text:
Talk:Lang Lang

And still more bias - incredible, but not at all surprising for Wikipedia
This article states the following:

"In 2001, after a sold-out Carnegie Hall debut with Yuri Temirkanov...."

This again is an utterly misleading statement. Why use the words "sold-out" for a Carnegie Hall debut, when nearly every single classical pianist who has played at Carnegie Hall for the first time has sold out.

This is as meaningless as saying a famous tennis player won Wimbledon on his first attempt after winning the most sets in the game!

It is interesting too that Lang Lang's first *solo* recital at Carnegie Hall (often the far more important recital for concert pianists) is not even mentioned in this article, despite the fact that the concert was panned by critics. How interesting that this critical part of his musical career is conspicuously absent. But I am sure Jeff G. will add it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

More bias
This article states the following regarding Lang Lang:

He has been labeled by some critics as "Bang Bang".

For a classical pianist, and for anyone who understands the piano instrument, that's a very severe criticism. Yet curiously, there is no reference for this "fact" in the article.

How much would you like to bet that if I delete that line because it lacks sources, Jeff G., Wikipedia's resident musical expert, will decide he's had it, and will ban me from Wikipedia? I mean heaven forbid if someone should try and remove non-neutral POV from an article that does not agree with the non-neutral POV of Wikipedia editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And more bias still
I am sure Jeff G. is just grabbing a coffee before he bans me for good for removing two words from this article. Banning is the Wikipedia way. But while I still have a chance before the censors descend on the truth, perhaps let's look beyond classical pianists, just in case Jeff G. thinks I am being a "snob".

The Wikipedia article on Liberace states "His first show on local television in Los Angeles was a smash hit, earning the highest ratings of any local show, which he parlayed into a sold out appearance at the Hollywood Bowl."

Now here we have a very good use of the words "sold out" because in the above context it is clearly a neutral point of view. It relates to a specific concert in Liberace's career, of significant importance. There is a valid reason for the reader to know that the concert was "sold out".

But it appears (if we are to adhere to Jeff G.'s view) that the article on Keith Emerson (a revolutionary pianist in the rock/jazz intersection), should not mention that any of his concerts were "sold out" (even though I *know* that at least one was because I was there!)

How about Oscar Peterson, arguably one of the greatest jazz pianists that ever lived, if not the greatest....interesting, no mention of "sold out" concerts in his Wikipedia article either.

Goodness, if I was a person visiting Wikipedia and I knew little about pianists, and I was coming to *learn* (isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?) I would have to conclude that Lang Lang was the only pianist in the entire universe that could fill a hall! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet more bias
Goodness, even Victor Borge, the brilliant humorist of the piano, one of the greats that ever lived, has not had a "sold out" concert, according to Wikipedia. But Lang Lang has, and that's just fine, because that's a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

More Wikpiedia bias
Here are a few more pianists in Wikipedia where there is no mention of "sold out" concerts:

Georges Cziffra Sviatoslav Richter Claudio Arrau Glenn Gould Wilhelm Kempff

I guess Lang Lang is the only pianist in the world that has ever had a sold out concert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Last warning
I have tried to remove just two words from this article, namely "sold out" - words which are not at all appropriate in an encyclopedia. They clearly represent a non-neutral point of view, because every great pianist has had sold out concerts. Here is the reply from Jeff G. (whose music credentials we are still waiting for):

"This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lang Lang (pianist) with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk)

Where is Jeff G.?
So where has Jeff G. gone? I removed *two words* from this article, namely "sold out", to try and make it at least *somewhat consistent* with all the other articles in Wikipedia on famous concert pianists, and to give it at least a *somewhat* neutral point of view, and previously Jeff G. removed the edit almost as fast as I could put it in.

I suppose he as gone to the bathroom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I get so sick and tired of Wikipedia editors who tell everyone that articles should have neutral point of view, when they themselves have *anything but* a neutral point of view, and in most cases they themselves have little to *zero* knowledge on the subject at hand.

As I said, it does not surprise me one bit that schools where I live FORBID students from using Wikipedia. Thank goodness.

Who is Jeff G.?
Given that Jeff G. is acting as an authority on Lang Lang, could he please tell us who he is? What are his credentials, and what is his educational background.

Certainly my first edit to Lang Lang's page was a bit silly, but I was just fooling around because I was so completely surprised at how biased this article is. However, my second edit was serious. Based on the many other articles on concert pianists in Wikipedia it is clear that using the words "sold out" is not a neutral point of view. But Jeff G. clearly seems to think otherwise. So perhaps he can explain why the article on Lang Lang can speak of "sold out concerts", not at all unusual for any great classical pianist, while the articles on many other pianists, some arguably among the greatest pianists in the world, do not mention this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sold out concerts
This article is one of many *blatant* examples of complete bias and unprofessional editing in Wikipedia. This article states that Lang Lang has given "sold out recitals". This is clearly a bias point of view. The Wikipedia article on Evgeny Kissin for example does not mention "sold out recitals". The article of Vladimir Howortize does not mention "sold out recitals". The article on Valdimir Ashkenazy does not mention "sold out recitals". The article on Van Cliburn does not mention "sold out recitals". The article on "Arthur Rubinstein" does not mention "sold out recitals". The article on "Maurizio Pollini" does not mention "sold out recitals".

But for some reason when it comes to Lang Lang, "sold out recitals" is suddenly importantly.

I tried removing the two words "sold out", and some anonymous person named "Jeff G.", whose credentials we don't even know, whose music background we don't even know, whose authority we don't even know, immediately reversed them and who threatened to ban me from Wikipedia.

I can see now why my childrens' teachers in school tell my children they will get ZERO on any assignment if they use Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.181.200 (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Education
I think in terms of education it might very relevant to understand how many hours this pianist has practiced on average per year. Just: He started, and then he was famous, seems a bit short. If there is some official information about how many hours he put in (private practice and teaching), then that would surely help the other "piano" kids and their parents to make a decision about whether they want their child to spend 20.000 hours or more sitting in a little room. 137.226.181.93 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From http://leadershipchallenge.typepad.com/leadership_challenge/2008/12/are-you-practicing-like-lang-lang.html : Jim: When did you start playing the piano? Lang: At 2 ½ years old. Jim: How many hours a day did you practice? Lang: For the first 15 years, 8 hours a day. Jim: And now? Lang: 3 hours a day. Jim: Every day? Lang: Yes. Don't know if that counts as a reliable source though. Here are some others: From http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm9-5/Lang-Lang-en.htm : LSM: How many hours do you practice a day? LL : Now it's two hours – before it was a lot! From http://www.attainmagazine.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.story&newsid=720 and http://www.pinewoodschool.co.uk/calendar-news-and-events/blog/2011/5/26/lyndon-chen-plays-with-pianist-lang-lang-at-the-royal-festival-h/ : he didn’t want to practise the 8 hours a day that Lang Lang used to practice From http://www.successmagazine.com/lang-langs-journey-to-no-1/PARAMS/article/1011/channel/17 : often practicing the piano eight hours a day, stopping only for meals and sleep so I think the "8 hours a day" figure is fairly well attested to. 82.26.5.210 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
I am removing the infobox per this guideline.THD3 (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was wrong to do. The infobox was not a "biographical infobox" but a "musical artist" infobox. Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of the infobox. Musical artists boxes are not for classical performers. -- Klein zach  04:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The infobox did not look very professional and I think we are better off without it. Better to have a clearly written lead.  Opus33 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The decision was wrong! Now the article is a mess up!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Additions
Added information to two sections concerning performances and recordings. Dionysus ab (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Playing My Motherland
This response from Lang Lang maybe worth translating:北京晚报：「郎朗白宫独奏『我的祖国』：诉说中国的强大」，报道并引述郎朗演奏后于部落格上发表的感想：「而后我又 独自演奏了我们中国人心目中『最美的歌』之一的『我的祖国』，能够在众多贵宾面前演奏这首赞美中国的乐曲，彷佛是在向他们诉说我们中国的强大，我们中国人 的团结，我感到深深的荣幸和自豪. 」 http://www.zaobao.com/wencui/2011/01/taiwan110124si.shtml  Arilang   talk  04:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mr. LANG LANG: I feel very sad. You know, I very sad. And, you know, and I must say, disappointing. Because, you know, as a person, what I'm trying to do, and what my missions are, you know, making music. And, you know, I'm very honored that people inviting me to play in those great events and to connect us to classical music and to music, to Chinese music and to American music, to, you know, to world music. And once, you know, people use it as a political issue, that makes me really sad because I am a musician. I'm not a politician. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133187969/Pianist-Lang-Lang-On-His-Controversial-Music-Pick"

