text:
User talk:ColdfireDX

Welcome!
Hello, ColdfireDX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  15:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:ColdfireDX


text:
Weems–Botts Museum

Weems–Botts House Museum is a small historic museum in Dumfries, Virginia, United States. The museum includes the landmark Weems–Botts House on the corner of Duke Street and Cameron Street and the Weems–Botts Museum Annex, which houses the Lee Lansing Research Library and Archive, located at 3944 Cameron Street. Both buildings are located in Merchant Park. The park's bandstand commemorates William Grayson, one of Prince William County's most respected citizens and one of Virginia's first senators. The museum tour showcases the history of Dumfries, Virginia's oldest chartered town, and people associated with the house, including Mason Locke "Parson" Weems, and attorney Benjamin Botts.

The museum was restored in 1975 as part of a bicentennial U.S. restoration project. The museum is owned by the Town of Dumfries and operated by Historic Dumfries Virginia, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Historical significance
The house originally served as the vestry for the Quantico Church. The house was purchased by Parson Weems, a native Marylander, in 1798. Weems was a clergyman who became an author and purveyor of books, which he would sell from the back of his jersey wagon. While traveling through Dumfries during one of his book-selling tours, Weems met Fanny Ewell, the daughter of Colonel Jesse Ewell, a wealthy tobacco planter with a warehouse business in Dumfries. They married in 1795.

During his ownership of the house, Weems wrote an 80-page booklet that would influence the thoughts of Americans to this day entitled A History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington. Weems published the first biography on George Washington and was the creator of the famous cherry tree story ("I cannot tell a lie, I did it with my little hatchet"). Weems also created the fable that Washington threw a silver dollar more than 300 feet across the Rappahannock River. He also wrote biographies on Benjamin Franklin, Francis Marion, and William Penn. Sometime after the death of his father-in-law in 1805, Weems moved his family into the Ewell family estate, Bel Air.

Weems sold his shop in 1802 to an attorney named Benjamin Botts. Benjamin Botts used the building as his law office. Best remembered as one of the defense attorneys who successfully defended Aaron Burr during his infamous treason and conspiracy trial, Botts was a Dumfries native and rising star in Virginia's legal community. Botts was killed in the Richmond Theater fire on December 26, 1811. After passing through multiple ownerships, the Merchant family owned and lived in the house from 1869 to 1968. The property was restored and opened as a museum in 1975.

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

title: Weems–Botts Museum


text:
User talk:Pchugh

Welcome!
Hello, Pchugh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  15:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :)

title: User talk:Pchugh


text:
User talk:Hstair

Welcome!
Hello, Hstair, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  15:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :)

Image Tagging Image:22026_weems_botts_museum_007_p.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:22026_weems_botts_museum_007_p.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Blacksburgmain.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Blacksburgmain.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 05:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hstair


text:
The Lastest Gun in the West

"The Lastest Gun in the West" is the twelfth episode of the thirteenth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It first aired on the Fox network in the United States on February 24, 2002. In the episode, Bart meets a retired Western star named Buck McCoy who soon becomes his idol. After McCoy shows the Simpsons some of his films, they help him revive his acting career.

The episode was directed by Bob Anderson and written by John Swartzwelder, who based the script on a story idea pitched by fellow Simpsons writer Ron Hauge. The episode features Dennis Weaver as the retired Western actor Buck McCoy, Frank Welker as the vicious dog, and Karl Wiedergott as an alcoholic resembling Walter Brennan.

When it was first broadcast, "The Lastest Gun in the West" was seen by 5.9% of the American population between ages 18 and 49. It has garnered mixed reviews from critics.

Plot
When a vicious dog chases Bart, he takes refuge in the garden of a house belonging to former Western actor Buck McCoy. After Buck shows Bart a trick to calm the dog, Bart starts to hero-worship him. Naturally, Homer learns about Bart's new idol and demands he worship him instead.

To help revive Buck's career, Bart lands him a job on Krusty the Clown's show. However, Buck gets drunk before the show and makes a fool of himself, culminating in him shooting Krusty live on air. Seeing how crushed Bart is, Marge and Homer help Buck overcome his alcoholism by cleaning his house and enrolling him in an Alcoholics Anonymous program. Despite making progress, Buck fails to restore Bart's hero-worship.

When Homer sees a news report about a robbery at the Bank of Springfield, he convinces Buck to foil the robbery and become a hero. Buck subdues the bank robbers and again becomes a hero in Bart's eyes. After acknowledging everything Homer has done, Bart declares him a hero too. As the episode ends, Bart is again chased by the vicious dog.

Production
”The Lastest Gun in the West” was written by John Swartzwelder and directed by Bob Anderson. It was first broadcast on the Fox network in the United States on February 24, 2002.

Writing
The idea for the episode was pitched by Simpsons writer Ron Hauge, who thought it would be interesting to see an episode in which Bart would run into a retired Western film star in the neighborhood and "think he was the coolest guy in the world", although the actor had seen better days. Hauge suggested that Swartzwelder, who is an avid Western fan, would be the appropriate writer for the episode. Swartzwelder also pitched the plot idea about the angry dog who chases Bart in the episode.

Animation
The design for Buck McCoy was primarily based on Dennis Weaver, who portrayed him in the episode, as well as aspects of other western actors such as Roy Rogers and John Wayne. McCoy's costume in the fictional television show McTrigger was based on the attire worn by the main character in real-life television series McCloud. The design for the dog went through several different model changes until the Simpsons staff settled on the "very angry bull-terrier design" seen in the episode. A scene in the episode shows McCoy showcasing an array of films he starred in to the Simpson family through a movie projector. In order to achieve the strobe light effect done by the projector, the animators painted every other frame white and then blank.

Casting
The episode features American actor Dennis Weaver, famous for his role in the television show Gunsmoke, in a guest role as the Western actor Buck McCoy. Al Jean, the show runner for the episode, stated in the DVD commentary that Weaver was very funny, a ”terrific guy”, and that it was an honor to meet him. Karl Wiedergott, an actor who usually fills in for unavailable male cast members during table reads for The Simpsons episodes, portrayed an alcoholic resembling Walter Brennan. The dog was played by voice artist Frank Welker.

Cultural references
The episode title, which is often wrongfully referred to as "The Latest Gun In the West", is a pun based on the term "the fastest gun in the west". A scene in the episode shows McCoy auditioning for a spot in the Krusty the Clown show. To showcase his skills, McCoy shoots a Krusty cardboard cutout in the crotch. The scene is a reference to an incident on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, in which Ed Ames hit a mannequin in the crotch while demonstrating a tomahawk throw. Carson's quips during the incident are referenced in Krusty's line "Ooh, right in the panhandle." Carson can also be seen in one of the clips before Krusty's show in the episode, along with poet Robert Frost. The inside of McCoy's house is loosely based on the inside of Will Rogers' house in Will Rogers State Historic Park. "McTrigger", the last TV series McCoy starred in, is a parody of the American television police drama McCloud, in which Weaver played the lead; McCoy claims the series was eventually retooled into Room 222. In one scene, Homer shows Bart a poster of himself dressed as Farrah Fawcett in her iconic red swimsuit poster. During a flashback, McCoy waxes nostalgic about shooting hippies in the old days when there is a split second cameo of Gilbert Shelton's Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers.

Release
In its original American broadcast on February 24, 2002, "The Lastest Gun In the West", along with a rerun of Malcolm in the Middle, put Fox in second place for the night among adults between ages 18 and 49. According to Nielsen Media Research, the episode received a 5.9 rating, meaning it was seen by 5.9% of the population in said demographic. On August 24, 2010, the episode was released as part of The Simpsons: The Thirteenth Season DVD and Blu-ray set.

