text:
British National League (1996–2005)

The British National League (BNL) was the second tier of the professional ice hockey league in the United Kingdom between 1996 and 2005. Although no formal promotion and relegation existed during its period of existence, it was considered to have been a standard below that of the Ice Hockey Superleague (later replaced by the Elite Ice Hockey League) and above that of the English National Ice Hockey League and the Scottish National League (and later, following its creation, the English Premier Ice Hockey League). Fife Flyers and Guildford Flames were the only two teams to consistently feature in the BNL during every season of the league's history.

History
The league was founded in 1996 to replace the first division of the British Hockey League following the split between the two divisions of the league; the premier division having been replaced by the Ice Hockey Superleague at the same time. For its first season only the BNL was split into the Northern Premier League and the Premier League. From 2000 until 2003, it was sponsored by Findus.

The BNL was disbanded at the end of the 2004/05 season, Edinburgh Capitals and Newcastle Vipers both left the league and applied to join the first tier EIHL (with whom the BNL had conducted a crossover competition with during its final season). Both the Capitals and the Vipers then withdrew their applications so as to let the remaining five BNL teams submit applications to join the EIHL with them. However, the terms set by the EIHL were deemed unacceptable by the other teams, and so the Capitals and the Vipers both resubmitted their own applications and were accepted into the EIHL. With only five teams remaining, the BNL folded; leaving all of its remaining five clubs to join other leagues. Bracknell Bees, Guildford Flames, and Hull Stingrays all joined the EPIHL; which replaced the BNL as the second tier of English hockey (it having previously been the third tier), whilst Dundee Stars and Fife Flyers joined the EPIHL's Scottish counterpart; the Scottish National League. All of these teams, with the exception of Bracknell Bees, became members of the EIHL in later seasons, with Hull Stingrays making the move in 2006, before being joined by Dundee Stars in 2010, Fife Flyers in 2011 and Guildford Flames in 2017.

Teams

 * Basingstoke Bison (1998-2003)
 * Blackburn Hawks (1996-1998)
 * Bracknell Bees (2003-2005)
 * Cardiff Devils (2001-2003)
 * Cardiff Rage (1997-1998)
 * Castlereagh Knights (1996-1997)
 * Coventry Blaze (1996-1997, 1999–2003)
 * Dumfries Vikings (1996-1997)
 * Dundee Stars (2001-2005)
 * Edinburgh Capitals (1998-2005)
 * Fife Flyers (1996-2005)
 * Guildford Flames (1996-2005)
 * Hull Stingrays (2003-2005)
 * Hull Thunder (1999-2003)
 * Humberside Seahawks (1996-1999)
 * Medway Bears (1996-1997)
 * Milton Keynes Kings (1999-2003)
 * Murrayfield Racers (1996-1998)
 * Newcastle Vipers (2002-2005)
 * Paisley Pirates (1996-2002)
 * Peterborough Pirates (1996-2002)
 * Slough Jets (1996-2002)
 * Swindon Wildcats (1996-1997)
 * Telford Tigers (1996-1999)
 * Telford Timberwolves (1999-2000)
 * Whitley Warriors (1996-1997)

Champions

 * 1996/97 Fife Flyers (north) / Swindon Wildcats (south)
 * 1997/98 Fife Flyers (north) / Guildford Flames (south)
 * 1998/99 Slough Jets
 * 1999/00 Fife Flyers
 * 2000/01 Guildford Flames
 * 2001/02 Dundee Stars
 * 2002/03 Coventry Blaze
 * 2003/04 Fife Flyers
 * 2004/05 Bracknell Bees

title: British National League (1996–2005)


text:
Cognitive revolution

The cognitive revolution was an intellectual movement that began in the 1950s as an interdisciplinary study of the mind and its processes, from which emerged a new field known as cognitive science. The preexisting relevant fields were psychology, linguistics, computer science, anthropology, neuroscience, and philosophy. The approaches used were developed within the then-nascent fields of artificial intelligence, computer science, and neuroscience. In the 1960s, the Harvard Center for Cognitive Studies and the Center for Human Information Processing at the University of California, San Diego were influential in developing the academic study of cognitive science. By the early 1970s, the cognitive movement had surpassed behaviorism as a psychological paradigm. Furthermore, by the early 1980s the cognitive approach had become the dominant line of research inquiry across most branches in the field of psychology.

A key goal of early cognitive psychology was to apply the scientific method to the study of human cognition. Some of the main ideas and developments from the cognitive revolution were the use of the scientific method in cognitive science research, the necessity of mental systems to process sensory input, the innateness of these systems, and the modularity of the mind. Important publications in triggering the cognitive revolution include psychologist George Miller's 1956 article "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" (one of the most frequently cited papers in psychology), linguist Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures (1957) and "Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior" (1959), and foundational works in the field of artificial intelligence by John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Allen Newell, and Herbert Simon, such as the 1958 article "Elements of a Theory of Human Problem Solving". Ulric Neisser's 1967 book Cognitive Psychology was also a landmark contribution.

Historical background
Prior to the cognitive revolution, behaviorism was the dominant trend in psychology in the United States. Behaviorists were interested in "learning", which was seen as "the novel association of stimuli with responses." Animal experiments played a significant role in behaviorist research, and prominent behaviorist J. B. Watson, interested in describing the responses of humans and animals as one group, stated that there was no need to distinguish between the two. Watson hoped to learn to predict and control behavior through his research. The popular Hull-Spence stimulus-response approach was, according to George Mandler, impossible to use to research topics that held the interest of cognitive scientists, like memory and thought, because both the stimulus and the response were thought of as completely physical events. Behaviorists typically did not research these subjects. B. F. Skinner, a functionalist behaviorist, criticized certain mental concepts like instinct as "explanatory fiction(s)", ideas that assume more than humans actually know about a mental concept. Various types of behaviorists had different views on the exact role (if any) that consciousness and cognition played in behavior. Although behaviorism was popular in the United States, Europe was not particularly influenced by it, and research on cognition could easily be found in Europe during this time.

Noam Chomsky has framed the cognitive and behaviorist positions as rationalist and empiricist, respectively, which are philosophical positions that arose long before behaviorism became popular and the cognitive revolution occurred. Empiricists believe that humans acquire knowledge only through sensory input, while rationalists believe that there is something beyond sensory experience that contributes to human knowledge. However, whether Chomsky's position on language fits into the traditional rationalist approach has been questioned by philosopher John Cottingham.

George Miller, one of the scientists involved in the cognitive revolution, sets the date of its beginning as September 11, 1956, when several researchers from fields like experimental psychology, computer science, and theoretical linguistics presented their work on cognitive science-related topics at a meeting of the 'Special Interest Group in Information Theory' at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This interdisciplinary cooperation went by several names like cognitive studies and information-processing psychology but eventually came to be known as cognitive science. Grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation in the 1970s advanced interdisciplinary understanding in the relevant fields and supported the research that led to the field of cognitive neuroscience.

Main ideas
George Miller states that six fields participated in the development of cognitive science: psychology, linguistics, computer science, anthropology, neuroscience, and philosophy, with the first three playing the main roles.

