text:
Ludovico di Varthema

Ludovico di Varthema, also known as Barthema and Vertomannus (c. 1470 – 1517), was an Italian traveller, diarist and aristocrat known for being one of the first non-Muslim Europeans to enter Mecca as a pilgrim. Nearly everything that is known about his life comes from his own account of his travels, Itinerario de Ludouico de Varthema Bolognese, published in Rome in 1510.

Middle East
Varthema was born in Bologna. He was perhaps a soldier before beginning his distant journeys, which he undertook apparently from a passion for adventure, novelty and the fame which (then especially) attended successful exploration.

Varthema left Europe near the end of 1502. Early in 1503, he reached Alexandria and ascended the Nile to Cairo. From Egypt, he sailed to Beirut and thence travelled to Tripoli, Aleppo and Damascus, where he managed to get himself enrolled, under the name of Yunus (Jonah), in the Mamluk garrison.

Mecca
From Damascus, Varthema made the journey to Mecca and Medina as one of the Mamluk escorts of a Hajj pilgrim caravan (April–June 1503). He describes the sacred cities of Islam and the chief pilgrim sites and ceremonies with remarkable accuracy, almost all his details being confirmed by later writers. Varthema was one of the first non-Muslim European to visit these cities.

While in Mecca, Varthema was confronted by a Muslim overseas merchant, who accused him of being a Christian.

Yemen
With the Meccan merchant's assistance, Ludovico de Varthema embarked an Arab merchant vessel at Jeddah, a city-port around 80 km west to Mecca, destined for India. It sailed down the Red Sea and through the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb to Aden. However, upon reaching Aden, he was arrested and imprisoned as a Christian spy. He was accused of being a crew member of some Portuguese ships that had been preying on Arab shipping nearby (probably a reference to the squadron of Vicente Sodré, which was prowling the Gulf of Aden around this time.) By his own account, Varthema gained his liberty after imprisonment both at Aden and Radaa because of a love affair with one of the sultanas of Yemen. The sultana kept him in her palace at Radaa for a while. Eventually, feigning a malady, Varthema secured the sultana's permission to leave Radaa to seek out a cure with a specialist in Aden. He subsequently took a tour through south-west Arabia (claiming to have visited San‘a’), before finally returning to Aden again. The actuality of his visit to San'a and the accuracy of his observations have been questioned on the basis of, among other things, his uncorroborated description of the Sultan’s son being two dozen feet tall and inclined to bite people, kill them, and eat their flesh.

Persia
Probably using the sultana's cash gift, Varthema purchased passage on an Arab ship for India. By now it was March 1504. The ship was supposed to make a stop in the Persian Gulf first, but contrary winds forced it in the opposite direction, and it ended up having to sail south instead, calling in at Zeila and Berbera (on the coast of Somalia). He gives brief descriptions of both places.

From Somalia, the ship proceeded to sail across the Arabian Sea to the Indian port of Diu in Gujarat. From Diu, it sailed up the Gulf of Cambay to Gogo. Business done there, the ship sailed back across the Arabian Sea to the Persian Gulf. The ship made landfall at Julfar, on the other side of Cape Mussandam at the entrance to the gulf, then doubled back over the cape to make a brief stop in Muscat, before proceeding across the strait to Ormuz.

Arriving in Ormuz in the aftermath of a palace coup, Ludovico de Varthema did not linger for long, but proceeded to cross to mainland Persia. He seems to have traveled northeast across Persia to Herat (twelve days journey from Hormuz), and then returned southwest to Shiraz (twenty-three days). Along the way, he passed a river which he (erroneously) identifies as the Euphrates (it is probably the Pulvar River )

In Shiraz, Varthema came by chance across a Persian merchant whom he had met earlier in Mecca. The Persian merchant, named "Cazazioner" in the chronicle (probably an Italianization of "Khwaja Junair" in original Persian ), entered into a partnership with Varthema, whom he still called "Yunus" and believed was a Muslim. The two would remain together for the remainder of Varthema's travels in Asia. It seems clear that Varthema was the junior partner in the arrangement, and that Cazazioner was also cultivating him as a future son-in-law. The subsequent itinerary was primarily set by Cazazioner's commercial interests, with Varthema accompanying him through his routine trade stops.

Ludovico de Varthema and his new Persian partner joined an overland caravan to Samarkand, but the expedition was called off part-way upon news of disturbances in the area. Varthema refers to the Shi'ite Safavid rising, which had spread into northern Iran around this time. The caravan returned to Shiraz.

India
With the overland route closed by war, Ludovico de Varthema and his Persian partner proceeded from Shiraz down to Ormuz, where they took ship for India. They made call at the mouth of the Indus River. From there, Varthema and his Persian partner sailed down the west coast of India. This cruise began around October 1504.

Their first stop was the bustling port of Cambay, in modern Gujarat. Varthema gives a vivid description of the Sultan of Cambay and a garbled description of Jains and Yogi ascetics. They then proceeded south, making stops at Chaul and Dabul, before reaching Goa. From Goa, Varthema and his partner made a seven-day excursion inland to Bijapur, capital of the Deccan sultanate of Adil Khan. Returning to the coast and boarding ship again, they continued south, making stops at Ankala, Honavar, Bhatkal and Mangalore, most of them tributary ports of the inland Hindu kingdom of Vijaynagara (confusingly, in the sequence of his account, Varthema places Bhatkal before Ankola; it is probable he confused Karwar with Bhatkal).

They then reach Cannanore, the first of the major Malabari city-states in Kerala, notionally subject to the Zamorin. At Cannanore, Varthema may have seen the first Portuguese, who had a factory in the city, but apparently refrained from interacting with them, perhaps out of fear of being revealed. From Cannanore, Varthema and his partner took an overland journey of fifteen days to the interior city of Vijayanagara, capital of the eponymous Hindu empire. He briefly interrupts his travelogue at this point to describe war elephants and coinage of south India. It is probably around December 1504 now.

Returning to the coast, Varthema and his partner boarded ship again and proceeded down the Malabar Coast, making stops at the small ports of Dharmapattanam, Pandarane (Pantalayani, now Koyilandy) and Kappad (Capogatto) before finally reaching the great city of Calicut, seat of the Zamorin and the major spice emporium on the Malabar Coast. However, a naval trade blockade imposed on Calicut by the Portuguese had thinned the local markets, disappointing the business Varthema and his Persian partner had expected to conduct there. If the dating is correct (early January, 1505 ), Kerala was still smoldering in the aftermath of the hard-fought Battle of Cochin, and the most recent Portuguese armada was still in the vicinity.

At this point, Varthema breaks the narrative to describe Calicut in much detail. He gives an account of the Zamorin's court, government, the administration of justice and military. He describes the topography, economy, trade and navigation of the city, and gives an overview of the manners and customs of Malabari society. This chapter contains one of the earliest European descriptions of Hindu religion and the caste system. Nowhere do Varthema's observing power show themselves more strikingly, if still somewhat quaint and mistaken in some details.

Varthema and his Persian partner resumed their trip southwards via the inner lagoons and rivers of the Kerala backwaters rather than by the sea coast, possibly to elude Portuguese naval patrols. They skipped past Cochin, where the Portuguese had their strongest presence at the time, and sailed via the backwaters far as "Cacolon" (probably Kayamkulam). It is here where Varthema first encountered Saint Thomas Christians. Continuing on, they soon reached the major commercial city of Quilon, but as the ruler was a Portuguese ally, they did not linger there, but continued on quickly, now sailing by the coast again.

The ship carrying Varthema and his Persian partner rounded Cape Comorin (southern tip of India) and followed the coast northeast. They made a stop at the small port of "Chayl" (exact location uncertain but assumed to be one of the pearl fishery ports in the environs of Tuticorin). They proceeded on to a large port city that Varthema calls "Cioromandel", which seems to correspond to Negapatam, a vassal city of Vijayanagara on the Coromandel Coast of India.

Ceylon, Bengal, Burma
Varthema and his Persian partner stopped advancing further up the coast, as there were reports of war breaking out in the area. Instead, they took a ship with some other merchants across the Palk Strait to the island of Ceylon. His exact landing is unclear. His description is consistent with Colombo (in the westerly Kingdom of Kotte), but the speed of his journey makes it likelier to be northerly Jaffna. He gives a brief description of the island, the rivalry of its four kingdoms, and its cinnamon plantations. Their stay here was cut short after Cazazioner got entangled in the intrigues of a local Arab merchant. They set sail back to India, arriving three days later at Pulicat, another Vijayanagara subject city on the Coromandel coast.

