text:
Zone of possible agreement

The term zone of possible agreement (ZOPA), also known as zone of potential agreement or bargaining range, describes the range of options available to two parties involved in sales and negotiation, where the respective minimum targets of the parties overlap. Where no such overlap is given, in other words where there is no rational agreement possibility, the inverse notion of NOPA (no possible agreement) applies. Where there is a ZOPA, an agreement within the zone is rational for both sides. Outside the zone no amount of negotiation should yield an agreement.

An understanding of the ZOPA is critical for a successful negotiation, but the negotiants must first know their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), or "walk away positions". To determine whether there is a ZOPA both parties must explore each other's interests and values. This should be done early in the negotiation and be adjusted as more information is learned. Essential is also the ZOPA's size. Where a broad ZOPA is given, the parties might use strategies and tactics to influence the distribution within the ZOPA. Where the parties have a small ZOPA, the difficulty lies in finding agreeable terms.

Identifying a ZOPA
To determine whether there is a positive bargaining zone each party must understand their bottom line or worst case price. For example, Paul is selling his car and refuses to sell it for less than $5,000 (his worst case price). Sarah is interested and negotiates with Paul. If she offers him anything higher than $5,000 there is a positive bargaining zone, if she is unwilling to pay more than $4,500 there is a negative bargaining zone.

A ZOPA exists if there is an overlap between each party's reservation price (bottom line). A negative bargaining zone is when there is no overlap. With a negative bargaining zone both parties may (and should) walk away. Through a rational analysis of the ZOPA in business negotiations, you will be better equipped to avoid the traps of reaching an agreement for agreement's sake and viewing the negotiation as a pie to be divided.

Negative Bargaining Zone
It occurs when people negotiate and cannot reach a ZOPA,so they are in negative bargaining zone. So they cannot reach a deal in negative bargaining zone, as there is no mutual understanding among them. For example: Sam wants to sell his house for $9200 to buy a better apartment. but Alex wants to buy it for $7800 and cannot go higher, here the negative bargaining zone occurs.

Overcoming a negative bargaining zone
A negative bargaining zone may be overcome by "enlarging the pie". In integrative negotiations when dealing with a variety of issues and interests, parties that combine interests to create value reach a far more rewarding agreement. Behind every position there are usually more common interests than conflicting ones.

In the example above, Sarah is unwilling to pay more than $4,500 and Paul won't accept anything less than $5,000. However, Sarah may be willing throw in some skis she received as a gift but never used. Paul, who was going to use some of the car money to buy some skis, agrees. Paul accepted less than his bottom line because value was added to the negotiation. Both parties "win".

A negotiator should always start considering both parties' ZOPA at the earliest stage of his or her preparations and constantly refine and adjust these figures as the process proceeds. For every interest there often exists several possible solutions that could satisfy it.

title: Zone of possible agreement


text: User talk:69.192.67.227

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

title: User talk:69.192.67.227


text:
Célestin Lainé

Célestin Lainé (25 October 1908 – 7 October 1983) was a Breton nationalist and collaborator during the Second World War who led the SS affiliated Bezen Perrot militia. His Breton language name is Neven Hénaff. He was a chemical engineer by training. After the war he moved to Ireland.

Breton nationalism

He was born in 1908 in Nantes and was brought up in Ploudalmézeau, Finistère. He later entered the École Centrale. He became closely linked to Guillaume Berthou, a fellow chemist and Breton separatist. Contrary to myth, he denied any involvement with the secret society Kentoc'h Mervel (Sooner Death), formed by Berthou in 1929, though Berthou had approached him to join. Instead, in 1930 he set up with Hervé Helloco the paramilitary organisation, Gwenn ha du ('white and black'). It was named after the colours of the flag of Brittany, designed by Morvan Marchal in 1925. Lainé published an article summarizing its creed under the title Nos deux bases, Irlande et Prusse (Our two models: Ireland and Prussia), referring to the revolutionary zeal of the IRA and the authoritarian discipline of Prussian militarism. The gang perpetrated several bombings. Lainé claimed he made the first bomb in his bedroom from nitroglycerin in a condensed milk carton with a detonator supplied by a forestry worker.

Kristian Hamon claims it was not he but fellow nationalist André Geffroy who placed the bomb which blew up Jean Boucher's statue depicting the Unity of Brittany and France in Rennes. It happened on the morning of 7 August 1932. According to Hamon, Geffroy placed the bomb on the monument, which portrayed the duchess Anne of Brittany kneeling before King Charles VIII of France.

Two people were crossing the Town Hall Square at the time but they subsequently refrained from saying what they had seen, despite the offer of a reward. The explosion tore the mass of bronze from its niche and smashed it on the ground. All the windows within a hundred metres were shattered. Parts of the sculpture have been preserved.

In 1936 Lainé created the Kadervenn (Combat tool), a paramilitary unit based on the IRA model, comprising a dozen members engaged in military manoeuvres. This organisation instructed new recruits and in 1938 participated in exercises in the Landes de Lanvaux, a belt of heath and woodland north of Vannes. The following year he spent a period in Germany where he organized the delivery of a batch of arms, which was shipped on board the ship Gwalarn. However, the ship beached at Locquirec in the night of the 8th and 9 August 1939. The arms were recovered and stored in the abbey at Boquen.

Collaboration
Before and during the Second World War, Lainé sided with the Germans. He favoured aggressive tactics and sought to establish a distinct Breton army to work with the Nazis against the French state. ("We will continue the tradition of those who, throughout the centuries, have struggled, arms in hand, to affirm our national rights.") With Yann Goulet he participated in the creation of the Bagadou Stourm (Stormtroopers). He also set up a unit of volunteers that he controlled personally, called the Service Spécial (or Lu Brezhon in Breton). This paramilitary unit was in charge of the maintenance of order within the Breton National Party.

In 1941, Lainé helped to oust Olier Mordrel from the leadership of the Breton National Party when it became evident that the Germans objected to his strident anti-Vichy position. There followed a split between the Bagadou Stourm and the Service Spécial, as Lainé became increasingly close to the Nazis. On the 11 September 1943, at Rennes, he and Colonel Hartmut Pulmer (chief of the Sicherheitsdienst at Rennes) signed the foundation convention of a new unit to be called Bezen Kadoudal, named after the Breton rebel Georges Cadoudal. In 1944 it took the new name Bezen Perrot (Perrot Militia), the name referring to Abbé Perrot, a parish priest and ardent defender of the Breton language who had recently been assassinated by the French Resistance. His group brought together around a hundred people; his deputy was Alan Heusaff. In 1943, the organisation functioned as an auxiliary police force for the Nazis fighting against the Resistance. The soldiers of Bezen Perrot enrolled in the Waffen-SS, wearing SS field-uniforms. In May 1944, he symbolically founded a new Breton national party on extreme nationalist lines. At the Liberation of France, these collaborationist activities brought opprobrium on the whole of the Breton movement.

Exile
Hunted out of Brittany after the defeat of the Nazis, the last fighters of this unit found themselves at Tübingen, from which many stayed in Germany under false identities, assisted by Leo Weisgerber. Sentenced to death in absentia, Lainé fled to Ireland, where he lived in various locations, including in County Dublin and at Oranmore in County Galway, until his death in 1983.

Olier Mordrel, co-founder of the Breton independence party, wrote that Lainé "was a strange man. He had become the prophet of a Celtic religion made for himself, where Nordic racism was married to the Nietzschian will to power, and not without flirting with an air of romantic druidism".

title: Célestin Lainé


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LDIF

LDIF
This article is nothing but an acronym, its meaning and a link. I gave the anon author five days to improve it, but nothing came. So, delete. Harro5 23:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LDIF


text:
Robert J. Weber

Robert J. Weber (born April, 1947) is the Frederic E. Nemmers Distinguished Professor of Decision Sciences at the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University.

Education
Weber received his bachelor's degree in mathematics in 1969 from Princeton University, and both his MS in 1972 and Ph.D. in 1974 in operations research from Cornell University.

Career
Weber became a faculty member at Yale University, where he belonged to the Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics and the Yale School of Management. In 1979 he moved to Northwestern. Weber's general area of research is game theory, with a primary focus on the effects of private information in competitive settings. Much of his research has been centered on the theory and practice of competitive bidding and auction design. His 1982 paper, "A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding", co-authored with Paul Milgrom, is considered a seminal work in the field. In that paper the authors analyzed auctions with interdependent values, and introduced the linkage principle. He served as an external consultant on a 1985 project leading to revisions in the procedures used to auction petroleum extraction leases on the U.S. outer continental shelf, and he co-organized (with representatives of the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Treasury) the 1992 public forum which led to changes in the way the Treasury auctions its debt issues. Since 1993, he has represented private clients during both the rule-making and bidding phases of the FCC's sale of licenses of spectrum for the provision of personal communications services.

In the early 1970s, Weber proposed an alternative to the traditional "plurality rule" for elections involving more than two candidates. This alternative, which he named "approval voting", a multi-candidate binary rating system of social choice, has generated a substantial body of research, has been adopted by a number of professional organizations, and has been used in several public elections. His later work in this area includes "A Theory of Voting Equilibria", co-authored with Roger Myerson. For a summary see "Approval Voting".

