text:
Talk:Free and open-source graphics device driver

Problems with binary drivers
This is a very important passage of this entire article. Yet it does not reflect on the problems faced by the hardware manufacturers. It is absurd, that philosophical POVs are mentioned, but not ones of the hardware developers. I stumbled upon an Interview with Terry Makedon, Chief Software Product Manager for the AMD Catalyst, which does point out quite clearly why manufacturers have such a hard time with free and open-source drivers. Sadly they are in german:
 * AMD-Interview: "Wir können unsere Treiber nicht offen legen" Part 1
 * AMD-Interview: "Wir können unsere Treiber nicht offen legen" Part 2

A TODO is to uses the explanations by Terry Makedon to depict the POV of the hardware developers, which are clearly missing in the article. I am going to do it, but it could take some time, so if somebody is bored (and speaks German) he or she could do this as well. It also should be possible to find Interviews/Videos in English or other languages. This is just a very good one, I stumbled upon. ScotXW (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing passage: Performance Comparison
I think, this is so important, that it deserves an own passage. There is material in the article, especially (or exclusively) with reference to benchmarks done by Phoronix ScotXW (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing passage: Software architecture
The software architecture in the meaning of framework for writing graphics drivers for the Unix-like operating systems is problematic. For device drivers for sound cards there is Advanced Linux Sound Architecture, which has been stable for a longer time. Making it unnecessary for developers to rewrite the driver for a different kernel framework.

On the graphics side, we have a couple of changes during the entire X_Window_System, which required drivers to be rewritten. ATM, there is still quite some development going on, with regards to GEM vs. TTM and DRI vs. Gallium3D, KMS vs. current and future Android Kernel mode setting modules.

Wayland will work on top of EGL (and, as far as I comprehend, thus deprecate the necessity for display server-drivers.)

Available free and open-source implementation of APIs should also be mentioned. There is Mesa, which implements OpenGL, (but only up until 3.2, whereas 4.2 is available), OpenGL ES, OpenVG and also EGL. There is also the Gallium3D State Tracker for Direct3D version 9. It works on top of Microsoft Windows and also in conjunction with Linux when running Wine. ScotXW (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Raison d'être
I created this article because it's a distinct topic in its own right, with a history going back years. The situation is very confused and this article could help to clarify it. It's far too specialised to be merged with the NVIDIA and/or FOSS articles, IMHO. Spliced 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems fair. I removed your original blurb on the Nvidia page because the tone was too npov.  This page appears to be more of npov which is good. Dan Granahan 20:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is nothing more than a complaint. It's not something that belongs in Wikipedia.  Microsoft doesn't give out the source to their OS, but I think they should.  Should I start a "Microsoft Should Give Me Their Source Code" Wikipedia topic?  Does it matter whether or not my complaint is even realistic?  Wikipedia is not a personal complaint forum or a wishlist forum.
 * The FOSS school of thought is not asking Nvidia to give away source code. It is asking for technical data about the hardware, sufficient to enable it to write its own source code. (This is the standard approach for hardware drivers in Linux, BSD etc. - binary-only drivers are the exception rather than the rule.) As such I feel that to describe the page as "nothing more than a complaint" completely misses the point and is unfair. And please sign your comments - for all we know you are nothing more than an Nvidia PR flack. In fact I see from whois that your IP address, 219.213.198.25 is indeed in a /24 netblock assigned to Nvidia. Spliced 07:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite parts of this, because there is POV subtly built-in... notably in the tone and lack of a real counter-balancing argument. I'm aiming to make both sides of the argument unemotional and objective, as Wikipedia should be. --Dr. Fuzz 01:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this because (a) the intro has been more than doubled in length to little useful effect, (b) it doesn't remove POV but rather inserts one of its own, (c) the purpose of the article is to assist users of NVIDIA cards, regardless of which side they're on, and not to waste their time with an interminable and ponderous debate between the two camps. Therefore, before making any more changes, please explain here what you think is wrong with the previous version, and let's not forget the virtue of brevity. Harumphy 11:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * From the original author, this article is "a distinct topic in its own right, with a history going back years. The situation is very confused and this article could help to clarify it." Now here are my issues with it: 1) It doesn't address the history, 2) it stops short of suggesting that basically only gamers care about the binary drivers (and by extension any OpenGL acceleration on FOSS platforms with NVIDIA hardware), and 3) it hinders clarity by introducing the controversy, yet speaking only to a FOSS audience.  Granted, I missed the remove-POV goal, but isn't the debate best served by addressing both sides, if it's to be discussed at all?  --Dr. Fuzz 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, some suggestions: 1) Add a "History and Background" section at the bottom to contain the history, background, philosophical differences, pros and cons of the available drivers; 2) Clarify in the Introduction who other than gamers may benefit from 3D / OpenGL support, regardless of whether the code which provides that support is FOSS or proprietary. --Harumphy 17:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in the article introduction
Most members of the Linux kernel development community detest binary drivers [1] and some actively seek to make life difficult for people who develop and use them. Binary drivers may only work with a particular kernel version, whereas FOSS drivers are built right into the mainstream kernel source, enabling users to take compatibility for granted.

It may also be the case that binary-only kernel modules, because they do not comply with the GNU General Public License, are a violation of the kernel developers' copyright.

