text:
Green Cross

Green Cross may refer to:

Science

 * Green Cross (chemical warfare), a group of World War I chemical warfare agents

Businesses

 * Green Cross (South Korea), a South Korean pharmaceutical company
 * Green Cross (Japan), a Japanese pharmaceutical company

Health and safety

 * Green Cross Code, a traffic safety education program in the United Kingdom
 * Green Cross Corps, an alternative name for the British Women's Reserve Ambulance Corps
 * Green Cross flags, the industrial safety/health flags in Japan
 * Green Cross for Safety Award from the National Safety Council
 * Green Cross International, an environmental organization founded by Mikhail Gorbachev
 * Green Cross (Venezuela), a Venezuelan paramedic group
 * Cannabis dispensary, indicated sometimes by a green cross sign
 * Pharmacy, indicated in some countries by a green cross sign

Sports

 * C.A. Green Cross, an Ecuadorian football (soccer) club
 * Club de Deportes Green Cross (1916–1985), a former Chilean football (soccer) club

title: Green Cross


text:
User talk:Robludwig

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

'Thanks for your support on the EcoDuro article. If I can ever be of service on here, let me know. Best Regards, Ronreed 03:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Rob
I'm at RfA! VOTE FOR ME! (or not!) Redwolf24 05:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Robludwig


text:
User talk:Chasuk

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

title: User talk:Chasuk


text:
User talk:Panentheon

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

title: User talk:Panentheon


text:
User talk:Acehole

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

title: User talk:Acehole


text:
Heshmat Fahmi

Heshmat Fahmi is a member of the Pan-African Parliament and a member of the People's Assembly of Egypt.

title: Heshmat Fahmi


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runal

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

The result of the debate was Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:13, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Runal
Incomplete Vfd - no vote --Doc (?) 00:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a no go-er Delete
 * I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 23:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to repeat Sniglets jokes or repeat episodes of long-dead satirical TV shows. Geogre 03:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nnneologism at the most generous. A term I shall remember next I'm at a party, though. -Splash 22:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per Geogre. / Peter Isotalo 22:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runal


text:
Osteopenia

Osteopenia, known as "low bone mass" or "low bone density", is a condition in which bone mineral density is low. Because their bones are weaker, people with osteopenia may have a higher risk of fractures, and some people may go on to develop osteoporosis. In 2010, 43 million older adults in the US had osteopenia. Unlike osteoporosis, osteopenia does not usually cause symptoms, and losing bone density in itself does not cause pain.

There is no single cause for osteopenia, although there are several risk factors, including modifiable (behavioral, including dietary and use of certain drugs) and non-modifiable (for instance, loss of bone mass with age). For people with risk factors, screening via a DXA scanner may help to detect the development and progression of low bone density. Prevention of low bone density may begin early in life and includes a healthy diet and weight-bearing exercise, as well as avoidance of tobacco and alcohol. The treatment of osteopenia is controversial: non-pharmaceutical treatment involves preserving existing bone mass via healthy behaviors (dietary modification, weight-bearing exercise, avoidance or cessation of smoking or heavy alcohol use). Pharmaceutical treatment for osteopenia, including bisphosphonates and other medications, may be considered in certain cases but is not without risks. Overall, treatment decisions should be guided by considering each patient's constellation of risk factors for fractures.

Risk factors
Many divide risk factors for osteopenia into fixed (non-changeable) and modifiable factors. Osteopenia can also be secondary to other diseases. An incomplete list of risk factors:

Fixed

 * Age: bone density peaks at age 35, and then decreases. Bone density loss occurs in both men and women
 * Ethnicity: European and Asian people have increased risk
 * Sex: women are at higher risk, particularly those with early menopause
 * Family history: low bone mass in the family increases risk

Modifiable / behavioral

 * Tobacco use
 * Alcohol use
 * Inactivity – particularly lack of weight-bearing or resistance activities
 * Insufficient caloric intake – osteopenia can be connected to female athlete triad syndrome, which occurs in female athletes as a combination of energy deficiency, menstrual irregularities, and low bone mineral density.
 * Low nutrient diet (particularly calcium, Vitamin D)

Other diseases

 * Celiac disease, via poor absorption of calcium and vitamin D
 * Hyperthyroidism
 * Anorexia nervosa

Medications

 * Steroids
 * Anticonvulsants

Screening and diagnosis
The ISCD (International Society for Clinical Densitometry) and the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommend that older adults (women over 65 and men over 70) and adults with risk factors for low bone mass, or previous fragility fractures, undergo DXA testing. The DXA (dual X-ray absorptiometry) scan uses a form of X-ray technology, and offers accurate bone mineral density results with low radiation exposure.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends osteoporosis screening for women with increased risk over 65 and states there is insufficient evidence to support screening men. The main purpose of screening is to prevent fractures. Of note, USPSTF screening guidelines are for osteoporosis, not specifically osteopenia. The National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends use of central (hip and spine) DXA testing for accurate measure of bone density, emphasizing that peripheral or "screening" scanners should not be used to make clinically meaningful diagnoses and that peripheral and central DXA scans cannot be compared to each other.

DXA scanners can be used to diagnose osteopenia or osteoporosis as well as to measure bone density over time as people age or undergo medical treatment or lifestyle changes.

Information from the DXA scanner creates a bone mineral density T-score by comparing a patient's density to the bone density of a healthy young person. Bone density between 1 and 2.5 standard deviations below the reference, or a T-score between −1.0 and −2.5, indicates osteopenia (a T-score smaller than or equal to −2.5 indicates osteoporosis). Calculation of the T-score itself may not be standardized. The ISCD recommends using Caucasian women between 20 and 29 years old as the baseline for bone density for ALL patients, but not all facilities follow this recommendation.

The ISCD recommends that Z-scores, not T-scores, be used to classify bone density in premenopausal women and men under 50.

Prevention
Prevention of low bone density can start early in life by maximizing peak bone density. Once a person loses bone density, the loss is usually irreversible, so preventing (greater than normal) bone loss is important.

Actions to maximize bone density and stabilize loss include:
 * Exercise, particularly weight-bearing exercise, resistance exercises and balance exercises, through mechanical loading that promotes increased bone mass, and reduced fall risk
 * Adequate caloric intake
 * Sufficient calcium in diet: older adults may have increased calcium needs—of note, medical conditions such as Celiac and hyperthyroidism can affect absorption of calcium
 * Sufficient Vitamin D in diet
 * Estrogen replacement
 * Avoidance of steroid medications
 * Limit alcohol use and smoking

Treatment
The pharmaceutical treatment of osteopenia is controversial and more nuanced than well-supported recommendations for improved nutrition and weight-bearing exercise. The diagnosis of osteopenia in and of itself does not always warrant pharmaceutical treatment. Many people with osteopenia may be advised to follow risk prevention measures (as above).

Risk of fracture guides clinical treatment decisions: the World Health Organization (WHO) Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) estimates the probability of hip fracture and the probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF), which could occur in a bone other than the hip. In addition to bone density (T-score), calculation of the FRAX score involves age, body characteristics, health behaviors, and other medical history.

As of 2014, The National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends pharmaceutical treatment for osteopenic postmenopausal women and men over 50 with FRAX hip fracture probability of > 3% or FRAX MOF probability > 20%. As of 2016, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology agree. In 2017, the American College of Physicians recommended that clinicians use individual judgment and knowledge of patients' particular risk factors for fractures, as well as patient preferences, to decide whether to pursue pharmaceutical treatment for women with osteopenia over 65.

Pharmaceutical treatment for low bone density includes a range of medications. Commonly used drugs include bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate)—some studies show that decreased fracture risk and increased bone density after bisphosphonate treatment for osteopenia. Other medications include selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (e.g., raloxifene), estrogens (e.g., estradiol), calcitonin, and parathyroid hormone-related protein analogues (e.g., abaloparatide, teriparatide).

These drugs are not without risks. In this complex landscape, many argue that clinicians must consider a patient's individual risk of fracture, not simply treat those with osteopenia as equally at risk. A 2005 editorial in the Annals of Internal Medicine states "The objective of using osteoporosis drugs is to prevent fractures. This can be accomplished only by treating patients who are likely to have a fracture, not by simply treating T-scores."

History
Osteopenia, from Greek ὀστέον (ostéon), "bone" and πενία (penía), "poverty", is a condition of sub-normally mineralized bone, usually the result of a rate of bone lysis that exceeds the rate of bone matrix synthesis. See also osteoporosis.

In June 1992, the World Health Organization defined osteopenia. An osteoporosis epidemiologist at the Mayo Clinic who participated in setting the criterion in 1992 said "It was just meant to indicate the emergence of a problem", and noted that "It didn't have any particular diagnostic or therapeutic significance. It was just meant to show a huge group who looked like they might be at risk."

title: Osteopenia


text:
User:Bancroftian

Hi, I'm Bancroftian and I am trying to become an administrator here!

About Me
I live in Pepperell, Massachusetts and am 15 years old. I go to that towns high school. I like music and some of my favourite bands are the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, U2, Bob Dylan, the Who, the Clash, Simon and Garfunkel and the Beach Boys to name a few. I play guitar, I have a Telecaster and a Stratocaster. I like to read some of my favourite authors are J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Ray Bradbury, George Orwell and John Steinbeck. I like movies expescially Star Wars and Indiana Jones. I'm very intrested in history and politics. I am liberal on alot of issues but, don't like to aline myself with any party. I used to be a socialist and still hold some of those beliefs.

On Wikipedia
I have foolishly tried to become an administrator with only 360 edits. I am gonna hope to get nominated when I have 1,000 good edits. Which will probaly be a while.

title: User:Bancroftian


text:
User talk:80.58.53.44

Proposed deletion of Malkaz

The article Malkaz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "No sources describe this entity. There is no information about any historic region starting with Մալ/'Mal-' in Armenian Wikipedia either"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:80.58.53.44


text:
Yılmaz

Yılmaz is a Turkish word that translates to "plucky", “unyielding”, "unbeatable", or "brave", and is a very common surname and occasional male given name.

