text:
User:Pugnare

This account and the account of User:Pugnavi (which is a sockpuppet of this account) have been blocked indefinitely for threatening Wikipedia:

It surprises me how fast you admins act when presented a vandal, but how indifferent you are to messy articles in dire need of cleanup. I wonder if the fast reflexes you applied when blocking me will also apply when shown an appallingly written article. I guess not. I even wonder if what I say has an effect on you, as it has not had one on many administrators, obsessed as they are with deleting, blocking, reverting, edit-warring, article moving, disputing, quarreling, and so on and so forth, etc. etc.

You pay attention to worthless vandals, who by the way do not need immediate attention, but not to popular articles (such as the new Harry Potter Bk. 6 and 7 articles), which need much more serious attention than annoying trolls disrupting unimportant matters.

This is a threat. You may choose to view it as such or as a friendly wake-up call from a user who has long been disillusioned by the apathetic dealings of the big-headed administrators, too proud to even look back at the activities they used to do. Once elected, what do they do? They do things irrelevant to the quality of articles, all because they think they are on a "higher" level than other "normal" users, even though this is not so. Before being elected, they work hard, real hard, cleaning up articles, adding new ones, things they cease to do once bestowed the title of "Administrator."

This is a threat. If you do not change and spread this word, I will personally make sure a virus is uploaded into one of the media files so that whoever opens it will get infected. Mark my words.

Think about it.

This is our only hope. Pugnavi 14:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC) (The foregoing was left as a comment on Kelly Martin's discussion page.) Kelly Martin 14:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Pugnare


text:
Talk:Mark Lamarr

Taken from BBC website
This was taken from the BBC's Website... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.131.66 (talk) 06:42, July 20, 2005
 * The article as it existed at the time of this comment has changed significantly. Were you claiming copyright infringement? -- œ ™ 22:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

15 Storeys High
I believe that he co-wrote the sitcom 15 Stories High with Sean Lock. However I have read previously he did it under an assumed name. Just wondering if this should be added in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.222.247 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

He co-wrote the second series with Sean Lock under his real name of Mark Jones. I think it should go in the article. (He was script editor on the first series.) 80.44.250.88 18:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark's middle name
He doesn't have one. I wrote to the BBC and received an answer from Mark, via Helen Reed, that Mark has no middle name. So... unless someone can prove that he has one that he's secretly embarrassed about, or something, I will revert any attempts to put one in. -- Ch'marr 17:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Jamie Oliver
Does anyone know if he has a feud with Jamie Oliver? During one of the ad bumps for Channel 4, celebrities were asked who or what they didn't like. Oliver said: "Mark Lamarr. C**k s****r."

 * I'd imagine it's coz of the verbal pasting Lamarr would give Oliver on Buzzcocks all the time. I remeber when Oliver brought out the compilation album Cooking: Music To Cook To Lamarr proposed a record entitled Beating Up Chefs: Music To Beat Up Chefs To. Maybe the rivalry tgoes back further than that but this is where I first noticed it.--Crestville 13:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable interviews
Is it worth mentioning some of the more notable interviewsw ML has done; the Shaba Ranks one on the Word (where Shaba talked about killing gays, and effectively killed his career), or the Zsa Zsa Gabor one (where ML kept asking her who she'd been sleeping with at a certain time)? The latter, ML has claimed, was where he got his 'motormouth' reputation. (83.13.39.98 (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

I certainly think the Shabba Ranks interview was notable, it was the first time I and my friends took notice of Mark, and I expected to read about it here. If no-one demurs, I'll add it in a few days. Pollythewasp (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Problem with sections headed 'Notable' is it can't just be some Wikipedia editor's opinion that it's notable. Notability should be clearly defined and demonstrated through cites.  Please be sure to include some good cites.  I remember quite a bit of media discussion on this interview, so it should be possible.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 * It definitely should be mentioned. It is mentioned on various other pages including Shabba's article page.  Notable not just for Lamarr or Shabba but to illustrate changing attitudes in the UK.--ЗAНИA talk talk] 21:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Lamarrs Attacks
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0254030/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.21.188 (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Geocities material
I've removed material on this page that was supported by cites to an unofficial fan website. This is for two reasons; -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Geocities is not a reliable source for cites. So I'd say they don't pass Wikipedia policy on biographies on living persons.
 * The material linked to looked very much like copyright violations of interviews lifted from else where. Wikipedia policy on links forbides such links.

Rumour
I read somewhere that Marc Lamarr lived in the town of Lowestoft. I did not know if this should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The lake district (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if it's a Rumour. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that person's name is spelled "Marc" then it's clearly a different person. Plus, why is it so interesting where someone lived? I've lived several places but they're not where I was born and they're not where I live now, so they're not really relevant.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mark Lamarr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ayme.org.uk/article.php?sid=13&id=26

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

moved to Harrow, London, which was the centre of the early 1980s British rockabilly revival scene
er ... was it ? I lived there and must have missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.194.205 (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal life
Somebody changed the date of when Lamarr was charged to 15 September. The BBC article used as a reference clearly states that he was charged on 1 September. I've therefore changed it back to what I originally wrote. Cybersub (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Since the news emerged of Lamarr being charged, there has been some vandalism on the page by anonymous users, including edits that could cause legal problems. Can any sort of protection be applied to the page, please? In the meantime, thank you to the Wikipedians who have also been repairing it. Cybersub (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Mark Lamarr


text: User talk:213.227.198.113

title: User talk:213.227.198.113


text:
Kushiel's Chosen

Kushiel's Chosen is a historical fantasy/alternate history novel by American writer Jacqueline Carey. It is a sequel to Kushiel's Dart and the second novel in the Kushiel's Legacy series.

Synopsis
In the novel, the journey of famed anguissette, Phèdre nó Delaunay, brings her all the way to Caerdicca Unitas, chasing after the path of the infamous traitor of Terre d'Ange, Melisande Shahrizai. Even still, the curse of her one true friend, Hyacinthe, haunts her. She has a long way to go if she will ever have the chance to free him from the curse that should have been hers. It is all she can do to keep madness at bay and try to stay one step ahead of Melisande.

Awards and nominations
Kushiel's Chosen was nominated for the 2003 Locus Award for Best Fantasy Novel.

title: Kushiel's Chosen


text: User talk:69.19.151.74

title: User talk:69.19.151.74


text: User talk:167.102.161.90

title: User talk:167.102.161.90


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/2

 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 keep (no consensus). For those interested in the vote count I find 17 delete votes and 15 or 16 keep votes depending on whether or not the anonymous vote near the start of the debate is counted. Otherwise moving this page to some other title has been suggested, such discussions should go on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults
First note that there is a previous VfD from July 2004 which didn't reach consensus.

This new VfD is for an unrelated reason, as I judge the List of purported cults to be original research and as such violating the WP:NOR. This list tries to avoid the POV problems and endless struggles which would plague a "List of cults" (but accept a redirect from there). Only the solution found by the authors of List of purported cults has a massive Original Research problem. The authors are doing their own research which of the zillions of possible sources in mass media are ignored, or put in one three categories of varying degrees of consensus. To make matters worse the authors are also attempting own research, which word in languages other than English should be considered equivalent to "cult". (Unfortunately they ignore the question of the different meanings of "cult" itself, but this is not central to VfD).