 * The above statements contain weasel words to make uncited allegations against kernel developers on both sides of the issue. Citations and/or rewording is in order.  Big E 1977  21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Both done. Hope it's OK now. Harumphy 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed name change and expansion
Maybe this article would be both more neutral and more useful if it was broadened into, say, "Graphics hardware and FOSS". Then a comparison could be made between nVidia, ATI and Intel and the relative merits of each with FOSS. ATI provides 3D-related documentation (under NDA) to X.Org developers for up to the 9200, but nothing more recent. Intel is actively participating in X.Org's development of full 3D support for its new GMA 3000 and X3000 chipsets. If I hear nothing I'll assume I have everyone's blessing to 'be bold' and just do it. :-) Harumphy 16:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, do not consider that NDA is acceptable for the Free software community. Specifically about ATI, see their incident with rms on the MIT campus. I think we should not get rid of this article, but leave it as it is, and write a general article about Free graphics hardware in addition to this very article. This article already has some information specific to NVIDIA. MureninC 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think moving this article and expanding it to cover all graphics hardware is an excellent idea. NicM 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Yeah, why not turn it into a general article, including NVIDIA-specific information under a relevant section? There doesn't seem to be an "ATI vs FOSS" articl yet. -- intgr 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a consensus in favour of this, so I've made a start. Harumphy 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
Why are there two sections on FOSS support from all the different manufacturers? --Ysangkok 13:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Off-topic: Damn that bot is fast. I forgot to sign and five seconds later it had already added an "unsigned" template. --Ysangkok 13:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There aren't, one is manufacturer's support for their hardware in FOSS and the other is "native" FOSS support for graphics hardware. However, they are both pretty short and the second one is a bit useless, so merging them could be a nice idea. NicM 14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Done it. Harumphy 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Article problems
This article has just become a ragbag of stuff and a bit of mess. I rewrote most of it, but then realised it wasn't really clear what it was about. Is this supposed to be: In either case, some of it needs better attribution and some stuff could just plain go (the Microsoft conspiracy bit for a start, and it is probably only necessary to say there is a driver for Intel chips, we don't need to list all the distros that have it). NicM 10:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
 * A discussion of binary graphics drivers and OSS. If so, it should be renamed to something like "Graphics hardware and binary drivers" and a lot of stuff trimmed to make it more tightly focused (I have done most of this but not saved it yet).
 * A survey of wide use of graphics hardware on OSS, in which case it needs restructuring to make it clear it is discussing all graphics hardware, limit the binary stuff to graphics hardware and trim and tidy some of the messy bits. There is also the question of whether an article on this subject is appropriate.
 * As I see it, the article is supposed to be about the use of graphics hardware with FOSS - i.e. with free/open accelerated 3D drivers. It certainly was never meant to be about binary drivers, other than to explain why they're seen as a problem (in order to provide context). The main purpose of the article is to summarise the availability and development of free/open accelerated 3D drivers in order to inform end users who wish to use them. --Harumphy 12:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll tidy it up a bit with that in mind, but I'm not convinced an article with that purpose is encylopedic, WP:NOT manual or guidebook. NicM 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Oh well. There are so many things that WP is not one wonders if there's anything left that WP still is. :-) --Harumphy 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Essay?
Thumperward has slapped an ugly great tag at the top of the article, and commented in his edit(s) that it reads like someone's homework. This doesn't make any sense to me and I don't understand what he's on about. It would be much more helpful if people improved articles instead of taking it upon themselves to 'mark' other people's work like some self-appointed schoolmarm. Constructive editing is welcome. Incomprehensible hit-and-run defacement and bossiness are not. --Harumphy 11:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. --Daniel11 11:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It isn't "defacement", it's an accurate assessment of the current prose, and if people are going to take offense to their work being tagged by other editors in good faith as a first act towards improving it then I'd imagine they're too thin-skinned to have much of a future in Wikipedia editing anyway. For the time being it reads not like a description of an object, project or process but as a discussion, mostly synthesised from sources which do not address the issue themselves directly, of the state of the art of the topic. This is not befitting an encyclopedia article. The tag alerts others to the need for the article to either be rewritten to conform with Wikipedia's expectations of article content, or to be moved to another WikiMedia project where it would fit better in its current form. Chris Cunningham 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * What part of the article is "synthesized from sources"? Did you actually have a look at the sources? I don't know about the lead section, but everything else was properly sourced last time I dealt with this article. -- intgr [talk] 00:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The point of WP:SYN is that individual parts can all be properly sourced, but if you then use those discrete arguments to advance a position not expressed by the originals, or compare the positions in those sources to one another when the sources make no such comparison, you're synthesising. Reference 20, for instance, devotes a full half-sentence to open source, and in the reference does so in a section about NDAs. We've got it supporting binary drivers. Chris Cunningham 07:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Reference 20 devotes a full section with three paragraphs to open source drivers; please refer to one titled "Elimination of Open-source Hardware Support". -- intgr [talk] 09:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Slapping a tag on an article without a word of explanation is not a useful 'first act towards improving it ' and isn't likely to be seen as being in good faith. It's akin to saying "this article sucks and you're all idiots. I'm not going to tell you why, work it out yourself." Saying that an article "reads like an essay" is an incredibly uninformative criticism, because "like an essay" is so vague it's meaningless. (There are many types of essay.) It's necessary to lead by example - by actually doing the kind of editing that you want others to do - or at least to criticise *constructively*. People who have Asperger's syndrome are probably too insensitive to others to have much of a future in Wikipedia editing anyway. --Harumphy 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * So take it up with the authors of template:essay-entry. I tagged the article as a reminder to myself to go back and improve it as much as for any other reason, and do indeed plan to tackle this at some point, but consensus thus far on WP goes that cleanup tags are not intended to be taken personally and using them isn't to be specifically avoided for any reason. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Right. In future, could you please refrain from using WP articles as your personal notebook? TIA. Much as though a battle with the unholy army of cleanup-tag graffiti artists is needed, life's too short. --Harumphy 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * While I've been called many silly names on Wikipedia, this is officially the first time I've been referred to as a footsoldier of "the unholy army of cleanup-tag graffiti artists". Safe to say that I don't take editing tips from people who can't give them civilly, though. Chris Cunningham 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Three against, no one agreeing, (no comment from me) tag removed. --Gronky 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * This isn't a vote. You want the tag removed, clean the article up. Chris Cunningham 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * WP:OWN - but I don't edit enough to be able to have the revert war your offering. The tag should be removed because it is incorrect. --Gronky 11:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * As with your other accusations of bad faith against me, this one is ludicrous. I'm hardly owning an article by insisting that a tag inviting others to edit it be kept. Anyway, I've had a think about this, and seeing as the GPU article doesn't have a drivers section just now that's probably the best place to add a (distilled) version of this. The debate around which this article currently centres is only notable in the wider context presented there. Chris Cunningham 11:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right in a way, but there are two angles on this. One is about GPUs, but there is also the issue of the free software community's debates, campaigns, and acceptance of free and non-free drivers.  Graphics card drivers have sparked debates about binary bits in the kernel, down to what level does software freedom matter, is it a security issue, will we ever win - if so, how, if maybe not, is it worth the fight. etc.  It's really been a big thing. --Gronky 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * That's true, but the point is that "Graphics hardware and FOSS" is not a subject in and of itself. It is a subset of one of two things; graphics cards, and free software. Discussion of its intricacies is only relevant in the context of one of those two topics. As a standalone article, it can't really be anything more than an essay. Hence the merge tag. Chris Cunningham 11:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * "Free and open source software (FOSS) can be used with a variety of graphics hardware, largely via the X.Org project." It's clearly a process. --Daniel11 12:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It looks to me as though Thumperward/Chris Cunningham is just trolling. Anyone can edit a WP article - they don't need inviting to do so by a cleanup tag. --Harumphy 11:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * That argument has been had and lost on a wider scale. There's nothing wrong with tagging articles, there's no offense intended to the editors who have worked on it before, and I'm not accepting your declaration that the issue should be discussed further at the same time as you're dismissing my arguments with random accusations of bad faith - which you've done on several occasions now. Chris Cunningham 12:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The reason Harumphy and others took offense is that you wrote in your edit summary: "(tag. this is someone's homework)" -- i.e. in addition to informing them that you were placing a tag on the article, you insulted the people who wrote it by calling it their "homework." Harumphy has been caustic in response where he/she could have been more polite (although I found the responses funny), but I believe you initiated the feeling of confrontation, whether intentionally or not. --Daniel11 12:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Fine, I apologise for that. At least I was still commenting on the work as opposed to commenting on the user. WP:HESTARTEDIT isn't currently policy, and I've come to the talk page to discuss it as well as making moves to suggest what should be done with it (merging to a less abstract article). Chris Cunningham 12:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * How about a move to a more specific, descriptive title? Something like "Use of graphics hardware with FOSS," or "Hardware acceleration with FOSS," or something like that? --Daniel11 12:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * If I thought the title was the only problem, I'd have made that clear. The whole article is a report on the state of the art of an abstract concept, the intermingling of the free software movement with the highly proprietary modern graphics card market. The target is moving, it isn't strictly defined in the first place, and such as it is defined it isn't often reported on in and of itself by notable sources in anything other than a reporting manner. Take a look at the original article and tell me that it describes a thing, a concept worthy of an encyclopedia as opposed to an incidental historic note on the state of a) free software or b) graphics drivers. I don't see the current version of the article as being any better-defined in that area. Chris Cunningham 12:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really all that comfortable with the article as it stands either. I think the article is sort of neither one thing nor t'other. It seems that it covers two distinct topics: a survey of the current state of graphics hardware interoperability with FOSS, which is a bit nebulous, and mostly X.Org anyway, and some information on the binary blob debate. I think the latter material (the "Issues with binary drivers" section) would be much better extended and merged into another article more specific to the subject, probably a "Graphics hardware" section of binary blob itself. I'm not really totally sure about the former stuff—but there isn't an awful lot of real content and it does sort of seem now that it is either stuff that might be better in video card; stuff that would be better in X.Org Server or another X.Org article; or stuff that is shopping guide/Linux HOWTO (although I think there isn't much of that now), which should probably be removed altogether. I'm not really sure there is anything that could be added to make the article more solid, the subject is sort of a little ill-defined: it isn't really something where a history section, or technical details, or anything else that might normally appear feels right. NicM 19:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Perceptions by key people behind major open source projects
"Alas Nvidia is too used to trying to make games appear a couple of fps faster by any hacks possible, rather than actually wanting to work with the developer community to solve the scalability problem properly..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.72.47 (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

minor suggestion
In the section Problems with binary drivers, can "although NVIDIA have denied this, asserting that the issue was only communicated to them in July 2006 and that the 2004 bug was a bug in X.Org, not in NVIDIA's driver." be changed to "although NVIDIA have denied this, asserting that the issue was only communicated to them in July 2006, and that the 2004 bug was in X.Org, and not in NVIDIA's driver.". Kushalt 12:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

nvidia drops support for nv
Anyone want to edit the article to mention this? — SheeEttin {T/C} 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Change
I changed the misspelled "AIT" to ATI" 108.11.130.56 (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mention of GPUs embedded in SoCs
SoCs that include one (or multiple) GPU/GPU-like IC-Blocks are e.g. Apple Ax, OMAP, Snapdragon, Tegra, NovaThor, Exynos, etc.
 * Qualcomm's Adreno
 * ARM's Mali
 * Broadcom's VideoCore
 * Imagination Technologies's PowerVR

Please also read Talk:Graphics_processing_unit, because sometime these units are called multimedia processors. At least the VideoCore is reported Here: Ars Technica: Video iPod – Vivisection to replace the "Wolfson audio codec" and add "video processing and output" Doors5678 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Broadcom VideoCore OpenSource driver
Please update Broadcom section from this article: http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/2221 --LeNiN (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope I did a reasonable decent job. Mahjongg (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --LeNiN (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Obfuscation in nv dirver
Example: http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/vga256/drivers/nv/Attic/nv3driver.c.diff?r1=1.1.2.5&r2=1.1.2.6&hideattic=0&only_with_tag=xf-3_3_3

Before:

MapDevice(PFIFO,regBase);

After:

nvPFIFOPort=(unsigned*)xf86MapVidMem(vga256InfoRec.scrnIndex, 3, ((char*)( regBase ))+ (8192) , ((16383) - (8192) +1) ) ;

The message about obfuscation: http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/vga256/drivers/nv/Attic/README.RIVATNT?rev=1.1.2.3&hideattic=0&only_with_tag=xf-3_3_3&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup `a5b (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

11/18/98

After we already finalized XFree86-3.3.3 NVIDIA forced The XFree86 Project to replace the sources we had with sources that were partly run through the C preprocessor in order to remove some of the names that NVIDIA thought might give away IP from NVIDIA. This resulted in unreadable and unmaintainable code.