What is going on? In his own blog, he is Proud and honored, "中国的强大，我们中国人 的团结，我感到深深的荣幸和自豪. ", why did he try to hide his "nationalist emotion" from Malissa Block? Arilang   talk  07:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He is proud of being Chinese does not mean he supports CCP or anti-American, but the media hates him because they believe a Chinese proud of his identity is pro CCP and anti-American. This is stupid, Americans would just as proud when they play This Land Is Your Land on 4th of July. As I have stated before, Korean War anti-American propaganda was banned in China during the 1960s and 1970s. For a person as young as Lang Lang born after cultural revolution, the My Motherland song could be interpreted as Chinese version This Land Is Your Land. Is it really a crime to be proud to be Chinese? Seriously this McCarthyist/Maoist witch-hunt needs to stop. Jim101 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Jim101, your statement "Korean War anti-American propaganda was banned in China during the 1960s and 1970s" is questionable, to say the least. Just look at 奇袭白虎团, English translation:The surprise attack on White Tiger Regiment, was one of the Eight Revolutionary Plays during the Cultural Revolution era, between 1966 and 1976. As far as I know, this play is about Korean War. Would you like to comment? Arilang   talk  00:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is Cultural Revolution propaganda, not Korean War Propaganda. I have to say I don't know much about Cultural Revolution propaganda, aside from the fact that this play was not created as part of the Anti-America Aid Korean propaganda campaign. Jim101 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Though the choice of song and its ensuing controversy are worth mentioning, I do worry about the length of this section, and the resulting weight it places in the biography. Should we shorten it to a few sentences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivingmad (talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add
that this whole episode is being taken far out of context. I'm glad, at least, the "controversy" section here and the President himself are not going to drop into such a ridiculous flame war. Lang Lang stated that the evening would be quintessentially American and it was. What American hasn't accepted that allies be warmly welcomed into our beautiful country "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses wishing to breathe free." and fought hard against those who'd do the nation harm? A few idiotic bloggers decided to turn a peaceful and joyous evening of unity and alliance into more propaganda, either Anti-US or Anti-PRC, and it was sickening to read.

The only controversial line of the entire song was noted in these few words:

"若是那豺狼来了 迎接它的有猎枪"

"If the cruel/wicked wolves come, we'll welcome them with hunting rifles."

Taken IN context for once, this comes from a period in Chinese history when eight Western Nations simultaneously tried to conquer and divide China and were finally beaten after years of suffering under their Imperialism. It stands to ANYONE's reason that they would feel a need to mention they would not be victimized again. If the wolves try to return and pillage, they'd be met with fire. 1812 America was exactly the same against the Imperialistic British. The Allied Powers were exactly like that against the Axis invaders. It should be guessed, hypothesized even, that Lang Lang chose the piece to show how similar the nations really were, powers that started under heavy fire that overcame all odds and became a superpower to protect the world from future 豺狼.

It's a shame no one ever considers the pro-peace version of a person's actions. Jumping to proclamations of war is just too easy and too romantic isn't it? Either the pro-US bloggers and comments telling of how "Anti-US Propaganda" will not work, will only get America angry, or something else equally nonsensical are being added to the powder keg, or you have the accepting anti-US persons who "agree" with Lang Lang and believe that the country has fallen, has become "stupid", or that Obama himself is of those qualities. When can we be a technologically advanced civilization that understands that civilization requires being civil and cultured rather than being quick-tempered, loud-mouthed propagandists trying ever so desperately to find "the enemy" in every situation?

I apologize for posting such a long statement here of all places where the "controversy" hasn't actually spread. I would have posted in the proper blogs, youtube videos, or newspaper comments, but unfortunately, propaganda dictates such words would contradict and therefore have blocked me from doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.111.43 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not good at English, so...)《我的祖国》(My Motherland)确切说来，并非政治歌曲. 甚至都没提到美国(认为是反美音乐有些"自作多情").

以下引自我的祖國 (中國)，以供参考：

1.“……第三段歌词其实是最接近《上甘岭》影片的主题. 不过词作者并没有明确提到当时的敌人是谁，使这首电影插曲脱离了电影情节和当时时代的约束. 毕竟对中国人民来讲，朝鲜战争不是在自己的国土上进行的. 中国人民也很少对征服他国有兴趣. ……”

2.“……歌词中没有任何1950－1960年代的政治术语，是词作者的高明之处. ……虽然描写朝鲜战争的影片已经不再风光，不过《我的祖国》却流传甚广，历久不衰. 正如电影导演沙蒙对乔羽说的：你想怎么写就怎么写，我只希望将来这部片子没有人看了，这首歌还有人唱. ……”

——虽然这是《上甘岭》主题曲，但歌词本身并没有局限于表达影片主题，"豺狼"可以随意解释. 不过最重要的是，Lang Lang只是弹奏，并没有唱歌词，上纲上线有些过分了吧. --林卯 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

5 Billion Viewers??
There is no way that 5 billion people saw his performance at the Opening Ceremonies of the 2008 Olympic Games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.188.58 (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

National Review online
A Song and an Obscenity Jay Nordlinger by Jay Nordlinger.

"Well, nice going, Lang Lang. In and around every dictatorship, there are official artists. The Nazis had them, the Soviets had them — all the worst have them. Lang Lang has chosen to be an official artist. Of course, the bad old USA has helped him a lot. He came here to complete his musical education. He studied at the Curtis Institute in Philadelphia with Gary Graffman. He has had the countless benefits of living and working in a free society. What a contrast with Lang Lang’s fellow Chinese who languish in laogai, that country’s gulag.

This is one pianist who stands with the persecutors, not with the persecuted. Wei Jingsheng, Gao Zhisheng — those are great Chinese, the pride of the nation. Lang Lang, and Hu Jintao, for that matter, are very different Chinese."

 Arilang   talk  05:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Yet another negative piece of news:Pianist coming here hit sour note at White House Lang Lang performed Chinese anti-U.S. song

Quote:"At the moment, Lang Lang is making worldwide news -- and not because he is heading to Buffalo." Arilang   talk  11:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Asiaone.com

 * Well, some positive "opinion piece" to make the article more balance and neutral?

Praise in China for Lang Lang's martial White House tune Mon, Jan 24, 2011 AFP

"You really voiced our thoughts..We do not want to see war, but we are really not afraid of war, and to defend our homeland, we are really not afraid of any great powers."...One of the comment by Chinese blogger.  Arilang   talk  12:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Opinion piece, no evidence, not notable. I'll also remove the opinion of New York Times and The Wall Street Journal since outlining every media outlet's opinion is going into excessive details. Jim101 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also started a BLPN thread on whether opinion pieces should be included in a BLP article. Jim101 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read the BLPN thread, the comment is about balancing the opposing opinions and make it more neutral, not about "too excessive" in details. Arilang   talk  12:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP article, and any libelous material must be removed on sight. You don't accuse people as Communist agents/siding with Communists/Fenqing without evidence, no matter how many positive opinions you have to balance out the negative viewpoint. Opinions isn't evidence. Jim101 (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jim's approach seems completely correct to me, and not simply in the matter of BLP violations. I'd dispute the addition of any further details on this matter. Evidently, Lang Lang's White House "faux pas/dastardly insult" is enormously significant to a very small number of bloggers and journalists in opposite political camps. But we don't cite blogs, and we don't give undue weight to extreme or fringe views. In terms of the world's media as a whole - the mainstream - this seems to be rather a damp squib. Despite the newspaper links given above, coverage "worldwide" is actually quite scant. As it stands, the article covers this "controversy" in sufficient detail, and at a length proportionate to the article as a whole. Haploidavey (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0126/How-pianist-Lang-Lang-stirred-up-trouble-for-US-and-China-at-a-White-House-State-dinner

"Conservative commentators in the US and the most rabid nationalists in China share the view that Chinese pianist Lang Lang dissed America with a piano piece he played at the state dinner President Obama hosted for President Hu Jintao last Wednesday."