Scientific method
A key goal of early cognitive psychology was to apply the scientific method to the study of human cognition. This was done by designing experiments that used computational models of artificial intelligence to systematically test theories about human mental processes in a controlled laboratory setting.

Mediation and information processing
When defining the "Cognitive Approach," Ulric Neisser says that humans can only interact with the "real world" through intermediary systems that process information like sensory input. As understood by a cognitive scientist, the study of cognition is the study of these systems and the ways they process information from the input. The processing includes not just the initial structuring and interpretation of the input but also the storage and later use.

Steven Pinker claims that the cognitive revolution bridged the gap between the physical world and the world of ideas, concepts, meanings and intentions. It unified the two worlds with a theory that mental life can be explained in terms of information, computation and feedback.

Innateness
In his 1975 book Reflections on Language, Noam Chomsky questions how humans can know so much, despite relatively limited input. He argues that they must have some kind of innate learning mechanism that processes input, and that mechanism must be domain-specific and innate. Chomsky observes that physical organs do not develop based on their experience, but based on some inherent genetic coding, and wrote that the mind should be treated the same way. He says that there is no question that there is some kind of innate structure in the mind, but it is less agreed upon whether the same structure is used by all organisms for different types of learning. He compares humans to rats in the task of maze running to show that the same learning theory cannot be used for different species because they would be equally good at what they are learning, which is not the case. He also says that even within humans, using the same learning theory for multiple types of learning could be possible, but there is no solid evidence to suggest it. He proposes a hypothesis that claims that there is a biologically based language faculty that organizes the linguistic information in the input and constrains human language to a set of particular types of grammars. He introduces universal grammar, a set of inherent rules and principles that all humans have to govern language, and says that the components of universal grammar are biological. To support this, he points out that children seem to know that language has a hierarchical structure, and they never make mistakes that one would expect from a hypothesis that language is linear.

Steven Pinker has also written on this subject from the perspective of modern-day cognitive science. He says that modern cognitive scientists, like figures in the past such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), don't believe in the idea of the mind starting a "blank slate." Though they have disputes on the nature-nurture diffusion, they all believe that learning is based on something innate to humans. Without this innateness, there will be no learning process. He points out that humans' acts are non-exhaustive, even though basic biological functions are finite. An example of this from linguistics is the fact that humans can produce infinite sentences, most of which are brand new to the speaker themselves, even though the words and phrases they have heard are not infinite.

Pinker, who agrees with Chomsky's idea of innate universal grammar, claims that although humans speak around six thousand mutually unintelligible languages, the grammatical programs in their minds differ far less than the actual speech. Many different languages can be used to convey the same concepts or ideas, which suggests there may be a common ground for all the languages.

Modularity of the mind
Pinker claims another important idea from the cognitive revolution was that the mind is modular, with many parts cooperating to generate a train of thought or an organized action. It has different distinct systems for different specific missions. Behaviors can vary across cultures, but the mental programs that generate the behaviors don't need to be varied.

Criticism
There have been criticisms of the typical characterization of the shift from behaviorism to cognitivism.

Henry L. Roediger III argues that the common narrative most people believe about the cognitive revolution is inaccurate. The narrative he describes states that psychology started out well but lost its way and fell into behaviorism, but this was corrected by the Cognitive Revolution, which essentially put an end to behaviorism. He claims that behavior analysis is actually still an active area of research that produces successful results in psychology and points to the Association for Behavior Analysis International as evidence. He claims that behaviorist research is responsible for successful treatments of autism, stuttering, and aphasia, and that most psychologists actually study observable behavior, even if they interpret their results cognitively. He believes that the change from behaviorism to cognitivism was gradual, slowly evolving by building on behaviorism.

Lachman and Butterfield were among the first to imply that cognitive psychology has a revolutionary origin. Thomas H. Leahey has criticized the idea that the introduction of behaviorism and the cognitive revolution were actually revolutions and proposed an alternative history of American psychology as "a narrative of research traditions."

Other authors criticize behaviorism, but they also criticize the cognitive revolution for having adopted new forms of anti-mentalism.

Cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner criticized the adoption of the computational theory of mind and the exclusion of meaning from cognitive science, and he characterized one of the primary objects of the cognitive revolution as changing the study of psychology so that meaning was its core.

His understanding of the cognitive revolution revolves entirely around "meaning-making" and the hermeneutic description of how people go about this. He believes that the cognitive revolution steered psychology away from behaviorism and this was good, but then another form of anti-mentalism took its place: computationalism. Bruner states that the cognitive revolution should replace behaviorism rather than only modify it.

Neuroscientist Gerald Edelman argues in his book Bright Air, Brilliant Fire (1991) that a positive result of the emergence of "cognitive science" was the departure from "simplistic behaviorism". However, he adds, a negative result was the growing popularity of a total misconception of the nature of thought: the computational theory of mind or cognitivism, which asserts that the brain is a computer that processes symbols whose meanings are entities of the objective world. In this view, the symbols of the mind correspond exactly to entities or categories in the world defined by criteria of necessary and sufficient conditions, that is, classical categories. The representations would be manipulated according to certain rules that constitute a syntax.

Edelman rejects the idea that objects of the world come in classical categories, and also rejects the idea that the brain/mind is a computer. The author rejects behaviorism (a points he also makes in his 2006 book Second Nature. Brain science and human knowledge), but also cognitivism (the computational-representational theory of the mind), since the latter conceptualizes the mind as a computer and meaning as objective correspondence. Furthermore, Edelman criticizes "functionalism", the idea that formal and abstract functional properties of the mind can be analyzed without making direct reference to the brain and its processes.

Edelman asserts that most of those who work in the field of cognitive psychology and cognitive science seem to adhere to this computational view, but he mentions some important exceptions. Exceptions include John Searle, Jerome Bruner, George Lakoff, Ronald Langacker, Alan Gauld, Benny Shanon, Claes von Hofsten, and others. Edelman argues that he agrees with the critical and dissenting approaches of these authors that are exceptions to the majority view of cognitivism.

Perceptual symbols, imagery and the cognitive neuroscience revolution
In their paper "The cognitive neuroscience revolution", Gualtiero Piccinini and Worth Boone argue that cognitive neuroscience emerged as a discipline in the late 1980s. Prior to that time, cognitive science and neuroscience had largely developed in isolation. Cognitive science developed between the 1950s and 1970s as an interdisciplinary field composed primarily of aspects of psychology, linguistics, and computer science. However, both classical symbolic computational theories and connectionist models developed largely independently of biological considerations. The authors argue that connectionist models were closer to symbolic models than to neurobiology.

Piccinini and Boone state that a revolutionary change is currently taking place: the move from cognitive science (autonomous from neuroscience) to cognitive neuroscience. The authors point out that many researchers who previously carried out psychological and behavioral studies now give properly cognitive neuroscientific explanations. They mention the example of Stephen Kosslyn, who postulated his theory of the pictorial format of mental images in the 1980s based on behavioral studies. Later, with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging technology, Kosslyn was able to show that when people imagine, the visual cortex is activated. This lent strong neuroscientific evidence to his theory of the pictorial format, refuting speculations about a supposed non-pictorial format of mental images.

