text:
Talk:Mordechai Vanunu/Archive 2

Specific changes discussion
I hope you can participate Xed so we can resolve the disagreement. I suspect you know more than me, so I would welcome the discussion so I can learn something. I sure won't learn if you just blow me off though.

Some specifics:
 * Abduction not arrest

Governments do not abduct their own citizens, except in science fiction. The Mossad is entitled under Israeli law to arrest any citizen anywhere for breaches of Israeli law.

 * See abduction, paragraph 5, which disputes this statement. - Amgine 16:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you mean kidnapping instead? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Abduction or kidnapping, the Mossad violated the Italian law (or whatever international treaty) that protects anyone who is currently under Italian jurisdiction. That means it was not legal arrest. -- Toytoy 22:18, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a legal arrest by the Mossad of an Israeli citizen and was found to be legal by Israeli courts. Is there something we're missing here? Whether one disagrees or not, and there are plenty on both sides seemingly, he was not kidnapped as defined by any dictionary. Nor abducted. He was arrested, as an Israeli citizen for serious breaches of Israeli law, as determined by the Israelis, not by us. He was convicted by the highest Israeli court and don't think has ever seriously disputed the facts underlying the charges. So whether Vanunu is a freedom fighter or a bad guy is not the point, as an Israeli he is subject to Israeli law obviously so to call his arrest a kidnapping is just wrong as a question of fact. Like saying Scott Peterson was kidnapped by the authorities and is being held hostage. It's crazy stuff. Deuxmachina2 02:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it's not legal to arrest people on foreign soil even if they are citizens in your country. You can only legally arrest people in your own country. They would have to ask Italy to arrest him and send him back to Israel. I would say that the word abducted could be used in this situation as well as arrest. Jeltz 14:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you guys are arguing over whether it was illegal in some sort of transnational sense. The Mossad may have not violated Israeli law, but they probably violated Italian law. I do not know if there are international laws relating to such things, and whether both Italy and Israel are participants in said laws, etc. Point is, "legality" is defined by the authority in question. The question is figuring out which laws we are talking about here and what sense of "legality" one means. I think the nature of the arrest (foreign soil, secret operatives, drugs) makes it a good candidate for the word "abduction," personally. --Fastfission 22:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Comparisons with Ossietsky and Arnold

Rather than have both, I believe the article should have neither. They Ossiestky comparison is especially inappropriate Deuxmachina 14:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I recommend you explain in greater detail why you think this comparison is "especially inappropriate". Jayjg 15:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * He explained before that the comparison unfairly compares Israeli government to Nazi government (as it is done many times by certain critics of Israel) --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * To a non-Israeli third-party, I think Carl von Ossietzky had done more than Vanunu in fighting government misconduct. However, they are all serving human needs. As to the "Benedict Arnold" accusation, it is obviously a joke to me. A more relevant case could have been Chang Hsien I (張憲義), a less-known man who exposed Taiwan's nuke plan to the U.S. in 1987 (I guess). He's now hiding somewhere in the U.S. -- Toytoy 22:18, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate and even offensive given Ossietzky was an anti-Nazi pacifist. It seems many of Israel's opponents love to call or infer it's a Nazi state or somehow uses the same tactics as Nazis because it defends its borders and its citizens. I don't agree with the comparison. And I doubt any sensible person does. To compare as Toytoy seems to Government misconduct between the Nazis and Israel is really wrong. The Israelis are not without sin clearly but they are not guilty of genocide. I would be more comfortable with deleting all comparisons which are both unsourced anyway. Deuxmachina2 02:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ossietzky was opposed to the politics of his own state and this was before National Socialism. He was convicted of high treason and espionage in 1931. Anyway, the National Socialists were not guilty of any genocides when Carl von Ossietzky lived. In fact, the Zionist regime in Israel is much worse than the National Socialist regime was in his lifetime. I understand that Israelis are ashamed of that regime.

 * As someone who understands why comparison of Israeli government to Nazi government is an insult to Israelis, I think the comparison should be replaced (or removed). Comparing him to Nelson Mandela would be less of an insult to Israeli and some Jewish readers. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Eichmann

Eichmann was arrested by The Mossad in similar circumstances outside of Israel, there was no further comparison made. As serious as Vanunu's crimes were under Israeli law, they were not comparable to Eichmann obviously.
 * I agree. If Vanunu's crime and conviction counts, then George Washington and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, maybe the holocaust victims were all convicted criminals. -- Toytoy 22:18, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Vanunu worked in a secret government lab. Got the sack. Then blabbed the secrets. Imagine a similar circumstance in the US. His feet would not touch the ground on his way to 20 years in prison. I wish Israel wouldn't have nukes, like I wish they didn't exist anywhere, but it's a fact of life unfortunately. Israel's possession of nukes is just as unfortunate as the Russian or American possession of them. The double standards people bring to the Israel debate shine through don't they? Deuxmachina2 02:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Vanunu's secrets were not the sort of thing that are useful for enemies of the state to know in attacking Israel or making their own weapons (he is not like Klaus Fuchs, for example), they are secrets relating to the existence of weapons. Which is to say: you are framing this as being espionage, whereas one might more usefully see it as whistle-blowing. Both involve transferring secret information, but the ultimate aims and purposes are quite different, as well as the use of the data. In the USA, giving away "secrets" is seen as a traitorous thing, undoubtly. But whistle-blowing is usually seen as a virtuous thing. It's an important frame to acknowledge when trying to write NPOV about something like this.--Fastfission 22:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * According to MFA he did actually release important security information which labels the whole thing as espionage. Even if the Ministry is not correct, he still released pictures made inside the facility and helped to determine the capability of Israeli nuclear arms. This capability information can be used by Israel's enemies against it (no country wants to give exact information about the capability of its forces). --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 23:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, the MFA site is down at the moment so I can't really comment on what they say or do not say. But my point was more a matter of framing: the Israeli government sees it as espionage, the supporters of Vanunu see it was whistle blowing. Depending on which model you have for it, of course you will either find Vanunu's punishment to be understandable or oppressive. It also changes drastically who you view Vanunu as being analogous to. In the article, it would be easy to have a section which contrasts the two viewpoints without taking either one of them fully (i.e. under the heading of "Controversy" or something along those lines). The basic facts of Vanunu are represented fairly well in this article, in my opinion/knowledge of them, what is missing is a real explanation of his cultural relevance (why some people love him, why some people hate him). --Fastfission 02:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The MFA site works for me now but just in case I mirrored the article. In any case, I don't see how the definition of Vanunu's actions as "espionage" is a POV statement. It's like saying that capital punishment is not "killing" because it's done with just cause. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 05:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nobel Peace Prize

It was POV not to explain that the nominations for the Nobel were coming from anti-Israel groups trying to make a political point. It had hitherto sounded like it was the Nobel organization giving him some recognition. That's not the way they work.

Deuxmachina 14:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Suggestions for articles contents should not be taken seriously if they are from sockpuppets. - Xed 14:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed you won't participate in the Talk process. Let me know if you change your mind. Deuxmachina 15:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I won't discuss an article with such an obvious sockpuppet - Xed 15:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't let Xed's recalcitrance discourage you; the purpose of the Talk: page is to gain consensus for all edits with all editors (not just Xed), so I encourage you to continue. If there are other edits you have made, or POV sections of the article you wish to highlight, please bring them here as well.  Also note that those who do not engage in meaningful Talk: page discussion give implied consent to any edits. Jayjg 15:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nominations for the Nobel prize may be made by anyone, and who did the nominating is not revealed by the Nobel committee. This is a specious argument because the author could not know all the persons or organizations who nominated Mr. Vanunu, and so could not have given attribution for the nomination. Also, the claim anti-Israel is unsubstantiated and would undoubtedly be contested. - Amgine 16:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion: The Nobel Peace Prize nomination may be notable, but it's not so very notable it rates a mention in the intro. (Getting the prize might be; being nominated clearly isn't.) I suggest it be moved to the 'Prison' section, probably just above the honorary doctorate, once the article's been unprotected - David Gerard 18:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's a very good suggestion. But to be sure we should compare this article to the articles about other individuals who were nominated. If their nominations are mentioned in the first paragraph... --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Not a big deal. Please mention it in the Prison section. I have little respect in that prize. It has been awarded to wrong persons over and over in the past. However, I thank Vanunu for his good job. -- Toytoy 22:18, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Shou1ld we delete the Nobel Prize nomination reference? I'd be happy with it out, it's not encyclopaedic unless he's going to win one (unlikely at this point) or has won one (definitely worthy of mention then). Deuxmachina2 02:3, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't lose sleep over it. This is much more important peice of information in my opinion. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "Compulsory military service"

My version explained that IDF service for 18-20 years old (I think) is compulsory and practically everyone does it except for those with religious or medical reasons. To delete this seems highly strange. He wouldn't have done jail time for not serving had it been optional so I believe it must stay. Deuxmachina2 02:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "Left wing students"

Vanunu formed an on-campus group with fellow left wing students. Why was the reference to their political perspective deleted. It's quite relevant I should think. Deuxmachina2 02:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "cannot live in Israel because he is afraid of his life, a demonstrably false assertion"

This part was deleted as well and is just as bad as what replaced it, so I suggest:

''Vanunu has claimed asylum on the basis that he is afraid of being killed. Having been tried and convicted for treason, and been released he cannot be re-tried for the same offense under Israeli law. He has lived safely outside of prision for ___ years and in Israel high-security prison for ____ years. ''

It does seem unlikely he will be killed and this puts his claim into factual context. His high profile is his protection I would suggest. Deuxmachina2 03:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category
Could someone paste this in when the page is unfrozen: Thanks ... Dbiv 14:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reference
I think the following statement absolutely needs to be referenced (i.e. attributed to a reputable source):
 * The arrest came three months after Vanunu said in an interview that Israel was behind the John F. Kennedy assassination. In the interview he had said the assassination was due to "pressure [Kennedy] exerted on then-head of government David Ben-Gurion to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor." (See also: Kennedy assassination theories).