Weber has also conducted research on negotiation and arbitration. Among his activities have been preparation of a research survey for the American Arbitration Association, and development of classroom materials for the National Institute for Dispute Resolution. He is a founding member of the Center for Research on Dispute Resolution at Northwestern University, and has served on the editorial board of the International Journal of Game Theory. In 1990 he was designated the outstanding professor of the year by the students in Kellogg's Managers' Program, and in 1998 he received the Sidney J. Levy Teaching Award. In 2008, he was chosen as Alumni Professor of the Year.

title: Robert J. Weber


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabelle Caufman Soudavar

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Annabelle Caufman Soudavar
A good reason for expanding the speedy category - a typical NY 17-year-old --Doc (?) 23:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, totally, like, notable... Sorry, couldn't help myself. Delete --Icelight 23:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 23:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 01:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. -- BD2412 talk 23:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme Keep She's extremely famous! Sarcasm... Kojangee July 15th, 2005 19:58 Beijing Time
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Johan Bruyneel

Johan Bruyneel (born 23 August 1964) is a Belgian former professional road bicycle racer and a former directeur sportif for UCI ProTour team, and  (later known as Discovery Channel), a US-based UCI ProTour cycling team. On 25 October 2018, the World Anti Doping Agency imposed a lifetime ban on Bruyneel for his role in a doping scandal that also saw Lance Armstrong stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.

Professional cyclist
Born in Izegem, Belgium, Bruyneel was a successful professional cyclist. Early wins included the 1990 Tour de l'Avenir, the 1991 Rund um den Henninger Turm, the 1992 Grand Prix des Nations and Coppa Placci, and stage 6 (Évreux > Amiens) and finishing 7th at the 1993 Tour de France. His stage win set the record for fastest stage at 49.417 km/h, since then only broken by two cyclists.

His greatest successes as a pro cyclist came in 1995. At the 1995 Tour de France, he won stage 7, which began in Charleroi and ended in Liège, Belgium, and took the yellow jersey in his home country. Bruyneel launched an escape and was joined by eventual winner Miguel Indurain. The Spaniard took the lead and rode the stage as a time-trial to gain time on his main rivals, with Bruyneel latched onto his wheel, barely able to follow the tempo. He then beat Indurain in the end sprint to win the stage. Bruyneel admitted he felt somewhat uneasy about how he had won. However, the win into Liège afforded him a chance meeting with the King of Belgium during the prize presentations. That same year, Bruyneel achieved his only podium finish in a Grand Tour when he finished 3rd at the 1995 Vuelta a España and won the Aalst criterium.

In the 1996 Tour de France, he missed a curve when descending a hill in stage 7 (Chambéry > Les Arcs), and disappeared into a ravine. The moment was captured by a camera team that was driving right behind the group of descenders. After some time, Bruyneel could be seen climbing out of the ravine and getting back onto his bike to continue the stage, apparently unscathed.

Team director
Following his retirement from cycling in 1998 at age 34, Bruyneel accepted the position of managing director of the U.S. Postal Service cycling team, whose star, Lance Armstrong, had finished fourth in the 1998 Vuelta a España, but whose team, in Armstrong's words, was the Bad News Bears, a mismatch of bikes, cars, clothing, equipment," with a total budget of only $3 million. Bruyneel's team promptly won eight of the next nine editions of the Tour de France, with Armstrong winning seven straight prior to his retirement in 2005 and then Alberto Contador winning in 2007 with Levi Leipheimer finishing third. However, Discovery Channel, which had taken over as the sponsor of the team in 2005, decided to withdraw in 2007 in the wake of the sport's extensive doping scandals, and the team disbanded. At that point, Bruyneel's teams had won ten Grand Tour championships in nine years (8 Tours de France, 1 Giro d'Italia (Savoldelli, 2005) and 1 Vuelta a España (Heras, 2003). Seven of these victories have since been nullified with the disqualification of Lance Armstrong from 1999 to 2005 from the Tour de France by USADA with ratification from the UCI

At the time, Bruyneel announced his retirement and his plans to write a book. Bruyneel's book, We Might As Well Win, was published by Houghton Mifflin on 4 June 2008. Also, on 29 May 2008, Bruyneel joined the Board of Directors of World Bicycle Relief. But his retirement did not materialize.

In October 2007, after negotiations with the Kazakh government, Bruyneel was signed to take over control of the embattled team, which had been kicked out of the 2007 Tour de France for doping violations and was in shambles over its doping connections. He brought Discovery's Contador and Leipheimer with him for the 2008 season. Although the team was banned from the Tour de France for its past doping history, Contador won both the 2008 Giro d'Italia and the 2008 Vuelta a España, making Contador the youngest rider to win all three Grand Tour championships. Additionally, Leipheimer finished second at the Vuelta.

Contador's victory in the Tour de France meant that Bruyneel had won four of the last six Grand Tours that his teams entered, and thirteen Grand Tour championships in eleven years (seven of these victories have since been nullified with the disqualification of Lance Armstrong from 1999 to 2005 from the Tour de France by USADA with ratification from the UCI). In 2010, Team RadioShack was formed with sponsorship from Radio Shack and Trek Bicycle Corporation. Bruyneel confirmed his departure from Astana at the end of the 2009 season to join Team RadioShack.

Conviction for doping
As of May 2010, he was under investigation by the Belgian cycling federation, after being accused by Floyd Landis of involvement in systematic doping while director sportif of Lance Armstrong's US Postal team.

On 28 June 2012, Bruyneel was accused by USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency), although he is not an American citizen. Allegations include the assumption that Bruyneel was part of a long-running doping conspiracy, including the use of banned methods to augment the performance of the cycling teams that he directed. As a result of the allegations, Bruyneel declined to appear at the 2012 Tour de France, where he had been expected to direct the RadioShack-Nissan team.

While some accused in this case, such as Lance Armstrong and Michele Ferrari, did not seek to formally contest the charges via arbitration, Bruyneel asked for an arbitration hearing.

In October 2012, while still waiting for his hearing, Bruyneel left his position as managing director of, shortly after documents from the USADA case were released to the public. The termination was by mutual agreement with owners of Leopard SA. The day after Armstrong's acknowledgment that he doped during all of his Tours, Bruyneel announced that he would be in Brussels as soon as possible to speak to the Belgian national cycling organization and cooperate with its investigation.

In November 2013, Armstrong settled a lawsuit with Acceptance Insurance Company (AIC). AIC had sought to recover $3 million it had paid Armstrong as bonuses for winning the Tour de France from 1999 to 2001. The suit was settled for an undisclosed sum the day before Armstrong was scheduled to give an oral deposition under oath. In a written deposition for the lawsuit, Armstrong stated under oath that, "Johan Bruyneel participated in or assisted with Armstrong's use of PEDs, and knew of that use through their conversations and acts."

In April 2014, Bruyneel was given a ten-year ban by USADA, who noted that "the evidence establishes conclusively that Mr. Bruyneel was at the apex of a conspiracy to commit widespread doping on the USPS and Discovery Channel teams spanning many years and many riders." Said Bruyneel about the ban, "I do not dispute that there are certain elements of my career that I wish had been different. However, a very small minority of us has been used as scapegoats for an entire generation."

In October 2018, the World Anti-Doping Agency successfully increased his ten-year ban to a lifetime ban.

Major results
Sources:

As rider

 * 1983
 * 3rd Trofee van Vlaanderen Juniors

 * 1987
 * 6th Flèche Hesbignonne
 * 6th Halle–Ingooigem

 * 1988
 * 1st Izegem Koers
 * 4th GP Stad Vilvoorde
 * 6th Overall Tour de l'Avenir
 * 1st Stage 1

 * 1989
 * 1st Memorial Fred De Bruyne
 * 3rd Tour de Vendée
 * 4th LuK Challenge Chrono
 * 5th Druivenkoers Overijse
 * 5th Nationale Sluitingsprijs
 * 6th Overall Tour de l'Avenir
 * 1st Stage 7
 * 7th Grand Prix de Wallonie
 * 9th Overall Tour de Suisse
 * 1st Stages 2 & 10

 * 1990
 * 1st Overall Tour de l'Avenir
 * 3rd Overall Tour of Galicia
 * 3rd Grand Prix de Wallonie
 * 4th Overall Tour du Vaucluse
 * 1st Stage 4
 * 5th Binche–Chimay–Binche
 * 5th Omloop Mandel-Leie-Schelde
 * 6th Tour de Berne
 * 10th Overall Giro del Trentino

 * 1991
 * 1st Eschborn-Frankfurt
 * 2nd Overall Tour of the Basque Country
 * 1st Stage 5
 * 2nd Cholet-Pays de la Loire
 * 2nd Grand Prix de Wallonie
 * 4th Overall Critérium International
 * 4th Circuit des Frontières
 * 5th Subida a Urkiola
 * 6th La Flèche Wallonne
 * 7th Overall Grand Prix du Midi Libre
 * 1st Stage 3
 * 10th Classique des Alpes