From Pulicat, Varthema and his Persian partner sailed straight east across the Bay of Bengal and, after fourteen days (c. March 1505 ), reached Tenasserim (on the upper Malay peninsula, now part of Burma, but then part of the Ayutthaya Kingdom of Thailand). Varthema pauses the narrative to give a description of Tenasserim, its military, administration, economy, and society. He refers to distinctly-dressed groups of "Brahmins" in the city (probably a reference to Buddhist monks, Varthema not quite realizing the distinction between them ). It is also here that Varthema first witnesses and describes the funerary ritual of Sati. In one eyebrow-raising episode, Varthema reports that a local merchant invited them to sleep with his new wife, explaining it was the "custom" of the land to invite strangers to deflower virgin brides. Cazazioner dutifully took up the request.

After a few weeks in Tennasserim, Varthema and his Persian partner proceeded to sail northwest to Bengal. After eleven days sailing, they arrived at a port that Varthema called "Benghalla", at the mouth of the Ganges River. The identification of the port of "Benghalla" on the Ganges delta is unclear. It has been alternatively suggested it refer to Satgaon, Chittagong, perhaps more likely, Sonargaon.

In Bengal, Varthema met a pair of Chinese Christian merchants. This passage has provoked various conjectures by historians since. According to Varthema, the pair were from the "city of Sarnau", and that there were "many other Christian lords" like them there, all of them "subjects of the Great Khan of Cathay". The location of Sarnau is unclear. The name does not show up on contemporary maps, but appears in a few other travelogues of the time. Some (e.g. Fra Oderico) claim Sarnau is in northern China, but others (e.g. Giovanni da Empoli, Fernão Mendes Pinto) suggest it is located in Indochina. The most frequent suggestion is that Sarnau is the Thai capital city of Ayutthaya. The term "Sarnau" may just be a transcription of the Persian term "Shar-i Nau", meaning "New City", the name by which Ayutthaya was also known at the time. There is no contradiction in their statement about Cathay: the Ayutthaya kingdom, like most other kingdoms of Indochina, had been notionally tributary to the Chinese emperor. Their identification as "Christian" and "many other Christian lords" may seem puzzling as Christianity was not known to have reached Thailand at this time. However, Nestorian Christian communities had spread in Central Asia and China with the Mongol Empire, and the persecutions after the fall of the Yuan dynasty in 1368 may have prompted an exodus of Nestorian Christian refugees to Indochina. Later in the travelogue, Varthema notes the ruler of Pegu (Burma) had an entire regiment of such Christians. However, Varthema claims they are "as white as us" and "write in a contrary way to us, in the manner of the Armenians". Setting aside the latter error (Armenian is written from left to right, like Latin script), Varthema may have meant Syriac script, implying these were most likely ethnically Central Asian or Persian Nestorian Christians, who moved to China during the Yuan dynasty, and later found their way to Indochina. However, it does not rule out that they may simply have been Chinese or Thai converts - Varthema uses the term "white" repeatedly to describe Southeast Asians (in contrast to South Asians). The two Chinese Christians persuaded Varthema and his partner Cazazioner to accompany them. They all took a ship together from Bengal across the bay to Pegu (lower Burma). Hearing that the best potential customer for their wares, the King of Pegu, was on campaign against the Ava Kingdom (upper Burma), the party set off on a boat up the Irrawaddy River, but soon gave up, and returned to Pegu to await him there. The king arrived a few days later, and granted them an audience. With the two Chinese Christians as translators, Cazizioner and Varthema, exercising their best negotiating skills, sold the monarch some relatively modest red coral in exchange for a fortune in high-value Burmese rubies (in an earlier passage, Varthema identifies the source of rubies to be "Capellan", a common name for the ruby-mining district of upper Burma.)

Malacca, Sumatra, Moluccas
From Pegu, Varthema, his Persian partner and the two Chinese Christians took a ship down the Malay peninsula to Malacca, the major commercial entrepot of the region. They did not, however, stay in Malacca long, and soon crossed over the strait to Sumatra. They called in at the port city of Pedir (then a major commercial center and capital of a northeast Sumatran sultanate, Pedir was subsequently annexed by the Aceh Sultanate and has since declined into insignificance) Varthema describes the abundance of long pepper and variety of perfumed woods that was available at Pedir.

At this point, the two Chinese Christians expressed a desire to return home to Sarnau, and hearing that Varthema had been born a Christian, sought to persuade him to come with them and resume his old faith. But Varthema declined, saying he wished to remain a Muslim convert. His Persian partner, Cazizioner, expressed his wish to visit the famed Spice Islands and see for himself the source of cloves and nutmeg, the glorious spices, and prevailed on the two Chinese Christians to join them. A pair of local sampans (flat-bottomed boats) were procured and they proceeded to sail east, weaving through the Indonesian islands, and after fifteen days, reached the Banda Islands, the world's only source of nutmeg. From there, they sailed north for another twelve days and reached the clove islands of the Moluccas (which Varthema calls "Monoch").

Return voyage: Borneo, Java
The Moluccas was the furthest eastward point reached by Varthema and his Persian partner. It was by now around June 1505. Guided by the two Chinese Christians, they returned via a different route, first proceeding to Borneo to charter a larger ship, then headed south to Java, the "largest island in the world", according to the Chinese Christians (Java is, in fact, smaller than Borneo).

Varthema observed that the native pilot of their vessel used a magnetic compass and nautical chart gridded with lines. Although sailing by compass and chart was common in the Mediterranean, it was unusual in the Indian Ocean, where celestial navigation was the norm, and perplexed Varthema's Persian partner. The native pilot also showed them how he used the Southern Cross to navigate, another novelty for both of them. In a cryptic comment, the native pilot curiously refers to some supposed Far Southern lands (which some historians have interpreted to be a reference to the Australian coast).

The journey from Borneo to Java took five days. It is unclear where in Java they landed. Varthema makes some quick observations about the island (notably, the prevalence of Hinduism, unlike the Islam they consistently encountered in other ports). In a dubious passage, Varthema claims that a substantial part of the Javanese population engaged in cannibalism. Staying in Java for a couple of weeks, they decided it was time to resume their return journey. Before leaving, Varthema purchased some emeralds as well as buying two castrated young children.

Chartering a junk (giunco) from Java, they made their way back to Malacca, where Varthema and Cazizioner finally parted company with the two Chinese Christians. On the same Javanese junk, they proceeded west across the Bay of Bengal, fifteen days sailing, to the Coromandel Coast of India, and disembarked at Negapatam. After a few weeks, they took a sampan to Quilon. The presence of some Portuguese in Quilon frightened Varthema, and he kept a low profile until he found passage, again via the Kerala backwaters, back to Calicut.

Calicut
In Calicut, Ludovico de Varthema came across two Italians — Varthema gives their names as Pier'Antonio and Gian'Maria, and identifies them as Milanese (Portuguese sources identify them as Venetian agents). They were military engineers that the Zamorin had hired to cast European-style artillery to fight the Portuguese. Temporarily separated from his Persian partner, and overcome by homesickness, Varthema revealed himself to them as a Christian and a compatriot. The two Italians, who had arrived in India in 1502, expressed their desire to return home, but that the Zamorin would not let them go. Learning that the next Portuguese armada was due to arrive in India soon (estimated September 1505), Varthema made up his mind to meet with the Portuguese captains and secure them all passage back to Europe. However, the two Italians doubted the Portuguese would pardon them.

While staying in Calicut, Varthema continued to meet with his new Italian friends. To allay the suspicions of his Persian partner, Varthema conjured up a ruse, professing a spiritual awakening had convinced him to embrace a more stringent religious life. For the next few weeks, Varthema lived as a Muslim ascetic in a Calicut mosque (albeit stealing away at night to join the Italians for dinner). His portrayal as a holy man was sufficiently convincing that he was even sought out as a healer.

At length, news reached Calicut that the Portuguese armada had finally arrived in Cannanore. It was by now late October or early November 1505 (Varthema mistakenly reports early September). Varthema arranged to leave for Cannanore with some Persian merchants. Their ship, however, was stopped in the harbor by the Calicut authorities and prevented from leaving. But the party eventually managed to sneak aboard a smaller vessel and finally made their way there. Cazizioner did not accompany them, but gave Varthema a letter of introduction to a merchant friend in Cannanore. Varthema would not see his old Persian partner again.

