of Nazi Germany, including what is now known as The Holocaust, the genocide of millions, including approximately 6 million Jews"? -ugh!) When despite my involvement the language quality and clarity of an article degrades, I find it's best to just give up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey the style and the content of article, especially the introduction get really terrible sometimes. It's very difficult of course to have a good wording there. You can find many other attempts and a lot of discussion here. The current wording was a compromise on many others before.
 * I read what nyenyec considered the wikipedia-inherent limitations. There is of course a problem with vandalism and very divergent opinions about him. I guess this one here is the most controversial article on wikipedia.
 * One idea, to have at least the introduction stable and solid, would be to vote on the exact wording of it and then protect it. I mean not protection protection, but to put e.g. a warning there, e.g. . This way any changes could be easier reverted and vandals easily identified. We could at least arrive at a stable version of the introduction. Any thoughts on that? Is it antiwiki? Ben talk contr 05:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Tony, I agree, and I'm fixing that now. I'm mostly new to this article; hows about we chat and trade constructive criticisms before you throw up your hands and give up? --Golbez 06:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I just made another attempt at including reviled, evil and significant; please leave comments. --Golbez 07:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey Golbez, why don't you look at the discussion we had before back in February about the use of adjectives in the introduction, before you start editing everything. Especially if you are new to this article. It will help you avoiding some mistakes and prevent disappointment later. Ben talk contr 12:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wiki way: Be bold. I'm not married to the words, I just wanted to see how they went over. Far from being "disappointed", the bulk of my edits have remained. Sorry I didn't disappoint. --Golbez 16:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nobody said you would disappoint, Golby. It's just easy to get disappointed here. Ben please vote! 12:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

This is the intro at 13:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC), which I'm pasting here to have a point of reference: Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was the Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to his death. At the height of his Third Reich, his armies had conquered and dominated most of Europe. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (commonly known as the Nazi Party). Hitler's attempts to create a Greater Germany, beginning with the annexation of Austria and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, were the primary cause of World War II in Europe. This total war brought destruction and suffering on an unprecedented scale, leading to the deaths of over thirty million people. His racial policies were similarly destructive, eventually involving the systematic genocide of over 11 million people in what is now known as the Holocaust. He led Germany from the depths of post-World War I defeat to be one of the most powerful nations in the world in less than a decade; however, the war he started was ultimately lost, and his planned "thousand-year Reich" ended shortly after his death, reportedly by suicide, in his Berlin Führerbunker. (See Hitler's death.) I'm not saying it's perfect at all, but I want to point out three significant facts: Now, I'm sure some of you still think that not mentioning at least something like "reviled" violates NPOV by ignoring a common view. I disagree. The intro is not required to represent common views of Hitler at all. Unlike, say, The Beatles, historical views on Hitler's merits are not significant for establishing his notability. Oh, I'll grant you that they're significant in and of themselves, and belong in the article—but I do not believe we have to use the intro for them. If we decide to do this, then yes, the burden of doing it in an NPOV manner is on us, but do we really need to do this? I think not, and I think insisting on it burden us with a Mission Impossible. Trying to cram everything in the intro is an exercise that may be beyond mere mortals, when it comes to convincing everyone of its neutrality. JRM · Talk 13:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
 * 1) This intro accurately represents the most salient facts about Hitler's life and career.
 * 2) In particular, it describes the results of his actions in piles of bodies.
 * 3) It does not use "charismatic", "reviled", "evil" or any other adjective describing common views of Hitler, and I can't say I'm missing them.
 * Thanks, I was rather pleased with that; I did have a single sentence which included significant, reviled and evil, and it was easily removed, and it probably works better this way. I put that in there as an attempt to try it. The other edits since mine were equating the Holocaust with his policies; I'll change "eventually involving" to "culminating in". And the first graph may be improvable, but I'm not sure how at this moment. --Golbez 16:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading Tony's comments, it strikes me that there is no reason we couldn't have a paragraph on Hitler's reputation and impact after the mere facts. This seems much better to me than mixing in these sentences in an attempt to get a wondrously clear two-paragraph magic intro. Separating concerns might have merit. JRM · Talk 13:17, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Analogous with Joseph Stalin, there should be someting about the positive sides of his rule, like the economical achivements that pulled Germany out of the depression of the 20s, and technological achievements, as well as lasting things like the social welfare state (and perhaps things like the Autobahn, Volkswagen etc.). Only including negative things in the introduction is POV. Also, Hitler was NOT responsible for all 30 million deaths. Stalin (which Hitler started the war jointly with) was the responsible man for a lot of them, and other allies killed many too. I don't see estimates on how many people Stalin killed in his introduction, or how many people Churchill or Truman killed in their introductions.
 * There is a single positive line, about how he helped turned Germany around into one of the strongest nations around. I actually did try to think of a way to mention the Autobahn, but then again, it was done with virtual slave labor; that would be like praising the Confederacy for all the things the slaves grew. This article isn't about Stalin or Churchill or Truman, perhaps their articles should be edited. However, the fact remains - Without Hitler, there would not have been a WW2 in Europe. He started it. Therefore, the deaths are on him. --Golbez 22:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is no doubt Stalin is as much "reviled" as Hitler. When I put it in the Stalin article, it was removed. I feel "reviled" has nothing in this article to do if it is not also included in the Stalin article. In any event, Hitler was a popular politician in his lifetime in the country he ruled, I feel that is more important. You know, George Bush is very "reviled" both in Europe and the Arab world those days too, but would the US-Americans accept that we added it to the Bush article? The same applies to Ariel Sharon, probably one of the most reviled people in the world and almost universally considered a notorious war criminal. --83
 * We don't have reviled in the lead, so this does not seem like a current argument. If you mean elsewhere in the article, then that belongs in a new talk section, this is about the intro :) --Golbez 22:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

The current article seems to claim Hitler was the only one responsible for WWII in Europe. This is obviously incorrect. From 1939 on, Stalin attacked Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and a bunch of other countries. Stalin was as responsible as Hitler, if not even more. The German annexations had all to do with incorporating territory where it lived Germans and which had for a large part until recently been part of Germany or Austria. It was the allies who decided to turn it into a world war when they declared war on Germany (however, not on the Soviet Union, for some reason).
 * His alliance with Stalin could be added in, yes. --Golbez 22:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * You don't seem to grasp the dimensions of what you say. If it was Stalin who caused WWII, then go to the Stalin article and argue there. This article only states what every professor for history might tell you: Hitler is thought to be responsible (or one of the responsible) for causing WWII and for killing many many people. To state this is not POV! Ben please vote! 12:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarian?
I may have missed something, but has there really been no mention of Hitler's supposed vegetarianism? It may be a myth or an exaggeration or whatever, but it's widely mentioned (a supposed source of humour or "irony") and surely the article should deal with the subject somewhere. Flapdragon 12:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see there's a brief mention at Adolf Hitler's medical health, but I doubt many people would think to look there. Being a veggie isn't normally thought of as a medical condition. Flapdragon 15:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * His vegetarianism is certainly relevant beyond, being a detail of, his medical history because, although he did advance health reasons, his primary motivation was ethical. — Morning star 16:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hitler was NOT a vegetarian. He ate meat, his fave food was a type of sausage and something else meaty, and he only occasionally took a break from eating meat on the advice of his doctor. Also, to be a true vegetarian you aren't supposed to use animal products, and he used a lot of leather. Also, if Hitler was a vegetarian, then he would have pushed his officers to be as well, as he pushed them not to smoke. --Silversmith 11:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks but that doesn't really help since we're not actually discussing whether he was a vegetarian or not, just the fact that there should be a reference to the subject in this entry. Do you have any precise, reliable references? Flapdragon 13:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * In the April 26, 1942, entry of Joseph Goebbels diary, he wrote: "An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is wrong. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling."
 * In The Enigma of Hitler, SS General Leon Degrelle wrote: "He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature.  He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed."  —Morning star 14:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Article explaining why it doesn't matter if Hitler was a vegetarian. Article explaining that Hitler was not a vegetarian. One might also point out that as he had millions of the animal Homo sapiens slaughtered, he was not an ethical vegetarian.  Chameleon 16:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems the belief that Hitler was a vegetarian (or "a person who didn't eat meat reportedly because ethical concerns withheld him even though his other actions show little to no concern for ethics", I'll grant you that) is notable enough in this respect to warrant mention in a more logical place than Adolf Hitler's medical health. Of course we need POVs that the whole thing was made up and/or Hitler didn't fit the bill as well. Start editing, folks. >:-) JRM · Talk 17:24, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

