text:
Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses

 * This page is part of Votes for deletion/Policy consensus.

Description
In Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, over 100 articles on individual bible verses were mentioned. It was plain that there was no consensus to delete them, but it was also plain that there was no consensus to keep them individually. It may be useful to get consensus and discussion on what to do with them; some people have argued that they should be put in WikiBooks, or that they could be organized better by merging some of them.

 * See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16, Votes for deletion/John 20, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 2:16, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genesis 1:1.

 * There is a related discussion underway at Bible verses

Arguments for keeping separate

 * Divisions by verses is the scholarly standard for commentaries, and has been for centuries. Virtually every detailed work of exegesis goes verse by verse. There is no need for Wikipedia to reinvent the wheel.
 * I agree wholeheartedly. However, can we not permit alternate citation methods, i.e. Psalm 23 for those chapters that need commentary as a chapter, and not only for those as a verse? Then we have the best of both worlds! There should be a link to the individual verses at the bottom of such a chapter page. --WiseWoman 10:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Any division of the Bible is arbitrary, but the division by verses is an established standard and avoids the POV issues of developing our own divisions. Different groups and sects divide the Bible differently, and we will be forced to adopt one of these POVs. The only other standard division is by chapter, but there is far too much detail for such large groupings.
 * Consensus quite clearly exists that some verses deserve their own articles, but determining which articles these are will also lead to endless disputes. What makes a verse notable enough for its own article? No one puts Matthew 5:17 on billboards, but to scholars it is of much import. Neither readers nor scholars see Matthew 1:17 as very important, but it has been much discussed because of a perceived counting error. Matthew 4:16 is pretty anonymous, but one scholar felt it was worthy of devoting an entire paper to. Matthew 5:14 is quite important to American history, but is not very notable to most Christians. Matthew 3:7 is mainly famous because the cutting insult it contains has appeared frequently in literature. If we accept that religious, scholarly, historical, and literary importance are all valid reasons to give an article its own verse then the vast majority of them will get their own articles.
 * It provides for easy linking. For instance the links to verse articles at Christianity and Jewish prophecy takes the reader directly to a discussion of the verse. Section redirects do not work, and writers would be forced to link verses by writing Matthew 1:23.
 * Merges by topic will create very long articles. The suggestion of merging John 20:1 through John 20:18 into Resurrection of Jesus would create a massive article, and would still need room for the resurrection accounts in the other three Gospels. The current verse pages are far from comprehensive. Even a long one like Matthew 1:18 barely scratches the surface.
 * Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of St John strikes me as feasible. After all, there is an entry for France, which contains pointers to such articles as History of France. Pilatus 19:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If the very large articles are split based on length will it will produce useless pages names. For instance the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 is unquestionably one of the least noticed and least commented upon sections of the Gospels, yet even merging verses Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 1:17 would create an article longer than 32kb. We would be forced to have pages with names like Matthew's genealogy of Jesus (Abraham to Achaz).
 * Editing by sections exists. Modern browsers exist. Pilatus 19:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The main advantage to merging is that it is often more useful to read verses in context, then in isolation. The current structure already allows this. We have chapter articles such as Matthew 1 that give a general overview and context. Also each of the verse articles have a navigation box so that readers can read the following or preceding verse. It is just as easy, or perhaps even easier, for readers to read multiple articles in a series than it is for them to read a single long article containing a group of verses.
 * I am currently sitting behind a very thin pipe. The delay between clicking on a link and the page appearing is inconveniently long, and I would much prefer to wait longer just once to download a bigger chunk of information. Pilatus 21:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a truly staggering amount of information and analysis on each of these verses. For evidence see the journal New Testament Abstracts. It is solely devoted to publishing summaries of academic works on the 7000 verses of the New Testament. Each year it summarizes an average of 1200 new journal articles and 700 new books, and it has kept up this pace for the last fifty years. It should also be remembered that New Testament scholarship has been going on for almost 2000 years.
 * Because of the categorized, numeric subdivision of the verses, and the significance many individual ones having in forming Biblical doctrine, it's wise to allow each individual verse to have its own entry.Trilemma
 * I don't see any major problems when we keep each verse as seperate article - as long as it is well written and avoid any major NPOV issues.  --Hurricane111 21:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for merging
Most often, individual Bible verses don't stand well on their own. With a few notable exceptions–which should retain their own articles–verses should be merged into unified articles that can provide a useful amount of context. These verses are part of larger stories and accounts. Pulling them out and presenting them individually is like trying to write an article about the Mona Lisa's right thumb. At best, a great deal of contextual information will need to be duplicated across articles; at worst, we will have hundreds of disjointed articles without useful explanation or information. I would be inclined to say that verses which commonly appear on placards at political protests clear the bar for having their own articles, and there are probably other specific cases I can't think of at the moment. I urge editors to remember that merging leaves a redirect behind so that searchers for information about specific verses will still be able to find their way to the correct place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Ten's hit the nail on the head. The above arguments about doing interlinks to section headers overstate the difficulty of using them. -- BD2412 talk 21:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Matthew 1:9 is a ridiculous article on its own. As are the other genealogy verses.     17:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A number of them are actually quite substantial. See for instance Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:13, and Matthew 1:17. - SimonP 01:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do think one article on the geneology in Matthew would be sufficient. This is an encyclopedia, not a biblical commentary. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 18:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with previous arguments. drini ☎ 01:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking through a few, there's certainly some substance to the articles, but most seems to duplicate information somewhere else, and even useful information could never really be looked up by a particular verse -- it would be looked up, for example, under historical or legendary figures. Each verse should have to establish its own notability e.g., well known, quoted in some high-profile context, etc.  We have an article for To be, or not to be, but would we do this for every single verse written by Shakespeare? Listing every article seems like an obvious attempt to artificially inflate the profile of the Bible, violating NPOV. Peter Grey 06:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above claim that "virtually every detailed work of exegesis goes verse by verse" is literally true, but somewhat confusing to me.
 * 1) First, this is an encyclopedia, not a work of exegesis. (For one thing, proper, faithful exegesis is not necessarily in keeping with the NPOV policy.)
 * 2) Second, most (I don't know of any exceptions but I haven't read every sample of exegesis) commentaries will group verses by passage (pericope, to use the lingo). Verse divisions are usually respected in a verse-by-verse analysis section, but overall the articles in a commentary will discuss passages, not individual verses (which a few significant exceptions). One individual verse is not necessarily deserving of its very own encylopedia article.
 * Perhaps we need to discuss whether exegesis and verse-by-verse analysis are even appropriate for an encylclopedia. (In some cases they may be, but I'm not convinced that this is always the case.) The claim that merging would produce enormous articles may perhaps be addressed if we consider that a lot of the information that is there may not actually belong there. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 18:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct that most works of exegesis group verses by passage. The general structure of most of the works I use is to have a few sentences or paragraphs covering the passage as a whole, followed by a much more detailed verse by verse analysis. I feel that Wikipedia can, and should, try to duplicate this dual structure. We should have articles, suc as genealogy of Jesus or Biblical Magi, that cover the general themes and nature of passages as a whole. For readers looking for more detail they can turn to the articles on individual verses. Shorter works of exegesis will generally skip the verse by verse analysis entirely. We could do the same, but Wikipedia it not paper. If some readers are interested in this information, and it is verifiable and NPOV, I see no reason not to include it. - SimonP 18:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel like faithful exegesis is inherently somewhat POV. Yes, I know that the whole point is that you are not imposing your point of view of the text, but good exegesis also reflects the interaction between the text and the reader. Your exegesis on a verse will never be the same as my exegesis on the same verse. We need to come up with some way of reporting the facts without getting into POV material. I would think that a presentation of the prevailing scholarly opinions would be more useful than simple analysis. (E.g. "This verse is often discussed by biblical scholars because it does X, Y, and Z" rather than simply "This verse does X, Y, and Z." If a verse is never discussed by biblical scholars or anyone else, then we wouldn't really need to be writing about it.) -Aranel (" Sarah ") 19:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and I have striven to, but perhaps not succeeded in, writing this way. Most paragraphs in the verse articles begin "noted scholar X believes that..." or "ancient Bible commentator Y postulate that..." Matthew 4:16 or Matthew 5:17 are decent examples of this. One of my main concerns about these articles is keeping original research out, be it my own or others. My biggest concerned is that these articles could degrade to unreferenced POV like The Bible and homosexuality. Thus exegesis is perhaps a misnomer. Rather than our own Biblical exegesis what I hope we will have is a compilation and comparison of every major view that has been expressed on each verse, sort of a meta-exegesis. - SimonP 21:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * One should not forget denominations; a sentence like "amongst followers of $DENOMINATION, $VERSE is taken so mean ..." is perfectly NPOV and helps to understand where someone's beliefs come from. (Talking about POV, more often than not, in Wikipedia the word Christian means "someone who follows the tradition of evangelical Protestantism". Understandable, since in the US, that group is the most vocal (not to say vociferous), but not acceptable. I'm tempted to slap POV tags on each instance of the usage.) Pilatus 18:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It makes a lot of sense to merge verses into "clumps", according to their relationship with other verses around them. An individual verse, out of context, is often at best confusing and at worst misleading. As such, articles discussing groups of verses where these groups for one coherent idea are much more logical than creating individual articles for every verse. There is nothing to stop redirects from individual verse numbers going to the grouped verse articles - in fact, that would be a logical way to proceed. Certainly, there are some verses that are important enough to tand on their own, and even some where individual verses could have their own page and still be referred to as part of grouped articles (e.g., Matthew 5:4 individually and as part of the Sermon on the Mount). Sure, some of the articles produced will be long, but if they become too long then paring out into smaller articles on individual verses is always an option still available to us. Picking at random, here... II Chronicles 27's nine individual verses are best trated as one article on Jotham, or split into 1-2, 3-4, 5, 6-9. Some of them are pointless on their own, What is there to say about II Chron 27:6 other than to refer it to the information given in the verses on either side of it? Grutness...  wha?  02:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm more of a mergist in this case. If an article on a verse can be expanded to contain a reasonable amount of information, keep it as is. If not, merge it with the related passage, chapter, or book. I'm against relying on any pre-defined defination stating that certain verses are not notable, however - it should be handled on a case by case basis. Oh, and you may wish to note the (relatively) new WikiProject relating to articles about the Bible at WP:BIBLE. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Loads of little unlinked articles on verses can become a breeding ground for POV when people take it upon themselves to interpret without context, or try to make more of what a verse means than it really does, many extremist veiws claim a bible verse that alone seems to support their logic (or lack therof). The old testemant especially is full of quotes that can be misinterprted easily.   →ubεr nεmo →  lóquï 04:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Linking
The merging option opens the question of how to make easy to use wiki-links. We should probably have a template, of the form. This template would then construct a link and anchor of the form John 3:16. This link would be a disambig page, where every entry of John would be listed and: Of course, if a link has its own article, the author could also directly use that as well, but a standard template and disambig page would make for a nice catch-all. Currently, wikipedia templates do not allow for if/else logic, which would be nice for pointing links more directly to where they should go. In any case, creating such disambig pages would allow us to firmly direct users to the right places to look up particular verses, be they in their own articles, or where some of them might be merged in larger articles. func (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * would have its own link to wikisource, some other source, etc.
 * a link to any article where this verse is merged/discussed with others
 * a link to its own article, if it has one.
 * Ooh, I like. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't just have a redirect to the article describing the appropriate member of the List of Bible stories. 07:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * My response to this is that:
 * Not every verse nessesarily fits into a "story", per se.
 * It requires someone to read through the various members of the List of Bible stories. The nice thing about my suggestion is that one can wiki-link a bible verse without having to know anything about the christian bible. All of the other merging solutions would require the editor doing the wikifying to know everything about how Wikipedia organizes its content. Like I said, an individual could wiki-link to a direct location, if he or she happens to know of an appropriate place, (like one of the bible story articles), but having a general disambig page for each bible verse by bible book would make it easier on most editors.
 * func (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, you said a redirect. I misread that. I thought you were saying people should just directly link to a bible story article. func (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely merge into broader articles. I would prefer topical articles.  I would also support articles on whole chapters of the Bible, although I think only books of the Bible and general Bible topics warrant separate encyclopedia articles.  The problems with single-verse articles have already been stated above.  Logophile 14:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Arguments against a specific policy on biblical verses
To decide that verses always must remain separate would be a silly and unnecessary policy. In some cases it may useful, in others it is not. Neither do we need a particular policy to consistently merge articles on biblical verses – anyone can already be bold and merge articles when needed (but with consensus if the merge would be controversial). And we can not have a policy to only keep notable verses, simply because deciding which verses are notable is impossible until the articles are extant.