Pjacobi 13:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. This is simply a list of organizations that have been cited as cults by one or more news sources. Perhaps if the article's title were changed to "List of movements and religious groups cited by one or more news sources as being cults," we would not have to consider it for deletion. ( Unsigned comment by anon User:68.163.158.3)
 * Keep This is definitely not original research - such lists exist by the score in the internet (only none which is so excellently documented regarding its sources and criteria). --Irmgard 19:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe, if this is outstanding from all other attempts to create such a list, how is it not original research. Also please note that this is the 6th vote in response of a call for help from . --Pjacobi 19:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Being very active in two Wikipedias (admin in one) I don't always take the time to check systematically for every vote or article I might be interested in - so I'm really glad if other people inform me about ongoing discussions or problematic articles where I might throw in my two cents, though I never see this as obligation to participate, just as invitation - and if I respond to it, I see it as invitation to state my view on the subject or contribute my knowledge to the article, not echoing someone elses views. --Irmgard 07:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, "original research" does not mean and has never meant "the very act of doing research." One might as well ask of any Wikipedia article, "if it is not a copyvio of some existing article on a subject, how is it not 'original research'?"  Second of all, why should it be noted which Wikipedians voted on this VfD in response to my letting them know the vote was going on?  It almost sounds as if you're suggesting that there is something untoward in doing so, but the only policy or guideline I know which discourages such things applies to notifying non-Wikipedians of a VfD and encouraging them to come and vote.  I'm not aware of anything that suggests it's a wrong thing to notify interested Wikipedians of a vote that may affect them.  If you find any place where consensus has in fact determined that to be a bad thing, however, I'll get in line behind AI  and Zappaz, , , ,  for my chastisement.  However, such a policy (if there is one) should really be better publicized, shouldn't it?  Otherwise people will not only notify other editors, they'll even  instruct them to alert other editors in turn. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with publicizing polls to get as many outside views as possible. If the Wikipedia communities agrees that such action is not good faith, then please point it out. --AI 22:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is to my knowlegde not forbidden, but it might be less helpful than it looks - see Suffrage, Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators, and Sockpuppets --Irmgard 15:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. With all due respect the article is the opposite of original research. Over several months editors worked together on the talk page to develop a strict criteria for inclusion on the list - a direct description of a group as a "cult" by one or more carefully ranked sourced. There have been questions over how to translate foreign words, and it was previously agreed that "sect" is sometimes used in British english and french with the same meaning. A discussion is now underway, which Pjacobi refers to, about the german word "Sekte". But we are treating the matter carefully, seeking citations and working slowly. -Willmcw 15:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource (if they'll have it) Delete. I have no problem with a list of purported cults (although it'd be a nightmare to maintain and remain npov) but this page is original research, not an encyclopedia article. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read it? It is now easy to maintain because of the clear criteria that we have. -Willmcw 15:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is that very criteria that makes it original research. Where is the reference that these are widely agreed criteria among academics of what makes an organisation a purported cult?  I know you have references of where other media agencies have called something a cult, but is that really NPOV?  If you take that out, you're just left with the criteria at the start that may as well have been plucked from nowhere. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * One of the article in the "Cult" template is Cult checklists which covers exactly that topic. However, if we were to use one of those checklists to decide on our own if a group was a cult then that would be original research. Like any good NPOV article, we are not making assertions of our own but instead are sourcing every opinion. Should we eschew sources and make determinations on our own logic? That seems totally contrary to the normal methods of Wikipedia. -Willmcw 02:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * You keep pursuing the argument of "if it sourced, it is NPOV". But it is not so. A controversial subject (and don't tell me that this is not one of these...), needs to represent all sides of a controversy in a balanced manner to attain NPOV. The groups listed here does not have a recourse to present their POV in the matter. This list is a blacklist in camouflage and deserves to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, Jossi. For purposes of NPOV, it is important, and in fact, the guiding principles of Wikipedia specify, that both sides of the controversy should be represented.  The question is, though, when both sides of a controversy about a group are covered in the most logical place -- i.e. in the group's own entry -- is it a violation of NPOV to acknowledge the fact of the controversy in any other place?  Because that's what this article is about, about acknowledging these controversies.  You've been telling everyone that no, this article goes farther, this article presents the "anti-cult" POV, and only the anti-cult POV, and my question for you is "where?"  Where is this article presenting the dissection of doctrines with a critical eye? the testimonies of those harmed and degraded by the group? the secret documents seized by law enforcement and brought out at trials?  The answer is, nowhere.  The list says "This is the group; these are the sources that raise the issue; you must follow the link if you want to know the arguments on either side of the issue."  The list simply does not contain the "anti-cult" POV you are arguing that it presents out of proportion to any other view -- except to the degree that that POV is acknowledged as existing in order to acknowledge the existence of a controversy.  And you seem to be arguing that even that much acknowledgement of the existence of a POV that says "this group is a cult" is automatically so damaging an NPOV violation that we must burn the article with fire.  How come you've never shown so much concern about, say, whether a group is called a hate group or not?  Have you been as fervent in your belief there that an accusation against a group cannot be allowed to exist within a Wikipedia article, unless the opposite POV is presented right then and there, when it's not a group you approve of as the target? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The term cult is a minefield if one is to judge by the numerous definitions of the term in the Cult article. In an attempt to make a list of cults NPOV, a group of editors came up with the current idea that somehow skirts the controversy around the term. Admirable as their effort may be, it is unfortunately not NPOV, it is dangerously close to being  original research (in particular the taxonomy upon which the source "cohorts"  was designed) and the fact that it is still used as a blacklist for many religious groups: Note that List of cults redirects to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just read the criteria established for including a group in the list, for an example of the extent to which this article resorts to original research. Highlights are mine: Groups are arranged by the "width of consensus" of the sources: sources aligned with widest consensus are first, sources aligned with decreasing consensus follow, and sources that are aligned with only a very narrow consensus in their use of the term "cult" are last. Within these "cohorts" groups are arranged alphabetically. The decision of what "width of consensus" means, the choice of certain sources and exclusion of other sources to have bearing or not on that "consensus" is 100% original research and arbitrary at most. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that all of the sources are on the list, just some are ranked higher than others- so it isn't a matter of picking and choosing. I don't see what you mean by calling the use of sources "original research." It's just the opposite. -Willmcw 16:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you see it? Why Source A is higher than source B? Why source X is included and Source Y is excluded? The ranking of these sources is indeed, original research. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well- you helpd develop the criteria, disclaimer, and listing of sources. You didn't complain then. This sudden disgust with the article is surprising since you helped make it what it is. -Willmcw 05:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep because the article is a list of purported cults. The list makes plain that it is "purported" (i.e. commonly put forward). Although I disagree that some of the entities listed are cults (for instance Mormons and JWs are, IMHO, too widespread to be cults), I accept the listing because they are often purported to be, whether or not they in fact are. --Scimitar parley 17:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the problem. In one breath you speak of purported cults (i.e. maybe not really a cult, just purported), and on the next one you disagree about a group being a cult by virtue of its inclusion on a list about purported cults. If you get confused by this, think of the reader! A blacklist is a blacklist is a blacklist. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's neccessary to be a cult to be included on a list of purported cults, however your last point (on blacklists) has made me reconsider my vote. Even the MILS report (a horribly biased anti-religion piece) views the term "cult" as overly perjorative, and IMHO it's unfair to list organizations with huge memberships (mormons, adventists, jws, etc) on this list.  Regrettably (given the obvious effort put into the article) delete. --Scimitar parley 19:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The restriction on "no original research" is not a bright line. Almost every article involves the exercise of editorial judgement to some extent. When the list seems to be useful, seems to represent a reasonable consensus judgement, and where the items are either noncontroversial or where the interplay of editorial give-and-take has created a reasonably neutral point of view, I think they can be kept. If someone wanted to argue that lists should be formally declared to be held to a looser standard than articles, and should accordingly carry a warning that they represent Wikipedian consensus judgement rather than verifiable fact, I'd go along. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Proposed changes to WP policy should be posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not here. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a change in policy. Observation of actual behavior with VfDs on lists shows that this is de facto policy. I agree that it would be helpful to articulate this explicitly as part of our written policy, but it is not essential. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "A change in policy" would be changing the definition of "original research" so that it now includes the evaluation of sources for reliability and importance which is part of every well-written article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the title is POV. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The title deals with matters about which people have strong POVs, that is true. Are you arguing, then, that it is not possible to write about people's POV in an NPOV fashion?  If that were true then we'd have to give up on Wikipedia now, because it is founded on the principle that we can write about people's beliefs without endorsing them.  Read WP:NPOV if you don't believe it.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The current title is not NPOV. The approach of determining degrees of purported cult-ness is original research - it applies a new metric, original with us.  If the article is kept after all, the content could be recreated, revised, under a new article: List of controversial religious movements — appropriate portions might be merged into another new article: List of controversial new religious movements as the target (instead of a redirect).    The derogatory nature of those terms, and the blacklisting abuse especially of the word, cult, ought to be described.  Mkmcconn (Talk)  20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: "purported" : POV, "cult" : POV. The contents of the article then, are POV. Userfy it and then delete it. -Splash 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have concerns over method, methodology and content, but I am convinced there is encyclopedic information in this article. It is a question of how to extract it, and that cannot be done if it is deleted. This is a close call, however, for the persuasive deletion arguments presented here do not, to my mind, outweigh the keep arguments. -Splash 03:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Text does not have to be lost if moved to userspace. Keep it there and extract whatever useful. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 03:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So, then, you do not believe what WP:NPOV states, that our ideal of unbiased writing is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them"? You are instead proposing that to adhere to NPOV, we must refrain from presenting any views that anyone conflicts with?  That seems to be what you're arguing, if you're saying "The article is clearly about POVs; therefore, it is clearly POV itself." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere in the article any conflicting views. Aum Shinkiryo doesn't provide cites that say it's not a cult, and I'll hazard it doesn't call itself one. To cover the conflicting views would essentially be a "List of organisation that are sometime called cults and sometimes not called cults", and then to present a battle-of-the-googles or something. Which, to me at any rate, doesn't impart much encyclopedic information. I suspect that many of these organisations appear on various countries' "restricted organisations" (or whatever) list; a collection along those lines under a relevant title might not be POV and I suspect already exists, somewhere. -Splash 04:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually a big chunk of the article is sourced from a French parliamentary report (all of the groups marked "FR"). -Willmcw 04:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Splash, have you really considered what you're asking? If you're saying that there are conflicting views which could be added to the article, which have not been, then you've just pointed out why the article should be kept -- because perceived lack of NPOV is not an excuse to delete.  If you're arguing, on the other hand, that the charges could not be answered, and therefore it is inherently POV to acknowledge that the charge has been made...  well, then, I can think of an awful lot of information on Wikipedia that would have to be thrown out.  Most religions, for instance.  If I disbelieve in the existence of the angel Moroni, but there is nothing I can say which could disprove his existence, then obviously it is POV for Wikipedia to acknowledge the Mormon belief in his existence -- after all, the conflicting view cannot be presented, right? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You raise a serious point. I will go away and think about that. -Splash 00:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV hell - even if we could agree what has been called a cult or sect - the words have so many shades of meaning that placing groups on a list would be pretty pointless --Doc (?) 00:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "if we could agree what has been called a cult or sect" -- with all due respect, this makes me think you haven't even looked at the article. A group goes into the article because we have a firm citation that a source has indeed called it a cult or a sect, along with which source it was. An article that tries to go further than that and decide which callings are accurate, now that would have the kind of problems you describe, but again, that is not the article under discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did read it, and I'll grant you all of the above - but my point is that if a journalist has called something a cult that in itself is pretty meaningless. All users of the word mean different (derogatory) things by it - 'one man's sect is another man's denomination'. An article listing religious groups called 'cult' might list them all. It would be a bit like having an article list of purported right-wing groups each cite is just a record of some journalist’s POV --Doc (?) 10:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly sourced. This is an example of best practice, not "POV hell". — Sesel wa  00:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherently POV. LDS is on this list?!?!  I would be comfortable calling all Christianity a cult (although few others might agree), but placing a major denomination on this, without including the others, is an enormous error and a disservice to public discussion on the topic.  Note that this is merely a symptom of a larger problem: I find LDS troubling, but others might find any entry troubling. Hence, inherently POV. Xoloz 03:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not original research. It is stretching the imagination to try and call it original research. If we delete this article because it is "original research" then we may as well delete all of Wikipedia, because there is no article on here that doesn't require exactly the same sort of "original research" -- considering the various points of view put forth by various sources, trying to decide which sources are credible, which sources are prominent even if not fully credible -- and the average article calls for editors to synthesize from those largely unspoken judgements that an accusation by CBS News needs to be reported and an accusation on an anonymous Geocities webpage does not. This article goes farther than most Wikipedia articles do to avoid any NPOV problems coming from editors' undiscussed, undisclosed decisions about which sources are worthy of mention and why by discussing it and disclosing it and putting that information into the article.  To pretend we have to destroy this article to satisfy NPOV is to willfully misread WP:NPOV and what it says about not letting NPOV spill over into false balance where no judgements may be made about sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Where are the conflicting views presented to be able to adhere to NPOV? Where are all the newspaper articles, or encyclopedias in which these groups were not labelled as "cults". And what about the blacklist from the France government? Where is the opposite view to that? Can we say than group XYZ is not considered a cult by the governments of Italy, Canda, Spain, Greece, Venezuela, etc.? It does not make sense. NPOV requires that a controversial subject is treated in such way that the controversy is described and conflicting views be given a balanced coverage. This cannot happen here and thus, this article is POV and fundamentally flawed. ≈ jossi ≈ 14:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * You've never mentioned this concern on the talk page of the article before. You particpated in the discussions that developed the current criteria. If it was a problem why didn't you say so? -Willmcw 16:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extensively researched, and gives a fairly good picture of the general views of the organizations in the article. Haikupoet 04:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV and subjective. Radiant_ >|< 12:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's this tuff that makes Wikipedia so interesting! (Unsigned comment by
 * Delete. Inherently defamatory and POV lists really don't belong on Wikipedia.  Kaibabsquirrel 02:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - difficult, but that's not a reason to delete - David Gerard 00:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The regular participants on this article have made a Herculean effort to maintain NPOV while still noting the fact that there are groups considered to be cults.  The fact that they are considered to be cults is, just that -- a fact -- and as such it is NPOV.  The articles supporting these groups' inclusion on this list are a way of maintaining NPOV, by noting the fact that the groups in question are considered to be cults by many different sources -- not just the POV statement of Wikipedians with an "agenda."  In fact, a persistent attempt to include Judaism on the list of cults was rebuffed for precisely that reason: someone was pushing a POV.  Therefore, I will support this article because it supports NPOV. --Modemac 03:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge citations into each group's article. Being one of the editors whose "herculean" efforts are praised above, and after heavy consideration, I have decided to vote for the deletion of the article for many of the reasons stated by my peers above. So that we do not lose the extensive work done (mainly by User:Willmcw), I propose to move the text to userspace, delete the article, and slowly and carefully merge citations into each  group's article (e. g. in Aum Shinrikyo we add: "This group was refered to as a cult in The Washington Post, the BBC,] and Encarta." This way we maintain NPOV, and we don't lose the extensive work done Willmcw and others. (Sorry Will...) --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mind explaining how information is POV if combined in one article, but is NPOV if distributed to 50 articles? I don't see how that makes a difference. thanks Willmcw 05:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is obvious: In a group's article is good information and valid as it read within context. Readers can then make up their minds about what that group is or is not. In the list, it is a one sided POV expressed: the one of the sources we chose. The complaint about original research about our cohorts, the initial basis for this VfD, gets adressed as well. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 12:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge. Early Christianity, in all its various sects, was considered a cult for centuries until its endorsement by Constantine.  After the definition of Christian orthodoxy, many long established Christian viewpoints were considered heretical cults.  All emerging Protestant denominations were considered heretical cults by the Roman Catholic church - and the later movements (i.e. Quakers and Puritans) by the mainline Protestant churches as well.  Almost all religious movements begin as a "cult" - a movement based on the charismatic appeal of one individual.  So where in history should the article start?  The sources for the article are very recent and reflect modern perspectives and prejudices (which are usually based on old ideas lurking in the mist).  Although an interesting, and exhausting effort, I would have to vote to delete.  But incorporating the sources -- and the reasons the sources assert these movements are cults -- into existing articles could be useful.  Controversial and edgy, perhaps, but useful.  This would allow counterpoints and sources to be presented.  WBardwin 06:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I must point out that this article was nominated for deletion without any real attempt to improve or correct it by the nominators. It has not had a POV tag on it since May 31, 2005, when Jossifresco removed one that had been up for a day. Pjacobi nominated it only four days and seven talk-page comments after he first raised a concern. We have numerouos mechanisms for improving articles–none of them have been tried. I think that it is a very poor consideration of the dozens, maybe hundreds of hours of volunteer time that have gone into this article over its long history. I also note that this article was nominated when two key editors of the article, user:Hawstom (who proposed the criteria that we're using) and user:Ed Poor, are on announced wikiholidays. -Willmcw 06:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read my rationale for deletion just at the top of this page. I didn't nominate for POV (which not even is a valid deletion reason) but for Original Research, whis is a valid deletion reason. I also commented why thing, this is an essentially uncurable problem. --Pjacobi 17:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't know if this is possible (you may know better, Will), but we could ask the admin that assumes responsibility for this VfD, to allow for Ed Poor and Tom's votes to count even if casted after the 5 day period and to tally the votes only after receiving these two votes. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 12:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Zappaz, you here seem to be mistaking WP for a democracy. Please see Guide to VfD, specifically the part that starts "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves." I agree that something about the timing of this VfD seems very fishy. -- Hoary 03:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I regret that you are insinuating that something is "fishy", because it isn't. See Talk:List of purported cults and read User:Pjacobi's intention to VfD this article being clearly stated. Please do not start with conspiracy theories. That is not needed as it reduces the quality of this discussion. Thanks. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 03:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comment puzzles me. I don't think I insinuated anything, certainly nothing about any "conspiracy". -- Hoary 04:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this dispassionately and usefully lists what are verifiably described as cults. -- Hoary 06:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Wikipedia article  Cult gives sufficient reasons for a "delete" vote, I think, but Googling "cult" will bring out even more strongly that labelling any group a cult is essentially subjective — either directly, or indirectly through the choice of one specific set of criteria out of many posible sets (as in the case of the approach taken here).  It's difficult, then, to see the point or usefulness of the article, but easy to see how it might mislead and offend. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Cult article strikes me as odd, with its introductory paragraph about "cult" in what is now a less-used sense, and its continuation with "Definitions of 'cult'" whose concluding paragraph reads "However, in common usage, 'cult' has a very negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group in order to criticize it." (Perhaps to criticize. Or perhaps simply to describe the unpleasant reality of the organization in a terse and immediately understandable way.) If "cult" indeed usually meant something like "locally unusual or unorthodox religious group", it would indeed be meaningless, but since it (I think) usually means a (pseudo-/quasi-) organization that has a fairly well recognized number of traits, a list seems, if not useful, then potentially useful. -- Hoary 09:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not normally going to delete an article because of its content, merely flag for a rewrite, but in this case I think we're at an inherently unencyolpedic article. I really don't think this list tells us anything encyolopedic. Its just a list against a certain criterion, that has reached a limited wikipedian consensus, but does not reflect and report the mainstream, near consensus view of the world at large, not to mention a systemic bais on American, UK, and French Journals. Perhaps I might be persuaded that a list of dangerous cults is encylcopedic, with the critereon of dangerous being on a law enforcment agency's watch list. I am afraid though that list of purported cults is likley to get us into a trap where inorder to remain NPOV, we become utterly useless and unencyclopedic.--Tznkai 17:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think that this list is original research. On second thought I agree with Pjacobi that this may veers off into original research if we use each and every (fringe) source. So the sources have to be confined to clearly mainstream English articles, excl. among others opinion pieces by columnists. I however think that this is a list made purely by the POV of the media and sources. If this is not allowed, and may be it should not be allowed, then we should also delete several other articles and categories e.g. the List_of_people_widely_considered_eccentric Andries 20:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for this purported list or that list of eccentrics other than to be used as reference by those who wish to push a particular POV. I agree that List of people widely considered eccentric should also be put up for VfD. --AI 21:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andries most recent comment. Why are dutch sources being used where they label groups as sectes. In english "sect" is not simply synonymous with "cult" Why are media opinions that call groups "sectes" uses to attribute claims that those groups have been called "cults" The problem is not only original research, but "poor" research. How about a List of Wikipedia contributors who have engaged in bad research. :) --AI 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Followin the same reasoning here is another VfD candidate List of films that have been cited as being among the worst ever made, and List of controversial non-fiction books (that is not sourced, so it has a huge POV problem), and there must be far more lists and categories. Andries 11:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a fact that some organisations are branded 'cults' by others. A list of such organisations and movements is definitely needed. Many of the votes above seem to based on the validity of 'cult' as a concept. It might be a wrong concept but it still exists, and we can't pretend otherwise. The exact formatting and presentation of the information is debeatable, I think the current highly-sourced article is a vast improvement on what was there before (which was kept anyway). Morwen - Talk 21:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename into List of groups reported as cults Andries 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:You are ignoring all the points made as the reasons to delete this article. The problem is not with the title. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why are you leaping to the conclusion that those points are being ignored? Instead of, say, just being found wrong-headed and inadequate?  I know I, for one, don't believe that simply mentioning that a certain group has been accused of something by somebody to automatically be POV. AND NEITHER DO YOU.  A bit of the good ol' "Do as I say, not as I do", eh, Jossi?  A far cry from when you were fighting hard to keep that unproven accusation in an article without presenting the opposition, isn't it?  Let's see who else has found unproven accusations just fine and dandy when it's not the accusation of being a cult...  Ooooh, here's this little gem...  "And yes, John: If any other organization, controversial or not, (church, NRM, group, etc.) makes a substantial point of calling another organization or group a "hate group" and publish that in their literature, then definitively it should be mentioned in this article as well."  So an unproven accusation is perfectly fine to report on, as long as a "substantial point" is made of it, and the credibility of the source doesn't even matter!  