text:
Gao Shun

Gao Shun (died 7 February 199) was a military officer serving the warlord Lü Bu during the late Eastern Han dynasty of China. Although he only had 700 men under his command, his unit was nicknamed as the "camp crusher (or formation breaker)" (陷陣營) for its destructive charges. Gao came to be known as Lü Bu's most able commander. His noted accomplishments included conquest of Peicheng (沛城) and the subsequent victory over a combined force led by Xiahou Dun and Liu Bei. In the same year, however, Cao personally laid a siege on Lü Bu's base in Xiapi, and defeated and captured Lü Bu. Gao was then executed along with his lord.

Life
According to Pei Songzhi's annotation in Chen Shou's Records of the Three Kingdoms, Gao Shun, from Shangdang Commandery, was a stern and incorrupt man, with an air of authority and few words. As an unblemished and pure person, Gao refused alcohol and undue gifts. It is also stated in Records of Heroes (英雄記) by Wang Can that he only commanded 700 men, but his men were considered equivalent to a thousand, and they were a well-equipped, well-trained, and disciplined elite force. Whenever his battalion fought, they were always successful of breaking into enemy formation, and could perform well, even if surrounded by enemies, so they were collectively called the "camp crusher".

Zang Ba, the head of the bandit leaders around Mount Tai, attacked and defeated the Chancellor of Langye, Xiao Jian, at Ju County. He then seized Xiao Jian's treasure and provisions, and promised to present them to Lü Bu. When he reneged on his words, however, Lü went to ask for the goods himself. Gao objected: "Your authority and reputation are known and respected everywhere. How can you ask for something and fail to obtain it? Yet you are going in person to beg for a present. If for some reason you are not successful, you will surely lose face." The rapacious Lü could not heed Gao's advice. Indeed, Zang turned Lü Bu down, and the Bandits of Mount Tai no longer listened to Lü's orders.

One night in 196, a subject of Lü Bu named Hao Meng rebelled. Hao ordered his troops to surround the government office of Xiapi, where Lü Bu resided. The startled Lü had to climb over the wall of a toilet and escape to the camp of Gao Shun. Lü told Gao that the leader of the rebels has a Henei accent, and Gao Shun says that it must be Hao Meng. Gao then led a force to quell the rebellion. By the next morning, Hao Meng and his troops had all been forced to retreat back to their own camp. Cao Xing, a subordinate of Hao Meng, turned on Hao Meng and the two duelled. Cao Xing was injured in the fight but cleaved an arm off of Hao Meng. Gao Shun had also identified the rebels, and arrived at the scene to finish off Hao Meng (who was a man from Henei or captain of the Henei soldiers).

Although Lü knew Gao was very loyal, his advice was not always welcome. Furthermore, Lü trusted Gao even less after the incident of Hao Meng. Lü stripped Gao of his commission and reassigned his troops to Wei Xu (魏續), who was Lü's relative. Whenever there was a battle, however, Gao would be reinstated. Despite this treatment, he remained eternally loyal and never bore a grudge against his lord.

Lü, whose actions were seldom consistent, made decisions hastily. For that, Gao often remonstrated him by saying, "When you start something, you never think of the details. Whenever there is a choice between the way to success or the possibility of failure, you always make the wrong decisions!" Gao went on and said, "Those who lost their homes and states did not do so because they lacked loyal ministers and wise advisers. They did so because they wouldn't listen to those men. General, you are reluctant to think things through carefully before you act, and thus you commit mistakes, which are too many to count." Lü appreciated his loyalty, yet could not follow his advice.

During the year 198, Lü Bu was threatened by Cao Cao's vassal Liu Bei, who was forced to surrender earlier and was now constantly building up his forces, moreover Liu Bei also managed to capture gold and money that Lu Bu wanted to use to buy military horses therefore he sent Gao Shun along with Zhang Liao to attack Liu Bei at Peicheng, Liu Bei's main base. Liu Bei's new ally, Cao Cao, then sent his trusted general Xiahou Dun to support him, but the allied forces were defeated by Gao Shun. In the end, Liu Bei had to leave Peicheng to take shelter under Cao Cao. In the winter of 198, Cao and Liu came back with a sizable army and attacked Lü's base. On 7 February 199, Lü's generals, Hou Cheng (侯成), Song Xian (宋憲) and Wei Xu, arrested Gao and Lü's key advisor, Chen Gong before surrendering to Cao with their troops. Lü surrendered soon after. Gao Shun, Lü Bu, Chen Gong and others were executed, and their heads were sent to Xuchang.

In Romance of the Three Kingdoms
In the 14th-century historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Gao Shun was said to have duelled Xiahou Dun during an encounter outside Xiaopei in Chapter 18. After forty to fifty bouts, Gao was outmatched and had to retreat. Xiahou Dun urged his mount forward and chased Gao Shun deep into the enemy ranks. Then Cao Xing, a subject of Gao, secretly took aim and fired an arrow at Xiahou Dun. The arrow hit Xiahou Dun in the left eye. With a cry, Xiahou Dun pulled out the arrow along with his eyeball, which he swallowed, filling soldiers on both sides with fear. His spear firmly held up, Xiahou Dun then came straight for Cao Xing. With no time to react, Cao Xing was impaled through the face and died beneath his nemesis' horse. Gao Shun then turned and rallied his troops forward to defeat Xiahou Dun.

In Chapter 19, Gao and Zhang Liao were captured after they were trapped by the flood in Xiapi. When Lü Bu was brought before Cao Cao, Cao shifted his attention to Gao, and guards surrounding him hustled him in front of Cao Cao. "Anything to say?" Cao Cao asked him. Not wishing to join Cao Cao, Gao remained silent and accepted his fate. Cao Cao then had him executed along with Chen Gong.

title: Gao Shun


text:
Thomas Thomson (chemist)

Thomas Thomson MD (12 April 1773 – 2 August 1852) was a Scottish chemist and mineralogist whose writings contributed to the early spread of Dalton's atomic theory. His scientific accomplishments include the invention of the saccharometer and he gave silicon its current name. He served as president of the Philosophical Society of Glasgow.

Thomson was the father of the botanist Thomas Thomson, and the uncle and father-in-law of the Medical Officer of Health Robert Thomson.