To expand on the last point: Any policy saying that "only notable verses should have articles" would require establishing beforehand which Bible verses are notable and which are not. How is that even possible before the articles are written? Does anyone here seriously claim to be familiar with the exegetical literature of every Jewish or Christian theological, mystical or philosophical tradition where particular verses may have some particular significance? I don't think so. Or are we only going to determine notability based on use "on placards at political protests" or other cases rooted in 21st century American or European politics or culture? That would be a clear case of systemic bias, indirectly favouring a Western Christian tradition.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If somebody can write a well-referenced article on a verse, showing its individual importance in any context or tradition (religious, historical, political or literary) it should be kept. If it is well-written and referenced, but ends up too short or lacking context, a merge should be considered. There will no doubt be many cases where a particular verse may be merged with neighbouring verses or with a related passage somewhere else, but merges should be discussed and decided on a case-by-case basis. Any more detailed policy is instruction creep. Uppland 17:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and have long stated that every verse does not need its own article. However, I feel it would be better to decide on a chapter by chapter or book by book level, rather than verse by verse basis as it is important to avoid a checkerboard arrangement. For instance there isn't much worth saying about John 20:10, but both John 20:9 and John 20:11 are quite notable verses. It is important to preserve the ability of a reader to read those three in order. If the middle one was a redirect to a section of Resurrection of Jesus, John 20, or some other related article, it would break the series. A better solution is to say that since there is something important to say about some 90% of the verses in the resurrection account, we should have articles on all of them. By contrast there is much less to say about the first half of 1 Chronicles, and going chapter by chapter would more appropriate. - SimonP 17:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree with the idea that "deciding which verses are notable is impossible". Many verses of the Bible are often referenced like the Lord's Prayer. A simple survey of Google hits could discover which is which. Others that have specific value only to biblical scholars are likely not Encyclopedic, they belong in a religious dissertation. --Outlander 20:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * It should be noted that this is not a policy proposal. It is simply a discussion to see if there's consensus on what to do in this case. (Unsigned comment by User:Radiant!. Signature added by Uppland 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC) )
 * It says above that "This page is part of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus", it is included in the box on the VfD page saying "Policy consensus discussions", and it seems difficult not to assume that whatever the result will be, it will be a precedent for later similar cases. If it walks and quacks and all that... It is at the very least a de facto policy proposal, whatever you like to call it. If it was truly just about some specific verses, that discussion should take place on the talk pages of those articles. That was actually part of my point above: deal with these articles on a case-by-case basis, and judge each article or set of articles on its own merits. There is no reason to try to discuss a hundred articles at the same time. Uppland 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "only notable verses should have articles" would require establishing beforehand which Bible verses are notable. This simply isn't true. "Only notable people should have biographical articles", which already exists, doesn't require establishing which people are notable beforehand. It is just a statement that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a mindless collection of 100% of information about anything. "Wikipedia should conform to NPOV about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict" does not require establishing beforehand what the NPOV situation is. "Wikipedians should not make personal attacks" does not require establishing beforehand exactly which insults are personal attacks - e.g.
 * twat is an insult
 * incorrect is not an insult
 * fool is an insult
 * dog is an insult
 * nice is not an insult (no consensus on this one)
 * really lovely is not an insult
 * To suggest otherwise is really to set up a false dichotomy.     07:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "Only notable people should have biographical articles" - yes, but we establish notablity in contested biographical cases through individual VfD's (unless no notability is asserted). So, if we follow the same logic, we need to send each verse article to VfD seperately to establish its notability. But since that is what we do with non-notable articles anyway, your 'policy' adds nothing. I agree that 'non-notable Bible verses don't deserve articles' - but I think quite a lot are notable (all be it probably a minority), and when I think that I want to be able to make the case to others - so there is no way round VfD - which is already the current policy (so no need for any change). Proposing and discussing merges is already governed by other rules. --Doc (?) 08:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Bible verses pose a peculiar problem. In one sense, all verses in the Bible are notable.  On the other hand, there just isn't that much to say about certain verses that is appropriate to a general-reference work.  I think it might be appropriate to add a paragraph to the article on notability to cover heavily-studied texts in general, and the Bible in particular, as an aid to judgment, not a substitute for it.Robert A West 15:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We should also remember that Wikipedia has no policy on notability. There are enough people who want notability to be a reason for deletion that sometimes articles are deleted for lack of fame, but adopting a notability policy was reject some time ago at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. Notability as a reason for deletion is opposed by a significant minority that includes Jimbo and several members of the arbcom. One policy that is official is that every article must be verifiable, and as long as these pages are well referenced they are. - SimonP 15:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * We should also remember that wikipedia is not a dictatorship, and operates on consensus. If a tiny minority whether it includes Jimbo and the ArbCom or not think that X should occur, but the consensus is against them, then X simply should not occur. Appeals to authority figures simply demonstrate the weakness of an argument on its own merits.     17:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Fame and importance policy failed to win consensus. - SimonP 01:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It still feels wrong to write articles that will never be more than stubs. Most single verses fall under that category.  Some don't.  I see no policy saying that an editor cannot take importance into account in deciding whether to write one article or several.  On the other hand, there are editors who insist on consistency, even where it is foolish.  Can anyone suggest a better place to point this out?  Robert A West 08:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that in areas that will only produce stubs we should not have an article per verse. I have mentioned this idea at Wikipedia talk:Bible verses. It should be noted, however, that of the 127 articles we currently have on Bible verses only a small minority could be classed as stubs, and that is after only a few months of existence and, in most cases, content from only one editor. - SimonP 12:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

My choice is to wait and see. As of the present, there are only a handful of individual Bible verses that have articles of their own. The majority of those articles are not stubs now; many are pretty good. On the other hand, writing an article for each verse of the Bible is a pretty daunting undertaking, and "that's enough, Brother Maynard, let us skip ahead a bit" may well hit at some point, making any attempt at formulating a policy unnecessary. I agree that a WikiBible commentary might be a good idea, and if it ever exists most of these articles should be transwikied there. Smerdis of Tlön 17:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a big problem with the way things are right now. The VfD results for these are quite similar to those for schools, recipes, and a lot of other things for which there isn't consensus on notability: Bad articles get deleted, good articles get kept, and the occasional article in the middle gets merged and/or redirected. I'm okay with this, because we aren't getting rid of any high-quality articles or any useful information. Furthermore, I'm not concerned about what would happen if we had an article on every single bible verse because it would be a colossal undertaking to create a good article on every verse, one that I doubt anyone's going to attempt anytime soon. JYolkowski // talk 00:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * So, are we developing a consensus against a policy, referring the matter to editorial judgment in specific cases? Robert A West 02:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To a degree, but I think there also needs to be some balance between the two ideas. Treating all Bible verses identically is wrong, but at the same time some consistency is needed. It would be silly if Matthew 1:5 was merged into genealogy of Jesus, Matthew 1:6 was transwikied, Matthew 1:7 was deleted outright, Matthew 1:8 was merged in Matthew 1, and Matthew 1:9 was kept. Better would be considering specific groups of verses. - SimonP 13:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that we don't need a policy on specific bible verses, except the obvious one that the bible is of such inherent importance--I speak as an atheist--that well written articles on biblical subjects are always welcome on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway Talk 02:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont see it as a good plan to exclude articles on bible verses from the encyclopedia and consign them all to an alternative wiki. Some would make a long enough article to stand alone while others would not really have anything to say. Others logically belong together. So unless someone can codify a policy which allows them to be ranked uncontroversially, then I don't see that they are much different from ordinary articles. It might be possible to have a policy that they should be 'clumped' (either by set of verses talking about the same thing or chapter) untill an article gets too big?Sandpiper 08:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with some of the arguments put forth here. My personal belief is that some verses may or may not be notable or expandable enough for their own article, in which case I feel they'd be better off to be merged into an article on the passage, chapter, or book (Please note: I am against merging into Bible stories or any other arbitrary subdivisions besides passages, chapters, and books). In other cases, they may be notable or expandable enough to warrant their own article. I don't feel a specific policy is needed. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that Chapters and verses of the Bible are also arbitrary divisions: When first written down, the books that were later chosen as part of the Biblical canon contained no verse indications. Nabla 20:41:36, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
 * True, but such divisions have been common for quite some time. They did not originally contain chapter and verse references, but these references provide a simple way for breaking up and referencing the biblical text. There are several reasons I object to dividing by stories. First of all, not all bible verses fit in the context of a story. Second of all, several "Bible stories" are repeated in different places, which would make it hard to determine which verse should merge where. And finally, restricting the verse to a story could potentially prevent elaboration on alternative interpretations of the verse. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that verses can not simply be merged. They should be refereces to articles on subjects. They may end up being a reference to multiple subjects or eventually none. Let me ephasize that I suggest an organization by 'subject' (which includes 'stories') not by 'story' (which would exclude a lot of 'subjets' as Lord's Prayer) Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bible_verses, as I do not want to repeat myself. Nabla 13:20:10, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. As before, some subjects are repeated in several locations, and some verses may fit under multiple subjects. And, again, it still restricts alternative interpretations of verses, etc. My view is that, if a quality, encyclopedic, NPOV, and thourough article can be written on a verse, than that article should remain. If the article does not meet all of these criteria, and cannot be expanded to do so, I feel that the article should be merged with an article on the chapter, or perhaps on a passage (series of verses). However, this should be decided on a case by case basis. --06:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * speaking as an atheist from a non-christian background - if there is a scholarly article for any given verse it should stay. 1)Wikipedia is not paper, 2)and I don't think there's going to be too many scholarly/worthwhile articles on too many sects of too many religions; but if it does happen: 3) I can't see why it should be a problem, but 4) if we reach such a bridge, suppose we cross it then. 61.2.6.36 04:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In VfD (which is now AfD), I had originally argued against separate articles, preferring a merge. However, in reflection, I have come to realize that this was based on my own selfish personal preference rooted in my own belief system.  These individuals are doing us a favor by contributing valuable content, and we should accomodate them.  As long as the articles are supported with cited sources, NPOV, etc.; it should be left at the discretion of those who are actually writing these articles.  Left to their own devices, and with a few suggestions for guidance, editors acting in good faith will produce quality content.  Leave it to the programmers to help sort and present the data.   Un  focused  14:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A flat ban won't work: Perhaps it might be best to wait a while and see, unless you're getting hundreds of verses as basically stubs. I mean, if a policy against this practice were adopted, does anyone want to have to keep deleting John 3:16 every couple of weeks?  In which case we'd be saying, "For Wikipedians so loved this verse, that they recreated it on a regular basis, and whosoever demanded its expulsion, would find it would not perish, but have eternal life." :) Paul Robinson 21:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (talk)