Following its television broadcast, "The Lastest Gun in the West" received a lot of negative feedback from The Simpsons fans. The Simpsons staff — who, according to Jean, are susceptible to criticism — were surprised by the amount of scorn the fans showed towards the episode. Jean, who thought the episode was "great", stated in the DVD commentary for the episode that he "[has] never been able to quite figure [why the fans disliked the episode] out", and speculated that, since Westerns have not been popular since the 1960s, "they [The Simpsons fans] just don't care about them at all."

Following the home video release of the thirteenth season of The Simpsons, reviews of "The Lastest Gun in the West" were mixed.

On the negative side, describing the episode as a "clunker", Jennifer Malkowski of DVD Verdict stated that the episode is "frightfully thin" and criticized the premise as being "lazy".

Nate Boss of Project:Blu criticized the premise as well, writing that the episode was "just a couple jokes thrown together" rather than a complete story.

Writing for Blu-ray.com, Casey Broadwater described the episode as being "just plain dull".

However, Colin Jacobson of DVD Movie Guide praised the episode as "offer[ing] good laughs" and wrote that, while the episode was not "brilliant", it was overall "an enjoyable experience."

Giving the episode a positive review as well, Ron Martin of 411Mania described the episode as being "easily one of the best of the season".

title: The Lastest Gun in the West


text:
User talk:Theodosias

Welcome!
Hello, Theodosias, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  15:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :)

 * No problem! :) Have fun editing. Regards, Sango  123  15:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Changes
So, when will you start considering to make changes in "Alternative views..." article? Have you read the articles from the links I put above? How can I upload video footages and pictures so you can include them as part of the article? Regads, Theodosias

 * I cannot make any changes to the article as it is protected from editing. I don't have any more powers around here than you do. You need to convince an administrator to unprotect the page, and only then can it can be changed. It will help if you can quote a change that you wish to make.
 * Read the picture tutorial, mentioned at the top of the page, to learn how to include pictures in articles. The other links in Sango123's welcome message will also help you to understand this place. Read Uploading images to find out how to upload pictures. We do not carry videos, and we are serious about copyright laws.
 * Finally, if you want that the article is changed, you should be prepared to do the work yourself. My primary interest is mathematics.
 * Hope this helps, Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Have you read the articles? If you had, I'd like to hear your opinion. I cannot convince administrators on my own, I need help of someone who is neutral because I cannot be considered neutral since I am a Serb. Anyway, I don't see the reason why we shouldn't include related articles because most of it is not written by Serbs and I think we shouldn't doubt in its neutrality. I'm not talking about editing the whole article. I just want to make changes in the part that relates to alternative views. Theodosias

You've forced me to put some of the pictures here. Will someone finally pay attention?

Theodosias

I strongly suggest you remove the pictures again. They generate a lot of ill-will towards you and don't help your case. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have removed pictures from Srebrenica massacre talk page but I won't remove them from here until someone pay attention. Do you have any proposal how to "help my case"? Why the pictures generate a lot of ill-will towards me? Picures are real, that DID happen, and I don't see the difference between showing them or that video footage on Srebrenica massacre page, which actually did not happen in Srebrenica. But who cares. Give people blood, give them a good story and they'll believe whatever you want. I've mentioned that I have some video material before. Would you like me to show it? Does anyone care anyway? What people have we become? Etnic cleansing of 250,000 Serbs in Krajina has never quallified for genocide.
 * Quote:"It is notable that the ICTY has never called the Croat ethnic cleansing of 250,000 Krajina Serbs "genocide" although in that case, many women and children were killed and  the ethnic cleansing applied to a larger area and larger victim population than in Srebrenica. (On August 10, 1995, Madeleine Albright cried out to the Security Council that "as many as 13,000 men, women and children were driven from their homes" in Srebrenica.) Perhaps the ICTY had accepted Richard Holbrooke's designation of the Krajina as a case of  "involuntary expulsions." The bias is blatant; the politicization of a purported judicial enterprise is extreme."

I also said that I have list of Serbian civilans killed during the war in Bosnia. And I'm going to show you for sure when time comes. Could you direct me to someone I might talk about this actual problem? Thanks. Theodosias

 * Im one of the mediation people, familiar with dispute resolution. Your point is probably well understood by various parties, but youre expressing it in a manner that is neither sufficiently constructive nor civil to be take as authoritative or even NPOV. Simply adding photos makes you appear to be a sensationalist "POV warrior" out to make a point rather than to be of help to Wikipedia. Please do not use such photos on talk pages again, and begin your work here by finding consensus to add material to the appropriate articles. -SV|t 03:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Srebrenica Research Group report
Here's the conclusions Srebrenica Research Group (SRG) have made about their report. Unfortunately, I couln't find full text of report on web pages.

 * Conclusions of Srebrenica Research Group

Following three years of research as a group and many more as individuals, the Srebrenica Research Group reports the following conclusions:

1. Both the scale of the casualties at Srebrenica and the context of events have been misrepresented in official reports from governmental and non-governmental organizations as well as news organizations. Senior UN military and civilian officials, NATO intelligence officers and independent intelligence analysts dispute the official portrayal of the capture of Srebrenica by the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia, (ICTY) as a unique atrocity in the Bosnian conflict. The contention that as many as 8,000 Muslims were killed has no basis in available evidence and is essentially a political construct.

2. The 8,000 figure was first provided by the Red Cross, based on their crude estimate that the Bosnian Serb Army (BSA) had captured 3,000 men and that 5,000 were reported "missing." It is well established that thousands of those "missing" had reached Tuzla or were killed in the fighting, but in an amazing transformation displaying the eagerness to find the Bosnian Serbs evil and the Muslims victims, the "reaching safety/killed-in-action" basis of being missing was ignored and the missing were taken as executed! This misleading conclusion was helped along by the Red Cross's reference to the 5,000 as having "simply disappeared," and its failure to correct this politically biased usage despite its own recognition that "several thousand" refugees had reached Central Bosnia. It was also helped along by the Bosnian Muslim leadership's refusal to disclose the names and numbers of those reaching safety, but there was a remarkable readiness in Western governments not only to ignore those reaching safety, but also to disregard deaths in fighting and to take dead bodies as proving executions. The will to believe here was limitless: reporter David Rohde saw a bone sticking up in a grave site near Srebrenica, which he just knew by instinct was a remnant of an execution and serious evidence of a "massacre." It was standard media practice to move from an asserted and unproven claim of thousands missing, or a report of the uncovering of  bodies in a grave site, to the conclusion that the claim of  8,000 executed  was thereby demonstrated.

3. With 8,000 executed and thousands killed in the fighting, there should have been huge grave sites and satellite evidence of both executions, burials, and any body removals. But the body searches in the Srebrenica vicinity were painfully disappointing, with only some two thousand bodies found in searches through 2001, including bodies killed in action and possibly Serb bodies, some pre-dating July 1995. The sparseness of these findings led to claims of body removal and reburial, but this was unconvincing as the Bosnian Serbs were under intense military pressure after July 1995. This was the period when NATO was bombing Serb positions and Croat/Muslim armies were driving towards Banja Luka. The BSA was on the defensive and was extremely short of equipment and resources, including gasoline. To have mounted an operation of the magnitude required to exhume, transport and rebury thousands of corpses would have been far beyond the BSA's capacity at that time. Furthermore, in carrying out such a program they could hardly hope to escape observation from OSCE personnel, local civilians, and satellite observations.