Given name

 * Yekta Yılmaz Gül (born 1978), Turkish Greco-Roman wrestler
 * Yılmaz Arslan (born 1968), Kurdish film director, screenwriter and producer
 * Yılmaz Büyükerşen (born 1936), Turkish politician
 * Yılmaz Erdoğan (born 1967), Turkish film director, scenarist, poet and actor
 * Yılmaz Gruda (1930–2023), Turkish actor
 * Yılmaz Güney (1937–1984), Turkish film director, scenarist, novelist and actor
 * Yilmaz Kerimo (born 1963), Swedish politician
 * Yılmaz Orhan (born 1955), Turkish footballer
 * Yılmaz Özlem (born 1972), Turkish footballer
 * Yılmaz Vural (born 1953), Turkish football coach

Surname

 * Alper Yılmaz (born 1975), Turkish basketball player
 * Atıf Yılmaz (1925–2006), Turkish film director, screenwriter and film producer
 * Aydın Yılmaz (born 1988), Turkish footballer
 * Ayfer Yılmaz (born 1956), Turkish female civil servant, politician and former government minister
 * Betül Yılmaz (born 1988), Turkish female handball player
 * Betül Nur Yılmaz, Turkish football referee
 * Burak Yılmaz (born 1985), Turkish footballer
 * Cem Yılmaz (born 1973), Turkish stand-up comedian, actor, cartoonist and screenwriter
 * Cem Yılmaz (rower) (born 1982), Turkish Olympian rower
 * Cevdet Yılmaz (born 1967), Turkish politician
 * Deniz Yılmaz (born 1988), Turkish footballer
 * Dilek Akagün Yılmaz (born 1963), Turkish politician
 * Durmuş Yılmaz (born 1947), Turkish economist
 * Duygu Yılmaz (born 1988), Turkish women's footballer
 * Fatih Yılmaz (born 1989), Turkish footballer
 * Gözde Yılmaz (born 1991), Turkish female volleyball player
 * Gülümser Yılmaz (born 1956), Turkish female chess player
 * Hakan Yılmaz (born 1982), Turkish weightlifter
 * Huseyin Yilmaz (born 1924), Turkish-American physicist
 * İbrahim Yılmaz (born 1994), Turkish footballer
 * Kübra Yılmaz (born 1991), Turkish female handball player
 * Lev Yilmaz (born 1973), Turkish-American independent film maker, artist, and publisher
 * Mahmut Yılmaz (born 1979), German footballer
 * Mehmet Yılmaz (born 1988), Turkish footballer
 * Mehmet Yılmaz (born 1979), Turkish footballer
 * Mesut Yılmaz (1947–2020), Turkish politician
 * Mustafa Yılmaz (chess player) (born 1992), Turkish Grand Master of chess
 * Neşe Zara Yılmaz (born 1976), Turkish female singer
 * Nevriye Yılmaz (born 1980), Turkish female basketball player
 * Oğuz Yılmaz (1968–2021), Turkish musician
 * Okan Yılmaz (born 1978), Turkish footballer
 * Özgür Yılmaz (born 1986), Turkish footballer
 * Özgür Yılmaz (born 1977), Turkish judoka
 * Reyhan Yılmaz (born 2001), Turkish goalball player
 * Rıdvan Yılmaz (born 2001), Turkish footballer
 * Serra Yılmaz (born 1954), Turkish actress
 * Şimal Yılmaz (born 2003), Turkish female sport shooter
 * Şükriye Yılmaz (born 2001), Turkish female armwrestler
 * Tayfur Emre Yılmaz (born 1989), Turkish footballer
 * Tutya Yılmaz (born 1999), Turkish female artistic gymnast
 * Yağız Yılmaz (born 1993), Turkish archer
 * Yasemin Beyza Yılmaz (born 2001), Turkish female sport shooter
 * Yaşar Yılmaz (born 1930), Turkish wrestler
 * Yeliz Yılmaz (born 1980), Turkish female handball player
 * Yusuf Yılmaz (born 1991), Turkish footballer

title: Yılmaz


text:
Bare-faced Messiah

Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard is a posthumous biography of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard by British journalist Russell Miller. First published in the United Kingdom on 26 October 1987, the book takes a critical perspective, challenging the Church of Scientology's account of Hubbard's life and work. It quotes extensively from official documents acquired using the Freedom of Information Act and from Hubbard's personal papers, which were obtained via a defector from Scientology. It was also published in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Reviews of the book have been broadly positive — one calling it "the best and most comprehensive biography of L. Ron Hubbard" — and praise the quality and depth of Miller's research.

The Church of Scientology strongly opposed the book's publication. The organization was accused of organising a smear and harassment campaign against Miller and his publisher, though it strenuously denied this accusation, and a private investigator involved in the campaign denied that the organization was his client. However, a leak of internal Scientology documents to the press in 1990 disclosed many details of the campaign. The organization and related corporate entities attempted to prevent the book's publication in court, resulting in cases that reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and the Federal Court of Canada. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to let a lower court's ruling stand, denying fair use protection for the book's use of unpublished sources, set a precedent favouring copyright protection of unpublished material over biographers' freedom of speech. Courts in the UK and Canada took an opposite view, allowing publication of Bare-Faced Messiah in the public interest.

Background and synopsis
Russell Miller had been an investigative journalist for the Sunday Times and had written well-received biographies of Hugh Hefner (Bunny, published in 1984) and J. Paul Getty (The House of Getty, 1985). These were the first two biographies of a trilogy on sex, money and religion, with the Hubbard book completing the trilogy. He spent two years researching the book, which followed a Sunday Times Magazine investigation of the Church of Scientology published in October 1984. In 1985, he suggested that the Sunday Times should try to find Hubbard, who had disappeared from public view several years earlier. If the project succeeded, it would be a worldwide scoop for the newspaper. Even if it did not find the reclusive Scientology leader, the continuing mystery would itself be a good story. Through contacts among ex-Scientologists in the U.S., Miller narrowed down the area where Hubbard was hiding to the vicinity of San Luis Obispo, California. However, Hubbard died in January 1986 before Miller could finish his project. He decided at this point to use his research as the basis of a full-fledged biography of Hubbard, in addition to writing the previously agreed series of articles for the Sunday Times.

Bare-Faced Messiah covers a period from 1911, when Hubbard was born, to his death in 1986, with some additional background on his family history. It describes his early life, his success as a science fiction writer in the 1930s and 1940s, his military career during the Second World War, the rise of Dianetics and Scientology in the 1950s, his journeys at sea with his followers in the 1960s and early 1970s and his legal problems and period as a recluse from the mid-1970s to 1986. The author draws on previously unpublished materials, such as Hubbard's teenage diaries and personal correspondence to colleagues, employers and the FBI, as well as government documents like Hubbard's military service record and FBI file. In an "author's note", Miller writes that the book would have been impossible without the Freedom of Information Act. Among the private papers quoted in the book are a letter written by Hubbard to the FBI denouncing his wife as a Soviet spy, another in which he tells his daughter Alexis that he is not really her father and an internal letter in which he suggests that Scientology should pursue religious status for business reasons. Other sources used by Miller include news articles and comments from interviews that he conducted with Hubbard's old acquaintances and family members.

Miller's research was assisted by a set of Hubbard's personal papers obtained by Gerry Armstrong, a former employee of the Church of Scientology. Armstrong had been preparing material for an official biography of Hubbard, but left the Scientology organization in 1981 after finding that Hubbard's claims about his life conflicted with independent sources. The Church of Scientology obtained an injunction in California to prevent Armstrong from further distributing the documents. However, English courts refused to enforce this order.

In the book's preface, Miller summarizes his view of Hubbard:

"The glorification of 'Ron', superman and saviour, required a cavalier disregard for facts: thus it is that every biography of Hubbard published by the church is interwoven with lies, half-truths and ludicrous embellishments. The wondrous irony of this deception is that the true story of L. Ron Hubbard is much more bizarre, much more improbable, than any of the lies."

The book contrasts Hubbard's boasts with Miller's research. For example, Chapter 6, which is entitled "The Hero Who Never Was", begins by quoting the official church biography: "Commissioned before the war in 1941 by the US Navy ... serving in all five theaters of World War II and receiving 21 medals and palms ..." And it ends by countering:"If his own account of his war experiences is to be believed, he certainly deserved the twenty-one medals and palms he was said to have received. Unfortunately, his US Navy record indicates he was awarded just four routine medals – the American Defense Service Medal, awarded to everyone serving at the time of Pearl Harbor, the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal and the World War Two Victory Medal, this last received by everyone serving on V-J Day."

For more detail on the debate surrounding Hubbard's military career, see the main article.

Harassment of the author and publishers
The Church of Scientology refused all cooperation with Miller and sought to obstruct his research. He wrote in his "author's note" at the start of the book:

"[T]he Church did its best to dissuade people who knew Hubbard from speaking to me and constantly threatened litigation. Scientology lawyers in New York and Los Angeles made it clear in frequent letters that they expected me to libel and defame L. Ron Hubbard. When I protested that in thirty years as a journalist and writer I had never been accused of libel, I was apparently investigated and a letter was written to my publishers in New York alleging that my claim was 'simply not accurate'. It was, and is."

Miller had been warned before he began his work that he would face difficulties, but was unprepared for the level of harassment that he endured. While researching the book in the U.S., he was spied upon and was constantly followed. His friends and business associates also received hostile visits from Scientologists and private detectives trying to find "dirt" on him. In October 1987, Miller commented: "There are teams of private detectives in the U.S. and this country questioning my friends and trying to discredit me." Attempts were made to implicate him in the murder of a private detective in South London, a fire in a Wiltshire aircraft factory, and the murder of American singer Dean Reed. Reed had died the day before Miller arrived in East Berlin to interview him. Miller's family was approached by private detectives seeking to implicate him in Reed's death, although they would not say who their client was. Another private investigator interviewed Miller's friends and associates, claiming to be acting for Reed's family, though they denied employing him. A former Scientology insider told the Sunday Times that Miller "is kept under constant watch. Every time he goes abroad a two-man mission will be waiting for him at the airport when he arrives. They will monitor where he goes, who he sees, where he stays. This information will be added to his file, which is already more than 100 pages thick."