Life and work
Thomas Thomson was born in Crieff in Perthshire, on 12 April 1773 the son of Elizabeth Ewan and John Thomson.

He was educated at Crieff Parish School and Stirling Burgh School. He then studied for a general degree at the University of St Andrews to study in classics, mathematics, and natural philosophy from 1787 to 1790. He had a five year break then entered University of Edinburgh to study medicine in 1795, gaining his doctorate (MD) in 1799. During this latter period he was inspired by his tutor, Professor Joseph Black, to take up the study of chemistry.

In 1796, Thomson succeeded his brother, James, as assistant editor of the Supplement to the Third Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1801), contributing the articles Chemistry, Mineralogy, and Vegetable, animal and dyeing substances. The Mineralogy article contained the first use of letters as chemical symbols. In 1802, Thomson used these articles as the basis of his book System of Chemistry. His book Elements of Chemistry, published in 1810, displayed how volumes of different gasses react in a way that is supported by the atomic theory.

In 1802 he began teaching Chemistry in Edinburgh. In 1805 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. His proposers were Robert Jameson, William Wright, and Thomas Charles Hope.

Thomson dabbled in publishing, acted as a consultant to the Scottish excise board, invented the instrument known as Allan's saccharometer, and opposed the geological theories of James Hutton, founding the Wernerian Natural History Society of Edinburgh as a platform in 1808. In March 1811, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society and in 1815 was elected a corresponding member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. In 1813 he founded Annals of Philosophy a leader in its field of commercial scientific periodicals.

In 1817, he gave silicon its present name, rejecting the suggested "silicium" because he felt the element had no metallic characteristics, and that it chemically bore a close resemblance to boron and carbon.

In 1817, Thomson became lecturer in and subsequently Regius Professor of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow, retiring in 1841. In 1820, he identified a new zeolite mineral, named thomsonite in his honour.

He lived his final years at 8 Brandon Place in Glasgow. He died at Kilmun in Argyllshire in 1852, aged 79. There is a memorial for him at the Glasgow Necropolis.

Family
In 1816, he married Agnes Colquhoun.

He was uncle and father-in-law to Robert Dundas Thomson.

Honours

 * Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1805)
 * Fellow of the Royal Society, (1811)

Artistic Recognition
He was portrayed by John Graham Gilbert.

Selected writings

 * System of Chemistry (1802)
 * The Elements of Chemistry (1810)
 * History of the Royal Society, from its institution to the end of the eighteenth century (1812)
 * An Attempt to Establish the First Principles of Chemistry by Experiment (1825)
 * History of Chemistry (1830)
 * A System of Chemistry of Inorganic Bodies (1831)
 * Chemistry of Animal Bodies (1843)
 * Outlines of Mineralogy and Geology (1836)
 * Chemistry (article in 7th edition of Encyclopedia Britannia) (1842)

From 1813 to 1822 he was Editor of the Annals of Philosophy.

In culture
In June 2011, Russian artist Alexander Taratynov installed a life-size statue of French architect Thomas de Thomon (1760–1813) in Saint Petersburg. The statue is part of The Architects, a bronze sculptural group depicting the great architects of Russian Empire as commissioned by Gazprom and installed in Alexander Park. In 2018 associate of Shchusev Museum of Architecture Kirill Posternak discovered a mistake. Taratynov admitted he used a picture he found on Wikipedia to base the statue on, and that it was actually an image of the Scottish chemist Thomas Thomson – he blamed Wikipedia for the error but also himself for not checking with a historian to verify it was accurate.

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

title: Thomas Thomson (chemist)


text:
User:Kmorrow

Article: Antonio Negri
Can you provide references for the quotations? --from Michel Foucault, "isn't he in jail simply for being an intellectual?" --from John Reilly, "a postmodern plot to overthrow the City of God." Steven McCrary 12:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I found the reference for the Foucault quotation but could not track down John Reilly, which was added by a previous author. Kmorrow

title: User:Kmorrow


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet tube

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. A и D я 01D TALK  EMAIL  13:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wet tube
This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Dfantom

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Windows Event Viewer in Vista RTM.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Windows Event Viewer in Vista RTM.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CCF Screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading Image:CCF Screenshot.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MSConfig On Windows Vista.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:MSConfig On Windows Vista.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dfantom


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Nikolopoulos

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Nikolopoulos
non notable Elfguy 12:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability established, probably vanity. --TheMidnighters 13:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nnanity; doesn't even assert notability! -Splash 14:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Another person. How interesting. Friday 21:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 04:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 4

Types of sources
Considering things related to history, indicating primary sources and secondary sources is desirable in my opinion. Perhaps you would agree? Nixdorf 20:39, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

 * I like Rbellin's suggestion: "Try to cite sources that are widely available, relevant, and as credible as possible." Maurreen 07:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I also like Rbellin's phrasing. While "credibility" may still be somewhat debatable--it narrows the debate somewhat and strikes me as considerably less subjective and POV-laden than either "reputable" or "appropriate". older ≠ wiser 16:28, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Rbellin's phrasing is fine with me, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with using "credibility". I'd like to create a subpage and start doing an edit of the current version, then show it to you, but I'm tied up today and won't be able to start it straightaway, just in case anyone's wondering why I mentioned it earlier but then didn't press on. There's an interesting discussion going on on the mailing list about the authority of sources, and the importance of distinguishing between primary and secondary, and when to use one or the other. Check out the archives here. . There were quite a few threads and the headers kept changing so you may have to scout around a bit, but most posts were in the last three to five days. SlimVirgin 19:58, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I am not sure these terms are being used here appropriately. I don't think there ever is such a thing as an ""appropriate" source as such, because it is appropriate only in relation to the context in which it is used. Indeed, ratehr than having a guideline that says "use appropriate sources" we should say "use sources appropriately" -- then the guideline is for the editor, not the source.  In contrast, I do think there are sources that are reputable or disreputable.  I think this is based in part on how transparent the author of the source (or, in the case of primary sources, the creator of the source) is about his or her methods and biases.  It is also based on public opinion.  Both of these can be hard to ascertain, but I think in fact most people in any given field have a pretty good idea of what is reputable in their field.  In any case, the measure of a works reputation has something to do with the quality of the work itself; whether it is being used appropriately or not is entirely dependent on the specific situation in which it is being used. Slrubenstein 22:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, fine, whatever, I think you are quibbling. Obviously "appropriate" means "appropriate to the siutation". My problem was with the word "reputable" which would be an inherent property of the sources. Appropriateness always involves a context. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:21, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