4. On August 10, 1995, Madeleine Albright showed some satellite photos at a closed session of the Security Council, as part of a denunciation of the Bosnian Serbs, including one photo showing people--allegedly Bosnian Muslims near Srebrenica--assembled in a stadium, and one allegedly taken shortly thereafter showing a nearby field with "disturbed" soil. These photos have never been publicly released, but even if they are genuine they don't prove either executions or burials. Furthermore, although the  ICTY speaks of  "an organized and comprehensive effort" to hide bodies, and David Rohde claimed a "huge Serb effort to hide bodies," neither Albright nor anyone else has ever shown a satellite photo of  people actually being executed, buried, or dug up for reburial, or of trucks conveying thousands of bodies elsewhere. This failure to provide evidence occurred despite Albright's warning the Serbs that "We will be watching," and with satellites at that time, making at least eight passes per day and geostationary drones able to hover and take finely detailed pictures in position over Bosnia during the summer of 1995. The mainstream media have found this failure to confirm of no interest.

5. There have been a great many bodies gathered at Tuzla, some 7,500 or more, from all across Bosnia, many in poor condition or parts only, their collection and handling incompatible with professional forensic standards, their provenance unclear and link to the July 1995 events in Srebrenica unproven and often unlikely, and the manner of  their death usually uncertain. Interestingly, although the Serbs were regularly accused of trying to hide bodies, there has never been any suggestion that the Bosnian Muslims, long in charge of the body search, might shift bodies around and otherwise manipulate evidence, despite their substantial record of  dissembling. A systematic attempt to use DNA to trace connections to Srebrenica is underway, but entails many problems, apart from that of the integrity of the material studied and process of investigation, and will not resolve the question of differentiating executions from deaths in combat. There are also lists of missing, but these lists are badly flawed, with duplications, individuals listed who had died before July 1995, who fled to avoid Bosnian Muslim Army service, or who registered to vote in 1997, and they include individuals who died in battle or reached safety or were captured and assumed a new existence elsewhere.

6. The 8,000 figure is also incompatible with the basic arithmetic of Srebrenica numbers before and after July 1995. Displaced persons from Srebrenica--that is, massacre survivors-- registered with the World Health Organization and Bosnian government in early August 1995, totalled 35,632. Muslim men who reached Muslim lines "without their families being informed" totaled at least 3,000, and  some 2,000 were killed in the fighting. That gives us 37,632 survivors plus the 2,000 combat deaths, which would require the prewar population of Srebrenica to have been 48,000 if 8,000 were executed, whereas the population before July was more like 37-40,000 (Tribunal judge Patricia Wald gave 37,000 as her estimate). The numbers don't add up.

7. There were witnesses to killings at Srebrenica, or those who claimed to be witnesses. There were not many of these, and some had a political axe to grind or were otherwise not credible, but several were believable and were very likely describing real and ugly events. But the available evidence indicates hundreds of executions, not 8,000 or anything close to it. The only direct participant witness claim that ran to a thousand was that of Drazen Erdemovic, an ethnic Croat associated with a mercenary group of killers whose members were paid 12 kilos of gold for their Bosnian service (according to Erdemovic himself) and ended up working in the Congo on behalf of French intelligence. His testimony was accepted despite its vagueness and inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and his suffering from mental problems sufficient to disqualify him from trial--but not from testifying before the Tribunal, free of cross-examination. within two weeks of this disqualification from trial. This and other witness evidence suffered from serious abuse of the plea-bargaining process whereby witnesses could receive mitigating sentences if they cooperated sufficiently with the prosecution.

It is also noteworthy how many relatively impartial observers in or near Srebrenica in July 1995 didn't see any evidence of massacres, including the members of the Dutch forces present in the "safe area" and people like Hubert Wieland, the chief UN investigator of human rights abuses, who could find no eyewitnesses to atrocities after five days of interviewing among the 20,000 Srebrenica survivors gathered at the Tuzla airport refugee camp. Carlos Martins Branco, former UN Deputy Director of UNMO (UN Monitors) in Bosnia, who debriefed UN monitors assigned to Srebrenica, writes that casualty estimates of 8,000 have been “used and manipulated for propaganda purposes…there is little doubt that at least 2,000 Bosnian Muslims died in fighting the better trained and better commanded BSA “ in three years of fierce fighting. This is roughly the number of bodies (2,028) which were exhumed by the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the region by the year 2001. Many of these deaths occurred before the fall of Srebrenica, according to Branco.

8. The events of Srebrenica and claims of a major massacre were extremely helpful to the Clinton administration, the Bosnian Muslim leadership, and Croatian authorities. Clinton was under political pressure in 1995 both from the media and from Bob Dole to take more forceful action in favor of the Bosnian Muslims, and his administration was eager to find a justification for more aggressive policies. Clinton officials rushed to the Srebrenica scene to confirm and publicize the claims of a massacre, just as William Walker did later at Racak in January 1999. By inflating the casualties following the capture of Srebrenica, US officials also diverted attention from larger-scale, US-supported Croatian attacks on Serb populated UN Protected Areas (UNPAs) in Western Slavonia (“Operation Flash”) and the Krajina region (“Operation Storm”) in May and August of 1995. Having undermined a UN-European Community agreement that would have prevented the outbreak of war (the March 1992 Lisbon agreement) and two other negotiated settlements (the Vance-Owen and the Owen-Stoltenberg agreements) which would have ended the fighting in 1993, US State Department hardliners were committed to imposing a military solution, that prolonged the war till 1995.

By facilitating the illegal transfer of weapons to Bosnian Muslim forces and turning a blind eye toward the entry of foreign Mujahadeen fighters, the US turned supposed safe zones for civilians into staging areas for conflict and a tripwire for NATO intervention. Dr. Cees Wiebes who authored the chapter on military intelligence in the Dutch government report on Srebrenica, notes that the US Defense Intelligence Agency facilitated the transfer of illegal arms from Muslim countries to the Tuzla airport using black Hercules C-130 transport planes and arranged for gaps in air surveillance by AWACs which were supposed to guard against such illegal arms traffic. Along with these weapons came Mujahadeen fighters from both Iranian Shiite training camps and al-Qaeda, including two of the hijackers involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Khaled Sheik Mohammed who helped plan the attack. Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Ladin, himself, was issued a Bosnian passport by the Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Vienna in 1993, according to the Bosnian Muslim publication Dani. Bin-Ladin was observed on two occasions at the office of Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic.

9. Both US and US-appointed ICTY officials acknowledged political considerations in issuing genocide indictments, which were announced prior to an investigation of events surrounding the capture of Srebrenica. On July 24, 1995 the UN’s chief investigator (for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights) Henry Wieland, who had spoken to scores of Muslims at the main refugee camp at Tuzla airfield told the London Daily Telegraph “we have not found anyone who saw with their own eyes an atrocity taking place.” Three days, later, however, the ICTY issued indictments charging Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. In news accounts reports of July 27, ICTY Chief Judge Antonio Cassesse praised the indictments as “a good political result” and added that the indictment means that “these gentlemen [Mladic and Karadzic] will not be able to take part in peace negotiations.” The Boston Globe reported the same day: “The Clinton Administration has not obtained independent confirmation of atrocities [at Srebrenica],” but does not doubt that these occurred “I realized that the War Crimes Tribunal was a very valuable tool,” Richard Holbrooke told the BBC. “We used it to keep the two most wanted war criminals in Europe out of the Dayton process and we used it to justify everything that followed.”