 * 1992
 * 1st Stage 12 Vuelta a España
 * 1st Coppa Placci
 * 1st Grand Prix des Nations
 * 5th Overall Critérium International
 * 7th Overall Volta a la Comunitat Valenciana
 * 8th Overall Clásico RCN
 * 9th Overall Tour of the Basque Country
 * 9th Overall Volta a Catalunya
 * 1st Stage 1 (TTT)

 * 1993
 * 1st Stage 3 Catalaanse Week
 * 4th LuK Challenge Chrono
 * 7th Overall Tour de France
 * 1st Stage 6
 * 9th Overall Vuelta a España

 * 1994
 * 6th Overall Volta a Catalunya
 * 7th Overall Vuelta a La Rioja
 * 1st Stages 3 (TTT) & 4

 * 1995
 * 1st Stage 7 Tour de France
 * 1st Stage 6 Grand Prix du Midi Libre
 * 2nd Grand Prix Eddy Merckx
 * 3rd Overall Vuelta a España
 * 6th Overall Volta a la Comunitat Valenciana
 * 6th Klasika Primavera

 * 1996
 * 3rd Belgian National Road Race Championships
 * 3rd Overall Hofbräu-Cup
 * 1st Stage 3

 * 1997
 * 1st Namense Pijl
 * 4th Tour de Berne
 * 5th Overall Catalaanse Week

As director

 * Giro d'Italia (2): Winner of the general classification with Paolo Savoldelli in 2005, and with Alberto Contador in 2008.
 * Tours de France (2): Winner of the general classification with Alberto Contador in 2007 and 2009.
 * Lance Armstrong was disqualified from seven Tour de France victories directed by Bruyneel.

 * Vuelta a España (2): Winner of the general classification with Roberto Heras in 2003 and with Alberto Contador in 2008.

Written work

 * We Might As Well Win: On the Road to Success with the Mastermind Behind a Record-Setting Eight Tour de France Victories, ISBN 0-618-87937-4

title: Johan Bruyneel


text:
Talk:Sexual reproduction

Untitled
What the hell is "Abuse of reproductive processes"? I'm deleting this header unless someone can explain it. Kaldari 23:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction in fishes?
So now there's no such thing as a creature known as "fish"???? Why are they left out of this article? I know they do reproduce sexually, all vertrebrates do... I know they do not fertilize each other male into female, they just leave the substances drift into each other with appropiate proximity at fecundation-time... I ignore the name of the process, that's what I was searching for... And to my surprise fishes are not mentioned at all!!!!!!!!!
 * The absolute majority of animals reproduce sexually. The very composition of this article seems pretty strange to me. 46.242.74.199 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Expand this thing pronto
The article doesn't even mention an iota about sexual reproduction of bacteria or other microorganisms. Someone who knows about the topic should help expand this article.
 * I have now added material on the sexual reproduction of bacteria. In particular, I have related meiosis and bacterial transformation as analogous sexual processes. Bernstein0275 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article, as usual with Wikipedia, focuses way too much on human beings and related animals, as if humans were the only organisms that reproduce sexually. The article is way too anthropocentric.

The article should also mention the biological history of sexual reproduction. For example, it should mention the fossilized evidence that paleontologists have of sexual reproduction in earlier geological periods or even eras or eons.

Shame on the article.

Also, bacteria and plants and mammals should be mentioned before humans, because, taxonomically, they are considered "inferior".

Now look at this: "Mammal reproduction involves the insertion of the male sex organ into the female sex organ and the deposit of the male's sperm into the female through ejaculation." That sentence's so reductionistic. It treats the topic as if copulation were the only process that is part of reproduction. That's like saying that sexual reproductiion equals copulation. The sentence is not the same as the paragraph. Note the construction of the sentence. It starts with "Mammal reproduction involves [...]". And then it just mentions copulation. Nothing else.
 * It doesn't mention gestation.
 * It doesn't mention more about meiosis.
 * I have now made the analogy between transformation and meiosis.Bernstein0275 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Then, I don't see why it uses the word "pregnancy" instead of "gestation" for mammals in general. The word "gestation" is used for mammals. Non-human mammals are not the same as humans.

Nice. It uses the term "gestation period". But why does it then use the word "pregnacy" intead of "gestation"? Then, why does the article use the term "childbirth"? Offspring are offspring. Children are children. Children are human. Offspring, not necessarily. So your pets have "children" instead of "offspring"? Why aren't cloacas mentioned under "Female reproductive system" under mammals? Monotremes are mammals too, for heaven's sake! 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll deal with each of your objections as you bring them

 * First, bacteria do NOT reproduce sexually. From bacteria: "Bacteria reproduce only asexually, not sexually." Second, the section that has already been created, but empty merely because I do not have any knowledge of it, titled "Other forms of sexual reproduction" is obviously meant to house information about microorganisms that do reproduce sexually.

 * Second, you accuse the article for being anthropocentric, which is way off. There is a section of the article titled "Reproduction in mammals", which uses humans as a reference, because all readers of Wikipedia are human and have experience with human reproduction, which is an excellent model for all mammals. This section SHOULD focus on humans and related animals. There are, obviously other sections, which are regretfully empty, but nonetheless, it is clear that this article is supposed to contain non-anthropocentric information. Further, the introduction puts forth a definition of sexual reproduction which embraces all methods, regardless of species. This is the general presentation of sexual reproduction, which should be followed by as many specific examples as possible.

 * You're right about the archaeological evidence about the history of sexual reproduction, but the article merely needs to be expanded; it does not need clean up and is neutral.

 * I'm not sure how taxonomical "inferiority," whatever that is, is any reason to decide how to organize this article. As humans, most people reading about sexual reproduction would best understand by beginning with what they are familiar - humans. From there, it is more easy to draw analogies and describe the reproductive processes of other organisms.

 * If you would read the whole paragraph, it would become clear that the article actually does refer to gestation and meiosis; you may feel that more needs to be said, which is fair enough. The sentence itself, "Mammal reproduction involves..." does not mean that the sentence encapsulates the entirety of mammal reproduction, merely that sexual intercourse is a part of it, which it obviously is. The following sentences clearly elaborate on what else mammal reproduction involves.

 * I agree on your issue with using pergnancy and childbirth. I stuck with childbirth for the sake of having something more detailed to link to; there is no one article about birth in general, only one on childbirth. Perhaps one should be written.

 * Cloacas are not mentioned because they are the exception to the rule; I feel it would not be beneficial to list every way mammals reproduce. Instead, a caveat that most mammals reproduce this way, but not all, should be inserted, and other methods be included in an appropriate section. Jamesmusik 07:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Replying 2004-12-29T22:45Z
The part of the article that you've mark "disputed" was originally split from the reproduction article from the section "human reproduction". However, merging and splitting hasn't been complete yet, therefore the heading "human reproduction" is not added till now. Deryck C. 07:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Deryck Chan's edits
I do not understand how this division has helped at all. Now both the humans section and the mammal section are full of information about humans and most of it overlaps. I suggest we begin with a complete discussion of human reproduction and then dicuss differences and exceptions to the general rule that mammals reproduce the same way in a separate section. Please let me know what you think. Jamesmusik 13:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * 4 sections: human, other mammals, flowering plants, other sexual reps. For the first 3 sections each leading to its relevant articles (ie. the first 3 are intros to other articles) Deryck C. 15:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction in bacteria?

 * Are you pretty sure that some bacteria do not reproduce sexually? Are you sure the article about bacteria is not generalizing unnecessarily?

 * Clarification about natural history: I said paleontology, not archeology. Paleontology is the study of ancient organisms, while archeology is the study of what humans leave behind. Again, if you mentioned archeology instead of paleontology, that would be anthropocentric, in my own personal opinion. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The only thing approaching sexual reproduction in bacteria is what's called Bacterial conjugation, which is not reproduction at all, because you begin with 2 organisms and end with 2.

 * Sorry I changed the wording. It's irrelevant though, since I have no experience with either. Hopefully someone will come along to add that information. Jamesmusik 18:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In 1958, there were a group of people awarded the Nobel Prize for finding "sexual recombination" in bacteria. Isn't "sexual recombination" a form of sexual reproduction, or is it just a misnomer? See also genetic recombination. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No, this is not sexual reproduction. As the name suggests, it involves a recombination of genetic material passed between two organisms. The end result is still only 2 organisms. Reproduction, by definition, involves the creation of a new organism. Jamesmusik 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You say that reproduction involves "the creation of a new organism". If, in the beginning, you have two organisms, and they create two different organisms, then those two resulting organisms are "new organisms", or not? They are not more in number, but they're "new". Two "old" organims create two "new" organisms. So isn't that considered "sexual reporduction"?2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No, first of all the exchange is one direction only, so only one bacterium would be "new," but it is not really new at all; it is made entirely of the same material and at its core the same organism, only with some DNA added. Jamesmusik 19:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the following part of a MedicineNet.com article about Joshua Lederberg wrong?

"Lederberg's work, which formed the basis for his Ph.D. dissertation, demonstrated that bacteria can in fact reproduce through sexual recombination, and opened up the genetics of microorganisms to the traditional methods of the field."