Which interview? When? Where? With whom? — mark ✎ 16:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * - XED . talk  17:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, so it's a 25 July 2004 Jerusalem Post article referring to the Arabic supplement 'Al-Wassat' of the London-based paper Al-Hayat which has claimed to have interviewed Vanunu. I have added the link to the statement. — mark ✎ 19:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alleged
While our vandalizing/reverting friend is obviously not following proper procedure, he/she does bring up the question (and I think perhaps rightfully) about whether the nukes are "alleged" or not. As I understand it, the Israeli government has taken a policy of purposeful nuclear ambiguity -- no acknowledgement, no denial. That being so, there are practically no governments or intelligence sources which would question for a minute that Israel has weapons (or at least did when Vanunu took his pictures). Should there be any hedging of the language to reflect this official ambiguity? --Fastfission 14:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It's under Israel and weapons of mass destruction. The link is http://www.fas.org/news/israel/980714-israel1.htm. -Rjyanco 15:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well that's not exactly the same thing as transparency. Perhaps it is worth a few lines in this article about Israel's previous stance on the bomb program -- it would emphasize how important Vanunu's article was, as well as have the hedging effect. --Fastfission 15:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The Peres statement, made while he was not a government official, is not unique, and uses the phrase "nuclear option", which along with "nuclear potential" is commonly used by Israeli officials regarding the Israeli nuclear program. It does not use the phrase "nuclear weapon", and does not imply a the Israel possesses such weapons, but rather that it reserves the option to acquire them. This is consistent with the official Israeli position (that Israeli will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the middle east), coined by Peres himself in 1963 (according to Cohen).
 * Thus the use of the word "alleged" is justified. That Israel possesses nuclear weapons is about as substantiated as it was that Iraq possessed WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion. 85.250.118.183 12:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is much more substantiated than that, I'm afraid. But there is some ambiguity, though not a whole lot. --Fastfission 13:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's hindsight re: Iraq. In both cases all you have is a bunch of intelligence analysis (read: circumstancial evidence, at best) and politically-motivated informers (Chalabi, Vanunu). At any rate, a) non of the evidence in either case amounted to more than speculation or allegations; b) the Peres quote doesn't change any of this. I'm returning "alleged". I'm not changing the paragraph you Fastfission added, but I think it belongs in the Israeli WMD article (which is linked from the very sentence) rather than here. 85.250.118.183 15:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 85.250.118.183, this "alleged" thing is a canard, along the lines of "Jerusalem is allegedly the capital of Israel". Vanunu gave pictures, which clearly demonstrated the nukes.  FAS may not be unbiased, but let's quote them here:  "Atomic experts, after debriefing Vanunu, estimated that Dimona was producing something in the region of 40 kilogrammes of plutonium every year, enough for 8-10 Hiroshima-size bombs a year. Nuclear experts, such as Dr Frank Barnaby and Theodore Taylor (a major pioneer of the US nuclear programme) regarded this evidence as both sound and conclusive." .  Your Iraq/Israel comparison is pathetic.  When the US alleged that Iraq had WMD's (not nukes, WMD's), the logical response was for Iraq to allow weapons inspectors in to "confirm their nonexistence" (or, if you think Iraq was lying, at least confirm that they were hidden well).  This they did.  Most of the people who had been on the ground (e.g., Scott Ritter) were quite vocal in saying that Iraq didn't have WMD's.  The Bush administration's allegations frankly didn't pass the smell test, because it would make no sense for Iraq to develop WMD's while they were under such intense scrutiny.  By contrast, no one seriously entertains notions that Israel does not have nukes.  Israel is not letting anyone into Dimona to inspect it.  Israel won't let Vanunu talk to the foreign press because they say he has more secrets to reveal.  If he was a crackpot he wouldn't have been abducted by the Mossad, and he would not be restricted as he now is. -Rjyanco 16:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sentance now reads is a former Israeli nuclear technician who exposed Israel's alleged possession of nuclear weapons to the public in 1986. How can u expose alleged possession? He didn't expose the allegation. Either he exposed possession or he alleged possession. I favour the first. The BBC website has just published a story on Vanunu being charged for defying parole, it refers to the Times article as exposing exposing Israel's atomic secrets.. At any rate the current fudge makes no sense.--JK the unwise 16:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Fudge and other issues
The so called "fudge" is easily remedied by rephrasing the sentence and removing the word "exposed" which sounds sensationalistic anyway. On one of my recent edits I have done that but it was reverted by Gadfium. I noticed that this user has contributed nothing to the article other than to revert my edits and to accuse me of logging on as different user and violate the three revert rule. He has posted as much on my "talk" page.

Also the last sentence "Israel considers him a traitor" does not fit the body of the third paragraph. It is a poorly written paragraph and out of sync.

This article is very biased in the form prefered by the net janitor from New Zealand. --Mikejm 09:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Content issues aside, it isn't good to make personal attacks (I've trimmed some from your comment). Also it is immaterial whether someone has contributed to this article before--nobody owns it.

 * To describe the weapons as "alleged" seems unnecessary. I have produced a merge and added one or two words of my own to the history section. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gadfium has reedited my user page and has criticized me for editing this article because I did not post here first. He has also warned me not to edit hs comments which I have not done and has accused me of using multipke accounts which I have not done. So far he has yet to contribute anything other than his mindless reverts and false accusations.

I have reverted the article with a clear concious for the reasons I already stated.

--Mikejm 08:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The "Israel still considers him a traitor" bit is for NPOV. The article reads like a hagiography. That's not actually a good thing. I'm a supporter and I find this article horribly pro-Vanunu POV - David Gerard 14:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sentence does not fit with the paragraph though. Whether or not Israel considers him a traitor or not is irrelevant to the subject of the paragraph.

The word "exposed" in the first paragraph is sensationalistic. It sets the whole tone for the rest of the article- you need not read any further because you already know the article is going to be biased. That's probably why you can't easily fit "alleged" and "exposed" neatly into the same sentence- that should be telling you something right there.

Anyway, it's obvious to me that there is a tight nit cadre of editors and revert bots that are very intent on mantaining the articles bias and it's a waste of time trying to improve it. The article sucks and I'm burned out on it. Fuqit.

--Mikejm 04:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

My Edits
I have no idea what makes my edits controversial, but whatever.

 * Mordechai is Jewish, so I added that.
 * WMDs are alleged, as Israel has no confirmed or denied them, and it is a POV to say that Israel has them
 * pointed out that he violated his nondisclosure agreement when he committed treason and gave information to foreign nations, and that he was still in violation when he spoke to foreign journalists after his release.

Other edits are minor italization of groups he was a part of. Your turn.

 * 1) Article already describes his ethnic/religious background.
 * 2) It is a generally accepted fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons program. It is POV to imply that there is a dispute when there isn't. Israel does not deny it, as you point out.
 * 3) No doubt if there was a non-disclosure agreement (can you point us to a URL where we can read it?), Vanunu violated it when you gave the secrets to the British press. So what? What does this have to do with the restrictions placed on him after release from prison? They are not the same as the pre-conviction restrictions. Mirror Vax 20:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The restrictions placed on him after his release are based on the non disclosure agreement that he signed before he became employed in Dimona. The contract has never expired. That is the position of the Israeli government. Normally, a person who has betrayed his country stays in prison for life, but he was for whatever reason sentenced to 18 years. After his release, The govermment has no reason to trust anything he says about what else he knows about Israel's nuclear program. The man committed treason and has shown that he has absolutely no regard for his former country. While he revealed information about Dimona, Vanunu protested the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility in 1982 o he doesnt mind nuclear weapons as long as they arent in Israel's hands. . Under this, they have activated restrictions to what he can say, because his contract with the government is still binding. He violated it before, so they placed more restrictions on him after release so he doesnt continue to violate his contract when he is out. It appears that he failed in that too. As for a url to his nondisclosure agreement, I dont have it and I dont think it exists on the web.

Guy Montag 02:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This is just a bunch of opinions. If you have any verifiable information about the non-disclosure agreement you say exists, you can include it. Mirror Vax 07:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

 * While Israel may not have confirmed that it has nuclear weapons, it is widely known to have them. A single citation from a respectable body, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation group, should be sufficient to establish that fact. -Willmcw 21:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * It is certainly not widely known. I suggest that the article say that it is widely believed, and of course tell how Vanunu has contributed to that belief. 85.250.28.246 22:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, "widely believed" is fair enough. Note that there is a full discussion of the issue at Israel and weapons of mass destruction, which says "very widely believed." The two article should be consistent. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:59, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, changing "alleged" to "widely believed" is acceptable.

