text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Brooks

 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 deleted. --Dmcdevit·t 23:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Michael E. Brooks
Vanity, non-notable, etc. —Cryptic (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Vanity. Gwk 03:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, vanity. royblumy 06:21, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity --jonasaurus 20:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:25, 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:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Gillaspy

 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 redirect to Radio Vago. There were 5 delete, 2 redirect and 1 merge, so there is no consensus for an outright deletion, but a clear consensus to discard the content. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Jen Gillaspy

 * Delete - Vanity, non-notable Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:40, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
 * Delete nn royblumy 06:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Radio Vago. JamesBurns 09:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity --jonasaurus 20:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Radio Vago, though I'm not sure "looks more like a bear than a lizard" is really wikipedia material to begin with. siafu 22:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Foods? Fun facts? vanity. --Etacar11 00:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Radio Vago, nothing worth merging. Dcarrano 01:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing here worth keeping, so nothing worth redirecting either. -Splash 01:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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


text:
User talk:Loremipsum

Richardson Family Murders
The version I deleted mentioned a number of living and recently dead people, none of whom had any claim to notability. The only detail of notability is that one person was an unusually young killer - OK, but not of sufficient notability to drag everybody else into Wikipedia. It's a trivia fact, and could be covered in a sentence in another article. Phil Sandifer 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Loremipsum


text:
User talk:StarPrincessLita

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes ( Redwolf24 04:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC) ) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes ( Redwolf24 ) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

By the way, I saw your album question. Albums are my specialty so if you got another question, go to my talk page Redwolf24 04:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:StarPrincessLita


text:
The Seventh Night: Unplugged

The Seventh Night: Unplugged is a compilation album released by Gackt on May 26, 2004. It contains acoustic arrangements of previously released songs and complements The Sixth Day, a single collection released three months earlier. The unplugged theme of The Seventh Night would be continued by Gackt's subsequent album, Love Letter.

Release
The album was released on May 26, 2004, by Nippon Crown. In the initial counting week of June it reached number five on the Oricon chart, with sales of 42,105 copies. In the upcoming week, it was at number twelve respectively, with sales of 13,518. It charted for 8 weeks, and sold over 100,000 copies, certified Gold by RIAJ.

title: The Seventh Night: Unplugged


text:
German Bestelmeyer

German Bestelmeyer (8 June 1874 – 30 June 1942) was a German architect, university lecturer, and proponent of Nazi architecture. Most of his work was in South Germany.

Education
Bestelmeyer was born in Nuremberg, the son of a military doctor. He studied architecture from 1893 to 1897 at the Technical University of Munich under Friedrich von Thiersch and at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna under Friedrich von Schmidt.

Early career
Bestelmeyer worked as a building inspector and planner in Nuremberg, Regensburg, and at the University of Munich, where he designed an extension to the main building that was built between 1906 and 1910.

Professorships
In 1910 he was appointed to a professorship at Technische Universität Dresden. The following year he transferred to the Dresden Academy of Fine Arts, and in 1915 to the Berlin University of the Arts. In 1919 he also became a professor at Technische Universität Berlin. In 1922 he returned to Munich as a professor at the Technical University of Munich, and from 1934 until his death in 1942 he was President of the Academy of Fine Arts, Munich.

Style and influence
Bestelmeyer was an outspoken advocate of traditionalist völkisch architecture. He was a member of the Munich School to which Paul Troost also belonged. In 1928, with Paul Schultze-Naumburg, Paul Schmitthenner and others, he founded "The Block", a group of architects in opposition to the modernist group Der Ring.

Bestelmeyer was singled out for praise in 1931 by Schultze-Naumburg and in 1934, shortly after Adolf Hitler's rise to power, wrote an article in which he endorsed Alexander von Senger's criticism of Le Corbusier, described 1920s architecture as having become "soulless", and rejected flat roofs as unsuited to the climate in Germany. He was a member of both the Deutscher Werkbund and the antisemitic Militant League for German Culture. He became a Reich Cultural Senator in 1935.

Nazi architecture
Bestelmeyer brought von Senger to the Bavarian Academy and designed buildings such as the Luftwaffe office building on the Prinzregentenstraße in Munich, which were much praised at the time. However, he also designed a number of mostly Protestant churches, some of which met with official approval, and Hitler chose his design for the Mangfall Bridge, a girder bridge on two massive concrete pylons carrying one of the new Reichsautobahns, which was influential in its simple modernity and size.

Funeral
Bestelmeyer died in 1942 at the resort of Bad Wiessee. On Hitler's orders, his body was brought back to Munich and after lying in state in the Academy of Fine Arts, transferred for the state funeral to the light-court of the University of Munich which he had designed, with 300 members of the Hitler Youth in attendance.

Selected works

 * Extension to Main Building of the University of Munich (1906–09)
 * Adolphus Busch Hall at Harvard University, then the Germanic Museum (1910)
 * Schlosshotel im Grunewald in Berlin-Grunewald (1911–14), built as a villa for Walter von Pannwitz
 * Renovation and extension of Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg (1914–19)
 * Administration building, Life Insurance Bank "Arminia" in Munich (1914–16)
 * Altes Stadthaus in Bonn (1922)
 * Reichsschuldenverwaltung Building in Berlin (1921–23)
 * Extension Building of Technical University of Munich (1923–26)
 * Kroch High-rise on Augustusplatz in Leipzig (1927/28)
 * Protestant Christuskirche (Church of Christ) in Neuburg an der Donau (1927–30)
 * Protestant Auferstehungskirche (Church of the Resurrection) in Munich-Westend (1930–31)
 * Research Building and Congress Center of the Deutsches Museum in Munich (1928–35)
 * Mangfall Bridge near Weyarn (1934–36)
 * Luftwaffe Gau Command on Prinzregentenstraße in Munich (1935–36; now Bavarian Ministry of Economics)
 * Protestant Stephanuskirche (St. Stephen's Church) in Munich Neuhausen-Nymphenburg (1936–38)

title: German Bestelmeyer


text:
User talk:Arimnaes

Possibly unfree Image:Mark Rosewater Judge1.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mark Rosewater Judge1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arimnaes


text:
Alexander von Senger

Alexander von Senger (7 May 1880 in Geneva – 30 June 1968 in Einsiedeln), was a Swiss architect and architectural theorist.

Hugues Rodolphe Alexandre von Senger was born in Geneva. After his humanistic and technical Matura at the Collège Calvin, he studied at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technologie (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule) in Zürich, where he obtained 1904 his diploma as architect. He designed the main station of the Swiss Railways in St. Gallen (1911–13) and the main building (Altbau) of the Swiss Reinsurance Company (Swiss Re) in Zürich (1911–14).

In 1931, Senger, along with other Nazi architects such as Eugen Honig, Konrad Nonn, German Bestelmeyer, and especially Paul Schultze-Naumburg were deputized in the Nazi campaign against modern architecture, in a para-governmental propaganda unit called the Kampfbund deutscher Architekten und Ingenieure (KDAI). Through the pages of the official Nazi newspaper, the People's Observer (Völkischer Beobachter), these architects actively attacked the modern style in openly racist and political tones. They placed much of the blame on members of the architectural group "The Ring," calling Walter Gropius an "elegant salon-bolshevist", and calling the Bauhaus "the cathedral of Marxism".

These political connections helped Senger into a professorship at the Technical Hochschule in Munich when increasing political pressure forced out architect Robert Vorhoelzer, who had made the cultural error of modernism in several Bavarian post offices.

title: Alexander von Senger


text: User talk:Gokussj2

title: User talk:Gokussj2


text:
Talk:MIT Media Lab

Criticism
I am opening up a discussion page, since this page frequently seems to get vandalized by some dude putting in references to "all icing an no cake" or "humourously described as the marketing dept. of MIT." This sort of colloquial critisism is inappropriate in an encyclopedic entry. I would suggest that someone revert to the page of 6-July-2005. I think having critism of the quality of some of the research at the Media Lab is fine, and, indeed, necessary to represent the lab accurately.

Nevertheless, it needs to be based on facts, and ideally, by citing others criticizing the lab, rather than by stating opinions in the article. Statements like "the Media lab's contribution to substantive scientific research is all but non-existent" are blatently false -- for instance, the quantum computing group had several firsts in fairly fundamental physics, and currently has a quantum computer capable of factoring 15. It has some of the top researchers worldwide in the field. Also, there are people there doing very important scientific work in several other domains. In addition, not all of the research of the Media Lab is focused on science, and, therefore, should be evaluated not for its scientific quality, but rather by the methods in relevant fields, such as art and design.