(Source: http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:x0nMzJcZbeQJ:www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp%3Farticlekey%3D24828+%22sexual+recombination%22+1958&hl=en)

Note that it says that "bacteria can in fact reproduce through sexual recombination". It says, "reproduce". Is that wrong? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * They are using 'reproduce' in an overly broad sense. Reproduction, in the sense I believe this article is intending, is the creation of new organisms, leading to an increase in the population of those organisms. "Reproduction" through sexual recombination, no matter how quickly achieved, would always result in the extermination of a species if it were the sole method of "reproduction," because it is not true reproduction, merely transfer. For instance, you have two bacteria, doomed to die within 24 hours; they exchange DNA, but are still doomed to die within 24 hours. Reproduction, at least in the sense we're after here is the process of creating new organisms which begin anew the life cycle. Jamesmusik 19:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Expanding the sexual reproduction article
First of all, when an "expansion template" is put on an article, the custom is to put the template on the "discussion page" or "talk page", or whatever it's called. That's why the template says something like "elsewhere on this discussion page". At least, that's the custom. Specifically, it says "See the request on the listing or elsewhere on this discussion page.". Or at least, put it on the article, since template talk:expansion says, "Add the template to the article or its discussion page. (Consensus is not yet reached on which is preferred. See discussion here and Wikipedia:Template locations.)", becuase I don't think this article is expanded.

What I think is that this article should talk more about the biological evolution of sexual reproduction. For example, it should state how sexual reproduction started. It should say, for example, that sexual reproduction started with small eucaryotes about 1.2 billion yeras ago in the Precambrian. Then it should say how sexually reproducing organisms evolved through time, how anthophytes (flowering plants) came to existence, and so on, until we reach the time period of Homo sapiens (humans). 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If you want an article to be expanded, you should put the expansion tag on the article itself. I agree it should be expanded, but your last edit on the article was to remove the expansion tag. The talk page doesn't need expanding, the article does, so leave the tag there. As for your suggestions, I would say they would make the current page overly long and instead a separate page, perhaps Evolution of Sexual Reproduction would be more appropriate. Jamesmusik 23:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If you want to talk about "how sexually reproducing organisms evolved through time" try expanding on Evolution of Genders this stub needs some help. (UKPhoenix79 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

I don't think mentioning evolution would make the article longer, since mentioning evolution gives the article a more "natural" sequence. You start with the "lower" organisms (organisms that are less "related" to humans) and then you go through evolution until you reach the "higher" organisms and humans. Making a separate article right now is not economical, since this very article is not expanded. I think that this article should be expanded first, and if it grows, then you make a separate article. The topic of evolution gives the article a sequence for the sections. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I just changed the template. Now it says, "the corresponding discussion page" instead of "this discussion page". 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree that such a sequence would give the article a "natural" sequence. It is more natural and considerably simpler to begin with what one is familiar with. Jamesmusik 00:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mammalian reproduction
I suggest splitting the mammalian reproduction section into another article. Deryck C. 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think the section or article is currently long enough to warrant that. James 17:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * So leave it. I thought it'll be a good suggestion if we have an article series on reproduction. De ryc  k C.  17:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The following line is troubling:
 * In primates, the sexual partner for each primate is monogamously specific. For most other mammals, males and females occasionally exchange sexual partners.

I am not a primatologist, but my understanding is that many primate species are not, as a rule, monogamous. Many humans certainly have non-monogamous partners. The wording of the sentence about other mammals implies that monogamy is the default, although some trading of partners does occur. These looks to me like the kind of "facts" that support a moral agenda. Someone with a biology background needs to add the correct, objective information. Craigbutz 17:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it flies in the face of most facts about sexuality in mammals. - Marshman 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Marsupials
Currently the marsupial section of the article begins
 * Marsupials reproduce in essentially the same manner, though their young are born at a far earlier stage of development than other mammals

Could someone knowledgeable please clarify this?
 * 1) This section is immediately after the one for the Monotremes, which would suggest that "essentially the same manner" refers to monotremes, not placental mammals, except the "are born at a far earlier stage of development" doesn't make sense in that context.
 * 2) Shouldn't Marsupials be indented one level to make it another subsection of Mammals?

Thanks, Bruce Kiore (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I've replaced the section with the relevant part of Evolution of mammals as it answered my question and more while covering everything that was in the marsupials section. Kiore (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Female+female reproduction
This wasn't in the article, nor in any of the other articles that I could see. I have been curious to know if two females could successfully reproduce by fusing two eggs together? In a world where animals are cloned, I'm sure this could be done. The resulting embryo would have two X chromosomes, just like a normal female. I started thinking about this after reading about lesbian couples who go through lengthy adoption processes and wondered if this was the future for same sex females. (Obviously this wouldn't work for two men since one X is needed) Does anyone know if there has been any research on this and if there is a wikipedia article about it? Thanks. Dukemeiser 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe that has been done (once) in the lab, but that does not happen in nature, at all, ever. This article is currently covering natural sexual reproduction.  Commentary on the female-female and male-male (half of men's sperm have X-chromosomes, just insert two sperm into an egg that's been stripped of it's own nucleus) reproduction would be better put in assisted reproductive technology. Lyrl  Talk Contribs 12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Plant reproduction screwy
I just corrected the paragraph on plant reproduction as it was plain incorrect. Pollen grains are not gametes - they are multicellular gametophytes consisting of a pollen tube cell and two sperm cells (in angiosperms - gymnosperm pollen grains even have eight cells). Ovules in plants are not gametes either - they contain multicellular female gametophytes. In angiosperms, one cell out of eight is an egg cell. In gymnosperms, the female gametophyte can have thousands of cells and develops archegonia which produce the egg cell(s). Flowering plants do double fertilization after successful pollination. "Lower" plants like ferns and mosses do it differently again altogether and depend on water for fertilization via motile sperm cells. - tameeria 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Need a sentence adding!!!
So... does it actually say anywhere within the first paragraph or two what sexual reproduction actually is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.9.132 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It does now. The first paragraph was removed by vandalism, nearly four months ago. I've put it back. Graham 87 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds
Amphibians, reptiles, and birds should be mentioned in the article. From what I recall, amphibians reproduce in a manner very similar to fish, whereas most reptiles are much like monotremes. Some reptiles give live birth, but since this trait evolved independently of live birth in mammals, it may differ in substantial aspects. An improved version of the article should include all of these. --Speight (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Or these should be part of the more general missing subtitles Viviparity and Oviparity? 66.11.179.30 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agency

 * If, in this transit, it meets with sperm, the egg selects sperm with which to merge; this is termed fertilization.

This seems to give an egg a lot of agency. Is the ovum really selecting the sperm with which to merge? Does it really have discretion over the matter? Should we not use a more specific term than "selects"? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the egg is really selecting, and it only merges with one sperm. That section needs citations, but I'm not the person to find them. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Main article links
Is there some way to remove the hash-marks (#) from these links? I've attempted a few clever tricks, without success. Perhaps, instead of "Main article" links, these should be changed to "For further information..." 'Hatnotes', e.g.: Presumably, this is the proper way to do this when referring to a sub-section, rather than a page title. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC) - I went ahead and changed most, but couldn't figure out how to 'fix' the multiple "See also..." links under 'Mammals' section. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Template:Main, which documents parameters to the template that can do this. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the documentation again, and there still doesn't seem to be a means of formatting 'See also' template for multiple links with user-defined names. - I manually formatted a 'Hatnote' instead. Looks as it should; whatever... Done. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"It occurs both in eukaryotes and in prokaryotes."
It can be decided the meaning of sex in this article. Sex (in the meaning of sexual reproduction - the process of combining and mixing genetic traits, associated with the generation of new individuals) don't occurs in prokaryotes. Sex (in the meaning of mixing genetic traits solely) occurs between them. Bacteria exchange DNA, but it is not a means of reproduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.56.5.101 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The citations given in the lead paragraph are authoritative. Sex is often defined in eukaryotes as fertilization, a subtly different definition from combining and mixing genetic material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The line "It occurs both in eukaryotes and prokaryotes" is false and misleading. A process that is similar to sex occurs in prokaryotes but this does not lead to sexual reproduction which is the subject of this article. The misleading line cites footnote 3 which links to the science article "Adaptive value of sex in microbial pathogens" The science article states: "Although sex is usually thought of as a means of reproduction, this is not always the case. Indeed, in many groups—including viruses, bacteria and most of lower eukaryotes, sex is un-coupled from reproduction;"  Again, I must point out that sex in prokaryotes does not lead to reproduction so the article is wrong to claim that it does. I'm changing the article. RonCram (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 * RonCram, what you added is not sourced, while was was there does seem to have been sourced (I'll read that source later to see). We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability. And like WP:Verifiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Sminthopsis84, what say you on RonCram's above comment and changes to the article? Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Okay, RonCram, looking above at the quote you cited from the source, it is definitely wrong for that source to have been used to support something it does not support. Again, I'll read the source later. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Also, I don't remember a source ever describing bacteria as truly sexually reproducing either; it's considered inaccurate to classify archaea (which also reproduce asexually) as bacteria, though, in modern times. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I did a quick search through the source before making my subsequent edit; the linked PDF file is difficult to read with my screen reader. As far as I could tel, it hardly mentions Prokaryotes at all. Graham 87 06:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer22 for calling my attention to the activity on this page. I'd say that RonCram has a point that the page title is Sexual reproduction so sex without reproduction is another matter. The article as it stands is not particularly helpful to the reader, though. It seems to me that we need another page, perhaps called Sex (genetic mechanisms), because the page called Sex is entirely devoted to the sexes that occur in sexually reproducing organisms. Is anyone up to the challenge of making a draft of such a page? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The Sex article also covers asexual reproduction, as it should. If asexual reproduction is considered underdeveloped there, the solution is to further expand material on it there. I don't think that creating a Sex (genetic mechanisms) article is a solution, and this is because I think it would only lead to more confusion and I'm generally not a fan of WP:Spin out articles; I think they should only be created when needed, and I don't see one as needed in this case. Besides, unless WP:Reliable sources discuss sex in such a way, as "sex (genetic mechanisms)," I don't think it's wise for Wikipedia to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I struck out the line above because I was confusing that article with the Reproduction article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 * But, yeah, we already have the Asexual reproduction and Reproduction articles to cover reproduction among prokaryotes. And what I see when Googling sex genetic mechanisms is mostly information about sex determination and differentiation, and Wikipedia apparently has enough articles about that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think wikipedia currently has adequate coverage of the material that used to be here, what sex actually is in eukaryotes and bacteria and archaea. Genetic exchangeability goes to gene flow, … it's a mess. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Transformation is sex, conjugation is not?
Why can bacterial transformation be considered as a form of sex, while conjugation is not? The transforming bacteria do not need a partner, they can take up and integrate any DNA from their environment, regardless of it's origin. It doesn't even need to be of the same species. On the other hand, conjugation is a process, where two bacteria from the same species change genetic material directly. It sounds more like a sexual process to me.