Guy Montag 02:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

current edit war
Burgundavia and Blankfaze, please explicitly explain here why you've reverted the recent edits of Guy Montag. I am a bit surprised that there has been no such dialog in this TALK page about the reasons behind the reverts. Let's get to it, please. Kingturtle 03:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Bad faith POV pushing. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you please be explicit in your reasoning? give examples. provide reasoning. Kingturtle 03:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything in his version excepting the sentence "...giving various interviews to a foreign journalists and news corporations such as the BBC" and his minor spelling/bold/italics corrections. His use of "widely believed" is an attempt to make it seem like Israel doesn't HAVE a nuclear program, only a "widely believed" one.  His addition of Category:Espionage is quite frankly, silly.  BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have a pov about some of my edits but you have absolutely no legitimate reason to blank revert the article. You have not disputed the factual relevency of my claims, and you attempt to brush it all off in some arrogant belief that everyone sees the problem exactly as you. Guy Montag 12:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I feel the espionage categorizing is appropriate (it fits wikipedia's definition!). Spikeballs 13:28, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Widely believed seems to be quite loose to me, too. How about "Officially denied, but internationally believed/recognised"?--Fangz 03:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The same wording was used in the Osiraq reactor page. Widely believed is a legitimate term that we have discussed and within seconds reached an agreement on with users who actually discussed edits instead of blank reverting them.Guy Montag 12:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, "internationally believed" is unfair as well. You feel it's right, because you're probably thinking, "How can anybody with a sensible mind think they DON'T have WMDs?" But truth is that there are people who trust Israel's denial. Or maybe they don't believe it, but still think Israel doesn't have the abilities everybody thinks they have. In fact, even some Muslim countries say Israel is just trying to scare its neighbours. And maybe they're right... "Alleged" is perfect. Especially given the explanations provided in Israel and weapons of mass destruction. To avoid further fighting, we can add a paragraph somewhere in the beginning (even if it doesn't feel too relevant) explaining that "Israel is believed to have WMDs by most international agencies. Vanunu's publishings only strengthened the existing suspicions. Still, Israel currently denies them. For more information see Israel and weapons of mass destruction." Spikeballs 07:39, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Still me. Checked the article again, and COME ON! This is NOT neutral. All of Vanunu's actions in Israel (e.g. violations of release terms) are "alleged" while Israel's claims are simpy true. Remind yourselves that for this to be neutral it's not enough for it to feel true and fact-based. It's like posting there is no God. Neutrality means you give equal space to all subjectivite POVs. Spikeballs 07:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

On a sidenote - can anyone find any independent confirmation of the Osirak protest claim? If it is true, then it definitely ought to be included. But I don't think opinion articles from pro-Israeli newspapers are sufficient evidence...--Fangz 03:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu was involved with left wing groups when he was attending Ben Gurion University. It was during that time and one of the groups listed in his biography that protested the bombing. There is no reason to doubt an opinion made by the Jpost because this is the voice of the editors themselves. Do you have proof that they are lying? Because that would be interesting news. Vanunu didnt deny it, or he would have wrote an opinion piece or sued them for defamation. Finally, the Jerusalem Post is a legitimate mainstream newspaper. There is very little reason to doubt what it says.

Guy Montag 12:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

 * There is every reason to doubt an opinion article. Opinion articles have, after all, been wrong before. Mainstream newspapers have been wrong before. It simply comes to my notice that no anti-Israeli/neutral sources have mentioned this at all. Further, we don't even know if Vanunu was actually aware of the claims. He is, after all, imprisoned. Lack of denial does not equal confirmation - statement of sources or an acknowledgement is. It is perfectly possible that the writer of that piece looked at his background with groups that opposed the bombing, and assumed that he was with them. This may or may not be a true assumption, but it is an assumption, and cannot be stated as though it was accepted fact.--Fangz 19:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The only relevent question is, are you claiming that the Jerusalem Post editorial staff is lying or is innacurate? If so, provide the facts. The editorial piece was released well after Vanunu's release. The only thing that the silence of anti Israel or "neutral" sources is telling me, is that they either accept it as fact or they do not want it mentioned. This claim has been out for years. Vanunu did not have to answer it, his supporters could in his absense. If his supporters wished to answer it, they had all the time in the world. By questioning the claim of the editorial piece, you are questioning the accuracy of the Jerusalem Post's reporting. It comes down to this, do you have the facts to claim that the editorial piece is innaccurate? If not, then leave it alone.

Guy Montag 05:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't need facts to claim the piece is accurate. Good journalism needs to state its sources. JPost doesn't seem to have the facts to claim its piece is accurate, and not just a theory drawn by inference. The silence of the opposition can mean a variety of things - that they don't want to lend the idea credibility by giving a drawn out debate. That they weren't able to interview Vanunu extensively, so they don't want to presume to know what the truth is. That they think that anything so long ago, during a time where Vanunu was obviously pro-nuclear enough to work in the Israeli program, must surely be irrelevant. I, for one, (who think I am neutral, but then again, who doesn't?) was not even aware of the Osiraq claim - maybe they didn't hear of it, either. Can you or anyone claim to read the minds of all these people? Even as you accuse me of disputing the accuracy of JPost, you are also accusing the entire left/centre media of the entire world of being in a vast conspiracy of ommission. Do you have the facts to back that up? The Osiraq claim is an allegation which has not been responded to. Nothing more, nothing less. Until proven otherwise.--Fangz 10:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Does Israel deny having a nuclear weapons program?
At least two people on this page have claimed that Israel "denies" having nukes or a nuke program. The Israel and weapons of mass destruction article states that, "The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny that it has a nuclear weapon program..." which I believe is correct. They don't deny; they just don't explicitly confirm.

There is nothing illegal about Israel having a nuclear weapons program, by the way. They never signed the NPT. Mirror Vax 07:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If Israel doesn't have any nuclear weapons, then how can Vanunu have broken his contract by revealing information about them? PatGallacher 12:05, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

He isnt supposed to reveal any information about what he saw or didnt see in Dimona. Plus, maybe there is a nuclear program there. It is a nuclear reactor, and he revealed information about the reactor that he wasnt. He is supposed to keep his mouth shut, and if he speaks about it, lying or not, he damages national security and breaches his contract.

Guy Montag 12:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

 * There is a whole argument about whether it is sometimes in the public interest for people to disclose information, even if they are breaking their contract of employment. Disclosing information about a purely civilian nuclear power programme may be a breach of contract, but it is hardly treason, a threat to national security, or a serious offence meriting several years imprisonment, or Mossad going to the trouble of complicated entrapment operation. PatGallacher 12:34, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

And while we're on about comparisons with Benedict Arnold, from an official British standpoint he was not a traitor, he was a loyal subject of King George III of the United Kingdom. PatGallacher 20:23, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

As my opinion was requested, here it is: As far as I know Israel has an official policy of "nuclear ambiguity" regarding nuclear weapons; that is, they refuse to confirm or deny that they have any. While it seems highly likely that Israel has the weapons, I don't think stating that they do outright would be NPOV, given that there has never been official confirmation. Ideally some wording which accomodates both the high probability of them having them and the lack of official confirmation can be worked out. Were there other outstanding article content issues? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The other contested issues stem from the blank deletion of cited information. Information about Vanunu's involvement with protest against the Osiraq reactor bombing, and information about Vanunu expressing support for the destruction of Israel. These are important and documented actions which he took. This is vital information which allows the reader to see all of Vanunu. I have yet to read one statement, one argument, by those who keep erasing this information. They have not challenged its relevency, they have not challenged its sources; all they do is erase the information without an explanation as if everyone magically knows what the problem, if any is. I can't modify my statements if I dont know what the objections are, or even if these objections are valid. Until then, I will ignore all blank reverts as I have before as unwarranted.

Guy Montag 22:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC) 22:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If they have been properly cited from respectable sources, I'd be interested in seeing what the objections are to their inclusion. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Likewise.

Guy Montag 19:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Guy is lying. Scroll up slightly, and you will see me asking for a non-POV, non-opinion article to provide verification for that claim. He even responded to me! Vanunu hasn't commented on it. No factual sources/witnesses have been referenced or quoted. It's an allegation, not a fact, until proven otherwise. ADDENTUM: Additionally, I question the placement of that event. We have no idea whether Vanunu had changed his mind between in between 1981 and 1986. We have no idea as to the reasons behind his Osirak protest (maybe he was opposed to unilateral action, for example. Maybe he feared Saddam might escalate the conflict. It's not our job to read his mind.) - if he was involved in that. We know for a fact that the statements he is currently making - that all nuclear weapons are bad - contradict any Osirak protest. The placement of the event text at present implies a specific, subjective point of view. If it is included, it needs to be put into the context of his history, to let the reader make his own judgements.--Fangz 21:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I could not respond to your post because I was blocked for a 3RR breach. I didn't even know you answered back until today. I have written an appropriate response. It doesn't matter why he did what he did. If you wish to find out, please add the information when you do. Now we have the facts. He protested the bombing of the Osirak reactor, then in the BBC interview on April 19, 2004 he used the Osirak reactor as a comparison to Dimona and was quoted as denying the right of Israel to exist. Perhaps he does not want Israel to have WMDs and only the Arab states to because he hates Israel. There are eyewitnesses that state how Vanunu was a radical Arab activist at that time (and probably now). That is as probable a conjecture for his actions as any you might conjure up. But we are not here to get into ifs buts, but what we have recorded. This is not a court room, we have no reasonable doubt standards here. Facts stand as facts until proven otherwise. And you have not proven otherwise to the facts provided. Just to be clear, left wing websites such as Mother Jones have printed the same claim from the same author. There is wide consensus that this happened.