10. Bosnian Muslim leaders had  been struggling for several years to persuade the NATO powers to intervene more forcibly on their behalf, and there is strong evidence that they were prepared not only to lie but also to sacrifice their own citizens and soldiers to serve the end of inducing intervention. Bosnian Muslim officials have claimed that their leader, Alija Izetbegovic, told them that Clinton had advised him that U.S. intervention would only occur if the Serbs killed at least 5,000 at Srebrenica. The abandonment of Srebrenica by a military force much larger than that of the attackers,  and a retreat that made that larger force vulnerable and caused it to suffer heavy casualties in fighting and vengeance executions, helped produce numbers that would meet the Clinton criterion, by hook or by crook. There is other evidence that the retreat from Srebrenica was not based on any military necessity but was strategic, with the personnel losses incurred considered a necessary sacrifice for a larger purpose. On July 9, 1995, two days before Bosnian Serbs had captured the nearly empty town of Srebrenica and before any serious fighting had taken place, President Izetbegovic was already calling President Clinton and other world leaders urging them to take action against “terrorism” and “genocide” by Bosnian Serb Forces. This was part of an ongoing pattern in which charges of mass rape, death camps, staged atrocities were used to manipulate public opinion in favor of military intervention.

Military sources confirm that the 5,500 strong Muslim military force in Srebrenica made no effort to defend Srebrenica against 200 Serbian troops supported by five tanks. Tim Ripley, a military analyst for Janes’ Defense publications notes that Muslim forces fled from Srebrenica to the surrounding hills before Serbs captured the nearly empty town. He writes that Dutch troops “saw Bosnian troops escaping from Srebrenica move past their observation points carrying brand new anti-tank weapons, still in their plastic wrappings. This, and other similar reports, made many UN officers and international journalists suspicious.” Former Deputy Director of UNMO (UN Monitors) Carlos Martins Branco who debriefed the UN monitors who served in Srebrenica, writes: “Muslim forces did not even try to take advantage of their heavy artillery, under control of the United Nations (UN) forces at a time in which they had every reason to do so … Military resistance would jeopardize the image of ‘victim’, which had been so carefully constructed, and which the Muslims considered vital to maintain.”   Lt Col British Lt.-Col. Jim Baxter, assistant to UN Commander Rupert Smith, told Tim Ripley “They [the Bosnian government] knew what was happening in Srebrenica. I am certain they decided it was worth the sacrifice.”

Muslim leaders from Srebrenica claim that the town was deliberately “sacrificed” by the Presidency of the Bosnia and the Military High Command in order to encourage NATO intervention. In their testimony before the Hague Tribunal, Bosnian Muslim Generals Halilovic and Hadzihasanovic testified that General Staff of the Bosnian Army abruptly removed 18 top officers of the 28th division in Srebrenica. This was done even as the high command was ordering sabotage operations against Bosnian Serbs. One of these was a militarily meaningless attack on a strategically unimportant nearby Serb village of Visnica. The final operation was an attack on Bosnian Serb Army units on the road south of Srebrenica, just days before the Serbs captured the nearly undefended town.

Ibran Mustafic, the head of the Muslim SDA party in Srebrenica, who had clashed with local Bosnian Muslim military commander Naser Oric, and was badly wounded in two assassination attempts, told Slobodna Bosna: “The scenario for the betrayal of Srebrenica was consciously prepared. Unfortunately the Bosnian presidency and the Army command were involved in this business … Had I received orders to attack the Serb army from the demilitarized zone, I would have rejected to carry out that order without thinking and would have asked the person who had issued that order to bring his family to Srebrenica so that I can give him a gun let him stage attacks from the demilitarized zone. I knew that such shameful, calculated moves were leading my people to catastrophe. The order came from Sarajevo”

In his book Warriors for Peace, Bernard Kouchner, former head of Doctors Without Borders, states that on his death bed, Bosnia’s wartime president, Alija Izetbegovic, acknowledged to both Kouchner and former UN envoy Richard Holbrooke that he had exaggerated claims of atrocities by Serbian forces to encourage NATO intervention against the Serbs. Specifically he mentions wartime POW camps that all three factions in the Bosnian civil war utilized, but which his government claimed in 1992 were really "death camps," a charge which was widely publicized by reporters such as Newsday's Roy Gutman (who shared a Pulitzer prize for this story) and ABC anchor Peter Jennings. Izetbegovic admitted to Kouchner and Holbrooke that "There were no extermination camps, whatever the horror of those places. I thought my revelations [sic] would precipitate bombing [against Serbs]."

11. Croatian authorities were also delighted with the claims of a Srebrenica massacre, as this deflected attention from their prior devastating ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Western Slavonia (almost entirely ignored by the Western media), and it provided a cover for their already planned removal of several hundred thousand Serbs from the Krajina area in Croatia. In “Operation Flash,” carried out in Western Slavonia in May 1995, the Croatians did not provide safe passage for a huge column of Serb refugees, which included many women and children. “Many Serbs perished in heavy Croatian tank, artillery and aerial bombardments …as they tried to flee southward toward the Sava River bridge into Bosnia,” wrote New York Times reporter Roger Cohen, who noted that “the estimate of 450 Serbian dead, given by Gojko Susak, the Croatian Defense Minister appears to be conservative.” The followup massive ethnic cleansing operation by Croatia in Krajina was carried out with U.S. approval and logistical support within a month of the Srebrenica events, and it may well have involved the killing of more Serb civilians than Bosnian Muslim civilians killed in the Srebrenica area in July: most of the Bosnian Muslim victims were fighters, not civilians, as the Bosnian Serbs bused the Srebrenica women and children to safety; here as in Western Slavonia the Croatians made no such provision and many women, children and old people were slaughtered in Krajina. The ruthlessness of the Croats was impressive: "UN troops watched horrified as Croat soldiers dragged the bodies of  dead Serbs along the road outside the UN compound and then pumped them full of rounds from the AK-47s. They then crushed the bullet-ridden bodies under the tracks of a tank." But this was hardly noticed in the wake of the indignation and propaganda generated around Srebrenica, with the aid of the mainstream media, whose co-belligerency role in the Balkan wars was already well-entrenched.

12. The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and UN also had an important role to play in the consolidation of the standard Srebrenica massacre narrative. From its inception the ICTY served as an arm of the NATO powers, who created it, funded it, served as its police arm and main information source, and expected and got responsive service from the organization. The ICTY focused intensively on Srebrenica and provided important and nominally independent corroboration of the massacre claims along with citable "judicial" claims of planned "genocide." Although the death toll in Operations “Flash” and “Storm” is believed to be in the thousands, in contrast with its treatment of  Srebrenica, but in keeping with its role as a political instrument of NATO, no genocide indictments were issued by the ICTY for these ethnic cleansing operations and massacres.

13. The UN is less thoroughly integrated into NATO-power demands than the ICTY, but it is highly responsive, and in the Srebrenica case, it came through just as the United States and its main allies desired. Under pressure from the US, the UN employed a double standard for reporting alleged abuses by Serb forces as compared with comparable abuses by Croatian Muslim forces. Between May of 1992 and April of 1993, scarcely a day went by without massacres and scorched earth attacks by Muslim warlord Naser Oric on towns and villages such as Sikirici, Konjevic Polje, Glogova, Zalazje, Fakovici, Kaludra, Loznica, Fakovici, Brezani, Krnica, Zagoni, Orlice, Jezhtica, Bijlaca, Crni Vhr, Milici, Kamenica, Bjelovac, Kravica, Skelani and Zabokvica. "Naser Oric was a warlord who reigned by terror in this area and over the population itself," General Phillippe Morillon testified at the Hague Tribunal. "He could not allow himself to take prisoners. According to my recollection, he didn't even look for an excuse.” Oric’s forces are responsible for 1,200-1,500 deaths in the Srebrenica area.