The XFree86 Project is strongly opposed to such obfuscated code. We do not regard this as free software according to our standards. Due to the extremely late date of this decision from NVIDIA we decided to include the code as offered by NVIDIA. We are considering to remove support for the later NVIDIA chips in a future release, though.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Free and open-source device drivers: graphics → Free and open-source graphics device driver – to comply with WP:TITLE, especially WP:SINGULAR and WP:NATURAL. Joja lozzo  19:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)  Joja  lozzo  19:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Seems reasonable to me. The colon seems a bit out of place in an article title. bobrayner (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Application binary interface
The article claims that the Linux kernel has no Binary Kernel Interface, linking to Application binary interface. But that article says that ABIs cover details such as the sizes, layout, and alignment of data types and how an application should make system calls which is, in my understanding, the binary kernel interface for user userspace programs. Does this mean the above sentence is wrong and we should remove it ? -- Juergen 37.252.106.163 (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Source code portability targets programmers and is achieved by using APIs and keeping these APIs stable.
 * Binary portability targets independent software vendors and is achieved by using ABIs and keeping them stable.
 * The Linux kernel has a very stable APIs towards user space, that means, that programs that were written for the Linux kernel 2.2, can be compiled to run on a Linux kernel 3.14. They do need to be re-compiled, with a current gcc version, but they will compile and run. The Linux kernel has no stable in-kernel ABI, that means, that a proprietary kernel component that runs with Linux kernel 3.13 will probably not run with Linux kernel 3.14. You need to distinguish between kernel-to-userspace API and kernel component-to-kernel component ABI ;-) ScotXW (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I would like to suggest to merge this article into Mesa (computer graphics). Most, but not all!, free and open-source graphics device driver drivers are being developed inside of the mesa project. User:ScotXW t@lk 11:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would the general rationale for FOSS graphics drivers be in the scope of the Mesa article? Sizeofint (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not insist on that. User:ScotXW t@lk 21:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of content that wouldn't be appropriate for the Mesa article. It is possible that some could be spun off into Free and open source drivers but it is probably more effort than it is worth. It would making discussing non-mesa drivers more difficult as well. IMO a merge isn't necessary at the moment. Sizeofint (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think the current solution with the Mesa article having a short paragraph describing the overall situation, and a link here as the main article for further reading is ideal. Both articles are about very different concepts (driver versus API). Mesa as "the" umbrella project is only applicable to Linux/BSD, an admittedly large subset of open source platforms. Both articles are already quite sizeable, and I think merging both would not be helpful in that respect either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A62:1181:6301:6188:9441:BA99:A39A (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"people like"
To write that a team has "people like" certain named people is an odd usage for an encyclopedia.

Either it has those named people or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, why are the unnamed people "like" the named ones?--23.119.204.117 (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the entire paragraph is not encyclopedic. I removed it. Sizeofint (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Free and open-source graphics device driver. 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/20150426153026/https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt to https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022064328/http://airlied.livejournal.com/50613.html to http://airlied.livejournal.com/50613.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ubuntugamer.com/2011/01/ubuntu-graphics-driver-overview/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209235426/http://libv.livejournal.com/23886.html to http://libv.livejournal.com/23886.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407031941/http://anholt.livejournal.com/44239.html?nojs=1 to http://anholt.livejournal.com/44239.html?nojs=1

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) 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free and open-source graphics device driver. 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/20130716090237/http://developer.amd.com/resources/documentation-articles/developer-guides-manuals/ to http://developer.amd.com/resources/documentation-articles/developer-guides-manuals/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024233408/https://gitorious.org/freedreno/ to https://gitorious.org/freedreno/

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) 15:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation and prose problems
All references belong at the end of the article (not individual sections), and please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.  Mini  apolis  21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Free and open-source graphics device driver. 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://www.webcitation.org/6KC0EClBX?url=http://www.botchco.com/agd5f/?p=58 to http://www.botchco.com/agd5f/?p=58
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201173132/http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/vga256/drivers/nv/Attic/README.RIVATNT.diff?r1=1.1.2.2&r2=1.1.2.3&hideattic=0&only_with_tag=xf-3_3_3 to http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/vga256/drivers/nv/Attic/README.RIVATNT.diff?r1=1.1.2.2&r2=1.1.2.3&hideattic=0&only_with_tag=xf-3_3_3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208084233/http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2006/linuxsymposium_procv1.pdf to http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2006/linuxsymposium_procv1.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free and open-source graphics device driver. 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/20110727083331/http://www.milkymist.org/thesis/thesis.pdf to http://www.milkymist.org/thesis/thesis.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
Common darter

The common darter (Sympetrum striolatum) is a dragonfly of the family Libellulidae native to Eurasia. It is one of the most common dragonflies in Europe, occurring in a wide variety of water bodies, though with a preference for breeding in still water such as ponds and lakes. In the south of its range adults are on the wing all year round.

Appearance
Sympetrum species are not easy to tell apart and in most areas more than one Sympetrum species will occur. Females and teneral individuals have light yellow thorax and abdomen. Males turn red as they mature. Females darken with age, becoming a dark chocolate brown, and sometimes develop a blue colouration to the bottom of the abdomen. The wings also develop a brown tinge with age. In all cases the legs have a cream or yellow stripe on a black background - this is a diagnostic feature of this species. The pterostigma of the females can be red, blue, pale blue or brown.

Behaviour
Adults can be seen on the wing all year round in southern Europe but in northern regions they occur from June to November.

This small dragonfly is seen in a wide variety of habitats, including lakes, ponds, canals and slow-flowing rivers. They are ambush predators, waiting on a prominent perch - such as a leaf or the top of a gate, until prey fly past, whereupon they will fly after it. They are territorial on breeding waters, often attempting to chase much bigger dragonflies away such as southern hawkers. This habit of repeatedly returning to a sunny spot allows you to easily predict where they are going to land, which is why it is one of the easiest dragonflies to photograph.

In suitable hunting areas away from water, however, they are not territorial: large numbers may assemble - groups of several hundred in a single field have been recorded - and lines of insects can be seen along the top of field gates.

Eggs are not laid, but broadcast from the air: the male holds the female in tandem and swings her down and forward over water. At the furthest point of the arc the female releases some of her eggs to fall on the water.

Conservation status
This is one of the most abundant dragonflies in Europe, and populations show no evidence of decline.

Highland darter
A taxon named the highland darter used to be considered a separate species, Sympetrum nigrescens. It is found in Ireland, Scotland and Norway. It may be the same taxon as the island darter, formally S. nigrifemur, both being a subspecies of S. striolatum.

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

title: Common darter


text:
User talk:Dubliner

Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong
encyclopedist 09:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Hong Kong Meeting

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Wish you all the best in the year of the pig. Wish you a year full of knowledge and energy. As nurtured as a pig, as content as a pig. Greetings from Hong Kong. --Deryck C. 16:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Venue suggestion needed for a meet-up in Yuen Long

Dear:  ：

In the past meet-ups, we always had our meeting in the centre of Kowloon, either Kowloon Tong or Mong Kok. However, apart from these places, I am sure that alternative venues in other region would be suitable.

This is the time for your suggestion! According to some discussion on Chinese Wikipedia, from August of 2007, the Hong Kong Wikimedians’ meet-up would be held in all districts of Hong Kong in a circulation basis.

Here is the tentative information of the first meet-up：
 * Date： 11, August, 2007 (Saturday)
 * Time： After 5:00pm
 * Proposed region： Yuen Long

The community would request for ideas of where we should hold the meet-up , in order to have a better decision. If you have any good ideas, don’t hesitate to give your opinions, million thanks!

"Please don't hesitate to give your good suggestion to us"

Regards, Hong Kong Wikimedian JéRRy.雨雨.talk.hk 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- Addbot (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit | c 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress

 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short

 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives

 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

title: User talk:Dubliner


text:
Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated

Talk archive Talk archive2

An excellent intro by third party
"The consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are so staggering that insurance companies won't fully insure them. Unfortunately, Congress isn't so cautious. It passed a law in 1957, the Price-Anderson Act, that established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power. This law limits the amount of insurance nuclear power plant owners must carry and caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack at dollar amounts that fall far, far short of the actual financial consequences that could be incurred. Even nuclear power executives acknowledge that their industry is financially dependent on Price-Anderson to shield nuclear power from free market forces.  Unless reauthorized by Congress, the Price-Anderson subsidy will not apply to proposed new reactors built after December 31, 2003."

Isn't it a beautiful thing?

How About

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power because the consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are so staggering that insurance companies won't fully insure them. This law limits the amount of insurance nuclear power plant owners must carry and caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack at dollar amounts that fall far short of the actual financial consequences that could be incurred. Even nuclear power executives acknowledge that their industry is financially dependent on Price-Anderson to shield nuclear power from free market forces. Unless reauthorized by Congress, the Price-Anderson subsidy will not apply to proposed new reactors built after December 31, 2003.

It's perfect - I'll ask Public Citizen if we can borrow their intro - provided no one objects. Benjamin Gatti

 * Nyet and nyet. Public Citizen is a fine magazine, but it's about as POV as possible. And the paragraph you quoted is POV, though not as bad as they usually are. As I've said before, to me it's irresponsible to have anything in here saying how much a nuclear accident would cost. I don't care how many citations you use, they have no way of knowing how much a nuclear accident would cost. And again, we're putting criticisms of the law in the opening paragraph. Since this article is already mostly criticism, I don't think we should let any more in. Period. The article is already tilted towards it and if we add any more, it's going to be a position paper against Price-Anderson. --Woohookitty 19:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think WhooHoo that you ought to criticise this opening by pointing out factual assertion which you dispute. Since you have not disputed any of Public Citizens' claims, and they are all right there in the text of Price Anderson, I think we can procede on the assumption that the claims are undisputed - and consequently suitable for an introduction. Benjamin Gatti
 * Ed, I really don't think this kind of "suggestion" is helpful in any way · Katefan0(scribble) 21:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying it's POV - doesn't make it POV - that option is not a part of wiki policy - and that is what we're hammering out here - policy - not opinion, or lifetime friendships - just policy. If it's the policy that one can just cry "POV" and wish away the unpleasant details - that should be a new Policy WK:Whitewash or WK:WW for short - as these links are red, apparently whitewash is not yet an official policy. As for the details, the intro doesn't state how much an incident mmight cost - only that the potential cost has been identified as higher than insurance companies will insure - an absolute 100% undeniable irrefuatable undisputed well-sourced GAO approved fact. Benjamin Gatti

 * I don't think you care about policy. Also, I can attack most of the paragraph if you'd like. First of all, it is full of POV language. I'm going to explain what POV is. It's one side's point of view...a point of view not shared by the other side nor is it neutral. it's as simple as that.

Let's see. First of all, "cautious" is POV. First of all, where is the evidence that Congress was cautious here? Public Citizen is making an opinion statement. Ed, I don't think you probably saw this in our free form discussion, but Ben basically said at one point that something is NPOV to him if it is cited. He omitted the fact that it also has to be fair. In this case, he is saying that because it is cited, it is fact and POV. I don't see a statement from a Congressperson at the time saying that this is why Price-Anderson was passed. I see no evidence of Congress being cautious. It's an opinionated statement that the editors of Public Citizen made. It's in their view. In other words, it's POV.

Secondly, the following sentence is full of potholes..."This law limits the amount of insurance nuclear power plant owners must carry and caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack at dollar amounts that fall far, far short of the actual financial consequences that could be incurred." The main pothole is that yes, it never says how much the accident would be, but it assumes how much an accident would be. I usually trust the GAO, but you know what, Ben? We've had few enough incidents in the US that I'm not sure we can really know how much an accident would cost. I think this whole thing about how much an accident would cost is too slippery for us to even have in here. I mean, what defines an accident? And who defines it? Ben? Nuke industry? What? They can guess how much an accident would cost, but that's ALL it is...a guess. They don't know. It's hard to predict that stuff. Look at Hiroshima and Nagosaki. The # of expected dead was far, far less than the actual number. Even after 60 years, I don't think it's responsible to guess how much damage an accident would cause. That's what amazes me about the pool debate. How the heck do you know how much they will need in case of an emergency? Public Citizen doesn't really know...the GAO doesn't really know...Ben doesn't really know. You can't know. I

It's not like we've had many, many accidents in the US so we can have a guide. Ed, Ben keeps bringing up Chernobyl. You can't compare it to Chernobyl...completely different situation. And something Ben hasn't really mentioned is...we haven't had a major nuclear accident since Three Mile Island. How does he know that we're going to have another one? Like I said, that's why I continually object to any of this language that keeps being put in about accidents and encouraging accidents and everything else. If this really was such a "good deal" for nuclear, then why don't we have yearly accidents? I mean come on. Wouldn't the nuclear industry want to cash in if Ben's correct and Price-Anderson encouraged accidents? Apparently, they don't. All of this crud about causing accidents and costs and such is POV. Heavy heavy POV. It's your opinion. It's the opinion of public watchdog groups like Public Citizen. But it's not facts, Ben.

And now we have this passage about even nuclear power executives saying that they are dependent on Price-Anderson? Where's the citation? I don't see that anywhere else in the article, so you know what? It doesn't belong in the intro. I see no citations of where execs say that this is good for them. You ASSUME that it is good for them, but you can't assume that. If this is such a hot deal, you would think someone would say that it was great for them, even privately. So that should not be in the intro.

One more thing before I close (sorry for the length Ed, but Ben wanted examples). POV is a an opinionated statement that is supported by only one side on an issue. NPOV is language that is supported by both sides of an issue or at least is a fair compromise between the 2 sides of the issue. What Ben is proposing for the intro is POV because it is full of opinions. The only real facts I see involve the fact that it is taxpayer backed and also the year the law was passed in. Everything else is a variant of "Nukes bad!", which has been the mantra of the other side of this issue every since this started. --Woohookitty 05:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms section
I have something. Ben, if you insist that we say "The government said..." instead of treating it as authoritative, then I suggest that we label the groups you use in the criticism section as "watchdog" or "liberal". If you can label our sources, we can label yours. I just don't see how a neutral group like the GAO can be compared to an advocacy group like Public Citizen. Just because it is in "criticisms" doesn't mean that anything goes. --Woohookitty 05:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well Ed seems to (see how the GOA and Public Citizen can both be POV) and you agreed to mediation. Benjamin Gatti

Moved Items to Nuclear Power Talk
(This message will self destruct) two items here were objected too because they related more to nuclear than to Price. They were moved - and irrelevent comments (ie these are irrelevent) were dropped. Revert don't revolt. Benjamin Gatti

Reply to WhooHoo
WhooHoo - this isn't as hard as all that. Say you're in the firecracker business. You have a warehouse, and you want insurance. The insurance guy says sowhatchagotinthere? and you say a couple tons of TNT in pretty boxes. So he says what is the worst case - and you say - well, worst case is an employee is careless with the smokes, and flicks on into the shelf, and then a cracker goes off - and then another, and another, and another and in 30 seconds, the whole building explodes outwards in a ball of fire. and the insurance guy says - so what's the building worth - and you say couple hundred thow, so he does the math, and viola - you've got insurance. Nuclear is the same way - you ask "sowhatchagotinthere" and it turnes out to be a couple hundrend thousand pounds worth of TNT, and you figure the worst case - and it sucks.

The language there is pretty unambiguous and states fairly (I removed some POV words) the factual issues.

 * 1) ...established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power (Pretty clear - ok on this?)
 * 2) because the consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are so staggering that insurance companies won't fully insure them. (Again this is why - perhaps "Can't" is a better word?)
 * 3) This law limits the amount of insurance nuclear power plant owners must carry (Clearly it does?)
 * 4) and caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack (Again we agree?)
 * 5) at dollar amounts that fall far short of the actual financial consequences that could be incurred. (This is where the excitement begins not the "could be incurred" not that we are guessing, the possible amount of damages is estimated to be too high for private insurance - we know its too high - that is problem #1.)
 * 6) nuclear power executives acknowledge that their industry is financially dependent on Price-Anderson to shield nuclear power from free market forces. (I think we even have quotes and cites for that one GE Westinghouse, and Cheney)
 * 7) Unless reauthorized by Congress, the Price-Anderson subsidy will not apply to proposed new reactors built after December 31, 2003. (That just kinda factual )

I think in fairness, this intro should be criticised down to what ever is salvagable and then we work to blend the two - clearly opposite views into a unifiied intro - that's NPOV as I understand it. Benjamin Gatti

More Reply to WH
The next serious nuclear accident will be in 10,000 reactor years - put another way a 50% chance in the next 50 years (because we have 100 reactors. 50% chance in the next 17 year worldwide. That's how I read it somewhere - Simesa can pipe up if i'm wrong.

As for Industry saying they need it - if you really intend to dispute that - i'll be happy to quote it. It's been quoted here at least three times. look it being extended in the Energy Bill - nuclear plants wouldn't be built (or operated) without it. Benjamin Gatti

 * , also WASH-1400 - from several sources, WASH-1400 says 1 in 20,000 years based on the situation in 1975. Simesa 06:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Third Reply
WH - This quote was supplied earlier (see it in archive) I think it proves a third party answer to your very important questions.

"In the United States, safety-related shortcomings have been identified in the construction quality of some plants, plant operation and maintenance, equipment reliability, emergency planning, and other areas. In addition, mishaps have occurred in which key safety systems have been disabled. NRC's oversight of the nuclear industry is an ongoing issue; nuclear utilities often complain that they are subject to overly rigorous and inflexible regulation, but nuclear critics charge that NRC frequently relaxes safety standards when compliance may prove difficult or costly to the industry."

"The consensus among most safety experts is that a severe nuclear power plant accident in the United States is likely to occur less frequently than once every 10,000 reactor-years of operation. These experts believe that most severe accidents would have small public health impacts, and that accidents causing as many as 100 deaths would be much rarer than once every 10,000 reactor-years. On the other hand, some experts challenge the complex calculations that go into predicting such accident frequencies, contending that accidents with serious public health consequences may be more frequent."

"Nuclear Accident Liability

Liability for damages to the general public from nuclear accidents is controlled by the Price-Anderson Act (primarily Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2210). The act is up for reauthorization on August 1, 2002, but existing nuclear plants will continue to operate under the current Price-Anderson liability system if no extension is enacted.

Under Price-Anderson, the owners of commercial reactors must assume all liability for accident damages to the public. To pay any such damages, each licensed reactor must carry the maximum liability insurance available, currently $200 million. Any damages exceeding that amount are to be assessed equally against all operating commercial reactors, up to $83.9 million per reactor. Those assessments - called "retrospective premiums" - would be paid at an annual rate of no more than $10 million per reactor, to limit the potential financial burden on reactor owners following a major accident. Including three that are not operating, 106 commercial reactors are currently covered by Price-Anderson.

For each accident, therefore, the Price-Anderson liability system currently would provide up to $9.09 billion in public compensation. That total includes the $200 million in insurance coverage carried by the reactor that had the accident, plus the $83.9 million in retrospective premiums from each of the 106 currently covered reactors. On top of those payments, a 5% surcharge may also be imposed. Under Price-Anderson, the nuclear industry's liability for an accident is capped at that amount, which varies depending on the number of licensed reactors, the amount of available insurance, and an inflation adjustment that is made every five years. Payment of any damages above that liability limit would require congressional action. "

 Benjamin Gatti

 * So what's wrong with "Liability for damages to the general public from nuclear accidents is controlled by the Price-Anderson Act (primarily Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2210)." as an opening line? Simesa 02:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Because its extraordinary insurance, and extraordinary insurance requires extrordinary explaination.

What's wrong with: "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power because the consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are so substantial that insurance companies won't fully insure them." as an opening line? Benjamin Gatti

 * Because it is negative. The first sentence/paragraph should be a summary of the article, not a setup for a position paper, which this isn't. Also, please use spell checker or something. Tired of correcting your spelling. :) If you want specifics, "so substantial" is POV. I don't see why the first paragraph can't be a summary of the first section and then the summary of the criticisms section. Simple as that. I.e. I'm not good at specific arguments (not my strength) but vaguely, something like Price-Anderson developed because of this reason...it is still around for this reason...but criticisms of it say such and such. Simple as that. The first paragraph set the tone of the article and to me, if it starts with criticisms, then it's a negative article about Price-Anderson but that isn't what this is supposed to be. It's NOT A POSITION PAPER. --Woohookitty 23:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I would ask then for our beloved Mediator to offer words of clarity on this - is it necessarily the case than any words which could be construed as negative do not belong in an opening - and as a thought experiment - would it necessarily be improper to open a discussion of Rosa Parks, with words which view her arrest with distain? - If we presuppose the goodness of Price, then I would agree with you, but if we presuppose that it is a bad thing, then it is encumbant on us to open with the presupposition. Given that there are substantial views dedicated to both sides, the opening should be factual and allow the reader from either camp not to feel cheated. Let's say I accept your contention that "SO SUBSTANTIAL" is a bit too 1POV; could you rephrase the fact in language which still conveys that the magnitude of a nuclear accident has been deemed by the indursty itself to be such that the risk is unacceptable - given the potential benefit? Benjamin Gatti

 * We aren't presupposing the goodness or badness of Price. This article is already more than 50% criticism. Since Kate is the one that help you with the criticisms section already, I don't think it's quite fair to keep adding more and more criticism. We've already given in a ton on this overall. Ben hasn't given in very much at all. I object to piling it on any more here.

 * And btw, Rosa Parks is a different animal. I don't know of a single human being on Wikipedia who thinks that what was done to her was right. It's apples and oranges, Ben. You're comparing an article without an opposing view, which has one view that 99% of people agree with with an article with 2 equal views. You can't compare the two.

 * And I don't remember agreeing with you on your view of Price-Anderson. I missed that memo. --Woohookitty 01:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems you're saying that thought experiments are useless. How would you suggest people think new thoughts if "everything" is apples and oranges and nothing can be used to build knowledge - it seems you're locking us in to the facts of the past - you would in theory - condemn Gallileo because his thoughts were novel and "virtualally no-one agrees with him." What a small world that must be. Benjamin Gatti

 * I'd say that yes, thought experiments are useless inside Wikipedia. For one thing, I can't tell the difference between them and "original research". Simesa 04:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The revert I did
I did it because it was my understanding that nothing was going to go onto the moderated page unless Ed approved it or did it himself? I didn't think this was a sandbox situation. --Woohookitty 01:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It's no one's fault, really. We never really agreed on anything, I merely made a proposal.

 * Can we all sign up to (1) no one reverts /moderated but the Mediator and (2) anyone can move disputed text to talk?

 * Uncle Ed 01:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Benjamin Gatti 02:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Does that mean no additions / refactoring as well? just guessing still.

I don't agree unless only the moderator can make changes to the moderated version. --Woohookitty 02:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Woohoojitty.
 * I can accept the current proposal of the first line, if (as we discussed) "when" is changed to "if". Simesa 04:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The criticism sentence

 * (the act) has been criticized by environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs as a handout to the nuclear power industry.

Everyone, including me, thinks it's silly to start with criticism. We all want to know what the act is before listing criticisms of it. Uncle Ed 01:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

So, what is the best thing to do with this sentence? Leave it for a few days, re-insert it further down, or what? Uncle Ed 01:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I don't have an opinion - I think Kate wrote it, and i think that it accurately summarizes the piece as it was (is). Benjamin Gatti

 * I suggest we table it until we get past the second sentence. Simesa 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Better because it "established an insurance scheme"
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power because the potential consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are greater than insurance companies are willing and able to fully insure.

Aside from WooHooKitten's objections which have been addressed - is there any objections to this sentence as an opener? Benjamin Gatti

 * Did I agree to anything? Why do you do that? You assume that everyone has agreed because no one has immediately complained. I still object. We should not have any negative language in the opening sentence because it just sets the wrong tone for an article that is mostly negative already. Again. Explain the law, why its still around and then the criticisms. You can take 4,5 sentences for that. There is no need to cram it all into the first sentence. Absolutely none. I am not going to agree to negative language in the first sentence. I refuse to do it and I hope Simesa and Kate are behind me on it. If not, I still object. Quit assuming that I am agreeing or that "the concerns have been addressed" just because I didn't respond to you in 2.2 seconds after you posted.

 * And my name is woohookitty, not Whoohoo or Whoohoookitty or WooHooKitten. I'm trying real hard to assume good faith and think that you are just having a hard time remembering my name. If you want to call me Mike, that's fine too. --Woohookitty 03:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

'Kitty, I'm confused. Which word exactly is negative in the above proposition? Is it "taxpayer-backed" - what's wrong with taxpayers footing the bill to insure the rich using daddy's money to earn a living? Is it "Potential consequences .. are greater than .." That really is the heart of the problem. I suggest the "consensus" version is really whitewash censorship - that is ignoring the subject rather than explaining it. Benjamin Gatti

 * Not including your opinions does not amount to "censorship". Quit accusing me/us of that please. It's a cheap shot. An encyclopedia is not an opinion journal. I've explained my position time and time again. This article is already mostly criticism. Adding any more would tilt it towards being anti Price-Anderson. What you are proposing is negative. It's tilted towards "nukes bad". If you want verbage fine...we have "attack", "accident", "scheme". All are negative words in the context in which you use them. As we have said, let's take what we have and then you tell us what you want to change, line by line. We're fine with the article as it already appears. I'm not going to sit here and have you come up with more and more POV versions of the article, because you don't really write for the enemy. What you propose is still POV tilted towards your size. I'm not attacking you Ben, but I'm not sure you can write for the enemy. Some people can't. Not a criticism of you, but some people just can't put themselves in the other side's shoes and from you what have shown, you can't do it. So, if it's ok with Ed, just take the article as it stands and go line by line and tell us what you object to. It'll be alot easier that way. --Woohookitty 23:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti
 * 1) The article isn't "already mostly criticism" - the moderated version isn't anything yet.
 * 2) I wasn't aware that the word Scheme has a negative definition - have you read the definition? Since Price is very much a complex series of interdependant relationships, plans, and contracts, I think Scheme might be the shortest and most accurate word. Others have used frameword.
 * 3) As for attack and Accident (Technically any incident) that is what insurance is for - would you discuss car insurance without discussing accidents? why is the goal of neutrality to discuss insuring against a known risk, without discussing the risk - elephant in the corner sounds like to me, and not discussing the elephant in the room - is censorship - particularly when you revert people who do wish to discuss the elephant. So the accusation stands quite firm.
 * 4) I didn't write this intro - i lifted it from Public Citizen - and then I removed the bias words - ie writing for the enemy. where it said "far far less, i wrote just less. Its quite neutral AND complete - and that cannot be said about the alternative offering.

A question for Ed
I find this situation increasingly untenable. The opening paragraph as it stands has the consensus of three people (myself, WHK and Simesa). May I ask why, then, we're rewriting it from scratch? Why can't Benjamin, as the person who wants a change, simply propose a change? Not a wholesale rewrite, just proposed changes to the text. Or at the very least say what he's dissatisfied with. I feel like all we're doing now is having Benjamin propose various versions that noone is going to agree with. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll second that. As I've said, this article is already mostly criticism. I mean, the three of us basically want the opening paragraph to be as it is. We don't want more criticisms added unless it's something we can agree to. --Woohookitty 03:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree with Katefan0 and Woohookitty - we (and we believe Wikipedia) can barely live with the current article. Establishing a trend of having every sentence dripping with criticism isn't a solution here. Simesa 04:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

And the Drippingest word is ? - I don't get it - its a very honest portrayal of the problem and the "solution" such as it is. And I have cleaned it up by writing for the enemy. Benjamin Gatti

 * One definition of "scheme" is "A secret or devious plan; a plot." Taxpayer-backed doesn't acknowledge the industry's responsibility.  "Consequences ... are greater" should be "... could be greater", or "potential" should be "possible" (as "potential" is defined as "Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent:").  "Dripping" means "to be saturated with", and that certainly describes your proposals. Simesa 00:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ed? I'd like to hear your answer to my original question up top. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for Ed
Rather than put this in the moderater article mydelf - I would ask Ed to do so.

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme initiative for nuclear power because the potential consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are greater than insurance companies are willing and able to fully insure.

I believe it is accurate and thorough, and i have removed words which are subjective, or perusasive in nature. While WH has voiced objections, i think they are merely of a personal nature, as they have not been supported except in the vaguest of generalities, and amount to criticisms far below the standard of NPOV. To suggest for example that the words "Accident" and "Scheme" have an unacceptable negative connotation seems to be objecting for the sake of objecting. I therefore suggest that mediation ought not to be used as a stalling tactic, and that some progress should be made or else the articles unlocked. Benjamin Gatti

 * The Why belongs in a later paragraph, as it is now. Then the line "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act arranges financial compensation for victims of nuclear power-related incidents" is both better and more accurate. Simesa 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Since you ask: the word scheme is loaded with negative connotations. Please consider initiative instead.

 * And if we can't agree on a couple of opening sentences, we may have to try something very different. Maybe I'll just start editing myself, following my own "zero-revert-rule", for a couple of days. Uncle Ed 01:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

From Googles Dictionary (Answers.com)

scheme (skēm) pronunciation n.

1. A systematic plan of action: “Did you ever carry out your scheme of writing a series of sonnets embodying all the great epochs of art?” (Edith Wharton). 2. A secret or devious plan; a plot. See synonyms at plan. 3. An orderly combination of related parts: an irrigation scheme with dams, reservoirs, and channels. 4. A chart, diagram, or outline of a system or object.

in·i·tia·tive (ĭ-nĭsh'ə-tĭv) pronunciation n.

1. The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task; enterprise and determination. 2. A beginning or introductory step; an opening move: took the initiative in trying to solve the problem. 3.        1. The power or right to introduce a new legislative measure. 2. The right and procedure by which citizens can propose a law by petition and ensure its submission to the electorate.

I would suggest that the Act satisfies definitions 1, 3, & 4. of Scheme while it is neither the right to introduce legislature, not the procedure to do so. Neither is it the right to follow through with a plan - it IS the plan. - Its seems not to be a beginning, opening move or attempt at relieving liability - it just simply does.

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme initiative program for nuclear power because the potential consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are greater than insurance companies are willing and able to fully insure.

Program Perhaps? Benjamin Gatti

Scheme Challenge
I want to invite those whoo find "Scheme" to be a biased word to provide an example of a promient and related source using the word for its clearly negative meaning without any additional modifiers.

Here's one which is clearly postive:

"In 2005, we are offering up to £250,000 in prizes to renewable energy and energy efficiency schemes in both the developing world and the UK."  Benjamin Gatti

 * I didn't say "a biased word" - rather, one with negative connotations. It implies a secret or crafty plan, perhaps even an ulterior motive.

 * I lifted this from Merriam-Webster:

 * synonyms PLAN, DESIGN, PLOT, SCHEME, PROJECT mean a method devised for making or doing something or achieving an end. PLAN always implies mental formulation and sometimes graphic representation . DESIGN often suggests a particular pattern and some degree of achieved order or harmony . PLOT implies a laying out in clearly distinguished sections with attention to their relations and proportions . SCHEME stresses calculation of the end in view and may apply to a plan motivated by craftiness and self-interest . PROJECT often stresses imaginative scope and vision .

 * We know it can be used in a neutral or positive sense as well (my personal favorite is "access scheme", used in Internet security). Uncle Ed 03:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. By a Prominent and related source - I meant related to the energy or insurance business. My contention is that the word is used - by and large for the reasons Webster implies - in that energy schemes are often complex - we're looking at one now to drill for natural gas, burn it for heat, the push the exhaust back into the earth where it will push out more oil which we pump so the one scheme sells NG, OIL and Electricity whilst sinking carbon from the NG> combustion. That's a scheme. It has the complication of a scheme, its probably not even a plan yet - meaning the blueprints aren't drawn. It's a conceptual - "this will go there and do this" And I suggest from all those words - the closest is scheme - surely noone will contest that it stresses scope and vision? pattern? Project is a means with an identified end> is it that? There is clearly self-interest (even nationalism is a form of self-interest.)

Aside from my other views that price should be adequately described - i object to perfectly good words being rotated out of the english language simply because they have been adopted by the illiterati as a means of avoiding the monotony of their own nano-vocabulary. Benjamin Gatti
 * If there is any question about whether certain phraseology is considered loaded language or not, then another word should be chosen. You're not really helping your cause by arguing for a word that some people object to when another word that means precisely the same thing can be substituted. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Unless I missed something...
Katefan0, Simesa and myself all said that we like the article as it appears right now and that Ben should start at the top and raise objections to the text as it is line by line. Right now, what we are getting is proposal after proposal from Ben...none of which will get the approval of us. So Ed, us 3 have agreed that Ben should look at the text...start at the top...and go sentence by sentence with changes he wants. Because right now, us 3 are happy with the article as it is. Not the moderated article. The protected one. --Woohookitty 03:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm going to assume that you speak for the rest and will unlock Price-Anderson Act. I suggest that you all follow my proposed editing scheme (grin), outlined at text move (or maybe at zero revert rule, I forget which page it was).

 * Please note that I'm taking an 8-day wikibreak beginning Friday 8 A.M. EST. Uncle Ed 13:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Um Ed. I meant to copy the article over here and go from there. NOT to unprotect the article. --Woohookitty 19:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit apprehensive as well, but things seem to be progressing ok for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I too suggest we unlock once you return - editwarring during your time away would be counter-productive, and who knows who will drop in. Simesa 21:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ben, how about you? Keep it locked till August 1st? Is it unanimous? Uncle Ed 01:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would suggest that the decision to protect should be made for a reason, and I haven't heard a reason yet. There is no editwar. Its been unlocked for (24hours?) and not been reverted once. If the standard for protecting a page is zero reverts in 24 hours then we would have to lock up half the wiki. If i were you, i would wait until a problem develops. Benjamin Gatti
 * I find the above comment to be wholly disingenuous. Clearly, there is and has been a problem or we wouldn't be in mediation.  Nothing has been solved yet. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to mention Chernobyl, then I insist on having the lines: "However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less      — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them. ] " And we certainly did have an editwar. Simesa 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


text: Category:Portuguese physicians

title: Category:Portuguese physicians


text:
Macunaíma (novel)

Macunaíma is a 1928 novel by Brazilian writer Mário de Andrade. It is one of the founding texts of Brazilian modernism. Macunaíma was published six years after the "Semana de Arte Moderna", which marked the beginning of the Brazilian modernism movement.

The novel follows a young man, Macunaíma, "a hero without any character," born in the Brazilian jungle and possessing strange and remarkable abilities—mostly shapeshifting—, as he travels to São Paulo and back again. The protagonist is often considered a representation of the Brazilian personality. The novel employs a composite structure using elements of what would later be called magic realism and a number of dialects of both interior Brazil and São Paulo. It is based on Andrade's research in language, culture, folklore, and music of the indigenous peoples in Brazil.

Macunaíma was first published in English by Random House in 1984 in a translation by E. A. Goodland. In 2023, two new English translations were published: one by Carl Engel, published by King Tide Press; and another by Katrina Dodson, published by New Directions, with an introduction by John Keene.

Style
Macunaíma was an attempt on the part of Andrade to write a novel that represented pan-Brazilian culture and language.. The author desired to write the novel in the spoken language of Brazil. Macunaíma's catch phrase "Ai, que preguiça!" is a pun in both Tupi language and Portuguese, as "Ai" is a Tupi word for sloth and "preguiça" is Portuguese for sloth. This is an example of Andrade using a fused language to write this text, which begins with a simple description: "In the depths of the virgin jungle was born Macunaíma, hero of our people. He was jet black and son of the fear of the night."

Considered a "rhapsody" by Andrade himself, Macunaíma is a melding of the cultures of Brazil. Most of the folklore contained within the text is taken directly from native stories; Lucia Sá has shown that Andrade's novel draws heavily on the narratives of the Pemon people that were collected and recorded by Theodor Koch-Grünberg.

Plot
This novel follows an unconventional hero Macunaíma who was born in the Amazon Rainforest and described by the author as "the hero with no character". He is of indigenous origin and possesses magical powers which help guide him on his journey from the Amazon to the city of São Paulo and back. He encounter various different creatures from Brazilian mythology along the way, taking him on a quest to retrieve his stolen amulet, a muiraquitã, who was given to him from his love interest, Ci. When arriving in São Paulo our hero is confronted with industrialization and begins to try and understand this new innovation by making connections between nature. His adventures in the city highlights social critique, exploring class differences, racial issues, and the cultural clash between urban and rural, using satire and folklore. The author uses a blend of mixed languages to represent the cultural mix that is happening throughout the story mirroring Brazil's diverse cultural makeup. After the city adventures our hero, Macunaíma, returns back home to the jungle where he eventually ends up turning into a constellation.

Cinematic adaptation
In 1969, the Brazilian production company Filmes do Serro made a film based on the novel, but with a substantially different storyline. The 1969 film was directed by Brazilian film director, Joaquim Pedro de Andrade. While the storyline differs from the 1928 version, the film retains the original narrative structure. Pedro de Andrade simplified the magical elements of the book in order to relate to Brazil's social, economic, and political state. Additionally, the story takes place in Rio de Janeiro rather than São Paulo, and is set at more or less the time the film was made.