Arguments for transwikiing
On the other hand, there is scholarship concerning virtually every verse in the Bible. Would a Wikibible project be of interest? Could it be done without degenerating hopelessly into POV-wars? Would there be sufficient support? Robert A West 15:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a worthy suggestion, but bear in mind that this opens the door to such a project for every religious text. Not that that's a bad thing, but something to keep in mind. -- BD2412 talk 21:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It would have to be WikiBible not part of Wikipedia itself. 17:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Just out of curiosity, could we make it a part of Wikibooks? I mena, the Bible is a book after all... Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks is for the creation of textbooks. In theory we could have a text book on the Biblical scholarship, but it would look very different from a series of encyclopedia articles. - SimonP 02:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * A commentary IS a textbook.     07:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, WikiBible is what I meant: I was being insufficiently careful. As to a project for every religious text, I don't see that my (for example) working on WikiBible obliges me to work on WikiKoran any more than my working on Democratic Peace Theory obliges me to work on Communism and World Peace.  If there is enough interest to actually do WikiKoran, why not? Robert A West 07:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles I've seen do look an awful lot like they belong in a biblical commentary, not an encyclopedia. And hey, if there can be a Star Trek wiki, why not one for a major religious text? -Aranel (" Sarah ") 18:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes and Homer Goes to College looks like it belongs in an Simpsons episode guide, and hexamethylene diamine looks like it belongs in a chemistry handbook. No other encyclopedia covers these subjects, but that in itself is not a good reason to exclude them from Wikipedia. - SimonP 18:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hexamethylene diamine is the precursor to Nylon and a major precursor to Epoxy resin. Not having it in Wikipedia is like not having Quantum Mechanics when you have Quantum Field Theory.     07:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad idea, but I think that it's a better idea to have these articles as part of this encyclopedia, where we can enforce encyclopedic standards such as NPOV, than to have them in another project that may or may not keep such standards. JYolkowski // talk 23:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This makes the most sense, because I believe the authors will be able to be more purpose-driven in their discussion of the verses than an encyclopedic perspective will allow. NPOV and notability won't be issues at all. This could remove a possibly large burden from VfD in the future, and allow interested authors to craft a complete, annotated Bible project, without the problems that hundreds of individual articles here could bring. Of course, a few verses or books will remain as individual WP articles; nothing in this proposal would prevent that. DavidH 01:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can have a Simpsons episode guide and a Pokemon Pokedex on wikipedia but not a biblical commentary. Wikipedia is NOT a paper.Borisblue 09:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Borisblue. I'm not a Christian, but the Bible has had tremendous historical impact and some of these verses articles are pretty good. Wikipedia is not paper CanadianCaesar 23:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I am against a WikiBible, for reasons discussed on Bible verses. I feel it simply invites PoV edits. I am not, however, against these articles being transwikied to Wikibooks, especially if common templates for linking were created. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with BorisBlue. Wikipedia isn't paper. --Celestianpower hab 21:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I also agree with BorisBlue. The Bible has been subject to intense scholarly activity, and there is no reason that when a quality article can be written about interpretation of a single verse, that article should not be written.  That said, I would be supportive of such articles being written on passages of longer-than-verse length until such articles become long enough to warrant verse-level breakout.  The only problem with this approach is that there is that aside from fairly compartmentalized passages that have acquired names for themselves (e.g., Parable of the Good Samaritan) there is little consensus as to where to break the Bible into passages, or what to call the resulting passages.  The next sensible larger unit is the chapter, which is a very large chunk of text, and sometimes not even fit to the purpose as chapter breaks do not always fall at topical breaks in the text. Shimmin 03:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can we bring this discussion to a close?
This discussion has been dormant for some weeks now - have we reached any conclusions? Any consensus? Any policy proposals to have a straw poll on? -- BD2412 talk 00:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm probably not the right one to try and read conclusions into this, but could we please not have another poll on this subject. - SimonP 02:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd just like us to do whatever must be done to call this discussion concluded and move it off the list of active discussions, as it is clearly not active. -- BD2412 talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I took it off the template, so we'll see if anyone opposes that. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, to summarize as I read it, the major conclusion of this and the related discussion seems to be that articles on Bible verses should demonstrate the individual notability of the verse; what specifically constitutes notability is undecided. There is no consensus to move this material away from Wikipedia, and that there is no consensus to delete the material en bloc. The main advice I would take away from this is that filling out large portions of the Bible with bare-bones verse articles is a bad idea. A lot of the support for the existing articles is based on the fact that Simon's work is well-referenced, well-considered, etc. Making 15,000 verse articles that contain no real content would be a good way to make a lot of people very angry. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, we've had this, and -Ril-'s silly poll, and I think we've concluded what we could have said at the begining. Articles on notable Bible verses are encyclopedic - and we can only judge what's worth keeping intact when we see the article. Good, full, well-referenced articles should stay. Stubs and bare-bones may be merged. But since all that goes for any other article, we've really said nothing at all. I think this debate is now sterile and should be closed forthwith. --Doc (?) 01:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses


text:
Römer

The Römer (German surname, "Roman") is a medieval building in the Altstadt of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and one of the city's most important landmarks. The Römer is located opposite the Old St. Nicholas Church and has been the city hall (Rathaus) of Frankfurt for over 600 years. The Römer merchant family sold it together with a second building, the Goldener Schwan (Golden Swan), to the city council on 11 March 1405 and it was converted for use as the city hall. The Haus Römer is actually the middle building of a set of three located in the Römerberg plaza.

The Römer is not a museum as it is occasionally used by the city for various purposes, for example as a Standesamt or civil registration office; the wedding rooms are located in the first and second floor of the Haus Löwenstein.

The former old town quarter between the Römer and St. Bartholomew's Cathedral has been redeveloped as the Dom-Römer Quarter until 2018, including several reconstructions of historical buildings that were destroyed during World War II.

Extensions
The building complex has been continuously extended over the years, with eventually eleven houses connected to each other, resulting in a rather confusing interior. At the beginning of the 19th century, Frankfurt historian Anton Kirschner remarked that the Frankfurt city hall had "stairs, yards, halls and rooms in a labyrinthian mixture".

In 1424, the city bought the Frauenrode house, in 1510 the Viole house and in 1542 the Schwarzenfels house, which were all architecturally connected to the main complex.

Then, in 1596 the city council bought the Wanebach house, which stood next to the Goldener Schwan, as well as the building to the left of the Haus Römer, the Haus Löwenstein, and had both of them connected to the Römer. These construction projects were very complicated, since the floor heights of Löwenstein and Römer were radically different.

In 1843, the Frauenstein house and the Salzhaus for 32,000 Guilders were added. Finally, in 1878 the city bought the Alt-Limpurg house to the right of the Haus Römer. The current neogothic front with a balcony was built from 1896 more imposing, but mayor Franz Adickes decided against Kaiser Wilhelm's suggestion and had the front designed in a more welcoming manner.

At the same time, the houses Frauenrode and Viole were demolished to make way for streets through the city centre. They were replaced by a newly erected building to the east. This new building is divided into two wings by the Braubachstrasse. These two wings (the north wing and south wing) are connected by a bridge. The Frankfurt citizens, who paid their taxes in the north wing, named the covered bridge the Seufzerbrücke (the "Bridge of Sighs") in reference to the other Bridge of Sighs in Venice. The two towers in the south wing attracted nicknames as well: the larger one was called Langer Franz (Tall Franz) in homage to the city's tall mayor and the smaller one the Kleiner Cohen (Small Cohen) after a popular song of the time.

On the night of 22 March 1944, the Römer, along with the rest of the centre of Frankfurt, was largely destroyed in one of the heaviest Allied bombing attacks of the Second World War. When the building was rebuilt after the war, the Alt-Limpurg, the Römer, and the Löwenstein houses, whose roof structure had in part withstood the attack, were restored in a simplified form. The completely destroyed houses Frauenstein and Salzhaus were rebuilt in a simplified style. The Löwenstein house has an open stairwell. The Römer was re-inaugurated in 1955 by president Theodor Heuss.

In the following decades the façade was restored two additional times, in the years 1974 and 2005, and the houses on the Römerberg regained the neogothic look of 1900. The interior has also been redesigned. In 1988 the renovated city council meeting hall was completed.

Architecture
The entire three-storey building complex occupies about 10,000 square metres and consists of nine houses, encircling six courtyards. The front, with today's main entrance, faces the Römerberg plaza. Other streets around the Römer are the Limpurgergasse to the south and the Buchgasse and the Berliner Straße to the north. The Braubachstraße divides the south and north wings.

Façade
The exterior features of the set of buildings reflect a wide breadth of Frankfurt and Germany's history, even though they were designed at the beginning of the 20th century. The famous three-peaked façade has medieval elements of design. The left-hand corner of the Alt-Limpurg displays the so-called Frankfurtia, the female embodiment of the city. In the middle, the Haus Römer shows the four kaisers of the Holy Roman Empire, two city coats of arms, a clock face, and a placard describing the most important facts about the building. The four kaisers are Frederick Barbarossa (the first king to be elected in Frankfurt), Louis the Bavarian (who gave convention rights to the city and allowed an expansion of the city), Charles IV (who made Frankfurt the location of the Kaiser selection vote), and Maximilian II (the first kaiser to be crowned in Frankfurt cathedral).