Also, the article at present form is totally incoherent with the articles bacterial conjugation and transformation. Kenadra (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Reproduction in Bacteria
Scientific citations needed for this. One has to look at this in the cellular level... for instance if binary fission is similar to mitosis how about transformation, conjugation, transduction - is there a meiotic similarity to be called sexual reproduction ? Deeply contrasting and comparing the two and by sticking to the fact that a cell is one individual organism the more comprehensive is the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.12.104 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 * See discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I. Savillo's statement-Comparison: Mitosis is binary fission; Meiosis 1 is conjugation, transformation, transduction, Meiosis 2 is mitosis... therefore if this person who wrote this means ( but they do not lead to reproduction. Prokaryotes reproduce through asexual reproduction)... referring to binary fission as a source of reproduction in bacteria... there is also meiosis 2 in higher org which  is mitosis or binary fission too... get it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.12.104 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 * This is just to show the validity of the use of sexual reproduction in bacteria. In meiosis (higher org) it is more complicated but as a whole there is comparative mechanism with the bacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.8.70 (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Logical quotation
Per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_reproduction&diff=624814600&oldid=624814258 this edit summary], the logical quotation guideline applies to all quotation marks, not just quotes. Graham 87 02:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't see where that's clear in the guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's under the subheading "Quotation marks". Graham 87 14:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

 * You're talking about MOS:QUOTEMARKS; I see where it states, "The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, 'scare-quoted' passages, and constructed examples. Quotation marks existing in other sources should be changed to match the format described below when being brought into Wikipedia." And I see that WP:Logical quotation is a subsection of it, but WP:Logical quotation focuses on sentences; it does not address quotation marks by themselves. Anyway, I should ask about this at the guideline's talk page. Maybe they'll make the guideline clearer on this matter. I have seen others do what you did. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Positioning
At a minimum, this page should reflect the content of the parent page Reproduction that refers to it. That positions it in the hierarchy of biological pages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

New Suggestions
There should be a small focus on the different types of sexual reproduction. Some examples could be autogamy and allogamy. There could also be a discussion about internal and external reproduction.

Another addition could talk about how population size determines if sexual reproduction actually is beneficial in the ways that are suggested within this article. Certain articles suggest that population size determines how quickly an adaptation within a trait will be fixed in a population.

Finally, a section at the beginning of the article should be included about the start of life and explaining the use of asexual reproduction. This would give a perspective as to what occurred before the evolution of sexual reproduction and help to support the fact that sexual reproduction appears to be more widely beneficial than asexual reproduction for many organisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strange.33 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Birds
The section for birds has a link to avian reproduction, but that just redirects you the article about Birds in general. Not only that, but the part about breeding in that also only has a number of links that redirects you back the top of the page.

So basically, their is nothing about how birds reproduce. That should be fixed.FamAD123 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The breeding section in the bird article has several subsections with more information. Graham 87 10:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Those link either to animal sexuality in general, seabird reproduction which is too specific, or avian sexuality which is related but not the topic. It says nothing of their reproductive system and its inner workings. FamAD123 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Basics section
SqueakBox, per what I stated in this WP:Dummy edit, there is no need for a Basics section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont agree, the opening was getting overly heavily since I added two new paragraphs, about evolution and sexual selection. I am not happy with the fullness of the opening explanation and certainly not happy with the cntents of the basics section. I want to continue working on this article over the coming hours and days, indeed do a major overhaul. I havent named the basics title to have anything to do with the bacteria and archaea and would like a better. But should we have "any" info in the opening that isnt mentioned further on, the opening should be a summary and then the basics should be a deeper explanation, is how I see it. Please feel happy to express your view on all this, Flyer22. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway I have now removed the section, in merging it back in it seemed to me that a lot of repetition was at the heart of the problem though I still think this article lacks a lot of detail. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 * SqueakBox, the lead that existed at the time that I made the above comment was not overly heavily or nearly overly heavily. You'd cut out bacteria and archaea information from the lead and then moved it into a Basics section when a Bacteria and archaea section already existed to address that. I told you at the Mate choice article that, per WP:Lead, the lead should summarize the article; this means summarize its most significant points. As you indicated above, it usually should not have anything in it that is not mentioned lower in the article. If there is a section on something in the article, then it is often the case that the section should be summarized in the lead. But in the case of this article, there are sections with very little information in them or no information in them, so not all of those sections need to be summarized. Not everything should be summarized in a lead; only the most significant aspects should be. For example, not all of the animals in the Animals section need a mention in the lead; rather how sexual reproduction works in animals should be summarized in the lead. And the lead (as noted by WP:Lead) should ideally be no longer than four paragraphs. The current lead you have crafted has a lot of detail, including a big opening paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Also, since it seems that we are both watching this article, there is no need to WP:Ping each other to it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I rarely use my watchlist anymore (using my contribs to see if the articles I just edited have been edited by others) so I appreciate you pinging me. I would happily see the prokaryote bit from the opening moved to the bacteria and archaea section. I also think we need to look at the whole animals-plants piece and see how that can be improved. For me this remains an article in need of improvement. The opening paragraph can perhaps be written more concisely but the basic explanation I have provided, and primarily cribbed from other wikipedia articles, is required, IMO. The previous explanation was overly simplistic we have simple wikpedia for simplicity) but I still see issues such as alleles and heritability not getting a mention. perhaps a history section would help, starting fo course with Darwina nd touching the modern synthesis before moving into the 21st century. Given its importance as a subject, and comparing the article for instance to sexual selection its one of the poorer articles on wikipedia. it would be good to improve it to featured article status. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 * SqueakBox, you're stating that we should have no prokaryote material in the lead even though prokaryote material is addressed lower in the article?

 * I've WP:Pinged you again, per what you stated above, but I don't need to be WP:Pinged here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex
Please check out this new article, Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Species?
The last two sentences of the first paragraph awkwardly attempt to describe species as it connects to sexual reproduction. However, it lacks a citation and seems factually wrong. " A species is defined as a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction, although the species problem encompasses a series of difficult related questions that often come up when biologists define the word species." First off, these sentences do not follow the subject of the preceding paragraph, which describes the mechanics of sexual reproduction. Secondly, it uses hybrid in the definition, but reading off of the hybrid definition on its page already describes a hybrid as the offspring of members of different species. If this idea is to be included in this article it needs to have a more researched definition of species and be separate from the opening paragraph. The idea presented could fit under the evolution subheader, or in its own section about the role sexual reproduction has in the definition of species. WenCOB (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed the sentences. WenCOB (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Broken Citations
Citation [18] (Reichard, U.H. (2002). "Monogamy—A variable relationship" (PDF). Max Planck Research. 3: 62–7. Retrieved 24 April 2013.) leads to a broken link. Will try to find appropriate and updated version. WenCOB (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it using the Wayback Machine. Graham 87 06:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex
Help required with Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex: the article of apparently fringe theory is based almost exclusively on primary sources and edited by a people with strong connection to the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexual reproduction. 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/20140105073839/http://brit.org/webfm_send/455 to http://brit.org/webfm_send/455

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) 04:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
This referenced text was removed because it was claimed to not be NPOV:

The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle because asexual reproduction should be able to out-compete it because sexually reproduction involves finding and competing for a suitable mate and extra resources to produce sexual organs. This cost is a fitness disadvantage of sexual reproduction. Another disadvantage is that only 50% of genes are passed onto any offspring. The main advantage of sexual reproduction is the generation of progeny that are genetically diverse.