 * Already cited. Jim101 (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The China Post
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/art/celebrity-news/2011/01/25/288962/Chinese-laud.htm "On his blog, (Lang Lang) wrote that playing “My Motherland” in front of so many dignitaries “seemed like I was telling them about the power of China and the unity of the Chinese.”"  Arilang   talk  05:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Means nothing. Telling the power (could also be interpreted as cultural attractiveness) of China does not equal to insult United States. He did not say "I want to show Americans that Chinese are better". Jim101 (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 而后我又独自演奏了我们中国人心目中“最美的歌”之一的《我的祖国》. According to Zhang 2002 page 161, the "most beauty song" can be interpreted melody-wise. 尤其是在来自“五湖四海”的元首们面前演奏这首赞美中国的乐曲，仿佛是在向他们诉说我们中国的强大，我们中国人的团结，我感到深深的荣幸和自豪. This sentence can also be interpreted that he feel the Chinese version of This Land is Your Land also told the world that there are no better time to be proud to be Chinese. This doesn't disprove his claim that he first choose the song because of melody, nor were you allowed under BLP guideline to synthesis an argument by placing two statements side by side when no other RS had done so. Jim101 (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The controversy just died...let it go people. Jim101 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * To improve the neutrality of the article, it is only fair to include Lang Land's own words, from his own blog, which is:“seemed like I was telling them about the power of China and the unity of the Chinese.”. Editors are not here to add their own interpretation into what Lang Lang said, or what he did not say. Editors are here to add content based on facts, not interpretation, and the best "reliable source" would not be Lang Lang's own words?  Arilang   talk  06:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the examples on WP:SYN and see why that doesn't work. Unless you have a source that explicitly say "Lang Lang official explanation is this but he also said that", you are conducting original research. I quote the guideline "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." If you do not join the proud quote with his official statement, then the proud quote itself is not notable because it is open to a million different interpretations. If you join the proud quote with his official statement, you are implying he is not truthful, which no RS provided here have accused him basing that argument. Jim101 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * It is not WP:SYN nor WP:OR, one minute he said this, next minute he said that, and all are based on reliable source. To be neutral, both statements are to be included, and let the readers decide which is which, what is what. No one is implying anything, and no one is interpreting anything. It is not our job to judge and pick between statements he made in his blog and statements he gave to reporters.

Anyway, please have a look:  Arilang   talk  08:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is WP:SYN because Lang Lang said a lot of things during the debate, and being proud of Chinese has nothing to do with the debate of insulting US. Read the example in WP:SYN:

 * "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."

 * And read the what will happen if you add that quote in
 * "Lang Lang was first quoted saying playing "My Motherland" in front of so many dignitaries “seemed like I was telling them about the power of China and the unity of the Chinese", but then denied that he intended to insult the United States."

 * At minmum you are giving undue weight to a one quote out of many Lang Lang says. At worse you are implying proud of being proud of Chinese equal to insulting United States. Unless you have a RS that say Lang Lang insulted US because it is wrong to to tell the world how powerful China is, to be neutral you have to paste everything he said during and after the controversy, or you are giving undue weight to a statement that has no significance. Jim101 (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Epoch Times
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/50081/ "Tang Baiqiao, a well-known human rights activist and international affairs expert, commented: “Lang Lang is self-contradictory in his responses. ‘Powerful China and a unified Chinese people,’‘has nothing to do with anything else,’ ‘the strong feelings for the motherland,’ ‘don’t add political themes to the arts,’ all suggest that he is fully aware of the background and is confused about the difference between China and the CCP."

 Arilang   talk  08:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He says, she says. Even in this partisan news report it acknowledged that a lot of people believe he is innocent and a lot of people believe he is not. Furthermore, the role of Epoch Times in starting this controversy is noted in this Washington Post piece. Jim101 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Down the road maybe a new wiki like Communist China Anti USA propaganda in White House State Dinner Incident? Arilang   talk  15:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Notability (events)...All I can say is that after no one protested or picketed his latest performance, it is going to be an uphill battle to keep that article from deletion. Jim101 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)] Jim101 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Not too sure about that, so far Beijing has not said anything yet. Hm... Arilang   talk  20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Epoch Times Chinese
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/11/1/30/n3157528.htm 中华全国青年联合会网站的资料显示：郎朗是全国青联副主席(网络截图)

郎朗有中共官方高级头衔 学者：中共直属附庸 The fact is, Lang Lang is a Chinese government official, shouldn't this "official government capacity" be included in the lede? Arilang   talk  22:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as you just state his title as 中华全国青年联合会副主席 (Vice President of All-China Youth Federation), no more no less, then it is fine . Actually it is not fine, Vice President of All-China Youth Federation is a ceremonial post that has almost no power, so unless he is the president, you really can't put it in the lede...put it somewhere in the body. Jim101 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 * A vice president is a vice president, and All-China Youth Federation is an old(since 1949) and well established body, supported and funded by the Chinese government. "Power" does not come into the equation, it is the prestige, the honor, so it should be mentioned in the lede. I doubt that international celebrity like Jacky Chan and Zhang Yimou were "vice presidents" too? Arilang   talk  00:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you need to put the entire award section into the lead. If it is honor, then there are a lot of awards Lang Lang has. It is only when that VP post has political power then you can highlight that post alone in the lead. Jim101 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Editor should not confuse everyday awards with official capacity. Lang Lang's official Chinese government capacity is Vice President of All-China Youth Federation, and look at this ACYF official web page:http://www.qinglian.org/about/guanyuqinglian6.jsp ,

"主席：王　晓:共青团中央书记处常务书记

副主席：

贺军科:共青团中央书记处书记 卢雍政:共青团中央书记处书记 王　曦:中国科学院上海微系统与信息技术研究所党委书记、常务副所长 邓中翰:数字多媒体芯片技术国家重点实验室主任、中星微电子有限公司董事长 陈雨露:北京外国语大学校长 于旭波:中粮集团有限公司总裁 潘　刚:伊利集团董事长、总裁 郎　朗:职业钢琴家 杨　扬:国际奥委会委员、国家体育总局冬季运动管理中心运动员 学　诚:中国佛教协会驻会副会长、福建省佛教协会会长 程　红:北京市人民政府副市长 纪　斌:中华全国台湾同胞联谊会党组成员、副会长 陈仲尼:香港青年联会主席、金鹰控股有限公司主席、富恒基金管理有限公司主席 郑志刚:新世界发展有限公司执行董事 马志毅:澳门青年联合会副会长、澳门泊车管理股份有限公司执行董事 齐兴达:清华大学学生会主席"

The name list(Vice presidents) above tells us that this ACYF is not your small town Lions Club, nor your everyday Rotary Club. There are three Communist party Political Commissar, five(or more) CEO, Chairman or President of the board, and one Beijing city vice mayor. To claim that these people do not have "political power" is unreasonable to the least, because anyone who is familiar with Chinese politic would know that 中央书记处书记 is a very powerful political position. Arilang   talk  02:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who understand Chinese politic also know that it is Communist tactic of staying relevant by granting official titles to famous individuals without giving them any political power. (Who is the Party Chief in this organ?) Star power does not equal to political power, and there is also the possibility that the Communist give him this position just for the sake he is popular and shove him out of the way. This is not the place for idle speculation. I don't see why we should just highlight one of his official capacities when he is also an ambassador for UN, Time's 100 and a representative to Recording Academy, which is just as important. Jim101 (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Then we should have a subsection like "Official Capacities" listing all his official titles:

 * (1) VP of ACYF
 * (2)ambassador for UN,
 * (3)Time's 100
 * (4)representative to Recording Academy   Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  06:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

About this whole thing (the article as well as its discussion) looking like a fan page therefore being unworthy of a wikipedia article please add your remarks here:
Anapazapa (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Nothing yet? Why? Anapazapa (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 * It is typical for wikipedia articles on popular figures to attract fans. That is harmless if we maintain a neutral point of view and require reliable sources. (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  00:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"the J. Lo of the piano"
What exactly does that mean?

He has a big bum? He can't sing worth shit?

Is that description positive or negative?