Defection to the Portuguese
After a few days, Ludovico de Varthema slipped away from his Persian hosts in Cannanore, and presented himself to the Portuguese authorities, revealing himself a Christian. Varthema was taken to Fort Sant' Angelo of Cannanore, and for the next three days, was personally interviewed by the Portuguese naval captain D. Lourenço de Almeida. Varthema supplied Almeida with the particulars of the Zamorin's military and naval preparations, as he had observed during his stay in Calicut. Almeida dispatched Varthema, and his report, on a ship to Cochin, to his father, D. Francisco de Almeida, the Portuguese vice-roy in India. Delighted by the intelligence provided, Almeida received Varthema warmly. At Varthema's request, Almeida consented to give the two Italian engineers in Calicut a safe-conduct, and sent Varthema back to Cannanore, along with instructions for his son Lourenço to give him all necessary assistance. Varthema tapped into the local spy network to communicate with the Italians in Calicut. But it ended in failure. The plan to spring them out of Calicut was overheard by a slave and revealed. Before the Zamorin's authorities could arrest them, an enraged mob descended, seized and killed the two Italians. Varthema received the news in Cannanore in March 1506.

Later that same month (March 1506), Varthema witnessed the naval Battle of Cannanore between Zamorin's fleet and the Portuguese fleet of Lourenço de Almeida, which he describes in some detail. Shortly after, Varthema was hired by the Portuguese factory in Cannanore to help the Portuguese authorities enforce their strict new shipping restrictions on the Malabar Coast (the cartaz system). Varthema used his Arabic language skills to interrogate local captains of merchant vessels traveling with suspect licenses.

Ludovico de Varthema remained in this position for around a year and a half. He was huddled among the defenders during the desperate Siege of Cannanore, that lasted from April to August 1507, when they were finally rescued by the arriving armada of D. Tristão da Cunha. He claims that after the battle, some of his old acquaintances became Christian converts. Varthema subsequently joined a punitive Portuguese raid led by Cunha on the Calicut-allied port of Ponnani in November. For his exploits there, Ludovico de Varthema was knighted by the viceroy Francisco de Almeida in Cochin, with Tristão da Cunha standing as his sponsor.

Return to Europe
Ludovico de Varthema left India on 6 December 1507, departing from Cannanore, aboard the Portuguese return armada. He sailed aboard the São Vicente, a ship owned by Bartolomeo Marchionni, a Florentine merchant in Lisbon. They followed the usual return route, crossing the Indian Ocean, and then sailing down the East African coast. Their first, and apparently only stop, was Mozambique Island. Although Varthema refers to various other points along the Swahili Coast (e.g. Malindi, Mombassa, Kilwa) it does not seem (and it would not have been likely) that he saw them personally, but was merely reporting them second-hand from the Portuguese. Varthema may however have seen Pemba and the Comoros from the distance.

Varthema gives a brief description of Mozambique Island, including the native Bantu inhabitants on the mainland. He mentions the new Portuguese fortress which was under construction on the island (Fort São Gabriel, begun by captain Vasco Gomes de Abreu in late 1507). Varthema refers to Francisco de Almeida's raids of 1505 and Tristão da Cunha's jaunt to Madagascar over the winter of 1506–07 and in a personal aside, expresses hope that all of Asia will eventually become Christian.

After a brief period of recovery, the journey was resumed. The fleet sailed down the Mozambique Channel and then rounded the Cape of Good Hope from the east. They were hit shortly after by a storm which dispersed the fleet, and the São Vicente sailed on alone. Varthema reports they passed near the islands of Saint Helena and Ascension in the south Atlantic. After crossing the equator, they alighted in the Azores islands, where they stopped for a couple of days for refreshment. They reached Lisbon about a week later.

Shortly after arriving, Ludovico de Varthema sought out an audience with the Portuguese king Manuel I in Almada, to confirm the patent of knighthood he received in India. That done, Ludovico de Varthema proceeded back to Rome, Italy. He gives no further details, his travelogue ending here.

Work and legacy
As Richard Francis Burton said in his book The Pilgrimage to Al-Medinah and Meccah: For correctness of observation and readiness of wit Varthema stands in the foremost rank of the old Oriental travellers. In Arabia and in the Indian archipelago east of Java he is (for Europe and Christendom) a real discoverer. Even where passing over ground traversed by earlier European explorers, his keen intelligence frequently adds valuable original notes on peoples, manners, customs, laws, religions, products, trade, methods of war.

Varthema's work "Itinerario de Ludouico de Varthema Bolognese" was first published in Italian at Rome in 1510. Other Italian editions appeared at Rome, 1517, at Venice, 1518, 1535, 1563, 1589, etc., at Milan, 1519, 1523, 1525. Latin translations appeared at Milan, 1511 (by Archangelus Madrignanus); and at Nuremberg, 1610. The book has been translated into 50 languages.

title: Ludovico di Varthema


text:
Talk:Viewtiful Joe 2

Deal
Hey, i got Viewtiful Joe 2 for $10 at EB, but it's the PS2 version only. This is not an ad for EB. I'm just putting this up because it's a great deal for the game. Apparently it's not selling to well. :( Here is the link. And here is the bens's bargains listing. Please don't delete this as many people have not played this game, and for $10 there's no excuse. -Hyad 03:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * The deal is off I see. The PS2 game is now $18. Still, a good deal on a good game, but it sucks that they raised the price. -Hyad 03:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The references
In the references section, they have Joe's suit being compared to Proto man and Quick man. I do agree with this, but his V emblem could also be conected to an old samurai helmet. They had two points usually, and were located right on the forhead. Many japanese superhero's helmets were fashioned in the same way. Interestingly enough, so were the head pieces of all the Gundam robots.205.188.116.5 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Game Demo Bug
Does anybody have any more information about the technical details of this bug. Is there any hope for recovering an affected memory card, or is the card effectively zeroed or similar / I have been holding off on doing anything with the affected card in the hopes of resurection. but little detail exists. off topic slightly, if anyone knows how to make a bit level backup of a memory card [ dd style], I would greatly appreciate it. but i fear the magic gate ... 71.77.37.238 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Viewtiful Joe 2


text:
Participating preferred stock

Participating preferred stock is preferred stock that provides a specific dividend that is paid before any dividends are paid to common stock holders, and that takes precedence over common stock in the event of a liquidation. This form of financing is typically used by private equity investors and venture capital (VC) firms.

Holders of participating preferred stock have the choice between two payoffs: a liquidation preference or an optional conversion. In a liquidation, they first get their money back at the original purchase price, the balance of any proceeds is then shared between common and participating preferred stock as though all convertible stock was converted. In an optional conversion, all shares are converted into common stock. Holders of participating preferred stock will always pick the option with the highest payoff.

In a liquidation, participating shares distribute the remaining assets with common stock pro rata. Pro rata means as a function of number of common shares on an as converted basis. The remaining proceeds are distributed based on ownership.

Uses
Like common stock, preferred stocks represent partial ownership in a company. Preferred stock shareholders may or may not enjoy any of the voting rights of those holding common stock. Also, unlike common stock, a preferred stock pays a fixed dividend that does not fluctuate. Often the dividend is cumulative. Thus, the company must pay all unpaid preferred dividends accumulated during previous periods before it can pay dividends to common shareholders. If the company is unable to pay this dividend, the preferred shareholders may have the right to force a liquidation of the company. If the dividend is not cumulative, preferred shares are not paid a dividend until the board of directors approves of a dividend.

Participation in liquidations in venture capital fundraising has slowly come out of trend. In the second quarter of 2017, financings that provided participation made up only 13% down from 25% in Q3 2015. When participating, entrepreneurs have the option to set a cap on participation. This means after liquidation, holders of participating preferred shares can have a payout up to a certain multiplier of their initial purchase price. In Q2 2017, 69% of financings had no cap on participation.

Participating preferred is often used as a "bridge" between a company that desires a higher valuation and a VC that believes in a lower valuation. A VC will agree to a higher valuation if it is accompanied by a participating preferred security—essentially challenging the company to earn the upside of the higher valuation. Participating shares give a VC the best potential upside as they can freely choose from liquidation or an optional conversion.