According to Canales Johnson et al. (2021):

"Many studies using imaging and neurophysiological techniques have shown several similarities in brain activity between visual imagery and visual perception, and have identified frontoparietal, occipital and temporal neural components of visual imagery."

- Canales Johnson et al.

Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux in his book The Emotional Brain argues that cognitive science emerged around the middle of the 20th century, and is often described as 'the new science of the mind.' However, in fact, cognitive science is actually a science of only one part of the mind, the part that has to do with thinking, reasoning, and intellect. It leaves emotions out. "And minds without emotions are not really minds at all…"

Psychologist Lawrence Barsalou argues that human cognitive processing involves the simulation of perceptual, motor, and emotional states. The classical and 'intellectualist' view of cognition, considers that it is essentially processing propositional information of a verbal or numerical type. However, Barsalou's theory explains human conceptual processing by the activation of regions of the sensory cortices of different modalities, as well as of the motor cortex, and by the simulation of embodied experiences –visual, auditory, emotional, motor–, that ground meaning in experience situated in the world.

Modal symbols are those analogical mental representations linked to a specific sensory channel: for example, the representation of 'dog' through a visual image similar to a dog or through an auditory image of the barking of dogs, based on the memory of the experiences of seeing a dog or hearing its barking. Lawrence Barsalou's 'perceptual symbols' theory asserts that mental processes operate with modal symbols that maintain the sensory properties of perceptual experiences.

According to Barsalou (2020), the "grounded cognition" perspective in which his theory is framed asserts that cognition emerges from the interaction between amodal symbols, modal symbols, the body and the world. Therefore, this perspective does not rule out 'classical' symbols –amodal ones, such as those typical of verbal language or numerical reasoning– but rather considers that these interact with imagination, perception and action situated in the world.

Books

 * Baars, Bernard J. (1986) The cognitive revolution in psychology Guilford Press, New York, ISBN 0-89862-656-0
 * Gardner, Howard (1986) The mind's new science : a history of the cognitive revolution Basic Books, New York, ISBN 0-465-04634-7; reissued in 1998 with an epilogue by the author: "Cognitive science after 1984" ISBN 0-465-04635-5
 * Johnson, David Martel and Emeling, Christina E. (1997) The future of the cognitive revolution Oxford University Press, New York, ISBN 0-19-510334-3
 * LePan, Don (1989) The cognitive revolution in Western culture Macmillan, Basingstoke, England, ISBN 0-333-45796-X
 * Murray, David J. (1995) Gestalt psychology and the cognitive revolution Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, ISBN 0-7450-1186-1
 * Olson, David R. (2007) Jerome Bruner: the cognitive revolution in educational theory Continuum, London, ISBN 978-0-8264-8402-4
 * Richardson, Alan and Steen, Francis F. (editors) (2002) Literature and the cognitive revolution Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, being Poetics today 23(1),
 * Royer, James M. (2005) The cognitive revolution in educational psychology Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, Connecticut, ISBN 0-8264-8402-6
 * Simon, Herbert A. et al. (1992) Economics, bounded rationality and the cognitive revolution E. Elgar, Aldershot, England, ISBN 1-85278-425-3
 * Todd, James T. and Morris, Edward K. (editors) (1995) Modern perspectives on B. F. Skinner and contemporary behaviorism (Series: Contributions in psychology, no. 28) Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, ISBN 0-313-29601-4

Articles

 * Pinker, Steven (2011) "The Cognitive Revolution" Harvard Gazette
 * Pinker, Steven (2011) "The Cognitive Revolution" Harvard Gazette
 * Pinker, Steven (2011) "The Cognitive Revolution" Harvard Gazette
 * Pinker, Steven (2011) "The Cognitive Revolution" Harvard Gazette

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

title: Cognitive revolution


text:
Kharg Island

Kharg or Khark Island is a continental island of Iran in the Persian Gulf. The island is 25 km off the coast of Iran and 483 km northwest of the Strait of Hormuz. Its total area is 20 km2. Administered by the adjacent coastal Bushehr Province, Khark Island provides a sea port for the export of oil and extends Iranian territorial sea claims into the Persian Gulf oil fields. Located on Khark Island is Khark, the only city in the Khark District.

History

Mentioned in the Hudud al-'Alam as a good source for pearls around 982 AD, Khark was visited by the French traveller Jean de Thévenot in 1665, who recorded trade at the time with Isfahan and Basra. In 1753 the Dutch Empire established both a trading post and a fort on the island after securing perpetual ownership of the island from Mir Nasáir, the Arab ruler of Bandar Rig, in return for a present of 2000 rupees. In 1766 the Dutch fort was captured by Mir Mahanna, the governor of Bandar Rig.

The island was briefly occupied in 1838 by the British to block the Siege of Herat (1838) but was soon returned. Amoco built and operated the oil terminal on the island. Its property was expropriated after the revolution.

Once the world's largest offshore crude oil terminal and the principal sea terminal for Iranian oil, the Khark Island facilities were put out of commission in the fall of 1986. Heavy bombing of the Khark Island facilities from 1980 through 1988 by the Iraqi Air Force during the Iran–Iraq War very nearly destroyed most of the terminal facilities. Khark Island was situated in the middle of the Darius Oilfield, also destroyed by the intensive bombing. Repair to all facilities has been very slow, even after the war ended in 1988. The events experienced by this island gave rise to the dispute in the English contract law case The Kanchenjunga [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep 391, regarding the conditions for repudiatory breach of contract and a claimant's right to elect to accept repudiation.

In 2009, Iran exported and swapped 950 million barrels of crude oil via southern Khark oil terminal.

Archaeology
The first archaeological evidence of human occupation on Khark island was reported by Captain A. W. Stiffe in 1898, with studies published about his discoveries by F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld in 1910. They discovered two rock-cut chambered tombs featuring arched entranceways to a main chamber with vestibule from which spawned around twenty smaller chambers. The southern tomb is 13 m deep and features a relief of a reclining man drinking in the Seleucid and Parthian styles of Palmyra along with a damaged relief suggested to feature Nike on the face of a sphere-topped column. Mary-Joseph Steve has argued that the architecture of the tombs is more reminiscent of Nabataean architecture at Petra than anything Palmyrene.

Another eighty three rock cut tombs and sixty two megalithic tombs have been studied on Kharg. The rock-cut tombs fall into four categories; single chambered, shallow tombs of varying shape, pit burials and excavated multi-chambered complexes. Steve also noticed the presence of several Nestorian style crosses at some of the tombs.

There are also ruins of a coarse stone temple on the island measuring around 7.5 m square with a plastered altar for fire in the centre.

A Christian church complex or ancient monastery of some 96 m by 85 m is also located on the island featuring a chapel, nineteen monks cells, library and courtyard.