There is a second set of edits, also bordering on vandalism, from members of the Media Lab (nslookup the IPs which made those edits --- and to the people making them, moving from 18.* to your home connections is exactly the type of deceitful sleaziness people complain about), which, as far as I can make out, are to remove anything significantly negative stated about the Media Lab, without any given reason. If you are within the Media Lab, be aware that there is a conflict of interest in you editing this page. As a result, please state reasons for the edits on the talkback page. If you simply remove criticism you don't like, without explaining why it is incorrect, I will revert the page. If there are factual mistakes, by all means fix them, and make a note that there was a factual mistake. If there is a stylistic problem (for instance, you view something as too negative), fix the style BUT LEAVE THE CRITISISM. Don't just clip out anything you don't like.

Oh yeah. If you are at the Media Lab, please, please, please write the accomplishments section. I think this is probably THE major hole in the article. If you are genuine about helping make this a good article, do the work, instead of vandalizing anything in it that you do not like.

 * I'm currently working at the lab but editing from home. In terms of the 18.x's, please keep in mind that the people adding the criticism are in most cases also at MIT from "competing" labs.
 * In any case, I cleaned up the criticism section a bit and the last revision in particular which introduced some stylistic issues. I've reworked the style in much of the whole section and removed or moved a couple sentances that were redundant or out of place. I did not (IMHO) remove any criticism.
 * I would like to remove the paragraph on Nicholas Negroponte from the section because it's not clear why the fact that he has been involved in Wired "criticism" of the lab. This should be either explained or removed. As it is, it's confusing and is not particularly effective criticism.
 * -- mako 17:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's been nearly a month without reply to this so I'm going to remove the NN criticism. Please add it to Nicholas' article if you think it belongs in Wikipedia at all. -- mako 20:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section missing
There appears to be no criticism section at all now. That is certainly not consistent with the Media Lab's somewhat mixed reputation in academic circles. If, as the person above claims, criticism has been removed by Media Lab personnel, then this is a problem that should be flagged to get attention from Wikipedia editors. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 * DonPMitchell: If the addition of criticism that have references that meet WP:RS and otherwise meet WP's policies and guidelines is deleted, the matter ultimately has to be dealt with by WP editors with administrative and other privileges. You can review the guidelines about this, and use the noticeboards for help.

 * But the first thing to do is add criticism. One way is to go back through this article's history, and add back criticism that meet WP:RS, etc. (this assumes you find such). If you use pop-ups. this can be done fairly fast.

 * I also note that your post about this is the first in over six and a half years. Lentower (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Achievements?
What tangible new technologies or inventions have been developed at MIT media lab? It's not quite clear to me.

 * eInk and Lego Mindstorms are probabliy the two of mostly widely known recent technologies that have been developed in the lab and then widely deployed but there are many such projects. I do not know if the lab itself has a complete list. -- mako 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

vandalism of MIT Media Lab page
yes I agree the criticism is a bit harsh. and then there are a lot of 18xxx commentators from inside...

 * Both the vandalism and the silencing of critics seems based in the MIT community. Much of this inter-lab animosity has a long and well established history. But it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. -- mako 17:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

ohh puhleez! Mako please step off your pedestal, will ya> the halo on your head is boo-hoo stinking!

I would like to learn about the animosity, or, more accurately, the politics.--John Bessa (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

theft of credit
"Historically, the Media Lab has had a problem with theft of credit for work."

Is this hearsay or are there some pointers to data that support this assertion? I'm curious as to how the Media Lab compares to other academic entities in this regard.

intelligent design
OK, I don't get the most recent edit, but I'm going to refrain from removing it at this particular juncture. A) how does ONE faculty members views turn into a criticism of the entire lab's "non rigorous approach"? B) I can't read the New York Times article; you have to pay; its a bad link to put as supporting evidence. C) I can't really find, after a brief internet search, any evidence that supports the idea that the Media Lab is a hotbed of intelligent design proponents; and D) although I don't agree with the theological implications of intelligent design as espoused by the most visible supporters of that theory, I don't see why there can be no challenge to Darwin's theories, no scientific search for a more complicated or different answer. So why does the viewpoint of a scientist who's viewpoint I can't even find become a smear on the whole ML? Maybe it just needs to be reqorded in a more NPOV manner. Ms ArtGeek 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Please. Remove it. I just read the article and Picard's name is mentioned in passing and in a list of other names. Quick googling didn't turn up much else on the topic except for signing that petition. I know of nobody else in the Media Lab who shares Picard's idea on this. Other more well known Media Lab faculty, like Marvin Minsky, are outspoken critics of religion in all of its forms. This is criticism of Picard and not of the lab and it doesn't belong in this article. I think it should be moved to her page or removed enitrely. There are 500+ scientists who signed that petition and I doubt that every institution that employs any of them needs a similar bit of criticism on its page. —mako 17:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Added Research Groups
I added the research groups and their leading professors to give a more fine-grained view of the lab, as well as provide a broad pointer to most faculty. It might be worth moving this to a new page. Any comments? - bwabes 01:25, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * It's an awful lot of information and comes almost at the beginning of the article... there's a lot of scrolling before you get to the other headings... Is it overkill to have each Media Lab Group have its own entry (a stub at least to start with)? Then this section could be a list of links that only show the group name and project leader (which itself gives an idea of the scope of projects within the article). I do think it's good info to have somewhow connected to the article- I think it's important to show the kinds of work the Media Lab does, how it's different from many other MIT projects in its intent, and the fact that some of the subjects they have to heavily engage range from electronic engineering to psychology to art. Ms ArtGeek 18:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I started a page MIT Media Lab Research Groups that lists links to future stub articles for all the research groups. I'll start moving the group descriptions to their own stubs, but any help would be appreciated.Bwabes 21:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I just encountered this effort as I was watching recent changes. Do you really think this is useful? These articles seem very close to making this subarea of Wikipedia into a web directory for the Media Lab, which is something we are not. I really think this information needs to be presented more concisely. Imagine if every university had an article for every research group! To answer Ms ArtGeek, yes, it's overkill. FreplySpang (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The lab is different than other University departments which work around a well defined topic or area of interest. The media has everything from filmmakers to designers to quantum physicists. A list of groups helps demonstrate this fact and the area covered by this broad scope. —mako 00:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I think it would work better in prose - for instance, your phrase "everything from filmmakers to designers to quantum physicists" conveys the idea pretty neatly. Presenting it as a list can be overwhelming to the general reader. But most of all, I would like to avoid having a large set of separate articles unless/until they can be fleshed out. FreplySpang (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll start trying to modify the information to be more concise.Bwabes 21:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

MIT Media Lab Physics and Media
I suppose someone more familiar with MIT could confirm whether this new article is redundant or not. --Shuki 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It would seem redundant, as the PMG is part of the Media Lab and is already discussed in the Media Lab article. Walter.bender 23:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

spinoffs:

 * Can anyone confirm that Wireless 5th Dimensional Networking is actually an ML spinoff? I'm not finding much about them on the web, and the stub about hybrid search seems totally pointless.

"Institute Professor" nominated for deletion
The article titled Institute Professor has been nominated for deletion by user:Kane5187, who says not all of the 10-or-12-or-so Institute Professors are notable. This while many MIT professors who are not Institute Professors have Wikipedia articles and are universally considered notable (and so do most of the Institute Professors). Please opine at Articles for deletion/Institute Professor. Your input is needed! Michael Hardy 00:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First Picture
Why is that first image even included? That's not (as the picture detail page says) what the atrium of that building looks like. It's kind of a cute picture, but I don't think this article is the place for it. Can we delete it? Right now it's just really confusing, especially with the second image (which is legitimate) looking completely different.

response to all "icing no cake"
The dude you refer to about "vandalizing" is speaking correctly - his source is none other than the godfather of the Media Lab - NN himself: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.05/mitlab.html excerpted from the wired article

''Students complain that egocentric professors are undermining the Lab's interdisciplinary spirit. And the Lab's reputation as a scientific lightweight - "all icing and no cake," as Negroponte sums up the rap - never seems to die. Designing props for the wacky Flying Karamazov Brothers juggling troupe isn't exactly what the Nobel committee is looking for. ''

Lack of citations in article
On October 1st, 2006 I added "Verification needed" or "citation needed" notes to a number of unsubstantiated, "weasel-worded," and seemingly slanderous/attacking claims in the "Criticism" section. Three months have passed without a single citation being found for any of the malicious claims. If six months pass, I will propose that we remove this section, as they are so vague and sneaky as to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. As Jimmy Wales noted, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." I tend to err on the side of open discussion, which is why I tagged this part with 'needs to cite' tag anyway, and it seems that various parties are battling over the article -- but, this is an extremely odd article. Can't believe this kind of stuff winds up in Wikipedia. (Amaranth12498 06:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