I have no idea. I assume it's negative. 99.238.74.216 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerthall at the Lincoln Center: New York Rhapsody

 * Rhapsody in Blue, George Gershwin (arr. Ferde Grofé)
 * New York Minute, 1989 by Don Henley, David Paich, Jeff Pocaro (Kurt Elling; arr. Vincent Mendoza)
 * New York Morning, Elbow, 2014 (6th album; Rufus Wainwright; arr. Vincent Mendoza)
 * The Story of Our Town, Aaron Copland (arr. Vincent Mendoza)
 * Dirty Boulevard / Somewhere aus West Side Story, Lou Reed / Leonard Bernstein & Stephen Sondheim (arr. Billy Childs / Larry Klein; Liza Fischer, Suzanne Vega)
 * Thema aus Spider-Man, Danny Elfman (2003, Filmmusic, arr. Vincent Mendoza - Lindsay Stirling, Geige)
 * New York Medley, Billy Joel, John Kander & Fred Ebb, Joe Jackson, Duke Ellington, Leonard Bernstein
 * ''Moon River’’, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, 1961, Henry Mancini & Johnny Mercer (Jerry Douglas (Gui), Jenny Spector) (arr. Vincent Mendoza)
 * Tonight aus West Side Story, Leonard Bernstein / Stephen Sondheim (Sean Jones, Trump; arr. Billy Childs)
 * Empire State of Mind (Part 2) Broken Down, Alicia Keys (Voc) / Al Shuckburgh / Shawn Carter / Jane’t Sewell-Ulepic / Angela Hunte / Bert Keys / Sylvia Robinson (arr. Vincent Mendoza)
 * In Evening Air, Aaron Copland (arr. Vincent Mendoza)

Look & Listen: --LH2016 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Video 3sat-Mediathek German First Del. Februar 11, 2017, 3sat. 45 Min. <BR>

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lang Lang (pianist). 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/20081102135508/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080928/news_1a28lang.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080928/news_1a28lang.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017114412/http://la-jolla-music-society.com/content/view/560/107/ to http://www.la-jolla-music-society.com/content/view/560/107/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406104552/http://audaud.com/2008/03/mike-oldfield-music-of-the-spheres-lang-lang-pianohayley-westenra-lead-vocals-sinfonia-sfera-orchestrakarl-jenkins-decca/ to http://audaud.com/2008/03/mike-oldfield-music-of-the-spheres-lang-lang-pianohayley-westenra-lead-vocals-sinfonia-sfera-orchestrakarl-jenkins-decca/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405214524/http://blog.dmx.com/latest/5397 to http://blog.dmx.com/latest/5397
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204075249/http://www.camimusic.com/details.asp?webid=1849 to http://www.camimusic.com/details.asp?webid=1849
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516004126/http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-07-2008%2F0004863443&EDATE= to http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-07-2008%2F0004863443&EDATE=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019095101/http://www.chinese.cn/people/en/article/2009-12/16/content_93512.htm to http://www.chinese.cn/people/en/article/2009-12/16/content_93512.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615123844/http://www.thelanglangfoundation.org/ to http://www.thelanglangfoundation.org/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://world.time.com/2013/10/28/chinese-pianist-lang-lang-chosen-as-un-messenger-of-peace/

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) 09:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 愛 ) 08:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

– Lang Lang (pianist) is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Lang Lang." If you google "Lang Lang" (with quotes), the entire first three pages (30 results) are entirely about the pianist, with no mention of the place in Australia or anything else. While it may have been a concern in 2006 (when the page was moved to the parenthesized title), his continued prominence in the music world is evidence of long-term significance. King of ♥   ♦   ♣  ♠ 05:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Lang Lang (pianist) → Lang Lang
 * Lang Lang → Lang Lang (disambiguation)
 * Support, per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 21:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Gets 20 times the pageviews of the town and river.|Lang_Lang_(pianist)|Lang_Lang,_Victoria|Lang_Lang_River - Station1 (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Kinda obvious PT. — JFG talk 17:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -Zanhe (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lang Lang. 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 tag to http://www.chinesebiographies.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Lang%20Lang%20Chapter%205%20English%20Translation.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.chinesebiographies.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Lang%20Lang%20Chapter%206%20English%20Translation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103163410/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7bLa9pIgrek to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7bLa9pIgrek
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229104759/http://www.youtube.com/user/uniteditstimetofly to https://www.youtube.com/user/uniteditstimetofly
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309090250/http://nyphil.org/meet/archive/index.cfm?page=eventDetail&eventNum=2120&seasonNum=10 to http://nyphil.org/meet/archive/index.cfm?page=eventDetail&eventNum=2120&seasonNum=10
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821200702/http://www.byblosfestival.org/LangLang/index.html to http://www.byblosfestival.org/LangLang/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Arm injury
On April 12, 2017, Lang Lang announced he had a serious inflammation in his left arm, and was unable to perform as a result, thus leading to many concerts over the period of more than 4 months have been cancelled as a result. Now I don't know all the details as I don't really follow Lang Lang, but I do know that for a while, all of his performances were cancelled, with maybe the odd appearance at an event, not involving him playing the piano. But only recently did he start to perform again with the right hand only, while the left hand is played by one of the Lang Lang Foundation scholars. I feel this information is significant enough to be mentioned in the article, as it caused Lang Lang to cancel numerous amounts of concerts. I don't think I would be the right one to add this information, though, as my knowledge is pretty vague. But maybe someone more plugged-in regarding the situation would be better if they added the info to the article. Saltn'Pepper (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lang Lang. 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/20071017102936/http://www.telarc.com/biography/bios.asp?aid=129 to http://www.telarc.com/biography/bios.asp?aid=129

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) 19:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lang Lang. 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/20110126213143/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/white-house-says-chinese-folk-song-played-during-state-dinner-was-not-an-insult-experts-divided.html to http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/white-house-says-chinese-folk-song-played-during-state-dinner-was-not-an-insult-experts-divided.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lang Lang


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC).

 * (Ultramarine | talk | contributions)

Note: This page is currently in evidence at Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence. Please do not archive or close until that process is closed. Septentrionalis 22:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute
Ultramarine repeatedly engages in revert wars while ignoring the three revert rule, Etiquette, and Assume good faith. He is exceedingly argumentative on talk pages. He is rude and condescending to other editors that do not share his readily apparent political leanings. He has been multiple times for breaking the 3RR rule, such as on 9 Mar 2005, 23 May 2005, and July 20, 2005 (UTC).

Description
User Ultramarine has been contributing to Wikipedia since December 2004. He appears to be waging a single-handed crusade to purify Wikipedia of what he considers "various left and right extremists" by adding the "results of science," his code word for the Truth coming from right-wing think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

He engages in revert wars, insults fellow editors who modify his changes, often implying that they are "Marxists," "revisionists," or 'engaging in censorship' with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over Communist state, democracy, useful idiot, and democratic peace theory.

By failing to weigh his arguments and counterarguments on talk pages with evidence from sources aside from advocacy groups, he conflates his own opinions and beliefs with "science," thereby flouting the "no original research" rule. Having failed to convince other editors with his arguments on the talk page, he is pursing a nearly continual revert war over the communist state, democracy, and democratic peace theory articles, having repeatedly reverted to his desired version of the article, in opposition to multiple other editors. Ultramarine appears incapable of collaboration and negotiation to achieve NPOV in articles.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)

24-hour 3RR blocks
1. :

 * Blocked by BrokenSegue.

Relevant discussions have been archived at
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive12
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive13

2. :

Relevant discussions have been archived at
 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive15

3. :

Relevant discussions have been archived at
 *

Incivility on Talk pages

 * 1) The Marxists have stopped even trying to explain their deletions of the results of peer-reviewed studies. Ultramarine 16:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) This is of course exactly the place to point out the failings of a system that murdered close to 100 million people in 70 years. No censorship or revisionism. Ultramarine 13:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Have already pointed them out here. Do not again make a large scale deletion of arguments and facts you do not like. If you do not like the English, correct it, do not censor. Ultramarine 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Communism will not be granted immunity to critique that easily. If necessarily, I just add another section for anarcho-communism or other sects that claims the name communism. Do not think that the short half-life of anarchist societies has prevented large scale human rights abuses, read for example this .Ultramarine 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) [This response implies that User:Natalinasmpf’s motive behind the following comment was to grant “communism immunity to critique,” despite nothing having nothing to do with the Criticisms of communism article: “Yes, but I am referring to communist theory. Communist theory, which this article deals with is the sibling/parent of anarchism, and hence critique for a communist state should be left at communist state, not communism.” -- Natalinasmpf 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) “Wikipedia shuld not censor it…” Ultramarine 17:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Incivility in edit summaries

 * Reverting gross and outright censorship of verifiable facts.
 * Rv censorship, corrected the statment on the relationship between economc freedom and political freedom
 * The marxists have stop even trying to explain their reverts. However, I will add another reference
 * Rv attempts to hide science, added that the indices has been used in hundreds of studies
 * Present your own study, do not censor science
 * Rv large scale POV violation and deletion of arguments

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

 * 1) No personal attacks
 * 2) Assume good faith
 * 3) Cite your sources
 * 4) No original research
 * 5) Wikiquette
 * 6) Three Revert Rule

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)

 * 1) Attempted compromise on Democracy page:  Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC); his response
 * 2) Second attempted compromise on Democracy page:  Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC); his response
 * 3) Third attempted compromise on Democracy page:  Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC); his response
 * 4) Discussion on Talk:Democracy:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )

 * 1) Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 172 | Talk 23:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Corax | Talk 20:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) Septentrionalis 20:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Viajero | Talk 13:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Ruy Lopez 07:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Whytee 08:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Response
I spend a great deal of time trying to read what peer-reviewed studies say and then add these results to Wikipedia. Many of these results show that liberal democracy and capitalism improve the life of humans. Naturally, this is unpopular in some circles.

