text:
User talk:Robin.r

Columbus in Galway
In Galway, you wrote:  It is even claimed that Christopher Columbus came to Galway to learn that there was land beyond the Atlantic Ocean. but you haven't given the footnote 3 reference. I'm reverting this claim, because there is no evidence for it and because it is at odds with the known history. The fact that the world is round was well established by the mid 15C: the problem was that they didn't know how round. Columbus was looking for an easier (sea) route to Japan, China, [India]], the Spice Islands - all of which were known to Europeans by then. Indeed, when he landed in the Caribbean islands, he thought he was in the Indies, which is why he called them the West Indies. This mistake was continued for maybe a 100 years afterwards, which is why Native Americans were known (incorrectly) as Indians. --Red King 09:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The syntax for the footnote is to begin with fnb

 * like this
 * I haven't been in Galway for a few years, so I don't know the stone you mention. If it really says that, then it is certainly wrong. Do you have a photograph? If it is from memory, perphaps you could put something on Irish Wikipedians' notice board to ask someone to go and check?  It could be that someone has fallen for Washington Irving's literary myth, as described on Christopher Columbus.  The only story that I've ever heard is that he came to Galway and prayed in St Nicholas Collegiate Church.  The route via the Canary Islands makes a lot more sense.  But he may have voyaged to Galway in any case, because it was the principal Irish trading port with Spain and France in the middle ages.  Actually, that needs to be said, so I'll add it.  Then your (revised) note will have a context (but I do think you need to explain it by reference to the stone).
 * So how about "myth" rather than "rumour"? It is a subtle difference: "myth" tends to refer to historic past, but "rumour" to present and recent past.  Both may be current beliefs, of course! --Red King 12:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The word I wanted was "legend". Better than myth or rumour.
 * I found this reference. My Italian is not good enough to understand it all, but  see footnotes 41 and 42 --Red King 16:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Pure fluke. On the first page of a google search [galway "Cristoforo Colombo" site:.it], there it is! So a great update to both articles and I think I'll challenge people to produce their evidence more often - even if I have to find it for them myself! :) --Red King 17:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I had a look for "Armand de Châteauroux" and spotted that the author of the translation may not be bona fide. He appears to be of the Eric von Daniken and Dan Brown school of "creative archeology". So a little further looking found this - see Sulle (false) tracce di Atlantide - di Mariano Tomatis. My italian is not great, but it is good enough to see that this is a cutting criticism. I would like the see the original latin document and to be assured of its provenance. It might be wise to transfer your text to the Columbus talk page until you have more confidence in the source. It's just a pity I didn't spot this earlier! --Red King 14:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

no you are right ...
No - I didn't mean either of those - just that there was action taking place which I felt was positive - well, nm (20040302)

Religious pluralism
Hey Robin. I just want to drop you a line and let you know that I consider myself to be a very "un-enlightened" (bad pun intended) when it comes to religion, so my thoughts on the content of the article will not be very influential. If anything, I signed up at the Article improvement drive because I know of the topic of pluralism in general, having briefly covered it in school, and I feel there is much benefit in understanding and promoting the study of religious interactions (especially the theory of clash of civilizations). I look forward to educating myself better on the topic as a result of a better Wikipedia article. On the other hand, I can say that the new outline for the article's organization is a definite improvement. Thanks for requesting my comments and good luck with your future endeavors. --Howrealisreal 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious Pluralism
Hi Robin,

I've been really busy at work this week, so I haven't had time to look at the AID... but I did want to answer your question about how to resolve your circular discussions with the other user interested in the Christianity section of the article. :Perhaps you could try Third opinion or Association of Members' Advocates or Mediation Cabal? Best wishes... Mamawrit es    & listens  22:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Robin,

Hey, thanks for your message on my talk page. I tried to go and vote on the article, but I couldn't figure out how to make Wiki's interface do it. I'll try again after work this evening. I do have fairly extensive knowledge of religion, mostly of Protestant Christianity, but I've also studied all the major world religions extensively and feel I have a fairly impartial and objective grasp of how they work, and I would like to help contribute. User:Manuelomar2001

Robin,

I like your latest proposal for the outline on Religious Pluralism, but I think that the first section on the general definition needs work. The definition of religious pluralism is a difficult beast to tackle and needs some thought and analysis. I will continue to think about this, and as soon as I am awake enough and have enough free time, I will devote myself to this section, since it seems there are plenty of people to work on the Protestant Christian side of things, which would be the only other area I would be proficient in. Thanks for your effort in organizing this large project!!! Cormallen 01:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

rel pluralism
Hi. I'll have to read up on the matter before evaluating your proposed changes, and that will take a few days. No, I don't think that the article should be renamed. As far as getting other people interested, you can look at the articles' histories, see who made substantial changes, and message them. People don't mind messages. — goethean ॐ 21:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Society portal
Robin.rueth, thank you for your interest in this portal. My motivation for working on it was that it is a fundamental category and no one seemed to be interested, so I had to step up even though my interests are in Scientific Method, really. If you have any organizing ideas which you might use to further your specific interest, which you have noted to me, then please let me know what you would like me to do to help out. My understanding of the situation is that People form Societies to further their common Values (Culture). Furthermore, their Values drive their actions and inform their motives. I really know little more than this about the 3 fundamental categories just stated. This is why I have not worked more on the Categories. But if you know/understand more, I can help you. Let me know how I can help. Ancheta Wis 13:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome,, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member, you might be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. A spam list is maintained by Redwolf24 to keep members up to date; you might want to consider adding your name to the list. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Essjay, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of myself, Flcelloguy. Ryan Norton, and Acetic Acid. The next set of elections will be at the end of the year, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact me via email or talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to be! Bratsche talk 16:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.
Unfortunately, domestic issues are governing my life right now, so I beg tolerance and patience on these issues. I agree we should be able to work most things through Best to you, (20040302 10:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

es:Usuario:Visitante
I contacted an admin on es, and apparently the above user is a troll and spammer. He was blocked after some vandalism on an article there, and then complaining loudly, emailing many users and admins. So you pretty much don't have to respond to any of his pleas. We can't do anything here, anyway. For the message see my talk page here. Cheers, Bratsche talk 21:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Draft Of Religious Pl.
I have worked on the definiton, conflict, and history components of your new outline. I have posted a draft here. Please review it, and modify it as you will. I would have like March2nd's input, but he's not available at this time. Hope this helps! --Cormallen 00:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department
I wonder if you could consider supporting this article at Article Improvement Drive. Its an important place, where we all go by ambulance if we are very ill, and, I think, worthy of a comprehensive article.--File Éireann 20:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Our forum
Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 19:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexander for Admin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007. I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs  20:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza elections
Hi : This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005.

Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.

➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 10:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V citations
You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 16:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

News from Esperanza
Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? )

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

An Esperanzial note
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: EA-welcome (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Regarding Ongoing wars
I only included wars in which fighting was currently occurring, but I can see that it might be useful to also include diplomatic wars. Perhaps we could split the list into "Armed conlficts" and "Wars de jure" or something like that. Also, I'm not sure if all the wars that were included on that list but are now over are accounted for on the other lists. Theshibboleth 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal Indonesia News
Hi, thanks for updating the Portal:Indonesia. However there is no source about it in Portal:Current_events/Southeast_Asia, our news reference. Thus I have to delist it first. If you can update that news in Portal:Current_events/Southeast_Asia, complete with its news source, then you can (or I will) update Portal:Indonesia. It's just a matter of verifiability of the news item in the portal. Cheers. — Indon ( reply ) — 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks, but I replaced your edit to be exactly quotation from Portal:Current_events/Southeast_Asia. Cheers. — Indon ( reply ) — 08:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Vincenzo Paglia
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Ar
Template:Ar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Darkwind (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Vernon Lee Evans for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vernon Lee Evans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vernon Lee Evans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robin.r


text:
Carl Gustaf Thomson

Carl Gustaf Thomson (13 October 1824, in Malmöhus – 20 September 1899, in Lund) was a Swedish entomologist.

Thomson became a student in the University of Lund in 1843, graduated in 1850 and became associate professor of zoology there in 1857. In 1862 he became the curator of the entomological department of the Zoological Museum and in 1864 became a lecturer in entomology as well. An 1872 scholarship enabled him to travel to the continent for scientific study. He was offered the post of Director of the Entomological Museum in Berlin, but he declined.

Carl Gustaf Thomson was the author of Coleoptera Scandinaviae (ten volumes, 1859–68), Skandinaviens inseckta (1862), Scandinavia Hymenoptera (five volumes, 1871–79) and Opuscula Entomologica (22 bands, 1869–97). Publication ceased in 1897 due to problems with his eyesight. He also published descriptions of the insects collected on the voyage of the Fregatten Eugenies (HSwMS Eugenie), the first Swedish vessel to circumnavigate the world, especially in Diptera, species novas, etc. (1858).