So clearly, the argument that List of purported cults has to be deleted because it contains carefully sourced claims is not one swallowed by this chap, who argued passionately that Hate group must, for NPOV, contain an allegation that certain critics of a certain NRM are a hate group!  Oh, wait...  that was User:Zappaz, who is calling for the article's deletion...  You know, I take back what I said above.  I don't find your "points" presented for deletion of the article to be wrong-headed and inadequate.  I find them wrong-headed, inadequate and BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL.  I frankly call for the admin who tallies this vote to take the extreme bad faith being blatantly displayed by some of those voting "delete" into account.-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find your rethoric appalling and unbecoming. You are sending a very clear message to each and everyone of your fellow editors about your behavior in this project. Speaks for itself. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 16:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I find your shifting of the topic from "what principles do we practice on Wikipedia, and are the people who claim we should delete this article because of principle X actually adhering to principle X?" to "oooh! rhetoric!  bad!  look at the nasty rhetoric!  pay no attention to the double standard behind the curtain!" to send a "very clear message", too. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think that I am ignoring the problems. I thought about them and I think they have too little merit. May be we should remove the redirect from list of cults, list of purported cults, to list of groups reported as cults to get rid of, at least some, of the blacklisting idea. Frivolous classification by the media of a group as a cult will backfire on these media, I believe. Andries 08:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Backfire on the media? Yes, and pigs fly too. :) --≈ jossi ≈ 10:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally think and I think that I am not the only one that the Chines reaction to Falun Gong and the view of the German Federal Govt. that the tiny Scientology Curch with its extremely negative public image is a threat to the German democracy that has shown great stability during the last 50 years is paranoid and ridiculous and backfires on them. Scientology and Falun Gong may harm deeply involved members but that is a different mattter. Andries 11:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The biggest threat to any democracy is the most dangerous cult which is not even listed on this list: Al-Qaeda. Just because the media hasn't labelled them a cult. What do you personally think about that? --AI 12:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the media has called Al-Qaeda a cult. Feel free to add it. -Willmcw 12:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not true that Al-Qaeda has not been labelled a cult by the media. The Dutch Muslim broadcasting organization called Al-Qaeda a "sekte" Dutch for cult. Discussions about brainwashing, typically associated with the debates about cults, resurfaced in the debates about Al-Qaeda, rarely heard about since the great cult scare of the 1970s and the 1980s here in the Netherlands. Just yesterday 23-7-2005, the Volkskrant newspaper wrote about brainwashing related to the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on page 5. The list is work in progress. Andries 12:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Al-Qaeda was actually included on this list for quite a while, though it was removed from the list with this edit on April 11. --Modemac 17:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'm somewhat disappointed, that a lot of fellow editors voting here, seem not to have read the reason for deletion at the very top (and instead start quarreling about POV). If the question which media and government labels which organization a cult (in which meaning of the word "cult", preferably) is an area of active research on scholarly base, and results of this research can be quoted, then there would be no problem with putting up a list. But in the case to be decided here, the article contributors decided to take the research in their own hands. That's the problem. --Pjacobi 16:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment (reply to Pjacobi) Some scholars have documented that there are some groups that were or are generally considered cults by the media and the public. E.g. Saul Levine M.D. in his article Life in the cults published in the 1989 book edited by the psychiatrist Marc Galanter called Cults and new religious movements, publised by the American Psychiatric Association writes
 * "Groups that this author has heard called cults by concerned relatives of members have included Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jewry, Born Again Christians, Bahai, IBM, est, and Gestalt to name a few. For purposes of this chapter however, we will use as examples which there appears to be considerable unanimity. That is, these four - Hare krishna, the Unification Church, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission - have probably been held in less esteem by more people than most of the other groups combined [..]"
 * Andries 17:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Pjacobi, it sounds like what you are saying is that this article would avoid the "original research" problem you think you see if we simply included every single accusation ever from any source at all no matter how fringe -- that way we'd be doing no "original research" in trying to determine which claims have any credibility or notability, which is the objection you raised. The prohibition on "original research" is just that -- a prohibition on original research.  Looking at what others before you have said on the subject isn't original research, it's just research.  Weighing the significance of what others have said on the subject by factors such as credibility and notability doesn't make it original research, either, just still plain research.  As I've said, if we start misclassifying the sourcing of articles and the weighing of sources as "original research" there's little on Wikipedia we won't have to delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Antaeus, you know that we cannot included every single accusation ever from any source at all no matter how fringe, so you shouldn't assume, I'm proposing this. But it must be work outside the Wikipedia, summarizing and evaluating the vast area of all these who says what mess. To be done by academic scholars and published in a peer reviewed journal, preferably. --Pjacobi 17:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you proposed that. What I'm saying is that that is the logical outcome of what you are proposing; namely, that weighing and selecting and attributing sources, all of which are recommended practices on Wikipedia, should be reclassified as "original research" contrary to how that term has always been defined on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weighting, selecting and attributing of scholarly sources is typipal encyclopedic work. But weighting, selecting and attributing common use of language is research. --Pjacobi 19:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Pjacobi has a point, but I think that many lists and articles are based on the media whithout getting VfD'd for original research. To minimize the possible original research at least we should confine ourselves to English language mainstream media. Andries 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete There is nothing useful in this article which is based on an arbitrary definition applied in a speculative manner.--Fahrenheit451 22:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep However badly written designed (a problem which can be corrected), this page is still vital because of the nature of the topic. Sweetfreek 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This article will never be more than an exercise in namecalling, or a survey of namecalling. Do we have a List of purported cads? Why not? That's why we shouldn't have this article, either. --goethean ॐ 14:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: That would be correct -- if it were true that saying something is a "cult" is "never [anything] more" than namecalling. While many people like to claim exactly that as if it were true, all it takes to prove it untrue is to look at cult checklist.  These are professionals in government and in academia who are clearly using the word and the concept in an attempt to predict and to understand, not to namecall.  You may not agree with their theories, and that's fine.  You may have the POV that every scholar who ever entertained the notion that the theoretical construct of "cult" ever had any value has their head up their backside -- and that's a legitimate POV.  But to claim that no allegation that a group is a cult can ever be more than namecalling, and to call for deletion of this article based on that opinion, is to ask Wikipedia to endorse your POV above all those others.  We don't have a list of purported cads because no professional has ever tried to classify exactly what distinguishes a cad from a non-cad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The cult checklists — plural — are subjective, vague and contradictory. The cult checklists are not specific enough to objectively include some groups while excluding more mainstream ones. It is namecalling and an ideological weapon, not science.
 * As I've said before, you are completely entitled to your opinion that the science involved is bad. However, if you are claiming that there is no science involved, and that the word only exists so that purported experts can dress up namecalling -- would you care to explain why said purported namecallers would try to define criteria that could then be used to exclude groups from said namecalling?  The intent is clearly more than namecalling.  Your POV may be that that intent can never be realized, that there is something inherent in the word "cult" that prevents it from ever being used to designate a legitimate sociological concept.  But don't expect that Wikipedia has to endorse your POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * After looking at the list more closely, I am disgusted. Harmless groups like the Hare Krishnas, Christian Scientists, and Sathya Sai Baba are not distinguished from groups of murderers like Al Qaeda and the Manson Family. Recommend renaming article to List of religious groups that people don't like, or, even more accurately, List of religious groups disliked by people who we like. --goethean ॐ 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. This is what is a clear example of Guilt by association:Al-Qaeda is evil, and it is listed here, so group XYZ that is also listed must be evil', a fallacy abused by those in our society that are intolerant of non-conforming beliefs.  These non-conforming beliefs are being shamelessly targeted and blacklisted. Another example of intolerance dressed as NPOV.  ≈ jossi ≈ 17:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Some editors tried to get a separation between "deadly cults" and the rest, however other editors, including those voting in foavor of deletion, vetoed it. If you think that such a division is appropriate then you might add a note onthe article talk page. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't. I think that the whole article is an exercise in anti-religious sentiment and witch-hunting. Seperating the vicious murderers from those who merely hold beliefs that you dislike might be a good first step towards making it less obviously so. --goethean ॐ 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't dislike any of these groups. Please assume good faith. -Willmcw 21:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I have been observing this discussion from the sidelines, and what I see is that editors are missing the fact that this is a political ethical, and deeply personal discussion, not a POV vs. NPOV,  blacklisting/namecalling, original researrch or the like. This is all about the politics of the countercult/anti-cult (a very unlikely coalition of new leftists, evangelical Christian fundamentalists, and skeptics) vs. the politics of the moderate religious, the academia, and some open minded libertarians, are at the core. These politics are unlikely to disappear precisely because of the political act's ability to polarize issues, to disguise aspects of those issues which do not serve the various poles or positions. A huge amount of intellectual energy has been spent on defining (or more correctly, attempting to define) the word "cult". This discussion being yet another one in that cacophony of voices, is not unique or any different. Then, of course, there are the no less powerful arguments fueled by a deep personal agenda: apostates vs. new religions, rightist vs. leftists, and the wide gamut of strong opinions stirring the pot of any discussion about beliefs, God, human nature, freedom, liberty, and human rights. If one is to judge the related articles on mind control, brainwashing, cults, cult apologists, and the like, one will find the same political divide as in this discussion, and the same editors at each side of the battlefield. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia and its NPOV policy can move from utopia to reality: Accepting the politics involved will be a honest first step. The outcome of debates like this one, and the dismissal or acceptance of articles like this one into the Wikipedia fold, will undoubtedly shape the future and relevance of this encyclopedia. --38.119.107.70 03:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case I propose that we declare "no consensus" and move on. There is often no coming to terms when there is an emotional note to the facts in a debate. Haikupoet 03:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is an encyclopedic topic of general interest. The article may have to be renamed and/or reworded, but that is beside the point. Fact is, the word "cult" gets used (not by us, but demonstrably by others), and the question of who uses it to describe which organizations is inherently interesting. One may think that the article title is POV, but that only warrants a call for improvement, not deletion. There are many articles with seemingly POV titles (e.g. list of countries that are considered the greatest) and neutral, factual contents. This particular list clearly strives for accuracy and includes relevant disclaimers as well as a definition of its scope. That's more than can be said about other lists on controversial topics. --MarkSweep 19:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment those articles you mention are useless for an encyclopedia unless you think Wikipedia is a a propaganda tool. --AI 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: We are not comparing like with like. Read list of countries that are considered the greatest - it actually deals in verifiable and notable facts. So, in a manner does this article, but the fact that some journalist once called a certain group a cult, although verifiable, is not notable. There are so many definitions of 'cult' that anything might have been meant, and different things will have been meant, on each occaasion. To gather these disparate references together to create a list - creates a meaningless list. We might as well have a 'list of organizations at one time called bizzare' --Doc (?) 21:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a cult in my opinion and I am notable. :) --AI 01:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Useful list. Not inherently POV, since the list serves to explain who thinks these things and why in brief, while implicitly referring to the pages on the movements in question for details. Lord Bob 22:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Propaganda. The method for deciding on inclusion of groups in this list is original research. IMHO, use of the word purported to avoid List of cults is not good faith: Purported is vague and refers to a assumptions. The assumptions used are not necessarily from experts on religion and in many cases the opinions are from the media. --AI 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:86.135.71.113