Like the neogothic façade, the balcony was added after the rebuilding in 1900, replacing a wooden roof. The balcony was and is used as a public stage for state visits and sporting events – for example, the soccer world champions in the Women's World Cup in 2003 and the runners up in the 2002 FIFA World Cup.

Another approach was chosen for the design of the fronts of the two north-east houses (the Wanebach and the Salzhaus). In contrast to the other houses in the complex, instead of reconstructing the old Wilhelminean front, the architects created a completely new design using a combination of medieval timber framing and modern styles. The mosaics in the timber frames feature the motif of a phoenix, a symbol for modern Frankfurt's new start after the war.

Römerhalle and Schwanenhalle
These two halls are the oldest remaining rooms in the building and are virtually unchanged after 600 years. At one point, the first Frankfurt book fairs took place in these rooms and gold and silversmiths sold their merchandise there. After the Second World War, the rooms continued to be used for this purpose because the massively built structures had survived the war practically undamaged. The two halls are located on the ground floor of the houses Römer and Goldener Schwan, and they can be entered directly from the main entrance on the Römerberg.

Kaisersaal
Perhaps the best-known room of the Römer, the Kaisersaal, or Emperor Hall, is located above the Römerhalle on the second floor and is a major tourist attraction. During the Holy Roman Empire, coronation banquets took place there. Today, the Kaisersaal is well known for its unique and unparalleled collection of 19th century portraits of all of the emperors, including works by Eduard von Steinle of Albert I and Ferdinand III.

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

title: Römer


text:
Gottfried Arnold

Gottfried Arnold (5 September 1666 – 30 May 1714) was a German Lutheran theologian and historian.

Biography
Arnold was born at Annaberg in Saxony, Germany, where his father was schoolmaster. In 1682, he went to the Gymnasium at Gera and three years later to the University of Wittenberg. He made a special study of theology and history, and afterwards, through the influence of Philip Jacob Spener, the father of pietism, became tutor in Quedlinburg.

Arnold's first work, Die Erste Liebe zu Christo, appeared in 1696. It went through five editions before 1728 and gained him a high reputation. In the year after its publication, he was invited to Gießen as professor of church history. He disliked academic politics and academic life so much that he resigned in 1698, and returned to Wittenberg.

The next year, Arnold began to publish his largest work, his Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie Unpartheyische ("Impartial History of the Church and of Heresy"), two volumes in which some thought he showed more sympathy towards heresy than towards any established Church, or especially the clergy (cf. Otto Pfleiderer, Development of Theology, p. 277). The book was described by Tolstoy (The Kingdom of God Is Within You, chap, III.) as "remarkable, although little known". A Dutch edition was published in 1701 by Sebastiaan Petzold, containing portraits of heretic figures, etched by Romeyn de Hooghe.

In this major revision of church history, Arnold directed his sharpest criticism against those who wrote deeply biased apologetic "orthodox" histories instead of trying to understand where substantial religious differences actually came from. In his view, "heresy making" was usually the defensive reaction of those in authority, rather than a true indictment of unconventional thinkers. He thought that the worst calamity in Church history was its establishment as the accepted and orthodox faith by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. Arnold evinced a remarkable sympathy for a huge variety of "heretics." This "impartial history" exercised a wide influence on the German Enlightenment and won approval from such thinkers as Johann Wolfgang Goethe in addition to Leo Tolstoy.

His next work, Geheimniss der göttlichen Sophia, showed that he had developed a form of mysticism including a female image of wisdom (sophia) as a kind of divinity. Soon afterwards, however, his marriage and his acceptance of a pastorate marked a sharp change of views, and he produced a number of noteworthy works on practical theology. He was a thoroughly learned and prominent Pietist Lutheran, with a wide range of influence, and at least in his early career a radical Pietist, vehemently opposed to the unbending ecclesiastical structures of his time.

Arnold's sacred poems also made a substantial contribution to the treasury of hymns within the Lutheran church, and a poem of his was used by Johann Sebastian Bach ("Vergiss mein nicht", BWV 505).

title: Gottfried Arnold


text:
User:Kamezuki

'''You signed your name to this list, so I'm adding this to turn that red link blue. --Infobacker 15:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)'''

And so the article on my userpage starts.

Articles I've created: (does not include articles I've created from splitting larger ones, disambiguation pages, or articles I've heavily edited)
 * San-X
 * Rirakkuma
 * Battle of West Point
 * Cataula, Georgia
 * Chinpara
 * Miu Sakamoto
 * Kōhaku Uta Gassen
 * The Blue Hearts
 * Makihara Noriyuki
 * day after tomorrow
 * Georgia Academy of Mathematics, Engineering and Science
 * Creil
 * The Love Suicides at Amijima

title: User:Kamezuki


text:
Tsilhqotʼin language

Nenqayni Chʼih (lit. "the Native way") (also Chilcotin, Tŝilhqotʼin, Tsilhqotʼin, Tsilhqútʼin) is a Northern Athabaskan language spoken in British Columbia by the Tsilhqotʼin people.

The name Chilcotin is derived from the Chilcotin name for themselves: Tŝilhqotʼin literally "people of the red ochre river".

Consonants
Chilcotin has 47 consonants:

 * Like many other Athabaskan languages, Chilcotin does not have a contrast between fricatives and approximants.
 * The alveolar series is pharyngealized.
 * Dentals and alveolars:
 * Both Krauss (1975) and Cook (1993) describe the dental and alveolar as being essentially identical in articulation, postdental, with the only differentiating factor being their different behaviours in the vowel flattening processes (described below).
 * Gafos (1999, personal communication with Cook) describes the dental series as apico-laminal denti-alveolar and the alveolar series as lamino-postalveolar.

Vowels
Chilcotin has 6 vowels:

 * Chilcotin has both tense and lax vowel phonemes. Additionally, tense vowels may become lax from vowel laxing.

Every given Chilcotin vowel has a number of different phonetic realizations from complex phonological processes (such as nasalization, laxing, flattening). For instance, the vowel can be variously pronounced.

Tone
Chilcotin is a tonal language with two tones: high tone and low tone.

Phonological processes
Chilcotin has vowel flattening and consonant harmony. Consonant harmony (sibilant harmony) is rather common in the Athabaskan language family. Vowel flattening is unique to Chilcotin but is similar to phonological processes in other unrelated Interior Salishan languages spoken in the same area, such as Shuswap, Stʼátʼimcets, and Thompson River Salish (and thus was probably borrowed into Chilcotin). That type of harmony is an areal feature common in this region of North America. The Chilcotin processes, however, are much more complicated.

Vowel nasalization and laxing
Vowel nasalization is a phonological process by which the phoneme is nasalizes the preceding vowel. It occurs when the vowel + sequence is followed by a (tautosyllabic) continuant consonant (such as ).

 * /pinɬ/ || → || [pĩɬ]
 * 'trap'
 * }

Vowel laxing is a process by which tense vowels become lax when followed by a syllable-final : the tense and lax distinction is neutralized.

 * /ʔɛstɬʼuh/ || → || [ʔɛstɬʼʊh]
 * 'I'm knitting'
 * (u → ʊ)
 * /sɛjæh/ || → || [sɛjɛh]
 * 'my throat'
 * (æ → ɛ)
 * }
 * 'my throat'
 * (æ → ɛ)
 * }
 * (æ → ɛ)
 * }

Vowel flattening
Chilcotin has a type of retracted tongue root harmony. Generally, "flat" consonants lower vowels in both directions. Assimilation is both progressive and regressive.

Chilcotin consonants can be grouped into three categories: neutral, sharp, and flat.

 * Flat consonants trigger vowel flattening.
 * Sharp consonants block vowel flattening.
 * Neutral consonants do not affect vowel flattening in any way.

The flat consonants can be further divided into two types:

 * 1) a -series (i.e.  etc.), and
 * 2) a -series (i.e.  etc.).

The '-series is stronger than the '-series by affecting vowels farther away.

This table shows both unaffected vowels and flattened vowels:

The vowel surfaces as  if after a flat consonant and as  before a flat consonant:

 * /sˤit/ || → || [sˤᵊit]
 * 'kinɡfisher'
 * (sˤ flattens i → ᵊi)
 * /nisˤtsˤun/ || → || [nesˤtsˤon]
 * 'owl'
 * (sˤ flattens i → e)
 * }
 * 'owl'
 * (sˤ flattens i → e)
 * }
 * (sˤ flattens i → e)
 * }

The progressive and regressive flattening processes are described below.

Progressive flattening
In the progressive (left-to-right) flattening, the -series consonants affect only the immediately following vowel:

 * /ʁitʰi/ || → || [ʁᵊitʰi]
 * 'I slept'
 * (ʁ flattens i → ᵊi)
 * /qʰænɪç/ || → || [qʰanɪç]
 * 'spoon'
 * (qʰ flattens æ → a)
 * }
 * 'spoon'
 * (qʰ flattens æ → a)
 * }
 * (qʰ flattens æ → a)
 * }

Like the '-series, the stronger '-series consonants affects the immediately following vowel. However, it affects the vowel in the following syllable as well if the first flattened vowel is a lax vowel. If the first flattened is tense, the vowel of the following syllable is not flattened.

 * /sˤɛɬ.tʰin/ || → || [sˤəɬ.tʰᵊin]
 * 'he's comatose'
 * (sˤ flattens both ɛ → ə, i → ᵊi )
 * /sˤi.tʰin/ || → || [sˤᵊi.tʰin]
 * 'I'm sleeping'
 * (sˤ flattens first i → ᵊi, but not second i: *sˤᵊitʰᵊin)
 * }
 * 'I'm sleeping'
 * (sˤ flattens first i → ᵊi, but not second i: *sˤᵊitʰᵊin)
 * }
 * (sˤ flattens first i → ᵊi, but not second i: *sˤᵊitʰᵊin)
 * }

Thus, the neutral consonants are transparent in the flattening process. In the first word 'he's comatose',  flattens the  of the first syllable to  and the  of the second syllable to. In the word 'I'm sleeping',  flattens  to. Since, however, the vowel of the first syllable is, which is a tense vowel, the cannot flatten the  of the second syllable.

The sharp consonants, however, block the progressive flattening caused by the -series:

 * /tizˤ.kʼɛn/ || → || [tezˤ.kʼɛn]
 * 'it's burning'
 * (flattening of ɛ is blocked by kʼ: *tezˤkʼən)
 * /sˤɛ.kɛn/ || → || [sˤə.kɛn]
 * 'it's dry'
 * (flattening of ɛ is blocked by k: *sˤəkən)
 * }
 * 'it's dry'
 * (flattening of ɛ is blocked by k: *sˤəkən)
 * }
 * (flattening of ɛ is blocked by k: *sˤəkən)
 * }

Regressive flattening
In regressive (right-to-left) harmony, the -series flattens the preceding vowel.