The main benefit of owning preferred stock is that the investor has a greater claim on the company's assets than common stockholders. Preferred shareholders always receive their dividends first and, in the event the company goes bankrupt, preferred shareholders are paid off before the holders of common stock. In general, there are five different types of preferred stock: cumulative preferred, non-cumulative, participating, convertible, and callable.

title: Participating preferred stock


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 11

Category:Debating societies

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 12:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename this as Category:Student debating societies, which is the content. Septentrionalis 18:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator; this is precisely what they are. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If all debating societies throughout history and world cultures are of the "student" variety, then adding "Student" to the category name is redundant.  If there are other types of debating societies, then they would belong here as well, but just aren't listed yet.  I have heard of "debating societies" in that form of terminology only, no qualifiers, and know nothing else about them on the basis of which to be so presumptuous as to assert there is anything otherwise *wrong* with this category as it stands.  There is, of course, no Wikipedia Article about the Debating Society thru time and cultures, and perhaps that is the issue which needs addressing. 12.73.198.43 00:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, fine as is. Maurreen 08:03, 16 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Non-mainstream science

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 12:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This category contains two articles, one of which is already in Category:Pseudophysics. Since the other is also a physical theory, I suggest the category be merged into Category:Pseudophysics. (The defining quality of 'pseudophysics' is  "have not undergone the critical review process needed in order to be accepted by the scientific community") ---Septentrionalis 15:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if the defining quality of the category presently called 'pseudophysics' is as you say above, then that category is misnamed. There is no basis for attaching the pejorative label "pseudo" to something simply because it had not undergone the critical review process needed for acceptance.  If it had not undergone a critical review, how can it be judged as "pseudo"?  The name is clearly POV.  The accurate and objective name for things that have not been accepted into the mainstream is not "pseudo" but "non-mainstream" or "not accepted into the mainstream".  KEEP the name non-mainstream science and get rid of the misnamed pseudophysics.  FrankZappo 22:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, I agree. Salsb 19:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, per nominator: that definition of pseduophysics is taken from the cat to merge to.? -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct term is Pseudoscience (of which pseudophysics would be a subsection). Radiant_ >|< 09:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Category:Pseudophysics is already a subcat of Category:Pseudoscience, though. -Splash 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Absolutely not. Do not change this category.  There are 2 voluminous archives of discussion on the aetherometry discussion pages - which many people worked on for weeks - on why 'non-mainstream physics' is a perfectly valid and important NPOV category and should not be idealistically merged with, or replaced by, the highly POV category of pseudophysics. I advise you read the archives rather than wasting everyone's time all over again.  As the name indicates, pseudophysics is not physics but false physics.
 * Merge/delete. The used (highly inprecise) euphemism only tries to wash away reality. Pavel Vozenilek 20:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The two articles can simply be recat'ed. Vsmith 22:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * 'Reality'? What kind of a joke is that?  Reality of what?  Pseudo is pseudo, fake.  Non-mainstream is serious - but non-mainstream - science.  It's hardly a question of 'euphemisms'.  To call it pseudo is only the reality of a biased convention.  It has no bearing on the reality of the science.  If it is not science, then it is pseudo.  If it is science  and you call it pseudo, then it is not only wrong, it's also libel.  What other meaning, pray tell, does pseudo have? Unless you want to redefine the meaning of words...

 * Delete the cat. Both articles are currently also cat'ed into Category:Pseudophysics. FWIW, there is no such thing as non-mainstream science. If its science, its by definition mainstream. If its not mainstream, its not science. linas 05:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Gee, they could have qualified for the linas/Connolley/Salsb/ Pjacobi 'we support the pseudophysics/pseudoscience' tag team club...

 * "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology France, 1872 (p.30)

 * "Fooling around with alternating current in just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." -Thomas Edison, 1889 (p.207)

 * "Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre (p.245)

 * "To affirm that the aeroplane is going to 'revolutionize' naval warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration." -Scientific American, 1910 (p.246)

 * "The whole procedure of shooting rockets into space. . . presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished." -Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer (p.257)

 * "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Ernst Rutherford, 1933 (p.215)

 * "Space travel is bunk" - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik (p.258)

 * "But what hell is it good for?" -Engineer Robert Lloyd, IBM 1968, commenting on the microchip (p.209)

 * "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977 (p.209)

 * Merge or Delete. Either it's pseudoscience or science, distinction between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" is ham-fisted and difficult at best, but mostly just POV. siafu 00:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This is an example of a rigged and non-enlightened vote. take the example of Autodynamics.  Its claims are no more or less falsifiable than Relativity.  The curves and the predictions for acceleration of material particles give essentially the same results.  So how does one choose between which of the two theories is the adequate one?   To state categorically that "if its science, its by definition mainstream" is patently absurd.  It is not a majority that can decide whether Relativity or Autodynamics is more accurate.  It is a matter of presenting tests that distinguish between the two hypotheses.  Just because most physicists work on the framework of Relativity, does not make the latter truer to physical nature than Autodynamics.  Moreover, Autodynamics has been published in mainstream publications, peer-reviewed in grants and publications, and still that does not make it mainstream.  So, it is not even true that what is mainstream science is what is published in mainstream journals.  Findings, theories, models, may be published in mainstream journals and be peer-reviewed, and not constitute mainstream science.  Avoiding the difficulties of the argument is what peremptory declarations are good for.  Then it is they who make them that suffer from an incurable POV.  It is called dogmatism. And dogmatism is incompatible with the true scientific spirit.Keep this category216.254.166.86 02:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Are you genuinely planning to harass each and every opposing viewpoint? (I'm assuming, of course, that you meant "rigid" instead of "rigged")  I was sympathetic to the distinction between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", just not to its application to Wikipedia.  However, it now seems rather clear that you are more interested in enforcing a POV belief in pseudoscience than maintaining this distinction for its own value.  Autodynamics, your example, completely falls on its face when presented with experimental data: it is pseudoscience, and not merely "non-mainstream".  Relabelling it as merely outside the mainstream is POV. siafu 07:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Look 'siafu, I'm not the person above and I don't appreciate having my interventions deleted/censored just because *you* happen to think attempting to introduce some balance which is otherwise lacking in the discussion of pseudo vs non-mainstream is offensive to you personally.  But, while we're here, let's see you *demonstrate* how "Autodynamics falls on its face when presented with experimental data:" instead of just stating it as though it were a fact.  And here's my text that you deleted 4.231.172.84 13:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I couldn't agree more [with 216.254.166.86]. Claims that   - "Either it's pseudoscience or science, distinction between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" is ham-fisted and difficult at best, but mostly just POV*  -  is pure POV.  Reminds me of that line in Bladerunner:  "If you're not police, you're little people."  It so happens that another very legitimate POV would claim that much of the very best work done today is being done by those *outside* the hermetically sealed military, corporate, academic pork-barrel granting systems - precisely because the door is closed to research that does not conform to a 'party line'  of entrenched interests - be it in physics, biology, toxicology, medicine, climatology, cosmology, geology, etc., etc.  And any student of the history of science knows full well that historically, this has most often been the case.  Real paradigmatic jumps in our understanding of the functions of nature are initiated from outside of - and not from inside - the box.  For the majority of you all to gibly agree that science has to be either mainstream or pseudo, and that there's no place for excellence in non-mainstream science is pure POV, IMHO of the most servile sort.  The very fine research, which those promoting  removal of the non-mainstream category, are pitching in together willy nilly with obvious a-scientific, mystical nonsense is being done with no other intent than to maliciously discredit it under the disparaging and inaccurate rubrik 'pseudo': fake.  Far from being a "noble mission" as this clique claims it is pursuing, it is very arguably, a most ignoble one, more like a cathoic Inquision of purification by way of poisonously discrediting any work that would dare stray from current scientific dogma.

Is the lack of mainstream approval, touted like a blind butcher ax by the self-appointed judges of the pseudophysics domain, in and of itself, really sufficient to declare science good or pseudo? I think not.

 * Something Rotten at the Core of Science?

 * The case against peer-review

 * Peer Review is Censorship and Intimidation

 * Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science

 * The end of the Peer Show - scientists’ misguided attempt to solve a non-existent problem

 * Malice's Wonderland: Research Funding and Peer Review

 * Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity

 * The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation

 * Peer review is broken.

 * Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?