Guy Montag 06:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that your response to Jayjg came after I posted my second complaint, and after you responded to my first.
 * The Mother Jones article references the same JPost article. (And I'll point out that it refers to JPost as a right wing source, and that the reference was in there to illustrate the fury of the right.) Everything comes back to that JPost article. Which does not reference any eyewitnesses at all. We can't assume that Vanunu is guilty, until he is proven guilty. Facts don't get added as facts until they are shown to be facts. Not the other way round. Until then, everything is an allegation. The facts we know are the words he is quoted as saying, the affiliations he has acknowledged in his biography, and the fact that we know about those affiliations' stance on certain issues.--Fangz 10:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I like much of the additions made by you Fangz, but I do not think that "allege" is a correct term used here. "Alleged" implies that it isnt proven, while "noted" says nothing on the status of the claim. Because the word implies falsehood, I think another one should be chosen.

Dictionary.com describes alleged as "Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed."

and noted as "To show; indicate" or "To make mention of; remark"

I think this is a more neutral term.

Guy Montag 00:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think noted is that neutral a word. Consider if the article were to talk about 'Israel's internationally noted clandestine nuclear weapons program'. What about 'Vanunu noted that Israel has no right to exist.' Would _you_ be happy with _that_? I mean, the point is that the JPost claim does not appear to be proven, but it has not been denied. (At the risk of trolling, the comparison with Vanunu's claims about Israel's arsenal shows that the Osiraq claim is far weaker. Vanunu gave factual evidence for that, and Israel failed to forcefully deny or debate the issue afterwards.) People tend to note things that are true.--Fangz 11:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, to prevent this word war from becoming too silly, a (non-exhaustative) list of words I'll be happy with, from a thesaurus: advance, charge, claim, declare, maintain, put forward, state. Any sort of intersection you can see there. --Fangz 11:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

How about stated. That sounds good.

Guy Montag 22:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Stated is fine.--Fangz 02:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of both Israeli govt. policy and Wikipedia NPOV policy, but there must come a point that something is clearly established. Imagine the response if a Wikipedia article said it was "highly probable" that Nazi Germany committed genocide against the Jews and Gypsies, or "highly improbable" that Jews ever carried out ritual murders of Christian children. PatGallacher 12:14, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

 * I don't think this kind of thing can be discussed in terms of probability to begin with. If probability can even be assigned to such questions (I realize that I may be over-mathematical in my view of probability), then whoever assigns them does so based on facts and beliefs. Thus, I (still) think that using the phrase "widely believed" and reporting what Sunday Times has published is the most accurate and NPOV statement of the facts in the context of the Vanunu article. Other reasons why it is widely believed that Israel possesses nuclear weapons should (and probably do) appear in the article about the subject. 217.132.154.197 14:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering the lack of hard evidence on this specific matter, I don't think the analogies are comparable. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to say that there is or is not an Israeli nuclear capability. We should say that the belief that there has been and probably still is a Israeli nuclear weapons program is widespread among proliferation experts but the suggestion is uniformly denied by Israeli politicians and its allies and the IAEA has not shown much keenness to investigate--I think the latter is probably through lack of jurisdiction more than anything else. I believe Israel signed the partial test-ban treaty but not the NPT.

 * Actually, I'm quite certain that no Israeli officials ever denied that Israel had a nuclear weapons program (nor have they ever confirmed it, of course). As far as I remember, no Israeli politician has ever denied it either, whereas a few (right now I can recall MK Issam Mahoul) make statements to the opposite (i.e. that Israel possesses nuclear weapons), but I think that politicians' statements, as opposed to those of officials (who may or may not be politicians), are quite insignificant for this question. 217.132.149.26 06:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: only two other states have failed to sign the NPT, and they're India and Pakistan. Israel is at the very least the technological equal of either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Putting it this way seems appropriate for the NPT article or for the Israel and WMD article. In the context of Vanunu, I think it's redundant to get into these details (assuming they're be covered in one of the aforementioned articles), and using the widely believed phrasing would suffice. Note that this may require more the pasting "widely believed" at random positions in the article (as has been done in one of the edits), and sometimes a little more rephrasing is required. 217.132.149.26 06:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Maxwell's Jewishness
I removed the reference to Maxwell's Jewishness from the article. The only reason I can imagine anyone would think it relevant to this article, is as a way of inserting a mildly anti-Jewish POV (see cabal). Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK 18:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you shouldnt be so presumptuous. See specifically the section on Robert Maxwell's death, and dont jump on the "everyones out to get the jews" bandwagon -Bastion

Deletions
''Vanunu is seen by many human rights groups as a prisoner of conscience, and they often compare him to the German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky. Amnesty International described his treatment as constituting "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment [...] such as is prohibited by international law". The Israeli government still considers him a traitor. Dr. Vanunu serves as the current Lord Rector of Glasgow University.''
 * Any special reason why this text was deleted? Is it untrue? -Willmcw July 8, 2005 23:52 (UTC)

Will, there is a discussion on this topic a year ago where Jayjg, touched upon it. Basically it is a tacit attempt by one man to push an inflammatory unsupported comparison between a prisoner of conscience of the Nazi government and Israel. In other words, compare Israel to Nazi Germany. Browse a little through talk, you will see what I mean.

Guy Montag 9 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

 * Is he not the Lord Rector of Glasgow University? Did Amnesty Internal not make that allegation? -Willmcw July 9, 2005 01:26 (UTC)

Have any sources been provided? In the last year and a half of various anons inserting this information, no sources were provided. The fact that he was elected rector is already mentioned in this article.

Guy Montag 9 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

 * The Rectorship seems like an honor worthy of mentioning in the intor, maybe even in the lead paragraph. As for the Amnesty International quote, it's apparently from here . -Willmcw July 9, 2005 01:43 (UTC)

This information has already been recorded in the base of the article by Jayjg.

Guy Montag 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Fine. Thanks for making sure. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:24, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mordechai Vanunu/Archive 2


text:
1954 in archaeology

The year 1954 in archaeology involved some significant events.

Excavations

 * Mixco Viejo, Guatemala Musée d'Homme project under the direction of Henri Lehmann starts (continues through 1967).
 * Neolithic-era site of Ashkelon discovered and excavated by French archaeologist Jean Perrot.
 * Excavations at Beycesultan by Seton Lloyd of the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara begin (continue to 1959).
 * Excavations at Filitosa, Corsica, begin.
 * Excavations at Nagarjunakonda by the Archaeological Survey of India begin (continue to 1960).
 * Excavations at Nevasa, Maharashtra, begin (continue to 1956).
 * Excavations of the London Mithraeum conducted under the direction of W. F. Grimes.
 * Systematic excavations at Niah Caves begin under the direction of the Sarawak Museum.

Finds

 * September 18 - Marble head of Mithras from London Mithraeum unearthed in Walbrook Square by W. F. Grimes's excavation.
 * Panlongcheng Erligang culture site in China discovered.
 * Khufu ship discovered in Giza pyramid complex by Kamal el-Mallakh.
 * Cape Gelidonya shipwreck discovered.

Miscellaneous

 * Sir Mortimer Wheeler is named Television Personality of the Year in the U.K. due to his contributions to Animal, Vegetable, Mineral?

Publications

 * Maurice Beresford - The Lost Villages of England.
 * R. Allen Brown - English Medieval Castles.
 * Grahame Clark - Excavations at Star Carr, an early Mesolithic site at Seamer near Scarborough, Yorkshire.
 * V. E. Nash-Williams - The Roman Frontier in Wales.
 * Stuart Piggott - The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles: a study of the stone-using agricultural communities of Britain in the second millennium B.C.

Births

 * July 1 - William Rathje, American archaeologist and garbologist (d. 2012)
 * Barbara Tsakirgis, American classical archaeologist (d. 2019)

Deaths

 * March 6 - Sir John Myres, English archaeologist of Cyprus (b. 1869)
 * April 10 - Ludwig Curtius, German Classical archaeologist (b. 1874)
 * July 16 - Henri Frankfort, Dutch-born Egyptologist (b. 1897)
 * October 5 - Alfred Tozzer, American Mesoamerican archaeologist (b. 1877)

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

title: 1954 in archaeology


text:
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of U.S. states by population/archive1

American states by population
Reformatted this list: added pictures down the side like i did for Super Bowl champions. Phoenix2 17:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. Phoenix2 17:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, pictures are too big for a 800x600 resolution. --Spangineer (háblame)  18:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll go ahead and make them smaller. I'm using 1024 by 768. Phoenix2 18:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Pictures still seem a little too big (might just be my browser). Some of them just overlap the edge of the table.  Also, is it possible to add district of columbia population in a separate box, perhaps.  You could even go further and throw in Puerto Rico and other territories.  Not necessary for the list, but may make it more comprehensive.  List of U.S. territories by population could be an entirely separate article, of course. --Sophitus 18:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, I'm not sure what's going on with the picture i'm running Mozilla Firefox at 1024x768, I can make the pictures smaller yet. As for the DC population, I can add that to the list. Phoenix2 19:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I added the population of DC, but did not include it in the numbering. If there is a better way of implementing it, let me know. Phoenix2 19:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - looks really good now --Sophitus 00:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - needs population density information if it's to be comprehensive, SmokeDog 10:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * SmokeDog, there is a separate list for population density so it would be pointless to add that to this list. Maybe I'll nominate that list later. Phoenix2 17:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I added the list mentioned above, List of U.S. states by population density under a "See also" section in the article. I think this resolves any problems --Sophitus 21:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the new information. Phoenix2 02:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I've reformatted List of U.S. states by area. If anyone can add to that list's lead, or any other information, it can then be nominated for featured status. Phoenix2 02:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Smokedog. Why not include the pop density info on this page?  And why not include the total population on the population density page?  It adds more to the table and makes it more useful.  I tend to think it's useful to have a number of lists with the same info, just sorted different ways (see list of elements by name, list of elements by symbol, list of elements by atomic number and list of elements by atomic mass).  Though, I'm not sure what I think about having 3-4 featured lists that are rearranged versions of the exact same content. --Spangineer  (háblame)  03:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you make a good point. I'll do all the reformatting tomorrow. Phoenix2 05:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by population