 * Two important points (on top of his eating meat): "If Hitler had been a vegetarian, he would not have banned vegetarian organizations in Germany and the occupied countries; nor would he have failed to urge a meatless diet on the German people as a way of coping with Germany’s World War II food shortage." - Rynn Berry, author. See second link supplied by Chameleon. --Silversmith 17:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * His banning of vegetarian organizations is news to me, so I speak with no authority; but I would speculate that the rationale for the ban had something to do with political considerations other than their vegetarianism. Regarding the urging of a meatless diet for Germany, someone told me there was a weekly vegetarian meal adopted by Hitler's household and encouraged for all Germany (when I asked for the source, they thought it might have been in one of Albert Speer's works).  In The Nazi War on Cancer, by Robert N. Proctor (ISBN 0691070512), there is at least one chapter on the promotion of soy beans as a positive alternative to meat (going so far as to rename them: "Nazi beans"). —Morning star 14:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

So, should this topic have its own page (Adolf Hitler and Vegetarianism), or a section of the main article (something like Adolf_Hitler)? —Morning star 14:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Typically these things start out on the main page, and get shuttled off to separate articles as they grow. There's not much point to having a one-paragraph article on Hitler and vegetarianism, for example. This also makes it easier to write appropriate summaries for the main page when the article does get split off. JRM · Talk 14:50, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Ugly image
Image:Adolf.Hitler.jpg seems to be chosen deliberately because it is ugly. Why not using a more characteristical image?
 * (above comment added by 83.109.148.29 --Demi)

 * This would be the place to suggest an alternative. Demi T/C 04:16, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

How many hises do we need?
We have "...his Third Reich," "...his armies," "Hitler's attempt..." and especially "His racial policies...." While obscuring the personal responsibility Hitler had for the horrors of the Third Reich, the Holocaust and World War II would be wrong, this makes it sound like he was the sole motivator of all of these, when in fact he had many willing, enthusiastic and creative confederates. The "his..." "his..." "his..." structure leaves little room for culpability outside of the man himself.

I greatly prefer the "his armies" statement to the former (strange) "military-industrial complex he fostered" but I dislike "his racial policies...," which, despite his enthusiastic acceptance, promulgation and direction, were descended from widespread antisemitism and racism that Hitler hardly invented. The Third Reich had many architects; the victims of the Holocaust many murderers.

We should remove some of the "personal ownership" words in the introduction, qualify some and leave others. In particular, I recommend "...the Third Reich," "...his armies," "Hitler's nationalistic attempt..." and "The racial policies he adopted and directed..." or something similar.

 * Demi T/C 17:43, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

 * It was his Third Reich, though perhaps we should say "Germany's armies". We could also change "His racial policies" to "Nazi Germany's racial policies", which gives us a chance to link Nazi Germany in the lead. If possible, we could mention Mein Kampf, but that could make it too long. We should still keep his attempt; he was leader. Due to the comments (about not changing the lead before talking about it), I propose the following changes "At the height of his Third Reich, the armies of Nazi Germany had conquered and dominated most of Europe.".

 * As for the racial policies bit, I do think they were mostly his. Most people, rightly so, see him as the integral person behind the Holocaust, if not the one that actually carried it out or arranged it. Perhaps "The racial policies he fostered" instead of "his racial policies" would work better. --Golbez 17:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Well you started it! You invaded Poland!"
I reverted Sam's change of
 * Hitler's attempt to create a "Greater Germany", beginning with the annexation of Austria and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, was the primary cause of World War II in Europe.

to
 * Hitler's attempt to create a "Greater Germany", beginning with the annexation of Austria and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, was a primary cause of World War II in Europe.

On the ground that there is only one primary cause, by definition (there are other meanings of "primary" that allow plurals ("primary colors"), but "first in rank of importance", the one used here, isn't one of them). "Primary" does not mean "only", so other factors are not excluded by this wording. You can try a reformulation if you think this should be given more prominence, but I think it's clear enough as it is. I dispute that there is more than a very small minority of POVs who contest that especially Hitler's invasion was the primary cause. JRM · Talk 21:18, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * There is only one primary cause. There can be many other causes, but only one primary.  And Hitler's attempt to create a Greater Germany was it. Jayjg (talk)  21:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not that happy with this sentence. What one considers causes can vary depending on the scope of your definition. I doubt a reader of Causes of World War II would, however, cast this in quite the way we have, which ascribes so much of the moving force behind the war to one man alone (as in, if he had never thought of it, it wouldn't have happened, which is not a rock-solid assertion).

Secondly, I'm not sure Grossdeutschland actually means what one would think it means from the context here, and the term is not mentioned in either World War II or Causes of World War II (clearly Hitler attempted to subjugate other states, not just unite German-speaking lands under one rule, which is what the term implies to me). How about something more like this:

 * Hitler's attempt to expand the German Empire led to the annexation of Austria and invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland which marked the beginning of World War II in Europe.

Hm. I'm not really thrilled with that either, but at least it links the "Causes" article. Demi T/C 22:27, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I only now see that intro is loaded with easter egg links. This is a legitimate use of them, however, which I did not anticipate when I condemned easter egg links on Piped link; it prevents a lot of "see also"s in the intro, boosts the accessibility of information from the intro, and the primary objections against easter egg links (spoken or print versions cannot have them) are not relevant since the intro is by design expanded on in the article, which has all the relevant links.

Not that this makes writing the intro easier, mind you. I've taken yet another stab at it, cramming in the fact that Hitler's expansion didn't "lead" to the Anschluss but that the latter was a part of it, emphasizing that the expansion wasn't just the surroundings, that the Polish invasion was the beginning but not necessarily the primary cause, and clearing up some links in the process. Feedback & edits always welcome, of course. JRM · Talk 23:20, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * I liked the content of the new sentence, but something about it didn't flow for me. I've taken another attempt, and it contains only one piped link, to avoid repeating "World War II" which still seems like it most naturally goes at the end of the sentence. Demi T/C 23:52, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. I especially like the way you got rid of the parenthetical phrase. JRM · Talk 23:57, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

"Racial policies of systematic genocide"
I'm spilling a lot of words over edits on the talk page here, but then, this isn't your average article.