The current text uses a primary source and lists causes that are not generally listed in secondary sources as an advantage or disadvantage for sexual reproduction.

The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle because asexual reproduction should be able to outcompete it as every young organism created can bear its own young. This implies that an asexual population has an intrinsic capacity to grow more rapidly with each generation. This 50% cost is a fitness disadvantage of sexual reproduction. The two-fold cost of sex includes this cost and the fact that any organism can only pass on 50% of its own genes to its offspring. One definite advantage of sexual reproduction is that it prevents the accumulation of genetic mutations.

97.92.91.74 (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Beginning
The article currently starts: ''Sexual reproduction is a form of reproduction where two gametes fuse together. Each gamete contains half the number of chromosomes of normal cells.''

I see several problems with this:

 * 1) It focuses on one subphenomenon, fertilisation.
 * 2) It fails to provide an overview of the whole phenomenon, the changing between haploid and diploid generations. How did the gametes come about?
 * 3) It is confusing because the title includes reproduction (amplification), but the action that is mentioned reduces the number of individuals.
 * 4) It assumes that the diploid cell is normal. Diploid cells are not even the most numerous cells on Earth. Bacteria are. Even for eucaryootes, where diploid cells are far more common, it is problematic to call them normal. It is better to start with a neutral description of alternation of haploid and diploid generations, then description of the major alternatives, where they occur and how common they are.

Here is an alternative definition from John Maynard Smith & Eörz Szathmáry, The Major Transitions in Evolution, 1995, p 149: ''By sex in eukaryotes, we understand a more-or-less regular succession of meiosis and syngamy. A natural consequence of this is the alternation of haploid and diploid phases in the life cycle.''

--Ettrig (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Protista
The article has quite a large section about prokaryota, although the processes described are only "similar to eukaryotic sex". On the other hand, there is little information about sex (sexual reproduction) in protista. I would like to read more about that. Bever (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

99% of multicellular organisms produce sexually
I have been seeing sources mention this claim a lot. The claims that 99% of multi cellular organisms reproduce sexually or 99% of vertebrates produce sexually.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160704-the-real-reasons-why-we-have-sex

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Reproduction_Part_A/Uuxo-6MkNJ8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=99%25+reproduce+sexually&pg=PA2&printsec=frontcover

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sexual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824/

Not entirely sure where to put this but, I think this fact should at least be mentioned.CycoMa (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sex ratio doesn’t belong here
The sex ratio section seems out of place here. It would be more appropriate to put it in sex or sex ratio.CycoMa (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sperm and eggs?
This article mentions that sexual reproduction is about the fusion of sperm and eggs. However, not all forms of sexual reproduction involve sperm or eggs.

There are isogamous sperms that reproduce sexually. They don’t have sperm or eggs.CycoMa (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So just change it to gametes. Plant surfer  15:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Protists?
There's no section about their sexual reproduction.--178.249.169.67 (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Securing mates for sexual reproduction
The above statement is rather contradictive to the Sexual selection subsection. Per Mate choice article the above statement is horribly wrong on who is securing mate. Receiptive organisms (i.e. "female" ones) most of the time determine who is going to be their mate simply because they are charged by bearing it and caring after offspring (there are rare exceptions to note, but intra species competition always remains).

I suggest we explicitly state this. This statement may be supported by both Charle's Darvin works and some limited studies:  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

explanation of the 50/50 costs of sexual reproduction
can anyone help me please to understand better the paragraph dealing with comparing the costs of asexual/sexual reproduction. They're seem to be some parts of the explanation that are missing or unclear.? 51.155.222.72 (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sexual reproduction


text:
Talk:Virgin of Vladimir

feast day
Is 3 June the fast day in the Gregorian or the Julian calender? All other sites seem to put the main feast day in May. Ansat (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate understands Russian
Here is the translation with Google Translated of the problematic source: "In the Memorial Day Great Martyr. George in Moscow will air procession on cities of the Golden Ring

Print version May 4, 2007 14:31 With the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II in honor of the 62nd anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War against the fascist invaders and the 66th anniversary of the flyby on Li-2 in December 1941, besieged Moscow with the icon of Our Lady of Tikhvin held "Procession the air "from Moscow to cities of the Golden Ring of Russia. The purpose of the upcoming event - to honor the memory of those who died for the freedom and independence of our country in World War II, the press service of the International League for the Protection of human dignity and security.

The organizers of the procession were the International League and the organizing committee of a set of measures "Living Memory". The action is in charge of Bishop Bronnitsky Amvorsy, and the procession headed by helicopter priest Konstantin Tatarintsev, rector of the church of the Assumption of Serpukhov gate.

In the procession will be the icon of the Mother of God "Tikhvin" Altar cypress cross with a particle of the Holy Cross, and icons of the Great Martyr. George, blgv. Prince. Alexander Nevsky, the righteous warrior Ushakov with the particles of the relics.

Procession and rally on the cities of the Golden Ring will begin on 6 May, the solemn service, which is headed by His Holiness in the Church Great Martyr. George on Poklonnaya Hill. After the end of the service the procession participants will be held at the Museum Square Poklonnaya mountain, where it will meet with the children, cadets and students of the college in Moscow, as well as veterans of the Great Patriotic War (the event will bring together more than 200 people). At 13.45 the helicopter with the shrines, priests, veterans, representatives of youth organizations and the press will head to Sergiev Posad. At the same time there in the bus and car started others procession.

The next morning, will fly to Pereslavl-Zaleski. Next procession will pass through Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Ivanovo, Vladimir, and then return to Moscow.

A press conference on the results of "the procession through the air" will be held in Moscow on May 10 at 17 pm in the conference hall of the church of the Assumption of Serpukhov gate. (Serpukhov B. Street, 24). Contact phone 980-20-24."

- Patriarhiya.ru

Google Translation
"In the Memorial Day Great Martyr. George in Moscow will air procession on cities of the Golden Ring

Print version May 4, 2007 14:31 With the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II in honor of the 62nd anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War against the fascist invaders and the 66th anniversary of the flyby on Li-2 in December 1941, besieged Moscow with the icon of Our Lady of Tikhvin held "Procession the air "from Moscow to cities of the Golden Ring of Russia. The purpose of the upcoming event - to honor the memory of those who died for the freedom and independence of our country in World War II, the press service of the International League for the Protection of human dignity and security.

The organizers of the procession were the International League and the organizing committee of a set of measures "Living Memory". The action is in charge of Bishop Bronnitsky Amvorsy, and the procession headed by helicopter priest Konstantin Tatarintsev, rector of the church of the Assumption of Serpukhov gate.

In the procession will be the icon of the Mother of God "Tikhvin" Altar cypress cross with a particle of the Holy Cross, and icons of the Great Martyr. George, blgv. Prince. Alexander Nevsky, the righteous warrior Ushakov with the particles of the relics.

Procession and rally on the cities of the Golden Ring will begin on 6 May, the solemn service, which is headed by His Holiness in the Church Great Martyr. George on Poklonnaya Hill. After the end of the service the procession participants will be held at the Museum Square Poklonnaya mountain, where it will meet with the children, cadets and students of the college in Moscow, as well as veterans of the Great Patriotic War (the event will bring together more than 200 people). At 13.45 the helicopter with the shrines, priests, veterans, representatives of youth organizations and the press will head to Sergiev Posad. At the same time there in the bus and car started others procession.

The next morning, will fly to Pereslavl-Zaleski. Next procession will pass through Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Ivanovo, Vladimir, and then return to Moscow.

A press conference on the results of "the procession through the air" will be held in Moscow on May 10 at 17 pm in the conference hall of the church of the Assumption of Serpukhov gate. (Serpukhov B. Street, 24). Contact phone 980-20-24."