Huh?
What happened? The most recent Census should definitely be what anything is measured against; that's a non-negotiable. The negotiation was over whether the 2010 Census should have be included in addition to the other data. Fix this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Who made the change to show population from the 2010 Census and then the 2021 estimate? That makes absolutely no sense. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Don’t know, but the page’s version history should give you the answer. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to change the 2010 and its associated data in the "Census Population" columns to match the actual source - the 2020 data - but can't get it to work. Can someone correct this? The initial comparison, as is consistent with how this table has always been done, is to compare the latest estimate (in this case, 2021) with the most recent census base (2020). I'd revert it back many months, but it'd change a lot of other good corrections and changes made since. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Minor Outlying Islands population
The US Census typically does not cover UM (the minor outlying islands) due to no indigenous population; however, according to sources cited by Territories of the United States they have a total population of between 144 and 160, made up of researchers, military, etc. Any thoughts on whether this should be included? Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked for this, but haven't found anything that feels reliable enough (or comparable to the Census data) to add. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair - I hadn't actually looked at the cited sources yet. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just realized that since there is a column for 2000, that year's enumeration of the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands could be included. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks for adding! (I wondered what one might use for the flag.) My only suggestion would be a note on the post-2000 columns to the effect that census was not taken, rather than a dash which may incorrectly be interpreted as a population of zero. Thanks for your work on this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Montana and rhode are backwards the list is going 43 to 45 to 44
Above concern stated 72.211.162.18 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 * The official 1st April 2020 Census (rightly or wrongly) counted more Rhode Islanders than Montanans. And that Census count was used for the reapportionment and redistricting of Congress and the Electoral College. But in the April 2021 estimate, Montana outranks Rhode Island.
 * It all depends on what you want to show and how you want to show it. See the very extensive discussions by other editors in (what are now) the first two talk page items and.
 * However, there are two ways for those who wish to rank the states by the July 2021 estimates to do so. There are little arrows next to the headings of both the 1st column (rank in 2021) and in the 4th (numerical estimates of July 2021). Press either of those and the table will sort by July 2021 rankings. [If you get a reverse order with California last, just press the arrow again.]
 * [¶ I'm a Rhode Islander who remembers the great local fear that the 2020 Census would deprive the Ocean State of both a Congressional seat and an Electoral College vote, and the great local relief that that did not happen (this year had a very vigorous election campaign for our Second District). So I can sympathize with the million+ Montanans who only have one U.S. Representative.]

—— Shakescene (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate math for New Hampshire population "Change,2010–2020"
In the "State and territory rankings" table, New Hampshire's value for "Change,2010–2020" is 61,378, however the value of its 2020 population (1,377,529) minus its 2010 population (1,316,470) is reported as (61,378)

which is not what it should be (61,059) based on the population numbers in the table. This may explain why the total of the "House Reps.2022 %" column is 100.04% instead of 100%!

I would have fixed it, but I could not confirm the population numbers. JerryDNYC (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 * The 2020 and 2010 pops check out, so the difference was incorrect. Thanks for finding that! --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Florida population now 2nd largest, exceeds California. Table is 3 years old!
Update population chart 107.119.69.54 (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

One year's data is enough - and other column bloat
Big, wide tables are hard to read. Sometimes, when two ideas seem equally good, they both end up getting included, which can be a worse solution to just flipping a coin.

The table includes columns for multiple years: for ranks, population, house seat proportions, % of total... one is enough for all of these, the most recent year where data is available. I'd also argue "absolute change" can go - population growth is a different topic just like population density and one column is enough for this list.

There are also six (!) columns devoted to counting how population interacts with elections. That's a whole separate table right there. Ideally there would be just one column for that topic in this list, and a link to another list with all those other columns. Wizmut (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I have removed the 2010 columns and made the ranking automatic based on the sorting chosen. Perhaps the table could still be split but I'll wait a while for comments on how the table is looking so far.
 * Some things I've noticed with the new table:
 * percentages could have just one digit after the decimal
 * comparing "% US" and "% EC" is nice, but would also be nice to have "% US" further to the left, right next to the 2023 population figures
 * 2023 figures for the US territories could be sourced from the UN.
 * Wizmut (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Guam's population
According to this page, Guam has decreased in population between 2010 and 2020. However, the the Guam wiki page says it increased by 5.5% percent over that time period. The CIA.gov webpage also estimates a population of 169,330. What's with the discrepancy? Sith Lord Amadeus (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't be surprised if they undercounted.
 * The number of housing units, which doesn't require any interviews or replies, went up 2%.
 * And these people all seem convinced of an undercount (not serious data, though):
 * There have been data on under/over-counts in the states, as well as Puerto Rico: Wizmut (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition the Demographic and Housing Characteristics Summary for Guam notes "Detailed characteristics of military households and housing units in Guam were not collected in 2020. As a result, data tables for these characteristics do not include the population living on military installations." It also cautions against comparing 2020 data with 2010 data. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

While I sympathize with all of your thoughts about undercounts, it's true of any state or territory. This is an interesting academic discussion, but has no bearing on what should or shouldn't appear on this article. Wiki uses official Census Bureau counts and estimates to keep things consistent and compare apples-to-apples.--Criticalthinker (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Depends on the list. Some use only one source, like the UN country population list. The main population list tries to use only official sources, but includes some UN estimates (sometimes extra ones if you check the footnotes). And the big area list rarely uses official sources and instead splits between the World Factbook and the UN Statistics division.
 * If there's a column labelled "2020 census", then that's easy. But "2023 estimate?" Could be census.gov, CIA or UN statistics, or actually all 3 if we use footnotes. But one number will have to be more prominent than the others and a little discussion about what's more plausible is fine. Wizmut (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, no, now you're just being cute. A source is given for the numbers; it is not some mystery. And I was clearly talking about U.S. state and territory articles. If this is something you find interesting to discuss, more power to you. However, it has no bearing on how these articles are written. Criticalthinker (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not being cute, beg your pardon.
 * Didn't say the numbers were a mystery. I said some sources may be of lower quality than others. The Census itself has published a list of error rates for the 50 states and eventually for Puerto Rico but not for any other territory (to my knowledge). If the Census itself says some of its numbers are worse than others, is it OR to use that information to decide how to write the article?
 * And betcha dollars to donuts their skipping out on those post-enumeration surveys comes from the same set of priorities as their not publishing post-2020 estimates for the little territories.
 * But the CIA and UN have posted such estimates, and there's no rule against including them. Indeed, there's loads of lists that get templated for only using one source. There's nothing special about US-related articles. Wizmut (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There are only 50 states. Serialing is wrong. it starts from 2 i.e. California. But California should be 1.
There are only 50 states. Serialing is wrong. it starts from 2 i.e. California. But California should be 1. Anishssgj (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 * …what? Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


text:
File:Roa2.jpg

Realms of Arkania: Star Trail boxart

title: File:Roa2.jpg


text:
Chocolate with Nuts

"Chocolate with Nuts" is the first half of the twelfth episode of the third season and the 52nd overall episode of the American animated television series SpongeBob SquarePants. It was written by the storyboard directors, Paul Tibbitt and Kaz, alongside Kent Osborne and Merriwether Williams with Andrew Overtoom as animation director and Carson Kugler, William Reiss and Mike Roth serving as storyboard artists. The segment was copyrighted in 2002 and aired on Nickelodeon in the United States on June 1 of that year. In this episode, SpongeBob and Patrick become entrepreneurs in an attempt to live a fancy life.

Plot
SpongeBob accidentally receives Squidward's Fancy Living Digest magazine in the mail, inspiring him and Patrick Star to become entrepreneurs. At Patrick's suggestion, the pair become door-to-door chocolate bar salesmen. Their first customer repeatedly and maniacally screams "CHOCOLATE!" at the pair and chases after them. Successive attempts to sell also end in failure; SpongeBob and Patrick attempt to sell chocolate to another fish, who cons them into buying chocolate-carrying bags, while another loses patience with the duo after SpongeBob fails to provide a bar, which got lost in all the bags.

After initially disastrous results, the two try changing tactics by "being nice". However, this is unsuccessful, ending in Patrick buying pictures of a customer as an overweight child, as is their attempt to "focus", causing Patrick to creep out a potential customer. They decide that the only way to sell chocolate is to "stretch the truth", which is successful when they convince elderly fish Mary and her even older mother that it "makes you live forever". The lying continues, but they lose their profit after attempting to help a seriously injured fish, who turns out to be the same con artist from before, by buying his chocolate. However, their maniacal first customer catches up to them and he buys all of the chocolate that SpongeBob and Patrick have. They use the money to rent out a fancy restaurant, allowing access only to themselves and their dates: Mary and her mother.

Production
"Chocolate with Nuts" was written by Paul Tibbitt, Kaz, Kent Osborne and Merriwether Williams, with Andrew Overtoom serving as animation director. Tibbitt and Kaz also functioned as storyboard directors, and Carson Kugler, William Reiss and Mike Roth worked as storyboard artists. The episode originally aired on Nickelodeon in the United States on June 1, 2002, with a TV-Y parental rating.

"Chocolate with Nuts" was the last episode Kaz and Paul Tibbitt had written together since "Nasty Patty".