Senior executives at publishers Michael Joseph and at the Sunday Times, which serialised the book, received threatening phone calls and a visit from private investigator Eugene Ingram, who worked for the Church. Another private investigator, Jarl Grieve Einar Cynewulf, told Sunday Times journalists that he had been offered "large sums of money" to find a link between Miller and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as the Church reportedly believed that the CIA was driving investigations into its tax affairs in the U.S. According to Cynewulf, Miller's mail and phones were intercepted and his home was under constant surveillance. The newspaper reported that Cynewulf had chased its reporter and photographer through the streets of Bristol, armed with a pistol which he fired at them, saying, "You'd better go now unless you want to end up in a wooden box. Do you want to be another Hungerford martyr?"

In 1990, nearly three years after the book's first publication, a defector from the Church of Scientology provided the Sunday Times with internal documents detailing the smear campaign against Miller. These records listed several private investigators who had been hired to keep Miller under surveillance and feed false information about him to neighbours and the police. A Scientology executive had flown from Los Angeles to a flat in London where he and a private detective co-ordinated the campaign. Rubbish from the publisher's offices was regularly emptied into the flat's bathtub to be picked through. According to the informant, the investigators used contacts with the British police to try to implicate him in unsolved crimes: "People were brought in from abroad posing as journalists to arrange interviews with Scotland Yard where they would drop innuendoes about Miller. Other investigators were used to smear his name with colleagues, friends and neighbours. They worked hard on the line that he was an undercover British intelligence man." A Church spokesman dismissed these allegations, saying, "anyone giving you this sort of information must be crazy or on drugs."

Litigation
The Church of Scientology and related entities sought injunctions against the book's publication, claiming copyright infringement of Hubbard's private documents. They threatened to sue in as many as 50 countries, adopting a strategy that the University of Pennsylvania's Professor Paul K. Saint-Amour has described as "an international parade of litigation" and "whack-a-mole legal proceedings". Much of the dispute centred on the plaintiffs' argument that the actions of former Scientology archivist Gerry Armstrong in providing Miller with unpublished materials (whether directly or indirectly) were a breach of his duty of confidence to the Church, and that the use of excerpts from this material violated copyrights owned by Hubbard's estate. Miller later noted that the plaintiffs did not attempt to dispute the facts of the book in court which, he said, was a pity as he had been looking forward to defending his meticulous research.

United Kingdom
The first lawsuit was heard in the UK in October 1987 by Justice Vinelott. The litigants, the Church of Scientology of California, failed to obtain an injunction against the publication of the book. In his decision of 9 October 1987, the judge said that it was "clear that the public interest far outweighed any duty of confidence that could conceivably be owed to Mr. Hubbard or his church." The unpublished materials were held to be "essential" if Hubbard's early career was to be "properly evaluated", and legal decisions against Armstrong in California could not bind an English court. The judge held that the Church had acted improperly in bringing its suit so late in the day. It had become aware in May of the plans to publish Bare-Faced Messiah, but had not brought suit until 29 September, less than a month before publication. The application for an injunction, he said, "was made at a time, whether calculated or not, when the greatest possible damage and inconvenience would be caused to Penguin Books". No satisfactory explanation had been made for the delay and, in the judge's view, the application "was oppressive, and was not brought to protect any legitimate interest."

The judgement was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 22 October. The decision by Lord Justice Fox argued that Hubbard's "cosmic significance" in Scientology – a group which itself had been the subject of a Government report in 1972 – implied a strong public interest in the book's content. The delay in applying for an injunction was reason in itself to justify dismissing the appeal, but in addition the court ruled that "the public had an interest that assertions of fact [by the Church] should be exposed to public criticism. The founder was dead and the material was not alleged to be untrue." The court noted that the plaintiffs had not argued that publication of the book would damage Hubbard's or the Church's reputation or that it was in any way defamatory. The Church was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

In advance of the court case, a female Scientologist was found collecting seven copies of the unpublished proofs from a copy shop in East Grinstead, near the Church of Scientology's UK headquarters at Saint Hill Manor. She was arrested but later released as there was no evidence of theft.

Canada, Australia and South Africa
In Canada, New Era Publications International ApS of Denmark — an arm of the Church of Scientology — petitioned the Federal Court of Canada to block the publication of Bare-Faced Messiah in December 1987. New Era submitted its request days before publisher Key Porter Books planned to begin its print run. The company argued that its sales of Hubbard's books would be adversely affected by the damage that Miller's book would cause to Hubbard's reputation. It also claimed that copyright had been violated through the unauthorised excerpting of unpublished materials and books written by Hubbard, and that it would interfere with New Era's own plans to publish an "authorised" biography based on the same materials. New Era's bid was rejected by Justice Bud Cullen, who said that the evidence presented in favour of an injunction "falls far short of the evidence required" to sustain such a request. He characterised Hubbard as an author of "outlandish, foolish, vicious, racist writings." Similar bids to block the book failed in Australia and South Africa.

United States
A suit was brought in the U.S. by New Era Publications in May 1988 that sought to prevent Bare-Faced Messiah being distributed, after it had already been published and shipped. Prior to publication, New Era offered to buy out the publication rights to Bare-Faced Messiah but was rebuffed. Publisher Henry Holt had distributed 12,500 copies by the time New Era obtained a temporary restraining order to prevent shipment of the remaining copies from the first print run. New Era's request for an injunction against the distribution of the existing copies was refused. Henry Holt's president, Bruno Quinson, declared his company's intention to fight the suit: "This is a case, to say the least, that has serious First Amendment considerations and we are vigorously opposing the Scientologists' efforts to prevent the publication of this book."

The district court that first heard the case ruled that, although the quotation of private correspondence breached copyright law, an injunction would deny the publisher's First Amendment rights. By coincidence, the judge who heard the case, Pierre N. Leval, was the same person who had recently heard a case involving the private correspondence of the writer J. D. Salinger, which resulted in a higher court's setting a controversial precedent that fair use protection could not be accorded to works that quoted unpublished material. His decision was seen as a repudiation of the higher court's Salinger precedent: "The grant of an injunction would ... suppress an interesting, well researched, provocative study of a figure who, claiming both scientific and religious credentials, has wielded enormous influence over millions of people."

When the case was appealed, the Second Circuit disagreed with Leval's judgement, arguing that copyright outweighed free speech arguments. Again coincidentally, the author of the decision was Judge Roger Miner, who had been among the authors of the Salinger decision. The court reiterated the Salinger finding that there was a "strong presumption against fair use of unpublished work" and that unpublished primary source materials should "normally enjoy complete protection" from fair use claims. This could not be overridden by the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the court still denied an injunction on the grounds of laches, specifically that New Era had waited two years to bring the case after first learning about the book. By "sleeping on its rights" — waiting too long — New Era had lost any right to equitable relief and had unfairly caused damage to Miller's publisher by the delay. Judge James L. Oakes agreed with the decision in a concurring opinion but argued that the majority had been wrong to reject the First Amendment as a defence. He argued, "Responsible biographers and historians constantly use primary sources, letters, diaries, and memoranda. Indeed, it would be irresponsible to ignore such sources of information."

Although they had prevailed, Henry Holt and Company asked all of the appeals court's judges for a rehearing en banc to establish that they had not just won on a technicality. The court denied this request by a 7–5 majority. The denial produced an unusual split between the judges; four who supported a rehearing stated that they believed that "copying some small amounts of unpublished expression to report facts accurately and fairly" was covered by fair use, while five who opposed it rejected that proposition, declaring that "under ordinary circumstances" the use of "more than minimal amounts of unpublished expressive material" should attract an automatic injunction. This argument was widely criticised following the case. David J. Goldberg and Robert J. Bernstein wrote in the New York Law Journal in May 1989 that the central problem with the majority's view was that:

"The Second Circuit majority in New Era departed from basic fair use principles that require an accommodation of competing interests and equities. Instead, it elevated one fact — the unpublished status of Hubbard's writings — to an almost insurmountable obstacle to a successful fair use defense. By handcuffing future considerations of the fair use defense in the context of unpublished writings, the Second Circuit ignored the explicit mandate that the equities must be flexibly balanced case by case."

In 1990, Henry Holt petitioned the Supreme Court, which let the Second Circuit's judgement stand. The outcome of the case drew a concerned reaction from publishers and journalists, who complained that biographies would become much more legally and financially difficult to publish. A brief for the PEN American Center and the Authors Guild expressed the publishing industry's "confusion, consternation and concern" at the outcome. The American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. called the decision "a great sadness", arguing that had it been made earlier, he could not have published all three volumes of his history The Age of Roosevelt.

In the end, Henry Holt abandoned the litigation, as the ongoing legal costs were becoming unsupportable. The print run of Bare-Faced Messiah in the U.S. was ended after only 14,000 copies were printed. Many went to public libraries, but, according to Miller, numerous library copies of the book went missing or had inserts pasted into them by Scientologists.

Reception
Reviews of Bare-Faced Messiah were overall very positive, though some reviewers criticised what they regarded as omissions on Miller's part. The Church of Scientology was highly critical of the book. Its view of Miller's book was summed up by the executor of the Hubbard estate, who called it "a scumbag book ... full of bullshit", while a Scientology spokesperson in Canada compared it to "a life of Christ [written] by Judas Iscariot."

Dave Langford reviewed Bare-Faced Messiah for White Dwarf #97, and stated that "I have a high opinion of Isaac Asimov's honesty and integrity: in sharp contrast to Hubbard, he's always been committed to truth."