- Patriarhiya.ru

 * It says neither "done by Stalin" nor "repelled the enemy". Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop acting irresponsibly. Obviously it is about a procession which celebrate a flight with an icon above besieged Moscow.It is stongly connected with the text and those other links clarifying this information. Not only confirm that a fly took place but there is also a feast that celebrate this event.If no one else doesnt have anything to say I'l restore the reference which is an important link for further, more detailed, information: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/235326.html

See also: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/soviet/13681-stalin-icon-our-lady-kazan.htmlMichael2012ro (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Ok, then you have to show me where it writes "as ordered by Stalin" and where it writes "icon has repelled the enemy". Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Web forums don't count as reliable sources. The problem is the pretense that both claims would be verified by the source, but in fact the source fails to verify any of these claims. So, the source should not belong in the article, since the role of the sources is to verify the claims made in the article. We don't introduce sources just for the fun of quoting websites. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theotokos of Vladimir. 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/20111002215233/http://www.vyshgorod-museum.org.ua/index.php?go=News&file=print&id=5 to http://www.vyshgorod-museum.org.ua/index.php?go=News&file=print&id=5

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) 08:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theotokos of Vladimir. 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/20130929113705/http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/en/collection/_show/image/_id/2216 to http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/en/collection/_show/image/_id/2216

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) 23:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Things to finish
Before GA nomination: – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 23:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Citations consistent
 * Expand history section from 1512 to present
 * Cite last source
 * Rewrite lead
 * Clean up remaining prose issues
 * It doesn't look much like a GA on a painting to me - lots of history, not too much art history! Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I really didn't know where else to classify it. The instructions page was little help in that regard. / –  MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 15:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the classification - obviously it is a work of art, & should be so classified. It's just it doesn't have enough art history to be a GA, imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Reorg and expansion
For some reason [b][lower-alpha 2] shows up randomly in this article. I have no clue why, and when I remove it; it just comes back. – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Thank you so much for helping me out with this! It was really stressful trying to do this by myself, and I was getting so overwhelmed with how the structure should be that I just felt like giving up. I can add sourced content well enough, but I can't make structural decisions like that. Please remind me to credit you for part of the DYK and GAN! { – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 21:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * I am done with the first pass of edits, which aim to mainly provide a framework for adding and organizing the contents. I realize that the resultant version has several stubby and/or image-heavy sections but that will become better once we start adding accompanying text. The final image selection, placement and captions can subsequently be adjusted (it's always an iterative process). Let me know if you have any high-level thoughts about the changes I introduced, and of course feel free to edit as you will; as long as we are not blindly undoing each-other's changes, we will hopefully converge to an improved article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the only change I made was that I used Multiple images and moved the picture of the reverse side of the icon to the right hand side (I think I read somewhere that images on the left hand side are not allowed; if this isn't the case, please feel free to move it back).
 * I am fine with the changes you made. In fact over the next few days you can assume that I would have seen any further edits you or others make and that, by default, I either am ok with them or that I will make further tweaks myself. That way we don't need to constantly explain each of our edits whose reasoning is obvious or sufficiently explained in the edit-summary. Can, of course, raise any genuine disagreements or questions here on the talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking much better. Let me know when you think it's ready for a review. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * John, I plan to work on the article over the next few days so that the stuff I have read about the icon doesn't get lost down the memory hole. That may make the page a moving target and unstable in the short term. I will leave the discussion of how to handle the GA review to MJL and you, and can adjust my intended editing accordingly, including taking a pause. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, let me know when you both think it's ready. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How are we doing with this? Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed it up a bit just now, so on the face of things it appears to have addressed every specific point made thus far. – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 02:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Description section
I plan to work on the Description section next. Is it possible for you to email me the cited article by Henri Nouwen, and (less importantly) the relevant bits/quotes from the Runciman book, if you have access to them? I have access to the other cited sources. Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Email sent. I need you to respond to email you Nouwen. I don't have access to Runciman, though. – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 01:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I'll expand the "In Russian history" section, but I think I remember finding some information in a Russian language source about obverse painting. It'll give you more content to work with there. – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 01:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edits have been very useful. Are you planning to do more? Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have re-written the Description section, so that its four paras correspond to (1) description of physical object/image, (2) associated objects and restorations, (3) religious symbology and interpretations, and (4) aesthetic critiques. Hopefully the revision is self-explanatory but let me know if you have any questions about the content or sourcing. I'll perhaps take a stab at developing the Copies and influence section next, over the next day or two. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got distracted by computer issues and RL. Will finish the additions I had in mind this weekend so that at least the GA process is not kept waiting endlessly. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a comment at the GAN that may interfere with that. Not sure what to do now. / –  MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 17:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it won't interfere. Meanwhile you have review points not dealt with both here & at DYK, so I suggest you do those. I will probably review what's here shortly - it's looking much better. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Our Lady of Vladimir → Virgin of Vladimir – per WP:COMMONNAME. This is the name normally used in non-Orthodox sources (they often prefer Theotokos of Vladimir) gbooks N-gram shows it has been ahead since the 1970s, sometimes dramatically so. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. —  Newslinger  talk   02:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)  --Relisting. A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The circumstances of this article going through a GAN which you are reviewing? – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 21:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The cited evidence purposes to show a common name in Virgin of Vladimir, but in fact it shows that there is none. Additionally, the current title matches that of Our Lady of Kazan as well as the vast majority of the Shrines to the Virgin Mary. This is already awkward to say, but I don't think that this RM is entirely appropriate given the circumstances. –  MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Our Lady" is Western terminology, mainly used by Catholics. Eastern Orthodox tend to use "Theotokos" even in English - this is actually much the most common term used in Category:Eastern_Orthodox_icons_of_the_Virgin_Mary. "Virgin" is denominationally neutral, which it is no doubt why it is the most common name. Per WP:CRITERIA "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."  I think you might be confusing this concept with the primary name where there is ambiguity. What circumstances? Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all fair. I'm not really planning to argue my points that much in this thread.
 * Ok, but you pointed out above that the article title is out of scope for GAR. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll just post to WT:GAN and ask them about it. I'm not sure exactly if I'm wrong or if not what to say or do. – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 22:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Our Lady definitely doesn't feel as latinized as Virgin to me. That's just my own personal thoughts though. – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 00:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support: There is a point to be made, though I wouldn't know what Western readers would expect to search.Jerry (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I created this page under the current title, I support Theotokos of Vladimir. Both "virgin" and "our lady" are Roman Catholic terms that sound offensive to an Orthodox ear. Ghirla-трёп- 16:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry - the ngram also tested "Theotokos of Vladimir" which received no score at all, so it is a huge fail on WP:COMMONNAME, which should be the main guiding policy here. Claiming "virgin" as a "Roman Catholic term" is simply over the top, and myriad Orthodox sources use it to refer to Mary perfectly happily. "Theotokos" probably means nothing to most of our readers, who don't speak Greek, and the literal translation of "God-bearer" even less. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "God's Mother" is ok. By the way, the best online source for this icon is the Orthodox Encyclopedia. The article has lots of referenced material about its copies, appurtenances, purported miracles, allusions in medieval literature, etc. Ghirla-трёп- 17:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think anyone currently working on the article speaks Russian. We have a master's thesis (by someone who does) with lots of detail in English. It would be very useful if you could drop back later on and add confirmatory refs to that material where appropriate. The thesis is: Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bit of personal background: I'm an Eastern Catholic (Melkite), and we share the Byzantine liturgical rite with the Russian Orthodox Church.
 * That's interesting. I think almost all Protestants would feel Our Lady is mainly a Catholic term, but "Virgin Mary" more neutral. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. Ghirla-трёп- 08:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Support - the ngram seems to offer reasonable evidence that the proposed title is more common than the current. — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Arabic name
Why is the name of the painting in arabic included on the page? It has nothing to do with the icon, i think it should be removed.Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Virgin of Vladimir


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24.68.31.31

 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 DELETED. Postdlf 04:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

24.68.31.31
Delete Technically this could fall under the category of "vanity page", as it was created by the same IP addresss as the title of the article. It is also rather non-notable. Icelight 23:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted under criteria 1: short articles with little or no context. Text was IP address. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 23:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Emily J. Reynolds

Emily J. Reynolds (born c. 1956) is an American political aide who served as the Secretary of the United States Senate from January 7, 2003 to January 3, 2007. She was appointed Secretary of the Senate when the United States Senate convened on January 7, 2003, for the 108th Congress. Prior to her appointment as Secretary, Reynolds was the chief of staff for Senator Bill Frist. She is the thirty-first person, and the fifth woman, to serve as Secretary of the Senate.

Early life and education
A native of Nashville, Reynolds received a Bachelor of Arts in political science and broadcasting from Stephens College in Columbia, Missouri.

Career
Immediately following her graduation in 1978, she was named as the college's associate director of admissions. She has remained active with her alma mater and served on the board of curators and as chair of the alumnae development board.

Reynolds began her career in politics in 1980 as a special assistant to Senator Howard Baker. In 1985 she worked on the successful Senate campaign of then-Governor Kit Bond of Missouri. Subsequently Reynolds worked in seven statewide campaigns in six states, including the Senate campaigns of John Danforth, John Heinz, and Kay Bailey Hutchison. She joined the Bush–Quayle re-election campaign in 1992 as deputy director of national coalitions.

Reynolds returned to her home state of Tennessee in November 1993 to serve as deputy campaign manager and finance director for Frist's Senate campaign. During Senator Frist's first term in the Senate, Reynolds became his state director. She then managed his successful reelection campaign in 2000. As chief of staff for Senator Frist from January 2001, Reynolds supervised his Washington, D.C. and Tennessee offices.

Reynolds joined TVA in April 2007 as Senior Vice President of Communications, Government & Valley Relations. Her office is located in Nashville and she reports directly to TVA's CEO, Tom Kilgore.

title: Emily J. Reynolds


text:
Talk:Spilanthes acmella

Removed this as it is badly formatted and I don't know how to repair the formatting:

title: Talk:Spilanthes acmella


text:
Desert Storm Records

Desert Storm Records is an American record label founded by Skane Dolla, Ken Duro Ifill, and DJ Clue? in 1997. The label was formerly distributed through Elektra and Atlantic and is currently distributed through Def Jam and Universal.