In choosing our vocabulary, it might be helpful to list the things we're trying to achieve. As I see it, the consensus on this page and on the mailing list is:
 * (1) we don't want to discourage new or inexperienced editors from contributing;
 * (2) we don't want to erect a scholarly standard so intimidating that editors without an academic background will feel unable to contribute;
 * (3) we want to discourage (strongly discourage or prohibit?) editors using dodgy websites with strong POVs as secondary sources, but not as primary sources; that is, the Stormfront website may be used for an article about Stormfront, but it may not be used as a secondary source on Martin Luther King. Question: how to define "dodgy?" Answer: ostensive definition - give examples - we all know what we mean, more or less, and so will other editors;
 * (4) we want to create a non-intimidating research culture, in which, as editors become more experienced, they will learn how to use reputable sources in an appropriate manner, how to cite accurately, when to spot that there's something wrong with a source, where to find good sources;
 * (5) we want to create a great encyclopedia that will earn the trust of people all over the world, so we want editors to use sources compatible with that goal.

Probably the best way to achieve this is to describe what we're trying to achieve on the page, using all the words we've talked about: reputable, authoritative, credible, appropriate, qualifying each word as we use it, and giving examples of what we mean.

By the way, Zero posted something to the mailing list on sources today that we might want to incorporate in some form onto the page. See here. SlimVirgin 00:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Zero's stuff is good, with maybe one reservation: sometimes "just a random web page" is obviously well researched even if it lacks citation apparatus. I wouldn't consider something like that a good reference, but it's often better than nothing. I'm not sure what our citation policy should be on those. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think any guidelines about evaluating sources, or which sources to use, should probably go on a different page. Maurreen 07:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * As I posted on the mailing list earlier today, there are two different things being talked about here, I think: quality of citations, and quality of sources. Quality of citation is about accurately documenting a source; identifying it, identifying how to find the referenced information, and characterising the source's content accurately.  Quality of sources is about how accurate and reliable the source is for that particular use.  It might work better to talk about the first here (how to cite sources correctly) and leave the other one for another page.

 * One sometimes has to use bad sources (sometimes there are no good sources, or one hasn't been found yet) but one should always do good cites, even of bad sources. —Morven 07:24, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent point Morven. I mean seriously, people can spend years in graduate school and still struggle with evaluating the quality of source material, so I don't think it is realistic to expect a short Wikipedia article to even begin to address the problems involved. Of course we must still attempt to address it, but we need to be realistic with our expectations. I agree that the first step is encouaging and facilitating people to provide a citation for sources used in an article. Evaluating the credibility (or appropriateness) of sources can then get thrashed out as needed. older ≠ wiser 13:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree to with Morven. I think it was in the same spirit that I made the point about appropriate verus reputable -- I don't think I am quibbling, Maureen -- I think we do not want to confuse newbies. I want to add one point to SlimVirgin's comments, all of which I agree with. I think the single biggest turn-off to newbies is not complex policy pages (and yes, I still agree that policy pages should not be too complex); the biggest turn off is when they soon find themselves in edit wars they do not understand. So my main criteria for developing policy pages is, we want to help them avoid getting into edit conflicts early on that would turn them off. Since a new editor can be criticized byothers for using non-reputable sources or for failing to use sources appropriately, we need to distinguish between the two (as Morven distinguishes between quality of sources and quality of citations) and explain them as simply and clearly as we can. But "reputable sources" is crucial, because many edit-wars are triggered over what constitutes a reputable sourc. Slrubenstein 17:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Just for clarification, Slrubenstein, I think you have me confused with someone else. I haven't said anything about quibbling. Maurreen 17:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Damn -- I am very sorry, Maurreen. I meant Jmabel. Slrubenstein 19:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * No problem, not to worry. Maurreen 05:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some musings about citing sources
I haven't been following discussion, my apologies, but I posted some random musings about citing sources on the mailing list and got a couple of flatteringly positive responses. Steven L. Rubenstein called it... well, I don't want to blush... and said "I think incorporating into the policy at least some of what he wrote would be an important improvement." Since what I wrote was long and might be a bit tangential, and I'm don't want to spend time right now figuring out how it bears on our policy, I've put it up on my user page here. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A question about APA style
I'm somewhat puzzled by the example given. Specifically, what does "Gettysburg: Printing Press" signify? The location of the publisher? What about "Printing Press"? —Simetrical (talk) 02:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have the APA style book, but the example you give is a common one. It's part of the "facts of publication," which includes place, publisher, and date. Taken literally, your example indicates that the publisher is "Printing Press" located in Gettysburg. —Wayward 22:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Authoritativeness and Relevance of sources
Every text in Wikipedia that is not a direct quote is a interpretation of another text. Even a summary is an interpretation of the original text. Furthermore, deciding which arguments to present for and against a theory in an article is interpretation and original research. So all articles in Wikipedia contain some degree of interpretation and original research. Therefore the guidelines cannot just decide which information to allow or not to allow. It must also be guidelines for this discussion and interpretation. In the more controversial topics in Wikipedia informal rules for this discussion is already in place by itself. Look for example at capitalism or race and intelligence.

A rough draft might be that all facts should be supported from outside sources, if demanded. The only theories in Wikipedia should be those held by "many" people or an authority.

Regarding sources in the discussion of a theory, one important factor is the authoritativeness of the source. One guideline might be to avoid arguing against more authoritative arguments with less authoritative. For example, to avoid arguing against peer-reviewed studies by referring to common opinion. Although common opinion could certainly be mentioned, especially in areas where there are no academic research as in many conspiracy theories. An example of the hierarchy of authoritativeness might be:

1. Peer-reviewed studies or government statistics 2. Academic press 3. Opinion held by an authority. That might be a person who has previously done academic research in discussed area. Or dead persons considered authorities by authorities today. 4. Opinion held by many people who are not authorities (5. Opinion held by only one or a few people who are not authorities).