Yet, despite extensive evidence of Oric’s direct participation in such atrocities in a report submitted to the UN by the Yugoslav State Commission on War Crimes, the US State Department, the UN and major news organizations were largely silent on these crimes. UN Security Council resolutions to condemn abuses by Muslim forces or Croatian forces were routinely thwarted by threatened veto from Madeleine Albright. The report on Oric was submitted to the UN Commission of Experts on War Crimes, whose chairman Cherif Bassiouni was appointed by Ambassador Albright, but Oric was not even mentioned in the final report of the Commission. When the ICTY finally got around to indicting Nasir Oric on March 28, 2003, very possibly to create the image of judicial balance, he was charged with killing only seven Serbs who were tortured and beaten to death after capture, and with the "wanton destruction" of nearby villages. Although he bragged to Western reporters of slaughtering Serb civilians, the ICTY reportedly "found no evidence that there were civilian casualties in the attacks on Serb villages in his theater of operations."

Former NATO Deputy Commander Charles Boyd, who was in charge of intelligence assessments, wrote in Foreign Affairs that the Croatian attack on the UN Protected Serb-inhabited area of Western Bosnia, which preceded the capture of Srebrenica “appears to differ from Serbian actions around the UN safe areas of Srebrenica and Zepa only in the degree of Western hand-wringing and CNN footage the latter have elicited. Ethnic cleansing evokes condemnation only when it is committed by Serbs, not against them.”

14. Another anomaly also showing the sacred, untouchable, and politicized character of the Srebrenica massacre in Western ideology has been the ready designation of the killings as a case of "genocide." The Tribunal played an important role here, with hard-to-match gullibility, unrestrained psychologizing, problematic legal reasoning, and the ready acceptance of trial testimony by prosecution witnesses who committed perjury as part of plea bargains (most notably, Drazen Erdemovic and Momir Nikolic). The term genocide, once reserved for the most horrific crime, the planned extermination of a particular group, was manipulated by the ICTY to justify indictments that preceded any serious investigation of events related to the capture of Srebrenica.

On gullibility, one Tribunal judge accepted as fact the witness claim that Serb soldiers had forced an old Muslim man to eat the liver of his grandson; and the judges repeatedly stated as an established fact that 7-8,000 Muslim men had been executed, while simultaneously acknowledging that the evidence only "suggested" that "a majority" of the 7-8,000 missing had not been killed in combat, which yields a number substantially lower than 7-8,000. The Tribunal dealt with the awkward problem of the genocide-intent Serbs bussing Bosnian Muslim women and children to safety by arguing that they did this for public relations reasons, but as Michael Mandel points out, failing to do some criminal act despite your desire is called "not committing a crime." The Tribunal never asked why the genocidal Serbs failed to surround the town before its capture to prevent thousands of males from escaping to safety, or why the Bosnian Muslim soldiers were willing to leave their women and children as well as many wounded comrades to the mercies of the Serbs; and they failed to confront the fact that 10,000 mainly Muslim residents of Zvornik sought refugee from the civil war in Serbia itself, as prosecution witness Borisav Jovic testified.

Among the other weaknesses in the Tribunal judges' argument, it was genocide if you killed many males in a group in order to reduce the future population of that group, thereby making it unviable in that area. Of course, you might want to kill them to prevent their killing you in the future, but the court knows Serb psychology better--that couldn't be the sole reason, there must have been a more sinister aim. The Tribunal reasoning holds forth the possibility that with only a little prosecution-friendly judicial psychologizing any case of killing enemy soldiers can be designated genocide.

There is also the problem of definition of the group. Were the Serbs trying to eliminate all the Muslims in Bosnia, or Muslims globally? Or just in Srebrenica? The judges suggested that pushing them out of the Srebrenica area was itself genocide, and they essentially equated genocide with ethnic cleansing. It is notable that the ICTY has never called the Croat ethnic cleansing of 250,000 Krajina Serbs "genocide" although in that case, many women and children were killed and  the ethnic cleansing applied to a larger area and larger victim population than in Srebrenica. (On August 10, 1995, Madeleine Albright cried out to the Security Council that "as many as 13,000 men, women and children were driven from their homes" in Srebrenica.) Perhaps the ICTY had accepted Richard Holbrooke's designation of the Krajina as a case of "involuntary expulsions." The bias is blatant; the politicization of a purported judicial enterprise is extreme.

15. Media treatment of the Srebrenica and Krajina cases followed the same pattern and illustrates well how the media make some victims worthy and others unworthy in accord with a political agenda. With the Serbs their government's target, and their government actively aiding the massive Croat ethnic cleansing program in Krajina, the media gave huge and indignant treatment to the first, with invidious language, calls for action, and little context. With Krajina, attention was slight and passing, indignation was absent, detailed reporting on the condition of the victims was minimal, descriptive language was neutral, and there was context offered that made the events understandable. The contrast is dramatic: the attack on Srebrenica "chilling," "murderous," "savagery," "cold-blooded killing," "genocidal," "aggression," and of course "ethnic cleansing." With Krajina, the media used no such strong language--even ethnic cleansing was too much for them. The Croat assault was merely a big "upheaval"  that is "softening up the enemy," "a lightning offensive," explained away  as a "response to Srebrenica" and a result of  Serb leaders "overplaying their hand." The Washington Post even cited U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith saying the "the Serb exodus was not 'ethnic cleansing'." The paper does not allow a challenge to that judgment. In fact, however, the Croat operations in Krajina left Croatia as the most ethnically purified of all the former components of the former Yugoslavia, although the NATO occupation of Kosovo has allowed an Albanian ethnic cleansing that is rivalling that of Croatia in ethnic purification.

Many journalists covering Srebrenica and the Bosnian war consistently accepted Bosnian and US government pronouncements as fact instead of independently verifying evidence. U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel John Sray, on the scene in Bosnia, wrote in October 1995 on “Selling the Bosnian Myth: Buyer Beware,” that while “many journalists, who undeniably labor under dangerous and miserable conditions… have permitted themselves to become pawns of the propaganda structure….These correspondents frequently limit their time in Bosnia to short stays and fail to gain an appreciation for the true nuances at play in this war. Watching and reading their reports too often conveys the impression that they feel the pressure of competition for a voyeuristic audience against their pampered tabloid-like peers (such as those who covered the O.J. Simpson trial) and try to react accordingly. This segment of the media views its job security as dependent upon obtaining thirty seconds of good video footage accompanied with appropriate sound bites from Muslim officials or their populace. The result, obviously, becomes tawdry reporting that panders to the Bosniac point of view and results in misleading news reports.”

Obviously, this characterization does not describe all the coverage of the conflict or events around Srebrenica, but it describes the long-standing mainstream perspective and serves to remind us that ten years later, a highly skewed version of what happened at Srebrenica dominates public perceptions, and may influence decisions now being made about the fate of Kosovo and Bosnia.

An understanding of the events surrounding Srebrenica may also determine if the Serbs will continue to bear the brunt of the blame for the tragic conflict that occurred when the major powers -- the EU, the United States and the UN -- encouraged the breakup of Yugoslavia through diplomatic recognition of armed separatist states, despite the warning of UN Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar. Compounding this error, the US, the most important member state of the UN, then helped prolong the conflict by taking sides, instead of permitting the UN to act as an honest broker, its traditional role, which was repeatedly undermined during its mission in the former Yugoslavia.