 * Suppressing Dissent in Science

 * Hampering the progress of science by peer review and by the 'selective' funding system

 * A Case Study of Data Suppression and Misrepresentation

 * "A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine"

 * A STUDY IN SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION

 * Science and Politics: An Uneasy Mix

 * Proposed Definitions Relating (1) to the Suppression of Research and (2) to the Repression of Research

 * Suppression of Dissent in Science

 * Science Versus Science

 * I didn't delete anything, though it's possible there was an edit conflict (you can see here that there was no deletion in my edit). If so, sorry, but you'll learn how to recognize and handle that with more experience on wikipedia.  As for Autodynamics, one can only accept it as true if you ignore all evidence regarding the existence of the neutrino-- but I'll leave you to research that yourself, it's merely tangential to the discussion.  I certainly agree that new theories are "non-mainstream", but how exactly are we to use such a distinction here on Wikipedia? I'm certainly not advocating the removal of the material on the topics included in the category, just that wikipedia not attempt to distinguish between what is in the scientific mainstream and that which, while equally valid, is not (which does not include Autodynamics).  A good example, perhaps, is Heim Theory, which is not commonly accepted or discussed due to its previously being published only in German.  I would personally classify this as "non-mainstream" but not "pseudoscience", but what good is my personal classification?  One could just as easily argue that it is "mainstream", though in the minority.  Hence, my vote to delete this category-- I don't see a way to seperate articles on scientific theories and phenomena into mainstream or non- without resorting to simple POV. siafu 15:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Autodynamics states most scientists consider Autodynamics little more than a crackpot theory.  That doesn't sound to me that it's science at all, mainstream or otherwise.  Remember, this isn't a nomination to delete your crackpot theory articles, just the category.  --Kbdank71 16:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Where is the source for such statement? Whoever you are Kbdank, you do not even realize that you cannot quote as source a statement in a wikipedia entry made by other members of your cabal and without any attribution. Keep this category 209.29.95.52 16:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * By the way, while anonymous users are welcome to comment, only users whose accounts existed at the time of the beginning of the poll can cast votes (anon votes are discounted), so continually repeating your keep vote is not meaningful. siafu 17:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Nice dictatorial rules you guys got here. So much for genuine interest on topics and seasoned decisions. I'll take my hat off, and ponder how to deal with such rigged, that's RIGGED votes as the ones you administrators carry on with all of your cyberpowers... 209.29.95.52 17:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Two clicks would have gotten you here:   Written by wired news.  Gasp! Oh no!  Wired news has been taken over by a Cabal!!!  Oh, the humanity! (by the way, I'm Kbdank71, please get it right next time). --Kbdank71 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Kbdank71, whoever you are so proud of your tattoed arm: you're so blind you cannot read? The article you mention states: "Mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics a crackpot theory for decades, and most agree that an experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1984 proved the theory wrong." It does NOT say what you wrote, that "Autodynamics states most scientists consider Autodynamics little more than a crackpot theory"...Can you read your own text? Guess not. 209.29.95.52 16:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What? Listen, anon, whoever you are, I don't give a rip about Autodynamics, or any other pseudosceintific theory.  I'm here to discuss the category, and it's my opinion that it should go.  --Kbdank71 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't 'what' me. You wrote what you wrote. In factual error. Cannot admit it?  Then you have an incurable lack of objectivity. If you don't give a fig about Autodynamics, and yet classify it as pseudoscience (knee-jerk reaction), ethically you should not be in this discussion.  Either you care about science, its truths and the struggle for acceptance of new paradigm shifts, or you should have no business here. 209.29.95.52 17:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Seeing as this discussion is about Category:Non-mainstream science and not Autodynamics, not giving a rat's ass about that particular crackpot theory in now way means that someone doesn't have any business here. If anything, discussing autodynamics itself doesn't belong here; whatever the outcome of this discussion, the content of the autodynamics article will not be affected. Either you care about the category named or you should have no business here; this is not a forum to grandstand about the validity of particular theories. siafu 17:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You're a perfect example siafu (little blind ant that can travel fast but doesn't give a "rat's ass" about science, or knowledge for that matter) - of the disaster of wikipedia running amok in the hands of people who neither know the subject matter, nor give a rat's ass about it, yet are aspiring to make decisions about it.   Categories,  little ant posing as an encyclopedean, must be determined on the basis of what needs to placed into them - so that one doesn't file  siafus under astromomy, for example.  You see?  Or else, following the probably sagacious advice of Larry Sanger, co-founder of wikipedia, they should be thrown out the window altogether.  A very good idea, I should think, since they seem to be nothing more than entrenched political footballs.  When individuals are incapable of categorizing subject matter, other than on the POVs of strongly opinionated cliques, information is deformed beyond recognition.   I will repeat what has already been poined out, pseudo is fake, non-mainstream is non-mainstream science and actually *giving* a rat's ass about the difference is precisely why the non-mainstream category needs to be kept.  Anyway you clearly have an astonishing amount of hostility against autodynamics, and who knows, perhaps against anything non-mainstream and would like, in your blind rage to just throw them all under 'pseudo' thereby discredting everything equally.  How very democratic of you.  How very pseudoencyclopedian of you. 4.227.255.48  KEEP THE NON-MAINSTREAM

 * Perhaps you are mistaking me for the person who said that he didn't care about Autodynamics; I was simply defending kbdank71's viewpoint by noting that the validity of autodynamics is not specifically relevant to this discussion. I would suggest attacking arguments instead of the people who present them; my point stands that wikipedia is not able to make the determination between mainstream and non-mainstream without resorting to POV, whether it be autodynamics or other theories.  Can you demonstrate how this is not the case in a convincing way?  If not, then I would also suggest that you refrain from harassing other users and ascribing "hostility" and "blind rage" to their reasoned viewpoints. It seems clear that you very strongly believe that autodynamics is actual science instead of pseudoscience; that discussion belongs on Talk:Autodynamics, and not here, as I indicated above.  The category is defined absent of the validity of an individual entry. If you plan on simply continuing the name-calling, I would suggest you review No personal attacks before you find yourself banned from editting. siafu 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Siafu, don't waste your time. No matter what you say the anon will come back with something.  Just ignore him and he'll have nothing to argue against.  --Kbdank71 18:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If Autodynamics is not pseudoscience but an example of non-mainstrema science published in scientific journals, then this discussion belongs where it is. I will not answer to the rest of your provocation. 209.29.95.52 17:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * by the way, neither wired or wired.com are peer-reviewed scientific publications... They are glossy advertizing. 209.29.95.52 16:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Freddie Salsbury: at least you acknowledge that non-mainstream science exists and should not be confused with pseudo or false science. But not knowing how to slice the bacon is not reason to throw it in the garbage pail, is it?209.29.95.52 16:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. This whole discussion is so POV-laden that there is no way the change would reflect neutrality or objectivity towards the topics involved - a symptom, I fear, of a far larger problem within Wikipedia on many subjects.  Especially considering that Kbdank71 claims to be an admin, and has elsewhere proven his willingness to let his POV guide his site-given perks as such. 12.73.198.43 00:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It needed a correct definition, neutral and worth voting for. Keep as is now. 216.254.157.191 02:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The whole concept of "Mainstream science" is bogus. Either it is considered science now or not. Obviously human knowledge will change over the centuries and judgements will change, but this is out of our reach. Category:Pseudophysics better captures the difference between Autodynamics and Special relativity. Delete. --Pjacobi 08:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * You're bogus Pjacobi. You were involved in the creation of this pseudophysics smear category to suit your narrow-minded POV - and  most of your editing time is spent on providing false information on the scientific works in the non-mainstream categories for the sole purpose of allowing you to dump them into pseudophysics.  Your edits are bogus and are regularly deleted. Delete Pjacobi. Keep the non-mainstream category 4.249.186.114 15:03, 16 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:History by continent

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 12:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that this cat should be merged with its parent, Category:History by region. They're both a little sparse. --Brunnock 14:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. No meaningful distinction. -- Visviva 03:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge. Not particularly useful/redundant. siafu 00:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge — Too few major continent related articles (only Roman conquests and Attila the Hun?) And even then they span several continents. Not meaningful. Greg Robson 08:27, 16 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Gothic

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 12:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Goth. -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 00:21 (UTC)

 * Merge & rename both to Category:Gothic culture. Radiant_ >|< July 4, 2005 08:16 (UTC)
 * MERGE then remake Gothic into a category about the historical period and styles of that period, or Germanic culture relating to the Gothic, Gothic alphabet, etc. 132.205.45.148 4 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
 * Merge, then rename to "Goth culture". James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
 * Note: There is a consensus to merge this category, but to what is up in the air. Please let your opinion be known.  Thanks.  --Kbdank71 14:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Use Category:Goth. -Sean Curtin 23:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Complicated vote: Rename to Category:Goth culture per James F.. Oppose Category:Gothic culture as it's just not called that, and it implies some reference to the architectural period. Also oppose Category:Gothic as architectural since this isn't the place to make a category which requires someone going to find the articles. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Radiant (Gothic is a phrase that describes the culture of a group, where Goth is the individual), including not using Category:Gothic as architectural as per Splash, as it exists Category:Gothic architecture also see Gothic architecture. (Just in case, if we want numbers. Google: Gothic culture 1,490,000; Goth culture 511,000; Yahoo Reference)  <> Who ? ¿ ?  05:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/Rename to Category:Goth Culture or Category:Goth Subculture; "Gothic Culture" makes more sense as the culture of the Gothic (Visigoth, Ostrogoth) peoples of antiquity. siafu 00:21, 14 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Major programming languages