Another factor is the relevance of the source for the theory. A source with very little relevance for the theory should be avoided. An example of the hierarchy of relevance might be:

1. Discusses the theory directly. 2. Discusses general principle important for the theory. For example, a page about peak oil might reference an article that discusses solar power in general without mentioning peak oil. 3. Statistic that if generalized affects the theory. For example, a page about capitalism or Marxism might reference US government statistics about growing differences in income. (4. Anecdotal evidence for the theory. For example, a page about poverty in the third world might reference the income of a particular person.) Ultramarine

 * I mostly agree; one demurral: the priority of peer-reviewed studies varies with subject matter. For example, a peer reviewed academic paper on punk rock would probably be authoritative on dates and names, but wouldn't necessarily carry any more weight than a review in Maximum Rock'n'Roll for its judgement of a band. There are simply fields where the real experts aren't in academia. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about this heirarchy of relevance as it could be used by some to introduce their own synthesis of published material i.e. their own arguments. While others have made the point that we don't want to stifle creativity, and I agree with that, we also don't want people using Wikipedia as a platform to publish their own essays. Dipping into a variety of sources for a paragraph here and there that supports an argument is personal essay-writing. Ultramarine's example about a page about Marxism referencing U.S. government statistics about differences in income is an example of what editors ought not to do, in my view. Perhaps that's what you meant too, Ultramarine. I'm all for giving examples within a "heirarchy of relevance," but I'd like to see a cut-off point where we say: "And these examples would count as original research." SlimVirgin 22:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviating journal titles
It is a common practice to abbreviate journal titles in references. Although these abbreviations are clear to people familiar with the field, they are often hard to decypher for general readers. For example, ''Math. Scand. means Mathematica Scandinavica''.

I intend to add some text to the project page to the effect of "Write out journal titles completely; don't use abbreviations." in the Journal articles section, unless someone objects here. dbenbenn | talk 20:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that journal titles must be fully spelled out. The reason for abbreviations is either that the author (of a book) provides a key to the abbreviations, or that the author (of an article) assumes that his or her audience knows the full titles. We can't make this assumption here; the range of our articles is too broad to follow the first example, and our audience is too large and heterogeneous to follow the second.

PS isn't Math. Scand. the magazine about scandals involving mathematicians? Slrubenstein 22:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Same in other realms: Talmudic literature, for example: Sanhedrin is a lot clearer than Sanh. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:52, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, done. Thanks for the reply.  dbenbenn | talk 21:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Citing secondhand
Is there a proper method for citing something that is cited in another work? For example, I have a source that says ''Charlie Gillett has said (the first rock and roll record) was Bill Haley's "Crazy Man" in 1963. Nick Tosches has argued for "Sixty Minute Man", which was recorded by the Dominoes in 1951.'' (there are citations for Gillett and Tosches). Tuf-Kat 19:08, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * In academic journals and books I have seen two different practices:
 * one is simply to lift the quote and provide its original citation.
 * The other is to say "blah blah blah," quoted by x (x 2005: 87).
 * I think people favor the first approach when the original source is easily available. Sometimes, though, this source is from an out of print book or a magazine or journal so minor that most university libraries don't have it -- in that case, people favor the second approach.  Another consideration is the context in which you are using the original quote.  If you are doing it in the context of a discussion of the secondary source, you should follow the second approach. Slrubenstein 19:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the original work, you should generally make that clear. You can cite "FOO cited in BAR". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Article titles in quotes
This is the example for an article currently used in "Cite sources""
 * Brandybuck, Meriadoc. (1955). Herb-lore of the Shire. Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry

Shouldnt the article title be in quotes? Shouldnt the name of the journal be italic? Like so:
 * Brandybuck, Meriadoc. (1955). "Herb-lore of the Shire", Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry

--Stbalbach 21:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:32, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Template:Journal reference needs attention, then. Uncle G 23:20, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Quoted article titles is one common style, and no one will complain if you use them for your citations (I do so myself), but it's not what APA style does. —Steven G. Johnson 23:30, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * If I am going to now be adding quotation marks, since I discovered the project page model changed this year to reflect the above after I had already started articles without using them per the old page examples, I do not plan to put the comma after the article title outside the quotation marks unless that is the way I am supposed to punctuate in every other context. In American punctuation style, we don't place commas and periods outside quotation marks (but we do with semicolons). Is there a statement somewhere that says Wikipedia uses British style punctuation across the board? If so, then I have tons of articles to change. Also, previously we didn't put a period after both the author and date, just after the date. My intended method for Music bio article's source reference list:

 * Smith, Joe (1955). "Example Article Title." Scientific American.
 * — Emerman 15:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I beg to differ. While the most common U.S. style puts punctuation inside quotation marks when they represent an actual quotation, this in not the case when quotation marks are used to set off titles. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:16, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you have a source for that statement or a particular style guide link demonstrating it that you can point me to? I have not seen one, and I have bookmarked several citation style guides online. To me, the style I have used in the Music bio article's source reference list I did looks right; what do you think? It did not look right to me when I briefly had it the other way. When I put the comma or period outside the quotation mark, it also pushes a big space between the quote mark and the punctuation if it's a linked article title, and it generally just looks awkward. I previously looked at several style guides before I even started writing my articles. If I saw that your statement is supported by several style guides, I'd be glad to adopt it. I have my own book copies of The Chicago Manual of Style, AP Styleguide, and a couple of others I could hunt for in my house if you are using a book reference for this statement. — Emerman 01:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Referencing a CD
I want to reference a music CD. I came here looking for an example of what style to use, but it isn't addressed. Anyone care to add that info? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 23:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've been using a format of my own creation. For example Alvin Curran. Hyacinth 00:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concern over some text
"If there are few references and the material is uncontroversial, in-text citations are often unnecessary." - I disagree! If we are going to have inline references in the form [1] then I really must say that this is not correct. For instance, The Sydney Morning Herald has online versions of newspaper articles, but when they get archived it's impossible to get access to the article. All methods of verification of the time, the title of the article and the author are then lost to us. Having a link that doesn't describe the info is NOT good. In fact, it's worse that useless! We really still need to add the inline references to the references section. I would like to scrap this particular statement. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. There are no references without in-text citations. A list of references at the end of an article without citations is at best Further reading. Hyacinth 02:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * So what we have here is: a references section that doesn't reference anything, and inline references that are almost next to useless when the site takes down/archives/moves their pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, Ta bu shi da yu is confused — you always should have the complete reference information at the end. What the comment in question is saying is that you don't necessarily have to sprinkle the text with (Foo, 1995) pointers in addition...this is only necessary in cases where it is difficult to figure out which reference contains information on which topic in the article. (Often, the references should be to broad review articles and textbooks relevant to the entire article, not just to specific statements.) The comment is not referring to [1] -style autonumbered URLs, which are deprecated here for a variety of reasons (albeit are still better than nothing).