Achaemenid inscription
On November 14, 2007, a cuneiform inscription dating back to Achaemenid era was discovered on Kharg Island in Old Persian. The inscription is carved on a coral rock in Old Persian semi-syllabic cuneiform signs. Despite the usually well-ordered regular system of Achaemenid inscriptions, this one is in an unusual order written in five lines.

The linguist Habib Borjian explains that if the inscription is authentic, combined with the island's known history of kariz usage, "which came about under the Achaemenid rule in the Near East (550–330 BCE)", it can be suggested that there was a Persian colonisation of Kharg under the Achaemenids. The Iranian dialect of the Persian settlers of the Achaemenid period may have in turn been the ancestor of the Khargi language, with Borjian adding that "there is no contradicting evidence to make this hypothesis implausible".

On May 31, 2008, the inscription was seriously damaged by unknown vandal(s). They destroyed it with a sharp object, such that about 70 percent of the inscription was seriously damaged. The nature of the damage indicates that it was done deliberately.

The 17th-century French traveller Jean de Thévenot noted the presence of qanat (i.e. kariz) on the island that would have provided ancient irrigation.

In popular culture
The island appears with a SAM radar installation on it in the Sega Genesis flight simulator F-15 Strike Eagle II in the Persian Gulf mission map.

The island is featured as a playable map in DICE's Battlefield 3 video game, having some resemblance to the real island.

It also appears in Delta Force: Black Hawk Down – Team Sabre.

title: Kharg Island


text:
User:DuKot/Wikiportal Kerala

Kerala Wikiportal

 Featured article

 Featured picture

 Quote

 Kerala collaboration

 Current events

 Did you know...

 Categories

Wikiprojects

Things you can do

title: User:DuKot/Wikiportal Kerala


text:
Songs About the Ocean

Songs About the Ocean is the 2004 debut album from The High Water Marks.

Track listing
All tracks written by Hilarie Sidney and Per Ole Bratset.
 * 1) "Good I Feel Bad" – 2:36
 * 2) "Slowhand" – 2:48
 * 3) "Have Another Dream" – 2:25
 * 4) "Queen of Verlaine" – 3:27
 * 5) "Suicide" – 2:47
 * 6) "Sixth of July" – 3:36
 * 7) "About The Ocean" – 2:52
 * 8) "Five Thousand" – 2:53
 * 9) "Second Time" – 2:54
 * 10) "National Time" – 2:34
 * 11) "Feel Everything" – 3:03
 * 12) "Things To Do" – 2:26
 * 13) "High Water Marks" – 3:36
 * 14) "Little Mermaid"

Personnel
All instruments and vocals on Songs About the Ocean were performed by Hilarie Sidney and Per Ole Bratset. The album was recorded between January and August 2003 through the mail in Oslo, Norway at the Gyldenlöve Hotel room 528, and Lexington, Kentucky at Pet Sounds Studio. Artwork for the album is by Per Ole Bratset. The album was mixed by Robert Schneider at Pet Sounds Studio, and mastered by Charlie Watts at Technovoice Mastering in Los Angeles, California. A&R by Josh Bloom.

title: Songs About the Ocean


text:
Category:Culture of England

English and British culture overlap in complex ways. See also Category:Culture of the United Kingdom.

title: Category:Culture of England


text:
Garrett Hill, Pennsylvania

Garrett Hill is an unincorporated community in Radnor Township, Pennsylvania, United States, located approximately eight miles northwest of Philadelphia. The geographic area is located in the portion of the Bryn Mawr ZIP code that comprises Rosemont. The community is roughly bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Lewis Lane, Garrett Avenue and Lowrys Lane, with Conestoga Road acting as the central arterial Road. Although a predominantly working class community with blue collar roots, it is located on the Pennsylvania Railroad Main Line.

The community is served by its own stop, Garrett Hill station, on the Norristown High Speed Line, formerly the Philadelphia and Western Railway.

Garrett Hill is mainly a residential community, but also includes a small commercial area (near the intersection of Conestoga Road and Garrett Avenue) consisting of a few bars and other small businesses that serve the community and the student population of nearby Villanova University.

One of Garrett Hill's traditions is an annual community Fourth of July parade, followed by a free picnic with live music and other entertainment in Clem Macrone Park.

Garrett Hill's housing stock consists largely of late 19th-century and early-to-mid 20th-century structures, including Victorian, single-family frame and brick duplex homes.

History
The 253 acres that make up the heart of present-day Garrett Hill were originally settled by the family of David James and Margaret Mortimer of Llandegley and Glascwm Parises of Radnorshire, Wales who arrived in Pennsylvania on October 28, 1682 on board the sailing ship Bristol Factor that was captained by Roger Drew. The Bristol Factor was one of approximately 32 vessels chartered by William Penn between 1681 and 1684, to ferry the Welsh Quakers from various parts of Wales across the Atlantic Ocean to Pennsylvania for the purpose of establishing a Welsh Barony for Sir William Penn.

In 1682, Garrett Hill lay in the heart of what was then known as The Welsh Tract. Radnor Township acquired its name because many of the settlers, such as the James family, had come directly from Radnorshire, Wales.

When the James family arrived in the fall of 1682, they proceeded to present day Garrett Hill using dead reckoning, for the area at that time was still wilderness. David James had acquired "rights" to 100 acres where Garrett Hill stands today when he purchased an "indenture" to land in Welshpoole, Wales in the summer of 1682. The James family were literally the first inhabitants of Garrett Hill. They spent their first winter, 1682-1683, living in a cave near present-day Radnor United Methodist Church.

In 1718, the James family acquired the rights to an additional 153 acres of Garrett Hill from David Meredith who, although not having previously occupied the land, had been declared lord over the land in 1708 by William Penn's land commissioners. 1n 1739, David James, the founder of Garrett Hill died and was buried in the cemetery that surrounds the Great Valley Baptist Church in Devon. His tombstone can be found there today.

In 1776, two of David James' grandsons, Daniel James and Elias James, would serve on the Continental Line under General George Washington in the American Revolution. In 1777, Evan James would serve as a lieutenant in the 2nd Battalion, Chester County Pennsylvania Militia under the commanded of Colonel Evan Evans. During the Revolutionary War, the James Family Plantation was raided and occupied by the British Army, stripping the family farm of all its assets including food, livestock and household supplies as punishment for the family's service to the rebels. Following the war, the James family would receive a five-year tax amnesty for their service to the new nation.

In 1780, local Methodists began meeting and studying at the James family plantation home, called the Old James Mansion. In 1783 David James' son, Evan James, would donate a half-acre of land memorializing where the family landed in 1682 to the Radnor United Methodist Church. Thereafter, the area acquired the name "Methodist Hill." Prior to that the area had been known as "James Hill."

Not until the advent of the stone quarry and brickyard did Garrett Hill acquire the name by which it is known today. Once the area was industrialized, a community sprang up, consisting of residences for workers in proximity to the nearby stone quarry and brickyard (now both disappeared). The residents also worked at the estates, which were common in the area.