 * /ʔælæχ/ || → || [ʔælaχ]
 * 'I made it'
 * (χ flattens æ → a)
 * /junɛqʰæt/ || → || [junəqʰat]
 * 'he's slappinɡ him'
 * (qʰ flattens ɛ → ə)
 * }
 * 'he's slappinɡ him'
 * (qʰ flattens ɛ → ə)
 * }
 * (qʰ flattens ɛ → ə)
 * }

The regressive (right-to-left) harmony of the -series, however, is much stronger than the progressive harmony. The consonants flatten all preceding vowels in a word:

 * /kunizˤ/ || → || [konezˤ]
 * 'it is lonɡ'
 * (zˤ flattens all vowels, both i → e, u → o)
 * /kʷɛtɛkuljúzˤ/ || → || [kʷətəkoljózˤ]
 * 'he is rich'
 * (zˤ flattens all vowels, ɛ → ə, u → o)
 * /nækʷɛnitsˤɛ́sˤ/ || → || [nakʷənetsˤə́sˤ]
 * 'fire's gone out'
 * (tsˤ, sˤ flatten all vowels, æ → a, ɛ → ə)
 * }
 * (zˤ flattens all vowels, ɛ → ə, u → o)
 * /nækʷɛnitsˤɛ́sˤ/ || → || [nakʷənetsˤə́sˤ]
 * 'fire's gone out'
 * (tsˤ, sˤ flatten all vowels, æ → a, ɛ → ə)
 * }
 * (tsˤ, sˤ flatten all vowels, æ → a, ɛ → ə)
 * }
 * }

Both progressive and regressive flattening processes occur in Chilcotin words:

 * /niqʰin/ || → || [neqʰᵊin]
 * 'we paddled'
 * /ʔɛqʰɛn/ || → || [ʔəqʰən]
 * 'husband'
 * }
 * 'husband'
 * }
 * }

title: Tsilhqotʼin language


text:
Republican Progressive Party

Republican Progressive Party  (Parti Progressif Républicain, PPR) was a political party in the Central African Republic. The PPR was led by Henri Maïdou, a former Prime Minister in Jean-Bédel Bokassa's cabinet. Maïdou was the PPR candidate in the 1981 presidential elections and finished fourth of five candidates with 3% of the vote.

title: Republican Progressive Party


text:
Leroy & Stitch

Leroy & Stitch is a 2006 American animated science fiction comedy television film produced by Walt Disney Television Animation. It was written by Bobs Gannaway and Jess Winfield, the latter of whom also served as producer alongside Igor Khait, and directed by Gannaway and Tony Craig. It is the fourth feature film in the Lilo & Stitch franchise and the third and final sequel feature film to the 2002 animated film Lilo & Stitch, serving as the finale of Lilo & Stitch: The Series and concluding the franchise's main continuity where Lilo Pelekai is a main character and Hawaii is the main setting. It is the last Western-animated production in the franchise to date. The film debuted on Disney Channel on June 23, 2006, and was also aired on Toon Disney on June 26, 2006.

While the film received mixed reviews, it was nominated for the 2007 Golden Reel Award by the Motion Picture Sound Editors, which ultimately went to Disneytoon's direct-to-video film The Fox and the Hound 2.

Plot
With their mission to capture and repurpose all the experiments on Earth completed, Lilo, Stitch, Jumba, and Pleakley are honored as heroes by the Galactic Alliance. Jumba is offered to return to his old laboratory, Pleakley is offered a post as chairman of Earth Studies at Galactic Alliance Community College, Stitch is made the Captain of the Galactic Armada and commander of the newly commissioned Big Red Battleship 9000, and Lilo is made the Galactic Federation's ambassador to Earth and the sole guardian of the experiments.

Unwilling to leave Lilo alone and sad, Jumba, Pleakley, and Stitch initially decline the offers, but when Lilo sees how much they long for their new adventures, she decides to let them go. Before they leave, Lilo gives Jumba her favorite Elvis record, Pleakley a small rock to use as a paperweight, and Stitch a necklace with a Kū tiki. In his ship, Gantu has decided that since he failed to capture the experiments, except for 625, he will have to break Dr. Jacques von Hämsterviel out of prison. He takes a two-man space shuttle, leaving a disheartened 625 alone. Gantu succeeds in freeing Hämsterviel, who develops a new plan upon learning of Jumba's current status.

While they enjoy what they are honored for, Jumba, Pleakley, Lilo, and Stitch begin to feel sad and devastated due to being separated from their ohana. While Jumba listens to Lilo's Elvis record, he continues working on a mold for a new experiment, only for Gantu and Hämsterviel burst into his lab, forcing him at gun point to finish creating the experiment for their benefit, one that can match Stitch in power. Jumba succeeds in the creation of the red Stitch look-a-like, who Hämsterviel names "Leroy".

Meanwhile, Stitch, having been assigned to recapture Hämsterviel, arrives at Jumba's lab and engages Leroy in a duel. However, Stitch is defeated when Pleakley appears at an inopportune moment, distracting him long enough for Leroy to detain him in a capsule. Hämsterviel then reveals his plan to clone an army of Leroys to conquer the Galactic Alliance. Before leaving for Turo, Hämsterviel locks Stitch, Jumba, and Pleakley in Pleakley's G.A.C.C. vehicle and sends the vessel toward a black hole.

On Earth, Lilo decides to contact Stitch but realizes that the only intergalactic videophone available on the planet is in Gantu's ship. Upon arrival, she finds a heartbroken 625 and asks to use the videophone, only to find it is not functional. Lilo, upon seeing him hurt, consoles and names him "Reuben", after one of his favorite sandwiches. After using his newfound intelligence and strength, he repairs the galactic videophone. Lilo contacts the BRB-9000, wanting to see how Stitch is doing. Leroy, who has taken control of the ship, attempts to impersonate Stitch using shapeshifting to disguise himself, but the ruse fails when Lilo notices he is not wearing the tiki necklace. After Gantu reminds Hämsterviel of the threat of the other Experiments, he commands Leroy to head to Earth to capture all of them. Lilo, realizing Stitch is in danger, asks Reuben for help in fixing Gantu's ship. Reluctant at first, he activates his abilities (which are similar to Stitch's) and successfully repairs Gantu's ship in no time at all.

As the G.A.C.C. vehicle heads towards the black hole, Stitch escapes his capsule and frees the others. However, the navigational computer is still locked on course for the black hole. When Jumba notes that they can disrupt the event horizon by throwing a small object into the hole, Stitch takes Pleakley's rock and throws it moments before they are sucked in.

On Earth, Leroy searches and obtains Lilo's scrapbook of the experiments, quickly capturing them, along with Lilo's rival, Mertle Edmonds, since she is the owner of fellow experiment, Gigi. Lilo and Reuben arrive at Turo, but learn too late that Hämsterviel has taken over the Galactic Alliance, with the Grand Councilwoman being demoted as his receptionist following her usurpation, and orders Gantu to imprison the duo. However, after now realizing Leroy did the capturing work faster than Gantu, Hämsterviel fires him. Moments after having a change of heart, Gantu assists in the two's escape. As they find themselves surrounded by Leroy clones, the G.A.C.C. vehicle suddenly appears through a wormhole, saving the group and reuniting Lilo and Stitch. With no time to explain, Lilo, Reuben, and Gantu all climb in and head for Earth.

On Earth, Leroy has gathered all the experiments at Aloha Stadium. After announcing his plan for all the experiments, the BRB-9000 appears and Hämsterviel prepares to exterminate them until the heroes arrive just in time to destroy the ship's primary cannon. However, Hämsterviel reveals that he brought along his Leroy army as backup, whereupon an epic battle between them and the experiments begins. Despite some initial victories by the experiments, the Leroys soon gained the upper hand due to their overwhelming numbers. After contemplating on how to stop the Leroy army, Jumba suddenly remembers that he programmed a secret shutdown command into Leroy: Elvis Presley's "Aloha 'Oe"; once played, Leroy and his clones will deactivate. With a plan in action, Stitch interrupts the battle and, in his Elvis attire, performs "Aloha 'Oe" with Lilo and Reuben accompanying him, causing all the Leroys to malfunction and shut down. With his plan foiled again, Hämsterviel is recaptured and sent back to prison.

As the team is honored by the alliance once again for their victory, Stitch, Jumba, and Pleakley ask to be allowed to return to Earth with Lilo. The Councilwoman grants this and asks Gantu if he would like to be reinstated as the captain of the Armada, which he agrees on the condition that Reuben is assigned as his galley officer, leaving the experiment touched. Back on Earth, Lilo sets up for one last ohana picture, as Mertle arrives with Gigi, who only agrees after discovering her dog was an experiment all along. Lilo's last picture in the album is her ohana, along with all of Stitch's cousins.

In a final scene, Hämsterviel is seen back in prison with Leroy and his clones placed in individual cells surrounding his, who have recovered and begin dancing to "Jailhouse Rock". As the credits roll, a full list of Jumba's experiments from 001/Shrink to 626/Stitch with their names as given by Lilo (and other characters in some instances during Lilo & Stitch: The Series) scroll along the left side of the screen.

Voice cast

 * Chris Sanders as Stitch (Experiment 626), Leroy (Experiment 629)/Leroy Clones
 * Daveigh Chase as Lilo Pelekai
 * Tia Carrere as Nani Pelekai
 * David Ogden Stiers as Dr. Jumba Jookiba
 * Kevin McDonald as Pleakley
 * Jeff Bennett as Dr. Jacques von Hämsterviel, Fibber (Experiment 032), Slick (Experiment 020), Ace (Experiment 262), Remmy (Experiment 276)
 * Kevin Michael Richardson as Gantu
 * Rob Paulsen as Reuben (Experiment 625), Felix (Experiment 010), Squeak (Experiment 110), Forehead (Experiment 044)
 * Zoe Caldwell as the Grand Councilwoman
 * Ving Rhames as Cobra Bubbles
 * Liliana Mumy as Mertle Edmonds
 * Tara Strong as Angel (Experiment 624), Babyfier (Experiment 151), Belle (Experiment 248), Dupe (Experiment 344), and Pleakley's G.A.C.C. assistant
 * Frank Welker as Sparky (Experiment 221), Sprout (Experiment 509), Mr. Stenchy (Experiment 254), Kixx (Experiment 601), Skip (Experiment 089), Holio (Experiment 606), Finder (Experiment 158), Deforestator (Experiment 515), Yin (Experiment 501), Yang (Experiment 502), Tank (Experiment 586), Checkers (Experiment 029), Slugger (Experiment 608), Splodyhead (Experiment 619) (uncredited)
 * Tress MacNeille as Bonnie (Experiment 149), Gigi (Experiment 007), Houdini (Experiment 604), Topper (Experiment 025), Melty (Experiment 228), Amnesio (Experiment 303), Cannonball (Experiment 520), Richter (Experiment 513), and the G.A.C.C. van-ship's navi-computer
 * Nancy Cartwright as Shortstuff (Experiment 297), Phantasmo (Experiment 375) (uncredited)
 * Bobcat Goldthwait as Nosy (Experiment 199)
 * Rocky McMurray as Clyde (Experiment 150)
 * Lili Ishida as Yuki
 * Jillian Henry as Elena
 * Kali Whitehurst as Teresa
 * Debra Rogers as First Officer Ombit
 * Doug Stone as Ensign Getco

Production
According to writer-producer Jess Winfield on his TV.com forum thread, Leroy & Stitch was made during the production of the second and final season of Lilo & Stitch: The Series, with production finished in 2005. The film was originally set for a direct-to-video release in the Northern Hemisphere spring of 2006. The animation production was outsourced to Wang Film Productions, a Taiwanese studio that previously worked on some animation for Lilo & Stitch: The Series.