Neutrality changed
 * His racial policies culminated in the systematic genocide of over 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

to
 * His racial policies of systematic genocide led to the killing of over 11 million people in what is now known as the Holocaust.

I reverted this back to the earlier wording, minus the explicit mention of the Jews, which is not my main beef here (that's a separate issue we can talk about, and I'm not sticking my hand in that hornet's nest). The old version has a few more words, but in my opinion they're well spent. "His racial policies of systematic genocide" fails to cover the entire scope (it certainly wasn't genocide from the beginning), and "culminated" makes it much clearer that what is known as the Holocaust was something that was gradually built up to. JRM · Talk 23:10, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
 * As established by the linked-to article. By the way, I think the following version reads slightly better and is slightly handier with its usage (note it also addresses one of my concerns, above):

 * The racial policies he directed culminated in the systematic extermination of over 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.

 * I'm not being bold and changing this sentence because I made that edit once already and was reverted.

 * Demi T/C 00:26, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, I-as-one-person would love to see that sentence instead of the old one, because it finally gets rid of one of my pet peeves—the ridiculous tautology that is "systematic genocide". Not that this isn't already a big improvement over "genocidal Holocaust", mind you. JRM · Talk 00:33, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

"Occupied most of Europe"
The following sentense in the intro is misleading IMO:
 * At the height of his Third Reich, the armies of Nazi Germany had conquered and occupied most of Europe

It did not occupy Great Britain, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Zwitzerland, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland,Sweden, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, most of the European part of Russia was still free as well. So the word "most" is quite an exaggerration IMO here, if one bothers to take a glance at the map of Europe. Mikkalai 23:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I returned the sentence with "much" instead of "most." I also used dominate instead of occupy since not all of the power exercised was strictly occupation. An earlier discussion had established the desirability of mentioning the Third Reich and extent of power. Demi T/C 00:13, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, I think the case can be argued that Nazi Germany controlled the biggest part of Europe relative to other forces. Not that I think you can state that in an attractive fashion. :-) JRM · Talk 00:18, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

 * Erm, Kazakhstan is in Europe now? El_C 07:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Mein Kampf - not prohibited in germany
Sorry, but there is some mistake in this article. Hitlers book is not prohibited in Germany. The only thing is, that the Free State of Bavaria holds the copyright for it (which will expire around 2015) and doesnt allow any reproductions of it (and will actively pursuit unallowed reprints by means of copyrightlaw). But you are freely allowed to trade old examples of the book. see also http://www.damaschke.de/marginalia/1998/anfrage-1998-07-12.php (in german) i hope this will be changed, because it just boosts a wide-spread misbelieve among many germans about censorship in germany even more (not that there is none).
 * After reading the German link above I've changed the article's paragraph from the following:

In Germany today it is illegal to distribute or sell Hitler's book Mein Kampf, although heavily commented and excerpted versions approved by the government are available.
 * to this:

In Germany today it is a copyright infringement, and depending on presentation, an offence against the constitution, to distribute or sell new copies of Hitler's book Mein Kampf, although owning and buying old copies is legal, and heavily commented and excerpted versions approved by the government are available.
 * Rather wordy, and I saw no mention of government approval in the German link.-Wikibob | Talk 23:06, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

User:Haham hanuka's intro rewrites
I reverted the second paragraph, which Haham hanuka had rewritten to:
 * Hitler's attempts to create a "Greater Germany", beginning with the annexation of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland in 1939 as the invasion led Poland's allies the United Kingdom and France to declare war on Germany. This was the beginning of World War II that brought destruction and suffering on an unprecedented scale. His racial policies had reached their peak in the ethnic cleansing which led the word genocide being coined.

Re Greater Germany: see discussion above. Re UK and France declaring war: superfluous. Re "destruction and suffering on an unprecedented scale": less factual and more emotional rewriting of "total war [...] that led to the deaths of over 30 million people". Re "the word genocide": the Holocaust deserves mention, not linguistics. JRM · Talk 14:56, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
 * disagree,UK and France declaring war: NOT superfluous (if you write about WWII), the old version is not objective at all. --Haham hanuka 15:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's one point out of four. Hitler's invasion marked the beginning of World War II. It did so because others declared war on Germany, which is neatly described in our article on World War II, as well as this article. But is there a particular reason it has to appear in the intro? Furthermore, you removed the link to causes of World War II, which is a lot more useful in providing perspective on matters than saying "France and the UK declared war".
 * The "Greater Germany" link is misleading; this is discussed above (under "you started it!").
 * Why was any mention of the Holocaust removed? I hope we're not disputing that this is a significant (possibly the most significant) aspect of Hitler's rule.
 * "The old version is not objective": you'll have to be more specific than that. What's wrong with it? JRM · Talk 15:12, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
 * I think that presenting Hitler as a cartoonish monster is inappropriate for encyclopedia. The real life is much more complicated. For example the number of Japanese victims is not mantioned in the intro of Harry S. Truman, by the way the number of Jews victims is DISPUTED. We should not blame Hitler on evey "bad think" that happened in his lifetime. --Haham hanuka 17:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is why we take care not to do that in the article. Comparing Hitler to Truman is spurious, because the majority views on Truman do not include that he committed genocide on the Japanese people. Whether the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a justifiable act of war or a baseless atrocity is still contentious. Whether the Holocaust was justified is most definitely not.
 * It is not seriously disputed by anyone that Hitler had a great personal responsibility in drafting the racial policies of Nazi Germany, and that he likewise personally approved of the Holocaust. For right or wrong, the Jews are the most prominent victims of the Holocaust, being the primary targets of those racial policies, and simply omitting that fact does nothing to make the intro better.
 * The number of Jewish victims is not disputed by any reputable source, and if you think otherwise, I suggest you get that number altered in all other places, by consensus and referencing sources, before you dispute it in the intro here. See Holocaust denial, in which (among other things) claims of incorrect numbers are thoroughly debunked. JRM · Talk 17:40, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to remove numbers of the victims from the intro, including the World War II casualties. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a genocide but the number of Japanese who died as a result is not mentioned in Harry S. Truman, PS the "real" number of the Jewish victims according to Yad Vashem is 5,860,129. --Haham hanuka 09:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, the comparison is flawed. The number of WW II casualties and Jewish victims is much more notable than the number of Japanese victims at the atomic bombings—mainly because they're much larger than any individual number of casualties in any war. I'm not saying this is a good thing or that the Japanese victims deserve to be ignored, but this is the majority view as I see it.
 * What's more, you yourself put in that World War II caused "destruction and suffering on an unprecedented scale". How is this an improvement over calling it a "total war [...] that led to the deaths of over 30 million people"? The latter is far more informative to the reader than just saying it was "unprecedented". Mind you, we are not saying that Hitler himself killed 30 million people. We are not even saying that he killed 6 million, but we are saying he had a big part to play in both, and that isn't disputed by anyone.
 * "PS the "real" number of the Jewish victims according to Yad Vashem is 5,860,129" Which, when rounded, is 6 million. Nobody is claiming that exactly 6 million people died. Using Yad Vashem's precise count instead of the number which has less accuracy but more sources backing it up doesn't seem like a good idea. JRM · Talk 10:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I think Golbez's reversion to the previous intro structure is an improvement. We've previously established that it's desirable to mention his role in the origins of the war and its consequences. Doing so in an overly-explicated way, trying to qualify for each detail and exception (even in JRM's improved version) doesn't help. We link to the causes article, where those details and subtleties are examined, and we describe Germany's expansionism and invasion of Poland specifically as the start of the war. Haham hanuka's edits didn't improve anything and we are better off where we were before. Demi T/C 21:02, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
 * Well, Golbez changed it back, partly at my behest (I asked him about his reversion before this comment was made). I think the present version is not beyond saving—at least it fixes the equivocation the earlier version made about the annexation of Austria, the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland to spark the war—only the last thing was the immediate cause, and it is true that the war began with the declaration of war on Germany (the remaining causes are, as you say, much more difficult to squeeze in). I think the intro just about gets away with it now. Haham hanuka's other suggestions I cannot fit in, because they degrade the factuality of the earlier version, as described in my comments above. JRM · Talk 23:47, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that according to World War II, the war began in Europe with the invasion of Poland, not the consequent declarations. Demi T/C 10:13, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Trim "beginnings"
We grew to two sentences now describing the beginning of the war; in the interest of keeping the introduction a mere introduction, I have shortened it again, at some cost of detail. However, I didn't want to see us going down a path I saw adorned with the alcoves of appeasement, the dangerous footpads of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the uncontrolled zebra crossing of the Sitzkrieg. I also changed "reportedly by suicide" (see previous discussions); while we have agreed that just "by suicide" is too much of an assertion, I've never liked "reportedly" because it implies a specific report or a witness making a report. Demi T/C 09:50, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
 * I think the "reportedly" battle is hopeless, because we're turning on a dime here. I do not want to see us go back and forth between "reportedly", "apparently", "allegedly" or anything else ending in -ly. Any ideas we can all agree on? "Most likely"? "Generally accepted as"? "Commonly held to be"? While "reportedly" may be very concise, the implicit overtones of it being based on just one (probably unverified) report are too strong. JRM · Talk 10:03, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
 * Yes, I let it alone. Demi T/C 10:21, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