When I have found contrary results, I have added them. Looking for instance at the capitalism article, I have added numerous critical arguments against capitalism and even created entire critical sections, like the "Sustainability" and "Human rights violations, imperialism, and democracy" sections which were created by me.

The above critics have made every attempt to stop me from criticising communism. 172 have made repeated attempts to exclude critical text, external links, and internal Wikipedia links mentioning the very large scale human rights violations in the Communist states, even though the other Wikipedia articles about political movements mention similar problems. Mihnea Tudoreanu has simply deleted critical texts although I have given very detailed, verifiable sources. When I have presented peer-reviewed studies, most by researchers independent from any right-wing think-thank, they have deleted or misrepresented them. I have called this censorship; I still do.

Regarding the DPT below, I have made a great effort to read many peer-reviewed papers beside Rummel and have added to results to the article. Almost all the references to peer-reviewed articles have been added by me. I also note that Septentrionalis has created two versions with his arguments and added a "Two-version" tag linked to his two versions. He has thus not only excluded me from article, he has falsely misrepresented my view. Ultramarine 05:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Right now, 172 simply reverted my latest version of Criticisms_of_communism including deleting the Two-version template, which states that there should be a consensus first. I had spent a great deal of effort in order to find and add references to the text documenting the failures of communism and added much new information. Here is a link to my version . Ultramarine 07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding 3RR blocks, I note that there has been discussion among administrators if this was correct and one was removed, see above. In most of my edits I have tried to add substantially new arguments when I reverted. However, I will avoid doing even such reverts in the future. Ultramarine 18:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding Fuelwagon's comment, I do not think that they fairly represent my edits. There were many other differences between the edits than he implies. Looking at the first diff, I added numerous studies supporting my statements. I corrected the false statement that it was studies only done by right-wing think-thanks. I included the arguments from the previous edit and even added another argument against my position, that "Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom and other methods used does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition." If studies shows that economic freedom causes political freedom or that political freedom causes economic freedom, then it is hardly wrong to state that. I have never seen a Wikipedia policy that one must use direct quotes from the studies. If an argument is a misunderstanding, then this should be stated. It would have been better to avoid "might". Regarding the other diff, , most of it is merging of other comments, including the comments about public media which existed before my edit in another paragraph. As Fuelwagon notes, the paragraph was POV before. Ultramarine 07:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Some of my critics are attacking the concept of peer-review itself. Mihnea Tudoreanu: "Further, peer-review is not part of the scientific method and says nothing of the scientific value of the study . Or that I ask for sources and verifiability of statements. Or the use of statistics and peer-review in the social sciences (See below). These are all interesting policy questions. If an arbitration case can bring more clarity, then I am happy to participate. Ultramarine 09:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding Robert McClenon's critic that correlation is not causation, this I accept. However, the studies use other methods than simple correlations, which can be found if looking in the references I provided.  Ultramarine 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding Robert McClenon's suggestion of mediation regarding the factual content, this is a good idea which I support. This would include the disputed factual content of Democratic peace theory, Democracy, and Criticisms of communism. Ultramarine 13:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Pmanderson
It's not just Marxists. Ultramarine does not Play Well with Others. My experience with him has been almost entirely on Democratic peace theory; and may be seen at some length on its talk page. When I first edited the article, it had an NPOV tag; [; and consideration of the version from which Ultramarine [proposed to remove it may show why. It is this:
 * Just to add, Ultramarine implies that just about any editor he disagrees with is a pro-Soviet Marxist, even User:Trey Stone (who is proud to admit that he's on a crusade against Marxism on Wikipedia) on Communist state, who attempted to copyedit his work and was charged with "censorship" and "revisionism." 172 | Talk 00:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine has written a polemic in favor of one version of DPT, as presented by a certain Prof. Rummel, who has a website. He has shown very little evidence that he knows anything more about DPT than the website has taught him; and it is itself an argument for Rummel's PoV and an advertisement for his books (which it is perfectly entitled to do).

Ultramarine edits are persistently PoV. I particularly like this one, in which he calls deleting arguments against Rummellism NPOV See also comments by User:Mel Etitis, User:Michael Hardy, and User:Corax on Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1.

I attempted to add fair and comprehensible statements of the criticisms of Rummellism. Ultramarine reverted them persistently. I requested help from Mediation, and from Mel Etitis as a third party. Mel's comments are here: [1#New_comments] He also asked for an RfC on the edit war, for which I thank him

When Ultramarine does not edit out a criticism of Rummel, he sandwiches it between defences. I attempted to clarify the structure, whereupon Ultramarine accused me of deletions, falsely.(See this diff, for example . Much has been moved around; no massive deletions. Compare Ultramarine's deletions from the criticism section here and its eventual removal. )   I called a survey on the structure. (See [] and [] All the comments disliked his structure (one also disliked mine) but he continues to revert to it.

He has repeatedly removed dispute tags (he once removed an accuracy dispute tag in the same edit in which he alleged factual inaccuracy ) Septentrionalis 00:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) 172 | Talk 00:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Robert A West 17:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Corax 20:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Ruy Lopez 00:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Robert A West
From my vantagepoint, Ultramarine's response is instructive. His announced ethic of relying on peer-reviewed studies is commendable, although of much less value than he seems to think. But note that he presumes that any criticism of the studies he cites comes from those who dislike the conclusions -- this is a breach of decorum, a misunderstanding of academics and appears to jaundice his view of those contrary views he has read.

I have observed at least five unfortunate consequences of this.

 * 1) Because Ultramarine is adamant about supporting the view with which he agrees, his fellow-editors are almost forced to become advocates for the opposite POV.
 * 2) Because Ultramarine insists, somewhat illogically, that only a peer-reviewed article can be used to critique a peer-reviewed article, he shoves aside valid criticisms of his pet theory.
 * 3) Because Ultramarine insists that every criticism be responded to in detail, the articles tend towards logorrhea, which injures Wikipedia.
 * 4) He demands that comments in talk pages be sourced, which is contrary to one of the common uses of talk pages, "I am sure that X, but I can't find a source."
 * 5) When someone makes an edit that is unsourced or poorly-sourced, but nevertheless makes a fairly obvious point, instead of being helpful and trying to improve the article, Ultramarine simply reverts and routinely accuses his fellow-editors of ignorance, or laziness.

This is truly regrettable, because a more collegial Ultramarine who sought actively to promote NPOV would (crystal ball warning: will?) be, I believe, a true asset to Wikipedia, and actually do a better job of presenting those opinions with which he agrees.

(I have rephrased slightly from the version on the talk page, so I did not copy Ultramarine's response, which he may wish to rephrase.)

Robert A West 21:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) 172 | Talk 22:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Robert McClenon 18:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Septentrionalis 20:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Ruy Lopez 00:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Perorative 09:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside View FuelWagon
This diff
 * Before: It has been argued that it is not democracy which causes economic prosperity, but rather the other way around: prosperous nations will tend to become democracies.

 * Ultramarine: One observation is that democracy become widespread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism.

Ultramarine's version has historical significance. Agrigultural cultures required slavery to survive, given the massive amount of physical labor needed. Slavery was common on many societies up until the industrial revolution gave us firearms to fight tyrannical rulers and tractors to render human labor much less important in growing food for a population.

 * Ultramarine: Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition. Another objection might be that nations like Sweden and Canada today score just below nations like Chile and Estonia on economic freedom but that Sweden and Canda today have a higher GDP/capita. However, this is a misunderstanding, the studies indicate effect on economic growth and thus that future GDP/capita will be higher with higher economic freedom

this is clear POV, hedging criticisms with the word "might". Also, declaring such criticism wrong by saying "However, this is a misunderstanding" shows the opinion of the editor entering the article, rather than reporting the opinions of others.

 * Ultramarine: However, such a causation has been established in some studies of the Index of Economic Freedom and democracy, as noted above.

This line added to a paragraph explaining correlation is not causation. Yet Ultramarine inserts that a study establishes causation, which is POV. A study of societal influences might suggest causation, but wording this strong needs to be quoted from outside source, not opined by the editor.

This diff

 * Before:The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favours the already rich, or else may encourage candidates to make deals with the wealthy for legislation favorable to those supporters once the candidate is elected. On the other hand, the very wealthy are only a very small minority of voters.