Finally to the point
Let me make my point. I'm realy senitive and getting all of this very peronaly because it hurts when I read about lies even in the alternative theses of what there happened. Even that texh indicates and suggests the "supreme truth" seen by ITCY. Well, there are a lot of people that doubt in the official story, which btw has never been proven because 7,800 men are considered missing but in their original research SRG noticed many of them on votes lists at the last elections in Bosnia so as many duplicate names. Also, they stated many of bodies found were killed in the combat and that they were not civilians! Please read the text and then we will discuss. Regards Theodosias 09:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * OK. I did not read all of that report, I simply formatted it more properly, (indents make boxed code-text=bad format). Why did I not read it? Because you can speak for yourself, and quoting some report doesnt answer the question of your conduct here. And I dont really have time ATM to aquire new research projects. (You should add that full report to http://www.wikisource.org ) Clearly both the above report and the UC-led commissions represent different points of view, both of which can be called "biased." And because your'e no doubt a Serb its natural that your opinions are likewise Serb-oriented. The recent footage showing a Serb massacre of Muslims must have likewise been upsetting to you. But again, wikipedia isnt a place to vent grievances, and grievances simply make you marginalized. If you have an interest in representing your view of history, toward the goal of making articles less biased, then you are most welcome here. Bias is always a tricky issue, and none of us are immune to it. So, instead of hearing reports and facts, etc. I'd like to hear you comment on what your ideas are for improving the related Wikipedia articles. Sinreg, -SV|t 15:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for formatting the report, I'm still new here and still haven't explored all Wikipedia features. I made proposal to Jitse Niesen (but he seemed more interested in math than in history) to erase "Alternative views and massacre theses" part from "Srebrenica massacre" page because it is very "biased" as you say and doesn't actually represent different points of view. You can read alternative views in that report, so as from many other articles from the links I put on "Srebrenica massacre" talk page. If you agree (or someone who should agree) I can write a new article according to that sources and show you, before we decide whether to include it in Wikipedia or not.

The fact that I'm a Serb doesn't change things a lot. If someone give me the proves, solid enough that "genocide" or "massacre" in Srebrenica did happen, I'll apologize. But it's much more like that it never happened according to the informations I have so as many other people all over the world who are not Serbs and who are not compromised by U.S or Serbian propaganda. If you agree I'll try to write the article in next few days and include links to all referent sources. And btw, footage of execution of 6 men doesn't prove anything and it didn't happen in Srebrenica, it happened in Trnovo and not in 1995 but in 1994. And everyone cried when seen that footage how it's the most brutal footage they've ever seen. . And what if I show you Muslim extremists cutting throat to captured Serbian soldiers after they tortured him? When you hear Croat soldier confessing that his mate was wearing necklace made out of children fingers how would that make you feel? Pretty biased... Theodosias 16:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the fact is that war sucks —all around. Wars are always claimed to be simple solutions, which erupt into madness, evil, and destruction, and your country's warfare was no different. So, while Im sympathetic to "alternate" views of history, such as you propose, they must all be placed in proportion and within the context of consensus. Now, the way to approach this on wikipedia is to be precise with your language, with your facts, and with your citations, and with your reasoning. Naturally someone opposed to your view will claim that you and your sources are intrinsically biased. Its thus important that you be more rational, more thorough, and more knowledgeble on the views from all sides and the various details. Simply pushing a view does not work. Your view has to be substantiated, and you must defend that view with both sharp, consistent, and critical focus, as well as civility, collegiality, patience, and an open mind. Welcome to Wikipedia, where anyone can edit any article, but only those edits which are agreeable to the most number of people will persist. Sinreg, SV|t 05:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the fact is that war sucks I agree. I never wanted that war to happen. And things aren't quite simple as they seem, there isn't such thing as "goog guys" and the "bad guys". War is crime by its definition. But we must be rational when judging and know the history and the reasons for the begining of that war. That war DID NOT occure because "Serbs dreamed about Great Serbia". The reasons are much more complex.That's what I a want to change. And you can't say for the sources I rely that are currupted or biased. Theodosias

Storm etc
I'll respond here because we're offtopic for Talk:Srebrenica massacre.

You're missing the point. The Operation Storm article clearly says how many people were found dead, how many went missing, and how many fled. It's quite apparent that there was a lot of disorder after the Croatian army started making way for civilian institutions which didn't appear soon enough (first and foremost the police), and there was a fair number of people killed as retribution or simply for criminal reasons. The number from the Veritas organization was something like 1,700 when I last pasted it into the article.

However, the vast majority of people did not flee because someone held them at gunpoint, but because they were afraid, or because they didn't want to live in Croatia (meaning Croatia controlled by the national government), or both. Most of them picked up all of their mobile belongings, loaded it into cars, tractor trailers and whatever other vehicles, and went on the road to Serbia and elsewhere. It's those people who number in tens or hundreds of thousands, and they were not killed or expelled.

Their fear may have been legitimate to a point, and they certainly shouldn't have been booed at or thrown rocks at (or in one incident as said in the article, even bombarded) on their way out, but that's a whole different thing than to say that all of them were expelled or killed. Relatively few other people stayed, but some did and were not harmed, and the peaceful reintegration of eastern Slavonia in 1997/1998 proved that most people population can go unharmed. Most of the Croatian Serbs have since returned at least briefly to their homes in former RSK and many decided to come back because they no longer feel it's unsafe. (Other problems arose inbetween, such as the Bosnian refugees, but that is being resolved. We have a discussion about that at Demographics of Croatia.)

That's why I think it's disingenuous to talk of expulsion and killing of the entire population. Sure, there were most probably some people in Croatia who wished for this to happen. But they didn't get their way, nor will they ever, hopefully. --Joy [shallot]   11:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You talk like that people had choise... They had no choise...

javi se...
javi se na oldadamm@yahoo.com hitno i vazno --Oldadamml 07:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Да ли си сигуран да си добро написао мејл јер сам неколико пута покушао да ти пошаљем али ми је сваки пут враћен уз обавештење да адреса не постоји? Theodosias

Ispravka oldadamml@yahoo.com --Oldadamml 11:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre
Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ktoto 11:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

And what's not cosidered vandalism, adding propaganda to the article? I clearly stated why I removed the text from the article. Theodosias

 * You might want to give an edit summary - I saw your blanking, and assumed it was vandalism too. Dan100 (Talk) 12:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

By changing the caption of the text from "Revisionism and dennial of genocide" to "Controversy" you do nothing good, suggestion of the text still remains the same: anything else than text written above is lie and that's why I can't let this text to be published in Wikipedia. I gave reasons for deleating the part of the text on its discussion page. Theodosias 12:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Improve it, not delete. If there is a dispute as to some facts, make it clear and explain the alternative version. Ktoto 13:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't improve something that's written bad. I hope you agree with me that text is being used just to prove that genocide did happened and not to present alternative opinions. If you want to read materials I plan to use to create a new "Alternative views" section check http://www.srebrenica-report.com/Theodosias

 * Actually, I've read the SRG page and you may have noticed that I've included the link to their page in the article. However the SRG claims do not seem really convincing, they don't explain anything and tend to focus on criticizing the official research instead of trying to document the facts. They don't even make the full report available online (why ?). I'm sorry but it seems really dubious so far. Ktoto 15:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The full report is made on more than 200 pages with evidences and facts, what you read is just conclusions made on this material. The full repor, however would be almost imposible to include in Wikipedia. Theodosias

 * Yes, it's a pity they do not make the report freely available on the Internet. That would improve its credibility. 200 pages does not seem much for a report like this. So far it seems obvious, regardles of whose version we assume, that Bosnian Serbs violated the UN safe zone of Srebrenica and their army entered it. Whatever happened next is obviously their responsibility, regardless of whether the number of civilians killed by them was 700 or 7000. It's also clear that UN proved completely incapable of securing the secure zone in the first place. Ktoto 20:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious that Srebrenica "demilitarized zone" was not demilitarazed at all and that there were about 5,500 Muslim fighters heavily armed, and not "poorly armed" "some with hunting rifles" as stated in the article. Number of victims is important indeed, as is important whether they were fighters who died in combat or in executions or they were civilians. Idea of siedge of Srebrenica that lasted 3 years is so foolish that I can't even think about it. Oric's troops slaughtered more than 3,000 people in villages around Srebrenica during that period. That changes a lot of things. Theodosias

Image Tagging Image:Mujahedeen .jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mujahedeen .jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

hi Theodosias (re Srebrenica)
Hi Theodosias,

You still around? Was reading through the Srebrenica Massacre talk-page archives and thought your comments were impressive.