 * I just reverted this here because it's too long:

''Hitler began an expansion of Germany through the annexation of Austria and invasion of Czechoslovakia. Historians advance many causes of World War II in Europe, but it was the Polish September Campaign (the conquest of Poland by the armies of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union) that provoked a declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France. The resulting total war...''
 * It seems to be useful though and could be integrated in a discussion at the end of the article. Ben please vote! 12:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Intro
Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889–April 30, 1945) was the Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (better known as the Nazi Party). At the height of his Third Reich, the armies of Nazi Germany and its allies controlled the larger part of Europe.

Hitler began an expansion of Germany through the annexation of Austria and invasion of Czechoslovakia. Historians advance many causes of World War II in Europe, but it was Germany's invasion of Poland that provoked a declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France. The resulting total war between Allied and Axis Powers led to the deaths of over 30 million people. The racial policies Hitler directed culminated in the systematic extermination of over 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.

He led Germany from the depths of post-World War I defeat to be one of the most powerful nations in the world; however, the war he started was ultimately lost, and the planned "thousand-year Reich" ended shortly after his death, reportedly by suicide, in the Führerbunker in Berlin during the final days of the war.

Please discuss
Hmm. 4.250.198.126 just cut everything to leave just this two-sentence intro:

 * Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889–April 30, 1945) was the Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (better known as the Nazi Party).

I don't know whether this should be considered good or bad. On the one hand it suffers from the "Hitler was a German politician" syndrome (that is, it completely avoids everything of interest to Hitler's life); this is more like Britannica does it, but it's not usual on Wikipedia, and it also suggests that this is all there is to tell on Hitler if you had to summarize it.

On the other hand, it's hard to argue that what is there isn't completely neutral. That's a lot of endless discussion out of the window right there. Opinions? JRM · Talk 14:59, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
 * One can be non-neutral by omission as well. Demi T/C 17:40, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

While one would wish to at least add "known for starting WWII and killing lots of Jews" one can not do that on wikipedia without opening the pandora's box of unending battle. At least a short intro like this keeps the fight and reverts to subsections and also allows a full discussion where those topics ARE mentioned so people can't cut off the other side of the story by saying it has to be kept short. In a provocative subject, a short intro helps keep the wasted energy to a minimum. 4.250.198.126 16:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If the intro doesn't mention World War II then something is very wrong with it. It would be like writing an article on Abraham Lincoln without mentioning the Civil War. Nobody can seriously be in any doubt that Hitler started WWII; whatever other causes or provocations he may have had, he undoubtedly personally and repeatedly took decisions that clearly and knowingly led to the war. The persecution and killing is also without question. The only possible concession to the holocaust revisionists here might be not stating the number up front. DJ Clayworth 17:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I actually think, depending on your definition of "start," you can be in such doubt. We do mention the war (twice, actually), but trying to add detail about whose fault it was just isn't working. Since that (and the consequences of the war in terms of bodies) seemed the really contentious point, I added some of the other things back in. Demi T/C 17:36, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over the definition of 'start', any more than the definition of 'is'. To the level of accuracy required for an introductory paragraph, Hitler started WWII. You can argue that other people caused him to start it at some level, but even then he had the choice. His actions were the ones that initiated the war. Either way, the intro has to mention WWII. DJ Clayworth 17:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * By all accounts hitler didn't want to fight england. He also may not have wanted to fight france (he thought they were both aryan, after all). He probably thought no one would be ballsy enough to do anything about him chopping up poland. A perfectly good question is why england and france didn't declare war on the soviet union, and why russia isn't blamed for starting WWII? Sam Spade 19:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Sometimes we make life too complicated. Sure Hitler probably thought he could get away with what he was doing, just like thie guy who broke into my car thought he would get away with it. Doesn't mean he wasn't responsible. DJ Clayworth 20:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but why not Russia too? And if you call the police on the guy who breaks into your car, and they attack him (but not his partner in crime), did he start the fight? ;) Sam Spade 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Was the guy who broke into your car (so to speak) a gifted orator with a talent for politics and industrial-scale genocide, maybe along with an advanced case of syphillis, who thought he was saving the world?

Anyway, yeah, my impression is that he was surprised by the reactions of France and England in September 1939. Wyss 14:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The racial policies Hitler directed...
There's been a lot of wrangling over this part of the intro. I believe previous discussions have established it's desirable to mention Hitler's connection with establishing, or implementing, or directing these racial policies, though the exact verbiage has been a matter of some debate. I thought "directed" would be good, since it didn't imply Hitler invented these policies, which after all were influenced by others and grew out of racism and antisemitism that already existed; yet he did lead the effort and they were certainly "his" policies (we had a version that described them this way, but I thought that left no room for others who shared the policies).