Characters

 * Macunaíma: The main protagonist and Tapanhumas's youngest child. A shapeshifting anti-hero born in the fictional indigenous tribe of Tapanhumas (that has the same name of his mother), who is well known for his hedonism, self-centredness and general laziness (his most recurring feature). After he accidentally slays his mother Tapanhumas, he, along with his brothers Jiquê and Maanape, leave their tribe in shame, but he soon finds his true love Cí, who gives him a child. Unfortunately, the child dies of poisoning, and a grief-stricken Cí gives him an amulet before she literally ascends to heaven. However, Macunaíma loses this amulet in a fight against a supernatural snake and has to travel to São Paulo, as the giant who stole it (Piaimã) lives there. After several misadventures in São Paulo, Macunaíma eventually slays the giant and retrieves the amulet before he and his brothers return to their tribe. However, in an argument with his brother Jiquê, Macunaíma literally curses him, but his spell backfires as he himself becomes ill and both his brothers become a shadow-like monster that eventually bonds with the king vulture. To make matters worse, Macunaíma has previously angered the sun goddess, "Vei" when he rejects her daughters sometime before (or a little after) he retrieves his amulet, and in revenge, she tricks him into making out with a monstrous Iara who steals his amulet again and literally tears him apart. He survives, but knowing that he has no true reason to live without his amulet (and that his chance to find it again is slim at best), Macunaíma also ascends to heaven and becomes the constellation Ursa Major. For most of the rhapsody, Macunaíma is a figure of fun and, despite being described as ugly, he's a quite successful ladies' man, which is evident by the relative ease with which he dates (and makes out) with almost all women that he encounters. Macunaíma's character was based on a description found in Vom Roroima zum Orinoco by Theodor Koch-Grünberg.
 * Jiquê: Macunaíma's older brother, Maanape younger brother and Tapanhumas's second child. Described as loyal and hard-working, Jiquê despises his younger brother's immature and selfish nature as he makes no effort to help his family. Worse, Macunaíma frequently causes some sort of hard-time or humiliation for Jiquê himself in both direct and indirect ways, having for example, stolen Jiquê's dates and girlfriends even since he was a six-year-old child (indeed, a recurring gag in the book is that any woman who express the slightest sign of romance or attraction towards Jiquê almost invariably ends up having sex with Macunaíma, much to Jiquê's chagrin). For the most, Jiquê is loyal to his family and makes his best to help his brothers, but grows increasingly annoyed at Macunaíma's antics, and after he twice lost magical objects that Jiquê stole to help to find food, Jiquê gets mad at him and refuses to bring any food to their house. Macunaíma, in response, curses Jiquê so potently that he, his Brother Maanape and another lover of Macunaíma, jaguataci, are turned into a kind of Shadow-like demon that decides to get revenge on Macunaíma by eating anything before Macunaíma himself can, but he eventually bonds with the king vulture and becomes his fearsome shadow.
 * Maanape: Tapanhumas's eldest child. Already quite old at the beginning of the tale, Maanape has a supportive role and serves as a mediator between Macunaíma's immaturity and Jiquê's short temperament, and while not approving of the former's hedonism, he is always willing to defend him from the latter's angers and do his best to help his younger brothers. The narrator often says that he is a sorcerer, but Maanape's magic is seldom seen, though he has twice resurrect Macunaíma when he was inadvertently killed during the story, and the narrator often notices that Maanape already knows something before his brothers themselves notice or have the chance (or interest) to share, implying that Maanape has some sort of foresight or precognitive ability. In the end, he gets turned into the shadow creature cited above by Macunaíma, and eventually gets bonded to the king vulture.
 * Piaimã: A cannibalistic Peruvian giant and commercian and the novel's primary main antagonist. Also known as Venceslau Pietro Pietra, Piaimã founded Macunaíma's amulet in the woods and takes it with him to São Paulo. Macunaíma make several attempts to retrieve his amulet from Piaimã, but no attempt to trick or to kill him worked well (even a powerful Macumba only make him heavenly, but temporally ill). Eventually, though, Macunaíma becomes stronger and, through clever tricks, makes Piaimã fall in the same pot in which he intended to cook the protagonist, and his last words before dying were "Needs salt...". His exact height wasn't said, but he was tall enough to use a normal human as an earring.
 * Ci: An Icamiaba (Brazilian equivalent of an amazon) and nature spirit, Ci, "mother of the forest", was Macunaíma's main and true love of his life. When he first saw her, he became horny and, with the help of his two brothers, successfully overpowers the strong woman and has sex with her. Despite (or perhaps, due to) the rape, Ci actually became infatuated with Macunaíma, and they soon marry and come to love each other genuinely. She also eventually gives birth to Macunaíma's first (and only) son (in whom Macunaíma takes great pride) who already make economical plans for him. Unfortunately, Ci's breast was poisoned by a snake and when she was forced to breast feed him, he dies. In grief, Ci leaves Earth to become a star, but not before she gives him a magical amulet as a reminder of their love. this will set in motion the main events of the novel. Macunaíma gains the title of "The King of the Virgin Forest" (Rei da Mata), which grants him the status of nature spirit/deity.
 * Vei: The playful, but also vengeful sun goddess and second main antagonist. Vei appears very early on the story, "gently" warming the backs of Macunaima and his brothers as they leave Tapanhuma's tribe, but she gains pivotal importance during the middle of the book in the chapter Vei. During an incident (before or after he retrieves his amulet) in which Macunaíma becomes trapped on a small island, Vei, in mortal guise and along with her daughter, rescued and bathed Macunaima. As they browse in the river, Vei proposes to Macunaíma to married to any daughter that she has (even more than one if necessary), under the condition of respect the marriage and to never have sex with any other women. It is never revealed why she makes such offer (possibly because of his status as the "king of the Virgin Forest" and the playful affections that she already as for him), but Macunaíma soon breaks his promise, and so Vei angrily reveals that, if he had married any of her daughters, he would become immortal. This revelation surprises Macunaíma, but he remains indifferent to Vei's anger as the damage was already done. Vei gets her revenge, though, in the final of the book as she tricked Macunaíma into having sex with a monstrous Iara that quickly rips him apart and takes away his amulet, this time for good.
 * Macunaíma's parrot: The last main character to appear, but the very first to be heard as he is also the story's narrator. He "first" appears in the very end of the book, when he finds a sick and lonely Macunaima in his hut some time after he has turned his brothers into shadow. At first, Macunaíma finds him to be little more than an annoyance, but soon (possibly out of loneliness) warms to him and even tells him one of his "famous" fairy tales. On the next morning, though, Macunaíma discovers that the parrot has stolen his amulet and, after a short but heated chase, soon finds the bird and forces him to give his amulet back. However, Macunaíma quickly notices the presence of an attractive woman in the river, unaware of the fact that she was an Iara sent by Vei to get revenge upon him. Sex-crazed as he is, Macunaíma can't help but try to make out with that woman, only to have his amulet stolen and be torn apart by the river monster, while the parrot is powerless to do anything but witness the brutality. After Macunaíma recovers most parts of his body (except his leg), Macunaíma tells the parrot his story and, knowing that there was not point or hope to find his amulet again, Macunaíma plants a magical seed that grows into a giant plant that takes him to the sky where he turns into Ursa Major. Out of sorrow and respect, the parrot decides to tell Macunaima's story to the readers so that his legend will not be forgotten.

Themes
Andrade wrote the character Macunaíma to represent the idea that Brazil had no national character. Macunaíma became a symbol of Brazil's national identity. In order to make Macunaíma this symbol, Andrade strategically created the character as a conglomeration of various cultures. Additionally, within the story there is references to a variety of myths and cultures. The tale was heavily based on the Taulipang myth, Makunaima, which gave the tale its mythical structure.

One of the story's central points is the incorporation of the three main races that make up Brazilian culture: Indigenous, Portuguese, and African. Macunaíma was born a black Indian man and then goes through a racial transformation where he becomes a white man. The confluence of Indian, Black, and White ethnicities is central to the conceptualization of Brazil.

Macunaíma's character also represents a migrant experiencing the new changes and developments occurring in society. His character and the experiences he goes through represents the theme of modernization in Brazil.

title: Macunaíma (novel)


text:
Mikel Scicluna

Mikel Scicluna (July 29, 1929 – March 20, 2010) was a Maltese professional wrestler who gained his fame during the 1960s and 1970s. He reached the peak of his success in WWWF where he was 2-time tag-team champion, having held the United States Tag Team championship once and the WWE World Tag Team Championship once.

Professional wrestling career
Scicluna started wrestling during the 1950s, and used the name Mike Valentino early in his career. Scicluna worked primarily in Canada until 1965, when he ventured to the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF), now known as WWE, using his most famous moniker "Baron" Mikel Scicluna.

Scicluna was famous for entering the ring with a royal blue cape over his shoulders, indicating that he was of Maltese royal descent. Scicluna was also known for being a master of the "foreign object", mainly utilizing a roll of coins to bash opponents out of sight of the referee. He enjoyed success as a tag team wrestler, winning the WWWF United States Tag Team Championship with Smasher Sloan on September 22, 1966, in Washington, D.C. (though they eventually lost the belts in the same city to Spiros Arion and Antonio Pugliese), then the WWWF World Tag Team Championship with King Curtis Iaukea on February 1, 1972, in Philadelphia.

In singles competition, Scicluna defeated Spiros Arion for Australia's IWA World Championship on June 15, 1968, and would challenge Bruno Sammartino and Pedro Morales for the WWWF Championship from time to time. One of his biggest career wins was pinning Waldo Von Erich in six minutes at Madison Square Garden, prior to two Garden title matches with Sammartino. In the first match at MSG against Sammartino he was disqualified; Sammartino scored the pin in a rematch. Scicluna went on to lose a series of matches to Spiros Arion. In June 1976, Scicluna found himself part of history, as the opponent for Gorilla Monsoon on the night Monsoon engaged in an impromptu tussle with boxing great Muhammad Ali. Scicluna was wrestling Monsoon in a televised match and was sent over the top rope to the floor after receiving a Manchurian Chop. Scicluna waved off his opponent and walked off, taking a countout loss. From there, Ali entered the ring from the audience and tried to jab at Monsoon. Monsoon responded by dropping Ali with an airplane spin. This angle was a part of the buildup toward Ali's infamous boxer vs. wrestler match with Antonio Inoki later in the month.

Scicluna retired from active competition in 1983. He was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame class of 1996.

Personal life
He was the son of Vincenzo Scicluna and Maria (née Catania) who were married in Mosta, Malta, on 27 August 1927. He was named after his paternal grandfather Michele Scicluna. In retirement, he lived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He also worked as a driver for the New York Times. He had a wife, Gloria, and one son. Scicluna died March 20, 2010, from pancreatic cancer.

Championships and accomplishments

 * NWA San Francisco
 * NWA World Tag Team Championship (San Francisco version) (3 times) - with Gene Dubuque
 * World Championship Wrestling
 * IWA World Heavyweight Championship (1 time)
 * IWA World Tag Team Championship (3 times) - with Ciclón Negro
 * World Wide Wrestling Federation
 * WWF Hall of Fame (Class of 1996)
 * WWWF United States Tag Team Championship (1 time) - with Smasher Sloan
 * WWWF World Tag Team Championship (1 time) - with King Curtis Iaukea
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter
 * Most Washed Up Wrestler (1980)

title: Mikel Scicluna


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik heumiller

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Hedley 17:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Erik_heumiller
NN Vanity --Gunmetal 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

DELETE NN Vanity --Horkmiller 12;13, 13 July 2005 (EST)
 * Then why in the world did you write it? --Gunmetal 16:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't know personal articles were taboo. I planned on expanding it later, when there was new, and more relevant information.  Now that I know it's frowned upon I'll just make an article for the new and more relevant information when that time comes, and not include myself. --Horkmiller 12;25, 13 July 2005 (EST)

 * That's fine - you can make it your User Page, and continue to edit Wikipedia. DS 16:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * An understandable mistake. --Gunmetal 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've speedied it as the user has stated that it was a mistake, and its already at his user page. Hedley 17:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete --Forig 12:18, 20 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.