"Chocolate with Nuts" was released on the DVD compilation called SpongeBob SquarePants: Christmas on September 30, 2003. The episode was also included in the SpongeBob SquarePants: The Complete 3rd Season DVD on September 27, 2005. On September 22, 2009, "Chocolate with Nuts" was released on the SpongeBob SquarePants: The First 100 Episodes DVD, alongside all the episodes of seasons one through five.

Reception
"Chocolate with Nuts" has received acclaim from both critics and fans alike and is often cited as one of the show's best episodes. Jordan Moreau, Katcy Stephan and David Viramontes of Variety ranked "Chocolate with Nuts" as the fourth best SpongeBob SquarePants episode. Emily Estep of "WeGotThisCovered.com" rated the episode as the tenth best episode of the show, saying "The reason 'Chocolate with Nuts' is such a good episode is that it subtly and somewhat darkly hints at the concept of just how crazy the people who live around you are. SpongeBob and Patrick are mostly swindled into buying things from other people – actually, a single con man who keeps appearing – and nothing is more terrifying/hilarious than the man who simply starts screaming 'chocolate' repeatedly until SpongeBob and Patrick run away. 'Chocolate with Nuts' adds the complete absurdity of the program – like the old lady and her even older mother who remembers when 'they first invented chocolate. Sweet, sweet chocolate. I always hated it!' – and the aspects of SpongeBob's undersea life that mirror our own lives on land – like stranger danger."

Nancy Basile of About.com ranked the episode No. 5 on her "Best SpongeBob SquarePants Episodes" list. She said "I can relate to the customer who spends this entire episode running around Bikini Bottom, screaming for chocolate. 'Chocolate with Nuts' is about Patrick and SpongeBob trying to get rich by selling chocolate bars door to door ... There are witty punchlines and silly sight gags throughout the episode." Her favorite scene was when "Patrick focuses a little too hard on their unsuspecting customer."

SpongeBob's voice actor Tom Kenny considers this one of his favorite episodes. It was included in the iTunes collection "SpongeBob SquarePants: Tom Kenny's Top 20", where he called it "a very sick episode. You can spend hours theorizing about what these eleven minutes says [sic] about truth, lies, Big Business, entrepreneurship, and consumerism."

title: Chocolate with Nuts


text: User talk:ChrisO~enwiki/Archive 6

title: User talk:ChrisO~enwiki/Archive 6


text:
File:Realms of Arkania Shadows over Riva.jpg

Realms of Arkania: Shadows over Riva boxart by illustrator Ugurcan Yüce


text:
Sofia Essaïdi

Sofia Essaïdi (صوفيا السعيدي; born 6 August 1984) is a French-Moroccan singer and actress. She was born in Casablanca, to a Moroccan father, Lhabib Essaïdi, and a French mother, Martine Adeline Gardelle.

Career
From 30 August to 13 December 2003, she participated in the show Star Academy France's third season, becoming a semi-finalist. She eventually finished second to Elodie Frégé.

From 12 March to 7 August 2004, she participated in the Star Academy tour, going to Morocco, and Papeete, Tahiti, where she celebrated her 20th birthday. She released her first album called Mon cabaret. Later, she starred in the musical  choreographed by Kamel Ouali which opened in "le Palais des Sports" in Paris on 29 January 2009.

Guest Vocals

 * 2004 "Et si tu n'existais pas" (with Toto Cutugno)
 * 2007 "Il n'y a plus d'après" (with Tomuya)
 * 2010 "If" (As one of the artists of Collect If Aides 25 Ans)
 * 2010 "La voix de l'enfant" (with Natasha St Pier & Bruno Solo)

Awards

 * 2009 – NRJ Music Awards : Francophone Group/Duo of the Year ( She was one of the artists who starred in the musical Cléopâtre)
 * 2010 – NRJ Music Awards : Francophone Female Artist of the Year
 * 2010 – Les jeunes talents de l'année: On 12 February 2010 she won Best Actress at Les jeunes talents de l'année 2009 (Young Talents of the Year 2009)

title: Sofia Essaïdi


text:
Talk:Loyola Academy

Revisiting racism controversy
OK... It's March 2008, and there haven't been any updates to this story. Do we really need to keep this in the article? It's impossible to describe this controversy in an encyclopedic manner -- we just have a patchwork description of what various individuals have said to the media. We can't even describe what happened with the Nation of Islam/Millions More Movement protest without violating the original research policy. Zagalejo^^^ 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with you, there really is no need to keep that in there. I'm in the area, and it never really was that notable. THE KC (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Provisional assessment
I am giving this article a provisional importance assessment of Mid because of its extensive list of alumni. The Start class assessment is likely still appropriate because a great deal of the article is still uncited. However, this rating should be checked by a more experienced editor.LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dan or Dave

 * Dan Sullivan (Illinois politician)|Dan Sullivan was an Illinois State Senator.

This alum was removed from the article. The reference speaks about a "David Sullivan" being a dormer senator. The link clearly refers to a "Dan Sullivan", for which I could find no information in a reference search. I am not sure who the alum is, and who the real person is, because it appears this article is not about a real person. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It may very well be Dave . I did some Google searches, and found this document from the schools website. In it, it mentions,

"PAGE FOR A DAY IN SPRINGFIELD Your Rambler can spend the day in Springfield with bi-partisan Rambler alums, Senator Dan Kotowski '85 (D- Park Ridge), and former Senator Dave Sullivan '83(R-Park Ridge), who now heads the lobbyist firm of Raucci and Sullivan. This is a chance to gain insight into the working of our state government from a senator's and a lobbyist's point of view. A great experience for your budding politician or government student. Must be scheduled on a day the Senate is in session. $500 Hon. Dan Kotowski '85, Hon. David C. Sullivan '83
 * I guess someone made a typo when making the Dan Sullivan article. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP who originally added the name to the article wrote Dave Sullivan. It seems that I changed it to Dan Sullivan, but I have no idea why. I haven't been able to find any evidence of an Illinois State Senator with that name. Zagalejo^^^ 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Logo Resolution
Is there are reason why the resolution of the the logo is so terrible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akakakakak83 (talk • contribs) 2011-02-18T14:33:57

 * When logos are not freely available, sometimes it's hard to find a good "basic version" — on websites they're often combined with other things, reduced in size, or otherwise severely compromised. This is the case with the current File:LoyolaAcademyLogo.png.  It appears someone complicated the matter in this case by trying to take a low-resolution image and just resize it to a higher resolution.  Just looking around briefly, I've already found better versions of the logo on website.  Though non-free logos aren't supposed to be high resolution (per logo "fair use" on Wikipedia), they're not supposed to that low of quality either. --Closeapple (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Marillac merger
Edited the section regarding the merger, as Marillac was not on the verge of Bankruptcy. The merger was requested originally by the archdiocese - this has been verified with former administrator Sr. Anne Marie, with email verification if necessary. The original source was left in place, as it confirms the closure, but there was no mention of bankruptcy. Thanks.

66.112.167.73 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Loyola Academy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061159/http://216.87.190.222/HallofFame/memberprofile.asp?MemberID=12 to http://216.87.190.222/HallofFame/memberprofile.asp?MemberID=12
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208162329/http://www.goramblers.org/HallofFame/memberProfile.asp?MemberID=152 to http://www.goramblers.org/HallofFame/memberprofile.asp?MemberID=152

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Loyola Academy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524055843/http://oracle.advanc-ed.org/reporting/Locator.aspx to http://oracle.advanc-ed.org/reporting/Locator.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051222071345/http://goramblers.org/HallofFame/memberProfile.asp?MemberID=18 to http://www.goramblers.org/HallofFame/memberprofile.asp?MemberID=18
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212021912/http://databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=FINZEDAV01 to http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=FINZEDAV01
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310222050/http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=SKOGLBOB01 to http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=SKOGLBOB01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Loyola Academy


text:
Talk:Saetia

Untitled
Some sources, although they aren't really adequate: --P4k 00:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2004-06-30/calendar/funny-little-things/
 * http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dxfrxqrald6e
 * http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/18553-cryonics?artist_title=18553-cryonics

Saetia from saeta?
I don't doubt the possibility that Saetia derived their name from a song by Miles Davis. However, I'm not exactly sure where this information came from, thus I would like to propose another possible explanation. The word "saetia" has a literary precedent related to the term "inertia." In a literary context, saetia is described as the inverse of inertia.

In very simple terms, if inertia is the resistance to change, or the tendency for a moving thing to remain in motion and a still thing to remain still (both in physics and literature), saetia would represent the tendency for a moving thing to suddenly stop or a still thing to suddenly move. I've seen this term used before particularly in the discussion of the works of Charles Baudelaire, a French poet and early Modernist. In addition to its relation with the term inertia, it is often used in conjunction with terms like ennui (boredom), anomie (normlessness), and apathy (lack of caring).

Unfortunately I'm finding it difficult to find any actual sources, electronic or otherwise, that support this claim. I still have plenty of texts to peruse, and I should find something of value soon.

It's clear to anyone who enjoys listening to Saetia's music that they were a group of serious artists who understood the beauty in expressing complex themes. I find it just as likely, if not more so, that they named their band after such a theme, especially when considering that this theme is reflected in their music and lyrics.

Like so many Saetia fans I came to discover their music long after they were no more, and sadly never had the opportunity to see them life, much less speak with them. If at some point during their existence they stated the origin of their name I would have missed it. On the other hand, if the declaration of Saetia being a misspelling of the word saeta is simply conjecture then my proposal is marginally more likely.

Perhaps we could at least keep this in mind until the source of the currently held truth is made less obscure.