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the definition of a 'major' programming language is arbitrary, this is redundant with Category:Programming languages. Radiant_ >|< 12:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. --Brunnock 14:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Hooperbloob 16:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — all the langs in there are major, and we already have Category:Esoteric programming languages which was recently preferred to its template. It is a little arbitrary, but not all that arbitrary and it's such a dry subject it's not really at risk of POV pushing. Might get the occasional silly entry, but that's easy fixed. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of a major programming language? --Brunnock 13:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's a little arbitrary. But I don't think many people would disagree that e.g. Java and C++ are major. Too turn things around, what's the definition of an "esoteric programming language" - which already have their own category? -Splash 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree that each programming language is either major or esoteric. Radiant_ >|< 14:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...that's not what I said, though. The esoteric languages are not minority languages per se — they have peculiar features or do not 'really' exist or have various other strangeness see Esoteric programming languages. There are some languages that 'rule the world' and others that barely register; I'm not going to offer quantitative criteria for this but it's pretty evident to those involved in the field which are major and which are not. That said, I can see the reasoning in saying "filtering them out as major/minor" is unencyclopedic and, whilst I would also disagree with that, that's not the basis for deletion give here. Like I said, it's such a dry subject that there's very little likelihood of POV problems creeping in and I reckon the community would probably support all or most of the current inhabitants of this category. -Splash 15:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The categorisation of programming languages should be completely redone. Proper solution would be to have complete list of languages and some user interface where I could specify criteria and do selection with results sorted by relevance. One selection criteria could be popularity: from obscure or abandoned to major. (I know Wikipedia has nothing similar and likely never will.) Currently used template Template:Major programming languages is redundant with the category (and equally arbitrary, IMHO). Pavel Vozenilek 20:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename. Though Splash makes a solid point, the word "major" does not oppose "esoteric". siafu 00:24, 14 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Super 12 teams

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Super 12 rugby union competition, which has already been completed for 2005, will resume in 2006 with two new teams and a new name, Super 14. There was already a Super 14 teams category which had the two new teams; I moved all the Super 12 teams over to the Super 14 category. Dale Arnett 10:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete empty and redundant per nominator. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete totally non-controversial.GordyB 20:27, 12 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fuckers of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 11:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy as an attack category. Refreshing to see that kind of thing here rather than in VfD! -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete HEY!  this was a legitimate category for Hong Kong politicians-turned-porn stars!  ;) --Hooperbloob 23:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * HEY, will someone get the obscenity off the boards. 12.73.198.43 00:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, no. The category has already been deleted, but changing the category title here is removing evidence, even if it's obscene. siafu 00:42, 15 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Domestic cricket competitions in the United States

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 12:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Has only 1 article and likely to stay that way. Superfluous. Separate category Category:Domestic cricket competitions is a catch all. Ian ≡ talk 04:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There should be many more one day, and all of them should be allocated by country, not just some. Calsicol 22:45, 13 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional psychokineticists, Category:Purported psychokineticists

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 12:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a word. Use "psychokinetics" instead. -Sean Curtin 03:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * OBJECT to both namning methods "psychokinetic" is the ability to perform or acts of "psychokinesis" ; "psychokinetics" is the study of "psychokinesis" (in other words, a field of psychophysics, which is itself a field of parapsychology) ; "psychokineticist" is a person who studies "psychokinetics" (in other words, some sort of parapsychologist) ; these categories are for people who pratice "psychokinesis"/"telekinesis"... so would this be some other word (they are a sort of psychic) ; I propose Category:Fictional telekinetic psychics and Category:Purported telekinetic psychics or Category:Fictional telekinesis practitioners and Category:Purported telekinesis practitioners. 67.68.64.81 09:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Google confirms that 'psychokinetic' is in fact the word most used. Support Sean's suggestion. Radiant_ >|< 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Google results show that "psychokinetics" means acts of psychokinesis, not a person who performs such acts 132.205.3.20 19:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Google shows that the word "psychokineticist" is almost never actually used outside of this category (the #1 Google hit) and the Dungeons & Dragons game. If you can find a word that people actually use that fits better than "psychokinetics", that would be great, but this seems to be the best solution.  -Sean Curtin 23:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * OBJECT, should be renamed to Category:Fictional mentalists and Category:Purported mentalists and Category:Mentalists ; spoon benders are called mentalists. 132.205.3.20 19:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Mentalist" also implies clairvoyance and telepathy. -Sean Curtin 23:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep both — the new term may be more widely used on Google, but not in the sense it we are using it here. Psychokineticist is entirely appropriate. I'd be interested in some example of how the literature in question refers to them, however. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way adding 'purported' to a category name is wrong. This is either speculation (hence POV) or an assumption from our side that psychokinesis does not actually exist (hence also POV). If the people call themselves Psychowhatever, they should be in a category stating that, not in Category:People with dubious claims to some mystical power. Radiant_ >|< 09:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is true. That was a rather poorly thought-out vote on my part. Hmmmm. What can we call the purported people? Category:People who claim to be psychokinetic? Category:Possible psychokineticists? -Splash 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How about Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities (and matching category Category:Fictional people with psychokinetic abilities) 132.205.94.174 21:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good, rename as above. -Splash 00:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "claiming to have abilities" might be shortened to "claiming abilities"? Radiant_ >|< 14:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Objection: it should just be Category:Psychokineticists or Category:Psychokinetists, whichever is the proper term.  Any attempt to qualify it further in any way that questions these people's legitimacy, is a POV-based statement.  Let the articles deal with the pro's and con's about each individual, and the principal articles on the subject, and let the user decide.  Otherwise, I'm going to start a Category:Purported Americans and attach George W. Bush as the first article; it would be as reasonable. 12.73.198.43 23:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as above. Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities and  Category:Fictional people with psychokinetic abilities  --Kbdank71 16:14, 15 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional clergy and religious

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 12:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Religious what? Category:Religious workers exists, suggesting that this become Category:Fictional clergy and religious workers. -Sean Curtin 03:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Fictional religious workers for consistency. -Splash 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. "Chinese language and cultual"! siafu 00:26, 14 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rename Category:Beethoven symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Ludwig van Beethoven, etc.

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 11:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:Beethoven symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Ludwig van Beethoven
 * Category:Bruckner symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Anton Bruckner
 * Category:Haydn symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn
 * Category:Mahler symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Gustav Mahler
 * Category:Shostakovich symphonies to Category:Symphonies by Dmitri Shostakovich

This is more consistent with the custom of categorizing articles as "Compositions by Foo", rather than "Foo Compositions". For more information, see Category Talk: Compositions by composer and Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 11. NatusRoma 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Radiant_ >|< 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all. --Kbdank71 16:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Three more: NatusRoma 04:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Beethoven string quartets to Category:String quartets by Ludwig van Beethoven
 * Category:Beethoven string quartets by opus to Category:String quartets by Ludwig van Beethoven by opus
 * Category:Bartók string quartets to Category:String quartets by Béla Bartók
 * Rename those also. --Kbdank71 17:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. Pavel Vozenilek 20:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all. siafu 00:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename everything. First and last names are essential as a standard:  there are a couple of Strausses, and several Bachs, e.g. 12.73.198.43 00:29, 15 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Olympic athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 11:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics, name is inconsistent with related categories, empty. -- Jonel | Speak 02:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete per Jonel. "Olympic athletes at the ... Olympics" is also redundantly titled. Whig 02:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant category, redundant title. siafu 00:27, 14 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rename Category:History of cinema to Category:History of film