Ultramarine keeps the above para, and adds the following:
 * Public media in a democracy has to be non-partisan. Partisan voices that are heard widely - through broadcasts or publication - are often owned by private companies. Some critics argue that serious arguments against capitalism tend to be suppressed by such companies, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that constitutionally protected Freedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to start media arguing against capitalism. They argue that the little success of such media reflects public preferences and not censorship.

The original paragraph is clearly POV against wealth, and a countering view is deserved. However Ultramarine's opening sentence "media... has to be non-partisan", while a sentiment I agree with, isn't a countering view. It's an imperative from the editor. Rather than provide an outside counterpoint view, it excuses in a very odd way the behaviour that the first paragraph complains about, saying political campaigning that favors the rich isn't a problem of capitalism but of media companies that shirk their non-partisan obligations and follow... capitalism. The rest of it at least represents a countering point of view, but the "some critics argue ... arguments against capitalism is suppressed by such companies" is a strawman. Clearly, ultramarine has not yet mastered "writing for the enemy".

The two edits above show that Ultramarine's changes contained a kernel of truth delivered with a POV sledgehammer, which is extremely unfortunate. The article could be improved if Ultramarine could find a way to deliver an edit within wikipedia's guidelines for NPOV, no weasel words, writing for the enemy, no original research. However Ultramarine's current approach appears to be too caustic a price to pay to get at whatever nugget is contained in the edit. Fixing a somewhat POV article by swinging it far to the opposite side of POV while poisoning the well of the other editors, does not qualify as a gain for wikipedia.

Ultramarine needs to modify his behaviour so that his contribution outweighs whatever cost he brings. (and we all bring some baggage)

FuelWagon 01:34, 22 July 2005

Users endorsing this summary sign with ~

 * 1) . Stirling Newberry 02:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 172 | Talk 04:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Robert McClenon 18:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Perorative 09:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Sesel
Politically charged DOS reports, the Index of Economic Freedom, and Rummel are not scientific sources.

Economics is infinitely more subjective than physics or mathematics, and work in that field can not be definitively asserted as factual because there are other factors (i.e. political motives) that color the "research". The Heritage Foundation, a private institution, can rank countries lower in the list (than a so-called "objective" analysis would show) for the sole purpose of compelling them to further deregulate their economies. These are issues that are potentially up for debate. In contrast, the fact that the Earth is round is not negotiable, and anyone, even those outside a private think tank, can determine this.

My point is, economics is not physics. In physics (hard science), there are universal laws. In economics (political science), there are competing theories (any of which could be valid or successful, largely depending on global political and social structures and divisions) and hidden motives. Using the word "science" and citing a controversial think tank as if it possessed truth, as if capitalist economic functions are as non-negotiable as the laws of nature, is misleading and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia.

This is simply something to think about. I'm not accusing anyone. I'm not calling names. I'm not saying capitalism is bad. I'm not going to endorse any side in this dispute, and will not involve myself in the discussion regarding "criticisms of socialism/communism". I just don't have time to familiarize myself with the context of all disputes involving this user's conduct. — Sesel wa  21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Users endorsing this summary sign with ~

 * 1) Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Robert A West 16:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Septentrionalis 19:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Very well argued point on the social sciences. 172 | Talk 23:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Viajero | Talk 13:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Further outside view by Robert West
Again, Ultramarine's response shows his needlessly combative style. He accuses Mihnea explicitly and me implicitly of "attacking the concept of peer review." Yet, the quotation that he cites as evidence is perfectly in keeping with the article on the subject. For myself, the reason I have confined my comments on DPT to the talk page is precisely because I will need time to produce verifiable sources of sufficient quality to satisfy me. On the other hand, if I could have inspired Ultramarine to do a little writing for the enemy, it would have improved the article. Robert A West 17:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) Septentrionalis 14:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Still another outside view
I have signed two of the summaries saying that Ultramarine is unnecessarily confrontational and should change his style. However, I do have one question. In the Talk:Democracy discussion, Ultramarine was complaining that Mihnea Tudoreanu was presenting original research. I have not read the details long enough to know whether that was true. If he was, then he also needs to be counseled. If he was not presenting original research, but either stating an opinion on a talk page, or providing a source, then that allegation is further evidence of a lack of civility by Ultramarine.

I have been a profesional user of statistics from time to time in my career as a computer scientist. Correlation does not provide direct causation. The argument that a correlation shows causation is an interpretation, that is, a POV. A correlation is a fact if the statistics are valid. Causation is a POV. A strong correlation may suggest causation, but it may also indicate a hidden variable. Please present POV as POV. Please be civil.

Has mediation been considered? Maybe a mediator could persuade Ultramarine to be less combative. Robert McClenon 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Judging by the discussion and this diff, the key sentence appears to be Mihnea's addition "Another theory is that the free markets and capitalism practiced by liberal democracies have resulted in their relative economic prosperity. However, there are also numerous counter-examples to this theory: Many wealthy democracies, such as Sweden or Canada, are far less capitalist and practice far more state regulations on the market than poorer nations such as Chile or Estonia." Septentrionalis 20:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for that diff. It appears that Ultramarine was deleting a statement of fact from a Wikipedia page that provided sources, and replacing it with peer-reviewed research.  The statement that he deleted was from mathematical statistics, which is a "harder" science than economics.  How to interpret specific statistics is often POV.  The principles of mathematical statistics are well understood by mathematicians, statisticians, and scientists.  Mihnea Tudoreanu was not presenting original research, but was citing a principle.  Has mediation been considered? Robert McClenon 22:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Mediation has been requested for DPT, but no mediator has responded. I can see why one might not. I would certainly accept one. Septentrionalis 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Further views of Pmanderson
I was not expecting to comment again; but I have two points to add; and an unexpected third.

Two-versions
Two-versions is not a non-admin version of protection; nor is it a means to force one's own version to the top and tell the other side to stop arguing. (If it were, it would have been deleted. ) Ultramarine knows this; he leapfrogged the two-version I placed in Democratic peace theory often enough. It is an imperfect means of book-keeping while looking for a consensus on which version to use as a working version.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ): Septentrionalis 19:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed truce on this subject by Robert West
I believe that the dispute on this point results from want of care by both parties when editing versions with a two-versions template in place. I have proposed a truce on this subject. It is a bit unwieldy, but if we stick to it we should be able to keep third-parties out of this dispute and keep our respective sanity while each side tries to improve its version. Robert A West 07:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Persuading the reader
Ultramarine has edited Democratic peace theory so that it will persuade the reader that Rummel's version is true; he has edited Criticisms of communism to persuade the reader that communism is vile. (Hence the picture on this discussion page.) As a side effect of this, he thinks anything that doesn't aim at this goal is argument from the other side: When I added a summary of Kant's Perpetual peace, Ultramarine said that my arguments got stranger and stranger. He doesn't understand: I wasn't arguing. I was trying to present what Kant actually said. Septentrionalis 19:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Copyright and threat of rules abuse
Ultramarine has been demanding, but not reverting to, the sidebar on this talkpage, the one with the corpse. The image and much of the text come from this site. I strongly suspect that this is a misunderstanding of policy, rather than a wilful violation, since he posted the link on Talk:Criticisms of communism himself, to convince me the text was true. (Mihnea and I had objected that it was tendentious and so PoV}

Exchange from the same Talk page (the merger was a proposal to merge as much as possible of one version into the other):
 * On the contrary, there is an agreement on this article by 2/3 majority. Shall we continue with the merger? Septentrionalis 18:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia rule about 2/3 majority in cases like this, there should be consensus. If you try to do any "merger", I will ask for protection of this page, using my version. Ultramarine 19:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC) {Italics mine Septentrionalis}

Septentrionalis 23:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ultramarine added a version of the text from the same sidebar to Vladimir Lenin. He snap reverted to it three times, although a large portion of his text was accepted; and then called for the page to be protected . I find this suggestive. Septentrionalis
 * I note that, in the protection request, he complains of User:172, who was one of those who reverted to half Ultramarine's text; and four hours later reported 172 for a borderline 3RR violation on a different article (penalty later revoked ). Does not Play Well with Others. Septentrionalis 15:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ): Septentrionalis 20:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Persistent reversion
One of the conflicts discussed here was the conflict over Criticisms of communism, in which there was substantial overlap between Ultramarine's version and Mihnea Tudoreanu's. I was able to establish a long discussion, which resulted in a version which contained essentially those things on both sides to which the other side did not object. The text was by no means consensus, but it was much closer to one than either competing text had been.