title: User talk:86.135.71.113


text:
Talk:Ghost Lion

Should this page title be "Legend of the Ghost Lion" (as the game says on the title screen) or just "Ghost Lion" (as the cartridge- not sure about the box- says?) Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 13:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Belated, but the instruction manual also explicitly calls the game "Legend of the Ghost Lion", so there's evidence that was the intended title: https://www.digitpress.com/library/manuals/nes/Legend%20of%20the%20Ghost%20Lion.pdf - Wrassedragon (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

ホワイトライオン伝説 ピラミッドの彼方に - This may be the full title of the game. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ghost Lion


text: User talk:68.83.11.120

title: User talk:68.83.11.120


text:
User talk:Pugnare

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. El_C 14:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  14:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism, see this page. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This account and the account of User:Pugnavi (which is a sockpuppet of this account) have been blocked indefinitely for threatening Wikipedia:

It surprises me how fast you admins act when presented a vandal, but how indifferent you are to messy articles in dire need of cleanup. I wonder if the fast reflexes you applied when blocking me will also apply when shown an appallingly written article. I guess not. I even wonder if what I say has an effect on you, as it has not had one on many administrators, obsessed as they are with deleting, blocking, reverting, edit-warring, article moving, disputing, quarreling, and so on and so forth, etc. etc.

You pay attention to worthless vandals, who by the way do not need immediate attention, but not to popular articles (such as the new Harry Potter Bk. 6 and 7 articles), which need much more serious attention than annoying trolls disrupting unimportant matters.

This is a threat. You may choose to view it as such or as a friendly wake-up call from a user who has long been disillusioned by the apathetic dealings of the big-headed administrators, too proud to even look back at the activities they used to do. Once elected, what do they do? They do things irrelevant to the quality of articles, all because they think they are on a "higher" level than other "normal" users, even though this is not so. Before being elected, they work hard, real hard, cleaning up articles, adding new ones, things they cease to do once bestowed the title of "Administrator."

This is a threat. If you do not change and spread this word, I will personally make sure a virus is uploaded into one of the media files so that whoever opens it will get infected. Mark my words.

Think about it.

This is our only hope. Pugnavi 14:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC) (The foregoing was left as a comment on Kelly Martin's discussion page.) Kelly Martin 14:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pugnare


text: User talk:160.147.240.6

title: User talk:160.147.240.6


text: User talk:129.186.209.226

title: User talk:129.186.209.226


text:
You Can't Do That on Stage Anymore, Vol. 6

You Can't Do That on Stage Anymore, Vol. 6 is the last of six double-disc collection volumes of live performances by Frank Zappa recorded between 1970 and 1988. All of the material on Disc one has a sexual theme. Zappa used the monologue in "Is That Guy Kidding or What?" to ridicule Peter Frampton's album I'm in You with its double entendre title and pop pretensions. Disc two includes performances from Zappa's shows between 1976 and 1981 at the Palladium in New York City, as well as material like "The Illinois Enema Bandit" and "Strictly Genteel" that he frequently used as closing songs at concerts. It was released on October 23, 1992, under the label Rykodisc.

Track listing
All songs written, composed and arranged by Frank Zappa.

Personnel

 * Frank Zappa – conductor, main performer, guitar, vocals, synthesizer, producer
 * Mark Volman – vocals
 * Howard Kaylan – vocals
 * Lisa Popeil – vocals
 * Denny Walley – slide guitar, vocals
 * Ike Willis – guitar, vocals
 * Adrian Belew – guitar, vocals (tracks 2, 8, 10, 32)
 * Ray White – guitar, vocals
 * Warren Cuccurullo – guitar
 * Steve Vai – guitar
 * Mike Keneally – guitar, synthesizer, vocals
 * Bobby Martin – keyboards, vocals
 * Bob Harris – keyboards, vocals
 * Peter Wolf – keyboards
 * Allan Zavod – keyboards
 * George Duke – keyboards
 * Tommy Mars – keyboards
 * Ian Underwood – keyboards, alto saxophone
 * Lady Bianca – keyboards, vocals on "Wind up Workin' in a Gas Station"
 * Patrick O'Hearn – bass guitar
 * Jeff Simmons – bass guitar
 * Arthur Barrow – bass guitar
 * Scott Thunes – bass guitar
 * Tom Fowler – bass guitar
 * Ralph Humphrey – drums
 * Vinnie Colaiuta – drums
 * Aynsley Dunbar – drums
 * Terry Bozzio – drums
 * Chad Wackerman – drums, electronic percussion
 * Ed Mann – electric percussion, percussion, backing vocals, marimba
 * Paul Carman – soprano saxophone, alto saxophone, baritone saxophone
 * Napoleon Murphy Brock – saxophone, vocals
 * Albert Wing – tenor saxophone
 * Michael Brecker – tenor saxophone on "Black Napkins"
 * Kurt McGettrick – baritone saxophone, contrabass clarinet, bass saxophone
 * Walt Fowler – flugelhorn, synthesizer, trumpet
 * L. Shankar – violin
 * Jean-Luc Ponty – violin
 * George Douglas – engineer
 * Bob Stone – engineer


text:
Daina Taimiņa

Daina Taimiņa (born August 19, 1954) is a Latvian mathematician, retired adjunct associate professor of mathematics at Cornell University, known for developing a way of modeling hyperbolic geometry with crocheted objects.

Education and career
Taimiņa received all of her formal education in Riga, Latvia, where in 1977 she graduated summa cum laude from the University of Latvia and completed her graduate work in Theoretical Computer Science (with thesis advisor Prof. Rūsiņš Mārtiņš Freivalds) in 1990. As one of the restrictions of the Soviet system at that time, a doctoral thesis was not allowed to be defended in Latvia, so she defended hers in Minsk, receiving the title of Candidate of Sciences. This explains the fact that Taimiņa's doctorate was formally issued by the Institute of Mathematics of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. After Latvia regained independence in 1991, Taimiņa received her higher doctoral degree (doktor nauk) in mathematics from the University of Latvia, where she taught for 20 years.

Daina Taimiņa joined the Cornell Math Department in December 1996.

Combining her interests in mathematics and crocheting, she is one of 24 mathematicians and artists who make up the Mathemalchemy Team.

Hyperbolic crochet
While attending a geometry workshop at Cornell University about teaching geometry for university professors in 1997, Taimiņa was presented with a fragile paper model of a hyperbolic plane, made by the professor in charge of the workshop, David Henderson (designed by geometer William Thurston. ) It was made «out of thin, circular strips of paper taped together». She decided to make more durable models, and did so by crocheting them. The first night after first seeing the paper model at the workshop she began experimenting with algorithms for a crocheting pattern, after visualising hyperbolic planes as exponential growth.

The following fall, Taimiņa was scheduled to teach a geometry class at Cornell. She was determined to find what she thought was the best possible way to teach her class. So while she, together with her family, spent the preceding summer at a tree farm in Pennsylvania, she also spent her days by the pool watching her two daughters learning how to swim whilst simultaneously making a classroom set of models of the hyperbolic plane. This was the first ever made from yarn and crocheting.

The models made a significant difference to her students, according to themselves. They said they "liked the tactile way of exploring hyperbolic geometry" and that it helped them acquire experiences that helped them move on in said geometry. This was what Taimina herself had been missing when first learning about hyperbolic planes and is also what has made her models so effective, as these models have later become the preferred way of explaining hyperbolic space within geometry.

In a TedxRiga by Taimiņa she tells the story of how the need for a visual, intuitive way of understanding hyperbolic planes spurred her toward inventing crocheted geometry models. In the talk she also gives a basic introduction to hyperbolic geometry using her models as well as rendering some of the negative responses she initially received from some who viewed crocheting as unfitting in mathematics.

In the foreword to Taimiņa's book Crocheting Adventures with Hyperbolic Planes mathematician William Thurston, the designer of the paper model of hyperbolic planes, called Taimiņa's models «deceptively interesting». He attributed much of his view on them to how they make possible a tactile, non-symbolic, cognitively holistic way of understanding the highly abstract and complex part of mathematics non-euclidean geometry, is.

Taimiņa has led several workshops at Cornell University for college geometry instructors together with professor David Henderson (of the aforementioned 1997 workshop and who later became her husband). Crocheted mathematical models later appeared in three geometry textbooks they wrote together, of which the most popular is Experiencing Geometry: Euclidean and non-Euclidean with History. In 2020 Taimiņa published 4th edition of this book as open source Experiencing Geometry

An article about Taimiņa's innovation in New Scientist was spotted by the Institute For Figuring, a small non-profit organisation based in Los Angeles, and she was invited to speak about hyperbolic space and its connections with nature to a general audience which included artists and movie producers. Taimiņa's initial lecture and following other public presentations sparked great interest in this new tactile way of exploring concepts of hyperbolic geometry, making this advanced topic accessible to wide audiences. Originally creating purely mathematical models, Taimiņa soon became popular as a fiber artist and public presenter for general audiences of ages five and up. In June 2005, her work was first shown as art in an exhibition "Not The Knitting You Know" at Eleven Eleven Sculpture Space, an art gallery in Washington, D.C. Since then she has participated regularly in various shows in galleries in US, UK, Latvia, Italy, Belgium, Ireland, Germany. Her artwork is in the collections of several private collectors, colleges and universities, and has been included in the American Mathematical Model Collection of the Smithsonian Museum, Cooper–Hewitt, National Design Museum, and Institut Henri Poincaré.

Her work and its far-flung influence has received wide interest in media. It has been written about in 'Knit Theory' in Discover magazine and in The Times, explaining how a hyperbolic plane can be crocheted by increasing the number of stitches: "For example, adding an extra stitch in the second line for every five stitches in the first. And for every five stitches in the second line, adding an extra one in the third. The number of stitches increases at an exponential rate. As the lines are longer, but joined together, the material quickly starts to fold in interesting ways." Margaret Wertheim interviewed Daina Taimiņa and David Henderson for Cabinet Magazine Later, based on Taimiņa's work, the Institute For Figuring published a brochure "A Field Guide to Hyperbolic Space". In 2005 the IFF decided to incorporate Taimiņa's ideas and approach of explaining hyperbolic space in their mission of popularizing mathematics, and curated an exhibition at Machine Project gallery, which was the subject of a piece in the Los Angeles Times.

Taimiņa's way of exploring hyperbolic space via crochet and connections with nature, combatting math phobia, was adapted by Margaret Wertheim in her talks and became highly successful in the IFF-curated Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef project.

Books
Taimiņa's book "Crocheting Adventures with Hyperbolic Planes" (A K Peters, Ltd., 2009, ISBN 978-1-56881-452-0) won the 2009 Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year. It also won the 2012 Euler Book Prize of the Mathematical Association of America.

Taimiņa also contributed to David W. Henderson's book Differential Geometry: A Geometric Introduction (Prentice Hall, 1998) and, with Henderson, wrote Experiencing Geometry: Euclidean and Non-Euclidean with History (Prentice Hall, 2005).

title: Daina Taimiņa


text:
Embassy of Japan, Ottawa

The Embassy of Japan in Ottawa (在カナダ日本国大使館 Zai Kanada Nihon-koku Taishikan; Ambassade du Japon au Canada) is the diplomatic mission of Japan in Canada. Since 1978 the chancery has been located at 255 Sussex Drive near the Lester B. Pearson Building in Ottawa, Ontario. The ambassadorial residence is at Waterstone (Alan Keefer, architect, built 1928-31), one of Ottawa's largest mansions in Rockcliffe Park. Japan first opened a consulate in Vancouver in 1889 and the embassy opened in 1928. With the outbreak of war, the Japanese diplomats were expelled in 1941 and the embassy was not reopened until 1951. The embassy today also has consulates in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary.

The current ambassador is Kanji Yamanouchi (山野内 勘二 Yamanouchi Kanji).

title: Embassy of Japan, Ottawa


text:
Talk:Derby Tri Junct railway station

Chevin - Nice article - perhaps just a little too enthusiastic for its subject to be truly NPOV? Bob Linuxlad

People, perhaps, don't know much about Derby's history. I've seen text books that write as if Cromford is close to Manchester, for instance and, of course, Nottingham is a much bigger city. I felt it necessary to explain why: Chevin 18:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Derby investors had money burning holes in their pockets
 * Why they needed transport
 * Why the railway, compared with Nottingham investors relative lack of interest. See Midland Counties Railway

Castle Fields
There is some confusion as to the location of Castle Fields. Pixton suggests an original proposal was the station to be "nearer the town centre at Castle Fields, yet most writers record the present site as Castle Fields, indeed the National Heritage has the North Midlands address as Castle Fields. Today the Main Centre, part of the Eagle Centre, is also known as Castle Fields, and the original Castle, which disappeared just after the Norman Conquest was on what later became Cockpit Hill. On the other hand, Burdett's map of 1791 shows Castle Fields as a house in the area of what is now Liversage Street. I would imagine that it was originally a farm of that name. Castle Ward extends over this area, though oddly, the station is in Litchurch Ward. Chevin 11:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Earlier Station to the South
In the first attempt at this article, I included a rumour that the station was originally further south, but I couldn't find any confirmation, nor did it seem likely. I have more recently found a document by the Derbyshire Archaeological Society suggesting that there was such a station - a temporary arrangement in 1839 by the Brirmingham And Derby Junction Railway. Chevin 08:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Castlefields
I've at last managed to sort out the problem with Castlefields.Chevin 16:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Designer
My copy of Pevsner (Buildings of England, Derbyshire, 2nd edition, 1978, edited by Williamson) says of Midland Station 'Incorporated into the building is the tower of Francis Thompson's celebrated Trijunct Station of 1839-41, built jointly for 3 companies. ... Anyone know if it's still there after the recent mods?
 * There were two towers, one at each end. What Pevsner must be talking about is after the refurbishment of the booking hall and the addition by the Midland of the porte-cochere at the front(I think that what its called,) like Nottingham and Leicester. However since the 1990 rebuild it's all gone. 16:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Castlefields (again)
I have finally found good information. Castlefields was an estate extending from the present Castlefields in the Eagle Centre out to Litchurch parish. Hence the station was, after all, built in Castlefields, but not nearer the town as some literature suggests. Chevin 07:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Derby Tri Junct railway station


text:
Talk:You Can't Do That on Stage Anymore, Vol. 6

Fair use rationale for Image:You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore, Vol. 6.jpg
File:You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore, Vol. 6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
Sati Beg

Sati Beg ( 1316–1345) was an Ilkhanid princess, the sister of Il-Khan Abu Sa'id (r. 1316–1333). She was the consort of amir Chupan (1319–1327), Il-Khan Arpa (r. 1335–36), and Il-Khan Suleiman (r. 1339–1343). In 1338–39, she was briefly the Ilkhanid khatun (queen regnant) during internal conflicts (and fragmentation), appointed by a Chobanid faction led by Hassan Kuchak.

Life
She was born as the daughter of Öljaitü and his Khongirad wife Eltuzmish Khatun. Upon her brother's accession in 1316, Sati Beg was betrothed to the amir Chupan, one of the most powerful individuals in the Ilkhanid court. They were wed on 6 September 1319; their marriage produced a son, Surgan. When Chupan and Abu Sa'id came into conflict in 1327, Sati Beg was returned to the Ilkhan. Chupan was executed that same year at Abu Sa'id's insistence; Sati Beg and Surgan were spared.

Reign
Following Abu Sa'id's death in 1335, the Ilkhanate began to disintegrate. By 1336, Sati Beg and Surgan had taken the side of Arpa Ke'un, Sati Beg herself marrying him. However, after his death, they joined forces with the founder of the Jalayirid dynasty, Hasan Buzurg. After the latter seized control of western Persia, Surgan was made governor of Karabakh (in modern Azerbaijan), where he and his mother moved to. However, when a grandson of Chupan, Hasan Kucek, defeated Hasan Buzurg in July 1338, Sati Beg and Surgan defected to his camp. Taking advantage of her family ties, Hasan Kucek raised her to the Ilkhanid throne in July or August of that year. Her viziers were also from famous families in Iran. Her nominal authority only extended to the Chobanid domains of northwestern Persia.

Sati Beg issued coins using the title sultan or sultana.

Hasan Buzurg, who still controlled southwestern Persia and Iraq, requested the assistance of another claimant of the Ilkhanid throne named Togha Temur. The latter invaded the Chobanid lands in early 1339. Hasan Kucek, however, promised Sati Beg's hand in marriage to him in exchange for an alliance. This proved, however, to be a ruse; the intent was merely to alienate Hasan Buzurg from Togha Temur. The Jalayirids withdrew their support, and Togha Temur was forced to retreat without gaining Sati Beg. Meanwhile, Hasan Kucek was growing suspicious of Sati Beg and her son. Realizing that she was too valuable to be removed completely, he deposed her and then forced her to marry his new candidate for the throne, Suleiman Khan.

Later life
Hasan Kucek was murdered late in 1343; Sati Beg's son Surgan found himself competing for control of the Chobanid lands with the late ruler's brother Malek Asraf and his uncle Yagi Basti. When Malek Asraf defeated him, he fled to his mother and stepfather. The three of them then formed an alliance, but when Hasan Buzurg decided to withdraw the support he promised, the plan fell apart, and they fled to Diyarbakr. Surgan was defeated again in 1345 by Malek Asraf and they fled to Anatolia. Coinage dating from 1342/1343 in Hesn Kayfa and Arzan (in Georgia) (dated 1345) in Sati Beg's name; this is the last trace of her. Surgan moved from Anatolia to Baghdad, where he was eventually executed by Hasan Buzurg; Sati Beg may have suffered the same fate, but this is unknown.

title: Sati Beg


text:
Suit (album)

Suit is the fourth studio album by American rapper Nelly. It was intended to be released on August 17, 2004, before being delayed and released on September 13, 2004, by Universal Records. Production for the album was handled by several producers, including the Neptunes, Jazze Pha, Doe, AHM, Jayson "Koko" Bridges, Kuya Productions, Soulshock and Karlin, Ryan Bowser, Big Boi and Beat Bullies. Released in conjunction with Sweat, Nelly intended to release a single album before conceptualizing and releasing two albums simultaneously, both of which would contrast each other's themes. Nelly characterized Sweat as "more up-tempo" and "energetic" while describing Suit as more of "a grown-up and sexy vibe [...] it's more melodic".

The album produced three singles: "My Place", "Over and Over" and "'N' Dey Say". Its lead single, "My Place", was a commercial success, topping the New Zealand, Australian and UK single charts, becoming Nelly's second number one on the former and latter charts. It peaked at number four on the US Billboard Hot 100. "Over and Over" featuring country singer Tim McGraw was also a success, peaking at number three on the Hot 100, and topping several charts worldwide, including the Irish, Australian and UK Singles Charts. "My Place" and "Over and Over" were certified gold and platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), for shipments of 500,000 and one million copies, respectively. Suit final single, "'N' Dey Say", achieved moderate chart success, peaking at number sixty-four on the Hot 100 and number six on the UK Singles Chart.

Suit was generally well received by music critics, who compared it with Sweat, praising both album's contrasting themes and musical content, though with some criticism also targeted towards their content, in regards to inconsistencies. Suit topped the US Billboard 200 chart in its opening week, selling 396,000 copies, becoming Nelly's third consecutive US number-one album. It went on to be certified three times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), for shipments of three million copies. The album was nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Rap Album at the 47th Grammy Awards, losing to Kanye West's The College Dropout.

Background
While recording material for his third studio album, Nelly had his intention of producing one album. Songs were being recorded at a steady pace, with Nelly composing more ideas, to which he established the idea of two albums released simultaneously to house all the tracks. On April 27, 2004, Nelly's representative initially described the upcoming albums as thematically dissimilar, "one is more melodic and party-oriented in the vein of records like "E.I." and "Tip Drill", while the other was described as having a "harder edge". Nelly would release singles accompanied by music videos from both albums. Talking to MTV News, Nelly went on to describe the differences between both albums; their titles of Sweat and Suit were announced on May 27, 2004. He noted Sweat as "more up-tempo" and "energetic", while characterizing Suit as more of "a grown-up and sexy vibe [...] it's more melodic".

Release
Sweat and Suit were intended to be released on August 17, 2004, but was pushed back and released on September 14 in the United States, Canada and Japan. Suit was released on September 13, 2004 in the United Kingdom and Germany.

Composition
The lead single "My Place" interlopes composition from "Isn't It a Shame" by girl group Labelle and Randy DeBarge's 1982 "I Like It". It also samples elements of the Del-Vikings' 1957 soul ballad "Come Go with Me", which Jason Birchmeier of Allmusic recognized as a large influence to the song. Bordering between the genres of hip-hop and R&B, the song is primarily an "adult-oriented Southern-tinged hip-hop love song," with guitars, synthesizers, and "mixed high" and "mixed low" beats. Other tracks that bare similar characteristics to "My Place" include "Paradise" (which also utilizes a "finger-picked guitar" throughout), "Pretty Toes" and "She Don't Know My Name". Birchmeier declared "My Place" as the successor to Nelly's 2002 "Dilemma". "Over and Over" is a break-up ballad, that combines Nelly’s sedate side with Tim McGraw’s "twanging" guitar and vocals, with McGraw providing an overdubbed hook. "'N' Dey Say" samples Spandau Ballet’s 1983 "True"; lyrically, the track and "Paradise" both engage in the themes of "hope and the promise of something better". "Nobody Knows" featuring Anthony Hamilton was chosen as the "most sonically inventive track" on Suit by Todd Burns of Stylus Magazine, who depicted its "orchestral stabs" and MIDI strings, which "interweave uneasily".

Singles
"My Place" featuring Jaheim was released on July 20, 2004 as the album's lead single. It written by Nelly, Eldra DeBarge, Etterlene Jordan, Kenneth Gamble, Leon Huff, Randy Edelman, William DeBarge, Jaheim Hoagland, Dorian Moore and produced by Doe. The song topped both the New Zealand and Australian singles charts, becoming Nelly's first number one on the former chart, and his second on the latter, following "Dilemma". "My Place" remained on the charts for fifteen and thirteen weeks, respectively. The song became his second number one on the UK Singles Chart on the week of September 11, 2004, again following "Dilemma". On the US Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs charts, it peaked at number four. "My Place" was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Recorded Music NZ, for shipments of 500,000 and 7,500 units, respectively. It was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), for shipments of 70,000 copies.

"Over and Over" featuring country singer Tim McGraw was released as the second single on October 12, 2004. It was written by Nelly, Jayson "KoKo" Bridges, James D. Hargrove and Samuel McGraw and produced by Bridges. The song achieved commercial success, topping several charts, including the Irish Singles Chart, Australian Singles Chart and UK Singles Chart. It is the second single from the album to top the latter and former charts, following "My Place". The song remained at number one in Australia for five consecutive weeks, and stayed atop in the UK for one week. "Over and Over" peaked within the top five on the New Zealand Singles Chart and the Hot 100, Nelly's second top five hit on the Hot 100 from the album. "Over and Over" was certified two times platinum by the ARIA, denoting shipments of 140,000 copies. The RIAA awarded the song with a single platinum certification, for shipments of one million copies.

"'N' Dey Say" was released as the album's third and final single on May 23, 2005. The song was written by Nelly, Jayson Bridges and G. Kemp and produced by the former. It achieved its highest peak of number three on the Belgian Singles Chart (Flanders); it reached number six on the UK Singles Chart and number eight on the Belgian Singles Chart (Wallonia). The song reached the top twenty on the Irish Singles Chart, Finnish Singles Chart, New Zealand Singles Chart and Australian Singles Chart. "'N' Dey Say" peaked at number sixty-four on the Hot 100, achieving moderate chart success in other territories.

Critical reception
Suit received generally mixed reviews from music critics. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album has received an average score of 62, based on 16 reviews, which indicates "generally favorable reviews". Giving the album an A−, Entertainment Weekly David Browne lauded Suit, writing that Nelly "sounds convincing and appealing" throughout the album. Browne went on to further praise specific songs including the "summer-breezy" "Play it Off" and the "cozy hip-hop soul" housed "In My Life". RapReviews.com's Steve Juon presented a similar response, giving the album a nine-out-of-ten rating. Juon depicted Suit as being more formal compared to Sweat which takes creative risks. He praised the overall material quality within both Suit and Sweat, as well as their contrasting themes, going on to note the albums as "one of the best double albums" in hip-hop. Jason Birchmeier of Allmusic was hesitant of the simultaneous release of two album's, as they may suffer from being one dimensional, but liked the musical content within both Suit and Sweat, noting the former's to be more diversified. Birchmeier summed up Suit as "a brief album with absolutely no filler", describing its tracks as "fun" and "catchy."

In a mixed review, Jason King of The Village Voice wrote that tracks on Suit have the "sole intention of ending up as your next ringtone". King noted some songs to "crumble" due to their "simplistic approach", while tracks like "Flap Your Wings" as "addictive". Stylus Magazine's Todd Burns praised several tracks on Suit, including "Over and Over" and "Nobody Knows", praising the former for combining Nelly's sedate side with Tim McGraw’s guitar and vocals. Despite this, Burns saw the album's highlights as "minimal at best", and closed his review disapproving of the album's mainstream approach. In a negative review, The Guardian Alexis Petridis showed distaste for both Nelly's vocal technique and Suit tracks. Petridis described the album's songs as "gummy R&B ballads", while noting Nelly's egotism to overtake his abilities as an artist. Suit was nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Rap Album at the 47th Grammy Awards, losing to Kanye West's The College Dropout.

Commercial performance
In its opening week, Suit debuted atop the US Billboard 200 chart, selling 396,000 copies, becoming Nelly's third consecutive US number-one album following Country Grammar (2000) and Nellyville (2002). On the same day of Suit release, Nelly's Sweat, released in conjunction with the former album, debuted at number 2 on the Billboard 200, selling 342,000 copies. The combination of both album's opening figures of 737,000 surpasses that of Nellyville, which debuted with 714,000 copies sold. With the debuts, Nelly became the first act to achieve the feat of obtaining album's number one and number 2 on the US Top R&B/Hip Hop Albums chart simultaneously. He is the second artist, following American hard rock band Guns N' Roses, to achieve the same feat but on the Billboard 200 chart. Guns N' Roses attained the accomplishment in 1991 with Use Your Illusion II and Use Your Illusion I, with the former debuting at number one and the latter at number 2, selling 770,000 and 685,000 copies, respectively. The following week of Suit release, it fell to number 2 on the Billboard 200 chart, selling 160,000 copies, being replaced by Green Day's American Idiot (2004). In its third week, Suit sold 118,000 copies, dropping to number 5. In the album's fourth week of release, its sales increased to 122,000 copies, the only album of the week to have its sales rise; it sustained its position at number 5. In its fifth week, Suit sales further increased to 144,000 units, gaining the title of Greatest Gainer, and rising from number 5 to number 3 on the chart. The album's sales continued to increase in its sixth week of release, selling 153,000 copies, moving from number 3 to number 2. It had passed one million copies in sales in the US that week. On November 1, 2004, Suit went on to be certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), denoting shipments of 500,000 copies. On January 19, 2005, the album was certified three times platinum by the RIAA, for shipments of three million copies.

On the Canadian Albums Chart, Suit debuted at number one, becoming Nelly's first album to top the chart in the country. The album debuted at number 6 on the New Zealand Albums Chart on the week of September 20, 2004, remaining at number 6 for two weeks, and dropping out of the chart after thirteen weeks. On the Australian Albums Chart, Suit reached at number 7, remaining on the chart for five weeks. Along with Sweat, Suit is Nelly's third consecutive album to peak within the top ten of the latter three charts. The album has been certified gold by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) and Recorded Music NZ, for shipments of 35,000 and 7,500 copies, respectively. The album reached the top ten on the UK Albums Chart and German Albums Chart, at number 8. It has been certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), for shipments of 300,000 copies, on May 20, 2005. Suit peaked at number 11 on the Swiss Albums Chart on the week of September 26, 2004, dropping off the chart after eight weeks. It remained on the Dutch Albums Chart for seven weeks, debuting and peaking at number 17. The album was less successful in other territories, charting within the top thirty on the Austrian Albums Chart and Norwegian Albums Chart at number 29. Suit reached at number 34 on the Swedish Albums Chart, number 43 on the Belgian Albums Chart (Flanders) and number 72 on the French Albums Chart. The album's lowest charting position was on the Belgian Albums Chart (Wallonia), at number 83. It remained on it for three weeks.

Track listing
Notes
 * "My Place" contains a portion of composition from "Isn't It a Shame" by girl group Labelle and Randy DeBarge's 1982 "I Like It". It samples elements of the Del-Vikings' 1957 "Come Go with Me".
 * "'N' Dey Say" samples Spandau Ballet’s 1983 "True".

Personnel
Credits adapted from AllMusic.

 * Ahm – producer
 * Avery Storm – main personnel, primary artist, vocoder
 * The Beat Bullies – producer
 * Big Boi – producer
 * Matt Brauss – bass
 * Jayson Bridges – drums, keyboards, percussion, producer
 * Sandy Brummels – art direction
 * Chris Carmouche – engineer
 * Andrew Coleman – audio engineer, engineer
 * Jermaine Dupri – producer
 * Michael Eleopoulos – assistant
 * Brian Frye – engineer
 * Richard "Rip" Gager – guitar
 * Earl Gaynor – producer
 * Chris Gehringer – mastering
 * Robert Gerongco – producer
 * Sam Gerongco – producer
 * Anthony Hamilton – guest artist, main personnel, primary artist, vocals
 * James D. "Sted Fast" II Hargrove – guitar, producer
 * John Horesco IV – assistant
 * Ronald Isley – main personnel, primary artist, vocals
 * Jaheim – guest artist, main personnel, primary artist, rap
 * Jazze Pha – audio production, main personnel, primary artist, producer, rap, various instruments
 * Kim Moore Johnson – vocals (background)
 * Rajinder Kala – congas

 * Karlin – producer
 * Chip Karpells – assistant, assistant engineer, mixing assistant
 * Debra Killings – bass
 * Kuya Brothers – producer
 * Kevin Law – engineer
 * Bryan Loss – drums
 * LROC – producer
 * Dan "Thunda Dan" Marshal – engineer, guitar
 * Mase – guest artist, main personnel, primary artist, rap
 * Brandon "B Don" Matthews – engineer
 * Tim McGraw – guest artist, main personnel, primary artist, vocals
 * Tadd Mingo – assistant
 * Carl Nappa – audio engineer, engineer
 * Nelly – executive producer, main personnel, primary artist, rap
 * The Neptunes – audio production, producer
 * Jared Nugent – assistant, assistant engineer
 * Onion – guitar
 * Shorty B. – bass, guitar
 * Snoop Dogg – guest artist, main personnel, primary artist, rap
 * Soulshock – producer
 * Joe Spix – art direction, design
 * T.I. – guest artist, main personnel, primary artist, rap
 * Phil Tan – mixing
 * Richard Travali – mixing
 * Serge Tsai – engineer
 * James White – photography
 * Pharrell Williams – main personnel, primary artist, vocals

title: Suit (album)