Haham hanuka has several times removed mention of Hitler from the policies section, describing them only as policies of Nazi Germany. I invite others to suggest wording of this section of the intro that might be better. Perhaps "The racial policies Hitler and others directed...?" "...implemented...?" Demi T/C 17:20, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, I have inserted "that" into that sentence for stylistic reasons. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

"Hitler is said to have died"
I don't think this is an improvement, because a) it's not clear who's saying it, thus it's weaselly and b) it's not clear whether the weaselliness applies to the fact Hitler died, or that it was by suicide. I have left it alone, in part because we're not well-served by the Hitler's death article in trying to summarize, but I would like others' opinions. I have, however, restated "his dreams..." as overly prosaic. Demi T/C 00:51, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

 * In my not so humble opinion we are putting way too much weight on small minority speculations and unfounded rumours by including that "said to have" part in the intro. It opens up for the possibility that he actually didn't commit suicide and even escaped. He didn't. Just as Elvis is dead, the Earth isn't 6000 years old and the aliens didn't build the pyramids, Hitler didn't escape to Argentina. There are people questioning all of those statements, but we can't drop "said to have"s all over the wikipedia because of them. I'd like the intro to read: Hitler died by suicide. Because he did. And thats how every other wikipedia states it (that I have checked), not to say every other encyclopedia. But we've had this debate on en before, and I don't have any hopes of getting ridd of the weaselwords this time either. They are sort of a compromise, and I'm only glad nobody is trying to be consistant and add question marks after the date of death in the header, too. Shanes 02:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Almost everybody agrees he died, but some feel he didn't (altho if he isn't dead by now, he'd be the worlds oldest man ;) Stalin didn't believe the reports of his men, and for good reason. They were incredible, nearly impossible to believe if you read them in detail. Look into it. I agree it is unlikely he escaped, but the widely accepted account of his death - biting a glass capsel of cyanide while shooting himself in the head, both he and eva braun promptly burned and buried, and the area severely shelled. The evidence of this being an eye witness, a dentifrice, and a skull fragment (which Russia won't allow inspection of) - is nearly impossible, and most experts agree it is unlikely in its entirety. Sam Spade 10:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

From the first week of May 1945 until the present, the consensus among oberservers and historians has been that Hitler committed suicide with his bride in that bunker. The details have shifted here and there, the story of suicide by both cyanide and pistol shot is obviously suspect, possibly related to propaganda (or spin) after the fact. My own impression is that, with Red Army tanks but metres away over their heads, AH shot himself after Braun bit into a cyanide capsule. Lovely couple. Wyss 22:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also rewrite the Elvis Presley article so it says "Elvis is said to have died..."AndyL 00:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Elvis. Sam Spade 23:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted text
I've removed the following text, I don't think this stuff is suitable for encyclopedia article.

Please DO NOT revert it. --Haham hanuka 14:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hitler and Popular Culture
Hitler has left an indelible mark on mankind's perception of the ultimate villain. In recent times, it has become common practice to compare all megalomaniac villains in popular culture to Hitler. Among others, he has been compared to Saruman in the book Lord of the Rings, The Emperor in Star Wars, and Dr. Doom in the Marvel universe.

Tolkien, I believe, specifically denied that Saruman was inspired by or analog to Hitler. The comparisons were made because he wrote a good part of LTR during WW2. I'm happy to see the above was deleted, it's too fuzzy and likely overstated, unreferenced, not encyclopedic and the term villain seems somehow too narrow, even misleading. Besides, I'm one of those who think making AH into a characature of evil isn't helpful, since it weakens peoples' ability to spot the next genocidal sociopath who shows up in the guise of a charismatic, talented populist politician... along these same lines even Charles Chaplin, after the war, said he regretted having satirized AH. Saying any of that in the article would be unencyclopedic as well. One might rather be happy with keeping the article objective, since the documented background on this topic speaks plainly, glaringly. Wyss 15:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wyss. I believe we "inherit" this section from the editors of Palpatine (see Talk:Palpatine). I think it's improper organization to mention the "inspiration" of anyone who might have created a Hitler-like villain in this article--surely it goes in the villain's? Secondly, the comparison would have to part of notable debate, discussion and criticism, not our own speculation or that from some Internet forums or movie reviews (which are, after all, not proper sources of Hitler scholoarship). I could see including information about artistic criticism of Hitler himself, such as from The Great Dictator, but not this business with Palpatine from Star Wars. Demi T/C 17:39, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * FYI, it appears this material was added by 207.200.116.139 . It's been there for a while; had I been watching the page closer I would have brought this to discussion earlier. Demi T/C 17:53, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I agree w the removal, but assume good faith in regards to the anon, and don't suspect he'll need any special watching. This info should be on the palpitine/Saruman/Dr. Doom articles, if anywhere (IMO its a very shoddy comparison). The fact that I (and clearly others) am dubious of if its worthy even of an article on a movie villain makes it pretty clear its unworthy of an important historical figure. Sam Spade 19:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 8


text:
NWA World Tag Team Championship (Texas version)

The Texas version (or East Texas version) of the NWA World Tag Team Championship was the main tag team professional wrestling championship in the Dallas/Houston-based Southwest Sports territory of the National Wrestling Alliance. While the name indicates that it was defended worldwide, this version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship was mainly defended in the eastern part of Texas. The championship was created in 1957 and actively promoted by Southwest Sports until 1968, when it was abandoned. The championship was later brought back by the Dallas-based World Class Championship Wrestling (WCCW) promotion in 1981, and was used until 1982 when WCCW decided to use the NWA American Tag Team Championship as their top tag team championship. As it is a professional wrestling championship, it is won not by actual competition, but by a scripted ending to a match.

The NWA Board of Directors allowed any member of the NWA to create a version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship, which led to as many as 13 identically named championships active in 1957.$[Championships]$ From 1959 until 1969 there was a second NWA World Tag Team Championship promoted in Texas, referred to as the Amarillo version or the West Texas version; this was later replaced with the NWA Western States Tag Team Championship.

The first championship team was that of Verne Gagne and Wilbur Snyder, who were awarded the championship in July 1958 by Southwest Sports. The last recorded champions of the Southwest Sports era were Mr. Ito and Chati Yokochi, who won the championship on December 12, 1968, with the championship being abandoned in 1969 or 1970. When the championship was reintroduced in 1981, promoter Fritz Von Erich brought in the team of Hercules Ayala and Ali Mustafa, billing them as champions from a different region to give the championship an air of legitimacy. The last champions were Fritz's son Kerry Von Erich and Al Madril, who won the championship in April 1981. The longest-reigning championship team was Pepper Gomez and Rocky Romero, whose reign in the Southwest Sports era lasted between 274 and 303 days. Due to vague records of the time, the exact number of days that various championship reigns lasted is impossible to determine, as is which team held the championship for the shortest amount of time. The Von Brauners (Kurt and Karl Von Brauner) hold the record for most reigns as a team, a total of four, while Pepper Gomez and Duke Keomuka both held the championship six times with different partners.