The American science writer Martin Gardner's review in Nature called Bare-Faced Messiah an "admirable, meticulously documented biography". Gardner had previously written about the start of Scientology in his classic 1952 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, at which time he regarded Hubbard as a harmless crank, but Miller's book persuaded Gardner that Hubbard was "a pathological liar who steadily deteriorated from a charming rogue into a paranoid egomaniac".

Sociologist J. Gordon Melton wrote that along with Stewart Lamont's Religion Inc., Miller's book is "by far the best" among the books published by Scientology critics, though he notes that the Church of Scientology has "prepared statements on each [substantive statement] indicating factual errors and omissions." Melton concludes that Miller's book is compromised by its author's lack of access to documents charting Hubbard's life and the early history of the church. Melton disputes Miller's assertion that Hubbard was lying about his military career: "Hubbard left the service in February 1946 with twenty-one citations, letters of commendation, and medals on his record. The details of Hubbard's naval career have been called into question by the critics of Scientology. Critics rely on an alleged copy of Hubbard's notice of separation deposited in the Veteran's Administration and accessible through the Freedom of Information Act." However, the document on which the Church of Scientology bases its claim of 21 awards is a forgery, according to US government archivists, and lists ships and medals that did not exist.

Writing for the Marburg Journal of Religion, the German Protestant theologian and history of religion scholar Marco Frenschkowski called Bare-Faced Messiah the "most important critical biography of Hubbard. Like [Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack's Scientology — Magie des 20. Jahrhunderts] and [Bent Corydon's L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?] it is extremely polemical and very much tries to pull Hubbard to pieces." He added that Miller's book had "definitely exposed some inflated statements about Hubbard's early achievements," but the Church of Scientology has been able to counter a number of the points made by Miller: "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show ... (a complete set of the relevant documents is part of my collection)." Miller states that he was unable to confirm the existence of Hubbard's mentor, Joseph "Snake" Thompson, but Frenschkowski confirms Hubbard's account that Thompson was an actual Commander in the US Navy Medical Corps and a personal friend of Sigmund Freud. Miller states that Hubbard was a disciple of Aleister Crowley, with the implication that Scientology derives from Crowley's teachings, but Frenschkowski concludes, "Nevertheless it remains quite obvious that Hubbard did not take much inspiration from Crowley and Parsons."

Writing in Kingdom of the Cults, an overview of new religious movements written from a Christian perspective, Walter Ralston Martin commented that of the various books on Hubbard's life, "none are so thoroughly damaging to his credentials" as Bare-Faced Messiah and Bent Corydon's book. The British science fiction author and critic David Langford rated Miller's book as "altogether more even-toned and better-written" and argued that it "deserves to be a standard reference" on the life of Hubbard. Sociologist David G. Bromley described the book as "among the most significant" accounts of Hubbard's life. Janet Reitman, who documented the history of Scientology in her 2011 book Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion, called Bare-Faced Messiah "the best and most comprehensive biography of L. Ron Hubbard."

Malise Ruthven observed in the Times Literary Supplement that Miller "forces no thesis on his readers, allowing them to draw their own conclusion from the facts he uncovers." He took this as both a strength and a weakness of the book, in that it leaves open the question of whether Hubbard was a deliberate con-man or sincerely deluded. He also expressed frustration that Miller had not explained how Hubbard had achieved such a following, but complimented the author's meticulous research in separating fact from fiction. The satirical magazine Private Eye described the book as "meticulously documented" but observed that the author "does not theorise, nor even very often moralise. The reader must provide his own interjections, laughter and gasps of astonishment."

The Sunday Times described the book as "admirably written, well documented and it must have entailed a great deal of painstaking research." It praised Miller for standing up to Scientologists' attempts to discredit him. The New Statesman praised Bare-Faced Messiah as accessibly written and diligently researched but, like Private Eye, criticised it for not illuminating why people find Scientology appealing. Patrick Skene Catling's review in The Spectator recommended the book "unreservedly", calling it "an unsurpassably scathing study of money-mad, power-mad megalomania." Peter Conrad, in The Observer, was generally complimentary about the book, but criticised Miller for omitting "the recognition of Hubbard's topicality. Miller treats him as a loony and a freak; in fact he was a morbid symptom of America itself". The psychologist and TV presenter Anthony Clare listed Bare-faced Messiah in The Times as one of his books of the year for 1987, commenting that it was "a testament to the gullibility of man in the face of the charlatanry of Scientology", while the film and literary critic Tom Hutchinson complimented Miller for "fascinatingly recount[ing]" what he described as Hubbard's "bizarre career."

In Canada, David Todd of news magazine Maclean's commended the way that Miller had "arriv[ed] at a portrait of [Scientology's] founder that is by turns hilarious and deeply unsettling", commenting that "while scathingly critical of Hubbard and his church, Bare-Faced Messiah is, in fact, scrupulously fair." Michael Harrison of the Toronto Financial Post criticised the book for "lack[ing] a critical perspective beyond the requisite snide commentary" and professed himself disappointed by Miller's avoidance of the question of whether Hubbard was "genuine or just a fraud", which Harrison considered an important omission "since the questions of selfishness, integrity and motivation are key issues in biographies of people who suffer from the messiah-complex.".

The Sydney Morning Herald's Judith White called the book "absorbing" and "well documented and graphically told." Alan Roberts wrote in the Adelaide Advertiser that Bare-Faced Messiah was a "minutely researched, densely evidenced account" of the "endless catalogue of deception, distortion and psychopathological mendacity" perpetrated by Hubbard and "almost tediously chronicled" by Miller. The Brisbane Sunday Mail's reviewer characterised the book as "entertaining reading that packs a mighty punch", in which the impact was delivered by "Miller's careful and professional research which is evident in the manner he builds the man up and then knocks him down, fact by fact."

The Oregon Law Review described Bare-Faced Messiah as "a revealing, enthralling biography of a controversial public figure." Charles Platt, writing in The Washington Post'', called the book "impressively thorough" though he chided Miller for "miss[ing] no opportunity to poke fun at Hubbard. Indeed, he belittles the man so thoroughly, the exercise almost begins to seem pointless." He noted that in advance of the publication of his review, the Church of Scientology had sent his newspaper "a large package of documents intending to refute many of Miller's statements." His review was subsequently disputed by the Church of Scientology International's vice president, Brian Anderson, who denounced the book in a letter to the newspaper, claiming that it had been "obviously calculated to make a quick buck capitalizing on L. Ron Hubbard's name" and was a "fast and shoddy" work. In response, Platt pointed out that "[Miller] does not dispute the success of L. Ron Hubbard's work; he merely presents evidence that suggests fraud. This is the point of Russell Miller's book, and I find it significant that Brian Anderson makes no attempt to answer it."

Publication history

 * 1987, UK, Michael Joseph (ISBN 978-0-7181-2764-0), First edition, Hardback
 * 1987, Canada, Key Porter (ISBN 978-1-55013-027-0), Hardback
 * 1988, United States, Henry Holt (ISBN 978-0-8050-0654-4), Hardback
 * 1988, UK, Sphere Books (ISBN 978-0-7474-0332-6), Second edition, Paperback
 * 1993, France, Plon (ISBN 978-2-259-02550-8) as Ron Hubbard : le gourou démasqué ("Ron Hubbard: the guru unmasked"), French translation by Sibylle Lang
 * February 2014, UK, Silvertail Books (ISBN 978-1-909-26914-9), Third edition, Hardback

A summary of the book was published in the Arts & Leisure section of the Sunday Times over the course of three articles.
 * Serialisation
 * "Science fictions". (1 November 1987)
 * "Messiah at the Manor". (8 November 1987)
 * "Farce and fear: in Scientology's private navy". (15 November 1987)

Extracts also appeared in The Weekend Australian and the Toronto Star.

 * Internet edition
 * An Internet edition was put together in 1997 and widely mirrored, with Miller's permission and cooperation. Miller released several of his original interview transcripts to go with the release. These transcripts will be included in the 2014 third print edition of the book, intended to be an update to the internet version.

title: Bare-faced Messiah


text:
American Economic Association

The American Economic Association (AEA) is a learned society in the field of economics. It publishes several peer-reviewed journals. There are some 23,000 members.

History and Constitution
The AEA was established in 1885 in Saratoga Springs, New York by younger progressive economists trained in the German historical school, including Richard T. Ely, Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman and Katharine Coman, the only woman co-founder; since 1900 it has been under the control of academics.

The purposes of the Association are: 1) The encouragement of economic research, especially the historical and statistical study of the actual conditions of industrial life; 2) The issue of publications on economic subjects; 3) The encouragement of perfect freedom of economic discussion. The Association as such will take no partisan attitude, nor will it commit its members to any position on practical economic questions. The Association publishes one of the most prestigious academic journals in economics, namely, the American Economic Review.

Once composed primarily of college and university economics teachers, the Association, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, now attracts an increasing number of members from business and professional groups. Today the membership is about 23,000, over half of whom are academics. About 15% are employed in business and industry, and the remainder largely by federal, state, and local government or other not-for-profit organizations.

As an organization, the AEA has been very hierarchical, as the leadership has been dominated by academics from six academic institutions: Harvard, MIT, Chicago, Columbia, Stanford, and Princeton.

Activities
AEA, in conjunction with over 50 associations in related disciplines known as the Allied Social Science Associations, holds a three-day annual meeting in January to present papers on general economic subjects. The annual meeting features about 500 scholarly sessions. A placement service to assist employers and job applicants begins a day prior to the meetings. A continuing education program is held immediately after the annual meeting. Topics vary from year to year.

The AEA publishes three economics journals: the American Economic Review, the Journal of Economic Literature, and the Journal of Economic Perspectives. In 2009, it began to publish four new area-specific journals, collectively American Economic Journal (AEJ), reporting on applied economics, economic policy, macroeconomics, and microeconomics. The AEA recognizes annually a Best Paper Award for papers published in each of the four areas.