Second, Hyacinth is still beating the drum that references are somehow distinct from "further reading", which is not how references are used in most publications and is even less relevant to Wikipedia (where the question of which things were "used" to write a work is blurred by multiple authors). —Steven G. Johnson 23:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * I too think that the distinction between further reading and works cited is useful. It is true you don't find this distinction in academic books and journals -- but that is because they are not written primarily as educational material.  Many textbooks, on the other hand, make this distinction.  That any article has many editors shouldn't be a problem.  I am sure any editor will figure out where to put the works they cite, and where to put others that they do not cite but nevertheless recommend to people. Slrubenstein 16:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree with Slrubenstein. References are entirely distinct from further reading. The former are those actually used to contribute material to an article or to factually confirm what is there. The latter is simply a source available for the interested reader to find more. Yes various uses outside Wikipedia confuse the distinction at times, but that doesn't make the difference any less important. The question of which were properly used simply needs to be confirmed by each author using a given resource. That is not an issue. Confirming they did actually use them is potentially a little more difficult, but if someone says they did, we should assume good faith, unless evidence is provided they are wrong. Eventually referenced articles could be put through a formal peer review process that does validate the facts against the cited sources and perhaps additional ones if needed. - Taxman 18:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Hyacinth, Slrubenstein and Taxman, in that, there is a useful distinction between the recommended works listed in a "Further reading" section and referenced (and perhaps cited) works listed in a "References" section. Of course works listed as references can also be used for further reading. Paul August ☎ 18:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * You are all entitled to your opinions, but please realize that you are all absolutely at odds with mainstream scholarly practice. (Not just in journals.  The textbooks that I have do not make this distinction.  By and large, they either have a "further reading" section or a "references" section in each chapter, not both, plus a bibliography chapter at the end that typically summarizes all the works cited.  Although I think a single "review" article is a better analogy for a single Wikipedia article than a whole textbook, anyway.)  The essential problem is that the distinction you want to make is completely artificial: very often, a good source for writing about something, or for checking a fact, is also a good source for further reading, and vice versa.  (Moreover, an expert will often write from her own knowledge and then add a reference to help a general reader.) Wikipedia exacerbates the problem because, while one editor used a source to look up a fact and recommends another for further reading, the case might be the opposite for another editor who comes along and wants to check an article...should the citation heading fluctuate with time?  —Steven G. Johnson 04:47, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * For one, the distinction is not artificial in the least. The source was either used properly or it wasn't. For another, those listed as correctly used references are no less available to the reader then any other source listed as further reading, they just instead have the additional distinction that they were properly used as a reference. Your question is spurious. If one editor used one source as a proper reference it should be listed as such. Another editor later comes along and uses a source that is listed as further reading to do the same, then it too should be listed as a proper reference. Thus it is still very simple, and no conflict is had: those sources that were correctly used are listed as such and those that were not are not. - Taxman 20:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steven G that this distinction, while there is some logic to it, is relatively uncommon (at least in my experience) and I don't think it is particularly helpful for a general readership where such a subtle distinction is likely to either go unnoticed or cause confusion. older ≠ wiser 12:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * If the policy/explanation pages explain the distinction, there is very likely to be no major confusion. And then just like any other distinction, if someone misses it, just point them to the correct policy page. Besides, the distinction is not remotely subtle. The source was either used by the editor or it was not. Amalgamating them is innaccurate at best and dishonest at worst. Again, the only argument you guys repeatedly make is that other people don't do it correctly, so there is no need for us to. Well other people don't release under a free license either, so there is no need for us to either. Both of those things are entirely irrelevant to what we should do. It's like saying John doesn't avoid beating his wife so why should I? Wtf does that have to do with the price of tea in China? So basically I'll even concede that you are correct that it is not a common practice to make the distinction correctly, even if that is not in fact true, I don't know. But it is thoroughly irrelevant in any case. And finally, whether it is immediately helpful to the general readership is also beside the point. What is helpful to the general reader is to read an article from a resource that has a system in place to make sure the information is reliable. Proper referencing, including making the distinction between resources properly used as references and those not, is a key part of that system. - Taxman 20:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is absolutely irrelevant whether this is at odds with mainstream scholarly practice or not. As we all know, many things about Wikipedia are absolutely at odds with mainstream scholarly practice. The question is, are these differences merely matters of convention, or are they substantive? What is our goal, regardless of the goal of scholarly publications? How do we best achieve it? It is on these grounds that I think that having Works Cited and Further Readings is important. These two together fill the function of a "bibliography." By the way, most academic publications have moved away from a bibliography (which would list all the relevant works that were consulted in writing the article or book) to Works Cited (which lists only those books or articles actually cited in the study). I think there is value to Works Cited, because it is a quick and easy way for someone to get bibliographic information on something cited in the article. But this leaves out other books and articles that we know might be of interest to readers -- this is why "further reading" is for. Frankly, if some reader (as Steven G. implies) sees the category "further reading" and infers that they should not read any of the books or articles under works cited, well, what can I say -- thy have more serious problems than wikipedia confusion. Slrubenstein 15:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Speaking for myself, I was not specifically referring to scholarly publications in mentioning the relative uncommonness of having multiple sections containing bibliographic details. Although I still have occasion to consult academic pubs now and again, I am more familiar with practices of trade and general publications. I honestly do not see how having separate sections for "Works cited" (or "References") and "Further reading" (or "Bibliography") is helpful to anyone other than specialized readers and in so far as Wikipedia editors are having difficulty in coming to a clear understanding of what the purpose of each section is, is it really so farfetched to think that a general reader might be a little confused? And beyond those sections, there are "Sources" and "External links", which also overlap somewhat with the others. In many of the articles I write, I simply list the sources I used to create the article rather than provide any specific citations for discrete details. Of course for quoted material I'd give a more specific citation, but in general the articles I tend to develop are an amalgam of facts drawn from a variety of sources--it would be extraordinary and rather unfriendly to readers to reference specific citations for most details in the narrative. It is desirable to have specific citations for novel or disputed details and quoted materials, but I'm not sure why footnotes are not sufficient for that purpose. older ≠ wiser 16:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether it is helpful to every single wiki reader is again, entirely irrelevant to whether it should be done or not. If its value exceeds its cost it should most certainly be done. The cost is very low, and the value of the accuracy and reliability (and verification of that reliability) is very high. That makes it a simple decision. The cost is low because basically if anyone is confused, and that will happen, simply point them to the relevant policy/explanation just like it is done hundreds of times a day right now for other issues. Finally, it is not unfriendly at all to readers to properly cite individual facts directly to their source. Wiki is not paper, and the citation marks can in a relatively short amount of time, be set to be invisible to the average reader by default. I think the programming time to implement that would be less than a week of focused work including the time to implement the citations system in the first place!. You are right though that it is especially important for important or disputed facts. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think footnotes would be just fine for that. I think the specific implementation of how the citation is made is not important as long as it is clear what source or sources the fact comes from or is verified by and that all the relevant information on the source is made available. So its clear we agree on something at least! :) - Taxman 20:23, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Finally, it is not unfriendly at all to readers to properly cite individual facts directly to their source What may or may not be unfreindly is precisely how the citations are presented. There is little that is more off-putting to non-academic readers than long (and possibly multiple) lists of bibligographic materials, especially so if used for citations of otherwise commonplace facts. I think discussing this in the abstract is difficult--especially as it is very likely that different types of articles may require very different levels of citation. I'd actually be quite happy with a citation system that has some sort of dual interface, so the nitty-gritty details are available, but only if readers really want to see them. older ≠ wiser 21:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I can agree with that. A system that lets the user select the level of citation they want to see would be ideal. I'd even be fine with having it almost off by default as long as it was there.  Now there is no perfect system like that yet, but I certainly don't think it is worth it to avoid promoting better citations just because a couple people will get annoyed by them now. Even if every reader were somewhat annoyed by them the value of good citations is well worth the cost. It would just be that much more motivation for someone to develop the system we agree would be great. For now it could be as simple as having a third namespace with a tab next to the "discussion" tab that holds the citations and referencing. This is not the place to discuss the system implementation, but it certainly would not be relatively difficult. - Taxman 22:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 4