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 11:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This category was recently orphaned by mistake. In the mean time History of Cinema was renamed History of film and Category:Cinema was renamed Category:Film. --Samuel Wantman 01:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as per nom. We seem to be heading towards film a a standard. The category should match the article.  <> Who ? ¿ ?  02:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. Radiant_ >|< 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep - As I thought I had pointed out in the Category:Cinema by Country CfR debate, the case has not been made for renaming "Cinema" articles to "Film". As far as I can see the History of Cinema page was changed to History of Film without any consensus being reached. The same also seems to be true for the change from Cinema to Film in the lead article. It looks as if someone has changed Cinema to Film themselves, and then argued all the other articles & categories should be brought into line with the change. It would be better if the History of Film article was reverted to History of Cinema until this has been settled. The word "Cinema" has been used in these articles for a reason; it is not interchangeable with the word "Film". Based on the discussions that have taken place on the "Cinema by Country" debate, I would suggest that "Cinema" may be the most appropriate term and that the lead article should be reverted. There should at least have been a discussion on this change before it was made and used as justification for changing every other article and category. JW 19:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. There have been several CfR/CfD's recently dealing with cinema→film. I can't find them right now; maybe someone else can help out. -Splash 00:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - They were all based on the argument that only a few categories used Cinema, and that Film was now standard just because somebody changed the lead article without discussion. JW 08:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Now that nearly all the associated cats use 'film', we should stick with it (unless we want to rename them all every couple of weeks). -Splash 13:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename. Repeating for JW:  someone(s) redirected *all* synonyms for film to article Film on the search engine.  I don't know when or who, but it was done *several* months ago.  Meanwhile, under Category:Culture, it remained as "Cinema" until someone else - some newbie - pointed out the inconsistency between the two entry points' terminology, and requested a name change and it was changed to Category:Film and I know there was a discussion on that.  So it is now logical that all other subcategories should be brought into conformity.  Of course, everything could be changed to Cinema, but then someone else would want Motion Pictures and there will never be an end to the squabbling because all these words  - Film, Cinema, Motion Pictures and Movies do mean the same thing to the average person, which is who Wikipedia should be serving.  That was brought out on the "Cinema by Country" debate, but then some "admin", Kbdank71, suddenly decided to remove the discussion (the same day that at least 2 posts had been made!) and shut down the debate.  So much for NPOV in administration; and nothing was resolved in the Cinema by Country -> Film by Country discussion because of that and that alone.  And in general, Wikipedia needs to spend more time upgrading the existing article content and adding majorly to it, as the whole Film/Cinema/Motion Picture/Movie section of Wikipedia looks like a fan site, rather than squabbling over whose "pet" word is going to dominate.  Film is perfectly fine.  And the "Cinema by Country" discussion should be allowed to continue, and not controlled by a partisan admin. 12.73.198.43 23:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the Cinema by Country debate was closed because it had reached the 7-day limit. But that debate didn't show that these terms were all interchangeable at all; it showed that "Film" couldn't be applied to every category that was already using "Cinema". The implication I took from that discussion was that "Cinema" might be a more appropriate term than "Film" for the broader categories. Despite what you say about the category change from Cinema to Film, there's no discussion page on the category itself so I don't know where this was discussed. "Cinema" is an umbrella term and can be applied to subjects where the word "Film" can't, like national cinemas. It's not just a case of squabbling over "pet" words; I had no particular interest in what the lead article was called, but I've been working on the Cinema by Country articles and I know these categories lose their meaning when an attempt is made to force the word "Film" on them.JW 12:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cinema by country discussion was obliterated because of "no concensus" per Kbdan71, even though 2-3 people were actively discussing whether to change or not. The debate showed or did not show Film and Cinema as interchangeable only depending on which side of the debate one was standing: that was under discussion when we were so rudely interrupted.  About half and half had voted keep & rename, and that was from less than 10 people, so it was a draw but hardly a concensus since the vast majority were not involving themselves.  Which seems to me to be saying, "We don't care; it's all the same to us".  Both Cinema and Film are rather hoity-toity, but if you read the Film article, it is very plain the author is talking about the art form, the medium, the artists and the industry all under that term as umbrella, and it works out fine that way, setting it up as the default term.  The issue now is one of making the term consistent across the rest of the Wikipedia.  Sorry if you missed prior discussions, but I must assume the previous changes were all made according to the rules, and was here when the header under Culture was up for discussion to change from Cinema to Film, on the grounds of it needing to be made consistent with the search engine redirects to Film as the introductory article for the topic.  Obfuscate all you might, it doesn't wash that any of the prior changes were done by hackers:  you simply missed out that the changes had been made, and must not have even noticed them after the fact for some months, which makes me wonder why your sudden interest in, so to speak, closing the barn door after most of the horses have already run off. 12.73.195.42 19:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * PS - If you'll look in the archives of this section for 17 June 2005, you will find the discussion of Change Category:Cinema to Category:Film stored right there. 7 people participated (including myself), 6 favoring the change and one opposed.  Where you were, I cannot say. 12.73.196.53 22:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't remember claiming that the changes had been made by hackers. I seem to remember I did read the category rename in the archives and the point was that it wasn't actually discussed at all. It was just another "Film is now the default term so everything should be called film" argument. No thought was given to what the effect would be on categories, sub-cats and articles down the line. No doubt I missed it because not everyone devotes their entire life to WP.
 * If you read my previous post you would see I already explained why I became interested in the rename; I had been working on the Cinema by Country articles and was alarmed that a clumsy, unworkable title was going to be forced on them. The point about that debate was that nobody could suggest workable alternatives that used "Film" instead of "Cinema". The people who were saying rename were not all arguing for the same thing, many were saying don't rename the sub-categories, because "Film in France" or whatever wouldn't work. This was my concern and it still hasn't been addressed and no discussion of the implications has really taken place. No-one ever asked if changing all the other categories and articles to "film" would actually work. Whatever you do now, you can't standardise every article to "film", because in some cases it just doesn't work. JW 23:13, 15 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rename Category:Final Fantasy subgames to Category:Final Fantasy minigames

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 11:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This category was recently made into an orphan because it was replaced by Category:Final Fantasy minigames. Because of this, Category:Final Fantasy subgames will no longer be used, and therefore shall be deleted. --ZeWrestler 16:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Saddened as I am by the existence of such a category, I agree with the nom. siafu 22:49, 15 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Cat-sìth

The cat-sìth (, plural cait-shìth), in Irish cat sí, is a fairy creature from Celtic mythology, said to resemble a large black cat with a white spot on its chest. Legend has it that the spectral cat haunts the Scottish Highlands. The legends surrounding this creature are more common in Scottish folklore, but a few occur in Irish. Some common folklore suggested that the cat-sìth was not a fairy, but a witch that could transform into a cat nine times.

The cat-sìth may have been inspired by the Scottish wildcat itself. It is possible that the legends of the cat-sìth were inspired by Kellas cats, which are a distinctive hybrid between Scottish wildcats and domestic cats found only in Scotland (the Scottish wildcat is a population of the European wildcat, which is now absent from elsewhere in the British Isles).

Appearance
The cat-sìth is all black with the exception of a white spot on its chest. It is described as being as large as a dog and chooses to display itself with its back arched and bristles erect.

The King of the Cats
In the British folk tale "The King of the Cats", a man comes home to tell his wife and cat, Old Tom, that he saw nine black cats with white spots on their chests carrying a coffin with a crown on it and one of the cats tells the man to "Tell Tom Tildrum that Tim Toldrum is dead." Old Tom then exclaims, "What?! Old Tim dead! Then I'm the King o' the Cats!" The cat then climbs up the chimney and is never seen again.

Soul-stealing
The people of the Scottish Highlands did not trust the cat-sìth. They believed that it could steal a person's soul, before it was claimed by the gods, by passing over a corpse before burial; therefore, watches called the Fèill Fhadalach ('late wake') were performed night and day to keep the cat-sìth away from a corpse before burial. Methods of "distraction" such as games of leaping and wrestling, catnip, riddles and music would be employed to keep the cat-sìth away from the room in which the corpse lay. In addition, there were no fires where the body lay, as it was said that the cat-sìth was attracted to the warmth.

Samhain
On Samhain, it was believed that a cat-sìth would bless any house that left a saucer of milk out for it to drink and those houses that did not put out a saucer of milk would be cursed into having all of their cows' udders go dry.

Summoning
The demonic cat-sìth called Big Ears could be summoned (Gaelic taghairm ) to appear and grant any wish to those who took part in the ceremony. The ceremony required practitioners to burn the bodies of cats over the course of four days and nights.

Transformation
Some people believed that the cat-sìth was a witch that could transform voluntarily into its cat form and back nine times. If one of these witches chose to go back into their cat form for the ninth time, they would remain a cat for the rest of their lives. It is believed by some that this is how the idea of a cat having nine lives originated.

title: Cat-sìth


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollstar.jpg

Image:Trollstar.jpg

 * Moved to Speedy deletion

(Warning: Goatse)

I really don't think that Wikipedia needs an intentionally vulgar barnstar incorporating a shock site's picture of the inside of a rectum. It seems as though the Trollstar is designed to reward, I don't know... Trolling? --Mr. Billion 03:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:CharlesWiki

My name is Charlie...., hehehe
As my profile states, There is enough Information for you. My purpose here is to help on what I can to this "Wiki" mporium of knowledge. I am a huge supporter of GNU and free software policies and also a huge fan of three things: Anime, movies (Hollywood ones, not the indep"crap"endent) and music. I wish to work on a variety of projects specially the ones of Anime and Comics that are in development, so contact me if you can

CharlesWiki (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

title: User:CharlesWiki


text:
Amalia Kahana-Carmon

Amalia Kahana-Carmon (עמליה כהנא-כרמון) was an Israeli author and literary critic. She was awarded the Israel Prize for literature in 2000.