The AEA also publishes AEA Papers and Proceedings each May, featuring papers presented at the AEA meetings in January. Until 2017, these papers were published in the May issue of the American Economic Review.

The AEA also produces EconLit, the AEA's electronic bibliography. It is a comprehensive index to peer-reviewed journal articles, books, book reviews, collective volume articles, working papers, and dissertations. Compiled and abstracted in a searchable format, EconLit indexes 125 years of economic literature from around the world. It follows the JEL classification codes of the Journal of Economic Literature.

The AEA sponsors RFE: Resources for Economists on the Internet, an online source available to the general public without subscription. It catalogs and annotates 2,000+ internet sites under some 97 sections and subsubsections. RFE is currently updated on a monthly basis.

The AEA resource, Job Openings for Economists (JOE) originated in October 1974, and lists job openings for economists. It is published electronically monthly (except January and July).

Each year, the AEA recognizes the lifetime research contributions of four economists by electing them Distinguished Fellows. The Association also awards annually the John Bates Clark Medal for outstanding research accomplishments in economics to a scholar under the age of 40; it is often referred to as the "Baby Nobel", as many of its recipients go on to become Nobel Laureates.

Association presidents
, the president of the association is Janet Currie. 18% of presidents have been alumni and 20% faculty of Harvard University.

Past presidents of the association:

 * 1886–92 Francis Amasa Walker
 * 1893 Charles Franklin Dunbar
 * 1894—95 John B. Clark
 * 1896—97 Henry Carter Adams
 * 1898—99 Arthur Twining Hadley
 * 1900—01 Richard T. Ely
 * 1902—03 Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman
 * 1904—05 Frank W. Taussig
 * 1906—07 Jeremiah Jenks
 * 1908 Simon N. Patten
 * 1909 Davis R. Dewey
 * 1910 Edmund J. James
 * 1911 Henry W. Farnam
 * 1912 Frank A. Fetter
 * 1913 David Kinley
 * 1914 John H. Gray
 * 1915 Walter F. Willcox
 * 1916 Thomas N. Carver
 * 1917 John R. Commons
 * 1918 Irving Fisher
 * 1919 Henry B. Gardner
 * 1920 Herbert J. Davenport
 * 1921 Jacob H. Hollander
 * 1922 Henry Rogers Seager
 * 1923 Carl C. Plehn
 * 1924 Wesley C. Mitchell
 * 1925 Allyn A. Young
 * 1926 Edwin W. Kemmerer
 * 1927 Thomas Sewall Adams
 * 1928 Fred M. Taylor
 * 1929 Edwin Francis Gay
 * 1930 Matthew B. Hammond
 * 1931 Ernest L. Bogart
 * 1932 George E. Barnett
 * 1933 William Z. Ripley
 * 1934 Harry A. Millis
 * 1935 John Maurice Clark
 * 1936 Alvin S. Johnson
 * 1937 Oliver W. Sprague
 * 1938 Alvin H. Hansen
 * 1939 Jacob Viner
 * 1940 Frederick C. Mills
 * 1941 Sumner H. Slichter
 * 1942 Edwin G. Nourse
 * 1943 Albert B. Wolfe
 * 1944 Joseph S. Davis
 * 1945 Isaiah Leo Sharfman
 * 1946 Emanuel Goldenweiser
 * 1947 Paul H. Douglas
 * 1948 Joseph A. Schumpeter
 * 1949 Howard S. Ellis
 * 1950 Frank H. Knight
 * 1951 John H. Williams
 * 1952 Harold A. Innis
 * 1953 Calvin B. Hoover
 * 1954 Simon Kuznets
 * 1955 John D. Black
 * 1956 Edwin E. Witte
 * 1957 Morris A. Copeland
 * 1958 George W. Stocking
 * 1959 Arthur F. Burns
 * 1960 Theodore W. Schultz
 * 1961 Paul A. Samuelson
 * 1962 Edward S. Mason
 * 1963 Gottfried Haberler
 * 1964 George J. Stigler
 * 1965 Joseph J. Spengler
 * 1966 Fritz Machlup
 * 1967 Milton Friedman
 * 1968 Kenneth E. Boulding
 * 1969 William J. Fellner
 * 1970 Wassily Leontief
 * 1971 James Tobin
 * 1972 John Kenneth Galbraith
 * 1973 Kenneth J. Arrow
 * 1974 Walter W. Heller
 * 1975 Robert Aaron Gordon
 * 1976 Franco Modigliani
 * 1977 Lawrence R. Klein
 * 1978 Tjalling C. Koopmans
 * Jacob Marschak died before taking office
 * 1979 Robert M. Solow
 * 1980 Moses Abramovitz
 * 1981 William J. Baumol
 * 1982 H. Gardner Ackley
 * 1983 W. Arthur Lewis
 * 1984 Charles L. Schultze
 * 1985 Charles P. Kindleberger
 * 1986 Alice M. Rivlin (first female president)
 * 1987 Gary S. Becker
 * 1988 Robert Eisner
 * 1989 Joseph A. Pechman
 * 1990 Gérard Debreu
 * 1991 Thomas C. Schelling
 * 1992 William S. Vickrey
 * 1993 Zvi Griliches
 * 1994 Amartya K. Sen
 * 1995 Victor R. Fuchs
 * 1996 Anne O. Krueger
 * 1997 Arnold C. Harberger
 * 1998 Robert W. Fogel
 * 1999 D. Gale Johnson
 * 2000 Dale W. Jorgenson
 * 2001 Sherwin Rosen
 * 2002 Robert E. Lucas, Jr.
 * 2003 Peter A. Diamond
 * 2004 Martin S. Feldstein
 * 2005 Daniel L. McFadden
 * 2006 George A. Akerlof
 * 2007 Thomas J. Sargent
 * 2008 Avinash K. Dixit
 * 2009 Angus S. Deaton
 * 2010 Robert E. Hall
 * 2011 Orley C. Ashenfelter
 * 2012 Christopher A. Sims
 * 2013 Claudia Goldin
 * 2014 William D. Nordhaus
 * 2015 Richard Thaler
 * 2016 Robert J. Shiller
 * 2017 Alvin E. Roth
 * 2018 Olivier Blanchard
 * 2019 Ben Bernanke
 * 2020 Janet Yellen
 * 2021 David Card
 * 2022 Christina Romer
 * 2023 Susan Athey

Distinguished Fellows
Distinguished Fellow honorees include:

 * 1965 Edward H. Chamberlin / Harold Hotelling / George J. Stigler
 * 1966 Abba P. Lerner / Joseph J. Spengler
 * 1967 Alvin H. Hansen / Fritz Machlup / Jacob Marschak
 * 1968 Milton Friedman / Lloyd A. Metzler
 * 1969 Kenneth E. Boulding / Alexander Gerschenkron/ Ludwig E. von Mises
 * 1970 William J. Fellner /William Arthur Lewis
 * 1971 Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen / Tjalling C. Koopmans/ Wassily Leontief
 * 1972 Robert A. Gordon/ Theodore W. Schultz/ Carl S. Shoup/ James Tobin
 * 1973 John Kenneth Galbraith / Tibor Scitovsky
 * 1974 Kenneth J. Arrow
 * 1975 Walter W. Heller
 * 1976 Oskar Morgenstern / Herbert A. Simon
 * 1977 Leonid Hurwicz / Harry G. Johnson / Simon Kuznets / Franco Modigliani
 * 1978 Lawrence R. Klein / Richard A. Musgrave / William S. Vickrey
 * 1979 Margaret G. Reid / Ronald H. Coase
 * 1980 Solomon Fabricant / Charles P. Kindleberger / Robert M. Solow
 * 1981 Moses Abramovitz / Edward F. Denison / H. Gregg Lewis
 * 1982 Joe S. Bain / William J. Baumol / Gerard Debreu
 * 1983 Gardner Ackley / Abram Bergson / James M. Buchanan
 * 1984 Evsey D. Domar / Albert O. Hirschman
 * 1985 Joseph Pechman / Paul Rosenstein-Rodan / Charles L. Shultze
 * 1987 Arthur S. Goldberger / Alice M. Rivlin / Thomas C. Schelling
 * 1988 Gary S. Becker / Hendrik S. Houthakker / Roy Radner
 * 1989 Robert Eisner / Jacob Mincer / Guy H. Orcutt
 * 1990 Victor R. Fuchs / Merton H. Miller
 * 1991 Irving B. Kravis / Herbert E. Scarf
 * 1992 Robert Dorfman / Vernon L. Smith
 * 1993 Lionel W. McKenzie / Anna J. Schwartz
 * 1994 Zvi Griliches / John C. Harsanyi / Kelvin J. Lancaster
 * 1995 Geoffrey H. Moore / Walter Oi / Amartya Sen
 * 1996 Armen A. Alchian / Robert A. Mundell
 * 1997 Martin Bronfenbrenner / Anne O. Krueger / Gordon Tullock
 * 1998 Arnold C. Harberger / Alan Heston / Robert Summers
 * 1999 David Cass / John Chipman / Robert W. Fogel
 * 2000 Jack Hirshleifer / D. Gale Johnson / Edmund S. Phelps
 * 2001 Rudiger W. Dornbusch / Dale W. Jorgenson / Allan H. Meltzer
 * 2002 Clive Granger / Sherwin Rosen / Arnold Zellner
 * 2003 Irma Adelman / Jagdish Bhagwati / Robert E. Lucas / T.N. Srinivasan
 * 2004 William A. Brock / Peter A. Diamond / William D. Nordhaus / George P. Shultz
 * 2005 Stanley L. Engerman / Martin Feldstein / Michael Rothschild / Hugo F. Sonnenschein
 * 2006 Donald J. Brown / Richard A. Easterlin / Daniel McFadden / Robert B. Wilson
 * 2007 George A. Akerlof / Orley C. Ashenfelter / Lloyd S. Shapley / Oliver E. Williamson
 * 2008 Erwin Diewert / Dale Mortensen / Charles Plott / Thomas J. Sargent
 * 2009 Avinash K. Dixit / Ronald Jones / Douglass North / John Pencavel
 * 2010 Angus Deaton / Elhanan Helpman / David Kreps / Martin Shubik
 * 2011 Alan Blinder / William Brainard / Robert E. Hall / Daniel Kahneman / David Wise
 * 2012 Truman F. Bewley / Marc L. Nerlove / Neil Wallace / Janet L. Yellen
 * 2013 Harold Demsetz / Stanley Fischer / Jerry Hausman / Paul Joskow / Christopher A. Sims
 * 2014 Robert J. Barro / Gregory C. Chow / Claudia Goldin / Robert J. Gordon / Richard Zeckhauser
 * 2015 Theodore Bergstrom / Gary Chamberlain / Thomas Rothenberg / Hal Varian
 * 2016 Richard Freeman / Glenn Loury / Julio Rotemberg / Isabel Sawhill
 * 2017 James Heckman / Charles Manski / Robert A. Pollak / Nancy Stokey
 * 2018 Henry Aaron / Francine Blau / Joel Mokyr / Richard Posner
 * 2019 Oliver Hart / Edward Lazear / Ariel Pakes / Margaret Slade
 * 2020 Katharine Abraham / Shelly Lundberg / Paul Milgrom / Whitney Newey
 * 2021 Alan Auerbach / Rebecca Blank / Anne Case / Robert Townsend
 * 2022 Sadie T.M. Alexander / David Card / Barry Eichengreen / James Poterba / Carmen Reinhart