The article is still a nightmare (probably worse now than when you were editing it!) but I just wanted to let you know about a new project to possibly re-write it (also I saw you mention that you had begun the same thing; what happened with that?) Anyway, it's over at Osli's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73) under the section titled 'Trimming' near the bottom of the page. Cheers Jonathanmills 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Theodosias


text:
Talk:Cosimo I de' Medici

Peer Review II
This is a great article on a relevant historical figure. In my opinion, the article's strongest feature is the variety of techniques used to inform the reader. There are images of paintings, charts, and text that make the article visually appealing and easy to read. Also, the article does a good job of serving as a connector -- there are internal links throughout, external links listed at the bottom, redirection links, and even a "See Also" section for similar articles. There is an adequate amount of sources listed, both as footnotes and as listed references at the bottom of the article. However, the article would be improved with a little more information on Cosimo I's historical significance. What is listed leaves little room for subjectivity (which is good), but it doesn't really give me an idea of why he's important. Maybe you could include a sentence or two in the lede of his most famous accomplishments/historical significance. Also, a sentence or two on his position, Grand Duke of Tuscany, would be helpful -- what does one do, why was he the first, how much power does the position hold, etc. For the most part though, this is a well-rounded article that is visually appealing and informational. Sscline (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

^^ Great review and suggestions, if you don't mind me adding to your proposed "historical significance" section. After being named the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosimo I's reduction the Florentine guilds (from 14 to 4, I believe) significantly reduced the political power of the guilds and opened Florentine trade to the rest of Tuscany. Bennett 11:40, May 15, 2013 (EST)

Issue
Don't you all think it's a bit odd that Cosimo and Eleonora had 15 children? In reality they had 8 children. they were:

Francesco Maria Isabella Giovanni Lucrezia Garzia Ferdinando Pietro

I know for sure that Bia de' Medici was an Illegitimate daugher of Cosimo, but I know nothing about the other 6 children left. The article now states that they were all children of Cosimo and Eleonora, and that's completely False. I suggest to delete them or to make a new section about illegitmate children. --82.53.56.216 15:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Why do you think the list is incorrect? You're not satsified with the Medici Archive Project as a source? They seem utterly reliable to me. I just wish we had access to the rest of their biographical data!
 * Notice how several of the children died very early; this was common in those days, and it is not surprising that the other similar children of the Medici family left no historical trace. We only know of these because the Medici left behind extensive correspondence and files.
 * Urhixidur 19:46, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

 * I've amended the list to point out the illegitimate ones.
 * Urhixidur 19:49, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

Thanks now it makes much more sense. I still disagree with the list but I must admit all my books about Medici's family are old, so you could be right about children who didn't leave historical traces and are not present on the family tree. I leave the 8 historially sure children on the issue section in the italian version of this article and when I have a bit of free time I search some informations about illegitimate children to add.--82.55.124.185 20:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion over the Strozzi. Piero was Filippo's son (Filippo was also known Giovanni Battista). It was Filippo that committed suicide in prison, but it was not in the Bargello, it was in the Fortezza da Basso. Nor is there any serious evidence that he faked his own death. Piero escaped and went on to conduct the Florence/Siena war on the side of the Sienese.

On that note, Siena was not being defended by imperial troops, the imperial troops were being held captive there.

Which downfall? Which rebellion?
The claim that Cosimo laid "the groundwork for the future dissatisfaction and rebellion that eventually brought about the downfall of his successors" contains information that is factually false. The Medici ruled Florence until 1737, when Gian Gastone died and his sister could not inherit the Duchy. At her death the line became extinguished. I may remove the sentence in the near future. Stammer 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

erased a phrase.
Though governed by a member of Hasburg-Lorraine since 1738, the grand duchy was never absorbed into the Austro-Hungarian Empire--Massimo Macconi 20:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC).)

June 15th
According to the "Medici Project", he was born on June 15th (not June 12th).

Painting attributed to Titian
I have some great doubts about this picture of Cosimo as a child - both regarding the attribution & the subject. Those ruff collars do not seem to really have come into fashion in Italy until the 1570s; in other words, at about the time when both men died (Cosimo '74; Titian '76). Even then, we only really find them on women, until the 1590s, (see for example this one of Cosimo's son, Ferdinando I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany; he was very fond of the ruff). I would suggest instead that this is Cosimo II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosimo I's grandson. Note that even as an adult he seems to share his father's fashion sense in the ruff department - it seems much more likely that this is is picture of him as a boy, rather than a very late-life reconstruction on the part of Titian. (And Titian's late portraits are much more painterly than this one, even by the 1550s and '60s.) So, I'm going to go ahead and move this picture to Cosimo II for now; but if there is referenced evidence that it is indeed Cosimo I, then we can just move it back again. Thanks! Isocephaly (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Family Tree error
The family tree represents Lorenzo de' Medici as being the great-great grandson of Cosimo 1. This is, in fact, impossible as Lorenzo de Medici died in 1492 and Cosimo 1 was born in 1519. I propose that we should remove Lorenzo de Medici from the family tree. I would do it myself, but I am not comfortable enough with editing wiki page to reliably fix the problem without messing something else up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.6.156 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Family tree error
The family tree represents Lorenzo de' Medici as being the great-great grandson of Cosimo 1. This is, in fact, impossible as Lorenzo de Medici died in 1492 and Cosimo 1 was born in 1519. I propose that we should remove Lorenzo de Medici from the family tree. I would do it myself, but I am not comfortable enough with editing wiki page to reliably fix the problem without messing something else up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.6.156 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. 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/20050425115958/http://www.medici.org/general/PhotoEssay.pdf to http://www.medici.org/general/PhotoEssay.pdf

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) 12:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Lorenzino's assassination
In the article it is claimed "he managed to have his relative Lorenzino (...) assassinated", however this is inconsistent with Lorenzino's page where it is claimed it was Charles V who ordered the murder.--Sandrobt (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cosimo I de' Medici


text:
User talk:Runciblerabbit

Welcome!
Hello, Runciblerabbit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  15:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :)

IFD
Because of the pages about the band you wrote on will be deleted, there will be some images that will need to be deleted to make room for other things. Mainly, I am putting up a vote of the CD covers you put up. They can be seen at Images_and_media_for_deletion. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Shrinkingviolet.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Shrinkingviolet.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Image Tagging Image:Invisiblekidmodern.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Invisiblekidmodern.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bouncingboy.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Bouncingboy.gif. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cosmicboy.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Cosmicboy.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 22:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bouncingboy.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Bouncingboy.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Ultraboymodern.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ultraboymodern.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Runciblerabbit


text:
The Old Man and the Key

"The Old Man and the Key" is the thirteenth episode of the thirteenth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It first aired in the United States on the Fox network on March 10, 2002. In the episode, Grampa Simpson falls in love with Zelda, a woman who has just moved into the senior home in which Grampa lives. However, Grampa is not the only one in the home who is infatuated with Zelda.