text:
Talk:Havyaka Brahmins

Similarity with Tuluva Tale
I found significant similarities between Tuluva history (!!) with that of Havyaka. Tulu script Tigalari has been found in significant numbers in present day Havyaka populated areas of Shimoga. In that case, Havyaka language would be more of a mixture of Tulu and Kannada rather than a dialect of Kannada. http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=860

216.75.212.7 (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Adi

Tuluva history is prominently of sthanika tulu brahmins having an history from 380 BCE.When havyaks came in later part of 9th AD these cultural admixing is seen. Shivashambo (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

All the tiglari script manuscripts are in tulu language of sthanika tulu brahmins and not in haiga kannada. Shivashambo (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Havyaka
havyaka and brahmin are almost as synonymous as iyers and brahmins. and yes,they speak a pure form of kannada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanthv86 (talk • contribs)

Havyakas are a distinct community. Unlike other castes, they have a distinct and powerful dialect with close resamblence to Tamil. This should not be merged with caste. This should remain here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.85.127.139 (talk • contribs)

If the page is about Havyakas, then it should be part of the category caste. The problem is all of Havyaka Kannada speakers are Brahmins, which is definitely a caste identity. Let's consider another dialect of Kannada, Kunda Kannada. This dialect is spoken by all the castes in Kundapura. So if you are writing an article about Kundas, then it's about a community that speaks that language. However, speakers of Havyaka Kannada are Brahmins and in perspective a caste.

However, I would like to see more information on topic. Like description of Havyaka surnames. I hope there would be more research on the surname 'Bhatta'. From Kashmiri muslims to Kerala Brahmins (Bhat), this has a long continuous journey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.161.251 (talk • contribs)

No haiga kannada is also spoken by halakki gowda jananga of sagara Shivashambo (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Prominent members
Prominent members: It has been advised not to publish the list of Prominent members in the Havyaka Brahmin Wiki page. This item needs to be deleted because there are hundreds of prominent persons/people in this community and we just cant name a few. It will also create controvercy. So better delete it. If anyone wants so then they can create a separate page with a heading like Prominent members of Havyaka Community and so on. (Bharathiya) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * No need to delete the list. it is a part of structure. if you think there are hundreds of prominent peoples please add their name to the list. C 21 K talk  10:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is against the policy of Wikipedia to accept anything without any third party reference. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" As far as I understand third party references are rarely available to many Havyaka Members. Further as I can see that many have put like "Leading Agriculturist". In that way all the Havyaka' stand to be called as Leading Agriculturist. So I would appreciate if you create entirely another page of Prominent Havyakas and link to this page. It looks odd. Featuring only a few is a great injustice to others and featuring everyone is not possible without third party references. I repeat there are hundreds of prominent persons/people in this community and we just cant name a few. Please understand the seriousness. Bharathiya --Bin (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 * My answer is same as i said above. if you think there are hundreds of prominent peoples please include there names. removing the entire list is not allowed. C 21 K talk  02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are more than 100 prominent havyaks, please add them to list and please do not remove the added prominent havyaks from the list. Will any body explain the logic behind adding the name of Kota brahmin Mr.Harish Hande under Havyak brahmins ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramachandrap1983 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes u r right. Harish Hande is a kota brahmin. it was added by user 'Bharathiya' he should expalin this. C 21 K talk  03:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How are havyakas related to Bhumihars in UP and Bihar??
There is a line saying that havykas are same as bhumihar brahmins in UP and Bihar. Is there any document or proof related to tis statement exist? Looking forward!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skpandey (talk • contribs)