Notable person

 * Emlen Tunnell, the first African-American inducted into the Professional Football Hall of Fame

title: Garrett Hill, Pennsylvania


text:
Talk:St. George's University

"...corrected inaccuracies in the previous version"
@PhilKukielski (good faith) edits were posted to two paragraphs in history section and were tagged as 'correcting inaccuracies'. No citations were provided. Edits have been tagged as 'citation needed' and may be deleted if no citation is provided. In other terms, if we claim there are inaccuracies we need to provide sources to support it.MedGME (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Additional edits made without citations. Original research template added. MedGME (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Failed to gain entry
I added some information about the medical cirriculum here but I would like it if someone could come in and edit the structure and grammar of my additions. Furthermore, SGU now has a nursing program and an undergrad program.

Removed: "...failed to gain entry..." line. It is not appropriate to denegrate the university in its own entry. To say "while disturbing, is there any evidence this isn't true?" avoids the issue: this is an encyclopedia. You use proof as justification to add entries; not as justification to refuse the removal of them. You must prove things true to add them. Not add them, and then demand them to be proven false to be removed. Furthermore, I do not see other medical school wiki entries saying "the majority of our students failed to gain admission to Harvard," despite the fact that this is true for most schools. If you have an issue with SGU, this is not the appropriate forum for expressing it.

Unforunately, for 90% of the students who attend SGU (including myself), we didn't get into US based schools. My earlier edits to add more information was putting a line in which is FACT. It is you who must prove that line to be false because I am a student at that university. I am putting that line back in.

Article Work
This article needs some work. It needs to be properly cleaned up, info needs to be added, and the section on popular culture probably belongs on a different page. PaddyM 06:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Bstone 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It is also wrong to say that the coup against the Gairy government in 1979 led to Operation Urgent Fury in 1983. It was the subsequent intra-New JEWEL Movement coup removing the Bishop government that led to the U.S. invasion.  75.216.136.125 (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 07:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I have added a fair use rationale. (EhJJ) 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of Grenada
I believe this part of the History section is completely inappropriate for the article. It's written like a propaganda piece (students kissing the ground, etc) and it's just not appropriate for this article. It cites no sources, either. I am removing it. Please discuss here is you have a different opinion. Bstone 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I re-added the section b/c it is legitimate and it is true. I have posted on the editors talk page to help add source and I am looking for them myself.  Give it a day or so for us to fix it.  Cheers, PaddyM 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PaddyM, you added a section which has no references, sources, may be a synthesis of information and you're asking for it to remain? You will of course understand that I have added the appropriate templates. This section is not appropriate for this article as it is currently written and really should be immediately removed. Bstone 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference being used for the statement The reason given by the U.S. Administration of Ronald Reagan to justify the October 1983 invasion of Grenada was to rescue American medical students at St. George’s University from the danger posed to them by the violent coup that had overthrown Grenada’s Prime Minister Maurice Bishop is wrong and misleading. Indeed, a quick view of the article demonstrated that the rescue of the students at SGU was a not the main reason but rather to quell political violence: when Mr. Reagan sent 7,000 troops to end political violence and, he said, to rescue American students at St. George's University Medical School As such, I am removing this source until either the section is rewritten or a different source is found. Bstone 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * In addition, the article "Getting Back to Normal" which has been used as a source for the SGU student who communicate via amateur radio has references to SGU students but nothing about such a radio station. As such, I am removing it as placing it with Fact. If I simply missed this then my apologies, but I did not see any mention of it. Bstone 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Wrong and misleading? It is a direct quote from the article regarding the administration's viewpoint at the time.  You can't simply re-write what you want to read and then hope that no one notices.  Additionally, the second reference you removed talks about a "ham" radio operator on one of the pages, so I have re-inserted that reference into the paragraph.  Instead of completely disregarding the information posted, perhaps you could contribute to bettering the article.  Cheers, PaddyM 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * PaddyM, I suggest you rethink this method. Both of the sources which I remove do not support your claims. Is the first claim an actual direct quote? I didn't see it in the article and, yes, I did read the article. Perhaps you can post it here. The quote which I presented here directly states that the US Gov't sent in forces because of political violence, first, and to protect SGU students, second. The second one, about the amateur radio station, simply doesn't talk about such a station. Perhaps you can present the direct quote here. That would be helpful. Lastly, this section simply isn't appropriate. It's too lengthy, contains synthesis and isn't appropriate for a medical school article. Perhaps one sentence or so about SGU students being evacuated during the invasion is proper. Lastly, your note in the article history is a bit derogatory. I ask you to please maintain civility and avoid all personal attacks. Thank you! Bstone 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I rewrote the history section to conform to an appropriate, non-synthesized version. Please discuss any possible changes here. Bstone 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * This section is simple, non-synthesized and represents events portrayed on the sources. It is a simple collection of a part of the history of SGU and belongs in the article.  Your continued insistance on removing and white-washing a simple of the history of the school is confusing at best and disruptive at worst.  Cheers, PaddyM 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * PaddyM, I will have to ask you to please refrain from adding in inappropriate and extraneous information into an article about a medical school. The invasion of Grenada is merely a blip on the radar of this school. The way which I phrased the section represents a concise presentation. The way which you have phrased it lacks coherency, is poorly written and simply lacks relevance. Please do not simply delete content from an article. Rather, please discuss it here. I will be reverting your edits as they are inappropriate for this article. Bstone 08:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you should review exactly who is deleting information and who is adding information, with reliable sources, which accurately discusses the history of the invasion. It is highly relevant to the history of the school.  The original phrasing reflects accurate accounts of the invasion and should not be unilaterally deleted.  I don't see why you are stalking my edits, but perhaps you should realize you are editing against current consensus and try to add verified content instead of removing verifable content.  Cheers, PaddyM 08:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * PaddyM, since it is clear that we are in a dispute about this content, what do you suggest? We can either continue reverting each other's revisions with silly notes or we can discuss and compromise. I maintain that adding sentences about the Prime Minister and his cabinet being shot in immaterial to this article. Additionally, the ham radio part might be sourced but it's not relevant to this article. I do believe that there should be a concise description about this event but the current presentation belongs not on this article but rather on the article about the invasion of Grenada. I look forward to your speedy response and compromise. Sincerely, Bstone 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm afraid I disagree. An invasion and complete evacuation of 600 American students is hardly "a blip on the radar of the school".  It represents a major intervention on part of the US government and it also illustrates the apparent danger of the students of the school.  Wikipedia is not paper and there is no real limit to the amount of information that can be accurately recorded for each article.  The information is verifiable and true, and yet you want to remove it b/c it's supposedly irrelevant.  I'm afraid I have trouble understanding your position, as the 1983 invasion of Grenada was a major world event and took place with the ostensible reason to save the medical students.  If that doesn't qualify as relevant history, what else does?  Cheers, PaddyM 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * PaddyM, are you indicating to me that you are unwilling to discuss compromise? I am very disheartened by this. For the sake of sanity I shall cease editing this part of the article. However, history will record that I attempted to compromise and discuss while you did not. Your version of this section clearly violates WP:IINFO and WP:BATTLE. Good day. Bstone 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I am still having trouble understanding your problem with this article. Just placing templates without explanation does not give other editors help when editing the "problems" you see.  I have removed the essay and wikify template as they are neither needed nor accurate for this article.  Your continued harassment of other editors is confusing at best and disruptive at worst.  The "History" section has clear statements, is supported by verifiable sources, and is immensely relevant to the subject of the article.  Cheers, PaddyM 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Citecheck
The current version of this article has several claims which are inaccurate. These include: I am not an expert on the invasion of Grenada, but I do know when claims are in excess of the supporting evidence. Please feel free to add additional citations if you can find them, otherwise I will change the text to what can actually be substantiated based on the references provided. (EhJJ) 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "and the island had been placed under a 24-hour shoot-to-kill curfew", which, although partially accurate (the country was under a 4 day curfew) was not under a "no questions asked, shoot to kill anyone one in sight". Rather, "Anyone who seeks to demonstrate or disturb the peace will be shot." Based on the proclamation by interim leader General Hudson Austin . Although schools were closed, essential services were still running. Additionally, the source (a conversation between a press secretary and a talk show host) is a) not an independent source, and b) even if it was, does not mention anything about a shoot-to-kill curfew. In fact, he claims that although there were no locals in the streets, there were American student freely walking around.
 * "during the days of the curfew, the only information coming out of Grenada was from a ham radio operated by a St. George’s student". Also, not supported by the citation. Rather, the citations says that there was miscommunication during the invasion of Grenada. "The glaring lack of advance intelligence about Grenada and the haste with which the military was ordered to mount the invasion showed in the fact that the U.S. forces, as it turns out, were unaware that the medical students were located on two campuses, True Blue and Grand Anse, some four miles apart. The soldiers reached 130 True Blue students early on the invasion day. But it was not until 30 hours later, during which time a student ham-radio operator on Grand Anse kept listeners throughout the hemisphere informed that his campus was still cut off from U.S. forces, that Army Rangers finally rescued the 224 students there." You are saying that this amateur radio operator was the only source of information, but that is not necessarily true.