title: American Economic Association


text:
Anne Szumigalski

Anne Szumigalski, SOM (b. 3 January 1922 in London, England, d. 22 April 1999) was a Canadian poet.

Life
She was born Anne Howard Davis in London, England, and grew up mostly in a Hampshire village. She served with the Red Cross as a medical auxiliary officer and interpreter during World War II, following British Army forces in 1944-5 across parts of newly liberated Europe. In 1946, she married Jan Szumigalski, (d. 1985) a former officer in the Polish Army, and lived with him in north Wales before immigrating to Canada in 1951. They had four children: Kate (born 1946), Elizabeth (1947), Tony (1961) and Mark (1963). She spent the rest of her life in Saskatchewan, first in the remote Big Muddy valley, then in Saskatoon.

Writing career
Most of her fifteen books are collections of poetry, but she also wrote a memoir, The Voice, the Word, the Text (1990) as well as Z., a play about the Holocaust. Her first book, Woman Reading in Bath (1974), was published by Doubleday in New York. Thereafter she made the deliberate choice to publish her work with Canadian presses. She helped found the Saskatchewan Writers Guild and the literary journal Grain, and served as a mentor to many younger writers.

Szumigalski combined a love of the Canadian Prairies with a passion for language, a faith in poetry and an intimate knowledge of literary tradition. She was a great admirer of William Blake, some of whose visionary qualities appear in her own work.

Her finest work is collected in a big volume of selected poems, On Glassy Wings (Coteau, 1997). In 2006 her literary executor Mark Abley edited a volume of her posthumous poems, When Earth Leaps Up. A final posthumous book is expected in 2010.

The Manitoba Writers Guild has set up a scholarship in her name. The Saskatchewan Book Award for Poetry is named for her. Her papers are held at the University of Regina, and University of Saskatchewan.

Awards
In 1989, she was awarded the Saskatchewan Order of Merit. Her 1995 collection Voice, featuring paintings by Marie Elyse St. George, won the Governor General's Award for English language poetry. She also received many other honours over the years.

Memoirs

 * A Woman Clothed in Words. Regina: Coteau Books, 2012
 * The word, the voice, the text: the life of a writer. Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1990 ISBN 978-0-920079-65-2

Plays

 * Z, Coteau Books, 1995 ISBN 978-1-55050-080-6, (a play about the Holocaust).

Poetry

 * A Peeled Wand: Selected Poems of Anne Szumigalski Winnipeg: Signature Editions, 2011. ISBN 978-1-897109-47-2 (posthumous poems)
 * When Earth Leaps Up. London: Brick Books, 2006. ISBN 978-1-894078-52-8 (posthumous poems)
 * Sermons on stones: words and images. Saskatoon: Hagios Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-9682256-0-8
 * On glassy wings: poems new & selected. Regina: Coteau Books, 1997. ISBN 978-1-55050-114-8
 * Voice. with Marie Elyse St. George. Regina: Coteau Books, 1995. ISBN 978-1-55050-089-9
 * Why couldn't you see blue? Caroline Heath. edited by Anne Szumigalski. Regina: Coteau Books, 1994. ISBN 978-1-55050-064-6
 * Rapture of the deep. paintings by G.N. Louise Jonasson. Regina: Coteau Books, 1991. ISBN 978-1-55050-023-3
 * Journey/journée. with Terrence Heath and drawings and wood engravings by Jim Westergard. Red Deer, Alta.: Red Deer College Press, 1988. ISBN 978-0-88995-029-0
 * Dogstones: selected and new poems. Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1986. ISBN 978-0-920079-21-8
 * Heading out: the new Saskatchewan poets. edited by Don Kerr and Anne Szumigalski. Coteau Books, ISBN 978-0-919926-58-5
 * Jaw, Sask.: Coteau Books, 1986.
 * Instar: poems and stories. Red Deer, Alta.: RDC Press, 1985. ISBN 978-0-88995-024-5
 * Risks: a poem. illustrations by Jim Westergard. Red Deer, Alta.: RDC Press, 1983. ISBN 978-0-88995-023-8
 * Doctrine of signatures. Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1983. ISBN 978-0-920079-00-3
 * A game of angels. Winnipeg: Turnstone Press, 1980. ISBN 978-0-88801-044-5
 * Wild man's butte: a stereophonic poem. with Terrence Heath. Moose Jaw, Sask.: Coteau Books, 1979.
 * Thunder Creek Pub. Co-operative, 1979.
 * Woman reading in bath: poems. Toronto: Doubleday Canada; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974. ISBN 978-0-385-02743-4

title: Anne Szumigalski


text:
Mohammed Ragab Ahmad

Dr. Mohammed Ragab Ahmad, an Egyptian politician, is head of the Representative Group of the ruling National Democratic Party in the Shoura Council of Egypt. He is also a member of the African Union's Pan-African Parliament.

title: Mohammed Ragab Ahmad


text:
Talk:Nathanael

The last sentences are confusing. According to the List_of_names_referring_to_El article, Nathanael means both (and linguistically, Nathaniel is just a variant transliteration of Nathanael...) Perhaps someone wants to fix it...--Sturmde 23:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

A significant number of "authorities" think that Nathanael is Matthew (both mean ("gift of God"). Probably a larger number have no opinion on the matter.  I will clean this up later if there is no objection. --Peter Kirby 07:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Every version of the Bible that I found uses the "ael" ending for Nathanael. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.155.210 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 September 2007

According to Google, Nathaniel seems to be the normal English transliteration, with Nathanael also being relatively popular. I have never seen "nathanial" before: it may be a common typo or recent innovation rather than an established variant. I haven't heard of "al" being used for "el" before. On looking at U.S. Census graphs on two different baby-naming sites, it looks like Nathaniel is the traditional spelling, with the others appearing between 1960-1980. --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.118.46 (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 459,000 for Nathanial
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 1,960,000 for Nathanael
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 16,000,000 for Nathaniel

 * A Social Security Online search shows that "Nathaniel" has been in the top 244 names since 1980, top 201 since 1971 and the top 95 since 1977,
 * while Nathanael didn't rank in the 1000 names until 1972(982) and remains unpopular.
 * Nathanial pops up at 927th place once in 1908 and dissappears again until 1974.
 * --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.118.46 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 March 2009

Names included that aren't "Nathanael"?
why are there names like "Nate" in the list of Notable people? In an article that is about the name "Nathanael"? — I'ma editor2022 (🗣💬 |📖📚) 17:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Nathanael as a Surname
This page should be expanded to include the usage of Nathanael as a surname. Certain notable people with such surname who already have dedicated Wikipedia articles include: Ike Lek (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Edmund Nathanael
 * Elena Nathanael
 * Eliza Nathanael
 * Jacob ben Nathanael

title: Talk:Nathanael


text:
Kamchatka Current

The Kamchatka Current is a cold-water current flowing southwestward in the Bering Sea, along the Siberian Kamchatka Peninsula. It receives water from the Bering Slope Current. A portion of this current then becomes the Oyashio Current while the remainder joins the warmer North Pacific Current.

title: Kamchatka Current


text:
Talk:NFL draft

Title
Here is a very helpful link that shows proper grammar for this situation.

http://grammartips.homestead.com/caps.html

Or perhaps you can go to the 78 other individual draft pages and see how it is written there.