Title history
Key

Team reigns by combined length
Key

Individual reigns by combined length
Key

Concurrent championships

 * Sources for 13 simultaneous NWA World Tag Team Championships
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Los Angeles version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (San Francisco version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Central States version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Chicago version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Buffalo Athletic Club version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Georgia version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Iowa/Nebraska version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Indianapolis version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Salt Lake Wrestling Club version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Amarillo version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Minneapolis version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Texas version)
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (Mid-America version)


text:
User talk:Ad Sinistram

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have.  You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox.  When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.  First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette.  Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame)  15:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Hermetica
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or from printed material.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Hermetica with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Hermetica with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you. Rockpock e  t  05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ad Sinistram


text:
A. H. Dodd

Professor Arthur Herbert Dodd (1891 – 21 May 1975) was an academic historian who taught and published widely, specialising in the politics of the Tudor and Stuart periods, Welsh history, and the history of the Industrial Revolution.

Dodd was born and brought up in Wrexham, Denbighshire, where his father Charles was a headmaster at Victoria School. It was a family of modest means but studious inclinations; one of his three brothers, C. H. Dodd, achieved particular distinction as a New Testament scholar. Having attended Grove Park Grammar School in the town he went up to New College, Oxford in 1911, and after graduating in history, joined the Royal Army Medical Corps (2nd West Lancashire Field Ambulance) in 1914 with whom he saw active service in France.

Dodd was appointed lecturer in history at the University College of North Wales in 1919, and succeeded Sir John Edward Lloyd as professor of history there in 1930, remaining until his retirement in 1958. He also taught in the Extra-Mural Department, and was stalwart of the Workers' Educational Association and the Cambrian Archaeological Association. In retirement he was curator of Bangor Museum, and taught at Bangor Normal College (then St Mary's Educational College, now part of the University of Bangor).

He was a founder member of the Denbighshire Historical Society, and edited a history of Wrexham to coincide with the Borough Centenary Celebration in 1957. He was made a freeman of the Borough of Wrexham in 1963. A centenary celebration of his birth was held in Wrexham in 1991.

Though not a native speaker, Dodd was a supporter of the Welsh language and brought up his children as Welsh speakers, at a time when the language had far less social status.

title: A. H. Dodd


text:
TWC

TWC may refer to:

Organizations

 * Taiwan Water Corporation, a water utility company in Taiwan
 * Taylor Woodrow Construction, a British-based construction company, now part of Taylor Wimpey
 * Tech Workers Coalition, an international labor rights group seeking to organize the tech industry
 * Tennessee Wesleyan College, a liberal-arts college in Athens, Tennessee
 * Texas Workforce Commission, a governmental agency in the U.S.
 * Time Warner Cable, an American cable telecommunications company that existed from 1992 until its 2016 purchase by Charter Communications
 * Trans World Communications, the investment vehicle of businessman Owen Oyston
 * The Weather Company (Australian company), now known as Weatherzone, an Australian meteorological service provider
 * The Weinstein Company, an American film studio
 * Trans World Connection, an American former airline, affiliate of Trans World Airlines (TWA)

Technology

 * Three-way catalyst, key component of catalytic converters

Media

 * The Weather Channel, an American cable and satellite television network
 * The Weather Channel (Australia), now Sky News Weather Channel, an Australian cable and satellite channel
 * The Weather Cast, a short-lived television channel seen exclusively on Dish Network
 * The Wordsworth Circle, an academic journal
 * The Wrestling Channel, later The Fight Network, a defunct free-to-air digital satellite television sports channel in the United Kingdom and Ireland
 * The Wacken Carnage, a live CD/DVD set by the death metal band Bloodbath released in 2008
 * Age of Empires III: The WarChiefs, the first official expansion pack for the real-time strategy game Age of Empires III
 * The White Council, in J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium
 * Transformative Works and Cultures, peer-reviewed open access academic journal

Other uses

 * Time Warner Center, a pair of skyscrapers in New York City
 * Track warrant control, a traffic control method on secondary U.S. railroads
 * Trade working capital, in business finance, the difference between current assets and current liabilities related to the everyday operations of a company
 * Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu, a style of the Chinese martial art
 * Tumxuk Airport, IATA code TWC

title: TWC


text:
Hørning Municipality

Until 1 January 2007 Hørning municipality was a municipality (Danish, kommune) in Aarhus County on the Jutland peninsula in central Denmark. The municipality covered an area of 67.71 km², and had a total population of 8,688 (2005). Its last mayor was Søren Erik Pedersen, a member of the Venstre (Liberal Party) political party. The main town and the site of its municipal council was the town of Hørning.

Hørning municipality ceased to exist as the result of Kommunalreformen ("The Municipality Reform" of 2007). It was merged with existing Galten, Ry, and Skanderborg municipalities to form the new Skanderborg municipality. This created a municipality with an area of 416 km² and a total population of 49,469 (2005). The new municipality belongs to Region Midtjylland ("Mid-Jutland Region").

title: Hørning Municipality


text:
User talk:BlueTemplar13

Removing warning content from talk pages
Please do not remove warnings from your talk page and/or replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Grye 06:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:BlueTemplar13, User:166.66.16.116, User:166.66.16.103
You have repeatedly been warned to stop your vandalism of articles on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. Please stop. You are welcome to contribute real edits to Wikipedia but all vandalism done by you will be reverted and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue. Grye 06:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Grand_Lodge.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Grand_Lodge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 12:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:BlueTemplar13


text:
Arlington Assembly

Arlington Assembly is a General Motors automobile factory located in Arlington, Texas. The plant has operated for more than 60 years and today manufactures large SUVs from GM's divisions Chevrolet, GMC and Cadillac.

History
The Arlington plant was opened in 1954 to assemble both automobiles and aircraft, but has focused on the former use for most of its history. Arlington Assembly was originally part of the Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac Assembly Division and was used to assemble Buicks, Oldsmobiles, and Pontiacs. The Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac Assembly Division was renamed General Motors Assembly Division in 1965 after it also began to assemble Chevrolet cars in 1963. Early automobile production included models like the Pontiac Chieftain and later, the Chevrolet Bel Air. The factory would continue to produce many large GM cars through the 1990s including products from Buick, Oldsmobile, Chevrolet and Cadillac. Arlington Assembly was the last GM B-body manufacturing facility when GM decided to consolidate operations and convert the plant to SUV production. The plant occupies 250 acres (1,000,000 square meters). Arlington Assembly has produced models for all of GM's primary American brands: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Cadillac, and GMC.

The first GM factory in the "Dallas-Ft. Worth" area was originally built in 1917 to build the Chevrolet Series 490 and the Chevrolet Series F on the south side of West Seventh Street and Slayton Street just west of Trinity Park. Due to a flood of the Trinity River in 1922 and flood control taxes levied by the local government, GM closed the factory in 1924 and in 1929 Leeds Assembly opened in Kansas City, Missouri. The Chevrolet Motor Company Building in Dallas replaced the Trinity Park facility from 1923 until 1935 and was replaced by the more advanced Arlington Factory in the early 1950s.