IAmNotJosh (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saetia. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203170608/http://www.level-plane.com/saetia/ to http://www.level-plane.com/saetia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saetia


text: File:LiveRoxyBWCover.jpg

title: File:LiveRoxyBWCover.jpg


text:
1895 in archaeology

Below are notable events in archaeology that occurred in 1895.

Explorations

 * Teoberto Maler makes first examinations of the Maya site of Seibal.
 * Eliseo Borghi begins first examinations of the Nemi ships wreck site.

Finds

 * Mithraeum at Sarrebourg.
 * Roman coin hoard at Boscoreale.

Deaths

 * 5 March: Sir Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baronet, English Assyriologist (b. 1810).

title: 1895 in archaeology


text:
List of renamed public places in Tamil Nadu

Ever since the British left India in 1947, many streets, places and buildings throughout India were assigned new "Indian names". Tamil Nadu was no exception to this trend.

Even the state and its capital, Chennai along with many other cities, towns, streets and organisations were renamed post Indian Independence. Before the name changes, Madras (the city) used to be the capital of the much larger Madras (the state).

State

 * Madras Presidency was renamed Madras (State) after independence in 1947.
 * Madras (State) was renamed Tamil Nadu in 1969.

Districts

 * Chidambaranar district was renamed Thoothukudi district in 1997
 * Dr. Ambedkar Vellore district was renamed Vellore district in 1997
 * Thiruvannamalai Sambuvarayer district was renamed to Thiruvannamalai district in 1997
 * Villupuram Ramasamy Padayatchiyar District was renamed to Villupuram district in 1997
 * periyar District was renamed to Erode district in 1977.

Cities

 * Madras, the capital of Tamil Nadu (formerly Madras State) was renamed Chennai in 1996.
 * Trichy/Trichinopoly renamed to Thiruchirapalli
 * Tuticorin, sea gateway of Tamil Nadu was renamed Thoothukudi

Towns and municipalities

 * Thirupattur renamed as Tirupathur.
 * Thiruvaikundam from Srivaikuntam
 * Tiruvannamalai from Trinomali/Trimomalee
 * Tiruchengode from Trichengode
 * Kanyakumari from Cape Comorin
 * Tharangampadi from Tranquebar
 * Thanjavur from Tanjore
 * Kumbakonam from Kudanthai
 * Mayiladuthurai from Mayavaram, Mayuram
 * Udagamandalam/Udagai from Ootacamund or Ooty
 * Ramanathapuram from Ramnad
 * Parangipettai from Porto novo
 * Thirunelveli/Nellai from Tinnevelly
 * Sathurangapattinam from Sadras
 * Thiruvallur – Trivellore
 * Kollidam – Coleroon, distributary of River Kaveri
 * Magudanchaavadi – McDonald's Choultry (Salem District)
 * Kodiakkarai – Point Calimere
 * Kalambur – Aliyabadh
 * Negapatnam to Nagapattinam
 * Wandiwash to Vandavasi
 * Gingee to Senji
 * Conjeevaram to Kanchipuram
 * Salem to Selam

Neighbourhoods

 * Egmore to Ezhumbur
 * Triplicane to Thiruvallikeni
 * Mylapore to Mayilapoor
 * Purasawalkam to Purasaivakkam
 * Aminjikarai to Amainthakarai
 * Poonamallee to Poovirunthavalli
 * Kilpauk to Keezhpaakkam
 * Kellys to Killiyoor
 * Perambur to Peramboor
 * Ayanavaram to Ayanpuram

Bridges

 * Gemini Flyover in Chennai to Anna Flyover after C. N. Annadurai
 * Pamban Road Bridge in Rameswaram to Annai Indira Gandhi Road Bridge after Indira Gandhi
 * Porur Flyover in Chennai to Bharat Ratna Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. M.G.R. Flyover after M. G. Ramachandran
 * Two-tier Flyover in Salem to Puratchi Thalaivi J. Jayalalithaa Two-tier Flyover after J. Jayalalithaa

Roads

 * Brough Road in Erode to Meenakshi Sundaranar Salai after Meenakshi Sundaranar
 * Chamiers Road in Chennai to Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Salai after U. Muthuramalingam Thevar
 * Commander-In-Chief Road in Chennai to Ethiraj Salai after V. L. Ethiraj
 * East Coast Road in Chennai to Muthamizh Arignar Kalaignar Karunanidhi Salai after M. Karunanidhi
 * Edward Elliot Road in Chennai to Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai after Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
 * Elliot's Beach Road in Chennai to Sardar Patel Salai after Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
 * Frazer Bridge Road in Chennai to TNPSC Salai after TNPSC
 * Gandhi Nagar 4th Main Road in Chennai to B. Ramachandra Adithanar Salai after B. Ramachandra Adityan
 * Gokula Kannan Road in Tirunelveli to Dr. M.G.R. Salai after M. G. Ramachandran
 * Griffith Road in Chennai to Maharajapuram Santhanam Salai after Maharajapuram Santhanam
 * Halls Road in Chennai to Tamil Salai after Tamil language
 * Harris Road in Chennai to Adithanar Salai after S. P. Adithanar
 * Inner Ring Road in Chennai to Jawaharlal Nehru Salai after Jawaharlal Nehru
 * Lattice Bridge Road in Chennai to Dr. Muthulakshmi Salai after Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddi
 * Lloyds Road in Chennai to Avvai Shanmugam Salai after T. K. Shanmugam
 * Marina Beach Road in Chennai to Kamarajar Salai after K. Kamaraj
 * Marshall's Road in Chennai to Rukmini Lakshmipathi Salai after Rukmini Lakshmipathi
 * Montieth Road in Chennai to Red Cross Road after Red Cross Movement
 * Mount Road in Chennai to Anna Salai after C. N. Annadurai
 * Mowbray's Road in Chennai to T.T.K. Salai after T. T. Krishnamachari
 * North Beach Road in Chennai to Rajaji Salai after C. Rajagopalachari
 * Nungambakkam Highway in Chennai to Mahatma Gandhi Salai after Mahatma Gandhi
 * Old Mamallapuram Road in Chennai to Rajiv Gandhi Salai after Rajiv Gandhi
 * Oliver Road in Chennai to Musiri Subramaniam Salai after Musiri Subramania Iyer
 * Omalur Main Road in Salem to M.G.R. Salai after M. G. Ramachandran
 * Padmavathi Nagar Main Road in Chennai to Chinna Kalaivanar Vivek Salai after Vivek
 * Palayamkottai Road in Thoothukudi to Tamizh Salai after Tamil language
 * Perumbakkam Main Road in Chennai to Semmozhi Salai after Classical language
 * Ponamallee Highway in Chennai to Periyar E.V.R. Salai after E. V. Ramasami
 * Port Highway in Thoothukudi to V.O.C. Salai after V. O. Chidambaram Pillai
 * Pycrofts Road in Chennai to Bharathi Salai after Subramania Bharati
 * Royapettah Highway in Chennai to Thiru. Vi.Ka. Salai after Thiru. V. Kalyanasundaram
 * Sampath Nagar Road in Erode to Tyagi Kumaran Salai, Sampath Nagar after Tirupur Kumaran
 * Sholinganallur Main Road in Chennai to Kalaignar Karunanidhi Salai after M. Karunanidhi
 * Simmakkal Road in Madurai to V.O. Chidambaranar Salai after V. O. Chidambaram Pillai
 * South Boag Road in Chennai to Chevalier Sivaji Ganesan Salai after Sivaji Ganesan
 * Warren Road in Chennai to Bhakthavatsalam Salai after M. Bhakthavatsalam
 * West Great Cotton Road (W.G.C. Road) in Thoothukudi to V.O. Chidambaranar Salai (V.O.C. Salai) after V. O. Chidambaram Pillai
 * Wall Tax Road in Chennai to V.O.C. Salai after V. O. Chidambaram Pillai
 * Whannels Road in Chennai to Annai E.V.R. Maniammaiyar Salai after E. V. R. Maniammai

Region

 * Coromandal Coast renamed to Chozhamandalam coast

Seaport

 * Ennore Port to Kamarajar Port Limited
 * Thoothukkudi Port Trust to V.O. Chidambaranar Port Authority

Airport

 * Terminal 1 in Chennai International Airport to Kamaraj Domestic Terminal - T1
 * Terminal 2 in Chennai International Airport to Anna International Terminal - T2
 * Terminal 4 in Chennai International Airport to M.G.R. Domestic Terminal - T4

Railway Station

 * Chennai Central Railway Station to Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. M.G. Ramachandran Central Railway Station
 * Maniyachchi Junction Railway Station to Vanchi Maniyachchi Junction Railway Station
 * Maraimalai Nagar Railway Station to Maraimalai Nagar Kamarajar Railway Station
 * Vyasarpadi Railway Station to Vyasarpadi Jeeva Railway Station

Metro Station

 * Alandur Metro to Arignar Anna Alandur Metro
 * Chennai Central Metro to Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. M.G. Ramachandran Central Metro
 * Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus Metro to Puratchi Thalaivi Dr. J. Jayalalithaa CMBT Metro