If you want to change this letter to a lowercase so badly, in keeping with consistency, you will have to go change all the individual draft pages as well. But that point is besides the fact as you are supposed to capitalize it. Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, you are right that there are many more pages that should be fixed. See Naming conventions (capitalization).  In Wikipedia, we use sentence case for title, not title case as is the style in some other publications.  The article is already correctly titled -- just need to use the same sentence case in the opening sentence.  Also notice that lowercase is overwhelmingly most common in sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 * On the contrary, in Wikipedia, we use title case for proper name titles, per WP:NCCAPS, which states that "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name", which this is. The NFL Draft is an official, NFL-designated, proper name title of a specific event, and thus should be capitalized. The NGRAM results being used to support lowercase are wholly flawed evidence, because it includes descriptive rather than titular mentions. For example, compare the NGRAM results for Space Shuttle, which show that lowercase "space shuttle" is more widely used than capitalized "Space Shuttle", but the Wikipedia article is at capitalized "Space Shuttle", because that is the official name of the vehicle; that is a similar case showing the difference between a descriptive phrase and an official title. Sources that use lowercase are referring to it descriptively (referring to it as an "NFL draft" in the sense that it is a "draft sponsored by the NFL", in the same way that the "space shuttle" is a "shuttle used in space", but there is also an official "Space Shuttle", the formal term for it designated by NASA), but that does not change that event itself is a proper name title. —Lowellian (reply) 17:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the concept of "titular" has a role in WP styling issues. But let's look at what the n-grams show.  On the Space Shuttle issue, n-grams show that most of the lowercase uses are for "space shuttle Challenger" and "space shuttle Columbia", in which "space shuttle" is treated as descriptive.  Even NASA does that sometimes, e.g. here and here.  In some of the other contexts, it's generic, too, as you say, but yes it's the proper name for NASA's Space Shuttle program.  On the draft, caps are much less common in all contexts, as you can see here and here.  Really no hint of treatment as a proper name in reliable sources independent of the NFL.  And our articles are all about the draft process and results, not the "event" that they sold tickets to and/or put on TV.  For 3 years we had it correctly at lowercase, and then a corrupt RM process was interpreted as a consensus to cap it.  This needs to be revisited.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you believe the previous RM process was "corrupt", please feel free to start a new RM discussion. The closer at Move review/Log/2016 July said "endorse closure but allow fresh RM".  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do feel free. Just haven't thought the time was right, with all the other things going on, not to mention that ridiculous MR close. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Definition of "proprietary"
In the "compensatory pick " section, it says:

"The placement of picks is determined by a proprietary formula ..."

That is not the proper use of this word. Something that is proprietary have been created by a particular person or organization, or could be owned by or licensed for use only by such a person. But it does not necessarily mean secret or confidential.

https://wikidiff.com/proprietary/confidential

https://www.stairstepconsulting.com/practical-proprietary-and-confidential-information-handling/

The league wants to keep the formula secret, probably so that different teams will not game the system. Any NFL employee who leaks it would probably get fired. But it's not the same as a trade secret, that someone might steal and sell to a competitor. The formula itself has no monetary value to any other organization.

I realize, this text comes from the NFL website itself. But there's no reason that Wikipedia has to participate in this bastardization of the language. Marzolian (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Text copied straight from NFL website
A lot of this page is taken straight from the NFL's own website, here:

https://operations.nfl.com/the-players/the-nfl-draft/the-rules-of-the-draft/

What is the point of copying it? Just summarize it here, and include a link to the NFL's site. Marzolian (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

an article for "List of penultimate NFL draft picks"
How about creating an article for "List of penultimate draft picks" to compliment the existing articles " list of first overall NFL draft picks", "second overall picks " and "Mr. Irrelevant " ? Since the 2nd overall picks get their list, it'd make sense for the 2nd to last ones to get one, too. 2603:6000:8740:54B1:DD35:6940:24B1:219 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on title of capitalization of Draft
An RFC at VillagePump on whether "Draft" should be capitalized in NFL Draft articles, including this one, has been opened.  Frank  Anchor  14:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For convenient reference, the RfC was moved to Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles.—Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Many editors feel that this is an opinion survey, as actual name changes (even more so given the magnitude and scope of the moves seemingly being attempted to circumvent it) are requested and decided at WP:RM. Other editors think that this RfC might be used to change the article titles without doing an RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear to those reading who may not want to chime in; I will revert the move(s) from "Draft" to "draft" until a proper RM takes place. This is not a non-controversial move and needs to follow the proper procedures in order to be downcased. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the page was moved to lowercase, without going the RM route. I presume that means you're going to revert? GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You've read my question & haven't responded. I'll take that as a 'no'. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay: I wrote something very long winded up this morning and decided not to and figured I’d come back to respond to you. In short, no I will not be. I will be respecting the close even if I do not personally agree with it. I have a lot of thoughts on the discussion, which I think may be best summarized in point form, and I’ve noted some of them below in rough form.
 * When I originally said this, I was set in the idea that it was the wrong venue, and I had no expectation of an admin closing the discussion. I said it with the expectation that it was going to be an inconclusive discussion that some people may try to use as reason to move the page without a proper discussion.
 * Wordsmith has since evaluated whether it's an appropriate location for that discussion and has determined that it was. This is a belief that they weren’t alone in.
 * Not to the extent that others did, but I think I also discouraged discussion with comments like this. I did not expect it to be an appropriate venue and obviously I was wrong. I’m not involved in a lot of RfCs and this is something I’ll be learning from. I feel partially responsible because of this.
 * The validity of the discussion wasn’t established early on. There were a number of users who thought it was an inappropriate forum, which I parroted with the same belief. I think as a result some people didn’t participate or comment as much.
 * I wish the articles for the drafts had been tagged, I probably would have done so if I knew that this RFC would be binding.
 * I would have weighed things differently (obviously) and viewed it as no consensus, but that’s not a valid reason to request the close be overturned since Wordsmith established that the venue was appropriate. They did their best to weigh the arguments and made the close that they believe was right. As a result, and due to inconsistencies in press, this result will likely stick for a decade plus.
 * Wikilawyering and bludgeoning the conversation to death was a significant reason why the discussion ended the way it did and I wish MOS discussions were better moderated to avoid these types of outcomes. “These type” being ones that are won by sheer number of comments and wearing people down.
 * Based on signatures in this discussion, the top three commenters had 72, 63, and 57 comments. They all supported downcasing.
 * NFL Draft is absolutely (and clearly) a proper name of an event (in relevant sports sources, aside from ESPN, who is looking into their style guide based on an email I sent) but bludgeoning and wikilawyering has prevailed, which is disheartening.
 * Wikipedia defaults to downcasing when sourcing is inconsistent, but you’ll almost always be able to find enough sources to argue that capitalization is not appropriate when the word “draft” is involved. Especially when you pick sources that are not familiar with the subject. This is why I believe it’s more important and relevant to evaluate the capitalization used by national publications or websites focused on national coverage (as opposed to coverage of a specific team) of sports.
 * There are inconsistencies in sources because most sources don't have a style guide they must adhere to, but that doesn't mean that downcasing is actually the proper result.
 * It’s sometimes downcased in sources because sources themselves, which often consist of dozens of different writers, are not necessarily aware that it’s a proper name. This is a common problem for events, drafts particularly, that have self descriptive names which are also nouns.
 * Inconsistency in sources doesn't mean that something’s not actually a proper name, despite what some are screaming from the rooftops.
 * Many of the comments in the discussion were focused on the premise that a lack of consistency in sources means that something is not a proper name instead of considering that sources may not be aware (or even care). Discussion should have been focused on whether it’s a proper name, not just based on a tally of what irrelevant sources and publications use while using a couple instances of downcasing (mistakes) on relevant sources that overwhelmingly uppercase to Draft as a reason to discount said source. This is akin to WP:NOTAVOTE, but due to inconsistencies, it’s defaulted to downcase.
 * We shouldn’t use counting stats to determine what’s a proper name and doing so is silly.
 * Some people refused to even consider the possibility of a proper name once the ngrams, which are notorious for lacking meaningful context, came out and showed an inconsistency (again, context is key).
 * It felt as though the discussion had a lot of bad faith arguments and like some refused to consider the possibility that uppercasing may make sense, while I tried to approach with an open mind but ended up playing devil’s advocate because so many people had been pushed away. Several people reached out to me privately to say that the discussion was such a trainwreck and drama filled that they weren’t participating, so I felt like I had to.
 * This discussion left me drained, discouraged, and considering a Wikibreak (over the capitalization of a single fucking letter). It brought me to a point I haven’t felt with Wikipedia and I had to leave the discussion. These discussions are why MOS is a ctop and why people don’t want to participate in MOS related discussions, it’s a genuine problem and not the first time I’ve seen it, but it was the worst I’ve felt from it.
 * I’m not sure I ever want to deal with MOS again based on the interactions that are routinely allowed.
 * In summation, sometimes Wikipedia gets it wrong, this is just one of those times. The closure, however, was policy based and Wordsmith took the time to evaluate whether it was a proper venue or not. I know how hard that is to do and, absent a challenge and overturning of the close, which won’t be coming from me, I must accept that we’ll have it wrong for a while. I just don't have it in me to relitigate when the same argument about inconsistency is going to be used to ignore all other points made. The reality is there will always be inconsistencies, and that can be used to downcase pages that are proper names. I don't agree with it, I think it leads to us getting things wrong sometimes, but it's what we have as policy. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just hope that a precedent hasn't been set, that an RFC can over-ride RMs. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just saw this. How can a precedent have been set when WP:RFCNOT is still in place? Moving pages because of a name-changing RfC shouldn't stand, as the next step to overriding the recent RM at 2024 NFL Draft would be a move review (which was never done). But more importantly, to, of course you, or anyone, is not to blame for simply sticking to their viewpoints. Nothing wrong in that, and yes, a moderator would have done well to reign in the comments but in a way that wasn't needed because many of us assumed that no closer would ignore WP:RFCNOT. So this is actually a case of WP:IAR, and the only question then should be: does lowercasing NFL Draft improve the encyclopedia. The more important point you made in your comment above, thank you very much for giving ESPN data for their option of changing their casing. I hope that occurs. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I wasn't aware of WP:RFCNOT.  Looks like it was added in 2019 after a brief discussion on the talk page involving 3 editors.  The page WP:DR is policy, and says "It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus."  But WP:RFC is not policy, and has no such guideline on it.  It's not clear what it reflects.  In any case, I agree that RM is usually the right forum for page moves, and it usually works OK.  But in this case, it had failed to reach consensus, so a larger scope of participation was needed.  It didn't actually get a lot larger participation, but had time to thoroughly air all the arguments on both sides, which is good.  It's just a drag that it took so long; now we're back to where we were 5 or 6 weeks ago and can start to make progress again on fixing overcapitalization.  The RFC did not override an RM, since the previous RM did not reach a consensus (unless you mean the one-article RM in 2016 with tiny participation, which needed to be overridden, as it had been inappropriately generalized to so many articles). Dicklyon (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think you've got it backwards, in good faith. WP:DR says, boldfaced not in original: "Request for comment (RfC) is a process to request community-wide input on article content. RfCs can be used when there is a content-related dispute, or simply to get input from other editors before making a change" which links to WP:Rfc. WP:RFC is where WP:RFCNOT exists (which tells us not to use an RfC to change page titles). Just above WP:DR is the policy section "Requested moves" which states "Requested moves (RM) is a process to request community-wide input on the retitling of the article." The conflict does not concern holding your RfC and collecting comments, but in solely using the close to implement titling moves. The conflict then shifts to the first page that was moved based on that RfC (I don't know what that was), a page which should be moved back to uppercase without complaint. You or some other editor could now use the results of your good faith RfC as a pertinent piece of evidence at a new RM, hopefully on this central page, but moving page titles based on it, as is doing, seems an overstep of policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: This may be a point better made to @The Wordsmith. As Dicklyon mentioned, WP:RFC is indeed not policy, just a best practice. While WP:RM may be the preferred and ideal location for discussing page moves and title renames, I haven't found anything that states, outright, results from an RfC may not be used to change article titles.
 * GoodDay made a point of asking The Wordsmith on their talk page about whether this RfC closure was meant to downcase the titles. They that that was their determination. Regarding the first page that was moved, that was this article, roughly 14 hours after the RfC was closed. I waited just shy of 24 hours after the initial move and no one had signaled or stated an intention to challenge the closure, so I began to start implementing it. As I mentioned, I do believe that these belong at the capitalized version, so I sympathize with you, but I don't believe this is actually an overstep of policy. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you like, I'd be willing to start a close review. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 's response above is mostly correct, but I can clarify some points that weren't. I did touch on WP:RFCNOT in the closure as the strongest argument from participants to why the venue might not be legitimate, and was largely the reason why that part was closed as no consensus that the venue was inappropriate instead of consensus that the venue was appropriate. The "Good Venue" arguments weren't based on WP:DR, which I didn't have on my notes and I don't believe was cited by participants. The GV arguments were largely based on existing practice/precedent, WP:CONSENSUS and to a lesser extent WP:NOTBURO. RM is almost always the right venue for page moves (or even just boldly doing it without discussion), because most are pretty uncontroversial. In this case, between the previous moves, lack of consensus, and discussions across multiple pages and projects the argument that an RfC at a central location to pull in outside opinions was a compelling one. As far as a close review, I welcome it and look forward to seeing whether other uninvolved admins would have closed it differently. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Very well. Meanwhile, I've left messages at WP:HOCKEY, CFL Draft, WP:CFL & NHL Entry Draft, concerning (what I see) by-passing the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * @BeanieFan11: It's up to you if you want to do so, but I'm not sure it would be successful. Wordsmith cited several examples of RfC being used to determine proper naming conventions and those have stuck, establishing a history of RfC not being labelled an inappropriate venue. Ignoring whether the venue is appropriate, as that's a whole separate issue, the close itself was policy based, even if I don't agree with the outcome.
 * I can see why you might be concerned that other league's drafts are at risk of being downcased without discussion, but this RfC shouldn't have any bearing on those. What may be different in the NFL Draft's situation is that there was an RM that was closed as no consensus, whereas I'm not aware of RMs for the related draft. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical question. Are editors permitted to open an RM for this & related pages, to have them moved to "upper-cased"? GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good question @GoodDay, one which I don't feel comfortable answering myself, but I'm leaning towards it not being a great idea due to it being interpreted as an immediate challenge to the recent close. Perhaps @The Wordsmith would be willing to chime in. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll just open a close review at some point in the next few days - better than starting up a whole new RM. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Opening an RM just days after an RfC which concluded the opposite could run into WP:CONLEVEL issues, and could be accused of WP:IDHT. As an example, if somebody created an RM proposing Kyiv be moved to Kiev just days after that RfC was closed, it would likely be seen as disruptive. If you think my assessment of consensus was defective, WP:AN is the best way to seek consensus on overturning it. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be agreement on where the next step should take place. As I said, the first page moved should be moved back due to WP:RFCNOT (the RFC information page is linked from the Dispute Resolution policy page, at WP:DR) which uses explicit language to say that an RfC cannot replace the RM process - RfCs should not be used to move page titles. This seems a major point. The Request for Comments was fine, and collected comments. But to use that close, even if the closer agrees, to move any page, ignores established policy. So, in essence, the first page move following the RfC was an WP:IAR move. IAR seems to be the question or solution here. Anything else, even the page moves which came afterwards, trusted in good faith (for better or worse) that moving these "draft" page titles had policy backing. They didn't. At least that's an arguable point of view. In summary, the RfC was fine, for comments, but using its close to change a page title meant that the policy WP:IAR was applied. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: For what it's worth, I think the clear next step is a challenge at WP:AN if so desired. I held up on further implementing the downcasing due to a couple people signaling an interest and possible intention of challenging. Page moves are easy to reverse, which is why I took care of all of those already. I also figured folks may see the page moves and suddenly take notice and be interested. The downcasing of text in articles is not as easy to reverse due to "draft" having times it was appropriately downcased in context (such as NFL draft pick), which is why I'm holding off for the moment on using AWB to implement some downcasing. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know, the situation can be seen many ways. The concept I'm putting forward is that the RfC was fine and educational, as was most of the close. It was only when an editor thought those things meant that a page could actually be moved, and then used WP:IAR, either knowingly or unknowingly, to ignore WP:RFCNOT (which is linked from a policy page regarding dispute resolution). What to do about an IAR move? Discuss if these moves improve or maintains Wikipedia, which is the criteria called for to invoke IAR. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: Are you referring to the person who initially moved the page post-RFC, or the admin who closed the discussion and that the close was meant to result in the pages being moved? While I do support uppercasing and believe it to be a proper noun, regardless of how Wikipedia evaluates proper nouns, I don't think that this is a case of WP:IAR. With that said, Wordsmith has expressed that they would welcome and look forward to a close review. I'd encourage anyone to do so sooner rather than later if you're going to. I don't like the outcome but I want to get things consistent, which means begrudgingly implementing the RfC. If you're successful in overturning the close it'd be nice to not have to undo as much to restore the pre-downcasing state. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be an interesting discussion. Hopefully somebody will start it, but which of its many aspects will the board be asked to review? The breaching of WP:RFCNOT? I don't know enough about AN language and style to start it but will gladly add a comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , It was a hypothetical question. If others 'do' object to the RFC decision (in any form)? I'll let them decide as to whether or not to challenge the close, at WP:AN. The latter method would be the best route to take, if anybody chooses to challenge an RFC closure. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since WP:RFCNOT's central role was not addressed in the RfC question, which reads like an opinion survey, and the language at RFCNOT has not been changed to allow RfCs to move page titles, all of this seems moot. But as of now these moves are being allowed to stay, setting a drastic precedent: any title can now be the subject of a binding RfC. This either replaces WP:RM and its appeal process or creates another route for a requested move with a different appeal process. One invites the input of page readers, the other doesn't. One lasts a week, with relistings and a move review if needed, and the other either lasts a month or can be stopped at any time. Both are now equally valid, even with that pesky WP:RFCNOT present and supposedly accounted for. Given all that has occurred, what question should be brought at AN? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I reckon a question would be, "Can an RFC replace an RM". What should've occurred on this page & related pages, is an RM. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have opened a review of the closure here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional pings to several others I'm aware of who were involved in the discussion: @Bagumba, @SMcCandlish, and @Conyo14. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:NFL draft