The MIT policies regarding intellectual property, which also govern the IP policy of the Media Lab, are found here: http://web.mit.edu/policies/13.1.html. The assertion that students own their inventions is only true in the case that it is "not developed in the course of or pursuant to a sponsored research..." The text in the Criticism Section of the article suggests otherwise. The Media Lab policies are available here: http://www.media.mit.edu/sponsors/ip.html. The goal of these policies, at least under my directorship, were to encourage both the lab's industrial partners and the students to take their ideas and inventions into practice, where they would have maximum impact. --Walter.bender 23:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, three more months have passed. Not a single criticism in that paragraph has been cited or justified, in the 6 months since the requests for citations was announced. I am now ready to delete the Criticisms section. I will do this within one week. Amaranth12498 19:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the criticism section, as the half-year period I gave for anyone to substantiate any of the criticism has passed without a single criticism being substantiated. As Jimmy Wales noted, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." I believe 6 months is enough time for the world to comment on criticisms, and not a single one was cited or defended. Amaranth12498 22:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

18.85.22.204
The user 18.85.22.204 (what appears to be a Media Lab address) should create an account: someone making so many edits to the page should not be doing do anonymously. --Walter.bender 18:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted text
Please do not copy text from Media Lab web pages into this article. Wikipedia cannot accept material that is not available under a free license. Also, the descriptions in an Wikipedia article need to be written from a neutral point of view, which an organization's own promotional material usually isn't. I have just removed several group descriptions copied from Media Lab web pages, but I may have missed some. FreplySpang 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Media Lab "community"
By this I mean the people who were hanging out there in the "old days." Richard M. Stallman comes to mind; I have read that this is were he developed his GNU "manifesto." --John Bessa (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

—==2014 request edit for error in research groups==

The list of research groups currently on the page is partially transposed by one line. The description given for Playful Systems is actually the description for Responsive Environmnets, all the way through to the description for Tangible Media which is listed twice (both correctly and for Synthetic Neurobiology). The correct description of Playful Systems does not appear. I will avoid editing this myself to avoid potential COI issues. Bmayton (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Go ahead and make the changes. – S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul needed :)
A rewrite is in order. Perhaps along the lines of other long-standing departments/divisions? Bell Labs, Buck Institute for Research on Aging, Princeton Institute for Advanced Study...

... – SJ  +  16:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sections: "History", "Buildings" / "Art and architecture", "People", "Research Groups", "Publications"
 * Buildings: Both have some architectural and historic interest.
 * Research: For each group, list the primary researchers and core projects [major projects already have their own articles]. A couple research groups have individual articles that could be merged here.
 * Publications: Would need paring and focus, there is quite a lot [and no central page of same for the whole lab, only individual groups, afaict]
 * People: most profs have their own article; needs comprehension. Perhaps best suited to category.
 * Art: faculty have produced some excellent contemporary art: both installations and permanent pieces.

Text removed from article
This is still pretty bad; acting on some of the overhaul notes above. – SJ + 20:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are some removed paras of detail that were poorly cited and don't seem significant:

This focus (adaptability) was highlighted by the May 9, 2007 symposium h2.0: new minds, new bodies, new identities. The event was organized by Hugh Herr and John Hockenberry, and featured Oliver Sacks, Michael Graves, Aimee Mullins, Michael Chorost, Susan Hockfield, among other speakers. The day-long program featured work that is blurring the distinction between "able bodied" and "disabled," demonstrating technologies at the neural-digital interface. Work represented emphasized the merging of technology with bodies and minds, altering the conceptions of human capability. New research initiatives were discussed, such as techniques to treat conditions such as Alzheimer's disease or depression, to sociable robots for monitoring the health of children or the elderly, to the development of smart prostheses that can mimic—and exceed—the capabilities of biological limbs. The symposium provided many examples of work that is the next step in the so-called "digital revolution." Research projects at the Media Lab aim to have a deep impact on humanity at large. This work, while initially intended for those considered to be "disabled," can ultimately improve life for all humanity.

While this includes traditional user interface design, most groups working on this take a broader view. Several groups are working on adding sensors and actuators of different sorts to common objects in the environment, to create "intelligent objects" that are aware of their surroundings, capable of predicting the user's goals and emotional state, and so can assist the user in a more effective way.

During the last years, new research groups have been born, whose scope goes beyond the applied science for industry and business. That is the case of the Macro Connections Group, which intends to develop new ways of processing data and transform it into meaningful knowledge. The Observatory of Economic Complexity, a joint venture with Harvard HKS/CID, has been developing the concept of Economic Complexity, proposed as an alternative economic measure. A series of visualizations such as the Product Exports Treemaps and the Product Space have been developed in the framework of this project as well.

More removed uncited text; couldn't find any such ref or spinoff: The Media Lab Web site has a section "Annual report to the president" that shows major achievements on a year-to-year basis.
 * Honors and awards

 * The SPINNER project can automatically edit video to fit a narrative structure.

Ito's description as "antidisciplinary" has been removed (again)
Joi Ito's description of the lab as antidisciplinary has been removed (again), and it's been removed on the very day that the media is reporting significant increase in the lab's growing Epstein scandal, which scandal seems to make Ito's description all the more interesting. Anyway, just a footnote. No suggestion here on what to do about any of this, if anything at all. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Any reason not to Wikilink Jeffrey Epstein's name?
It seemed odd to me that it wasn't, and at a quick glance I didn't see anything on the Talk page about it, so I decided to be bold and link it.

Is there some point of principle here that I'm missing?

Dpbsmith (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Request to update lede to include Goodwin Procter report
I'd like to ask that the Goodwin Procter report regarding the donations from Jeffrey Epstein be referenced in the lede. Currently, the launch of the investigation is referenced in the lede, but the results of the investigation are only referenced in the MIT_Media_Lab section. ChiaLynn (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No OpenAg reference?
As of 6 November 2020, there does not seem to be any reference to the wikipedia OpenAg page, or any other mention of OpenAg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceblair (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:MIT Media Lab


text: User talk:68.78.26.146

title: User talk:68.78.26.146


text:
User talk:Schneiderb

File:VAQ-135 (Logo).jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:VAQ-135 (Logo).jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Schneiderb


text: User talk:203.143.95.34

title: User talk:203.143.95.34


text: User talk:69.202.88.169

title: User talk:69.202.88.169


text:
Monastery of Christ in the Desert

The Monastery of Christ in the Desert is a Benedictine monastery in Abiquiu, New Mexico. It belongs to the English Province of the Subiaco Congregation.

It is located in the Chama River Canyon Wilderness area 75 miles north of Santa Fe. It is accessible by Forest Road 151, a 13-mile dirt road off of US route 84.

History
The monastery was founded in 1964 by Aelred Wall, O.S.B., with monks from the Benedictine Mount Saviour Monastery in Pine City, New York. In 1983 the monastery was received into the English Province of the Subiaco Congregation as a Conventual Priory, and in 1996, it became an autonomous Abbey. As of 2019, there were about thirty monks. While members of the community are from a number of countries, English is the common language of the house.

In 1995 the monastery started an internet web design service called "scriptorium@christdesert". The web scriptorium was very successful and drew coverage from the Associated Press and The New York Times, Time, and other media outlets. The web scriptorium closed down in 1998 when it became apparent that their work as web designers distracted from their vocations as monks.

In 2006 the monastery was the setting for a Discovery Channel episode of the TLC documentary series entitled The Monastery. The series followed the experiences of five laymen who lived in the monastery and observed the monastic way of life for forty days.

The original monastery was designed by George Nakashima. It is powered by propane and solar panels. The monastery maintains one of the largest private solar power systems in the US.

Christ in the Desert has three daughter houses: Nuestra Senora de la Soledad, and Monasterio Benedictino De Santa María y Todos Los Santos in Mexico, and the Benedictine Monastery of Thien Tam (Heavenly Heart) in Kerens, Texas.

Apostolates
It has a guesthouse in which men and women can stay and join the monks in the chapel to share in the monastic Divine Office and in the Mass. In addition to maintaining the guesthouse, the monks manage a gift shop of books and religious items. In an effort to balance generating income for support with the monastic way of life, the monks have tested a number of activities. They had a thrift shop in Santa Fe for a few years. The monks work in agriculture, computer work and maintenance of the grounds and facilities. They also craft beer, soap, lotions, candles, pottery and artwork along with other ventures.

Brewing
The Monastery of Christ in the Desert has operated a small brewery, Abbey Brewing Company, since 2005. The brewery produces three beers: Monks' Ale, Monks' Wit, and Monks' Tripel. The beers are currently brewed by Abbey Brewing using facilities at Sierra Blanca Brewing Company in Moriarty, with an experimental brewery located at the monastery. Abbey Brewing Company currently has distribution in eight states, with plans for gradual expansion in the future.

title: Monastery of Christ in the Desert


text:
Paul Schultze-Naumburg

Paul Schultze-Naumburg (10 June 1869 – 19 May 1949) was a German traditionalist architect, painter, publicist and author. A leading critic of modern architecture, he joined the Nazi Party in 1930 (aged 61) and became an important advocate of Nazi architecture.

Life
Schultze-Naumburg was born in Almrich (now part of Naumburg) in the current federal state of Saxony-Anhalt and, by 1900, was a well-known painter and architect, emerging as a more-conservative member of the group of artists who established the Jugendstil and the Arts and Crafts workshops in Munich. His series of books the Kulturarbeiten ("Works of Culture"), nine volumes published 1900–1917, were extremely popular and established him as an important tastemaker for the German middle class. By the First World War, he had become a strong proponent of traditional architecture, an originator of the "Circa 1800" movement, and an important voice in both the Deutscher Werkbund, and the nationalist German architecture and landscape preservation movement. A well-known example of his architecture from that time is the Cecilienhof Palace in Potsdam, built in 1914–1917, on the orders of Wilhelm II, for his son, crown prince Wilhelm.

On 5 January 1922, Paul Schultze-Naumburg married in Saaleck Margarete Karolina Berta Dörr (1896–1960). They were childless and divorced unpleasantly on 7 February 1934. A couple of weeks later, Margarete married the Reich Minister of the Interior Wilhelm Frick.

In response to Germany's defeat in the First World War, and of his own traditionalist marginalization in the interwar "progressive" architectural discourse, Schultze-Naumburg's articles and books began to take on a far more robust character, condemning modern art and architecture in racial terms, thereby providing some of the basis for Adolf Hitler's theories, in which classical Greece and the Middle Ages were the true sources of Aryan art. Schultze-Naumburg wrote books such as ''Die Kunst der Deutschen. Ihr Wesen und ihre Werke ("The Art of the Germans. Its Nature and Its Works") and Kunst und Rasse'' ("Art and Race"), the latter published in 1928, in which he argued that only "racially pure" artists could produce a healthy art which upheld timeless ideals of classical beauty, while racially "mixed" modern artists showed their inferiority and corruption by producing distorted artwork. As evidence of that, he reproduced examples of modern art next to photographs of people with deformities and diseases, graphically reinforcing the idea of modernism as a sickness.

Along with Alexander von Senger, Eugen Honig, Konrad Nonn and German Bestelmeyer, Schultze-Naumburg was a member of a Nazi para-governmental art propaganda unit called the Kampfbund deutscher Architekten und Ingenieure (KDAI) (Combat Association of German Architects and Engineers).

In September 1944, Schultze-Naumburg was named in the Gottbegnadeten list as one of the first rank of artists and writers important to Nazi culture.

Schultze-Naumburg died in Jena in 1949. His ashes were placed in the Weimar Historical Cemetery, in a mausoleum designed by him in 1909 for the poet Ernst von Wildenbruch.

Works
In addition to his publications mentioned above, others are here. This is not a complete list. His books were very popular, were reprinted many times, and remain available today.
 * Häusliche Kunstpflege (Leipzig 1900).
 * Kunst und Kunstpflege (Leipzig 1901).
 * Technik der Malerei: ein Handbuch fur Kunstler und Dilettanten (1901)
 * Kulturarbeiten (1904)
 * Das Studium und die Ziele der Malerei (1905)
 * Die Entstellung unsres Landes (Munich 1908)
 * Die Kultur des weiblichen Körpers als Grundlage der Frauenkleidung (Jena 1912)
 * Die Gestaltung der Landschaft durch den Menschen. Zweiter Band: III: "Der geologische Aufbau der Landschaft und die Nutzbarmachung der Mineralien IV. Die Wasserwirtschaft" (Munich 1922/8)
 * Flaches oder geneigtes Dach? : mit einer Rundfrage an deutsche Architekten und deren Antworten (Berlin 1927)
 * Kunst und Rasse, Munich 1928, 4th edition 1942
 * Bildmäßige Photographie, Mit 60 Bildbeispielen (Munich 1938)
 * Die Kultur des Weiblichen Körpers als Grundlage der Frauenkleidung

title: Paul Schultze-Naumburg


text:
User:Charron

I'm 19 years old, male-to-female transsexual, living in northeast Pennsylvania, with nothing better to do with my time than float around the internet. I spend a good amount of time fiddling with code, and I'm currently trying to start a Half-Life 2 mod. I don't have much of a social life, making me perfect for contributing. However, I don't have much to contribute, since this is where I get most of my information. But, I intend on contributing where I can. So take that, internet. >_>

title: User:Charron


text: User:JonMoore/Esperanto

title: User:JonMoore/Esperanto


text:
Kintetsu Nagoya Station

Kintetsu Nagoya Station (近鉄名古屋駅) is a terminal station on the Kintetsu Nagoya Line. It is connected to Nagoya Station (JR Central, Aonami Line, and Nagoya City Subway) and Meitetsu Nagoya Station (Nagoya Railroad).

Layout
The station has four bay platforms serving five tracks on the first basement.
 * Nagoya Line (for Kuwana, Kintetsu Yokkaichi, Tsu, Ise-Nakagawa, Osaka Namba, Ujiyamada, Toba and Kashikojima)

title: Kintetsu Nagoya Station


text:
Talk:Monastery of Christ in the Desert

Untitled
An original article has been composed at Monastery of Christ in the Desert/Temp

land stolen from pueblo indians
no words on that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.130.142.29 (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Monastery of Christ in the Desert


text:
Talk:Islam in Ghana

Incorrect information
124.29.194.160 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)i am a ghanaian and i want to correct wikipedian on a misleading information about ghana

the islamic population in ghana is nowhere near 46% the actual figure is estimated around 20%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Ghana

the above website address shows where rhe mistake was made.

see this for achange 124.29.194.160 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your source is a Christian propaganda site and not an objective reference. But the main problem is that not even the figures of the Ghanaian National Censuses are reliable, nor are they convincing if you know the North of your country and the populous areas in the South well. An additional problem is that mosques or related Islamic institutions (except for the Muslim Brotherhood) do not organize and count their followers. We will not have any good estimates until the various Ulama come with figures for their adherents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMennoWolters (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islam in Ghana. 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/20140502031906/http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_7902.html to http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_7902.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502031906/http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_7902.html to http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_7902.html

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) 08:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam in Ghana. 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/20141219201153/http://waljamaa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=8 to http://waljamaa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=8

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) 17:24, 25 December 2017 (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) 02:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ghana National Mosque 1.jpg

title: Talk:Islam in Ghana


text:
Al From

Alvin "Al" From (born May 31, 1943) is the founder and former CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council. His ideas and political strategies during the past quarter century played a central role in the resurgence of the modern Democratic Party. From is the author of The New Democrats and the Return to Power, released in December 2013.

Early life and education
Born in South Bend, Indiana, From earned a master's degree in journalism from Northwestern University and was editor of the Daily Northwestern.

While serving as a reporter and editor for the Daily Northwestern, From conducted an investigation on discriminatory admissions. From, who was Jewish, uncovered an unofficial quota system that limited the number of minority students admitted to the program. According to the magazine North by Northwestern, From quoted admissions director, C. William Reiley, "making discriminatory statements and the day after the story was published, the student senate stated that Reiley's actions were inappropriate. Reiley was later reassigned as the dean of administrative services." The removal of Reiley and exposure of the quotas ended the discriminatory practice.

Career
In 2000, at a speech at Hyde Park, President Bill Clinton said, "It would be hard to think of a single American citizen who, as a private citizen, has had a more positive impact on the progress of American life in the last 25 years than Al From."

Early career
From began his career working for Sargent Shriver's War on Poverty right out of graduate school, assigned to the Southeast region including Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia.

Before founding the DLC, From was executive director of the House Democratic Caucus from 1981 to 1985, chaired by Representative Gillis William Long from Louisiana. For two years—1979 and 1980—he was deputy advisor on inflation to President Jimmy Carter and from 1971 to 1979, he directed the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, chaired by Senator Edmund Muskie. As staff director, he worked on the Congressional Budget Act, helped shape the stimulus package during the 1973-74 recession and was called a "legislative genius" by Washingtonian magazine.

Democratic Leadership Council
From led the DLC from its inception in 1985 until he stepped down as CEO in April 2009.

He founded the DLC in 1985, at a time as Roll Call writes, "Democrats appeared to be on the brink of a permanent excursion into the political wild following Walter Mondale's 49-state drubbing by incumbent President Ronald Reagan in 1984."

In 1991, the Reverend Jesse Jackson called the DLC "Democrats for the Leisure Class", and in 2003, former Democratic National Committee Chair and Vermont Governor Howard Dean sharply criticized From and the DLC as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

From played a prominent role in the 1992 election of President Bill Clinton – and served as domestic policy advisor to the Clinton Transition – prompting USA Today to write: "The ideas at the crux of the Clinton candidacy were largely drafted by the DLC."

Today, many of the ideas that comprise the core of the agenda of the Democratic Party's conservative wing come from work done under From's leadership at the DLC. National service, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, welfare reform, charter schools, community policing, expanded trade and re-inventing government were all championed by scholars and analysts at the DLC before becoming public policy.

In 1998, with First Lady Hillary Clinton, From began a dialogue with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other world leaders, and the DLC brand – known as The Third Way – became a model for resurgent liberal governments around the globe.

In April 1999, he hosted a Third Way forum in Washington with President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Prime Ministers Wim Kok of the Netherlands and Massimo D'Alema of Italy.

In November 1999, joining President Clinton, From moderated the first-ever live presidential town hall meeting on the Internet.

Recent work
In 2013, From authored The New Democrats and the Return to Power. President Bill Clinton authored the foreword. In the book, From "outlines for the first time the principles at the heart of the [New Democrat] movement… and why they are vital to the success of the Democratic Party in the years ahead." The book received praise from President Clinton, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who said, "it should be read, re-read and underlined by anyone who wants to know what it takes to be successful in American politics today."

From is currently an adjunct faculty member at Johns Hopkins University in the Krieger School of Arts & Sciences, Advanced Academic Programs. His new venture, the From Company, LLC, offers strategic advice to private clients.

From serves on the Board of Advisors of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce National Chamber Foundation, the Board of Trustees of the Annapolis Symphony Orchestra, the National Advisory Board of the Roosevelt Institution, and the Executive Board of the University of Maryland's Center for American Politics and Citizenship. He was appointed to the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors in 1999, and served as chairman until December 2002 when his term expired. His writings have appeared in numerous national publications, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic, U.S. News & World Report, and Politico.

Personal life
From lives in Annapolis, Maryland, with his wife, Ginger.

title: Al From


text:
Talk:Hyapatia Lee

Need sources
I have seen a few of Hyapatia Lee's movies, which are my only sources; the only ones I can cite here as being relevant are entitled "Heavenly Hyapatia" and "Snakedance."

There seems to be a lot of spiritual/occult overtones in much of Ms. Lee's work, and it seems to be very autobiographical. I wonder if anyone out there knows more about this? Moreover, despite all her talk of Native American spirituality, the spiritual content in her films seems to owe more to Western occultism than Native American belief. Can anyone provide any details on this?

While her name change to "Hyapatia" is supposedly to reflect her Native American heritage, comments in one of her films seemed to indicate that she was paying homage to Hypatia of Alexandria (the misspelling notwithstanding) in the risque version of that woman's biography.

Her insistence that her husbands take her last name may have something to do with feminism, but I believe it has more to do with Cherokee tradition.

GnatsFriend 03:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Golden Age Of Porn?
It says she was in the Golden Age of Porn in the 80s, but the link to the Golden Age of Porn says the time era ended in the mid 70s. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hyapatia Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071007005528/http://www.bwdl.net/XRCO-2/hall.htm to http://www.bwdl.net/XRCO-2/hall.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Hyapatia Lee. 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/20070929000922/http://www.avnawards.com/index.php?content=pastwinners to http://www.avnawards.com/index.php?content=pastwinners
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014025947/http://canbest.com/awards2.html to http://canbest.com/awards2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002002341/http://www.avnawards.com/index.php?content=halloffame to http://www.avnawards.com/index.php?content=halloffame

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Help desk request by the article's subject
The following was posted on the Help Desk:— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to make changes to my page. I am Hyapatia Lee. I don't know what more I need to do to prove my identity to you but I have had several correspondences with identities unknown to me regarding the changes I have tried to make. They informed me of the need to prove my identity, so, in that effort: my blog is hyapatialee.wordpress.com and I just published a new book called Native Strength - The First Step on the Path to an Indomitable Life which is available on AuthorHouse.com and Amazon.com where I also have an author page with links to videos I have personally made (via Filmora) that are excerpts from the book. I hope this proves my identity to you. Please allow me to get to the meat of the situation.

I am not a particularly computer literate person, being 55 years old, I feel I am doing pretty well to have done the things I have. In other words, I am not fluent in HTML and obviously, have not succeeded in trying to update my page. The first thing I would like to do on my page is to add my new endeavors, namely, my book and links to relevant pages. Another issue is the use of the word "prolific" when describing my prior career in adult movies. As an actress who was involved in the business for over 10 years, 96 films (including compilations) as reported on the page currently, is not particularly prolific when compared with such contemporaries as Nina Hartley who has appeared in over one thousand movies. When compilations are excluded, my actual participation was four or five movies a year, and in some years, only two. As I was one of the most popular actresses at the time and brought in more revenue than many others, I would like to argue for the use of the more accurate word "popular" instead.

I would also like to have my work in R- rated films included. I was in Killing Obsession and worked opposite John Savage from The Deer Hunter and The Godfather, as well as having rolls in Hellroller and The Wacky Adventures of Dr.Boris and Nurse Shirley starring Paul Bartel from Eating Raoul.

In addition, my first album, The Two Sides of Hyapatia Lee was released by SRO Records. One side was country music and the other was comedy. One of the songs on the comedy side, Rub-A-Dub-Dub, made it to #3 on Dr.Dementos's weekly list of the Funny Five. As for my music with my band Double Euphoric and the album I released by the same name, I think it is worth noting that it was all original music written by me.

As for the line about trying to distance myself from the adult movie business, I would like that to be removed as it is entirely false. Simply because one no longer wishes to make adult movies does not mean one wishes to distance themselves from their past. I retired in 1996 to raise my children in Indiana. Now that they are grown, I have returned to work. As an older woman, I feel more comfortable with writing, as I did for Cheri Magazine for five years in the 1980's. My weekly advice column for High Times, available on their Facebook page, is very similar. Furthermore, my first book The Secret Lifes of Hyapatia Lee has been misquoted as being an effort to either "trash talk" the business or "make excuses" for my involvement in it. It is neither. It is simply a candid look at my life and what prompted me to choose that career. Nowhere in the book do I make any statements regarding regret in my choice to be involved in that business, as I have none. In it, I make quite clear that it was helpful to me and that I was treated well in the business. My only two criticisms of the business are clearly spelled out: 1) Performers are underpaid, and 2) Most performers did not have the control over their work that I did. My childhood was shitty, so what? Lots of us have shitty childhoods. That is not to say all people with shitty childhoods will choose this profession or that my profession was a direct result of my childhood. One makes excuses for behaviors they regret. My childhood was offered in my autobiography to give the reader insight into my personality, not as an "excuse" for behavior for which I have no regrets.

Thank you very much for your time and help in making my page more accurate.

Sincerly, Hyapatia Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyapatiaLee (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I just took a look at the article about you and I don't see the word "prolific" used anywhere. And I do see several mentions of your R-rated movie career, television appearances, and music releases. If you can give me more specific instances of what you think needs to be edited, I will be happy to consider them. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hyapatia Lee. 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/20131421413800/http://www.hightimes.com/read/5-questions-hyapatia-lee to http://www.hightimes.com/read/5-questions-hyapatia-lee
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131421413800/http://www.hightimes.com/read/5-questions-hyapatia-lee to http://www.hightimes.com/read/5-questions-hyapatia-lee

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) 18:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible impersonation; anybody involved with the verification process?
The account User:HyapatiaLee has been editing here for some time, but we have no evidence whether this is the subject or not, so I did a perfunctory impersonation block. Is anybody here involved with the verification process? -- Orange Mike |  Talk  15:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Other roles?
Isn't this the same person as is author of a series of non-fictional books? 188.149.232.53 (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth
you removed her date of birth. Her website verifies it, so there're no privacy issues. Are there reasons to believe she's unreliable for it? --Hipal (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Per WP:DOB, if a person is borderline notable, we should omit the full date of birth; I'd say that applies to Lee given the available sourcing. Her website appears defunct, whether due to neglect or a wish for privacy we don't know, so I wouldn't rely on it as a source. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hyapatia and where her beauty comes from? ⛩🤞❤
I am just curious about her nationality because I think she’s absolutely gorgeous 24.229.148.75 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hyapatia Lee


text: Wikipedia:Multilingual monthly statistics - new articles/2003


text:
Category talk:Robin Hood

Untitled
Im just curious, is there some reason these people are part of the Robbin Hood category? Sounds like original research. Can this be cited somewhere? Or do we as Wikipedians decide who is a "Robbin Hood" based on our own analysis? Stbalbach 03:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Stbalbach - I have been researching Robin Hood for the last few weeks, and I found many instances of historical figures in Wikipedia described as "the Mexican Robin Hood" or "the Chinese Robin Hood," etc. There were a few names listed on the Robin Hood page, as other characters in a similar rob-the-rich-give-to-the-poor mold.  I figured I would list others I found there on the Robin Hood page, but as the list grew longer, I realized that there's a type of outlaw/bandit/criminal/revolutionary who fits this mold and a category would be better than managing a listing.

 * I don't have a terribly thorough system for deciding who qualifies; mostly if other authors have listed those people as possible Robin Hood characters. Robin Hood is a fictional creation mostly, and most of these people are described as Robin Hoods after their death.  The definition of a Robin Hood character is a slippery affair perhaps.  But it still seems somehow useful, because so many people use "a Japanese Robin Hood" or "the Polish Robin Hood" as a designation.  As you point out, there's often not any particular strong research to validate those claims, except some readings of popular culture or historical fiction.  I'm inclined to be fairly generous with the "Robin Hood" designation, because it has a pretty clear ideal and people seem to know one when they see one.  Ahem.

 * So no citation here, except where I found Wikipedians had already proclaimed people Robin Hoods.
 * JustinHall 06:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, if it was me doing this.. I would have a list and try to provide citations on who first said it, and why. Because anyone can call anyone "Robbin Hood", it needs some basis. Categories dont require written explanation, and automatically infer an archetypal "hero" status through name association, which could be seen as both POV and original research. Stbalbach 07:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I can see your point, and I can imagine there might be trouble ahead if too many folks decide to use the "Robin Hood" label. On the other hand, we're dealing here in the realm of folk tales, and Robin Hood is a pretty democratic affair.  The very nature of the Robin Hood myth is inexact and prone to exaggeration!  So it may be that the Wikipedia categorization follows similar lines. JustinHall 14:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

English folklore
Robin Hood is charakter, who is a part of English folklore, but not Juraj Jánošík and Zorro of course. These characters need other category, maybe Category:Heroes by nationality and Juraj Jánošík is a part of Category:Slovak folklore :) See Category:Slovak heroes Przykuta 12:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Robin Hood


text: User talk:217.44.106.176

title: User talk:217.44.106.176


text:
User:McCart42/Copyrights

Photos
I release my photos at Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license.

title: User:McCart42/Copyrights


text:
Talk:WorldNetDaily

COLB vs. COB, and removal of some material.
In this edit I've removed some fact-tagged taxt from the article, to wit: "..., even though Obama's campaign already posted it on its' website and a hard copy of the document is sealed by state law." This is fact tagged. The document posted online was a "Certificatation of Live Birth" (COLB), not a "Certificate of Birth" (COB). There are differences between these types of documents which have been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum. Rather than open up yet another discussion here about COLBs vs. COBs, I've removed the bit I've quoted above. The removed text appears to me to be incidental to the point of the paragraph

Revised layout?
I propose reworking the sections as follows:

 * Description
 * History
 * Origins (from History)
 * Libel Lawsuit
 * 9/11 (from Controversies)
 * Standing Committee of Correspondents (from History)
 * Obama citizenship
 * Homocon
 * Neil Patrick Harris
 * WND Products
 * References

The goal is to eliminate what is essentially a criticism section and fold it into their history. Also, the description is more pertinent information than trivial about its founder and origins and should take precedence. Thoughts?

"The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories, leading some journalists to label it a far-right fringe website"
Promoting falsehoods? Such a statement does not belong here. Conspiracy theories? Obviously, the editor who inserted that doesn't believe in scepticism. This isn't an article about religion, where God distinguishes dogmas and falsehoods, and doesn't tolerate different viewpoints.

far-right fringe website is a derogatory political label that doesn't belong here, either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C50:252:5600:D0F5:57D4:8705:E022 (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We go with reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But therein lies the rub. WND, along with a growing amount of the general public, routinely questions the "reliability" of the mainstream news sources. As OP said, skepticism does not equate to promotion of falsehood. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been proven by admission of for instance by Mark Zuckerberg that strong efforts to suppress certain types of media from governmental agencies such as FBI is taking place: https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/mark-zuckerberg-admits-facebook-censored-hunter-biden-laptop-story-during-2020-u-s-elections/article65815040.ece, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/markzuckerberg/video-2758931/Video-Mark-Zuckerberg-admits-Facebook-censored-Hunter-Biden-story.html
 * WND tries to expose government corruption and "1984"-efforts and has therefore come in the lime-light of all those in power, billionaires among them and certain royal families and certain politicians, that tries to operate in the shadows, and has therefore been heavy attacked and miss-credited and and miss-labeled on purpose to decrease its influence. The force by which google has tried to censor wnd, recently show actually how deeply needed this website is to expose corruption: https://web.archive.org/web/20220831110021/https://www.google.com/interstitial?url=https://www.wnd.com, when you open the content of google transparency warning: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search?url=https:%2F%2Fwww.wnd.com%2F&hl=sv it says no un-safe content found. Edotor (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that in the age of clickbait and dying advertising models, articles about WND being a crackpot site are going to be more numerous than a balanced article that examines the controversies purported by WND and critically analyzes them in a balanced way. I think it's a bit of a drawback of Wikipedia to some degree. Many right wing public figures have these descriptors (e.g. "promotes falsehoods") because they expound views that contradict the mainstream narrative. This is my personal view, but it's an explanation to address your concern. --Mrtea (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 * It is amusing to watch the far-right -- traditionally opponents of the Postmodernist emphasis on the sociology of knowledge -- slowly drift towards an embrace of the traditionally far-left view that the mainstream media are not distinguished by their reliability but only by their narrative.  In fact, the claim is true: WND is widely known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.   That this is a true claim does not alone mean it belongs in the article.  But let's not pretend this is anything other than common knowledge that is readily supported by minimal objective research. Cerberus (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just the opposite. The MSM is showing itself to be ever more unreliable—they are the very "fake news" they accuse others of peddling. It's not about a rightist narrative, it's about facts. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Please guys, this isn't a forum. Take this to a proper forum. Doug Weller  talk 09:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dronebogus is trying to discredit edits that remove facts about wnd. If you read this Dronebogus please add your reasons here kindly Edotor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edotor (talk • contribs) 12:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi, I reverted your additions too: Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. We do not add our own interpretations. Mvbaron (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The references I added are google's own search result, which corroborates Farahs claim, bing and brave search does not have this anti wnd.com bias. So the removal/undo is illogical. Please argue for the need for removal of these references. Edotor (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You added This claim has been verified by Alphabets Inc. search result manipulation behaviour but have not provided any source for the claim that Alphabet has manipulated anything. Mvbaron (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Joe Farrah should sue Wikipedia for deformation and then we can have a judge decide if this article is nothing but opinionated libel and slander, which it is. Words like "far-right" and "fake news" are OPINION! Case closed -Jf (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is heavily Neutral point of view related and even that is redacted, some neutral editors pls help
There are several contributors that wants to add corroborated material to this page that has been blocked doing so solely based on non-fact based arguments from @Doug Weller, @Mvbaron, @Dronebogus, @XenonNSMB and others, referring Reliable sources. Now, do not get me wrong, I am still waiting to get factual arguments but only procedural arguments have been presented. I expected the experienced editors to behave according to Dispute resolution, Etiquette and Five pillars but the only reply that came was stone-walling in terms of do not answer the argument. So this post is a request for help to get some upvotes and a motivated group of editors that is not biased in a certain area and indeed can balance efforts to silence edits on this page.

You who are an editor/administrator who disagree with me, are of course are tempted to propose a sanction for bringing this argument up, but before doing so, remember that Five pillars argues for neutral point of view, and many points brought to this article including the first statement definitely begs for a POV tag which was also removed by @Doug Weller without motivation. I have in replies to @Doug Weller, @Mvbaron, @Dronebogus asked for motivations, but it is absent. I have thoroughly examined Reliable sources, Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not, No original research, Neutral point of view, Five_pillars, Etiquette and Five pillars of evil and they all point to civility and politeness and the first thing to ask for is a sound and factual argument, not a procedural argument that is common in court of law to toss the case altogether. I trust that the majority of wikipedia admins and editors does not stand behind such behavior. This post is a test to see if Wikipedia live up to its Dispute resolution.

One fact that was deleted today was that google.com have biased search hit against wnd.com and put out a false warning on its search result: https://www.google.com/interstitial?url=https://www.wnd.com/. When you click the details of the warning content: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search?url=https:%2F%2Fwww.wnd.com%2F&hl=sv it says: "No unsafe content found". Obviously a strong bias from google against wnd.com in the form of false-negative. Similair search engines such as bing, duckduckgo, or brave does not behave in such false-negative way. If anyone has any better understanding of Reliable sources, Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not, No original research, Neutral point of view, Five_pillars please educate me and tell why the google source does not conform to Verifiability and Reliable sources. Look forward to a polite reply.

- Kindly @Edotor (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 * You aren’t getting that this is about WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:verifiability, not truth. Primary sources from Google indicate nothing other than a false positive. This is not notable info. You should think about the fact that more than four established editors have repeatedly denied your requests. Please stop. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Edotor for starting this talk page thread. Please stop trying to insert material you support against consensus. This is disruptive. Please add me to the list of established editors who would potentially deny such requests. User:Dronebogus is entirely correct that a reasonable sample of wikipedians would refuse to accept Edotor's assertions, likely because such assertions contain original research (they performed the Gsearches themselves) and synthesis (they have concluded that based on their research, bias is seen). Plus, it's sort of a lame way of indicting a source; there are lots of reasons for false positives and false negatives per GIGO. For the record, the normal protocol on Wikipedia is bold, revert, discuss. We appreciate your boldness, truly, Edotor. You've proved to our satisfaction you are a bold contributor. A good place to start. However, based on the page history here, you've attempted to insert and re-insert the same material over and over (edit warring) before finally deciding to discuss. We appreciate your discussing. You'd be more successful trying to make suggested edits here in talk space and asking for feedback. If your assertions can be verified with citation from reliable sources, I can say at least five wikipedians would be interested in seeing such a case well-made. Your attempts so far have not seemed impressive or even serious. BusterD (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the editoral rules after @Doug Weller pointed it out, so it was a lame start from my side, which caught unnecessary attention to not follow due process and fell I short on that one obviously. Apologies for that one. I learned a lot after reading sanction history. - Edotor (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are comfortable going back to the topic, so referring to a primary source of evidence like the google link is not wikipedia Reliable sources compliant but instead using secondary sources that makes the assertion and brings the evidence is wikipedia compliant, all references below are secondary, but have a great variation of journalistic/academic credibility:
 * 1) https://ussanews.com/2022/08/31/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth/ OR
 * 2) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/big-tech-ramps-purge-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-first-online-conservative-news-site-search-engine-look-happens-click-wnd-googles-sea/ OR
 * 3) https://politicom.com.au/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-the-first-online-conservative-news-site-from-its-search-engine-look-what-happens-when-you-click-on-wnd-from-google/ OR
 * 4) https://dailyangle.com/articles/google-s-kill-shot-against-wnd OR
 * 5) https://www.therighting.com/daily-news-stream/2022/8/31/google-falsely-warns-readers-that-wnd-may-harm-your-computer OR
 * 6) https://rightedition.com/2022/08/31/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth/ OR
 * 7) https://newspluslife.com/2022/09/google-falsely-warns-readers-wnd-may-harm-your-computer/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=google-falsely-warns-readers-wnd-may-harm-your-computer OR
 * 8) https://olivetreeviews.org/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-the-first-online-conservative-news-site/ OR
 * 9) https://thekingofstocks.com/2022/08/31/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-the-first-online-conservative-news-site-from-its-search-engine-look-what-happens-when-you-click-on-wnd-from-google/
 * 10) https://survivalmagazine.org/news/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-the-first-online-conservative-news-site-from-its-search-engine-look-what-happens-when-you-click-on-wnd-from-google/
 * 11) https://marvelmedia.org/westpacific/archives/8429
 * Concerning above, when there are quite a few sources that points out a specific claim, how many of those are needed to make the claim credible? In the case above sources are claiming google.com are blocking wnd.com in an unknown attempt of decreasing wnd.com's credibility without explanation, and there is lot written about that which is another topic. Why this is relevant is because Googles is using its "monopoly" position to execute a censoring-like practice. So if all above sources would be considered less credible is that an argument to avoid highlighting a "monopoly-size"-company that tries to take down another one? Should that fight which is highly relevant to the current media landscape and meaningful for a majority of readers of both opposing wnd.com and consumers thereof and really affects the presence of wnd.com not be yet published on Wikipedia? If not now what would be an appropriate quarantine time before it can considered "safe" to add to this article? If never what is the argument?
 * After carefully reading Reliable sources I have not been able to conclude what above situation falls under.
 * A guiding clarification on wikipedia stand-point on above would be highly appreciated. (And thank you everyone for feedback on my additions.)
 * Edotor (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you listed are reliable:
 * USSA News's article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2. Syndicated sources are evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. Additionally, a site that syndicates content from another fake news website is also a questionable source.
 * The Gateway Pundit is a fake news website that was deprecated in.
 * Politicom's article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2.
 * DailyAngle's article is republished from WorldNetDaily. WorldNetDaily was deprecated in due to its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * TheRighting's article is republished from WorldNetDaily. See #5.
 * Right Edition's article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2.
 * NewsPlusLife's article is republished from WorldNetDaily. See #5.
 * Olive Tree Ministries' article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2.
 * The King of Stocks' article is republished from WorldNetDaily. See #5.
 * Survival Magazine's article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2.
 * Marvel Media's article is republished from WorldNetDaily. See #5.
 * —  Newslinger  talk   11:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank u for the quick reply, very insightful response, does that mean that the event has not taken place? Or that they are lying in this particular case or something else? Edotor (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the sources being questionable does not imply that the Google Safe Browsing warning never appeared. However, it means that the claim of the malware warning being an intentional "purge" of WorldNetDaily lacks the reliable sourcing required to be included in a Wikipedia article. As the verifiability policy states, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research." and "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable." —  Newslinger  talk   12:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank u for the quick reply @Newslinger Edotor (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Newslinger Thanks, you beat me to it. I was looking at this coming back from hospital prehabilitation for my next cancer surgery and I'm pleased you saved me the effort. Doug Weller  talk 13:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope you’re doing okay! Dronebogus (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, and all the best with your surgery. —  Newslinger  talk   23:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope that the surgery turns out very well Edotor (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Edotor You clearly don't understand the results of your Google links. They mean that Google has not detected any malware/viruses at the site, that's all. No one has suggested that linking to the site might damage your computer. Doug Weller  talk 08:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Edotor You clearly don't understand the results of your Google links. They mean that Google has not detected any malware/viruses at the site, that's all. No one has suggested that linking to the site might damage your computer. Doug Weller  talk 08:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

2 WAPO reports in 2010 about financial problems, authors not being paid, etc.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/inside-the-spectacular-fall-of-the-granddaddy-of-right-wing-conspiracy-sites/2019/04/02/6ac53122-3ba6-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html Inside the spectacular fall of the granddaddy of right-wing conspiracy sites] and. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Very sad situation, I understand your concerns Edotor (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Malware Warning
Google Search results for wnd.com redirect to a Malware Warning page with: "Warning — visiting this web site may harm your computer!".

User:Newslinger falsely claims this addition is WP:OR, yet it is cited, (I did not archive it), but now I get " 403. That’s an error." ...the googlebot noticed .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Look, you need a (reliable) source, such as a newspaper or similar, to write about  this - not just your research. Mvbaron (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As WP:OR states, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." I reverted your edit (Special:Diff/1108022969) after verifying that the link you cited led to a 403 error page, which made your edit unverifiable. Please verify your source before accusing others of making false claims.Additionally, using a primary source in the manner that was done in Special:Diff/1108022969 to notate a temporary Google Safe Browsing warning constitutes undue weight. Google Safe Browsing flags and unflags many websites every day, and in the absence of reliable secondary source coverage, it is not noteworthy to mention in a Wikipedia article that a particular site is flagged. —  Newslinger  talk   06:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What was redacted?
No one has said. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023
The editors who hover over this article may not agree with the editorial stance of WND but it is not a fake news website. The article's false, libelous, biased description of it as a fake news website should be removed immediately in accordance with long-established Wikipedia policy. 2601:147:C400:1BE0:75EF:6A26:B6A8:1312 (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Fake news website
The fake news website descriptor (previously removed in Special:Diff/1194854759) should be restored to the first sentence and the infobox. Reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, agree that WorldNetDaily is a fake news website. Some of these sources include: Per WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and there is little to no disagreement among reliable sources that the fake news website descriptor is applicable to WorldNetDaily. Therefore, the descriptor should be restored. (Please note that WorldNetDaily is already listed in List of fake news websites.) —  Newslinger  talk   07:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But that implies that every news published there is fake, which is wrong, it makes it sound like its The Onion. Thats why i initially removed it. Plus it already says the site is known for promoting fake news, what more do you even want? Note that this was also the longstanding version till at least July 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WorldNetDaily&oldid=1101321323 --FMSky (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A website does not have to exclusively publish fake news to be a fake news website; even InfoWars – perhaps the most widely known fake news website – does not meet that bar. Per our article on the topic, fake news websites "are websites on the Internet that deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news—often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect". WorldNetDailys publication of hoaxes and conspiracy theories is well-documented. That, paired with reliable sources agreeing that WND is a fake news website, is sufficient to justify the fake news website descriptor. —  Newslinger ' talk   07:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But it heavily implies it, even when Wikipedia's own definition says otherwise. I'm not convicted that this is an improvement over the current (and longest-standing) version, as most readers will inevitably get confused --FMSky (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that will be confused by calling a site that publishes fake news a "fake news website"? If not, I'm more inclined to use the terms used by published RSes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great that you found this discussion on a site you've never visited before by going through my edit history. As for the question, its just common sense. Use a term thats less ambiguous and actually informative --FMSky (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is "common sense" that readers will believe the term fake news website to mean that "every news published there is fake" without exception. I cannot find a single reliable source that supports that definition. Such a definition would imply that any website that publishes just one truthful article would not be a fake news website, even if every other article on the site were a hoax, which is not a particularly reasonable interpretation of the term. Most readers are intelligent enough to understand that fake news websites do not need to exclusively contain fake news, and any reader can click on the link to the article Fake news website to confirm the correct definition for themselves and to learn more about fake news websites in general. —  Newslinger  talk   20:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think just saying the website is known for fake news is more accurate and more easily understandble --FMSky (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't that unnecessarily verbose? Using the "fake news website" descriptor simplifies the lead, and as @Newslinger pointed out, multiple sources have described it as such. Isi96 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, plenty of Wiki articles use the "fake news website" descriptor, such as Palmer Report, The Gateway Pundit, Natural News, etc., and they also are they're sourced to citation bundles, which include some of the same sources used in this article itself. Isi96 (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion above, it seems like there is consensus to use the descriptor fake news website in the first sentence and the infobox, but I am not entire ly sure because some of the comments were phrased as questions. and, could you please clarify whether you support changing the first sentence and the infobox to explicitly describe WorldNetDaily as a "fake news website"? —  Newslinger   talk   20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Corrected spelling —  Newslinger  talk   21:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Newslinger I support the change. Isi96 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The current wording is clear enough. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 * By "current wording", do you mean the "American far-right opinion website" phrasing that you implemented in Special:Diff/1221104301 with the edit summary Not "news" before it was changed again in Special:Diff/1221104301, or something else? —  Newslinger  talk   02:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Newslinger. That ping didn't work, but I noticed your comment here when I discovered the incredibly bizarre thread below. Really mind-boggling. Thanks for dealing with it. I left a warning on their talk page.
 * Your focus (on the wrong words) is a bit misplaced, but I'll respond to that wording. I believe I was describing the version at the time, which was "American far-right news website". I later changed "news" to "opinion", as even their "news" is just "opinion", not truly news reporting. Of all the fringe websites, WND is one of the worst pushers of disinformation, along with Breitbart.
 * My real focus was the wording you propose in this thread, and my purpose was to counter your proposal for this thread, as I see the current wording as good enough: "It is known for promoting fake news..." We do not need a more prominent wording. Of course, it IS clearly a fake news website, and the wording in the infobox is also good enough. I am not disputing that it's a "fake news website", but the current wording makes the point and will reduce the amount of time wasted dealing with accusations of bias. I fear your wording will increase the amount of time wasted here for no real purpose. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Incredibly biased introduction
The current article's introduction reads as follows:

(Start of quote)

WND (formerly WorldNetDaily) is an American far-right opinion website. It is known for promoting fake news and conspiracy theories, including the false claim that former President Barack Obama was born outside the United States.

(End of quote)

This is incredibly biased because it claims that WND is "far-right" and promotes "fake news", which is a matter of opinion. Also, it claims that the claim that Barack Obama was born outside the United States is "false", as if it's beyond reasonable doubt. I disagree. I strongly believe that the Hawaii birth certificate that records the birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu is a photoshopped forgery, and that the birth certificate claiming he was born in Mombasa, Kenya is very real.

Isn't the purpose of encyclopedia to be accurate and unbiased? Because there's no way that this introduction is either of these two. For these very reasons, I suggest that the terms "far-right", "fake news", and "false" be removed. Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is neutral to describe WorldNetDaily as a far-right publisher of fake news, because these descriptors are amply and reliably sourced. I've reproduced the citations below for your convenience:

 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}
 * }}

 * WND "birther" claims have been thoroughly debunked as false; see the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article for details. —  Newslinger  talk   21:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:WorldNetDaily


text:
Talk:Liquorice allsorts

Untitled
These seem to be similar both in background story and in general appearance to the French Bêtise de Cambrai. Are they the same? --Iustinus 03:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

They do seem remarkably similar, but I have no idea if one or the other inspired the other. What do Bêtises de Cambrai look like? Peregrine981 04:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * See the picture on this page. I guess now that I look at them they certanly aren't liquorice allsorts, but the similarity of their appearence is striking, isn't it? --Iustinus 05:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions
The recent big batch of additions to this article have a number of problems: I'll leave it as it is for now to allow the contributor a chance to tweak. ike9898 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * POV statements - "Here's where liquorice gets hardcore" ;"These eight or nine ingredients add up to make the perfect bag of allsorts."
 * Out of focus images
 * The names of the individual pieces - I'd like to see a verifiable reference. These seem made up to me - especially since this product is made by many different companies.
 * Left it for a week and no improvements. In my opinion this stuff was mostly made up information and thus unsalvagable, so I've dropped it.  ike9898 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference to "spogs" was 100% verifiable (I even included a link to a manufacturer's page which named them) and the word "spog" meaning this type of sweet is well-known to many Britons. Surely at least this could be retained! Simon Beck

 * An English sweetshop has the following text on its website:
 * ''A traditional mixture of liquorice including spogs, liquorice cuttings, liquorice rolls and of course liquorice cream rock!

https://www.oldestsweets'' hop.co.uk/liquorice-allsorts Nuttyskin (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Bertie Bassett
How about a picture of Bertie, if anyone has one?--StarChaser Tyger 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That, in my opinion, would not come into Fair Use. We don't need one, and as it is copyrighted, we can only get it under Fair Use. If it is unrequired, we can't FU it. microchip08 (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the Bertie logo and the masterbrand but for some reason wiki doesen't want ordinary people to add pictures. Here is a link anyway. http://www.casablanca.se/bilder/bertie.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joffboff (talk • contribs) 10:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bertie Bassett inventor?
This article says that "Bertie was created by John "Jack" McEwan and was finally made known to the public on 1 January 1929 after months of internal discussion.", while the Bertie Bassett article (which I've just merged into this one) claimed "Its origins lie with the advertising copywriters of the 1930s when Frank Regan,a young advertising copywriter,in London, sat down with the product and his pipe-cleaners. He constructed an original version of Bertie from the Liquorice Allsorts and pipe cleaners." - neither is sourced, although the latter was added by someone claiming to be the child of Frank Regan, which is perhaps better than nothing. I've gone with that for now. --McGeddon (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Who
If you want a more obscure reference, in "The Pirate Planet", The Doctor steals a flying vehicle by luring the pilot away with a trail of candy. He'd been offering people Jelly Babies, but if you look at the trail of candies, they are clearly allsorts. DonPMitchell (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 * This is just another instance of the Fourth Doctor only appearing to use English incorrectly. As Romana explained to Leela in one of the audios, much of the Doctor's terminology is confusing to humans rather than helpful. For example, if you know the relevant five-dimensional relativity, the term "constellation" is the closest thing to a good word in 20th century English for a galactic supercluster bound to the time vortex, but if you don't, as is the case with all actual speakers of 20th century English, it just sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. Jelly babies, allsorts, pentaquark hadrons, and sherbet lemon fountains participate in identical reactions with chroniton waves, so Gallifreyan physicists have a single term that refers to all of them, but 20th century English science has no such concept, so the Doctor calls them "jelly babies". --157.131.246.136 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Names
This may be useful:

Leary, Nigel, 1., Liquorice Roots. Based on the meeting in Pontecfract on 6th July 2002 Pt CILVol.XX. Deals with the history of the sweet product associated with Pontefract, made from Glycyrriza vulgaris (common liquorice). Contributions also from Gill Briscoe, Tom Dixon, Brian Mercer, and including John Betjeman’s The Licorice Fields at Pontefract, photographs and dialect and trade terms relating to the industry. Transactions of the Yorkshire Dialect Society 2002 Pt CII Vol.XX. pp 14-26

All the best: Rich Farmbrough  (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC).

title: Talk:Liquorice allsorts