The film marks the third film in the Lilo & Stitch franchise without any involvement from creators Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois (besides Sanders providing the voices of Stitch, Leroy, and the latter's clones), as they would leave Disney for DreamWorks Animation to write and direct How to Train Your Dragon.

Release
Leroy & Stitch debuted on Disney Channel on June 23, 2006 and also aired on Toon Disney on June 26, 2006. It was released on DVD in the United States on June 27, 2006 under Walt Disney Pictures. Bonus features of the DVD include a then-unaired episode of Lilo & Stitch: The Series titled "Link" (in 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio) and a set-top game The Big Red Battleship Flight Simulator. Distributed by Walt Disney Home Entertainment, DVD sales in the United States earned a total of $16,672,732 as of September 2021.

Critical reception
Leroy & Stitch received mixed reviews. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gave the film an approval rating of 40% with an average rating of 5.4/10, based on 5 reviews.

Skyler Miller of AllMovie gave the film a rating of 3½ out of 5 stars, praising the voice acting, Elvis Presley songs, and "[the] fast-moving plot that mixes frenetic action, sentimentality, and a few laughs." Miller wrote, "While [Leroy & Stitch is] not nearly as engaging or emotionally rich as the original [Lilo & Stitch] film that inspired it [...] all in all, Leroy & Stitch is a fitting wrap-up to an enjoyable animated series."

Edward Perkis of CinemaBlend gave the film a rating of 1 out of 5 stars, stating the film is "just another direct-to-video sequel of Disney with no unusual stuff in it," and further uplifted and preferred the original film.

Common Sense Media (CSM) gave the film's quality 4 out of 5 stars and applicable for ages 5 above based on 10 reviews from both parents and children.

In 2019, Petrana Radulovic of Polygon ranked Leroy & Stitch ninth out of twenty-six films on her list of direct-to-video sequels, prequels, and "mid-quels" to Disney animated films, one rank higher than ''Stitch! The Movie''. Despite criticizing Leroy & Stitch for focusing more on the aliens and space over the "charming" characters like with ''Stitch! The Movie'', she ranked the finale film higher than the pilot film because of all the now-united 626 experiments' "wacky and really specific powers", stating that "[w]e get to see what they've all been up to after acclimating to life on Hawaii[...], and see them in action in the final battle." In a similar list in 2020, Lisa Wehrstedt of Insider ranked Leroy & Stitch seventh out of twenty-five films on her list. Werhstedt wrote, "For fans who were really involved with the series [...], this film acts like the perfect finale." However, she also criticized it for "los[ing] a bit of the human charm of the original and the previous [released] sequel."

Soundtrack
Lilo & Stitch Hawaiian Album is the soundtrack to Disney's Leroy & Stitch. The majority of the Leroy & Stitch soundtrack are Elvis Presley records, while other parts of the soundtrack include music inspired by Gustav Holst's "The Planets". The soundtrack also contains score pieces from the original Lilo & Stitch film (which was composed by Alan Silvestri) and from Lilo & Stitch: The Series ' s pilot film Stitch! The Movie (which was composed by Michael Tavera, who was also the composer for The Series).

title: Leroy & Stitch


text:
Official names of the Soviet Union

The official names of the Soviet Union, officially known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in the languages of the Soviet Republics (presented in the constitutional order) and other languages of the USSR, were as follows.

title: Official names of the Soviet Union


text:
Independent Grouping for Reflection

The Independent Grouping for Reflection (Groupement Indépendant de Reflexion, GIR) was a political party in the Central African Republic. The GIR was led by François Pehoua, a former minister in the Bokassa cabinet. Pehoua was the GIR candidate in the 1981 presidential elections, finishing third of five candidates with 5% of the vote. GIR was generally based amongst bureaucrats and technocrats.

title: Independent Grouping for Reflection


text:
Heartbeat Records

Heartbeat Records is an independent record label based in Burlington, Massachusetts. The label specializes in Jamaican music.

Founded by reggae music enthusiasts Bill Nowlin and Duncan Brown, the label's first release was a vinyl LP reissue of Linton Kwesi Johnson's Dread Beat an' Blood (1981). In 1983, Chris Wilson was hired as VP of A&R and the label began their association with Studio One label founder Clement Dodd and released Best of Studio One, a compilation of Dodd-produced music by artists including Dennis Brown, Alton Ellis, The Gladiators, Marcia Griffiths, The Heptones, Slim Smith, Sugar Minott, and Johnny Osbourne, among others. Heartbeat has released over 60 Studio One albums. The label licensed music from a number of different Jamaican producers including Lee "Scratch" Perry, Joe Gibbs, Sonia Pottinger, Clancy Eccles, Alvin Ranglin, Duke Reid, Niney the Observer, Sly & Robbie, Steely & Clevie, and Lloyd Daley. The label financed and booked the Heartbeat Culture Splash Tour, consisting of Michael Rose, Sister Carol, the Meditations, Derrick Morgan, and the S.A.N.E. band, that toured the United States in 1996. In 2000, Heartbeat Records received a Grammy Award for Burning Spear's Heartbeat album entitled Calling Rastafari (1999) which has since been deleted from the catalog. Heartbeat Records won Boston magazine's Best of Boston 2000 award for Best Record Label. In January 2007, Heartbeat moved to Burlington, Massachusetts. The same year, Heartbeat started the web site and podcast entitled the Heartbeat Reggae Podcast.

Albums (present)