text:
Death (cigarette)

Death was a British brand of cigarettes which was owned and manufactured by the Enlightened Tobacco Company in the United Kingdom from 1991 to 1999. It was conceived as a satirical statement on cigarette marketing and advertising, intended to criticize or reveal the true intent of cigarette marketing: namely, the idea that cigarettes were a product that, when consumed in the manner for which they had been manufactured, were essentially fatal and likely to contribute to the death of the person smoking them.

History
Entrepreneur BJ Cunningham invested his life savings to create and market an additive-free smoking product called Death. He founded the Enlightened Tobacco Company in 1991. Its product disclosed its hazardous nature by prominently displaying skull and crossbones on its outer package and came in two varieties; Death, and Death Lights. The product was marketed to the "young underground punk rock" consumer market. The products were sold for a time via mail order from Luxembourg to avoid the United Kingdom's excise tax; however, after some time, the Customs and Excise department disallowed this sales channel.

The company
The company's plans to offer sponsorship to the Pacific Racing F1 in 1994 fell through after Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna were killed at the San Marino Grand Prix. That year the company was turned down by the "top five poster contractors" who would not provide the company with permission to use their sites because of its "blunt" marketing message and a pending parliamentary bill restricting tobacco advertising.

The company "was losing a million pounds per year" and could not afford a massive advertising campaign. The firm's trademark rights were successfully challenged by an alcohol company called Black Death. The impending lawsuit barred the sale of Death cigarettes and the company closed down.

Markets
Death cigarettes were mainly sold in the United Kingdom, but were also sold in the United States, Norway and Finland.

title: Death (cigarette)


text:
User:Cnull

test

title: User:Cnull


text: User talk:69.194.24.221

title: User talk:69.194.24.221


text:
Andrew McCleary

Andrew McCleary (1863 – 1944) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He served in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1927 to 1932, as a member of the Progressive Party.

Born in Shelburne, Canada West, McCleary came to Minitonas, Manitoba and settled on a Dominion Lands Act homestead in the Ravensworth district. He served as a school trustee, was a member of the municipal council and was reeve for the Rural Municipality of Minitonas from 1912 to 1914. In 1920, he was president of a small local organization called the "People's Independent Party". He sought the nomination of this party for the constituency of Swan River in the 1920 provincial election, but lost to Robert Emmond.

He was elected to the Manitoba legislature in the 1927 provincial election in Swan River, defeating Liberal candidate William H. Sims and Conservative W. Hinchcliffe. He did not seek re-election in 1932. During his time in the legislature, McCleary was a backbench supporter of John Bracken's government.

title: Andrew McCleary