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

title: Carl Gustaf Thomson


text:
User:InterwikiLinksRule

 * I use Flacus' InterwikiLinkChecker, a brilliant tool to semi-automatically insert Interwikilinks into articles. More than 54.000 Interwikilinks have been newly added into en: wikipedia alone! Try it or read the de:Benutzer:Flacus/Wikipedia_Interwiki-Link-Checker/en FAQ. This account ist infrequently used for insertion or correction of Interwikilinks by hand, also.

 * I am working on the german equivalent of Mirrors and forks at de:Wikipedia:Weiternutzung/Mängel

For Diskussion and my german userpage see de:Benutzer:Mdangers

cs:Wikipedista:Mdangers da:Bruger:Mdangers de:Benutzer:Mdangers es:Usuario:InterwikiLinksRule fr:Utilisateur:Mdangers it:Utente:Mdangers nl:Gebruiker:Mdangers pl:Wikipedysta:Mdangers pt:Usuário:Mdangers fi:Käyttäjä:Mdangers sv:Användare:Mdangers

title: User:InterwikiLinksRule


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawnee Stone

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 08:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Tawnee Stone
Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment, for those who actually read the article before dismissing "just another porn star", you'll notice that it reconciles her fake biography, with her actual details. Most of the details are weakly 'verified' through google searches. http://www.orsm.net/archive_jul_04.php ''Dan wrote:Subject: Tawnee Stone's brother...Dear Orsm, I live in Crystal Lake, Illinois, USA, as does the brother of Tawnee Stone. He graduated a year before I did. A week ago, a friend and employee at Hollywood Video Rental caught him stealing 2 video games.'' http://www.collegeslackers.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=295&st=75 ''cool story.. Tawnee Stone used to serve me pancakes at IHOP in crystal lake, IL back before she became an internet whore. She graduated with some of my buddies.'' http://www.uselessjunk.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1130&mode=nested&order=0&thold=-1 ''tawnee stone from Crystal Lake South High School, Crystal Lake IL 1997-2001. I can probably dig up a yearbook pic if anyone cares.'' http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=24005 On another note, a few fellas at another message board that I know use to go to an IHOP in the Chicago area where none other than Tawnee Stone use to work at, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
 * Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Week keep, expand, and wikify. As much as I am loathe to admit it, a Google search dismisses the non-notability claim... over 569,000 hits.   The page should be cleaned up a bit, though.  -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Internet pornography industry has a whole sub-industry devoted to Googlebombing the names of models and actresses, and even employs Wikipedia and its sibling projects to do it (reverting bulk additions of links to pornography web sites is a common task across all projects). The Google Test is completely unreliable when it comes to Internet pornography actresses and models.  See the discussion at Votes for deletion/Flick Shagwell and Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri. Uncle G 13:12:19, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Talk page does a great job of pointing out a serious problem with most adult star articles: verifiability. The talk page says "I grew up with her and can vouch for all the facts".  Original research, not verifiable.  Google test is not persuasive for porn.  Normal bio criterio would be more persuasive: accomplishments, awards, recognition outside the porn world, etc. Quale 03:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite, but Keep. She is notable enough, although the article is quite lacking. Ashmodai 08:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notable pr0n actress. JamesBurns 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The article has a severe verifiability problem, that is endemic to people in the pornography industry. The biographies that accompany the pictures are well-known for being made up, and, by the nature of the industry, there are often no other sources of biographical information at all.  The secrecy that these people surround themselves with, as a consequence of what they do, makes them too secret for Wikipedia.  Moreover, as Quale says, a pornography actress does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria for simply being a pornography actress.  There is no evidence that this person has been on a magazine cover, caused a legal controversy or a scandal, starred in a mainstream film, run a major business, written a book, or been first in a field.  All that we verifiably know about this person, once the "I went to school with her." information is subtracted, is her pseudonym, purported age, and job.  If those alone were enough to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, everyone with a green card would qualify for a biographical article. Delete. Uncle G 13:12:19, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
 * Keep. Famous Internet adult model. Teklund 17:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. If she is considered notable, there's going to be a thousand more "porn stars" whose bio will be up on wikipedia soon. Alex.tan 03:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Considering that there are more types of information than just the biography about such actresses and models (e.g. a filmography, a list of studios they have worked for, magazines they have appeared in, etc etc) biographical data makes up only a part of the information -- and if no (serious) biographical data is available, then we can't put any biographical data online. Besides, the private data released by porn studios about their models isn't usually much more fabricated or questionable than that released by other, non-porn, agencies -- except for the entirely fake stories you find next to girls on page 3, but everyone knows those are made up based on the photo, not the girl herself anyway (besides, they aren't intended to be taken serious) :P Ashmodai 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, do a cleanup. Pavel Vozenilek 19:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete A waste of time. Never likely to be much more than a rehash of dubious publicity material. CalJW 20:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable.  Grue   05:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep very notable indeed. --R.Koot 15:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. I don't see why so many porn pages that are obviously worth keeping get nominated for deletion. --Tothebarricades 03:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, because I said so. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 21:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comment I agree with User:Sherurcij, who wrote the paragraph above. There's even more evidence still on the page called Talk:Tawnee Stone. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep --Haham hanuka 14:08, 31 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/Lucy Lee

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 08:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Lucy Lee
Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. She's been in 125 movies on iafd. Plus, there's also another European model who goes by the same name and is, also, fairly notable herself.  So, perhaps this can serve as a disambiguation of sorts?  Just thinking out loud... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Move and Expand. Ashmodai 08:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Joe has been keeping abreast of this issue. Lucy Lee appears to be a fairly common name going by Google so a dab page wouldnt be out of the question. JamesBurns 10:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Haham hanuka 13:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User:Hermodike

Do not feed the troll rule does not work anymore! Shoot the troll on sight, straight to the head!

title: User:Hermodike


text:
WS-Addressing

Web Services Addressing (WS-Addressing) is a specification of transport-neutral mechanism that allows web services to communicate addressing information. It essentially consists of two parts: a structure for communicating a reference to a Web service endpoint, and a set of message addressing properties which associate addressing information with a particular message.

Description
WS-Addressing is a standardized way of including message routing data within SOAP headers. Instead of relying on network-level transport to convey routing information, a message utilizing WS-Addressing may contain its own dispatch metadata in a standardized SOAP header. The network-level transport is only responsible for delivering that message to a dispatcher capable of reading the WS-Addressing metadata. Once that message arrives at the dispatcher specified in the URI, the job of the network-level transport is done.

WS-Addressing supports the use of asynchronous interactions by specifying a common SOAP header (wsa:ReplyTo) that contains the endpoint reference (EPR) to which the response is to be sent. The service provider transmits the response message over a separate connection to the wsa:ReplyTo endpoint. This decouples the lifetime of the SOAP request/response interaction from the lifetime of the HTTP request/response protocol, thus enabling long-running interactions that can span arbitrary periods of time.

Endpoint references
An endpoint reference (EPR) is an XML structure encapsulating information useful for addressing a message to a Web service. This includes the destination address of the message, any additional parameters (called reference parameters) necessary to route the message to the destination, and optional metadata (such as WSDL or WS-Policy) about the service.

Message addressing properties
Message addressing properties communicate addressing information relating to the delivery of a message to a Web service:
 * Message destination URI
 * Source endpoint -- the endpoint of the service that dispatched this message (EPR)
 * Reply endpoint -- the endpoint to which reply messages should be dispatched (EPR)
 * Fault endpoint -- the endpoint to which fault messages should be dispatched (EPR)
 * Action -- an action value indicating the semantics of the message (may assist with routing the message) URI
 * Unique message ID URI
 * Relationship to previous messages (A pair of URIs)

History
WS-Addressing was originally authored by Microsoft, IBM, BEA, Sun Microsystems, and SAP and submitted to W3C for standardization. The W3C WS-Addressing Working Group has refined and augmented the specification in the process of standardization.

WS-Addressing is currently specified in three parts:
 * The Core specification of Endpoint References and Message Addressing Properties.
 * A binding of these properties to SOAP.
 * The Metadata specification defines how the abstract properties defined in Core are described using WSDL, how to include WSDL metadata in endpoint references, and how WS-Policy can be used to indicate the support of WS-Addressing by a Web service.