You make good points EhJJ and I will try to address them. As for the details of the curfew, I will look to additional sources. The assertion that life went on as normal, but for a ban on demonstrations is certainly soft-peddling what was really going on. I will look for additional sources. I agree that Don Rojas’s statement that students were walking around freely is not to be given tremendous weight. For one thing, he admits to have been in hiding at the time because (as the spokesman for murdered Prime Minister Bishop) the coup plotters were looking for him. One thing that I will try to rephrase is the ham radio bit. Understand, there are TWO periods of time here: the first was in the days that followed the coup but BEFORE the invasion. During that time, the only independent information coming out of Grenada was the St. George’s ham operator. After the invasion, you are correct, there were many confusing and contradictory reports. In that time, the ham operator continued to broadcast — but was no longer the only information source. Roregan 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) (EhJJ), thank you so much for chiming in on this. I was just about to give up as I did not want to be party to an edit war with PaddyM, but now I will take a more active roll in editing the history section again. Your analysis of the situation on Grenada is very accurate and in line with some of the fact checking that I did earlier on this talk page. If you look at the history of the article you will notice that at one point I edited the history section to read as:

In October 1983 US troops were sent into Grenada in order to protect the lives of the 700 US citizens who were students at St George's from political unrest and violence. with using Less Strategic Now, Grenada Is to Lose American Embassy and Jonetown. I believe this is the most concise and (up until now) the most factual way to present this piece of history. At this point I can hope that with another editor indicating how the sources do not support this section in it's current form will be enough to convince PaddyM to engage in discuss and compromise. Bstone 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the changes to the text, do we still need the “citecheck” banner here? Also, Bstone, I do advise you to be wary of accepting at face value the assertion that the troops were sent to protect the lives of the St. George’s students. Whether or not the students were in actual danger is a matter of considerable dispute. Saying that it was the given reason is accurate. Roregan 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Roregan, I am not married to the idea that the troops were sent in to protect the lives of the SGU students. Two of the sources seem to indicate that the troops did indeed protect them and one of those two states it was the primary reason they were sent, but I have a suspicion that's not true. Indeed, I think an examination of many other sources would be prudent. I think that in the meantime we should consider removing the history section until we can reach consensus on how to appropriately phrase it. Thoughts? Bstone 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

EhJJ, upon looking at the source you cite (General Austin’s statement) I am not sure you are correct in your interpretation of the curfew edict. To quote from the source you cite: “An all day and all night curfew will be established for the next four days, from now until next Monday at 6:00 p.m. No one is to leave their house. Anyone violating this curfew will be shot on sight.“ This, to me, more than substantiates our saying that a 24-hour shoot-to-kill curfew was in effect. The declaration that “essential services” would continue above that seems not to change the warning to Grenadians that if they left their houses they could be killed. This was much more than a school closing. And there is no backup to the assertion that “essential services were running.” Austin’s statement that they would be does not make it so. Do you disagree? Roregan 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bstone, I think that removing the history section altogether in order to straighten out mild differences in emphasis amongst the sources is excessive. What is there right now is true, well sourced and appropriate. At some later time, and after consulting more sources of information, we may choose to temper some of the qualifiers that are now there, but remove the whole section?!? Why would we want to do that? Roregan 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Is it really excessive to remove a section which has disputed citations? We must remember that this section is live and people are viewing it under the assumption that it is entirely accurate. As such it may be prudent to remove it, post it here and have us work on it until it can reach consensus and be appropriate. I won't move it, however, unless there is consensus for this proposal of mine. Bstone 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate: The information is accurate. It is sourced. It is appropriate. The events related are important and directly relevant to the subject of the article. The citations are NOT disputed. The questionable assertion by Don Rojas that students wandered about freely during the days of curfew has been treated skeptically by all of us and is NOT included in the article. Those places in which there is an argument to be made that additional information might be required are being discussed here -- which is appropriate. I see no reasonable argument to excise the section. If you are seeking agreement with your position that it should be omitted, let me go on record as most emphatically NOT agreeing with that position.

It puzzles me that this idea is even viewed as worth discussing. How does excluding the story of the important role played by St. George's and its students in a significant international event make the story more complete? The fact that different sources report the details of that event differently is an argument to expand the section, not eliminate it. Some of that expanded discussion, however, belongs more properly in the relevant sections - the one on the invasion of Grenada, for example. What does belong here is the role played by the University and its students. Roregan 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The citecheck banner should stay until we can settle on what information should be included, and more importantly, that the text is supported by the references. Roregan, I agree that this was "more than a school closure", but I think the original text of the article overstated the situation. Let's try to keep it to what is supported by the citations or references. Can you provide a reference to support that the amateur radio operator at Grand Anse was the only source of information coming from Grenada? The citation still does not support that claim. (EhJJ) 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Premed program & POV from IP
The IP 200.50.72.156 is adding a fair bit of information about the pre-med program with claims of controversy. I edited out the POV to keep just the sourced premed info but the IP keeps reverting my edits to re-add the POV. Keeping a log here, as well as edit summaries, in case this turns into an edit war. Bstone (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keeps revering is misleading, it was reverted once to date. There is controversy with regard to the two programs. This is something which has been accepted by the directors in the Premed program in SGU. If you wish to contact them to clarify then go ahead. There are currently no on-line sources to cite this but it looks as though there official investigation into the program is in progress. Shortly I will be able to get a release that will allow me to cite it, I will put the edit back now, but if in 24 hours from now I have no cite, then go ahead and take it back down, This is wethin Wikipedia regulations as this provides we with 'reasonable time' to cite my material as stated in "Wikipedia:Citing sources". sorry if I caused you any aggravation.