Biography
Amalia Kahana-Carmon was born in Kibbutz Ein Harod on October 18, 1926. She moved to Tel Aviv as a child and studied at Herzliya Hebrew Gymnasium, but her studies were interrupted by the 1948 Palestine war where she served in the Negev Brigade of Palmach as a signals operator and wrote the famous telegram for the capture of Eilat. Upon her return from military service, Kahana-Carmon attended the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and studied library science and philology. Soon after graduating, she moved to Switzerland (1951 to 1955) and then to England (1955 to 1957) before moving back to Tel Aviv to work as a librarian and writer.

Family
Kahana-Carmon’s father, Chaim Kahana (1890-1910), immigrated to Palestine in 1910. In Palestine, he received a rabbinical education and both invented and held consultations for technical mechanisms. Her mother, Sara Crispin (1903-1985), was born in Bulgaria and attended the Hebrew Teachers Seminary in Bulgaria before immigrating to Palestine in 1922 where she studied bee-keeping at the Mikveh Israel Agricultural School. Crispin spent the rest of her life as a bee-keeper and Hebrew teacher. Kahana-Carmon had one younger sister named Miriam (b. 1929). While Kahana-Carmon was in London in 1951, she met and married an Israeli student named Arie Carmon, who studied civil engineering. They had three children together–Raya (b. 1953), Iddo (b. 1956), and Haggai (b. 1959)–before divorcing in 1978.

Life as a writer
Kahana-Carmon began writing in the 1950s but is not considered to be part of the Palmah Generation, a movement that dominated the literary scene in the 1940s and 1950s, nor the Generation of Statehood, a counter-movement to the Palmah Generation. Her writing differed from these groups in an important way: it centered around the individual rather than national ideals. This does not mean that Kahana-Carmon was not influenced by others; in fact, her writing was shaped by Nehamah Pukhachewsky (1869-1934), who wrote about the struggles of women pioneers in Palestine, and Devorah Baron (1886-1956), who wrote about the victimization of women in male-dominated religious Jewish institutions. Many also believe that Kahana-Carmon’s writing was influenced by Virginia Woolf because of their shared lyrical, poetic style, but Kahana-Carmon commented that this relation was due to similarity in thought rather than any influence.

During Kahana-Carmon’s time, authors who explored national ideals, usually represented by men's lives, were valued over those who focused on the individual or women’s experiences. Typically when women were mentioned, they were used as metaphors for the land of Israel. Consequently, women’s writing, which more often than not centered around women’s experiences, was pushed to the periphery. Kahana-Carmon’s writing was no exception to this. That being said, Kahana-Carmon believed that all writers were outsiders, not because of social rejection but because others were incapable of understanding their commitment to their crafts.

Many have tried to translate Kahana-Carmon’s writing, but she rejected their attempts, believing that her work was untranslatable. There are still a few translations that do exist, including With Her on Her Way Home, translated into Italian and Chinese, and Bridal Veil, in G. Abramson’s (ed.) Oxford Book of Hebrew Short Stories (1996) and R. Domb’s (ed.) New Women’s Writing from Israel (1996).

Literary style and themes
Kahana-Carmon writes about the lives of traditional women in male-dominated environments before marriage, during war, or during university years using a lyrical style that explores the depths of her characters’ emotions. Most of Kahana-Carmon’s writing focuses on one mundane event, and the descriptions are a reflection on that event, allowing the reader to peer into the inner world of the characters. Generally, this reflection does not lead to a solution, but the characters experience freedom from understanding their situations.

Many of Kahana-Carmon’s characters experience romantic feelings, but often the object of these emotions is in a different social circle or the characters are in the wrong place at the wrong time, so they cannot be together. Despite their romantic defeats, her heroines emerge as queens who recognize what they have lost but continue to have hope. She challenges the happily-ever-after paradigm but still believes in the dignifying aspects of love.

Furthermore, Kahana-Carmon’s characters are outsiders in their societies because of their genders, classes, or races. Some of them even cross gender and race boundaries, such as in Up in Montifer. In this novella, Clara, the heroine, has a black, freed slave as her companion. She reaches independence as a merchant through dialogue with this freed slave, where both characters are gender and race conscious.

Kahana-Carmon also wrote feminist critiques of Israeli literature and culture. These essays were inspired by a trip to America where she attended an international meeting for writers and was introduced to Frantz Fanon (1925-1961), who wrote postcolonial criticisms about race relations. She was also inspired by gender critiques from Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986).

Awards

 * In 1971, and again in 1980, Kahana-Carmon was awarded the Prime Minister's Prize for Hebrew Literary Works.
 * In 1985, Kahana-Carmon was awarded the Brenner Prize for literature. She was the first woman Hebrew fiction writer to receive this award.
 * In 1993, she received the Bialik Prize for Hebrew-language literature.
 * In 1995, Kahana-Carmon received the Newman Prize.
 * In 1995, Kahana-Carmon received the ACUM Prize.
 * In 1997, Kahana-Carmon received the President’s Prize.
 * In 2000, she was awarded the Israel Prize, for original Hebrew literature.

Published works

 * Under One Roof (1966)
 * And Moon in the Valley of Ayalon (1971)
 * A Piece for the Stage, in the Grand Manner (1975)
 * Magnetic Fields (1977)
 * High Stakes (1980)
 * Up in Montifer (1984)
 * With Her on Her Way Home (1991)
 * Here We'll Live (1996)

title: Amalia Kahana-Carmon


text:
User talk:Kywong73

"data recognition"
Welcome to Wikipedia! I redirected your "data recognition" article to Optical character recognition, since I think that it contains more information, and is the more common name for the topic. Also, Wikipedia topics generally aren't placed in quotation marks, even if they refer to a phrase. Please let me know if you feel that this is an inappropriate redirection. Pburka 03:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Data recognition and optical character recognition are slightly different. OCR normally refers to recognition of specific fonts (OCR-A, OCR-B etc) designed to make recognition as easy and accurate as possible. Over the past few years, development of data recognition software has advanced to the stage where there are viable applications that read almost any font including handwriting, and extract data with a very degree of accuracy. Hence, I have no problem with data recognition being grouped with optical character recognition, as long as the differences are explained. I suspect it might be slightly better to have them as separate articles, linked by cross-reference perhaps. --Kywong73 06:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Jandamarra
Hi, I noticed your article and the two images and thought I'd have a go at improving the contrast and brightness on your cave photo Image:IMG 0146.jpg. I hope you don't mind - if so, please let me know. Regards -- Ian ≡ talk 14:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia
Hi, WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kywong73


text:
ClearRx

ClearRx is a trademark for a design for prescription drug packaging, designed by design student Deborah Adler as a thesis project and adopted by Target Corporation (with refinements by industrial designer Klaus Rosburg) for use in their in-store pharmacies in 2005. The design is an attempt to clarify certain difficult aspects common to most prescription bottles used in the US.

Background
The ClearRx bottle design was created to replace the classic orange pill bottle, which had existed since just after World War II. The orange bottle label's information was often not read by patients, since the text was very small and most of the time the company logo was the most emphasized text on the bottle. Warnings and cautions were printed in inadequate color combinations, making it hard to read.

Design
Bottles have a distinctive rounded-wedge shape and are designed to stand on their caps, with the label folding over the top of the bottle, where the name of the drug is printed in large print for easy identification. A cutout on the back of the bottle includes space for a data card describing the effects and risks of the medication. Fundamental to the design is a colored rubber ring that serves as a color code so different members of a household can distinguish their individual prescriptions. An overall priority is given to distinguishability; the most important information (patient name, drug name, instructions) are placed prominently on the upper half of the label. Other innovations include revised warning symbols and labels and a small magnifying strip that can be inserted into the side of the bottle for customers with visual impairments.

Liquid medicine bottles are not quite as distinctive, but feature a spill proof cap coupled with a dosing syringe that is claimed to be more accurate than spoon dispensing. The liquid medicine bottles also feature the color-coded ring around the neck.

The design won the "Design of the Decade" award from the Industrial Designers Society of America in 2010 and is included in the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection.

After Target sold their in-store pharmacy and clinic operations to CVS Health in December 2015, CVS discontinued the use of ClearRx.

Patents

title: ClearRx