However, while Ultramarine was much politer after the initial RfC, he has no begun to revert to his old version, at first every few days; then every other day; now two or three times a day. He often makes a rearrangement or adds a sentence or two. (I invited him to add his new sentences as "edits to the consolidated version [which] are welcome, and will be viewed on their merits. They may well stay; no-one contends the present version is flawless" both on talk and on an edit summary) All eight of the reversions listed below have taken place since the edit summary; Ultramarine's only discussion has been [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticisms_of_communism&diff=21013785&oldid=20939404 this a few minutes ago]

This constitutes
 * Massive, unjustified, deletion.
 * Insertion of material which two editors have separately deprecated.
 * For the avowed purpose of making this article a criticism of communism, rather than a discussion of such criticisms.

Version reverted to:

20:14, 2 August 2005

Reversions:

 * 14:40, 3 August 2005
 * 16:27, 6 August 2005
 * 07:37, 10 August 2005
 * 16:24, 11 August 2005
 * 16:02, 13 August 2005
 * 17:18, 13 August 2005
 * 17:59, 14 August 2005
 * 19:29, 14 August 2005
 * 13:24, 17 August 2005
 * 19:33, 17 August 2005
 * 19:43, 17 August 2005

Successive diffs (time will differ slightly; Ultramarine does follow his reversions by reversing the two-version tag; and occasionally makes other minor edits):

2-3 August 3-6 August 6-10 August 10-11 August 11-13 August 13-13 August 13-14 August 14-14 August 14-17 August 17-17 August 17-17 August

After which he requested page protection as above.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ): Septentrionalis 20:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by nobs
Having read the above Incivility on Talk pages, which is the only portion of this dispute I have read, I will be watching with some interest. Thank you. nobs 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

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


text:
Rescue swimming

Rescue swimming is the body of skills that enable an individual to attempt a rescue when a swimmer is in difficulty. These include a combination of communication skills, specific "rescue" swimming strokes, and release and evade techniques for self-preservation should the rescue go wrong.
 * From the outset once a swimmer in difficulty is spotted, eye contact must be maintained at all times.
 * Assess the situation: environment, available physical equipment, others who can help, etc.
 * Attempt to establish voice contact, which if successful can often result in a "voice-rescue".
 * A rescuer should enter the water only as a last resort.
 * Rescues should be attempted in the following order: talk, throw, reach, wade, row, swim, tow and carry.

There are four main rescue strokes: front crawl, breaststroke, inverted breaststroke, and sidestroke.

title: Rescue swimming


text:
Jordan High School (Los Angeles)

Jordan High School, formerly David Starr Jordan High School, is a public comprehensive four-year high school in Los Angeles. Until October 2020, the school was named for David Starr Jordan, the first president of Stanford University (from 1891 to 1913). The school colors are Royal blue and white and the mascot is a  bulldog.

Some sections of Florence-Graham, an unincorporated neighborhood in Los Angeles County, are jointly zoned to Jordan and John C. Fremont High School. The Gonzaque Village, Imperial Courts, Jordan Downs, and Nickerson Gardens public housing developments of Los Angeles are zoned to Jordan.

Jordan is one of a few high schools to have three, unrelated, Olympic gold medalists come from the same high school in Hayes Edward Sanders, Florence Griffith-Joyner and Kevin Young. Sanders, in 1952, became the first African American to win the Olympic Heavyweight Boxing Championship while Griffith-Joyner still holds the current World Record in her respective event.

It was in the Los Angeles City High School District until 1961, when it merged into LAUSD.

With public input from the local community, the Los Angeles Unified School District school board unanimously voted in October 2020 to officially shorten the name of the school to "Jordan High School" and remove all references to David Starr Jordan.

Modernization
From early 2015 through late 2016 Jordan High School was temporarily closed for modernizations and new construction at the school. Students moved to a different school during renovations.

Prior to the 2005 opening of South East High School, Jordan served portions of the City of South Gate.

In March 2017 LAUSD sued the Los Angeles Housing Authority, stating that contaminants seeped onto the Jordan site from the neighboring Jordan Downs housing project.

Notable alumni

 * Dunia Elvir, television journalist, producer, motivational speaker and autism advocate.
 * Earl Battey, former professional baseball player (Chicago White Sox, Washington Senators, Minnesota Twins)
 * George Brown, long jumper
 * Buddy Collette, jazz saxophonist
 * Ray Vasquez, Singer, Trombonist, and actor
 * Michael Douglass, All-Pro linebacker for the Green Bay Packers and San Diego Chargers; owner of Alpine Fitness and M.D. Fitness in San Diego. 2003 Packers Hall of Fame inductee.
 * Joey Fatts, rapper
 * Florence Griffith-Joyner, multiple-Olympic gold medalist and current world record holder in the 100 meters and 200 meters
 * Art Harris, former professional basketball player
 * Aaron Holbert, former professional baseball player (St. Louis Cardinals, Cincinnati Reds) and current manager of the Mississippi Braves
 * Ray Holbert, former professional baseball player (San Diego Padres, Montreal Expos, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Royals)
 * Bobby Darwin, former professional baseball player (Los Angeles Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers, Minnesota Twins, Milwaukee Brewers, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs)
 * Brenda Holloway, Motown recording artist
 * Leon Hooten, former professional baseball player (Oakland Athletics)
 * Gail Hopkins, former professional baseball player (Chicago White Sox, Kansas City Royals, Los Angeles Dodgers)

 * Le-Lo Lang, NFL cornerback
 * Charles Mingus, jazz bassist
 * Manny Montana, actor
 * Roger E. Mosley, actor
 * Clarence Otis, Jr., CEO Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, and Red Lobster)

 * Wally Parks, founder of the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA), Class of 1931
 * Fletcher Joseph Perry, NFL Hall of Fame running back
 * Ron Riley, former professional basketball player
 * Hayes Edward Sanders, Olympic heavyweight boxing gold medalist; first African American to win Olympic heavyweight title
 * Walter "Scotty" Scott, member of R&B group, The Whispers
 * Paul Scranton, professional basketball player
 * Franklin Session, professional basketball player
 * Glenn T. Seaborg, discoverer of Plutonium and 1951 Nobel Prize–winning chemist
 * Sylvester, singer, graduated in 1969
 * James Washington, NFL safety (Los Angeles Rams, Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins) and two-time Super Bowl champion

 * Britt Woodman, jazz trombonist, Class of 1938
 * Kevin Young, 1992 Olympic gold medalist, former world record holder in 400 meter hurdles

title: Jordan High School (Los Angeles)


text:
User talk:Sexyeamo

Welcome
Hi,

I noticed you were new here so I thought I'd add a couple of welcome messages as they've got some useful links.

If you've got any questions about WP, feel free to put them on my talk page and I'll see if I can help.

CTOAGN 23:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Hi,

I noticed you were new and had been editing football articles, so I thought I'd give you a few links that it took me a while to find. Hope they're useful.

 * User:Sjorford/Football - comprehensive list of football articles on Wikipedia
 * WikiProject Football - place to discuss football articles
 * Wikiportal/Association football - good page for editors who are interested in football

Dean Delaney
If your original version hadn't been such a piece of shyte I would have been happy to leave it alone. It's better now. Babajobu 17:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Your test
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Fire Star 14:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bollix
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I took your advice and looked up "Bollix" using Google. Here's what I found says it means testicles. says its "The Irish pronunciation of 'bollocks'". again has "testicles". says its an alternative spelling of "bollocks". Not one mention of your suggested definition that I could find. Anyway, thanks for helping me confirm this is likely not true. Gwernol 12:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply. I've listed Bollix as an Article for deletion. This means the Wikipedia community has the opportunity to discuss the merits of this article and can reach a consensus on whether the article should be deleted or kept. Another possibility is it would be redirected to the existing Bollocks article or merged there. Please add your opinion to the discussion: Articles_for_deletion/Bollix. By the way, you seem to be under the impression that I have some authority here - I don't I'm just a regular editor like you. You also seem to think this is somehow an "ego trip" for me - I'm not sure what gave you that impression. If Bollix is really a different term with different meaning than Bollocks then I'd love to see Wikipedia cover it. But you'll need some level of verifiable evidence to show this is the case. I encourage you to provide that, in which case I'd happily change my opinion and support this article. Best, Gwernol 13:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good! Just be aware that sometimes things are not what they seem and the meaning of words changes all the time. In Ireland bollix means male genitalia and is a singular plural. The origins of the word may be from the term bollocks but it has evolved in Ireland for good or for bad and has a distinctly different meaning to the original there now therefore I believe it warrants its own page. The ironic thing is even some Irish people have forgotten the Irish meaning of the word because of the exposure of British culture. Hence we have our current problem where most people associate the two as the same when in fact they are fairly unique. It's the same thing which has occurred with the term Ulster. Everybody in Briain and the rest of the English speaking world seem to think that Northern Ireland is Ulster when in fact Northern Ireland is just six of the nine counties that make up Ulster. But things like that get easily forgotten when one culture is more dominant than another in our modern multimedia world.