Bus Terminus

 * Alangulam Bus Stand to Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Memorial Bus Stand
 * Anjugramam Bus Stand to Dr. M.G.R. Bus Stand
 * Attur Bus Stand to Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Bus Stand
 * Chengalpattu Bus Stand to Perarignar Anna Bus Stand
 * Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus to Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. M.G.R. Bus Terminus
 * Chinnasalem Bus Stand to Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Bus Stand
 * Dharmapuri Bus Stand to P.R. Rajagopal Gounder Bus Stand
 * Dindigul Bus Stand to Kamarajar Bus Stand
 * Erode Central Bus Stand to Independence day Silver Jubilee Bus Terminus
 * Ettayapuram Bus Stand to Mahakavi Bharathiyar Bus Stand
 * Hosur Bus Stand to K. Appavu Pillai Bus Stand
 * Kallakurichi Bus Stand to Perarignar Dr. Anna Bus Stand
 * Kancheepuram Bus Stand to Perarignar Anna Bus Stand
 * Kanniyakumari Bus Stand to Kavimani Desigavinayagam Bus Stand
 * Kovilpatti Old Bus Stand to Arignar Anna Bus Stand
 * Kilambakkam Bus Terminus to Kalaignar Centenary Bus Terminus
 * Krishnagiri Bus Stand to Perarignar Anna Bus Stand
 * Mattuthavani Integrated Bus Terminus to M.G.R. Bus Stand
 * Madurai Central Bus Stand to Periyar Bus Stand
 * Mayiladuthurai Bus Stand to Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Bus Stand
 * Rajapalayam Bus Stand to Gandhiji Centenary Memorial Bus Stand
 * Salem Central Bus Stand to Bharat Ratna Dr. M.G.R. Central Bus Stand
 * Sattur Bus Stand to Anna Coral Jubilee Bus Stand
 * Sivakasi Bus Stand to N.R.K. Rajarathnam Bus Stand
 * Thanjavur Old Bus Stand to Ayyasamy Vandayar Memorial Bus Stand
 * Theni Bus Stand to Colonel John Penny Cuick Bus Stand
 * Thisayanvilai Bus Stand to Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Bus Stand
 * Thoothukkudi Central Bus Stand to Perarignar Anna Bus Terminus
 * Tiruchendur Bus Stand to Thyagi Bhagat Singh Bus Stand
 * Tirunelveli New Bus Stand to Bharat Ratna Dr. M.G.R. Bus Stand
 * Tirunelveli Junction Bus Stand to Tirunelveli Junction Periyar Bus Stand
 * Usilampatti Bus Stand to Pasumpon U. Muthuramalinga Thevar Memorial Bus Stand
 * Vadipatti bus stand to Anna memorial bus stand
 * Vilathikulam Bus Stand to Bharathiyar Bus Stand
 * Virudhunagar New Bus Stand to Karmaveerar Kamarajar Bus Stand
 * Virudhunagar Old Bus Stand to M.S.P. Nadar Bus Stand

Transport
The Tamil Nadu state owned transport corporations operated buses to facilitate public transport in the state and interstate connectivity through roads. It named various corporations by prominent personalities/kings of regional/national importance. However the practice was scrapped and it started naming the corporations as TNSTC – Regional Division (Ex TNSTC Villupuram Division) after communal violence broke in the district of Virudhunagar during May 1997 after formation of Veeran Sundaralingam Transport corporation in which buses bearing the name Veeran Sundaralingam were burnt by some groups.
 * Pallavan Transport Corporation (PTC) & Dr. Ambedkar Transport Corporation (DATC) to Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) (TN-01/02)
 * Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation (TTC) & Rajiv Gandhi Transport Corporation (RGTC) to State Express Transport Corporation (SETC) (TN-01/07)
 * Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation (TPTC) to TNSTC Villupuram DIV I (TN-32)
 * Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation (PATC) to TNSTC Villupuram DIV II (Vellore) (TN-23)
 * Puratchi Thalaivar M.G.R. Transport Corporation (PTMGRTC) to TNSTC Villupuram DIV III (Kanchipuram) (TN-21)
 * Chozhan Transport Corporation to TNSTC Kumbakonam DIV I (TN-49 then TN-68)
 * Deeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation (DCTC) to TNSTC Kumbakonam DIV II (Trichy) (TN-45)
 * Marudu Pandiyar Transport Corporation to TNSTC Kumbakonam DIV III (Karaikudi) (TN-63)
 * Veeran Azhagu Muthukon Transport Corporation to TNSTC Kumbakonam DIV IV (Pudukkotai) (TN-55)
 * Anna Transport Corporation to TNSTC Salem DIV I (TN-27)
 * Annai Sathya Transport Corporation to TNSTC Salem DIV II (Dharmapuri) (TN-29)
 * Cheran Transport Corporation to TNSTC Coimbatore DIV I(TN-37 then TN-38)
 * Jeeva Transport Corporation to TNSTC Coimbatore DIV II (Erode) (TN-33)
 * Bharathiyar Transport Corporation to TNSTC Coimbatore DIV III Ooty then merged to TNSTC Coimbatore DIV I(TN-43)
 * Pandiyan Transport Corporation to TNSTC Madurai DIV I (TN-59 then TN-58)
 * Kattabomman Transport Corporation to TNSTC Madurai DIV II (Tirunelveli) (TN-72)
 * Nesamany Transport Corporation to TNSTC Madurai DIV III (Nagercoil) (TN-74)
 * Rani Mangamma Transport Corporation to TNSTC Madurai DIV IV (Dindigul) (TN-57)
 * Veeran Sundaralingam Transport Corporation to TNSTC Madurai DIV V (Virudhunagar) (TN-67)

Infrastructure

 * Chepauk Stadium or MCC (Madras Cricket Club) ground to M.A. Chidambaram Stadium
 * Srinivasa Mudaliar Park to VOC Park, Erode.


text:
Talk:Ibn Taymiyya

Too long
This page is WP:TOOLONG. The floor is open to brainstorming as to the best ways to potentially trim, or - more efficaciously, if possible - WP:SPLIT off some amenable sub-sections of the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Proposed move was unopposed in this discussion and a rationale was provided with new information that addresses issues brought up by individuals who opposed moving the page in a prior discussion. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyyah → Ibn Taymiyya – So I ironically opposed this a year ago is the RM above this on the page, due in part to what I thought was the stricter transliteration at the time. However, Wikipedia's in-house default transliteration, per WP:MOSAR, did not actually support my argument at the time, and does not take a clear stand, but it does give "al-Qahira" and "al-Qaeda" as examples of usages that simplify the final taa marbouta in the exact same manner - and simplicity is something that can also be argued for from the perspective of concision, naturalness and recognizability, together with consistency with the likes of Ibn Battuta, which has the same final letter. In addition to this, we have the aforementioned arguments about actual prevalence, including no 'h' being more common on Ngrams, and marginally more common in Google Scholar, with 16k+ hits to 13k+ hits. In addition to this, a book search for both spellings throws up "Ibn Tamiyya" more prominently, not least in the 2019 work Ibn Taymiyya by Jon Hoover, a notable specialist who is referenced extensively on the page, as well as the 2015 Ibn Taymiyya and His Times by Rapoport and Ahmed (also referenced extensively on the page). We then have the 2020 work Ibn Taymiyyah on Reason and Revelation and the 2018 The Biography of Ibn Taymiyya. Overall, the trend seems more than sufficient to move the page given the seeming lean towards dropping the 'h' seen in Wikipedia's in-house transliteration style. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Uniting the structure of the English and Arabic pages
 The English and Arabic pages of Ibn Taymiyya are structured differently:

•  The English page is organized as follows: Name, Overview, Early years, Life as a scholar, Involvement in the Mongol invasions, Imprisonment on charges of anthropomorphism, Life in Egypt, Return to Damascus and later years, Death, Students, Legacy, Influences, Views, Contemporary influence, Modern reception, Works.

•  The Arabic is organized as follows: Beginnings, Biography, Methodology, Jurisprudential and doctrinal opinions, Positions, impact on his time, Extension of its influence, Opinions and positions about him, His writings.

 The Arabic page is better in these regards:

•  Overview is not found in the Arabic page. Indeed, it seems to be superfluous. The preliminary introduction already serves as an overview. I think it should be removed entirely.

•  Life as a scholar, Involvement in the Mongol invasions, Imprisonment on charges of anthropomorphism, Life in Egypt, Return to Damascus and later years, and Death are subsections under Biography in the Arabic page, which seems to be more rational. In fact, I think Early years/Beginnings should also be under Biography.

•  Impact on his time, extension of its influence, Opinions and positions about him are clearer titles than Legacy, Contemporary influence, and Modern reception. The synonymous nature of the previous sections resulted in large overlap between them. They should be titled clearly as Impact in his time, Contemporary influence, and Opinions about him.

 The English page is better in these regards:

•  The Arabic page includes Name (Lineage) under Beginnings (Early years). I think the separation by the English page is better, because they're arguably unrelated.

•  I think the Arabic distinction between Methodology, Jurisprudential and doctrinal opinions, Positions is entirely unclear, and if there is any, they should be subsections under Views.

•  The Arabic page includes Students under Impact on his time. I think the separation by the English page is better, because him having an impact on his students is not necessary. Dinomar2000 (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

citations in lead
the citations should be moved from the lead into the body as per MOS:LEADCITE, except for anything controversial. also, the citations listed next to the word "judge" are actually citations for him being a philosopher. Yasinzayd (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Views of Ibn Taymiyyah - article's section completely blank?
Why is the Views section completely blank with merely a link to another article? Rather, shouldn't at least some of Ibn Taymiyyah's views be summarised on here?

Also, in my view the age should be added back in the transliteration of his name, as the Arabic letter ة is found at the end of it - Taymiyyah is the name of his female ancestor, and it ة is found at the end of grammatically feminine names and words. The feminine ending is shown with the "-h" in English transliteration. (contribs) אב דהן (talkpage) 17:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ibn Taymiyya