All implicated guessess Shivashambo (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Retain wiki notables
They are approved by wiki. Notable is a reserved work on wiki. If you think there are so many, I ask you to write them on wiki and wiki consensus will decide whether they are notable to wiki. There is a difference - notable to wiki and notable to someone (It has to be proved to wiki, not to some individual). You may delete them who are not notable on wiki. I suggest you to look into the notables from the other articles. Thanks.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I have no objection to place the names of those who are notable to wiki. But I have strong objection for those who just go on placing their names without any third party reference. Anyway I value your suggestions and Thanks for the same. --Bin (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * All those names who are not considered as notable on wiki or those without reference and which are not as per wikipedia standards will be deleted. So it has been requested with all those to give proper reference, citation while adding the name/s to the list of prominent members.

--Bin (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Girish Kasaravalli
Is Girish Kasaravalli a havyak? in one interview kasaravalli said K. V. Subbanna is his uncle (father's brother). someone confirm it. C 21 K talk 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. He is a havyak. As I know, his mother and K.V.Subbanna's wife are sisters.Gmjoy (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please create article about these havyaka personalities to meet notability
hi according to wiki policy only people with articles are notable add these personalities in notable category only after creation of article. Linguisticgeek (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shankar S. Hegde - Management Consultant
 * Geeravani Shreekant Hegde, Anthravalli - Sanskrit teacher. Successful Multi-level marketing genius. Editor of "Havyaka" monthly magazine. Closest advisor of Sri Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji
 * Divaspathi Hegde - Well-known Kannada litterateur
 * Hemanth Hegde - Kannada film director
 * Sediyapu Krishna Bhatta - reknowned poet, story teller, philologist, lexicographer and a great scholar in Kannada. Recipent of Pampa Award.
 * Gajanana Sharma - Kannada writer
 * Kageri Vishweshwar Hegde- Minister for Primary and Secondary Education, Government of Karnataka
 * Mena Ramakrishna Bhat - a Sanskrit scholar
 * Dhananjay Hegde - Hindustani vocalist
 * P. Gopalakrishna (Pa. Go)- Journalist and Columnist from Mangalore. Pa.Go was instrumental for having Yakshagana in Dasara Festivities as regular feature by taking the coastal Yakshagana to Mysore Dasara in the Year 1955.
 * Adyanadka Krishna Bhat - Noted Science writer, Retired professor of Physics in Vijaya College, Mulki (DK). He is the first person to publish a magazine in Kannada exclusively for popularizing the science. The magazine 'Vignana Loka' originally published as quarterly magazine was his brain child. He is the national award winner in the year 1996 for popularizing science.
 * D. N. Shankara Bhat - Kannada writer
 * Chittani Ramachandra Hegde - Yakshagana artist
 * Varanasi Subraya Bhat - founder-president of CAMPCO
 * T.Madiyal (Thimmappa Madiyal)- Retired IPS officer, who was Bangalore Police commissioner when Raj kumar was abducted. He later became DGP of Karnataka.
 * Vidwan Gajanan joshi- Hindu priest - Person stained with bad Karma
 * Vidwan Nadahalli Ranganatha Sharma- Sanskrit and Kannada scholar
 * Sri Gangadharena Saraswathi Swamiji- Swarnavalli Mutt pontiff
 * Aedurkala Shankara Narayana Bhat
 * Anant Mahadev Bhat Devanimath
 * Kadave Shreepad Hegde

Relation to namboodiri Questionable
Relation to namboodiri brahmins is questionable since nambi the most orthodox of all brahmins consider all other brahmins inferior to themselves.they only relation they reluctantly agree is with the shivalli brahmins of tulu nadu who are also in kerala around trivandrum and are called erabrandiri. Linguisticgeek (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

havyaka population
I have understood that havyaka popultion is three lakhs referring to the book 'havyakara ithihasa Dharshana' by H.M.Thimmappa of page no 255. Vidyu44 (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Vidyu44 (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I have reedited the population as six lakhs, as per instructions of the writer Shri. H.M. Thimmappa, Kalasi, Sagar. 117.228.194.178 (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Havyaka.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023
Havyak Brahmins are Aryan Brahmins and there origin from Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh

They have surname bhat,hegde,dixit Joshi, Upadhyay. Pramod545 (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023 (2)
Pramod545 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC) 1.Havyak Brahmins are Aryan Brahmins. 2. There origin from Ahichatra of uttarakand and Uttar Pradesh. 3. There surname are Bhat,Hegde, dixit, Joshi, Upadhyay.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023 (4)
}} Pramod545 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Some changes should be added
1.havyaka Brahmins are Aryan Brahmins 2. They came from Ahichatra of Uttarakhand and Uttar pardesh. 3.The havyak Brahmins surname are Bhat, Hegde,Joshi, Upadhyay and dixit. 4. There origin are Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. 5. They were doing pooja then agriculture now they are seen employed and doing business. 6.They are in Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Uttar kannada district cities and villages, Hubli and many more cities. Pramod545 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I am going to clean the article up because it is a big mess. It is true that the Havyakas originated in Northern India (Ahicchatra) but they have lived in South India since 7th or 8th century AD so claiming that Havyakas are "Brahmins of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand" is sorely misleading. By that logic, we are all "from" Africa as the human species originated there, but we do not say that about every ethnicity, do we? (For instance we don't say that an ethnic group based in rural China is "originally from Africa"). -- Pulimaiyi (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Havyaka Brahmins