JMD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.208.128 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First, you may wish to create an account on wikipedia. That is very important in case your IP changes. Also it helps to preserve your own anonymity as right now people can traceroute you and find out where you are coming from. Second, if you wish to create a controversy section then you are free to do so, but everything must be sourced and verified. A newspaper article would be best. Bstone (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh just come back if you have the reference. What is the rush? Does this need to be online today? Does the article need to be finished by tomorrow? No it does not. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I can post it when I want as long as i provide a cite wethin 'reasonable time' I am following the Wikipedia rules and so there is no need fo it to be removed before the time previously state.JMD
 * I think you may be mistaken by the rules of wikipedia. At this point you are engaged in a content dispute. Moreover, if you make more then three reverts in a single day then you can be temporarily blocked from editing. See WP:3RR for more info. I'd like to gently caution you against making any further edits that are unsourced and violate neutrality. Further, I know of no 24 period you speak of. Can you provide a link to this? Bstone (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Bstone and TheDJ here. The addition by the IP user is clearly POV and would need to be modified even if a citation can be found. Wikipedia policy is on of verifiability. It seems to be that consensus is this content is not appropriate. (EhJJ) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuition
I looked all over the site and was not able to find the cost of attending. Can someone give me a break down or rough idea of tuition, fees, books, living expenses etc.. ?

Machn (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia article?
This entire text reads like a prospectus or an advertisement, not an encyclopaedia article. Can anyone explain or justify why this university justifies an entry of this kind? Gordoncph (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No question that its not a very well-written article, but it definitely is notable and deserves inclusion. Go to work on it...  Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

British
I removed the term "British West Indies" and replaced it with "West Indies". Colonialism is over and Grenada is independent. We are not British any more than the Americans are British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.203.174 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the change. Although it should be noted that Grenada is most certainly more British, as it is still a member of the Commonwealth Realm, making the current British Queen its official head of state.  Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant and inappropriate references
Many of the references used in this article have nothing to do with this university other than being located in Grenada. Will begin clean-up. OccamzRazor (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I just deleted most content
Most of the article did not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines so I deleted it.

 * Content in Wikipedia articles must come with citations to published sources. I removed content without citations. See WP:V.
 * The citations cannot be to self-published sources provided by the subject of the article, per WP:SPS and WP:PROMOTIONAL.
 * Citations should not be to WP:PRIMARY sources, like government accreditation records. If it is worth mentioning that the university is accredited, then secondary sources will publish these facts.

Any comments? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:St. George's University


text:
All-Star Baseball 2004

All Star Baseball 2004 is a baseball video game developed by Acclaim Studios Austin and Acclaim Studios Manchester and published by Acclaim Entertainment in 2003. It features Derek Jeter on the cover.

Reception
The GameCube and PlayStation 2 versions received "generally favorable reviews", while the Game Boy Advance and Xbox versions received "average" reviews, according to the review aggregation website Metacritic.

title: All-Star Baseball 2004


text:
All-Star Baseball 2002

All-Star Baseball 2002 is a baseball sports game released for PlayStation 2 and GameCube in 2001.

Reception
The PlayStation 2 version received "generally favorable reviews", while the GameCube version received "average" reviews, according to the review aggregation website Metacritic. In Japan, Famitsu gave it a score of 24 out of 40 for PlayStation 2 version.

title: All-Star Baseball 2002


text:
All-Star Baseball 2001

All-Star Baseball 2001 is a video game developed by High Voltage Software and KnowWonder and published by Acclaim Entertainment for the Game Boy Color and the Nintendo 64 in 2000.

Reception
The Nintendo 64 version received favorable reviews, while the Game Boy Color version received mixed reviews, according to the review aggregation website GameRankings.