The episode was written by Jon Vitti and directed by Lance Kramer. The storyline was pitched by Vitti, who based it on an article about social status in senior homes. The episode features Olympia Dukakis as Zelda, and Bill Saluga as his television character Ray J. Johnson. The song "Ode to Branson", which was written by Vitti and composed by Alf Clausen, was submitted for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music And Lyrics in 2002, which it ultimately lost to a score from The Blue Planet. The episode was the origin of the "Old man yells at cloud" meme.

Plot
The episode begins with the Simpson family visiting Grampa after his retirement home mistakenly reports his death. An old woman named Zelda moves into his retirement home in place of the actual deceased resident. Grampa is determined to win her love over Zack, another resident who owns and drives a minivan. After renewing his driver's license, Grampa convinces Homer to let him borrow the car to romance her. Although he impresses Zelda, Homer and Marge think she is a hoochie and only likes Grampa because he can drive. After he crashes Homer's car in a drag race with a rival seniors gang, Homer becomes furious with Grampa and takes his keys away, forbidding him to drive ever again. Zelda informs Grampa that she got them tickets to a theater in Branson, Missouri, but when he tells her he does not have a car, she leaves with Zack and his minivan.

Grampa steals Marge's car and takes Bart with him on the road to Branson to win back Zelda. When realizing that Grampa and Bart are heading to Branson, Homer, Marge, Lisa, and Maggie take a bus there. At the theater, Grampa calls out to Zelda from on-stage, but then denounces her in front of everyone, who then chant to her a hoochie, forcing her to leave the stage. Grampa then reconciles with Homer.

Production
"The Old Man and the Key" was written by Jon Vitti and directed by Lance Kramer. It was first broadcast on the Fox network in the United States on March 10, 2002. The idea for the episode was pitched by Vitti, who was inspired by an article about senior homes. The article described senior homes as being a lot like high schools, in that there are popular and unpopular people, and that those who, for example, own a car are "like kings". Vitti suggested that the episode should be that "Grampa's life [is] basically like that of a teenager", with Homer acting as if he was Grampa's father. The Souvenir Jackitos, who challenge Grampa to a death race in the episode, were conceived from an observation by the writers. The writers argued that the only ones buying expensive trademarked jackets are old people who want to appear younger.

A scene in the episode shows Grampa and Bart driving to Branson with Marge's car, listening to the radio. Because the scene consists entirely of auditive gags, the Simpsons staff had difficulty figuring out what to show visually during the scene. In the DVD audio commentary for the episode, Jean explained that these scenes “get a really big laugh at the table,” but are subsequently hard for the animators. The scene makes use of a repeated background, an animation technique made famous by Hanna-Barbera in order to cut budget. The song "Ode to Branson," which is performed by several "washed-up" celebrities, was composed by Alf Clausen and written by Vitti. Even though Vitti received sole credit for writing the song, parts of the lyrics were written by Simpsons writer Carolyn Omine, which were then revised by fellow writer Matt Selman. Selman was especially satisfied with the rhyme sung by Mr. T; he stated that whenever he feels down, he thinks of that rhyme and that it "boosts [him] up inside." The episode features American actress Olympia Dukakis as Grampa's love interest Zelda. American comedian Bill Saluga also makes an appearance, as his television character Ray J. Johnson. The owner of the minivan is portrayed by series regular Hank Azaria, who imitated the voice of Clark Gable for the character.

Cultural references
The title of the episode itself is a reference of Ernest Hemingway's book The Old Man and the Sea. At the beginning of the episode, Homer is excited about the start of the (original) XFL season, unaware that the "X" didn't stand for anything and that the league itself had folded after its sole season the previous year. A scene in the episode shows Grandpa wearing a zoot suit, a suit popular in the 1940s. When Grandpa and Zelda take off on one of their dates, three old men with long beards imitate ZZ Top as a short part of "Sharp Dressed Man" is played. Grandpa's interaction with the "Souvenir Jackitos" in Apu's store mirrors a scene in the 1961 musical film West Side Story, with Grandpa and his friends taking the role of the Jets in the film, the "Souvenir Jackitos" as the Sharks, and Apu as Doc. The "Death race" on the other hand, is a reference to the 1955 drama film Rebel Without a Cause. The abandoned aqueduct, in which the death race takes place, is based on the Los Angeles River. The closing credits parody those of The Beverly Hillbillies. At the end, Lisa says in a Southern accent, "This has been a Gracie Films presentation," which parodies the line at the end of The Beverly Hillbillies, "This has been a Filmways presentation."

Release
In its original American broadcast on March 10, 2002, "The Old Man and the Key" received a 7.9 rating, according to Nielsen Media Research, translating to approximately 7.9 million viewers. The episode ranked 19 in the top 25 most watched television programs the week it aired. Later in 2002, "Ode to Branson" was nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music And Lyrics, which it ultimately lost to a score from BBC's nature documentary The Blue Planet. In 2007, the song was included on the soundtrack album The Simpsons: Testify.

Following the thirteenth season's release on DVD and Blu-ray, "The Old Man and the Key" received mixed reviews from critics.

Writing for Project:Blu, Nate Boss stated that Grampa "just isn't all that funny when cornered, and that's what we get here," and that "the jokes are a bit too few and far between". Giving the episode a negative review, Ryan Keefer of DVD Talk wrote that it was "borderline painful" and one of the season's "duds". Casey Broadwater of Blu-ray.com wrote that the episode "moves at a geriatric pace", and R. L. Shaffer of IGN stated that it "represent[s] some of the worst of The Simpsons." On the other hand, giving the episode a positive review, Ron Martin of 411Mania enjoyed the "poke towards Branson, Missouri, a mecca for old people everywhere," and Jennifer Malkowski of DVD Verdict gave the episode a B rating. Colin Jacobsson of DVD Movie Guide wrote that, even though Grampa is "essentially a one-joke personality," "those gags tend to be pretty fun." He concluded his review by writing that the episode was "a likable program."

Despite the mixed responses, the episode features one of the "most used little clips" of the series. The scene shows Grampa getting his driver's license. Instead of taking a photo for the license on the spot, Grampa suggests that Selma, who works in the facility, use a photo of him from a newspaper headline that reads "Old man yells at cloud." Selma agrees, and Grampa, holding his newly acquired license, goes up to a window and yells "Who's laughing now?" at a cloud. Writer Michael Price credits Al Jean with pitching the gag. A still from the scene has been used several times on The Daily Show. Both Malkowski of DVD Verdict and Jacobsson of DVD Movie Guide considered it to be the best part of the episode. After Clint Eastwood's speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention, which featured Eastwood talking to an empty chair representing President Barack Obama, a modified version of the image with the caption, "Old man yells at chair", was used in an internet meme.

title: The Old Man and the Key


text:
User talk:JohnKDNB

Welcome!
Hello, JohnKDNB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  15:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :)

I see you're going around capitalizing things. Please read Naming conventions (capitalization) before you continue. Thanks. – Smyth\talk 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:JohnKDNB


text:
Tuburan

Tuburan is the name of two municipalities in the Philippines:

 * Tuburan, Cebu
 * Tuburan, Basilan

title: Tuburan