text:
Talk:Dara Ó Briain

Date is unclear
The start of the Stand-up comedy section says "Ó Briain's stand up international career took off around this time as he began to tour heavily" but the exact meaning of 'around this time' seems to have lost its context. Does it refer back to the 1998-2000 timescale of his TV appearance mentioned a few paragraphs earlier? It could do with an edit by someone who can clarify it. Tedmarynicz (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The greyhound thing again
has added "It is reported.." to the beginning of a sentence. This is obvious, since if it hadn't been reported, we would be unable to include the content here. What worries me more is that using wording such as that implies, per WP:NPOV, that although it is reported, it may not be true. Per policy on biographies, that is unacceptable, and that is why I bring this issue here for discussion. Rodhull andemu  16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And its inclusion would seem to be contrary to the tenor of the third opinion above. Psystat, we've been to dispute resolution already over this; it's up to you to take it further, per WP:BURDEN. Meanwhile, any editor, subject to WP:3RR may remove material that does not have consensus. Rodhull  andemu  16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence 'too upset to talk about the dog' is now superfluous, owing to the reference pointing to same information available on Snip Nua page Psystat (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it important to report O'Brian's reaction, otherwise the inference could easily be drawn that he really didn't care that much. Rodhull  andemu  17:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel the inclussion of the story about demonstrations at his recent gigs need to be included as this in an integral part of the 'Snip nua incident'Psystat (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Without comment on the content, I remark 10 years later that at present the paragraph is totally unsourced—anything contentious particularly needs sources. Pol098 (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I claim no expertise on Irish pronunciation, but the IPA transcription [ˈbʲɾʲriənʲ], with a tapped r immediately followed by a trilled r, looks unlikely, and I can find no basis for the distinction in Irish phonology. I'm removing the trilled r as an error, but please correct further if you are an expert in the field. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholic
I suspect his comment that "I simply don’t believe in God. But I’m still Catholic, of course" - is probably a joke that he made, rather than his real opinion. If you see what I mean. Lionfish0 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he was being tongue in cheek about being ethnically catholic. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dara's tour in 2007?
According to the article, his fourth tour in 2007 was almost entitled "You had to be there". This is wrong, as he specifically used this line on his 2008 tour, and it appears on the "Talks Funny: Live in London" DVD. In addition, I haven't been able to find further information on a 2007 tour, so I'm sure the user editing the article got the date confused. Unless anyone objects, I'd like to change the date to 2007 --86.31.61.220 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Source for science programme
A source for the science programme that he will be presenting on BBC Two is available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zxmqj  ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
English matters more than Irish. 99.238.74.216 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Family Brain Game
This article could put in that he has presented a programme on BBC Two called "Family Brain Game". Vorbee (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC) I see this has now been put in to the article. Vorbee (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wife's name?
Is there a source for his wife's name as Susan Ó Briain? In Irish it should be Susan (bean) Uí Bhriain, as a married woman takes the genitive form of her husband's name, and not 'Ó Briain', as Dara's is.

Dara has been very vocal about his history with the Irish language, so it seems very strange that his wife's name is listed, uncited, with an unusual (ungrammatical) form.177.194.178.151 (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC
 * There is a Dr. Susan O'Briain at Susan O'Briain Clinic London. I don't know whether it's the same person—sounds like it. It would seem normal for a couple living in Britain to use British name conventions. Pol098 (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dara Ó Briain


text:
Elephant in Cairo

An elephant in Cairo is a term used in computer programming to describe a piece of data that matches the search criteria purposefully inserted at the end of a search space, in order to make sure the search algorithm terminates; it is a humorous example of a sentinel value. The term derives from a humorous essay circulated on the Internet that was published in Byte magazine on September 1989, describing how various professions would go about hunting elephants.

Algorithm
When hunting elephants, the article describes programmers as following this algorithm:
 * Go to Africa.
 * Start at the Cape of Good Hope.
 * Work northward in an orderly manner, traversing the continent alternately east and west,
 * During each traverse pass:
 * Catch each animal seen.
 * Compare each animal caught to a known elephant.
 * Stop when a match is detected.

This algorithm has a bug, namely a bounds checking error: if no elephants are found, the programmer will continue northwards and end up in the Mediterranean sea, causing abnormal termination by drowning.

Thus experienced programmers modify the above algorithm by placing a known elephant in Cairo to ensure that the algorithm will terminate. The modified algorithm is therefore as follows:

 * Go to Africa.
 * Put an elephant in Cairo.
 * Start at the Cape of Good Hope.
 * Work northward in an orderly manner, traversing the continent alternately east and west,
 * During each traverse pass:
 * Catch each animal seen.
 * Compare each animal caught to a known elephant.
 * Stop when a match is detected.
 * If you are in Cairo, then there are no elephants in Africa (other than the one you placed there).

title: Elephant in Cairo


text:
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) was an Australian government department that existed between November 2001 and January 2006.

Scope
Information about the department's functions and government funding allocation could be found in the Administrative Arrangements Orders, the annual Portfolio Budget Statements, in the department's annual reports and on the department's website.

According to the Administrative Arrangements Order made on 26 November 2001, the department dealt with:
 * Entry, stay and departure arrangements for non-citizens
 * Border immigration control
 * Arrangements for settlement of migrants and humanitarian entrants, other than migrant child education
 * Citizenship
 * Ethnic affairs
 * Multicultural affairs
 * Indigenous affairs and reconciliation

History
Originally, this department was formed in the second Howard ministry when the ministerial portfolio of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs merged with the Department of Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Only two ministers have held this department, Phillip Ruddock and Amanda Vanstone, before it was returned to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, and the Indigenous portfolio was subsumed in the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in the final days of the Howard government.

Controversy
In 2004-2005 the department was responsible for the unlawful 10-month detention of Cornelia Rau, a German citizen and Australian permanent resident as part of the Australian government's mandatory detention program. Rau's detention became the subject of a government inquiry which was later expanded to investigate over 200 other cases of suspected unlawful detention by DIMIA.

The department also ran the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre, an Australian immigration detention facility near the village of Woomera in South Australia through contract with Australasian Correctional Management (ACM), a subsidiary of Wackenhut Security Corporation. ACM was criticised over various practices, including failing to staff the centre adequately, and concealing evidence of child abuse. The detention centre was the site of riots, hunger strikes, and lip-sewing, which included children.

Structure
The department was an Australian Public Service department, staffed by officials who were responsible to the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs and Indigenous affairs, Philip Ruddock (until 2003) and then Amanda Vanstone. The secretary of the department at its creation was Bill Farmer. Farmer was replaced by Andrew Metcalfe in July 2005, after publicly stating that the department would benefit from vigorous organisational review and major cultural change, led by a new secretary.