title: All-Star Baseball 2001


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CastleCops

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

CastleCops
This article was created by two (possibly one, as one is anonymous) known link spammers, one of which (User:Zhen-Xjell) works for the website in the article. Both editors have link spammed to this website on several articles. The article itself may be link spam. LGagnon 02:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Authors aside, this is still nn website vanity. No real proof of why it needs to be here. -mysekurity 05:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi'ya, thanks for the comment.  I found some time today to check out some more pages and found Websites, of course it is a proposal.  But interestingly enough, I did not know a page like this existed Google_test, which is where the previous article's Talk page took me.  Is that the page typically used in such VfD discussions? I never knew that the team effort of the Wikipedia was so precise and professional.  I'm very impressed. TIA--Paul Laudanski 17:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. CastleCops, along with several other security sites, was the target of SLAPP-like cease and desist activity on the part of the authors of iDownload spyware . The site is also relatively notable in the anti-spyware community; however, I don't think that makes it sufficiently notable on either account to be worth a Wikipedia article, especially if vastly larger sites like SecurityFocus aren't here too. --FreelanceWizard 10:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this does beat the five-issue webcomics but still doesn't rise to notability requirement for websites, when WP's systematic bias towards Internet/computing is considered. Dcarrano 13:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article strongly appears to be an instance of abusing Wikipedia to direct traffic (or, more likely, search engine results) to a site. --FOo 02:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW -- User:Zhen-Xjell signs his posts "Paul Laudanski", which is the name of the owner of the site in question, according to the WHOIS record. --FOo 02:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My vote to delete is withdrawn. I now vote Keep, as it seems clear that the editor in question is well-intentioned and not interested in spamming us. --FOo 02:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi folks, I am the author of this article (and make no attempt to hide who I am as owner of the WHOIS record for CastleCops) and was on the road when I couldn't log in to my account. I apologize if it makes me a "link spammer", however that was not my intention.  In the past I stumbled upon some articles like Proxomitron.  I knew the author and he hosted the Proxomitron forum at CC.  Since then I made minor modifications in the past at Wikipedia, but did not start really participating until recently when reading other articles about computer security.  These articles contained links to other similar sites and thought I'd enter in CC links as well.  I also noticed at least one of these similar sites had their own stub page, and figured why not put something up for CC?  I have read the policies (Deletion_policy, WP:NOT, et al) on spamming just now and Vanity versus Importance.  Certainly this discussion and outcome will give me a practical example of what is WP permissible.  In reference to the computer security articles I have modified, yes they contained links to CC, but those links were in my humble opinion noteworthy and useful.  I did add other links to Sunbelt, Spywareinfo, Microsoft, and elsewhere -- some of which were also removed by others.  I will of course oblige with whatever outcome admin decides, however, I would ask that the information I added in all the articles that were reverted be inspected for importance and value.  I have read many comments in the VfD log section make mention of global reach (Google, Alexa, et al), I also ask that admin query the same -- the results (at least in my very humble opinion) indicate there is no reason for me to "link spam".  Rather, my intent was to offer the reader as much information as possible.  Certainly, an example is Spyware where I added a "Research" section with links to live database lists for processes, startups, services, spyware/adware, et al.  I'd hate to see useful information removed (other articles I edited, and not the topic of this discussion) just because of little ole me.  Thanks for your time, I hope this answers any and all questions.  Paul Laudanski 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have gone over why your links count as link spam on both your talk page and Talk:Spyware. As for the other sites you linked to, you gave very few of them (none in equal amounts to your site's links) and, as the person who has been cleaning up the link spam, I did not delete those links. What I deleted was a bunch of additions you made in the References section of the Spyware article that looked suspect (as you added citations for them that went nowhere). -- LGagnon 03:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for your prompt reply. I have thus replied in Talk:Spyware in reference to "citations" explaining my Wiki code ignorance.  Curiously, which links in References were "suspect"?  I appreciate the passion and willingness you and anyone else has to discuss these things with me. --Paul Laudanski 03:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough Google hits to be notable. Should be written more neutrally though. -- RainR 23:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. May I ask for some suggestions on how/where to make the article more neutral?  I apologize in advance if this is not the best place to ask.--Paul Laudanski 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Major example, the last sentence in the community section. Not enough linking to other Wiki articles. Also, try to include factual information: who runs it, what software it runs, specific dates. Using O* codes in the Wiki without explaing them there may be bad form. -- RainR 05:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for the recommendations, I'll start making adjustments. Although, anything you or anyone else sees please feel free to hop right in.  I love the whole concept of Wiki and its collaborative approach.--Paul Laudanski 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Phrases like "what is hot and what is not", "and more" usually aren't found in a neutrally written article. Some of the product namings read like name-dropping; unless you're an official site for them or they're your main focus, probably don't list them. Calling a lawsuit a SLAPP is a point of view that a lawsuit is without merit (and also if I understand correctly, no lawsuit was actually filed) -- RainR 01:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok thanks again.  Will go make the changes.  As to the SLAPP comment, I was working off the reply from User:FreelanceWizard, but you do have a point.  Some of those product namings we are official for, so I'll keep them?--Paul Laudanski 14:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Keep the bit about the Cease and Desist. The coverage it got is one of the things that makes the site notable. Just word it in a neutral way.-- RainR 07:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok, I'll add that back in and make an attempt right now. Thanks! --Paul Laudanski 13:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added it back and removed the SLAPP reference, rearranged the first sentence, and removed the "and more" comment at the end. How is that? TIA--Paul Laudanski 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi'ya, a thought just came to mind. I was putting this article together when I recalled the DDoS from last year that Netcraft picked up.  I don't think it has WP merit, but thought I'd ask.  Thoughts?--Paul Laudanski 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like a pop-up advertisement or spam e-mail. Arevich 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi and thanks for the feedback. This VfD has taught me so much: I was reading some more of the Policies and Guidelines like Writers_rules_of_engagement, Welcome%2C_newcomers, and Wikiquette which quite amazingly are very informative and have helped me better understand WP.  Hence, I want to say that it was my good faith intention to share useful and important information rather than be viewed as advertisement or spam.  May I ask what your thoughts are exactly on how to make it a better article?  I'm currently working on User:RainR's suggestions above.--Paul Laudanski 21:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Obvious vanity and advertising. --Xperment 01:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Well written, but no encyclopedic value; just advertising -- lucio 08:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi Lucio, question, what are your recommendations on making it have encyclopedic value?--Paul Laudanski 16:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
All-Star Baseball 2000

All-Star Baseball 2000 is a video game developed by Iguana Entertainment and Realtime Associates and published by Acclaim Entertainment for the Game Boy Color and the Nintendo 64 in 1999.

Reception
The Nintendo 64 version received favorable reviews, while the Game Boy Color version received mixed reviews, according to the review aggregation website GameRankings. The staff of Next Generation said in their July 1999 issue that just as they were about to give the former "a perfect rating", they noticed some gameplay bugs and AI glitches, but ultimately called it the best baseball game for Nintendo 64.

title: All-Star Baseball 2000


text:
All-Star Baseball 99

All-Star Baseball 99 is a video game developed by Iguana Entertainment and Realtime Associates Seattle Division and published by Acclaim Entertainment for the Game Boy and the Nintendo 64 in 1998. The game's cover features Colorado Rockies outfielder Larry Walker.

All-Star Baseball 99 was the first game to use Acclaim's Quagmire engine. The game also marked the debut of play-by-play commentary for the series. This is done by two New York Yankees broadcasters: John Sterling and Michael Kay.

Gameplay
The game contains exhibition, playoff, home run derby, and season modes. A "create-a-player" feature for customized ball players is included. The Nintendo 64 version supports the Rumble Pak.

Reception
The Nintendo 64 version received favorable reviews, while the Game Boy version received average reviews, according to the review aggregation website GameRankings. Next Generation called the former the best baseball game for Nintendo 64 despite noting minor AI problems and a slower pace. GamePro said that the same console version "is this season's sports phenom, delivering stylish looks and clutch, long-ball gameplay. As of today, it's the best baseball game of the year and a must-buy for all sports nuts."

title: All-Star Baseball 99


text:
Under and Alone

Under and Alone is a book written by undercover ATF agent William Queen and published by Random House in 2005 which chronicles his infiltration of the violent outlaw motorcycle gang, the Mongols.

Synopsis
William Queen was a nearly 20-year ATF veteran as well as a motorcycle enthusiast when, in 1998, a "confidential informant" contacted Queen's superiors, offering to help place an agent inside the San Fernando Valley chapter of the Mongols. Queen's work was soon to become the most extensive undercover operation into a motorcycle gang in the history of American law enforcement.

Queen, using the alias Billy St. John, successfully infiltrated the gang by posing as a heavily bearded and long-haired motorcyclist who liked to drink beer and ride his Harley-Davidson motorcycle. After becoming a full member ("patched"), Queen eventually rose to the office of Treasurer in the organization. As Treasurer, he had access to evidence of the gang's criminal activity and was able to build a case against dozens of Mongol club members. Initially, Queen was subjected by members to tests of his fealty by taking part in and witnessing the trafficking of drugs and firearms and the theft of motorcycles, as well as driving getaway cars.

In the book Queen details how, after 28 months, he began to lose his own identity to his new persona. He explained how he learned to battle the conflicts both within the gang and within himself in order to keep his identity a secret. Despite the activities of the group, Queen also came to appreciate their camaraderie and sense of family. When the work began to have the effect of isolating Queen, he explains in the book, the Mongols began to feel like his own family, causing emotional difficulty for him when the investigation closed more than two years after it had begun.

Film adaptation
Mel Gibson's production company, Icon Productions, acquired the film rights to Queen's story, with early reports indicating that Gibson himself was interested in starring as Queen. Daniel Barnz and Ned Zeman were attached to write the screenplay. However, Gibson's arrest for drunk driving and subsequent legal issues shelved any plans for a movie based on the book.

title: Under and Alone