 * Big Youth – Some Great Big Youth (1981)
 * Big Youth – The Chanting Dread inna Fine Style (1982)
 * Culture – Lion Rock (1982)
 * Lee "Scratch" Perry – Mystic Miracle Star (1982)
 * Various Artists – Dee-Jay Explosion in a Dance Hall Style (1982)
 * Various Artists - Black Star Liner: Reggae from Africa (1983)
 * Various Artists - Churchical Chants of the Nyabingi (1983)
 * Black Uhuru - Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1983)
 * Various Artists - Word Sound 'Ave Power (1983)
 * Various Artists - Gregory Isaacs and Friends: Top Ten (1984)
 * Various Artists - Lee "Scratch" Perry and the Upsetters: Some of the Best (1986)
 * Various Artists - Sly & Robbie: Taxi Fare (1986)
 * Various Artists - Heartbeat Reggae (1988)
 * Meditations - For the Good of Man (1988)
 * Augustus Pablo - Rebel Rock Reggae (1986)
 * Big Youth - Manifestation (1988)
 * Gladiators - A Whole Heap (1989)
 * Tamlins - Love Divine (1989)
 * Gladiators - On the Right Track (1989)
 * Gregory Isaacs - My Number One (1989)
 * Various Artists - Hitbound! The Revolutionary Sound of Channel One (1989)
 * Various Artists - Clancy Eccles Presents His Reggae Revue: Rock Steady Intensified (1990)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Dancing Floor (1990)
 * Various Artists - Holy Ground: Alvin Ranglin's GG Records (1990)
 * Various Artists - Derrick Harriott Riding the Musical Chariot (1990)
 * Little John - Boombastic (1990)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Love Is Overdue (1991)
 * Culture - Culture in Culture (1991)
 * Sugar Minott - Happy Together (1991)
 * Yami Bolo - He Who Knows It Feels It (1991)
 * Frankie Paul - Should I (1991)
 * Lee "Scratch" Perry - Lord God Muzick (1991)
 * Chris Wayne - Talk About Love (1991)
 * Various Artists - Niney the Observer Presents the All-Stars: Turbo Charge (1991)
 * Various Artists - Musical Feast: Mrs. Pottinger's High Note and Gayfeet Label (1991)
 * Various Artists - Lloyd Daley's Matador Productions (1992)
 * Various Artists - Duke Reid's Treasure Chest (1992)
 * Lee "Scratch" Perry - Soundzs from the Hotline (1992)
 * Ethiopians - Slave Call (1992)
 * Niney the Observer - Freaks (1992)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Best of Vol. 1 & 2 (1992)
 * Various Artists - Steely & Clevie Play Studio One Vintage (1992)
 * Roots Radics - World Peace III (1992)
 * Melodians - Swing and Dine (1992)
 * Yami Bolo - Up Life Street (1992)
 * Michigan & Smiley - Rub-a-Dub Style (1992)
 * Sugar Minott - Showcase (1992)
 * Johnny Osbourne - Truths and Rights (1992)
 * Various Artists - Reggae Christmas from Studio One (1992)
 * Dennis Brown - Some Like It Hot (1992)
 * Various Artists - Explosive Rock Steady: Joe Gibbs' Amalgamated Label (1992)
 * Larry Marshall - I Admire You (1992)
 * Various Artists - Hard Works from the Observer All Stars (1992)
 * Meditations - Return of the Meditations (1992)
 * Various Artists - The Mighty 2: Joe Gibbs and Errol Thompson (1992)
 * Various Artists - Dancehall Roughneck (1993)
 * Baby Wayne - Ram DJ (1993)
 * Various Artists - Heartbeat Reggae Now (1993)
 * Culture - Trod On (1993)
 * Various Artists - Kingston Town (1993)
 * Dennis Brown - Cosmic Force (1993)
 * Alton Ellis - Cry Tough (1993)
 * Techniques - Run Come Celebrate (1993)
 * Queen Majeeda - Conscious (1993)
 * Frankie Paul - Don Man (1993)
 * Jah Messengers - Reggae Time (1993)
 * Starlights - Soldering (1993)
 * Fleshy Ranks - Bustin' Out (1994)
 * Dennis Brown - Light My Fire (1994)
 * Gregory Isaacs - My Poor Heart (1994)
 * Various Artists - More Hottest Hits from Treasure Isle (1994)
 * Culture - Culture in Dub (1994)
 * Everton Blender - Lift Up Your Head (1994)
 * Meditations - Deeper Roots: Best of the Meditations (1994)
 * Freddie McGregor - Zion Chant (1994)
 * Mandators - Power of the People (1994)
 * Tony Rebel & Garnet Silk - Tony Rebel Meets Garnet Silk in a Dancehall Conference (1994)
 * Jack Radics - Open Rebuke (1994)
 * Various Artists - Ram Jam a Gwan (1994)
 * Ethiopians - Owner fe de Yard (1994)
 * Various Artists - Respect to Studio One (1994)
 * Alton Ellis - Sunday Coming (1995)
 * Jackie Mittoo - Tribute To Jackie Mittoo (1995)
 * Michael Rose - Michael Rose (1995)
 * Various Artists - Streets of Ska (1995)
 * Various Artists - Go Ska Go (1995)
 * Various Artists - Dub Specialist: 17 Dub Shots from Studio One (1995)
 * Various Artists - The Marley Family Album (1995)
 * Dennis Brown - Open the Gate (1995)
 * Various Artists - Treasure Isle Mood (1995)
 * Various Artists - Treasure Isle Time (1995)
 * Derrick Morgan - Ska Man Classics (1995)
 * Various Artists - Reggae's Greatest Hits Vol. 1 (1995)
 * Various Artists - Reggae's Greatest Hits Vol. 2 (1995)
 * Various Artists - Reggae's Greatest Hits Vol. 3 (1995)
 * Various Artists - Reggae's Greatest Hits Vol. 4 (1995)
 * Various Artists - Reggae's Greatest Hits Vol. 5 (1995)
 * Various Artists - Reggae's Greatest Hits Vol. 6 (1995)
 * Various Artists - Reggae's Greatest Hits Vol. 8 (1995)
 * Various Artists - Reggae's Greatest Hits Vol. 9 (1995)
 * Various Artists - Reggae's Greatest Hits Vol. 10 (1995)
 * Upsetters - Upsetters a Go Go (1995)
 * Nardo Ranks - Cool and Humble (1995)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Dreaming (1995)
 * Sister Carol - Black Cinderella (1995)
 * Beres Hammond & Derrick Lara - Expression (1995)
 * Various Artists - Dub Over Dub: 27 Track Dub Extravaganza (1996)
 * Various Artists - The Reggae Train (1996)
 * Various Artists - Reggae Songbirds (1996)
 * Various Artists - Run Rhythm Run (1996)
 * Everton Blender - Piece of the Blender: The Singles (1996)
 * Michael Rose - Be Yourself (1996)
 * Michael Rose - Big Sound Frontline (1996)
 * Peter Tosh - The Toughest (1996)
 * Various Artists - Urban Beat Reggae (1996)
 * Heptones - Sea of Love (1997)
 * Maytals - Never Grow Old (1997)
 * Michael Rose - Dance Wicked (1997)
 * Skatalites - Foundation Ska (1997)
 * Junior Byles - Curly Locks (1997)
 * Beres Hammond - Getting Stronger (1997)
 * Derrick Morgan - Time Marches On (1997)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Hold Tight (1997)
 * Lee "Scratch" Perry - Upsetter Shop Vol. 1 (1997)
 * Michael Rose - Dub Wicked (1997)
 * Culture - Production Something (1998)
 * Abyssinians - Declaration of Dub (1998)
 * Horace Andy - Mr. Bassie (1998)
 * Gladiators - The Gladiators at Studio One: Bongo Red (1998)
 * Michael Rose - Party in Session - Live (1998)
 * Various Artists - Ska After Ska After Ska (1998)
 * Alpheus - Quality Time (1999)
 * Ken Boothe - A Man and His Hits (1999)
 * Marcia Griffiths - Truly (1999)
 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - Destiny: Rare Ska Sides from Studio One (1999)
 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - Wailers & Friends: Top Hits Sung by the Legends of Jamaica Ska (1999)
 * Tommy McCook - Greatest Hits of the Skatalites (1999)
 * Various Artists - Upsetter Shop Vol. 2 (1999)
 * Michael Rose - Bonanza (1999)
 * Various Artists - Studio One Dancehall Selection (1999)
 * Various Artists - Studio One Showcase Vol. 1 (1999)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Best of Vol. 1 (1999)
 * Roots Radics - Forward Ever, Backwards Never (1999)
 * Leonard Dillon - On the Road Again (1999)
 * Everton Blender - Rootsman Credential (1999)
 * Dennis Brown - Tribulation (1999)
 * Albert Griffiths & the Gladiators - Valley of Decision (1999)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Best of Vol. 2 (1999)
 * Dennis Brown - Cosmic Force (2000)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Dancing Floor (2000)
 * Meditations - For the Good of Man (2000)
 * Everton Blender - Live at the White River Reggae Bash (2000)
 * Various Artists - Heartbeat Reggae 2000 (2000)
 * Various Artists - Rare Reggae Grooves from Studio One (2000)
 * Various Artists - Dance Hall Liberation (2000)
 * Various Artists - Black Foundation in Dub (2000)
 * Roland Alphonso - Something Special: Ska Hot Shots (2000)
 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - Climb the Ladder (2000)
 * Various Artists - Feel Like Jumping: The Best of Studio One Women (2000)
 * Various Artists - Nice Up the Dance: Studio One Discomixes (2001)
 * Michael Rose - Never Give It Up (2001)
 * Spanner Banner - Real Love (2001)
 * Everton Blender - Visionary (2001)
 * Various Artists - Knock Out Ska (2001)
 * Various Artists - By Special Request (2001)
 * Dennis Brown - Dennis Brown in Dub (2002)
 * Various Artists - Ska All Mighty: Top Ska Classics from the Treasure Isle Label (2002)
 * Mutabaruka - Life Squared (2002)
 * Various Artists - Baffling Smoke Signal (2002)
 * Various Artists - Treasure Isle Showtime (2002)
 * Gregory Isaacs - I Found Love (2002)
 * Various Artists - Christmas Greetings from Studio One (2002)
 * Maytones - Their Greatest Hits (2003)
 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - Greatest Hits at Studio One (2003)
 * Various Artists - Cutting Razor: Rare Cuts From The Black Ark (2003)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Gregory Isaacs in Dub: Dub a de Number One (2003)
 * Culture - World Peace (2003)
 * Everton Blender - King Man (2003)
 * Various Artists - Fat Eyes Dancehall Deelite (2003)
 * Various Artists - Fat Eyes Deelite / Fat Eyes Dancehall Attack (2003)
 * Lucky Dube - The Other Side (2004)
 * Heptones - Deep In The Roots (2004)
 * Michael Rose - Happiness: The Best of Michael Rose (2004)
 * Burning Spear - Creation Rebel (2004)
 * Nazarenes - Songs of Life (2005)
 * Various Artists - The Best of Studio One (2006)
 * Various Artists - Full Up: More Hits from Studio One (2006)
 * Various Artists - Downbeat the Ruler: Killer Instrumentals from Studio One (2006)
 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - One Love at Studio One (2006)
 * Freddie McGregor - Bobby Bobylon (2006)
 * Various Artists - Ska Bonanza: The Studio One Ska Years (2006)
 * Delroy Wilson - The Best Of: Original Eighteen: Deluxe Edition (2006)
 * John Holt - I Can't Get You Off My Mind: 18 Greatest Hits (2006)
 * Various Artists - Studio One Presents Version Dread (2006)
 * Various Artists - The Best of Studio One Collection (2006)
 * Alton Ellis - I'm Still In Love With You; Featuring Hortense Ellis (2006)
 * Various Artists - Six the Hard Way (2006)
 * Gladiators - Studio One Singles (2007)
 * Abyssinians - Satta Massagana Deluxe Edition (2007)
 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - Another Dance: Rarities from Studio One (2007)
 * Various Artists - When Rhythm Was King (2007)
 * Dennis Alcapone - Forever Version Deluxe Edition (2007)
 * Lone Ranger - Forever Version Deluxe Edition (2007)
 * Heptones - Sweet Talking (2007)
 * GG's All Stars - Roots Man Dub (2007)
 * Lee "Scratch" Perry - Chicken Scratch (2008)
 * Johnny Osbourne - Truths and Rights Deluxe Edition (2008)

DVDs (present)

 * Morgan Heritage - Live in Europe (2004)
 * Various Artists - Heartbeat Video Culture Splash (2005)

Box sets (present)

 * Various Artists - The Best of Studio One Collection (2006)

Box sets (out of print)

 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - The Studio One Singles Box

Albums (out of print)

 * Big Youth - Some Great Big Youth (1982)
 * Mikey Dread - Beyond World War III (1982)
 * Burning Spear - Farover (1982)
 * Mikey Dread - S.W.A.L.K. (1982)
 * Sugar Minott - Good Thing Going (1982)
 * Papa Finnigan & Junior Ranking - Two the Hard Way (1983)
 * Various - Best of Studio One (1983)
 * Sugar Minott - Sufferer's Choice (1983)
 * Burning Spear - The Fittest of the Fittest (1983)
 * Various - Dub Poets Dub (1984)
 * Scientist & Peter Chemist - 1999 Dub (1984)
 * Sugar Minott - Slice of the Cake (1984)
 * Mikey Dread - Pave the Way (1984)
 * Burning Spear - Resistance (1985)
 * Various Artists - Full Up: Best of Studio One Vol. 2 (1985)
 * Albert Griffiths & Gladiators - Country Living (1985)
 * Various Artists - Roy Cousins Presents Wambesi All Stars (1986)
 * Ansel Collins - Reggae (1986)
 * Sugar Minott - In a Reggae Dance Hall (1986)
 * Bob Andy - Retrospective (1987)
 * Sugar Minott - African Soldier (1988)
 * Ansel Collins - So Long (1988)
 * Chris Wayne - Reggae (1988)
 * Lee "Scratch" Perry - Chicken Scratch (1989)
 * Various Artists - Collector's Edition: Rare Reggae from the Vaults of Studio One (1989)
 * Sugar Minott - Ghetto Child (1989)
 * Alton Ellis & Hortense Ellis - Alton & Hortense Ellis (1990)
 * Gregory Isaacs - Dancing Floor (1990)
 * Roots Radics - Forward Ever, Backwards Ever (1990)
 * Various Artists - Niney the Observer: Observation Station (1990)
 * Various Artists - Original Club Ska (1990)
 * Various Artists - Fire Down Below: Scorchers from Studio One (1990)
 * Winston Jarrett & the Righteous Flames - Solid Foundation (1991)
 * Various Artists - Soul Defenders at Studio One (1991)
 * Various Artists - Heartbeat Reggae Roundup (1991)
 * Leonard Dillon the Ethiopian - On the Road Again (1991)
 * Albert Griffiths & the Gladiators - Valley of Decision (1991)
 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - One Love (1991)
 * Termites - Do the Rock Steady (1991)
 * Slim Smith - Born to Love (1991)
 * Cables - What Kind of World (1991)
 * Dennis Alcapone - Forever Version (1991)
 * Lone Ranger - On the Other Side of Dub (1991)
 * Delroy Wilson - Original Twelve: The Best of Delroy Wilson (1991)
 * Larry Marshall - Presenting Larry Marshall (1992)
 * Lee "Scratch" Perry - The Upsetter and the Beat (1992)
 * Various Artists - Solid Gold, Coxsone Style (1992)
 * Willie Williams - Armagideon Time (1992)
 * Abyssinians - Satta Massagana (1993)
 * Burning Spear - The World Should Know (1993)
 * Burning Spear - Living Dub Volume One (1993)
 * Burning Spear - Living Dub Volume Two (1993)
 * Various Artists - Truth and Rights Observer Style (1994)
 * Andrew Tosh - Original Man (1994)
 * Burning Spear - Hail H.I.M. (1994)
 * Burning Spear - Love & Peace: Burning Spear Live! (1994)
 * Sister Carol - Call Mi Sister Carol (1994)
 * Various Artists - Mojo Rock Steady (1994)
 * Various Artists - Reggae Culture: Heartbeat Reggae Now! (1994)
 * The Viceroys - The Viceroys at Studio One: Ya Ho (1995)
 * Burning Spear - Rasta Business (1995)
 * Various Artists - Grooving at Studio One (1996)
 * Sister Carol - Lyrically Potent (1996)
 * Burning Spear - Appointment With His Majesty (1997)
 * Burning Spear - Living Dub Volume 3 (1997)
 * Burning Spear - Calling Rastafari (1999)
 * Burning Spear - Living Dub Vol. 4 (1999)
 * Various Artists - Jack Ruby Presents the Black Foundation (2000)
 * Richie Spice - Universal (2000)
 * Various Artists - Head Shot: Reggae Instrumentals, Dubs and Other Oddities (2002)
 * Various Artists - Rock On: Greatest Hits from the Observer Label (2002)
 * Various Artists - Urban Beat Reggae: Dancehall Massive Culture (2003)
 * Niney the Observer Presents King Tubby in Dub - Bring the Dub Come (2003)