Artists

 * DJ Clue? (Roc-A-Fella/Def Jam)
 * Fabolous (Street Family/Def Jam)
 * DJ Envy
 * Red Cafe

Former Artists

 * Thara Prashad
 * Stack Bundles
 * Joe Budden
 * Paul Cain
 * Ransom
 * Hitchcock
 * Freck Billionaire
 * Young Dose

Discography
DJ Clue - The Professional
 * Released: December 15, 1998
 * Chart positions: #26 U.S Billboard 200
 * RIAA Certification: Platinum

DJ Clue - The Professional, Pt. 2
 * Released: February 27, 2001
 * Chart positions: #3 U.S Billboard 200
 * RIAA Certification: Gold
 * U.S. sales: 882,000

Fabolous - Ghetto Fabolous
 * Released: September 11, 2001
 * Chart positions: #4 U.S Billboard 200
 * RIAA Certification: Platinum
 * U.S. sales: 143,180
 * Singles: "Can't Deny It", "Young'n", "Trade It All"

DJ Envy - The Desert Storm Mixtape: Blok Party, Vol. 1
 * Released: February 11, 2003
 * Chart positions: #57 U.S Billboard 200

Fabolous - Street Dreams
 * Released: March 4, 2003
 * Chart positions: #3 U.S Billboard 200
 * RIAA Certification: Platinum
 * U.S. sales: 185,000
 * Singles: "This Is My Party", "Can't Let You Go", "Into You", "Trade It All (Part 2)"

Fabolous - ''More Street Dreams, Pt. 2: The Mixtape
 * Released: November 4, 2003
 * Chart positions: #28 U.S Billboard 200
 * Singles: "Make U Mine", "Think Y'all Know"

Fabolous - Real Talk
 * Released: November 9, 2004
 * Chart positions: #6 U.S Billboard 200
 * RIAA Certification: Gold
 * U.S. sales: 179,000
 * Singles: "Breathe", "Baby", "Do the Damn Thing", "Tit 4 Tat", "Round and Round"

DJ Clue - The Professional Pt. 3
 * Released: December 19, 2006
 * Chart positions: #73 U.S Billboard 200
 * U.S. sales: 54,935
 * Singles: "Like This", "Really Wanna Know You"

Fabolous - From Nothin' to Somethin'
 * Released: June 12, 2007
 * Chart positions: #2 U.S Billboard 200
 * RIAA Certification: Gold
 * U.S. sales: 159,000
 * Singles: "Diamonds", "Return of the Hustle", "Make Me Better", "Baby Don't Go"

Fabolous - Loso's Way
 * Released: July 28, 2009
 * Chart positions: #1 U.S Billboard 200
 * RIAA Certification: Gold
 * U.S. sales: 199,000
 * Singles: "Throw It in the Bag", "My Time", "Everything, Everyday, Everywhere", "Money Goes, Honey Stay (When the Money Goes Remix)", "Imma Do It"

title: Desert Storm Records


text:
Sulfur bacteria

Sulfur bacteria may refer to:
 * Green sulfur bacteria
 * Purple sulfur bacteria
 * Sulfate-reducing bacteria
 * Sulfur-reducing bacteria

title: Sulfur bacteria


text:
2preciious

2preciious was a Canadian alternative rock band featuring Lee Aaron.

Biography
In 1994, Aaron was attempting to move on from her "Metal Queen" image and met with Don Short and Don Binns of the band Sons of Freedom, who participated in the recording of Aaron's 1994 album Emotional Rain. They were then joined by Sons of Freedom guitarist Don Harrison in recording the new songs "Strange Alice" and "Concrete & Ice", which were added as bonus tracks to the European edition of Emotional Rain.

In November 1995, the four musicians began recording a new album under the band name 2preciious. Aaron's contributions were under her real name, Karen Greening.

The self-titled album was released in 1996, and the band toured to support it. Critical response to the album was mixed: Tom Harrison of The Province called it "a true collaboration ... that brings out untapped qualities in both parties". The Globe and Mail's Chris Dafoe dismissed it as crass and calculated, and labelled the single "Crawl" as a blatant copy of Alanis Morissette's "You Oughta Know", while Peter Howell of the Toronto Star said that the album was uneven but showed potential, comparing it more to Garbage. The single "Superbitch" received moderate radio airplay.

The band did not record another album. Aaron moved from rock to jazz singing, while The Three Dons moved into production and, in 2004, joined the band Jakalope.

title: 2preciious


text:
Clifford Barclay

Clifford Barclay (August 20, 1876 – February 22, 1961 ) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1922 to 1927, and again from 1932 to 1936.

Barclay was born in Turriff, Aberdeenshire, Scotland, the son of Hugh Barclay and Imogene Smedley, and came to Manitoba in 1911. He settled near Tyndall. Barclay served with the Royal Engineers during World War I. He was reeve of the Rural Municipality of Brokenhead from 1932 to 1933.

He was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in the 1922 provincial election, as a candidate of the United Farmers of Manitoba (UFM). Campaigning in the electoral district of Springfield, he defeated Liberal candidate William Black by 160 votes. The UFM unexpectedly won a majority of seats in this election, and formed government as the Progressive Party of Manitoba. Barclay was selected as chairman of the caucus meeting which selected John Bracken as the party leader.

Barclay served as a backbench supporter of Bracken's government for the next five years. He was defeated in the 1927 provincial election, losing to Liberal Murdoch Mackay by eighteen votes.

In 1932, the Progressive and Liberal parties formed an electoral alliance to prevent the Conservatives from coming to power. Candidates supported by the government were called "Liberal-Progressives", and Mackay ran under this banner in Springfield. Despite Barclay's background with the Progressive Party, he ran against Mackay as an independent "Farmer-Labour" candidate, and won election by 652 votes. He was injured in an automobile accident on the night of the vote, but recovered to take his seat in the legislature.

Once elected, Barclay appears to have become a government supporter again. He was offered re-nomination as a Liberal-Progressive in the 1936 election, but declined.

In 1943, he was named agricultural representative on the National War Services board, replacing William Bryce.

He died in Winnipeg at the age of 84.

title: Clifford Barclay


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Jeans Company

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Black Jeans Company

 * Delete Clothing company advertisement. A search for "Black Jeans Company" returns a grand total of 4 hits on Google. Doesn't seem that notable to me. Initial vote comes from article creator (according to IP address). --PhilipO 02:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. Totally NPOV entry for a notable company. - Lucky 6.9 23:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Keep. Credible Clothing company, regardless of notoriety. --- Misty A. (Unsigned comment by ) (Unsigned comment altered by )
 * Basic Information Site for public corporation. Keep article. -- LavonS (Unsigned comment by )
 * Delete, it's not a public corporation from what I can find (see Yahoo! Finance search). Also, the company's web site implies that its jeans are only sold in 11 store locations. --Metropolitan90 04:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - company apears notable -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 23:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unknown clothing company. --nixie 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, reading the article it does seem notable.  However, there is no way to explain away the only four google hits (two of which are at blackjeansco.com).--Pharos 01:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable jean company.--A. Presridge (Unsigned comment by ) (Unsigned comment altered by )

Keep-Simply informative with little or no advertising.-- AnitaV (Unsigned comment by )
 * No Google presence + "Three new mens designs, and the newly created womens line (available in four styles)are currently in the final stages of production" (i.e., "we have yet to sell anything") + puppets = Delete. Dcarrano 02:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. After viewing the website, it seems highly unlikely that the company has yet to sell anything. There is even a list of stores that currently carries the jean.--JoshD (Unsigned comment by )
 * Mr. Black/Mr. Black's friend, please stop it; you're not fooling anyone.--Pharos 02:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the 8 hits for "black jeans" "Daniel Black" are relevant, and adding the middle initial gets zero hits. And their products are only available in 11 retail locations across the US? Also much of the article is unverifiable. (And socks are never a good sign.)Niteowlneils 02:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not-notable, largely unverifiable and I hate meatpuppets and sockpuppets always. -Splash 02:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Niteowlneils and Splash. Quale 04:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable brand. JamesBurns 09:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and Darn those socks! Radiant_ >|< 09:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete as an attempt, however subtle, at free advertising. Google comes back virtually nil, the website says virtually nothing and the sockpuppets are virtually coming out of the woodwork.  The ever-virtual Lucky 6.9 16:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity page, not a notable company. --Vizcarra 22:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, sock puppets go to Wiki-Hell. -- BD2412 talk 22:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- Although these unwarranted allegations of puppets is not appreciated, it is understandable considering this is my first original contribution. Just for the greater good of the conversation, the 144.96.120.178 is representative of the local Stephen F. Austin University network. So the entire student body could contribute to the discussion, and it would appear as a single person.--LavonS (User )
 * But unregistered users don't get to take part in these discussions anyway. You are welcome to sign up for a username however if your only edits with that user name are to take part in a vfd discussion some more established editors on Wikipedia frown upon that.  My advice would be to allow the vote go the way the established community want it to go for the moment, then when you've had some practice editing Wikipedia articles and contributing to the community at large, then come back and revisit the subject. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 10:35, 14 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.