Web Services Policy Attachment for Endpoint Reference (WS-PAEPR) specifies the mechanism and meaning of including WS-Policy expressions in Endpoint References. WS-PAEPR is a W3C Member Submission.

title: WS-Addressing


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Myst

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

Kristi Myst
Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; she was a prominent personality in the de facto second biggest wrestling company in the USA for several years. McPhail 14:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand. Fairly notable; over 101 movies according to iafd. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs proper expansion though. Ashmodai 08:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notable performer. JamesBurns 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Valid article if it gets cleaned up. Webslingr 19:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not enough reasons being solid enough to prompt deletion of it. TheMonkofDestiny 19:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand --Haham hanuka 14:01, 31 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:
Valenti (album)

Valenti is the second Japanese studio album (fourth overall) by South Korean recording artist BoA, released through Avex Trax on January 29, 2003. The album's lyrics were written by multiple contributors including Natsumi Watanabe and Kenn Kato, with composition on the album handled by a team of composers including Kazuhiro Hara, Bounceback, Kosuke Morimoto, Ken Harada, and Akira. Valenti is a pop record containing influences from R&B and dance music, and is primarily recorded in Japanese with minor phrases in English.

Valenti became a massive commercial success upon release. It became BoA's second consecutive number-one album on the Oricon Albums Chart, debuting at the top spot with first week sales of over 615,000 copies. The album managed to sell over 1.2 million copies and is her highest-selling album to date. It also became her second album to be certified million by the Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ). Combined with the sales of its three physical singles, Valenti sold over 1.7 million copies during the year.

BoA promoted the album with three singles that were released throughout 2002: the title track, the double A-side single "Kiseki / No. 1" and the double A-side single "Jewel Song / Beside You (Boku o Yobu Koe)." All three releases peaked within the top three of the Oricon Singles Chart and received gold certifications in physical sales by the RIAJ. BoA promoted several tracks from the album in live television appearances in 2003. She embarked on her first concert tour in support of the album titled the Valenti Live Tour, which spanned nine concerts across three cities in Japan.

Commercial performance
Valenti topped the weekly Japanese Oricon Albums Chart with first week sales of 615,218 copies. It marked BoA's second number one studio album in Japan, following her debut album, Listen to My Heart (2002); her next four studios albums would also rank atop the chart, with her sixth Japanese album The Face (2008) setting a record for the second-most number one albums by a solo artist in the country. Valenti remained atop the chart for a second week, selling 20,000 copies more than the second place album, Glay Rare Collectives Vol. 1, which was released the week after Valenti. It ranked first on the Oricon monthly chart in February 2003. The album surpassed sales of 1 million copies on March 3, 2003, making it the first album by a non-Japanese Asian artist to have achieved the feat in Oricon's history. Valenti remains the singer's best-selling album to date.

In South Korea, Valenti peaked at number one on the international monthly album chart compiled by the Music Industry Association of Korea (MIAK) in February 2004, becoming her first record to top the international chart. It was the 26th best-selling international album in South Korea during 2004, selling 17,958 copies.

Accolades
Valenti won Best Rock & Pop Album of the Year at the annual Japan Gold Disc Awards, marking her second consecutive win in the category after Listen to My Heart (2002). At the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards Japan, the single "Valenti" received a nomination for Best Pop Video, but lost to "One Love" by English boy band Blue.

title: Valenti (album)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Marie

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 08:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Kitty Marie
Necromancing began this VfD on 26 July 2005. Unfortunately, the procedure wasn't followed precisely, thus I am rectifying this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, hardly notable at this time. Google search using "Kitty Marie" (note quotes) shows only 35,300 hits; imdb lists 23 movies while iafd lists 67. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Quale 03:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Breaks my heart, but she doesn't seem particularily recognizable. Ashmodai 08:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and expand. IMDB entry, borderline at best. JamesBurns 10:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. One day, next week or in a year , i want to prove something about a porn star named Marie. Is that Kitty? or Kelly? or Kathy? or Kristi? or or or? ... Even bad articles on no-names ( but with 35000 hits !!) are useful. MutterErde 09:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. And you will have about 600,000 other online resources to find info about whichever pornstar or adult model you are researching.  This is not Porncyclopedia.  Considering the staggering number of pornstars, nude models, and adult "actresses" that have or will exist, I think a pretty high bar of notability is needed to be considered for inclusion here.  For example, Kristi Myst (VfD below) seems to have been able to move into non-porno entertainment, which is relatively rare, and her involvement in pro wrestling has raised her notability greatly.  Kitty Marie has done nothing like this.  Soundguy99 15:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are arguing against the inclusion of pornography-related topics in general. Porn actresses can have a high notability for their career alone. For example, in Germany Gina Wild and Dolly Buster were widely known (even by those who did not watch their flics) even before they retired from the porn industry. Regardless of that pornography is its own field of interest and thus porn actresses needn't be known much outside that field, just as most computing and physics theories are not known much outside their fields. I'd wager more people know about various porn actresses than about the theories of quantum physics. Ashmodai 05:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep - --Haham hanuka 14:06, 31 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:
Double Impact

Double Impact is a 1991 American action film written and directed by Sheldon Lettich, and written, produced by and starring Jean-Claude Van Damme as Chad and Alex Wagner. The film marks Van Damme's third collaboration with director Sheldon Lettich (who wrote Bloodsport and directed Lionheart) and second collaboration with Bolo Yeung (the first being Bloodsport in 1988). Double Impact was released in the United States on August 9, 1991.

Plot
In Hong Kong during the year 1966, business partners Paul Wagner and Nigel Griffith open the Victoria Harbour Tunnel. Paul attends with his wife Katherine and their identical twin infant sons, Chad and Alex. After the celebration, the family is followed home by their bodyguard, Frank Avery, whom they dismiss. Once he leaves, a Triad hit squad follows them. A shootout ensues, in which Paul is killed. Katherine begs the Triads to spare the twins but is killed by Moon, the top henchman. Their maid is able to escape with Alex and Frank eventually saves Chad; the maid leaves Alex at a Hong Kong orphanage and Frank raises Chad in France.

25 years later in 1991, Chad and Frank are running a successful martial arts dojo in Los Angeles when Frank tells a surprised Chad about a new "business" in Hong Kong. The two go to a mahjong parlor and a woman, mistaking Chad for Alex, takes him back to Alex's room. When Alex arrives, he knocks out Chad for being with his girlfriend, Danielle Wilde.

Frank tells them they are identical twin brothers and they need to join together to take down Griffith and get their part of the royalties from the tunnel, but Chad and Alex initially do not get along with each other. Alex takes them out on his boat to sell smuggled Mercedes and cigarettes to some Chinese buyers, but the Hong Kong Police arrive and Chad dumps the cars to escape the cops faster. Back in Hong Kong, some thugs kidnap and beat up Chad (mistaking him for Alex) when he refuses to work for their leader, Raymond Zhang. Danielle, who works for Griffith, begins checking his private files for information, but she is being watched closely by Griffith's bodyguard, Kara.

Alex takes Chad and Frank to an abandoned hotel on an island to conduct their operations. With intelligence from Danielle, they attack a drug operation and blow it up. Next, they attack a club frequented by Zhang by pretending to bring him Cognac smuggled from France, which is actually just crates of bombs, although they fail to kill Zhang. Danielle continues to search for information but is caught and sexually molested by Kara. Danielle later calls the hideout revealing she has found something, but her phone is tapped by Griffith. Unable to find Alex and Frank who are out gathering firewood, Chad takes the boat to rescue Danielle by himself. However, Alex becomes paranoid and begins drinking heavily while imagining Chad and Danielle having sex. Chad brings Danielle home, but Kara follows them in a helicopter and discovers their hideout. When they return, Alex attacks Chad in a drunken rage before the brothers angrily part ways for the night.

The next morning Chad and Alex awaken to see Triads landing on the beach and, although they kill several, Frank and Danielle are captured. They capture one Triad who reveals that Frank and Danielle have been taken to Zhang's boat at a pier. Chad and Alex board and fight their way through the ship; Chad kills Moon (who beat him when he was kidnapped earlier) and he and Alex rescue Frank and Danielle. Afterwards, the twin brothers split up: Chad pursues Griffith and Alex chases Zhang. Alex eventually kills Zhang when he falls to his death from atop a crane. Chad and Danielle are chased through a maze of shipping containers until Griffith threatens to crush Chad with a forklift holding a container. Chad jumps into the water, sneaks around into the forklift, and drops the container on Griffith, killing him. Alex, Chad, Danielle and Frank reunite after the ordeal and appear to set aside their differences.

Cast

 * Jean-Claude Van Damme as Alex Wagner / Chad Wagner
 * Alicia Stevenson as Baby Chad Wagner
 * Paul Aylett as Baby Alex Wagner
 * Geoffrey Lewis as Frank Avery
 * Alonna Shaw as Danielle Wilde
 * Alan Scarfe as Nigel Griffith
 * Philip Chan as Raymond Zhang
 * Bolo Yeung as Moon
 * Corinna Everson as Kara
 * Peter Malota as Bodyguard With Spurs
 * Evan Lurie as Klimax Klub Bouncer
 * Andy Armstrong as Paul Wagner
 * Sarah-Jane Varley as Katherine Wagner
 * Wu Fong Lung as Chinese Nanny
 * Eugene Choy as Mr. Chen, Private Investigator
 * Kwok-Kai Ng as Mr. Nguyen, Triad Boss
 * David Lea as Karate Student
 * Julie Strain as One of Chad's Students
 * Shelley Michelle as One of Chad's Students
 * Jennifer Stone as Klimax Klub Hostess
 * Rita Lau as Hostess With Frank
 * John Sham as a HKPF Officer

Casting
Van Damme was reportedly paid $600,000 for the movie. Wanting to breakaway from the martial arts movie genre he had become so popularly known for, he hoped playing the dual role of Chad/Alex would change his image and help him do just that. "[Alex] is violent and [Chad] is not, so audiences [will] see the contrast in my work." Prior to the film's release, he had told the Los Angeles Times: "If I stay in martial arts pictures people will get tired of my films." Van Damme felt Double Impact's love scene would appeal to a wider audience. Seeing Jeremy Irons portray a dual role in Dead Ringers allegedly influenced Van Damme's decision.

Writing
Director Sheldon Lettich co-wrote the script with Van Damme. Inspiration was taken from Alexandre Dumas' The Corsican Brothers; an 1844 novella about twins separated at birth, who find each other in adulthood. Lettich later recalled the concept of Van Damme playing twins "was so successful that other producers wanted him to repeat it." (Timecop, Maximum Risk, Replicant) "Even though it meant a lot more work for Jean-Claude, he enjoyed the challenge of playing two distinctly different characters, showcasing a dark and a more light-hearted side in the same movie."

Filming locations
Filming of the movie took place in Los Angeles, Santa Clarita (Dojo scene) and most of the scenes in Hong Kong. Most of the Hong Kong scenes were filmed at the Lippo centre (Nigel Griffith's headquarters), Tsing Yi Container Processing Terminal (Raymond Zhang & Triad scene) and the Star Ferry port (escape scene). The hideout used by Alex & Chad was filmed at Mong Tung Wan at the Chi Ma Wan trail on Lantau Island.

Soundtrack
The score by Arthur Kempel was released as the Double Impact Original Soundtrack Recordings in 1993 by Silva America. The soundtrack was released on CD contained twelve tracks with a runtime of 40 minutes.

Box office
Double Impact opened at No. 2 at the US box office and grossed $7.5 million in its opening weekend. By August 20, 1991, 11 days after the initial release, this increased to $15.3 million. According to Box Office Mojo, US receipts totaled $30.1 million by the end of the film's theatrical run.

Initial reviews
Calling the plot "minimal" at best, Chris Hicks, of Deseret News, gave a negative review. He went on to say: "the story makes no sense and is often more laughable than exciting." Whilst adding that this "probably won't deter fans," Hicks noted "more gunplay here than in most Van Damme efforts, which may or may not be an improvement." "Van Damme's idea of a love scene is a soft-lens, soft-core moment as he and newcomer Alonna Shaw roll around nude in a paranoid fantasy sequence. So much for romance."

Caryn James, of The New York Times, said: "there is plenty of gunfire and karate kicks and explosives set off by remote control. Chad gets bomped in the head more often than Alex. There are some Van Damme-style showdowns with various villains, with whirls and tricks that seem to owe something to the Three Stooges. There are golden oldies like smashing someone in the head with a whisky bottle and kicking him in the crotch. As it turns out, two Jean-Claude Van Damme's are pretty much the same as one. Fans who like their action unadultered by story, character or acting know where to find it."

Renowned critic Roger Ebert awarded the film two stars, saying: "it has a budget and production values of a lesser James Bond movie." However, Ebert gave credit for the "slick product values" and "few clever lines." He went on to compare Van Damme to fellow martial artist and actor Steven Seagal; in that they "are always at the center of their plots. [This] will hurt their careers in the long run, since martial arts movies are limited by their formulas, and the heroes are supplied with almost ritualistic plot patterns." Ebert believed both would make "splendid villains in more ambitious movies."

Despite calling the plot "elementary but serviceable", Kevin Thomas, of the Los Angeles Times, gave a positive review, saying: "[Double Impact] offers two Jean-Claude Van Dammes for the price of one, and for fans of the Belgian-born martial arts star, it delivers the goods. It's a solid, fast-moving action-adventure set largely in Hong Kong, which is dynamically photographed by Richard Kline.

Contemporary consensus
On Rotten Tomatoes, the review aggregator, Double Impact has an approval rating of 33% based on 21 reviews. Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale.

Cancelled sequel
Van Damme and Lettich had been discussing a potential sequel for "many years." Whilst promoting The Expendables 2 in 2012, Van Damme confirmed a sequel was in the works. That same year, Lettich completed a treatment based on a story by Van Damme; "along with 25 pages of screenplay." Double Impact 2 was envisioned by Van Damme to be more serious in tone than the original.

Plans for a sequel fell through as far back as 2015. The sequel was "ambitious" and would have been expensive to produce. Lettich said "there were a lot of logistical problems. Mostly around who owned the rights." It turned out that "MGM owned the majority of the rights" and "acquiring them was not going to be cheap." Furthermore, "the studio had to be included as a co-partner with any producing entity", which allegedly made the "process even more difficult and complicated" given MGM's apparent unwillingness to financially back the sequel.

In 2019, a restored 35mm film-version of Double Impact was screened at the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Austin, Texas. Lettich reaffirmed the cancellation and told fans during the Q&A that "perhaps the biggest reason [a sequel] didn't happen was in fact due to the [original] film's success."

title: Double Impact


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaitlyn Ashley

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 13:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Kaitlyn Ashley

 * Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep expand if possible. Hamster Sandwich 09:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's hard to judge notability across different types of film, but I would say weak keep in this case - article does (barely) establish notability as a prolific actress. Sirmob 13:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep IMD shows almost 200 entries. I think this is enough for notability, but article should make that clearer.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable performer in this genre. 23skidoo 14:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notable actress. Capitalistroadster 19:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Ashmodai 08:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notable actress. JamesBurns 09:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. For the record, iafd lists her as being in 307 titles. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Noitall 04:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - --Haham hanuka 14:13, 31 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:
Ben Devlin

Ben Devlin is a British television executive producer. After periods working in journalism including a stint at British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, he entered television broadcasting and worked for the BBC, Rapido TV, Clive James's Watchmaker Films, Graham Norton's So TV and Visual Voodoo, the entertainment arm of ITN. His credits range from The Generation Game to Eurotrash.

He now specialises in content creation strategies for brands, developing and placing branded content, advertiser funded programming, and product placement in the UK.

Past credits

 * 100 Greatest Stand-Ups - Channel 4
 * Richard Hammond Meets Evel Knievel - BBC Two
 * The Million Dollar Mind Reader: Derek Ogilvie - Channel 5
 * James Hewitt Under Hypnosis - Channel 5
 * The Jules and Lulu Show - ITV

title: Ben Devlin


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Sage

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 13:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Adriana Sage

 * Delete, as non-notable --Necromancing 02:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep IMDb listings, list of publications, shes a "pro". notable. Hamster Sandwich 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: She does have an iMDB listing and a iafd listing. It's just not been listed on her article. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 10:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be notable enough in her field. -- Lochaber 12:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, not sure which version is supposed to resemble a diatribe. Kappa 13:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable performer in her genre. 23skidoo 14:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, 59 entries in IMD is enough for my notability criteria.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
 * Keep, Notable performer and there are several links to her name.-7121989
 * Keep and clean up. Notable performer but no need to know her shoe size. Capitalistroadster 19:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. Hall Monitor 19:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree she is notable. Many other adult actresses already on Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with that. -- Crevaner 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable porn actress.  59 movies is not many in that industry. Quale 22:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: I've posted the bulk of my view below, but with regard to this particular statement I would like to say that appearing in a smaller number of more successful films (as opposed to cranking out some gonzo crap once a month) IS the main criteria for separating a notable actresses from a nobody. SteveAtlanta 17:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because her name is one of the relatively few which can help sell an adult film or magazine. She is possibly the best-known Latina star, also is well-known in mainstream, and is sometimes seen under the Asian category.  As for Quale's comment, it's a good thing that she hasn't been in more than 59 movies in so many years in the industry.  Slap-em-out cheapies are the least notable and least prestigious films, and actresses who do many films a month will usually be burned-out and Not Notable within a couple of years, even if they avoid getting a drug habit.  Barno 01:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is prominent enough that porn sites mention her name in mostly anonymous sample material if that means anything. Ashmodai 08:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notable actress. JamesBurns 09:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I cannot help but take note that every aspiring unknown actor and college garage band in North America and Europe has a Wikipedia entry, and everyone is fine with that... yet half of all adult industry articles have had Votes for Deletion or comments in the discussion tab about their lack of appropriateness. I suppose it's possible that some person or persons are devout "porn connoisseurs" and want to ensure that Wikipedia takes the most scholarly posture possible with its adult industry articles.  I suspect that it's more likely, given the patterns I see, that some person or persons have trepidation about the subject matter altogether and would like to eliminate as many articles as they can manage to persuade the community to go along with.  Regardless, a chief strength of Wikipedia is its documentation of popular culture... it is THE place to go for information on a person of note who is unlikely to be featured in Encarta or the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  In this specific case, I find it laughable to say Adriana Sage does not meet the critera of "notable".  She has been the best known and most successful Latina adult actress of the past five years, and is one of the few individuals in the industry who has risen above the sea of anonymous faces and is used to sell product based on name-recognition.  I agree that this article needs improvement... starting with the removal of her "shoe size" and so forth, then proceeding with more information about her career and contract-status-slash-professional relationships.  However, making such improvements is not possible until this silly round of voting is over with.  Bottom line, of course this article is 100% appropriate for Wikipedia, and I would strongly suggest to anyone suspecting otherwise that they carefully review Wikipedia's deletion policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy.  The community memmbers who have spoken up on this issue have voted overwhelmingly in favor of "keep".  Can we please hurry up and move past this nonsense?  SteveAtlanta 17:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep She was one of 12 women that the UK edition of FHM presented in a booklet with the title Adult Entertainment: The Sexiest Porn Stars In The World (included with issue 02/2005) So at least she's notable according to one of the biggest men's magazines in the world. 85.166.247.58 16:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Haham hanuka 14:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews

Wacky idea
How about a series of articles describing remarkable acts of tolerance by various segments of humanity? Gzuckier 05:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That was my suggestion! Wait.  Tolerance or intolerance?  :o  The only problem is that some acts are "evident" to some people as intolerance, and others can be misconstrued... Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting...I wonder how the mudslingers would ruin that adventure... Tomer TALK  18:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be boring, User:Gzuckier. --Zeno of Elea 14:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Acts of tolerance - an excellent idea. While we are at it, why does WP have lists of disasters? shipwrecks? assinations? massacres? Why not list of rescues? Lets have something good to say for a change! Oh, I suppose that it would be 'boring', but could we try? --ClemMcGann 23:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This series of articles would definitely have to be listed as a disaster, if not already, certainly within 2 weeks of surviving VfDs...Tomer TALK 03:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

VfD for collection
is there any way to set up a VfD page for the entire collection of articles "Religious persecution by X"?

If so, then this could at least separate those offended or worried about the content of a particular articles, and responses could be less ethnically-based. --jnothman talk 10:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I support that idea. Unfortunately, you will find a number of people who will genuinely argue the point that "religious persecution by..." is a good and fair topic when applied to most religious groups, but outrageous and racist when applied to their religious group. Plenty of people in each community who feel this way: in the Religious persecution by Jews VfD, see IZAK and BrianGotts for examples. Babajobu 11:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice. The racism card. That's productive. --Briangotts (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Briangotts, you are mistaken. I did not play the racism card. Rather, I accused you of playing the racism card. Unless, of course, you consider accusations of playing the racism card to be a form of playing the racism card; but then you're stuck, because then you, too, have just played the racism card (but for the second time, against my one time). Anyway, you never contributed to my new martyr complex stub, so you have no credibility. Babajobu 20:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am unqualified to contribute substantively to a psychologically-oriented technical article on martyr complexes. I suggested the article to you because you seemed emminently qualified. --Briangotts (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You have consistently misrepresented my position on this matter. The article is offensive not because the idea of Jews oppressing others makes it so but because you have failed to identify one credible instance of religious persecution. Those you and your fellow travelers have identified are stretching to the point of absurdity. The page was obviously created as a POV, retaliatory springboard.
 * On a personal note, I have no desire to continue trading snide remarks with you as I feel a)the amusement value both for ourselves and for other users is probably wearing thin at this point and b) I prefer to devote my time to more productive endeavors. Your incivility and condescending attitude with other users, and my substantive statements on the vfd page, speak for themselves. In the future, if I think a comment is worth responding to in a substantive manner, I will do so; otherwise I will ignore you with equanimity. --Briangotts (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I just looked at your user page. You've made a mindboggling number of high-quality contributions to Wikipedia. I absentmindedly added myself to your list of favorite Wikipedians; I apologize for that, that was vandalism and it won't happen again. Look, I'm not trading snide remarks with anyone. That's how I talk, and no snideness or condescension is intended. I certainly have no reason to suspect I'm in a position to condescend to any other Wikipedians--I know nothing about them. Nor have I attempted to misrepresent your views. The section on the displacement of Palestinians is cited to Benny Morris and other Israeli New Historians. Perfect sources? Of course not, but it's a start. Are there sources out there regarding the Hasmonean forced conversion of the Idumeans? Yes, in abundance. Are they in the article yet? No. The point is that it is a legitimate topic and the deficit in sourcing is a common problem in newish articles and can be remedied. But rushing the article off to VfD is an attempt to prevent the article's improvement by issuing a sort of Wikifatwa which declares the topic verboten, despite its potential. That's no good. And I'm afraid that when you support other such articles covering other religious groups-- though these articles, too, are in their embryonic stage--it looks like you have some sort of aversion to this particular treatment of this particular religious group. Babajobu 22:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I would also support that measure. All three of these articles were started simply for the purpose of riling up different members of WP. And Babajobu, look no further than User:HKT, for an example of a user who would die before allowing an article such as the one we're debating. LokiCT 15:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:LokiCT. Cheers, HKT talk 17:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I prefer individual article VfDs. If you're concerned at the amount of effort put into discussion, just list them one at a time with, say, seven days in between listings.  If the articles were really disruptive they could be summarily deleted, but VfD is for articles that are in this gray area.

 * It may be as some people say that they were created "simply for the purpose of riling up different members of WP", but since to me they seem all of them to be quite unexceptional and uncontentious, I have no way of verifying the author's intent, and in any case it is the end result that is more important to me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I also think it unlikely that the collection was developed to rile up members of WP, but I'm not sure they're articles that should be made, as you will see in some of my remarks around here. In particular, I am of the view that this section should be replaced with "Attitudes of X to others", rather than directly their acts of religious persecution which is very hard to define in terms of the group as a whole or their creed, but often in terms of sub-groups. --jnothman talk 06:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sjakkalle's dictatorial move
Hi Sjak: Kindly explain your math please at Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews: 34 "keeps" is better than 66 "deletes"...the "deletes" had almost DOUBLE the votes and you decide against them? This makes no sense! I will call on others to object to your dictatorial move! IZAK 10:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I would just like to point out that Sjakkalle, who was dealing with several VfD's today, also closed and Kept Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians (as well as performing his duties on several other VfDs. I hardly think he was being dictatorial, and I think his explanation for his decision makes sense. It was extremely close, just barely missed the proportion usually required for "consensus to Delete", and he didn't feel able to give it "that extra push" and delete it. Babajobu 12:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And I happen to think it was beyond silly: there WAS a clear consensus of what was wanted.Existentializer 19:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How many VfDs have you closed? When has such substantial opposition ever been ignored in a VfD? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yawwnnn. "Substantial" opposition would have involved the article not being a blatant racist violation of WP:POINT.Existentializer 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by "substantial opposition" I mean the large number of keep votes. I'm not sure what you mean by your accusation about the article, and how  it relates, if at all, to my comment about substantial opposition.  Also I think you should probably refrain from using expressions like "Yawwnnn" because it's a breach of our policy of civility. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Reopening the VfD

 * Hi, User:Danny has called for the VfD to be re-opened. See Talk:Religious persecution by Jews, please voice your opinion. Thanks, and be well. IZAK 12:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality's objections
This is copied from the project page. First is a copy of Sjakkalle's closing comments, and then Neutrality's objection. Please do not edit the closed VfD pages; talk pages are for discussion. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). As for vote count, my tally (which may be slightly inaccurate) places this at 34 keep (after Dv and Incognito have been discounted as possible sockpuppets, and LokiCT has also been discounted), 66 delete votes, 2 merge votes and one redirect vote. In other words a very close call, with a lot of comments. There are a lot of shouting matches with a load of people emphatically holding their positions. The main concern has the neutrality and verifiability of the article. I am in doubt here. Therefore I cannot delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the above decision. 34:66:2 as a keep/delete/merge vote in no way constitutes a rough consensus of the group; one-third of users should not be able to override this supermajority. Therefore, I must delete this article, and request that further discussion should take place on votes for undeletion. Neutralitytalk 18:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I would add that Neutrality has now twice deleted the article and its talk page. On both occasions a separate administrator restored them both.

 * 18:33, 8 August 2005 Kim Bruning restored "Historical persecution by Jews"
 * 14:59, 8 August 2005 Neutrality deleted "Historical persecution by Jews" (Re-deleting. There was an obvious two-thirds consensus on VfD to delete. This is "broad consensus." A small minority of users will no be allowed to override the broad consensus. Take it to VfU if you must.)
 * 10:03, 8 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Historical persecution by Jews"
 * 19:47, 7 August 2005 Neutrality deleted "Historical persecution by Jews" (VfD debate had an overwhelming vote to delete (at least 2:1).)

I encourage Neutrality to list this article for deletion again after a reasonable period if he doesn't like the way the last discussion was closed. The result of the recent RfC Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway suggests that there is a strong consensus for administrator discretion in closing. I, for instance, use a sliding scale for consensus between 70% and 80%. I wouldn't touch a 2/3 vote with a bargepole. But my response to the RfC has been endorsed by 23 24 25 people. --Tony Sidaway Talk 19:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no rule allowing a validly closed "no consensus" VFD debate to be overruled. If you want this deleted, renominate the article for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No decision is final. Any admin can review a decision and take action allowed by the deletion policies.  An incorrect decision can be reviewed if properly documented.  Process allows for a review that deletes in this situation to be take to VfU. -  Tεx  τ  urε  14:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. However Neutrality's stated objection is apparently that he personally considers 2:1 to be a rough consensus.  This is simply a disagreement between parties that have different but reasonable (well, I consider the 2:1 standard to be just about defensible, though I would never use it myself) criteria for rough consensus.  We can't go around tearing one another's legitimate closes down simply because our standards of consensus are different--surely there has to be some evidence of an illegitimate assumption or decision being made by the closer. --Tony Sidaway Talk  15:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I can agree with that. I guess I am more focused on closures that say no consensus when there are no keep votes.  This is not the case for this VfD. -  Tεx  τ  urε  17:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well as a result of the RfC I've rethought calling no consensus. In future I'm emphasizing the binary nature of the decision by calling a keep unless there is a consensus to delete. The "no consensus" was really just a modifier, like the "not proven" verdict in Scottish law, and as such is easily misread as "not sure." If I call keep it's unambiguously because and only because there isn't a consensus to delete. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Now you've lost me. You think that is a positive response to the RfC?  Or is it a spiteful response?  (Honest question.)  I supported you in the RfC because your decisions were well documented and reasonable - with rare exceptions that I disagreed with but could understand.  I'm not following your view on this "binary" decision.  If there are 5 delete votes and 4 keep votes then you can accurately call it "no consensus" but not "keep". -  Tεx  τ  urε  18:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * First, recall that 24 people in addition to me *endorsed* my response to the RfC. You are one of 4 who added your signatures to an outside view by Robert_McClenon to the effect that I would not be abusing my authority as an admin if I refrained from closing VfDs. There's a difference there (though confusingly at least half dissented from Robert's central suggestion that I refrain from closing).  So no I'm not being spiteful, I can afford to be magnanimous.

 * No, the problem is that policy is not clearly understood. Central to VfD closing policy is this: the article is kept where there is no consensus.  Also the only important action performed by an administrator is to determine whether or not the article should be deleted (hence this is a binary decision.)  Deletion (and acts involving deletion such as history merging) is the only action that can't be performed, or reversed, by an ordinary editor.

 * If a VFD discussion yields no consensus, the decision defaults to keep the article. Note that this does not preclude editing, renaming or merging the article, as those actions do not require a deletion vote.

 * If six people voted delete and six voted to merge, there is not a consensus to merge any more than there is a consensus to delete. I'll happily close the discussion saying "keep" (or, formerly, "no consensus") because that is what we do when there is no consensus.  The fact that nobody voted to keep is supremely irrelevant--people thought it shouldn't be kept but they couldn't agree what to do, so I won't pretend that they did.  If somebody else wants to do the merge, that's fine with me--it has nothing to do with me. --Tony Sidaway Talk  20:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This response, and your decision, sound very spiteful. I had initially respected your "no consensus" because it was your honest opionion.  This "binary" approach is a spite against your detractors.  I understand what you are doing now and my last advice to you is to read WP:POINT. -  Tεx  τ  urε  21:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like we'll have to agree to differ. To me it's obvious that the only way to clarity is my current path--to call a keep a keep, especially when it is explicitly prescribed as a keep by policy. It is, in fact, my only defense against further attacks on me, to be absolutely clear that my actions are unequivocally directly derived from policy. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether merge/delete results should be called keep or merge. We are discussing this debate, where the result was actually a quite clean divide with 34 keep and 66 delete. In addition there were 2 merge votes and 1 redirect vote. If I place the merge votes in the "keep" column and the redirect vote in the "delete" column (since redirect usually means that the content is discardable) we are left with 67-36. This is below the 2:1 delete majority which Neutrality claims. I cannot understand why people think it is okay for a participant in the VFD debate to overrule a decision which he disagrees with. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think many do think it is okay. --Tony Sidaway Talk

Let's get back on topic. I oppose the method which Neutrality used to perform his "re-count". First, let's remember that despite the name, "Votes for deletion" has nothing to do with "voting". We use "votes" as a very rough proxy for measuring the degree to which concensus has been reached. But the comments - the facts, evidence and logical arguments - that go with a "vote" are always more important that the mere "vote". This means that the closing admin will always have to exercise his/her discretion when closing a vote. That is a good thing! We select admins for their judgment. We should trust them to exercise it well.

That is not to say that every admin will make every decision correctly. We do have the ability to review and correct "bad" decisions. Our processes have evolved over time but they are quite effective. If an article was incorrectly deleted, it gets discussed again on Votes for undeletion. By long precedent, if an article is incorrectly kept, if gets discussed again in a new deletion discussion thread. The new discussion should link to the old one but it should definitely be a community decision, not the decision of a single dissenting admin. We've never needed to write that precedent down before but that has been established practice for at least the several years I've been here.

I will support Neutrality's right to open a new VfD debate over this article. There are some serious issues which have not been resolved. However, I oppose the attempt to re-write the closing decision of the existing debate. Rossami (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

New: Vote for UNdeletion
See the latest vote and discussions at Votes for undeletion. Thank you. IZAK 12:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * And what is the point of voting for the undeletion of an article that has not been deleted? When, as is almost inevitable, you don't get a 2:1 majority to undelete, will that be used as "proof" that it should now be deleted? If this is what does happen, IMO that would be a total perversion of the spirit of the Wikipedia. Paul B 21:01 10 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Munich (2005 film)

Munich is a 2005 epic historical drama film produced and directed by Steven Spielberg, co-written by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth. It is based on the 1984 book Vengeance by George Jonas, an account of Mossad assassinations following the Munich massacre.

Munich was released by Universal Pictures in the United States and internationally by DreamWorks Pictures on December 23, 2005, and received five Oscar nominations: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, and Best Score. The film made $131 million worldwide but just $47 million in the United States, making it one of Spielberg's lowest-grossing films domestically. In 2017, the film was named the 16th "Best Film of the 21st Century So Far" by The New York Times.

Plot
At the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, the Palestinian militant group Black September carried out a terrorist attack resulting in the deaths of 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Avner Kaufman, a Mossad agent of German-Jewish descent, is chosen to lead a mission to assassinate 11 Palestinians allegedly involved in the massacre. At the direction of his handler Ephraim, to give the Israeli government plausible deniability, Kaufman resigns from Mossad and operates with no official ties to Israel. His team includes four Jewish volunteers from around the world: South African driver Steve, Belgian toy-maker and explosives expert Robert, former Israeli soldier and "cleaner" Carl, and German antique dealer and document forger Hans from Frankfurt. They are given information by a French informant, Louis, whose family's history is connected to the French Resistance.

In Rome, the team shoots and kills Wael Zwaiter, who is living as a poet. In Paris, they detonate a bomb in the home of Mahmoud Hamshari. In Cyprus, they bomb the hotel room of Hussein Abd Al Chir. With IDF commandos, they pursue three Palestinian militants—Muhammad Youssef al-Najjar, Kamal Adwan, and Kamal Nasser—to Beirut, penetrate the Palestinians' guarded compound and kill all three.

Between hits, the assassins argue with each other about the morality and logistics of their mission, expressing fear about their individual lack of experience, as well as their apparent ambivalence about accidentally killing innocent bystanders. Avner makes a brief visit to his wife, who has given birth to their first baby. In Athens, when they track down Zaiad Muchasi, the team finds out that Louis arranged for them to share a safe house with their rival PLO members and the Mossad agents escape trouble by pretending to be members of foreign militant groups like ETA, IRA, ANC, and the Red Army Faction. Avner has a heartfelt conversation with PLO member Ali over their homelands who deserves to rule over the lands. Ali is later shot by Carl while the team escapes from the hit on Muchasi.

The squad moves on to London to track down Ali Hassan Salameh, who orchestrated the Munich massacre, but the assassination attempt is interrupted by several drunken Americans. It is implied that these are agents of the CIA, which, according to Louis, protects and funds Salameh in exchange for his promise not to attack United States diplomats. Meanwhile, attempts are made to kill the assassins themselves. Carl is killed by an independent Dutch contract killer. In revenge, the team tracks her down and executes her at a houseboat in Hoorn, Netherlands. Hans is found stabbed to death on a park bench, and Robert is killed by an explosion in his workshop. Avner and Steve finally locate Salameh in Spain, but again their assassination attempt is thwarted, this time by Salameh's armed guards. Avner and Steve disagree on whether Louis has sold information on the team to the PLO.

A disillusioned Avner flies to Israel, where he is unhappy to be hailed as a hero by two young soldiers, and then to his new home in Brooklyn, where he suffers post-traumatic stress and paranoia. Concerns continue to grow when he speaks to Louis' father by phone and it is revealed he knows his real name and promises no violence will come to him from his family. He is thrown out of the Israeli consulate after storming in to demand that Mossad leave his wife and child alone. Ephraim comes to ask Avner to return to Israel and Mossad, but Avner refuses. Avner then asks Ephraim to come to dinner with his family, to break bread as an allegory to make peace, but Ephraim refuses, perhaps as a sign that neither side will reconcile.

Cast

 * Eric Bana as Avner Kaufman (based on Yuval Aviv)
 * Daniel Craig as Steve
 * Ciarán Hinds as Carl
 * Mathieu Kassovitz as Robert
 * Hanns Zischler as Hans
 * Ayelet Zurer as Daphna Kaufman
 * Geoffrey Rush as Ephraim
 * Mehdi Nebbou as Ali Hassan Salameh
 * Gila Almagor as Avner's Mother
 * Karim Saleh as Issa
 * Michael Lonsdale as Papa
 * Mathieu Amalric as Louis
 * Ziad Adwan as Kamal Adwan
 * Moritz Bleibtreu as Andreas
 * Yvan Attal as Tony
 * Valeria Bruni Tedeschi as Sylvie
 * Meret Becker as Yvonne
 * Roy Avigdori as Gad Tsobari
 * Marie-Josée Croze as Jeanette, the Dutch assassin
 * Lynn Cohen as Golda Meir
 * Guri Weinberg as Moshe Weinberg
 * Makram Khoury as Wael Zwaiter
 * Hiam Abbass as Marie Claude Hamshari
 * Omar Metwally as Ali
 * Sam Feuer as Yosef Romano

Soundtrack
The film score was composed and conducted by John Williams. It features the wailing woman technique.

The soundtrack album was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Score but lost to the score of the film Brokeback Mountain. It was also nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Score Soundtrack for Visual Media but lost to the score of Memoirs of a Geisha (also scored by Williams).

AllMusic rated the soundtrack three and a half stars out of five. Filmtracks.com rated it four out of five. SoundtrackNet rated it four and a half out of five. ScoreNotes graded it "A−".

Historical authenticity
Although Munich is a work of fiction, it describes many actual events and figures from the early 1970s. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Golda Meir is depicted in the film, and other military and political leaders such as Attorney General Meir Shamgar, Mossad chief Zvi Zamir and Aman chief Aharon Yariv are also depicted. Spielberg tried to make the depiction of the hostage-taking and killing of the Israeli athletes historically authentic. Unlike an earlier film, 21 Hours at Munich, Spielberg's film depicts the shooting of all the Israeli athletes, which according to the autopsies was accurate. In addition, the film uses actual news clips shot during the hostage situation.

Israeli/American actor Guri Weinberg portrays his own father, wrestling coach Moshe. The younger Weinberg was only one month old when his father was killed.

The named members of Black September, and their deaths, are also mostly factual. Abdel Wael Zwaiter, a translator at the Libyan Embassy in Rome, was shot 11 times, one bullet for each of the victims of the Munich Massacre, in the lobby of his apartment 41 days after Munich. On December 8 of that year Mahmoud Hamshari, a senior PLO figure, was killed in Paris by a bomb concealed in the table below his telephone. Although the film depicts the bomb being concealed in the telephone itself, other details of the assassination (such as confirmation of the target via telephone call) are accurate. Others killed during this period include Mohammed Boudia, Basil Al Kubaisi, Hussein al-Bashir, and Zaiad Muchasi, some of whose deaths are depicted in the film. Ali Hassan Salameh was also a real person and a prominent member of Black September. In 1979 he was killed in Beirut by a car bomb that also killed four innocent bystanders and injured 18 others.

The commando raid in Beirut, known as Operation Spring of Youth, also occurred. This attack included future Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yom Kippur War and Operation Entebbe participant Yonatan Netanyahu, who are both portrayed by name in the film. The methods used to track down and assassinate the Black September members were much more complicated than the methods portrayed in the film; for example, the tracking of the Black September cell members was achieved by a network of Mossad agents, not an informant as depicted in the film.

Atlantic Productions, producers of BAFTA-nominated documentary Munich: Mossad's Revenge, listed several discrepancies between Spielberg's film and the information it obtained from interviews with Mossad agents involved in the operation. It noted that the film suggests one group carried out almost all the assassinations, whereas in reality, it was a much larger team. Mossad did not work with a mysterious French underworld figure as portrayed in the book and the film. The assassination campaign did not end because agents lost their nerve but because of the Lillehammer affair in which an innocent Moroccan waiter was killed. This is not mentioned in the film. As acknowledged by Spielberg, the targets were not all directly involved in Munich.

Former Mossad operatives criticized the film for inaccurately portraying Mossad operations. David Kimche, the former deputy director of the Mossad, said "I think it is a tragedy that a person of the stature of Steven Spielberg, who has made such fantastic films, should have based this film on a book that is a falsehood." Former Mossad operatives Gad Shimron and Victor Ostrovsky also dismissed the scene in which Prime Minister Golda Meir personally recruits Avner to lead the team as fiction. Mossad veterans were critical of the modus operandi portrayed by the film, in which a single hit team is sent into the field for months, and which includes a forger and bomb-maker to enable it to function alone. They claimed that in reality, the assassinations were conducted by large numbers of personnel, with hit teams assembled and sent out on an ad hoc basis, never spending more than a few days or at most weeks in the field, and withdrawn as soon as each mission was complete. The all-male makeup of the team was criticized; former operatives claimed it was standard practice to include female agents on such missions to help get closer to targets. The film's portrayal of the assassins as gradually developing feelings of revulsion over what they were doing was also panned as inaccurate, with veterans claiming that the assassins did not doubt what they were doing and that the Mossad provides psychologists for any agents who develop doubts about their missions.

According to British intelligence writer Gordon Thomas, senior Mossad personnel, among them director general Meir Dagan, held a private viewing of the film, and "In the darkened cinema they sat first in silence and then a steady mounting murmured chorus of 'it could never have happened like this' … 'this is fantasy' … 'this is pure fiction' … 'this is history, Hollywood style'." Thomas cited Dagan as calling the film "absolute rubbish" and claiming that those who view Munich would come away with a "seriously distorted view of the truth." He also cited one of Dagan's aides as stating "Dagan felt Munich is more Indiana Jones than any semblance of reality. The hunting down of the Black September killers was a carefully controlled operation that involved a large number of people. The kidon had undergone weeks of studying their targets. Little of this appears in the film."

Controversies
Some reviewers criticized Munich for what they call the film's equating the Israeli assassins with "terrorists". Leon Wieseltier wrote in The New Republic: "Worse, Munich prefers a discussion of counter-terrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion".

Melman and other critics of the book and the film have said that the story's premise—that Israeli agents had second thoughts about their work—is not supported by interviews or public statements. In an interview with Reuters, a retired head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence service and former Internal Security Minister, Avi Dichter, likened Munich to a children's adventure story: "There is no comparison between what you see in the movie and how it works in reality". In a Time magazine cover story about the film on December 4, 2005, Spielberg said that the source of the film had second thoughts about his actions. "There is something about killing people at close range that is excruciating," Spielberg said. "It's bound to try a man's soul." Of the real Avner, Spielberg says, "I don't think he will ever find peace."

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) – describing itself as "the oldest, and one of the largest, pro-Israel and Zionist organizations in the United States" – called for a boycott of the film on December 27, 2005. The ZOA criticized the factual basis of the film and leveled criticism at one of the screenwriters, Tony Kushner, whom the ZOA has described as an "Israel-hater". Criticism was also directed at the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) National Director, Abraham Foxman, for his support of the film.

David Edelstein of the online Slate magazine argued that "The Israeli government and many conservative and pro-Israeli commentators have lambasted the film for naiveté, for implying that governments should never retaliate. But an expression of uncertainty and disgust is not the same as one of outright denunciation. What Munich does say is that this shortsighted tit-for-tat can produce a kind of insanity, both individual and collective."

Ilana Romano, wife of an Israeli weightlifter Yossef Romano killed in the Munich massacre, said that Spielberg overlooked the Lillehammer affair,  although Spielberg seems to have been conscious of the omission; the film's opening title frame shows Lillehammer in a montage of city names, with Munich standing out from the rest. The Jewish Journal said that "the revenge squad obsess about making sure only their targets are hit -- and meticulous care is taken to avoid collateral damage. Yet in one shootout an innocent man is also slain ... The intense moral contortions the agents experience as the corpses pile up makes up the substance of the movie."

According to Ronen Bergman as reported in Newsweek, it is a myth that Mossad agents hunted down and killed those responsible for the killing of 11 Israeli athletes and a German policeman at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games; in fact most of the people were never killed or caught. Most of the people that Mossad did kill had nothing to do with the Munich deaths. He says the film was based on a book whose source was an Israeli who claimed to be the lead assassin of the hit squad, but in fact, was a baggage inspector at Tel Aviv airport.

Critical reception
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 78% approval rating based on 211 reviews, with an average rating of 7.40/10. The site's consensus reads, "Munich can't quite achieve its lofty goals, but this thrilling, politically even-handed look at the fallout from an intractable political conflict is still well worth watching." Metacritic assigned the film a weighted average score of 74 out of 100, based on 39 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale.

Roger Ebert praised the film, saying, "With this film [Spielberg] has dramatically opened a wider dialogue, helping to make the inarguable into the debatable." He placed it at No. 3 on his top ten list of 2005. James Berardinelli wrote that "Munich is an eye-opener – a motion picture that asks difficult questions, presents well-developed characters, and keeps us white-knuckled throughout." He named it the best film of the year; it was the only film in 2005 to which Berardinelli gave four stars, and he also put it on his Top 100 Films of All Time list. Entertainment Weekly film critic Owen Gleiberman mentioned Munich amongst the best movies of the decade. Rex Reed from The New York Observer disagrees, writing: "With no heart, no ideology and not much intellectual debate, Munich is a big disappointment, and something of a bore."

Variety reviewer Todd McCarthy called Munich a "beautifully made" film. However, he criticized the film for failing to include "compelling" characters, and for its use of laborious plotting and a "flabby script." McCarthy says that the film turns into "... a lumpy and overlong morality play on a failed thriller template." To succeed, McCarthy states that Spielberg would have needed to engage the viewer in the assassin squad leader's growing crisis of conscience and create a more "sustain(ed) intellectual interest" for the viewer. Writing in Empire, Ian Nathan wrote "Munich is Steven Spielberg's most difficult film. It arrives already inflamed by controversy. ... This is Spielberg operating at his peak—an exceptionally made, provocative, and vital film for our times."

Chicago Tribune reviewer Allison Benedikt calls Munich a "competent thriller", but laments that as an "intellectual pursuit, it is little more than a pretty prism through which superficial Jewish guilt and generalized Palestinian nationalism" are made to "... look like the product of serious soul-searching." Benedikt states that Spielberg's treatment of the film's "dense and complicated" subject matter can be summed up as "Palestinians want a homeland, Israelis have to protect theirs." She rhetorically asks: "Do we need another handsome, well-assembled, entertaining movie to prove that we all bleed red?"

Another critique was Gabriel Schoenfeld's "Spielberg's 'Munich'" in the February 2006 issue of Commentary, who called it "pernicious". He compared the fictional film to history, asserted that Spielberg and especially Kushner felt that the Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents are morally equivalent, and concluded: "The movie deserves an Oscar in one category only: most hypocritical film of the year." Israeli author and journalist Aaron J. Klein wrote in Slate that the movie was a "distortion" of facts, concluding that "A rigorous factual accounting may not be the point of Munich, which Spielberg has characterized as a 'prayer for peace.' But as result, Munich has less to do with history and the grim aftermath of the Munich Massacre than some might wish."

In defense of the climactic sex scene, critics Jim Emerson of the Chicago Sun-Times and Matt Zoller Seitz of Salon compared it to Lady Macbeth's suicide in William Shakespeare's Macbeth, interpreting the sequence as representing the corruption of Avner's personal life as a result of his being conditioned to kill others to avenge Munich.

Top ten lists
Munich was listed on many critics' top ten lists.

 * 1st – Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly
 * 1st – James Berardinelli, Reelviews
 * 1st – David Edelstein, Slate
 * 2nd – William Arnold, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
 * 2nd – Scott Tobias, The A.V. Club
 * 3rd – Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
 * 4th – Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper
 * 4th – Claudia Puig, USA Today
 * 5th – Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
 * 5th – Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly
 * 5th – Richard Schickel, Time
 * 5th – Kimberly Jones, Austin Chronicle
 * 5th – Ty Burr, Boston Globe
 * 5th – Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times
 * 7th – Scott Foundas, L.A. Weekly
 * 8th – David Ansen, Newsweek
 * 8th – Steve Davis, Austin Chronicle
 * 9th – Chris Kaltenbach, Baltimore Sun
 * 10th – Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune
 * 10th – Tasha Robinson, The A.V. Club
 * 10th – A.O. Scott, The New York Times
 * Top 10 (listed alphabetically) – Carrie Rickey & Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer
 * Top 10 (listed alphabetically) – Manohla Dargis, The New York Times

title: Munich (2005 film)


text: User talk:85.53.73.190

title: User talk:85.53.73.190


text:
Richard Turner (computer scientist)

Richard Turner (born 1954) is a distinguished service professor in the School of Systems and Enterprises of Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey.

Turner has a BA in mathematics from Huntingdon College, an MS in computer science from the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, and a DSc in engineering management from the George Washington University.

Before joining Stevens, he was a Fellow of the Systems and Software Consortium Inc., a Research Professor at The George Washington University, a computer scientist at the Federal Aviation Administration, and technical manager and practitioner with various DC area businesses working with defense, intelligence, and commercial clients. He has also served as a visiting scientist at the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University, and consulted independently.

Much of his research at Stevens has been through the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) supporting the U.S. Department of Defense, particularly on the integration of systems and software engineering and the acquisition of complex defense systems. He was on the original author team of the CMMI and a core author of the Software Extension to the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge PMI and IEEE Computer Society.

He is a Senior Member of the IEEE, a Golden Core Awardee of the IEEE Computer Society, and a Fellow of the Lean Systems Society.

He has authored / co authored several books: -

 * The Incremental Commitment Spiral Model: Principles and Practices for Successful Systems and Software, by Barry Boehm, Jo Ann Lane, Supannika Koolmanojwong, and Richard Turner: Addison-Wesley, (2014). ISBN 978-0321808226
 * CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) Distilled: A Practical Introduction to Integrated Process Improvement, by Dennis M. Ahern, Aaron Clouse, Richard Turner: Addison-Wesley, (Third Edition 2008). ISBN 0-321-46108-8
 * CMMI Survival Guide: Just enough process improvement, by Suzanne Garcia, Richard Turner: Addison-Wesley, (2007). ISBN 0-321-42277-5
 * Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed by Barry Boehm, Richard Turner: Addison-Wesley, (Paperback - September 26, 2003) ISBN 0-321-18612-5
 * An interactive simulator for MATHILDA-RIKKE on multics: Concept, design and implementation by Richard Turner, Publisher: Computer Science Dept., University of Southwestern, Louisiana (1977)

Turner lives in the District of Columbia with his wife, Johanna - they have three grown children and two grandchildren.

title: Richard Turner (computer scientist)