Singles (out of print)

 * Oku Onuora - "Wi a Come" (1983)
 * Oku Onuora & AK7 - "Pressure Drop" (1984)
 * Sister Carol - "Blackman Time" (1995)
 * Everton Blender - "Lift Up Your Head" (1995)
 * Sister Carol - "Dread Natty Congo/Herbal Affair" (1996)
 * Michael Rose - "Rude Boys (Back in Town)/I Love King Selassie" (1996)
 * Everton Blender - "Slick Me Slick" (1999)

Promotional DVDs (out of print)

 * Studio One: The Birthplace of Reggae Music DVD Electronic Press Kit (2006)

Promotional CDs (out of print)

 * Sister Carol - I Am What I Am (1994)
 * Burning Spear - Burning Spear Talks About Rasta Business (1995)
 * Burning Spear - Not Stupid/The Sun (1996)
 * Various Artists - Heartbeat Culture Splash 96 (1996)
 * Everton Blender - A Piece of the Blender: The Singles (1996)
 * Burning Spear - Come in Peace (1997)
 * Various Artists - The Sound of Summer (1997)
 * Michael Rose - Dance Wicked/Lion in the Jungle featuring Maxi Priest (1997)
 * Michael Rose - Reggae Superstar (1998)
 * Burning Spear - House of Reggae/Interview (2000)
 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - White Christmas (2002)
 * Various Artists - 2006 Studio One Sampler (2006)

Promotional vinyl (out of print)

 * Burning Spear - Mi Gi Dem (Give Them)/Dub Them (1993)
 * Bob Marley & the Wailers - Destiny/Rude Boy (1999)
 * Spanner Banner - Man a Earth Man w/Richie Spice/Sweet Pain w/Lady Saw (1999)
 * Burning Spear - As It Is (2000)
 * Everton Blender - Lovers Holiday/Watch It (2001)

title: Heartbeat Records


text:
Northern Sulphuric Soul

Northern Sulphuric Soul is the debut studio album by English electronic music duo Rae & Christian, released on 5 October 1998 by Grand Central Records.

In the United States, Northern Sulphuric Soul was released on the Sm:)e label, with a green version of the original orange sleeve. A remastered version was released on 12 January 2004, which contained three extra tracks and alternative sleeve art.

Personnel
Rae & Christian
 * Steve Christian – engineering, mixing, production
 * Mark Rae – production, scratching, liner notes

title: Northern Sulphuric Soul


text:
User:Nenuial

Nenuial is a fictional lake found on Middle-earth.

Bio
Name: Laura

Aliases: The Shiny, Kimino Girl, Theta, Galensoroniel, "hey you"

Date of Birth: July 13, 1986

Place of Birth: Marathon, Ontario, Canada

Attends: University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Program: Honours Mechanical Engineering

Home: Toronto (Etobicoke), Ontario, Canada

Interests and Favourites
Music: System of a Down Slipknot Finger Eleven Billy Talent Hundred Reasons Linkin Park lostprophets A Perfect Circle

Anime: Escaflowne Cowboy Bebop Neon Genesis Evangelion Ranma 1/2

Pastimes: Tag Rock, paper, scissors Video gaming Sleeping

Movies & TV: Tank Girl Zoolander Pirates of the Caribbean Monty Python Family Guy Monster Garage Discovery Channel

Authors - Books: Douglas Adams - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy Orson Scott Card - Ender's Game Philip Pullman - His Dark Materials J.R.R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings

People: Leonardo da Vinci Ferdinand Porsche Hayao Miyazaki Yoko Kanno

Changes I've Made Without Being Logged In
Here is where I'll list any IPs I've used to make changes without being logged in. I claim credit for some of the editing done under these IPs. However, I would never intentionally vandalise the site so any vandalism traced back to me is most likely to be faulty. I am here only to benefit users through fixing typos and undoing vandalism as well as contributing my own knowledge.

 * 207.61.57.35

Random Interest
Nationstates DeviantArt - My user page

title: User:Nenuial


text: Category:Italian heavy metal musical groups


text:
Talk:Berengar I of Italy

Another Berengar
Berengar links to this page, while there is another Berengar, Berengar of Ivrea, also King of Italy. Should be a disambiguation?--J heisenberg 15:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, and have made it so. --Jfruh 03:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Move
I propose that this page be moved to Berengar I of Italy or Berengar, Holy Roman Emperor. I present the following reasons in point form: Srnec 04:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style indicates that monarch should be styled in the form "Name + Ordinal + of + Kingdom". Berengar's kingdom was Italy and he was the first Berengar (Berengar of Ivrea was the second). He was Emperor, but the use of the term Holy Roman Emperor is definitely anachornistic, nevertheless it is applied to Otto I, but not the Carolingians, so it's up for debate.
 * Consistency: some Italian kings seem to be left under their common names, while some appear properly as per the MoS. I will propose these moves on all pertinent pages for medieval Italian kings (see Talk:Hugh of Arles and Talk:Berengar of Ivrea).
 * A figure should be titled by his most important title in life and I think Berengar would like to be remembered as the Emperor, or at least king of Italy, and not the mere Furlan margrave.
 * The German Wiki uses the form of "Berengar I".

Emperor
Ahm, the "Holy Roman Emperor" is not something that undisputedly was in existence at the time. Usually we count only Otto I and onwards under that precise title. Charlemagne for example has been left to nicknamed variant due to doubts whether HRE is yet correct. Marrtel 12:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But Berengar was undisputedly emperor. The question of applying "Holy Roman" retrospectively is rather minor, no? Some scholars do, others don't. There is continuity between Charlemagne's empire and the thing from which Francis II abdicated in 1806. I think the "fact check" notice ought to be removed so as not to give the false impression that he wasn't emperor. I have changed it to say "Emperor of the West," but that's as retrospective as HRE. Srnec 19:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Place of burial
For Q274606, I'm trying to find his place of burial. Is it known? Verona? -- 签名 sig  at  10:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berengar I of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100226063634/http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/fulda.htm to http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/fulda.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Berengar's daughter(s)
The article mentions some times Berengar's "eldest daughter, Bertha" and  Berengar's "younger daughter Gisela. In another place, it is also said that a Gisela was Berengar's mother. In the end, it says: "He left no sons, only a daughter (the aforementioned Bertha)". So  how many were they: one two or more? --pm a  18:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Berengar I of Italy


text: Category:Islamic art

title: Category:Islamic art


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albus Dumbledore

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. smoddy 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore
Not encyclopedic at all. The entire known skills and possessions parts are prime examples. Nobody needs to know that a character in a fictional book discovers uses for dragon's blood or is extremely skilled at transfiguration. This is more of a fan FAQ than an encyclopedia article. Needs to be shortened to a paragraph or two and merged with Harry Potter at best, deleted at worst. Severus Snape 15:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Keep* Clearly in bad faith. -- marie antoinette
 * Strong Keep. User created just to do this VfD, smells like a bad faith nomination to me based on someone's idea of a joke for this username to nominate that article. --khaosworks 15:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major character in popular literature (precedent at Gandalf, Ophelia (character)).  I suspect that this nomination is in bad faith. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vfd is not Cleanup nor Requested merges. —Cryptic (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJODN this nomination. smoddy 15:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Can something be BJAODN if it's only BJAON for being nominated for D? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does BJAODN have any rules? A и D я 01D  TALK  EMAIL  17:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong candidate for a Speedy Keep for notable fictional character. Capitalistroadster 15:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Come on people - think about it.... look at his username.  This is a hoax.  :) Cmouse 15:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — Strong precedents for articles featuring popular fictional characters exist. Cleanup is not a suitable VfD criteria. — RJH 15:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As this brings together information from multiple sources on a well-known fictional character, it is a valuable addition to the Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan 16:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJODN this one. Zscout370 (Sound Off)
 * Keep. Keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep! -- Jason Palpatine 16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- Why would someone delete this article? This is a hoax of some sort. 11:04 21 July 2005
 * Delete 'Wikipedia is not a memorial' (joke) --Doc (?) 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Unfortunately, Harry Potter is a notable book and so its major characters. --Neigel von Teighen 17:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I concur with Capitalistroadster & khaosworks. --Deathphoenix 17:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep; BJAODN this nomination before removal. A и D я 01D  TALK  EMAIL  17:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep this nomination was a joke; the username of the nominator is a Harry Potter reference, and see above comments for more (and though I'm not partial to having fictional characters in the Wikipedia, this one is as notable as needs to be). -Harmil 17:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this too the delete attempt is a bjodn alright Yuckfoo 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Joke nom. -- BD2412 talk 18:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is April Fool's Day early this year, or is Snape looking for more revenge? Oh, keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps BJAODN nomination. VfD is the Avada Kedavra of the wikipedia?  humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, speedy deletion is the Avada Kendavra. These vfds are more like the cruciatus curse for everyone involved.  Dear god, I'm such a geek. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

there is no objection here Yuckfoo 21:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Very bad joke, look at nominators username. We have precedent to keep major fictional characters. - Mgm|(talk) 20:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: if there is no serious objection, this VfD should be closed as a "speedy keep". -- BD2412 talk 21:40, July 21, 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.