Current
Since 2020 (2021 model year), Arlington Assembly manufactures large SUVs based on GM's GMT T1XX platform:
 * Chevrolet Tahoe
 * Chevrolet Suburban
 * GMC Yukon/Yukon Denali
 * GMC Yukon XL/Yukon XL Denali
 * Cadillac Escalade
 * Cadillac Escalade ESV

Former

 * RWD GM full-size A platform & GM B platform vehicles
 * Buick Century (1955-1958)
 * Buick Invicta
 * Buick Le Sabre
 * Buick Roadmaster sedan (1992–1996)
 * Buick Roadmaster Estate wagon (1994–1996)
 * Buick Special (1955-1958)
 * Chevrolet Bel Air (1963–1970)
 * Chevrolet Biscayne (1963–1970)
 * Chevrolet Caprice (1966-1970, 1988–1996)
 * Chevrolet Impala (1963–1970)
 * Chevrolet Impala SS (1994–1996)
 * Oldsmobile 88
 * Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser (1988–1990)
 * Oldsmobile Starfire
 * Pontiac 2+2
 * Pontiac Bonneville
 * Pontiac Catalina
 * Pontiac Chieftain
 * Pontiac Grand Prix (1962-1968)
 * Pontiac Grand Ville
 * Pontiac Star Chief
 * Pontiac Ventura
 * RWD GM C platform vehicles
 * Buick Electra
 * Buick Limited (1958)
 * Buick Roadmaster (1955-1958)
 * Buick Super
 * Oldsmobile 98
 * RWD GM A platform vehicles (intermediate)
 * Chevrolet Chevelle SS (1970-1972) - Some SS models were painted a shade of yellow shared with some Oldsmobiles and used a different sequential production number unlike other Chevelles produced at other GM assembly plants
 * Chevrolet Chevelle (1973-1977)
 * Chevrolet El Camino (1973-1981)
 * Chevrolet Malibu (1978–1981)
 * Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1970–1981)
 * GMC Caballero (1978-1981)
 * GMC Sprint (1973-1977)
 * Oldsmobile Cutlass 1968-1981
 * Oldsmobile 442
 * RWD GM G platform vehicles
 * Buick Regal (1982–1983)
 * Chevrolet El Camino (1982-1984)
 * Chevrolet Malibu (1982–1983)
 * Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1982–1987)
 * GMC Caballero (1982-1984)
 * Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme (1979-1981, 1984–1987)
 * RWD GM D platform vehicles
 * Cadillac Brougham (1988–1992)
 * Cadillac Fleetwood (1993–1996)
 * GMT400 light trucks
 * Chevrolet C/K (1998-2000)
 * GMC Sierra (1998-2000)
 * GMT400 sport utilities
 * Chevrolet Tahoe (1998-1999)
 * Chevrolet Tahoe Limited and Z71 (2000)
 * GMC Yukon (1998-1999)
 * GMC Yukon Denali (1999-2000)
 * Cadillac Escalade (1999-2000)
 * GMT800 sport utilities
 * Chevrolet Tahoe (2001-2006)
 * Chevrolet Suburban (2001-2005)
 * GMC Yukon (2001-2006)
 * GMC Yukon XL (2001-2005)
 * Cadillac Escalade (2002-2006)
 * GMT900 sport utilities
 * Chevrolet Tahoe (2007–2014)
 * Chevrolet Suburban (2007–2014)
 * GMC Yukon (2007–2014)
 * GMC Yukon Denali (2009-2014)
 * GMC Yukon XL (2007–2014)
 * GMC Yukon XL Denali (2009-2014)
 * Cadillac Escalade (2007–2014)
 * Cadillac Escalade ESV (2007–2014)
 * GMT K2XX sport utilities
 * Chevrolet Tahoe (2015–2020)
 * Chevrolet Suburban (2015–2020)
 * GMC Yukon/Yukon Denali (2015–2020)
 * GMC Yukon XL/Yukon XL Denali (2015–2020)
 * Cadillac Escalade (2015–2020)
 * Cadillac Escalade ESV (2015–2020)

Milestone vehicles
These are the milestone vehicles produced by Arlington Assembly:

 * 1 millionth vehicle: 1965 Pontiac Bonneville
 * 2 millionth vehicle: 1971 Oldsmobile Cutlass
 * 3 millionth vehicle: 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
 * 4 millionth vehicle: 1981 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
 * 5 millionth vehicle: 1985 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS
 * 6 millionth vehicle: 1993 Buick Roadmaster
 * 7 millionth vehicle: 2002 Cadillac Escalade
 * 8 Millionth vehicle: 2006 Chevrolet Tahoe
 * 9 Millionth vehicle: 2011 Chevrolet Suburban
 * 10 millionth vehicle: 2015 Chevrolet Suburban
 * 11 millionth vehicle: 2018 Chevrolet Tahoe RST
 * 12 millionth vehicle: 2021 Chevrolet Suburban

title: Arlington Assembly


text:
User talk:Koster2005

I just returned to my section of the Salish Sea Walk of the Planets, and you seem to have completed deleted all reference to it. Explanation and advice appreciated. I put a huge amount of work into this. BSmith821 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Hello! I did the editing on Orrery because the page seemed to have lost focus and included stuff not actually about actual mechanical models of the solar system (explanation per removed or edited bit is in the page history / talk page). The Salish Sea in particular had become a very large part of the page including everything from travel tips to sign seeing ideas.

 * If Is it an idea to give Salish Sea Walk of the Planets its own page instead? Or as a start at least include it in this list Solar System model.

 * Koster2005 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

the book on having aphantasia should be on the wiki page?
this book is the only book written on the subject and I thought should be shown? I was the lead author of 31 people who's words make up this book. self promotion for the only book on this condition that affects 110 million people in the world, I think the subject needs the light of day rather than deleted, sorry but I am just someone who thinks sharing knowledge is useful and important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alankendle (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alan Kendle,

I didn't removed the reference to your book because I don't like the book (frankly, I've seen it linked on a Facebook page you and I both frequent and have been considering buying it). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia though and information should contribute something to the topic at hand and a mention of something (without links, from a non-independent source) is not how it works.

Additionally: it's not like the page doesn't have information and links to popular writings/introductions (see at the bottom) of the topic at hand (and yes, it can be improved upon as well). Koster2005 (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Koster2005


text:
User talk:Gerardo.ok~enwiki

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Gerardo.ok. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Gerardo.ok~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gerardo.ok~enwiki


text:
User talk:Saswann

Categories in User:Saswann/working
Could you please remove the categories from User:Saswann/working? These categories are not for userpages, and not for works in progress on userpages either. It looks really bad. 80.203.115.12 17:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Collingwood image
Hi -- I love the Collingwood painting of the Althing. Where did you find it? --Bcrowell 19:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Give thanks to Google :) I don't remember the exact web page, but it shows up on a number of sites.  Saswann 12:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism redirect again
Hey... I don’t know if you have any interest in this subject anymore, but there is yet another attempt to bury the Islamofascism page elsewhere. If you’re interested, the debate is here: [] IronDuke 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Damnit
I reverted your merge on Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art in error. Please accept my apology for any inconvenience this has caused --DV8 2XL 20:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Things in Atlas Shrugged
Hi there,

The article Things in Atlas Shrugged, is currently up for deletion. There are also several others in the Category:Atlas Shrugged which are being scutinized. Quite a few editors feel that some deserve a rewrite, but are not knowledgable on the topic. Would you care to join the discussion, or perhaps help on a rewrite?

Cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this post
Hi! and Welcome(1) re:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternate_history_%28fiction%29&action=history Invitation for editors]

''Hey, I'm working on the related article Parallel universe (fiction) which needs help and TLC. I just did a complete re-write of the lead section, and imposed some structure, as well as merging in content from the hideously-named Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art but I now have a main article body that's a laundry-list of novels, stories, role-playing games and Magic: the Gathering :( I'd like any help from interested editors. --Saswann 21:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)''

Please take a look at Talk: 1632 series and note the multiverse pre-article link, and the link there which will lead to this short stub; I'll check over your article in depth in the near future.

Looks like we have parrallel interests and needs. :) Best regards, Fra nkB 23:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm getting ready to archive. This was on my talk, so if you can take it under advisement, here!

Edits at Parallel universe (fiction)
While I agree that the intro to this page was begging to be rewritten you might wish to include a reference to Possible world ideas as they are more pertinent to this topic than Many Worlds Theory.

Just a thought. --DV8 2XL 19:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Prior answer see: User talk:DV8 2XL, err- User_talk:DV8_2XL/archives

 * The idea has merit and requires study by me, so it'll be delayed. I'll take it under advisement, and eventually do this if you don't first. Another is actively nursing that article though. Mine were 'glue' contribs. Fra nkB  18:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

FAR of anarcho-capitalism
You might want to check out the FAR of anarcho-capitalism and have your say before the discussion is over. As of now, it looks like a keep, but you might want to add some extra support. --AaronS 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wolf trans.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Wolf trans.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hostile takeover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hostile takeover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Cvra fotnj1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cvra fotnj1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Visio-ancap chart.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Visio-ancap chart.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Kelly hi! 18:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Anti-capitalism.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Anti-capitalism.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Visio-ancap chart.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Visio-ancap chart.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bigmoli.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bigmoli.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cvra fotn.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cvra fotn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"Hositle Takeover" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hositle Takeover. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hostile Takeover Trilogy (series) coverart.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hostile Takeover Trilogy (series) coverart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fiction employing parallel universes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fiction employing parallel universes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of fiction employing parallel universes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Saswann


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin kohn

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. JeremyA 20:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kevin kohn
Just some average business guy's resume/cv. No hint of notability. Niteowlneils 15:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * He went to DeVry University (you know those TV ads? Yeah...) for secondary education and attended MIT via an online course. I'm not going to cast any doubts on his CV, but I think that his work is silent for itself. jglc | t | c 17:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a resume service.  Vanity.  Non-notable. Ugly tie. :)  Wikibofh 18:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete. Non-notable, vanity, personal advert. -- BD2412 talk 18:21, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoever gets around to deleting this entry, please also take care of Interlync and Interlync Internet Services, inc., both of which this user created, are copies of each other, and are self-promotion/vanity. jglc | t | c 19:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:Bobstay

Rawr
You taggd this as a speedy delete as "nonsense". It may well not belong on wikipedia, but I don't think it fits our definition of patent nonsense. Please reread that page and WP:CSD. I placed this article on AfD, and the discussion can be found at Articles for deletion/Rawr. DES (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly the version you edited (19:30, 7 October 2005 80.43.47.244) belongs on AfD. Looking at the history, though, when I added the nonsense template, the content was "Rawr is probably the cool older cousin to um and like. Like your cool friend in college who suddenly stopped talking to you?" and there were no previous versions to revert to. So at the time, it certainly did qualify as patent nonsense, and the subsequent editor omitted to remove the "nonsense" template. Bobstay 07:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Burglarize
"Burglarize" is, sadly, a genuine word. 17th century in English, but still in common use in the Leftpondian Colonies, and popular amongst their legal fraternity.

I must admit, I was distraught when I discovered this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC) (who is, quite obviously, a Brit)

 * Every time I see it, I think "turn someone into a burglar": Curses, some miscreant has magically transformed my car into a glowering striped-shirted thief, crouching menacingly in my parking spot with his sack marked "Swag". Oh, dammit, no, they just took my radio.
 * Seriously, though, thanks for the info; I am also distraught to learn that it is a real word, especially of such antiquity. Could you let me know your source? Bobstay (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (who is also a Brit)
 * Primary source is losing a Usenet argument about it years ago 8-) On further searching, it's in the OED as genuine but archaic, and in many of those American "books with lists of words in" as current and acceptable. If I have time at home (some time around 2012 maybe) I'll try to find the actual OED entry for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As you never delivered on this, I will do so in your place.

 * burglarize, v. U.S.

(ˈbɜːgləraɪz)

[f. burglar n. + -is.]

trans. To rob burglariously; to break into by violence for the purpose of theft. Also intr.

1871 Southern Mag. Apr. (Schele de Vere), The Yankeeisms donated, collided, and burglarized, have been badly used up by an English magazine-writer. 1876 Congress Rec. July 4419/2, I found that the house of a lady moving in good society had been burglarized. 1883 Talmage in Chr. Globe 13 Sept. 829/2 The man who had a contempt for a petty theft will burglarise the wheat-bin of a nation. 1884 Boston (Mass.) Jrnl. 7 Feb. 1 The house of John Fuller was burglarized on Wednesday night. 1926 J. Black You can't Win xi. 142 It was built to be burglarized. 1947 Jrnl. Crim. Law & Criminol. Nov.–Dec. 319, I tried to resist the urge to get outside and burglarise.

Hence ˈburglarizing vbl. n.

1872 Schele de Vere Americanisms 655 In like manner the burglar's occupation has been designated as burglarising. 1888 Merchant Traveler (Farmer), ‘What have you been doing for a living lately?’‥ ‘Burglarizing.’
 * I hope that helps … someone. Nerds Ohalix (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bobstay


text:
Jan Breytenbach

Jan Dirk Breytenbach (14 July 1932 – 16 June 2024) was a South African Special Forces military officer and author of military books. He is best known as the first commander of 1 Reconnaissance Commando, South Africa's first special forces unit. In his long career, he served in the Suez Crisis, the Biafran War, the South African Border War, and the Angolan Civil War, and attained the rank of colonel before his retirement. He died on 16 June 2024, at the age of 91.

Military career
Breytenbach attended the Army Gymnasium in 1950, and was awarded the Sword of Peace in 1953 and joined the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm after serving in the Armoured Corps and saw service in the Suez Crisis in 1956. He rejoined the South African Defence Force in 1961 and soon after completed one of 1 Parachute Battalion's courses. Fritz Loots commissioned him to organise 1 Reconnaissance Commando in 1971.

In 1975 Breytenbach led Operation Savannah, the SADF's covert intervention in the Angolan Civil War. The remnants of this group became the elite 32 Battalion, or "Buffalo Battalion".

He attended Staff College in 1977 and was promoted to colonel. In 1978, led the SADF air assault on Cassinga, and has continued to the present day to contest opposing versions of the event in the press.

He became senior staff officer for operations at Northern Transvaal Command and commanded 44 Parachute Brigade from 24 September 1980 to 31 December 1982. He founded the SADF Guerilla school, which he commanded until his retirement.

Breytenbach retired from the military in 1987, and has written a number of books since then. He is the brother of South African poet and writer Breyten Breytenbach and of war correspondent/photographer Cloete Breytenbach. During the 1980s, Breyten and Jan Breytenbach held strongly opposing political viewpoints, as his brother opted for a left-wing approach. This influential family effectively covered the political spectrum.

title: Jan Breytenbach