Sexyeamo

Zeitgeist - The Movie
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Zeitgeist - The Movie, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 00:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (disambiguation)
Please read Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. If you think it needs an article then go and make your case at Deletion review. Continuing to add it to the disambiguation page will just lead to your being blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tha would be blocked for disruption. Did you even bother with Deletion review? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup bids
This has been one of the hardest pages to keep in some neutral, stable, citable state, and I have to revert your edit from today. It seems every user who comes to the page seems to bring their own country to root for. While I appreciate your desire to fill out the Australia section of the 2018 FIFA World Cup bids article, I wish we could do it with sourced material and not original research and speculation. The list of stadia is a particular problem. Yes those stadia exist and have that capacity, but until the are specified and named by an official source, I'm afraid it is pure speculation. The issue with the one stadium per city rule is one that effects pretty much all bids, and I do wish that there was more about it in the Background section at the top, but what we don't need is any users personal thoughts how it affects the bid. You say there are "other critics", can you get articles or sources for them. I don't think the imperative is on me or any other user to find sources for material you add. There's a lot of work to do on the article to get it up to snuff, and hopefully we can improve it within the limitations mentioned.--Patrick Ѻ 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself!

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to British Isles, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Robynthehode (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hi, on 23 Oct you left the following message on my talk page, and it seems your most recent edit was from 16 October 2018 (diff), while I made a number of edits as the Jamal Khashoggi article developed, I am not sure which of my contributions you mean. So, following your message ("If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page."), I ask you here.
 * Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jamal Khashoggi, did not appear constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sexyeamo(talk) 22:35, 23 October 2018 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyeamo (talk • contribs)

Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Daniel Grant
Hello, Sexyeamo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Daniel Grant, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Daniel Grant

Hello, Sexyeamo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Daniel Grant".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sexyeamo


text:
Category:Wisconsin stubs

 * For geographical items about Wisconsin, use Wisconsin-geo-stub instead.
 * For Wisconsin politicians, use Wisconsin-politician-stub instead.
 * For Wisconsin schools, use Wisconsin-school-stub instead.
 * For Wisconsin radio stations, use Wisconsin-radio-station-stub instead.
 * For Wisconsin roads, use Wisconsin-road-stub instead.

For Wisconsin articles needing a photograph, use in the talk page, which adds the article to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Wisconsin. You can help Wikipedia by uploading freely licensed photographs for these articles to Wikimedia Commons.

title: Category:Wisconsin stubs


text:
Category talk:Wisconsin stubs

US-midwest-geo-stub
There are two reasons for adding this stub as well: Tomer TALK 23:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A number of editors of geographical articles search for stubs to expand primarily on the type of item rather than location.
 * 2) It is easier for WP:WSS to judge if and when a separate Wisc-stub will be needed.

title: Category talk:Wisconsin stubs


text: Category:Computer science papers

title: Category:Computer science papers


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baboon Balls

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Baboon Balls
wikipedia is not a rumour-mill, source must be shown Jamster 23:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Del. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. mikka (t) 23:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful (and factual) with Red Hot Chili Peppers until this album is actually released. 23skidoo 00:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per mikka. (Though I am a big RHCP fan...) Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect, it reads like a copyvio press release, but I can't find the source. --nixie 01:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 08:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I posted it as an intentionally stupid rumor to show how gullable many Chili Peppers fans are. Some people believed it, I proved my point and this page has outlived its purpose. Get rid of it.
 * Delete and fifty lashes with a wet noodle for the anon poster just above. Xaa 00:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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


text: User talk:85.74.131.62

title: User talk:85.74.131.62


text:
User:ViolentGreen

I'm a 16 year old currently living in Eureka, CA. My interests include Folklore, Trees, Geography, Anarcho-Primitivism, and Bears. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, by the way.

title: User:ViolentGreen


text:
User:Cmx~enwiki

Hallo I am a (german) co-worker of the spanish wikipedia using the same nick. I will use the "common" site mainly to upload photos (mainly linked to history or geography) and drawings (mainly chemical structures and some technical drawing) that might be of common use.

Please let me know if you think that I could contribute in any other project.

title: User:Cmx~enwiki


text:
Illegal agreement

An illegal agreement under the common law of contract, is one that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a contract for murder.

The illegality of a contract depends on (1) the law of the country governing the contract, and (2) the law of the place of performance. Different rules will apply depending on the law of the relevant country(ies).

However, a contract that requires only legal performance on the part of each party, such as the sale of packs of cards to a known gambler, where gambling is illegal, will nonetheless be enforceable. A contract directly linked to the gambling act itself, such as paying off gambling debts (see proximate cause), however, will not meet the legal standards of enforceability. Therefore, an employment contract between a blackjack dealer and a speakeasy manager, is an example of an illegal agreement and the employee has no valid claim to his anticipated wages if gambling is illegal under that jurisdiction.

In Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises (1988), the California Court of Appeal for the Third District refused to enforce a contract for payment of promissory notes used for the purchase of a company that manufactured drug paraphernalia. Although the items sold were not actually illegal, the court refused to enforce the contract for public policy concerns.

In Canada, one cited case of lack of enforceability based on illegality is Royal Bank of Canada v. Newell (1997 NSCA 196), in which a woman forged her husband's signature on 40 cheques, totalling over $58,000. To protect her from prosecution, her husband signed a letter of intent prepared by the bank in which he agreed to assume "all liability and responsibility" for the forged cheques. However, the agreement was unenforceable, and was struck down by the courts, because of its essential goal, which was to "stifle a criminal prosecution". Because of the contract's illegality, and as a result voided status, the bank was forced to return the payments made by the husband.

Contracts in restraint of trade are a variety of illegal contracts and generally will not be enforced unless they are reasonable in the interests of the contracting parties and the public.

Contracts in restraint of trade if proved to be reasonable can be enforced. When restraint is placed on an ex-employee, the court will consider the geographical limits, what the employee knows and the extent of the duration. Restraint imposed on a vendor of business must be reasonable and is binding if there is a genuine seal of goodwill. Under common law, contracts to fix prices are legal. Sole supplier ("solus") agreements are legal if reasonable. Contracts which contravene public policy are void.

title: Illegal agreement


text:
User:Sophie1975

My name is Sophie and i live in Amsterdam!

I am based at Universiteit van Amsterdam.

I have made contributions about media theory, Amsterdam, and other things.

title: User:Sophie1975


text:
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision, handed down on June 12, 1992, that heightened standing requirements under Article III of the United States Constitution. It is "one of the most influential cases in modern environmental standing jurisprudence." Lily Henning of the Legal Times stated that: In Lujan, the Court held that a group of American wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations lacked standing to challenge regulations jointly issued by the U.S. Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, regarding the geographic area to which a particular section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 applied. The case arose over issues of US funding of development projects in Aswan, Egypt and Mahaweli, Sri Lanka that could harm endangered species in the affected areas. The government declared that the act did not apply to projects outside of the United States and Defenders of Wildlife sued.
 * In [this] decision, hailed by the right and attacked by the left as well as by a broad swath of legal scholars, the Court made clear that plaintiffs must suffer a concrete, discernible injury—not a "conjectural or hypothetical one"—to be able to bring suit in federal court. It, in effect, made it more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge the actions of a government agency when the actions don't directly affect them.

Opinion
In Scalia's interpretation of Article III of the Constitution, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have suffered an injury in fact, caused by the defendant, which a favorable court decision could redress, to meet the standing requirement to bring a case before the court. In his opinion for the majority, Justice Scalia stated that Defenders had failed to satisfy the “injury in fact” element. He wrote that the Court rejected the view that the citizen suit provision of the statute conferred upon “all persons an abstract, self-contained, non-instrumental ‘right’ to have the Executive observe the procedures required by law." Rather, he explained, an American citizen plaintiff must have suffered a tangible and particular harm.

Additionally, in the portion of his opinion that garnered only plurality support, Justice Scalia determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the redressability element.

In his opinion concurring in part, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justice David Souter, asserted that an airline ticket to the affected geographic areas with endangered species in question would have been enough to satisfy the imminent threat of future injury requirement.

Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the judgement as well, but disagreed with the Court's finding that Defenders lacked standing. Justice Stevens instead rested his opinion on a statutory construction of the Endangered Species Act.

Justice Harry Blackmun, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissented from the majority, stating first that the respondents have raised genuine issues of fact, and second that that the majority opinion imposed new limitations to bringing suit.

title: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife