text:
Talk:Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)

Major WP:NPOV problems with proposed edit
Just a few of the examples of bias and other problems in the proposed change:

 * The infobox for miltary conflicts is used, and the entire infobox treats this event as a war. There was military conflict here.  There was a polite exchange of messengers in which the British asked the Argentines to leave and the Argentines agreed to do so.
 * "Place: "Puerto Soledad, Malvinas Islands, Argentine Confederation" - debatable at best. The "nationality" of Vernet's colony is not as clear-cut as one might like, as evidenced by the fact that it continued after January 1833.
 * Changing "the re-establishment of British rule" to "the establishment of British rule" denies the existence of a colony in 1765-74.
 * "The British occupation of the Falkland Islands..." - there was no occupation. At the end of the events described, there were no military forces of any nation on the islands asserting any form of claim to sovereignty.
 * "...was a military operation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland..." - no it wasn't. It was a polite exchange of messengers.
 * "Despite being in peaceful relations with the Argentine Confederation..." - so, again, you're saying it was the British as aggressors.
 * "...the United Kingdom, with two warships..." - at least one of them was not large enough to count as a ship - oh and it's emphasising "war" again.
 * "...evicted the Argentine garrison of Puerto Soledad that had 26 soldiers, who left two days later" - again, a polite exchange of messengers in which the British asked the Argentines to leave and the Argentines agreed to do so. Worth bearing in mind that the garrison in question had just mutinied and killed their commander, and so were probably headed for the wrong end of an Argentine gallows whatever happened.
 * "The Government of the Argentine Republic considers that..." - lede fixation. This is an article on a historical event, not modern reactions to it.
 * "...considers that on January 3, 1833, "the islands were occupied by British forces that evicted the population (of Argentine origin) and the Argentine authorities legitimately established there, replacing them with subjects of the occupying power."" - so you want to place a highly prominent mention of a series of claims that are known to be entirely false, without mentioning the fact that they are known to be entirely false, under cover of attribution to the Argentine government.
 * "On that date the Argentine authorities immediately demanded the unjustified aggression carried out in peacetime and friendship between the two nations, demand that has continued to be expressed diplomatically as of today. " - this is where you use the Argentine government as a source for what appears to be intended to be neutral fact written in Wikipedia's voice.  The idea that this is neutral is absurd - it very clearly puts Argentine arguments as factual in Wikipedia's voice.
 * "The Government of the United Kingdom describes..." - again lede fixation. This is an article on a historical event, not modern reactions to it.
 * "...describes the action as "reaffirmation" of its domain". The quote isn't sourced.  The phrase "reaffirmation of its domain" is meaningless.
 * "...which was established on January 23, 1765, one year after the arrival of the Bougainville from France by British commodore John Byron who arrived at the small Trinidad Island..." - clearly attempts to make the prior British involvement seem minor compared with the Argentine involvement. Note no mention of the fact that that colony lasted 9 years, and note the prominent mention of the French, aimed at undermining the British position by pointing out that they were first.  Strangely, no mention of the fact that the British were there before the Spanish and long before the Argentines.
 * "...arrived at the small Trinidad Island, named by the British "Saunders Island"" - so why does the standard English name (which was most likely the one that came first) get treated as some kind of aberration, while the modern Argentine name gets treated as primary?

This isn't a close call. It's not something that could go either way. You are directly and explicitly writing Argentine propaganda in Wikipedia's voice. Explicitly because you're using the Argentine government as your source. There is absolutely no way I could ever accept any part of the edit as being in any way acceptable.

Finally, in response to this edit summary, this title has been long subject to discussion, because it's a difficult event to discribe succinctly. There was a previous title ("Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands"), but when we had discussion, the Argentine editors in the discussion felt that this one was better, and I and others did not object to it. Kahastok talk 21:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 * To add, re: this edit. It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRR.  You are the one wanting to make the change here, so as at the other page, the burden of consensus is on you here. Kahastok talk 18:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources around that can back the various claims. There are also plenty of less reliable sources out there. I think a lot of these discussions could easily be avoided by sticking strictly to the wp policy on reliable sources, even if that means having to reference every second sentence. That means govt publications should be avoided as should some other sources that look informative but are really just original research. (I have recently removed a couple of those). If the OR citations are helpful, as many are, we can keep them in the article by adding them to external links. Sticking strictly to policy will also involve weeding out a lot of weaseling, synthesing as well as plain biased language. There is far too much agenda pushing from both sides. If an editors position is correct the evidence, correctly presented, is all that is needed. This is an encyclopedia: it is our job to present the evidence in as neutral a way as is possible, and not to interpret it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

An example of why you, Kahostok, are treading on very thin ice is the way you, in today's edit, that you dismiss the Argentine govt source as propaganda, which is a blatant POV. It should not be used because it is primary evidence, which is no different from many UK govt sources being used on Falklands articles. This is wp policy and policy breaches do not require consensus to be changed, which I am sure you know. I note from all the talk page discussion on these Falkland articles that there is a pattern of concern being raised about the neutrality of these Falkland articles going back many years, sometimes by experienced editors such as Langus and Jay D. Easy. You would achieve your aim much more easily if you stuck to presenting the evidence rather than telling others what it means. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using government or other biased sources, provided that they are used with care, as per WP:PARTISAN.

Treat with care: I am glad we agree. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The text that you want to put in - that is based on an Argentine government source but that you (by putting it in Wikipedia's voice) effectively claim is neutral and widely-accepted fact - is: the Argentine authorities immediately demanded the unjustified aggression carried out in peacetime and friendship between the two nations, demand that has continued to be expressed diplomatically as of today.

I have never said I want that or any of the recent additions put in (if you refer to the additions by the presumably Argentine editor). What i want is for those additions to be mentioned on this talk page first and then, if suitable, removed or changed. They were inserted in good faith and deserved better than a blunt reversal with the editor being accused of being a propagandist. Even if it is tedious to do so that effort should always be made. I have "effectively claimed" nothing of the sort - any belief otherwise is entirely your assumption. this gets back to what I see as your sometimes overly enthusiastic curt dismissal of detail you disagree with. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * That isn't neutral and widely-accepted fact. It is propaganda.  And actually I would be very surprised if there was any instance on any Falklands article where a UK government source was used as a basis for a similar claim in Wikipedia's voice. Kahastok talk 17:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Please do not break up my comments as you did above, this is not acceptable per WP:TPO.

 * You have made that claim, that that is a neutral and widely-accepted fact, by repeatedly adding the text in question to the article. If you did not want to make such a claim, then perhaps you should not have added it to the article.

 * It is absolutely standard practice on Wikipedia for bold edits, when reverted, to be discussed. It is also absolutely standard for proposed edits that do not reach consensus not to be added to the article.  We can all see the proposed edit in the history.  There is no reason why this should be an exception to that standard should not apply here.

 * Given this, and given that you now also claim to oppose the text that you repeatedly put into the article, will you now accept that this - the last stable version - should be the version used in this article for the duration of this discussion? Kahastok talk 17:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Roger I'm afraid it's you who are reading on rather thin ice. Whilst I might agree that some of the older sources used in the article could do with being replaced by more authoritative sources, which is something I'd be happy to do, what you are doing is converting an article that was neutral in tone to one that reflects a major POV. Argentine government sources are problematic for their partisan nature and for the fact they contain myth presented as fact. One of those would be the expulsion myth or the claim≠ of a violent expulsion of the garrison, which even Guatafson who is pro-Argentine dismisses as myth. I just have to ask were you aware of that, ie that authoritative academic sources dismiss what the Argentine Government claims? ×I would suggest that you stop edit warring, calm down and discuss matters. WCM email 09:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

We agree on the need to upgrade sources. I am puzzled at why you assume I am trying to turn a so-called neutral article into one with an Argentine slant. In answer to your question about my awareness of quality of Argentine govt publications (in fact almost anything published in Argentina), the simpler answer is, er, Yes, I am aware. Before reading this latest post I had just spent a painful hour ploughing through Falklands or Malvinas: Myths & facts by Manuel Pedro Peña. But that is not and never has been the reason for my concerns. It is the way we treat them that is the problem. It is not up to us to tell readers that Argentine sources are propaganda, even if they are. It is the way we edit and comment on, the various Falkland articles, not necessarily what information is supplied. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just an hour? I read it cover to cover several times.  Interested to hear your opinion on the conclusion of the book, having read it I can't square his conclusion having debunked all Argentine claims and myths. WCM email 11:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Argentine government sources are partisan but UK sources not? What do you base that conclusion on? Seem a biased personal opinion to me. Sietecolores (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I specifically spoke of using neutral academic sources, I take it your mischaracterisation of my comments was deliberate. There lies the majority of the issues in articles of this nature. WCM email 16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is an interesting double standard - comparing Argentine government sources with all UK sources. Kahastok talk 17:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks Kahastok, correction, I was meaning government sources which was the issue Roger 8 Roger is concerned about. Else it would be as you say an "interesting double standard". Wee Curry Monster: I urge you to follow WP:AGF and comment the topic and not the users. Sietecolores (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do follow WP:AGF but that is a little stretched, when you mischaracterise what I had to say! I specifically referred to the use of academic sources and not government sources. I can if you like expand on why many Argentine sources are problematic but your comment that is seemed a biased personal opinion did not lead me to conclude you were inclined to listen - you were commenting on the user not the topic. WCM email 10:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there currently a rule that we do not use any sources published by the UK or Argentine govts? If not then should we make it a consensus rule? That might seem unfair to some of us who think the problem is entirely on the Argentinian side, but it does at least remove any evidence of possible bias. I have no problem using only top notch reliable sources as defined by WP. It would be good if it were only academic but that won't always be possible -- there are quality non-academic sources and, as mentioned above, there are academic sources that are suspect. I have also seen what appear to be very useful OR sites that contain detail that I have not found elsewhere such as. To keep that information then we would have to incorporate it in a different way rather than using it as a RS2, which in this example is how it is used in this article. BTW, I did not read the above post by Sietecolores as comparing Argentine govt sources with all UK sources. He seemed to be comparing Argentine govt and UK govt sources. Is this an example of being over sensitive and always assuming every editor who posts a contrary opinion is in the pay of the Argentine ministry of propaganda? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Let me repeat once again, the text that you and others have tried to force into the article, treated as neutral fact and sourced only to the Argentine government:

 * On that date the Argentine authorities immediately demanded the unjustified aggression carried out in peacetime and friendship between the two nations, demand that has continued to be expressed diplomatically as of today.

 * If the text was properly attributed to the Argentine government in-line, if it was placed in an appropriate section of the article, if it was either written in less emotive terms or as a direct quotation, if it was evaluated in an appropriate way, with any significant claims of factual inaccuracy noted - if all of those things were done, then we might be able to put such a text into an appropriate article neutrally. None of those things are done here.

 * You're trying to push this into a question of whether we accept government sources at all. You write as though there were no difference between on one hand explicitly using a government source to provide that government's position - attributed to that government and neutrally worded - and on the other, openly taking that government's side in a point of dispute.  A better question would be, are there any circumstances in which government sources are unacceptable.  Because if there are, this is one of them.

 * I note that there is no response given to any of the other objections that I raised. I shall therefore assume that they are accepted. Kahastok talk 18:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I note with interest that you have ceased to defend the edit discussed in this section, and also that you have now disclaimed most of it. Given that there is clearly no consensus for it, and given its strong bias, I will remove the text back to the most recent consensus version. I suggest that proposals for improvement in this area be made on talk and that we discuss them, and put them into the article once consensus is reached. The slow-motion edit war in the background is not necessary or beneficial. Kahastok talk 21:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat, I have never defended the edit as being correct, just not completely without merit. I have defended an editors right to be heard in the face of what appears to be a pretty closed mind by certain long standing editors. By taking such a blunt approach you are weakening your own argument and falling into the hands of the propaganda merchants. I mean blunt approach in the way these articles are presented, not factual correctness, or otherwise, of information given. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 * You will now doubtless now point out where I have removed someone's talk page post or prevented them from putting their opinion on talk, thereby preventing them from being heard? Because if you can't, that would be the sort of personal attack that you're accusing me of.

 * On two separate occasions this was actually your edit. Whether you now like it or not, these two edits were an endorsement of the edit as it stood as being suitable for inclusion.  If that's not what you intended, then I suggest that in future, you shouldn't put things into articles that you don't want to see in the article.

 * It is of course, perfectly possible to discuss a proposed edit without forcing it into the article. Every other talk page on every other topic seems to manage it, there's no reason why this one should be different. Kahastok talk 07:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Name of the article
I have always found the title of this page strange: "Reassertion" of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)... this is sort of the only WP article with such strange wording. What was re-establish was it rule or sovereignity, old sovereignity is so far I am concerned no clear issue as it was disputed even back in the 18th century, so how can you re-establish something that was not [beyond dubt] yours? Correct me if I am wrong. Dentren |  Ta lk  18:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the title is "reassertion" and does not use the word "re-establish".

 * This is a very difficult article to give an accurate title for.  The events defy simple description using a noun phrase.  Most reliable sources not taking a side tend to describe events or to use a verb phrase (where Wikipedia titles are noun phrases).  Those who favour the Argentine side tend to argue for "invasion", even though the word is entirely misleading.  Those favouring the British side tend to refer to a "return", airbrushing the existing colony out of the picture completely.  Eliminating the "re-" element would be incorrect as it is clear that Britain did assert sovereignty in the 1760s. Kahastok talk 16:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This might be going over old ground, that I have intentionally chosen not to read so as to come at this fresh, but there is nothing wrong with looking at it again. I would be grateful if Kahastok or anyone could summerise why this heading is being used. To me it is clearly wrong. "Re-establish" means it was there before and that is clearly not certain, as evidenced by quality (UK) sources. Therefore to use "re-establish sovereignty" is based on POV which makes it bias. I really cannot see a reason for not using another word or phrase that is not contentious, such as re-possess, establishment of order, or one of many other variations. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would help us all understand your objection if you - either of you - explained where exactly where you found the word "re-establish" in the phrase "Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)"?

 * There was clearly some measure of British control on the Falklands in 1765-1774, and the British clearly asserted sovereignty during that period, notably during the 1770 Falklands crisis. It is incorrect to suggest that the existence of a British settlement before 1833 is somehow disputed. Kahastok talk 21:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 * My mistake in using 'establishment' immediately above. It was probably on my mind due to the earlier use of the word. However, that does not change the very misleading and one-sided nature of the heading as a whole. To re-assert something also means that there was something there (sovereignty) to reassert in the first place. What I think you are trying to say is that the UK was re-asserting the sovereignty that it believed existed. That is a totally different heading and to use it would be clumsy, so rewording the title is still necessary. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I think you are drawing vast inferences from "reassertion" that the word itself does not support. What precise change are you proposing? Kahastok talk 07:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Is there anything wrong with this -- The British return to the Falkland Islands in 1833', to suggest just one example. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes - that's the term preferred by British-biased sources, which are traditionally written to imply that there wasn't anyone already there in 1833.

 * The equivalent on the other side is "British invasion", which implies a military operation that never took place and draws a false parallel with the 1982 invasion.

 * We also considered "British occupation" - which is problematic because of the implication of illegitimacy and because the British themselves left three days later and left no personnel of their own on the islands (only the existing colonists). And also "Argentine surrender" - which is problematic because there was no formal surrender. Kahastok talk 08:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the succinct summary. I agree that all those options bar one are unsuitable because they are subjective and depend on a POV. 'Occupation', the best of the rest, in one sense is not subjective but in others it is, so yes, that word is not suitable either. The one that is objective though is 'return' and I chose it for that very reason. I am having trouble seeing how that word can imply that there was nothing already there. Eg: 'He returned home after a hard day's work' does not imply anything about someone else being at home, or not at home. The British biased sources use all sorts of non-neutral words, a lot that have crept in to these articles (as with the pro-Argentinian sources and words), but to call a completely bland word like 'return' as being one of those bias words seems to be stretching it a bit. Looking at what we currently have there is no real comparison: both 'reassertion' and 'sovereignty' are just dripping with opinion. Can you give examples of how the best available academic sources refer to this event? The first four sources I looked at used these terms: invaded; occupied; reclaimed the Islands through the use of force; arrival of HMS Clio. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * "Occupation" is not accurate in any sense. The British left no additional colonists, no civil administration and no military personnel on the islands.  Everyone  who was on the islands when the British left had already been there when they arrived.

 * You may see bias in the current title, but our Argentinian friends did not, when the question came up when it was changed to the current title - in fact they dismissed these concerns entirely.

 * Neutral sources tend describe these events using a verbal phrase. For example, they might say that Britain retook control of the islands in 1833, or has had control over the islands since 1833.  Where they don't, they very often fall into one of the traps that we're trying to avoid.  The chapter in Cawkell calls it the "British repossession" - but that makes it sound like the islands were repossessed as a result of a non-payment of debt.

 * When history books refer back to events, they may well rely on the fact that you already already had a description. Cawkell refers back to the "Clio Affair", for example, which is pretty meaningless to those not already aware of events. Kahastok talk 13:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree that 'occupation' is not suitable. If a verbal phrase can be found then that might be suitable, so long as it's not too unwieldy. I am not sure about giving much weight to the Argentinian editors, even assuming good faith. One, there is the language issue - they might not be completely familiar with the nuances of meaning in English. Second, if they have been indoctrinated with misinformation, as seems to be the case throughout Argentina, and therefore whether acting in good faith or not, what would they think to be the best option if given the choice between 1/ re-assertion of UK sovereignty (that they disagree ever existed), 2/ return of the British (to disputed islands). If I were an Argentinian I would choose no.1. The reason being is that it is better for their side to maintain the belief that the islands were stolen from them rather than that the actual ownership is not clear. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't have a problem with the suggestion the title be looked at again, I have personally never been entirely happy with it but have accepted it as a compromise. My personal preference has always been the use of Return as Roger suggested.  However, it's always been problematic as Argentine editors see this as a "British POV", since this is the term used in most British work.  I fear that if we were to suggest using it, it will become mired in unnecessary controversy as it has always done in the past. WCM email 10:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW the one good thing going for the current name, is that it is used by third parties. Not always neutral either, eg the Iranian News Agency, who could not be described as pro-British. WCM email 10:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the Spanish word for return also has a slightly different meaning to the English when used in the Falklands context: implying something like 'returning to what is yours'. That might explain their objections. It might of course mean exactly the same as the English word though. Alternatively, they might simply object to anything that refers to the earlier British settlement, a denial of the facts. If so then I don't think we can do much by way of compromise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, volver has the same meaning in Spanish. Where I think the issue is the Argentine phrase volveremos in relation to the Falklands see the following google search for context .  That I believe is the nub of it.  WCM email 11:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting pictures and yes I think that is the problem. Meaning in Spanish is here . I wonder then if this English language article should not use a normal English word just because another group of people connect it loosely with a word in their language that they use to promote an opinion. It makes me more inclined to use 'return' in the title. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I think perception is important in these things. Even if we accept that the word "return" as neutral based on its plain English meaning, I think using a word that is particularly associated with one side and rejected by many on the other side stores up trouble for the future and damages our credibility.  It's no good being neutral if a large segment of our readership sees the name of the article and assume from it that we're taking a side.

 * (Now, one might argue that those people who will notice that it's a term associated with the British will assume we're biased anyway, because what we say is different from what appears in Argentine school textbooks. And one might have a point.  But I'm not convinced the two groups will overlap that strongly.) Kahastok talk 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale Revert
I have reverted wholesale a series of POV changes.

1. The reference to Weddel is incorrect, his book wasn't published till after the Treaty of Friendship in 1825.

2. The claim that the Treaty of Friendship in 1825 was recognition of Argentine sovereignty is purely invented POV propaganda. In fact, as part of the treaty negotiations the British required each state in Argentina to define it's territory in detail. Ignacio Nunez did this for the Republic of Buenos Aires and at no point is the Falklands mentioned.

3. Repeat of the myth that Jewett was sent, this is controversial and many scholars doubt that this was the case.

4. The so-called extract from the Times is in fact a Photoshop montage. In reality the article was a minor footnote on Page 2 of the Times under the theatre section. By the time it was published in the UK a year after the event, Mason (Jewett's replacement) had left some 6 months earlier and to say the British were ignorant of this, belies the fact that 40-50 British whalers were routinely in the islands regularly reporting back to the UK.

5. I've seen the Sarratea claim before, its bogus, Sarratea was appointed after Jewett had left. In fact, it's difficult to suggest which Government may have sent Jewett, if any since there were over 20 governments that year (3 in one day). It's known as one of the most anarchic years in Argentine history - the country fell apart.

6. The Argentine Government never expressed any concern over seal hunting, the only person to do so was Vernet who claimed all the seals were his.

7. Jewett actually arrived in October, only putting into the islands because his ship was damaged in a storm.

These claims are from Argentine revisionist sources, who have already been declared as unreliable both in an arbcom case and at WP:RSN. WCM email 12:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have wondered for some time about the merits of creating an article about this line within the Argentine psyche. There are already some good articles out there, like this link, but often they only cover what I think is the tip of the iceberg. The necessary citations, and editor knowledge is out there but it is plastered all over the place and needs to be corralled. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have often thought about an article on those lines, something to draw the different threads together. There are certainly plenty of good quality academic texts on the subject.  The difficulty would be in the vocal opposition you would get from ardent nationalists.  Part of the the youth wing of the La Campora seeks to promote the Peronist movement in social media, particularly in support of Cristina Kirchnerm, and they do disrupt what they see as opposition.  One of the weaknesses of wikipedia is that many admins will simply see that as a content dispute.  WCM email 23:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

unneeded qualifier in the title
I moved it earlier, but was reverted. There's no ambiguity in the title, so the disambiguating qualifier is unneeded. The other supposedly ambiguous articles are not referred to as the "reassertion of British sovereignty" in their articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I think the whole title is not ideal and sounds a little awkward. A while ago I thought it needed changing but after looking into the matter more deeply I could not come up with anything better. The current title has problems but the other options have even more, in my opinion. About your specific issue with inserting 1833, I am a little puzzled as to why you think it is unnecessary. The 1982 recapture can without doubt be seen as a form of British reassertion of sovereignty, so disambiguation from the 1833 event is surely needed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I disagree and support the restoration of the qualifier. As noted by  without it, it could be confused with events of 1771 or even 1982.  Whilst the original poster makes the point that other articles (currently) have different names, they can still be confused without the qualifier.  As such I oppose removing it.  The current title is a compromise, since Argentine editors saw the normal English language name as POV.  I've never been happy with it either but no one has put forward a better suggestion. WCM email 10:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"topics could be confused" is not the same as "title is ambiguous". The other articles did not mention "assert" at all. The current "disambiguation" at the base name is just a list of articles on related topics, not a list of topics that could have had (or been referred to by) the title. But that information, is true, could be added to those articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 * The current title is a descriptive title per WP:NDESC - a compromise that I think nobody has ever been very happy with but that has proven better than all the alternatives.

 * Re: "But that information, is true, could be added to those articles." There are an infinite number of phrases that we could describe each of these events and it helps nobody for the articles to attempt to list them.  That fact that this article happens to use this description, which could apply to (elements of) any of the three events if taken without the qualifier, does not mean we have to shoehorn the phrase in where it isn't necessary or useful. Kahastok talk 19:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Kohen and Rodriguez
Today's revert - see talk here Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

United Provinces as of 1831
The United Provinces in its 1831 configuration is the predessesor of "Argentina" as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is the one for the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".

Essentially the stress in that United Provinces in its 1831 configuration would very different from Argentina is a classical British-POV trope that ultimately seek to claim that "Argentina did not exist" back then. Wikipedia should clarify the matter in that regard rather than contribute to specific POVs. Dentren | Talk 06:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * No it isn't, the borders of the United Provinces are very different from that of the Viceroayalty of the River Plate. Chile, Peru, Paraguay and Uruguay are not part of Argentina.  As regards the United Provinces, Uruguay has seceded (and in the Spanish the outpost in the Falklands was a presidio run from Montevideo), Argentina itself took Patagonia and essentially blackmailed Chile into ceding Tierra del Fuego during the War of the Pacific.  I believe the current text is more accurate and invite you to demonstrate how the "British-POV trope" attempts to claim that Argentina does not exist forms any part of the official British position. I really don't see the "British-POV trope" you're alleging and really such language does not make for a reasonable discussion on the matter.  May I recommend WP:OWB as you will recognise many traits described there in your comment. WCM email 08:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Worth mentioning that while edit summaries and talk page posts have referred to the United Provinces "in its 1831 configuration", nothing in the proposed edit to the article did. It simply claimed the United Provinces of the River Plate as "the predessesor state of Argentina" (sic). Kahastok talk 17:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed detailed passage on period 1774-1811
User:ReggNichols is attempting to edit war this into the article.

I do not think it is appropriate because this section is attempting to give background to the events specifically surrounding the switch from Argentine control to British control in 1833. It is not a general history of the Falkland Islands.

The fact of the prior British settlement is significant to this background. However, details of what the Spanish may have done in the period immediately after 1774 is not so clearly significant. The significant background on the Argentine side is the fact of the establishment of the settlement by Luis Vernet.

I would also contend that the proposed text is biased, emphasising irrelevances (such as the number of Spanish governors) in apparent attempt to bolster the Argentine argument by proxy. I thus oppose its inclusion.

I do not necessarily oppose a more neutral mention in context of the French and Spanish colonists. But that should be a mention, not a paragraph like this. Kahastok talk 16:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph is shorter than both, the one describing British departure, and the Argentine settling attempt. Is already a summarized extract from a reputable source, the official British historian Lawrence Freedman. Since there's a mention to sealers and whalers activity in that period, the presence of the Spanish outpost should be also relevant. If the number of commanders appointed is an issue, I agree to leave it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReggNichols (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Part of the problem with both your text and the original text is that it fails to mention the existence of the Spanish colony in the first place except in passing. If we're going to introduce it (and the reference to the Falklands Crisis doesn't make sense if we don't) we need to introduce it in a sensible place.  I will try and write a proposal to resolve the issue and see what you think of it. Kahastok talk 15:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for ReggNichols's text. It is well-known there is a group of users in Falkland-related articles that have for long behaved as if they owned the articles, pushing to give the British narrative on the sovereignty issue the best possible spot. This has been going on for 12+ years. Apparently, text detailing on British abandonment of the archipelago and the continuing Spanish actions does not serve this purpose. Behaviours that amount or resemble WP:OWN are to be discouraged. Sietecolores (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support text added by Kahastok, which neutrally describes events. Getting rather tired of the accusations of POV behaviour from those who seek to do precisely that, suggest they read WP:OWB. WCM email 07:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Theatre Parade

The only reference I can find to this subject, is from This Web Site (I suspect this is the original source for this entry, or directly taken from whereever the source is). The section relevant to the article is:

From 1936 to 1938 the BBC transmitted a series called Theatre Parade, which presented selected scenes from popular London theatre productions of the time, although these were filmed in the BBC's television studios at Alexandra Palace.

I am doubtful that the BBC would have carted the equipment to the actual theatre to broadcast "selected scenes".

I am deleting the portion related to "either from the theatre". —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Henderson (talk • contribs)

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

title: Talk:Theatre Parade


text: User talk:Rugby5005

title: User talk:Rugby5005


text:
Photographs (Mest album)

Photographs is the fifth studio album by American pop punk band Mest.

Release
On July 12, 2005, Photographs was announced for release later in the year; following this, the band performed on the main stage of that year's Warped Tour. On August 7, 2005, "Kiss Me, Kill Me" and "Take Me Away (Cried Out to Heaven)" were posted on the band's Myspace profile. The band supported Social Distortion on their headlining US tour from September 2005. On October 12, 2005, the music video for "Take Me Away (Cried Out to Heaven)" was posted online. That same day, Mest had to drop off the Social Distortion tour because of drummer Nick Gigler developing Carpal tunnel syndrome; they were replaced by Bullets and Octane. Six days later, Photographs was released through Maverick. Limited copies came with a bonus DVD entitled Seven Deadly Sins.

In January 2006, the band announced on their Myspace blog that they would break-up following a US tour, titled the So Long and Thanx for the Booze Tour. The trek ran from late January until early March, with support from Allister and Scary Kids Scaring Kids. Since the break-up, Lovato formed A Permanent Holiday, which featured members of Lit and Bleed the Dream.

Track listing

 * 1) "Take Me Away (Cried Out to Heaven)" (Tony Lovato, John Feldmann) – 3:41
 * 2) "Kiss Me, Kill Me" (Jeremiah Rangel, Feldmann) – 3:34
 * 3) "Photographs" (Lovato) – 3:01
 * 4) "Cursed" (Rangel, Feldmann) – 3:39
 * 5) "As His Black Heart Dies (My Mistake)" (Lovato) – 3:16
 * 6) "This Time" (Lovato, Feldmann) – 3:45
 * 7) "Graveyard" (Rangel, Feldmann) – 3:37
 * 8) "Nightmare" (Lovato) – 3:36
 * 9) "Can't Take This" (Lovato, Feldmann) – 3:28
 * 10) "Dying for You" (Lovato, Feldmann) – 3:29
 * 11) "Tonight Will Last Forever" (Rangel, Feldmann) – 4:15
 * 12) "Last Kiss" (Lovato) – 3:45

title: Photographs (Mest album)


text:
Ghats (mountains)

Ghats refer to two converging mountain ranges in south-eastern India, called the Eastern Ghats and Western Ghats, running along the eastern and western seaboards of the country.

The Eastern Ghats parallel the Coromandel Coast. The average elevation of the range is 600 m above sea level. The Eastern Ghats lie at a distance of 80 to 240 km from the coast, but at Vishākhapatnam they form precipitous escarpments along the Bay of Bengal. The chief rivers that cut through the mountains are the Godāvari, Krishna, and the Kaveri.

The Western Ghats extend from the southern portion of the valley of the River Tāpi along the Malabar Coast to Cape Comorin. The range is divided by Pālghāt Gap (40 km/25 mi wide); the section north of the division is 1,300 km long and that to the south of the gap is 320 km. In many sections, the range is separated only by a narrow strip of land from the coastline. At the northern part of the Western Ghats, the height may vary from 900 to 1,200 m, but in the south they reach a height of 2,637 m at Doda Beta, their highest peak.

The region between the Eastern and Western Ghats is referred to as the Deccan Plateau. The east-sloping plateau is protected from the heavier rains by the two ranges, and has a dry season of between six and nine months.

title: Ghats (mountains)


text: Talk:Photographs (Mest album)

title: Talk:Photographs (Mest album)


text:
Ka-Ching!

"Ka-Ching!" is a song recorded by Canadian singer Shania Twain. It was released on February 17, 2003, as the second single to her fourth studio album Up! (2002), exclusively to Europe and Central America. The song was written by Twain and Robert John "Mutt" Lange. "Ka-Ching!" lyrically centers on greed and consumer culture, a topic Twain had never sung about before.

"Ka-Ching!" became one of Twain's most successful singles in Europe to date, reaching the top ten in six European countries and topping the Portuguese music charts, which lead to the song peaking at number two on the European Hot 100 Singles, becoming her highest peaking single on the chart. Twain performed the song on the Up! Tour, while an interlude of the song was performed on her Rock This Country Tour and the European dates of Now Tour.

Background and composition
The song was written by Robert Lange and Shania Twain. Lyrically, the song deals with what it considers to be the greed in the world. The tongue-in-cheek lyrics look at how our world revolves around money. It features an opening similar to Pink Floyd's "Money". According to Jennifer Nine from Yahoo! Music, "it's essentially Radiohead's "squealing Gucci little piggies" served up for those without Oxford educations and Naomi Klein's Guardian columns: "We spend the money that we don't possess/Our religion is to go and blow it all".

Lyrics and themes
"Ka-Ching" centres on consumerism. Opening with sound of a cash register ringing, Twain then sings that the world teaches children to want and want and want ("we live in a greedy, little world/that teaches every little boy and girl/to earn as much as they can possibly/then turn around and spend it foolishly") and that the adults do not know how to spend their money wisely, either ("we've created us a credit card mess/we spend the money that we don't possess"). And as soon as the money is there, people will go to the new churches — the malls ("Our religion is to go and blow it all/so it's shoppin' every Sunday at the mall"). In the chorus, Twain sings the satisfaction and fulfillment people find in buying and having more money and things ("Can you hear it ring/it makes you wanna sing/it's such a beautiful thing -- Ka-ching!").

In the second verse, she sings that the shallow, materialistic people are irresponsible and will go to drastic lengths, including risking foreclosure on their home to buy more stuff ("when you're broke go and get a loan/take out another mortgage on your home/consolidate so you can afford/to go and spend some more when you get bored"). She taunts them in the bridge ("Dig deeper in your pocket/Oh yeah/Come on, I know you've got it/Dig deeper in your wallet").

Critical reception
The song received mostly positive reviews from most music critics. S. Renee Dechert from PopMatters wrote that the song "stands out as different against the others." Jennifer Nine from Yahoo! Music commented that "musically, its Timbaland-style strings and off-kilter chorus are the best thing on the album." Jake Taylor from Sputnikmusic agreed, writing that the song is "one of the more triumphant moments of the album." Robert Christgau picked the song as one of the best tracks on the album. Lachlan Sutherland from "UK Mix" wrote: "The song is a definite stand out track, with incredibly witty lyrics. It's very fresh and invigorating!." "Traveling to the Heart" wrote a very positive review, stating: "Twain's delivery matter-of-fact and matches the biting tone. With this gem, she proves that she is capable of writing music with some substance to it. Unlike her previous hits, 'Ka-Ching!' is against type. Pop music is being about glamorous, into high-fashion, and living in mansions. However, Twain sees the emptiness of it all and sings about something different for once."

Chart performance
"Ka-Ching!" has become one of Twain's biggest singles in Europe. In the UK, it became her sixth consecutive, seventh overall, top ten single. It debuted on March 22, 2003, at its peak at number eight. It remained on the entire chart for eight weeks. In all, "Ka-Ching!" hit the top ten in seven countries: Austria, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Switzerland, Portugal (where it reached #1) and the UK. It became her highest charting single in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Hungary where it spent 62 weeks in the top 40.

Music video
The music video for "Ka-Ching!" was shot in the Casino Español and in a hotel in Mexico City, Mexico, and Madrid, Spain, in January 2003. It was directed by Finnish director Antti J, who also shot her video for "Up!" around the same time. The video debuted in Europe and Central and South America on February 25, 2003. It was not released to North American stations. The video depicts a city consumed with greed, Twain finds the streets empty and cars left abandoned while everyone is in a casino, sticking with the theme of the song. Scenes of Twain sporting a silver outfit and a red dress, both by Marc Bouwer are intercut throughout the video. These scenes are the base of two further versions of the video that lack the narrative and only show Twain performing the song in the studio. One of these two videos shows her in the silver outfit while in the other one, she is seen wearing the red dress. "Ka-Ching!" was released on YouTube in mid-2011.

Uses in media
"Ka-Ching!" appears in the Oxford University Press' New English File: Intermediate Student's Book, an ESL book.

Track listings
These are the formats and track listings of major single releases of "Ka-Ching!".

 * CD maxi - Europe
 * 1) "Ka-Ching!" (Red) — 3:20
 * 2) "Ka-Ching!" (Sowatt Hip Hop Mix) — 3:22
 * 3) "Ka-Ching!" (Sowatt Extended Lounge Mix) — 9:09
 * 4) "I'm Gonna Getcha Good!" (Sowatt Dance Mix) — 4:32

 * CD single - UK - Part 1
 * 1) "Ka-Ching!" (Red Version) — 3:20
 * 2) "Ka-Ching!" (the Simon & Diamond Bhangra Version) — 4:36
 * 3) "I'm Holding on to Love (to Save My Life)" (Live) — 3:27

 * CD single - UK - Part 2
 * 1) "Ka-Ching!
 * 2) "You're Still The One"
 * 3) Enhanced: "I'm Gonna Getcha Good!" - Music Video

 * CD single - France
 * 1) "Ka-Ching!" (Red) — 3:20
 * 2) "I'm Gonna Getcha Good!" (Sowatt Extended Dance Mix) — 7:57

 * CD maxi - France
 * 1) "Ka-Ching!" (Red Version) — 3:20
 * 2) "You're Still the One" (Live) — 3:21
 * 3) "I'm Holding on to Love (to Save My Life)" (Live) — 3:30
 * 4) "Ka-Ching!" (the Simon & Diamond Bhangra Mix) — 4:36

Official versions
"Ka-Ching!" remains one of Twain's most genre-diverse songs. The main "Red" version is an upbeat rhythmic song with a Middle Eastern influence. The "Green" version has a country feel, and the "Blue" version is more worldly. Remixes have provided Hip hop, Lounge, and Bhangra versions.
 * Red Album Version (3:20)
 * Green Album Version (3:20)
 * Blue Album Version (3:33)
 * Sowatt Hip Hop Mix (3:22)
 * Sowatt Extended Lounge Mix (9:09)
 * The Simon & Diamond Bhangra Mix (4:36)
 * Live from Chicago (3:41)

title: Ka-Ching!


text:
Mat Hoffman's Pro BMX 2

Mat Hoffman's Pro BMX 2 is a 2002 BMX video game developed by Rainbow Studios and published by Activision under the Activision O2 label. The game, which serves as a sequel to Mat Hoffman's Pro BMX, was released on August 13, 2002 for the PlayStation 2 and Xbox. A Game Boy Advance port was developed by HotGen and released the same day as the PlayStation 2 and Xbox versions. A GameCube port was developed by Gratuitous Games and was released on October 8, 2002. It received "favorable" reviews.

Gameplay
Like its predecessor, Mat Hoffman's Pro BMX 2 uses the basic game structure carried over from Activision's Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series of video games. The goal of the game is to successfully perform and combine different tricks on a BMX bike, with successful executions adding to the player's score. The point value of the trick is based on time maintained, degrees rotated, number of tricks performed in sequence, and the number of times the tricks have been used (the more often a trick is used, the less it's worth). Successful tricks also add to the player's special meter, which, once full, allows for the execution of "signature moves" which are worth more than normal tricks. Grinds, lip tricks, and manuals (wheelies) are included in the game to help the player link tricks together into combos. Bails (falling off the bike due to poor landing) cause for no points to be awarded for the attempted trick or combo, and resets the special bar to empty.

Enhancements over the previous installment include improved graphics, new tricks (including flatland tricks and a "trick tweaking system", similar to the trick modifier featured in Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX), a balance meter for grind and lip tricks, more riders, a longer career mode, a larger soundtrack, and larger, more interactive environments.

The player can choose from eleven different professional BMX riders, with each rider having their own unique stats, bikes, and trick sets. Eight levels are included in the game, set in and around various cities across the United States. The Xbox version features a total of twelve professional BMX riders and nine levels: rider Chad Kagy and the London level are exclusive to this release.

Game modes
Road Trip — "Road Trip" is the equivalent to the previous game's "Career Mode". In this mode, the player has to complete different tasks (such as getting a high score or collecting items) in an attempt to earn points and advance to new levels. Each level has twelve goals to complete (as opposed to five in the first game), broken up into three categories based on difficulty. Only four goals are available at one time, which must be completed before unlocking the next set of challenges. Advancing in this mode allows the player to unlock new levels, bikes, riders, and songs from the game's soundtrack. Videos are also unlocked which includes over 90 minutes of footage from a real BMX tour featuring the pros, which promoted the game.

Session — In this mode, the player chooses a BMX rider, an available bike, an available level, and rides for a one to five-minute session in an attempt to set a high score.

Free Ride — Free Ride is similar to the Session mode; the player chooses a BMX rider, an available bike, and an available level. Instead of a timed session, however, there is no time limit, allowing the player to practice or simply explore, searching for gaps and secrets areas.

Tiki Battle — After completing the Road Trip mode, a bonus game is unlocked, called the "Tiki Battle", which acts as a first person shooter. The player attempts to defeat a large animated statue located in the Hawaii level of the game, collecting ammunition and health bonuses while avoiding fireballs thrown at the player. When this challenge is completed, a special character is unlocked and the "Tiki Battle" becomes available in the main menu of the game.

Multiplayer modes — The game features several new and returning multi-player modes including Horse, Trick Attack, Graffiti, Tag, and Push.

Course Editor — This mode allows the player to create their own level by arranging various ramps, rails, and other pieces. Gaps can be created and named, and the player's starting positions can also be chosen by the player. Once a created park is finished, the level can be accessed in the game's "Session", "Free Ride", and multiplayer modes.

Reception
The game received "generally favorable reviews" on all platforms except the GameCube version, which received "average" reviews, according to video game review aggregator Metacritic. In Japan, where the PlayStation 2 version was ported and published by Capcom on May 27, 2004, Famitsu gave it a score of one six, two fives, and one six for a total of 22 out of 40. GameSpot named it the best Game Boy Advance game of August 2002.

title: Mat Hoffman's Pro BMX 2


text:
Keighley East

Keighley East (population 14,929 - 2001 UK census) is a ward within the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council in the county of West Yorkshire, England. The population had increased to 16,775 at the 2011 Census.

Within the Ward of Keighley East are the villages of East and West Morton and the Keighley suburbs of Riddlesden and Long Lee.

Councillors
Keighley East ward is represented on Bradford Council by three Labour Party councillors, Stephen Pullen, Doreen Lee, and Malcolm Slater.

indicates seat up for re-election.

title: Keighley East


text:
Letzte Instanz

Letzte Instanz is a German violin-rock band, founded in Dresden, Germany, in 1996, particularly noted for their use of the violin and cello. The founding members included Hörbi, Tin Whistle, Muttis Stolz, Kaspar Wichman, Holly D. and Markus G-Punkt. Benni Cellini and Robin Sohn entered the group a year later. To date, they have released eleven studio albums, two live albums, two live DVDs, three singles and have appeared on a number of mix CDs.

Biography
When the band's first album, Brachialromantik (Brute Romance) was released, they earned swift comparisons to the giants of the popular German medieval metal genre like Subway to Sally and Tanzwut, despite objections from the band that this was not an accurate expression of their sound or style. Shortly before the album's release, the singer Hörbi left the band to pursue other projects, and the band was left unsure of themselves and faltering with the public taking little interest in their record.

Enter Robin Sohn and a new era for the band. With sharp, complex German lyrics, the new singer arrived and helped shape a new sound. The result was the critically acclaimed Das Spiel (The Game), a stark departure from the sound of their previous effort. The strings were drawn more into the background and the focus shifted to the conventional band instruments, making room also for electronics. Also, two of the new songs ("Das Ist Der Tag"/"That is the Day", "Das Spiel") let Robin take a break from the microphone and introduced background vocalist Holly D's rap stylings. This album also demonstrates Robin's linguistic versatility, featuring a remake of Camouflage's "Love is a Shield." Shortly after the release, Kaspar departed the band, and the introduction of Rasta F. marked the first in a series of changes in the bass player position.

With their third album, 2001's Kalter Glanz, Letzte Instanz showed their fans and critics that trying to classify their music was a fruitless endeavor, yet again introducing a record with a sound different from either of its predecessors. The strings were pulled slightly more into the background, and the sound had begun to mature as a kind of string-assisted form of modern heavy metal in songs like "Ganz oder gar nicht"/"Completely or not at all" and the title track, and with a continued dedication to their folk music roots in songs like "Oh Fortuna" and "Mein Todestag"/"My dying day." The result is a powerful combination of musical genres, occurring both integrated and drawn into sections, but never completely pulled from one another. Also appearing on the album were two well-known German singers: Marta Jandová from Die Happy and Sven Friedrich from Dreadful Shadows accompanied the septet on 3 songs.

With the introduction of an additional guitarist (Oli), another bass change (FX), and a new drummer (Specki T.D.), the band followed up in September 2003 with Götter Auf Abruf ("Gods on Call"). Though the new sound was not quite as significant a departure from Kalter Glanz as that album had been from its predecessor, the progression toward a heavier, complex blend of modern rock and classical/folk instruments and themes was audible. While the Letzte Instanz of Das Spiel had sounded like a folky horror-themed group with rock instruments thrown in, the band of 2003 had shifted much further to the metal end of the spectrum, with the strings nevertheless always present. The resurgence of Holly D's rap vocals also appears on two tracks. With a more radio-friendly sound, the band was even able to climb into the German album charts.

Later releases include a live CD and DVD, featuring tracks from the three most recent albums plus the track "Kopf oder Zahl"/"Heads or Tails," which first appeared on the German mix Nachtschwärmer Vol.7 in July 2004 after having served well as a closing song for their previous tour.

The band did, however, hit a snag in March 2004 when three integral members (vocalist Robin Sohn, founding guitarist Tin Whistle, and bassist FX) decided to leave the band simultaneously for personal reasons. Many of the band's fans feared that they had heard the last of Letzte Instanz. The remaining members decided not to abandon their eight-year project and actively sought to rebuild their lineup. In the meantime, the two strings players M. Stolz and Benni Cellini took advantage of the break to cooperate with the new band Angelzoom on four songs for their self-titled debut, including the single "Fairyland," and joined them briefly for their Tiefenrausch Tour 2005.

December 2004 saw the introduction of new bass player Michael Ende and, three months later, the band became complete once more, finding a new lead singer in Holly. In June 2005, the band debuted live for the first time with their new lineup, playing new songs for a new era.

In February 2006, the album Ins Licht was released, which peaked at position 53 of Germany's Media Control Charts. The song "Das Stimmlein" on that album features guest singers Eric Fish (Subway To Sally), Sven Friedrich (Zeraphine) and Thomas Lindner (Schandmaul).

The sixth album Wir sind Gold was published in March 2007. The single "Wir sind allein" is a cover version of the Inchtabokatables song "You chained me up". In the year the band released Das weiße Lied, an entirely acoustical album. Apart from new interpretations of old songs it also contained four completely new tracks and a David Bowie cover, "Helden".

The album Schuldig was released in February 2009. The pre-release single "Flucht ins Glück" contained also a track "Der Garten" which Letze Instanz recorded together with singer Aylin Aslım. That song is sung in German and Turkish language.

On 30 May 2010, drummer Specki T.D. announced his departure after eight years with the band and joined In Extremo. He was replaced by David Pätsch, the former drummer of Subway to Sally and member of the Blue Men Group. The album Heilig was published in October 2010. The track "Schau in mein Gesicht" was a pre-release radio edition single.

In 2011, the song "Neue Helden" was released as a single and was chosen as the anthem for the International Ice Hockey Federation's Under 18 world championships in Dresden and Crimmitschau, Saxony.

Founding member Holly D. left the band in 2014. The band's 10th studio album Im Auge des Sturms is to be released in October 2014. It was recorded without the use of synthesizers, loops and sample.

Lineup
Current band members in bold:

Vocals

 * Hörbi (1996–1997)
 * Holly D. -background, rap- (1996–2014)
 * Robin Sohn (1997–2004)
 * Holly Loose (2005–present)

Electric Guitar

 * Tin Whistle (1996–2004)
 * Oli (2002–present)

Strings

 * M. Stolz -violin- (1996–present)
 * Benni Cellini -cello- (1997–present)

Bass

 * Kaspar Wichman (1996–1999)
 * Rasta F./FX (1999–2004)
 * Michael Ende (2004–present)

Drums

 * Markus G-Punkt (1996–2001)
 * Specki T.D. (2001–2009)
 * David Pätsch (2010–present)

Singles

 * 2001 - Kopfkino (Head Cinema)
 * 2005 - Sonne (Sun)

Projects and individual songs

 * 2002 - "Vision Thing" on the sampler Thank you Sisters Of Mercy
 * 2004 - The strings players (M. Stolz und Benni Cellini) collaborate on the single "Fairyland" and three other songs from Angelzoom's self-titled album.
 * 2005 - Oli's second Band FROGSTAR BATTLE MACHINE releases their third album Lez Go Cropcircling
 * 2006 - FROGSTAR BATTLE MACHINE releases their fourth CD, an EP called Duck & Cover, including a funny video clip to the song Sex Bubbles
 * 2012 - "Tausendschön" released as part of the Sonic Seducer August 2012 compilation

title: Letzte Instanz


text: User talk:70.35.108.72

title: User talk:70.35.108.72


text:
Benthall Hall

Benthall Hall is a 16th-century English country house in Benthall in the town of Broseley, Shropshire, England, and a few miles from the historic Ironbridge Gorge. It retains much of its fine oak interior, and an elaborate 17th-century staircase. It is still occupied by the Benthall family, but has been owned by the National Trust since 1958, and is open to the public every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holiday Monday (February – October).

The Hall was built around 1580, probably on the site of an earlier 12th-century medieval manor and manor house. During the Civil War it was garrisoned, and was a site of several skirmishes.

The garden is largely the product of two tenants. George Maw (1832–1912), local pottery manufacturer and crocus enthusiast developed the garden from around 1865 onwards. Subsequently, the Victorian era Romantic painter and sculptor Robert Bateman (1842–1922), who was the son of a famous horticulturalist, added the rockeries and terraces of the current garden.

The Restoration era church of St. Bartholomew, built 1667–68, stands close by the Hall. The Shropshire Way, a waymarked long-distance footpath, passes through the extensive woodland that lies to the north, between the estate and the River Severn.

In the film Enola Holmes, Benthall Hall was used for the exterior shots of the Holmes' family estate.

title: Benthall Hall


text: User talk:Animalover193

title: User talk:Animalover193


text: User talk:69.175.212.88

title: User talk:69.175.212.88


text:
User:MusicFan

Welcome!
Welcome!

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

Again, welcome!

 * Barrettmagic 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User:MusicFan


text:
Keighley West

Keighley West (population 15,784 - 2001 UK census) is a ward within the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council in the county of West Yorkshire, England. The population at the 2011 Census was 16,551.

Councillors
Keighley West ward is represented on Bradford Council by two Labour Party councillors, Cath Bacon and Adrian Farley and an independent councillor Brian Morris.

indicates seat up for re-election. indicates councillor defection.

title: Keighley West


text:
Roanoke–Blacksburg Regional Airport

Roanoke–Blacksburg Regional Airport (Woodrum Field) is three miles northwest of downtown Roanoke, Virginia, although still within the independent city's borders. The five-member Roanoke Regional Airport Commission governs it, which includes representatives from the city and county of Roanoke. The airport has two runways and an average of 116 operations a day; it covers 912 acres (369 ha).

Federal Aviation Administration records say the airport had 315,293 passenger boardings (enplanements) in calendar year 2008, 297,588 in 2009 and 316,478 in 2010. It is included in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems for 2021–2025, in which it is categorized as a non-hub primary commercial service facility.

With a history to the time following World War I, Roanoke Regional Airport has evolved from a pair of dirt runways and a single hangar to a modern airport. The terminal building was completed in 1989; the control tower was completed in 2005.

In 2021, Roanoke Regional saw 478,000 passengers, with 87% on-time departures and 86% on-time arrivals.

History
After World War I, the idea of opening an airport in the Roanoke Valley became a priority for local leaders. The intended purpose was to provide a landing strip, aircraft storage, and a flight school. The original location was 6 mi north of Roanoke city limits in Roanoke County. The location was secured on July 1, 1929, when the city of Roanoke signed the lease on the land to operate the Roanoke Municipal Airport. The original facility had a single 83 ft x 100 ft hangar and a pair of dirt runways. The first airline service commenced in 1933 when Ludington Airlines made Roanoke a stop on their New York to Nashville route.

By 1934, American Airlines began service to Roanoke, but they moved their operations to Lynchburg in 1937 due to poor conditions in Roanoke. After American's withdrawal, city leaders determined a new facility was needed. It was initially privately operated, but the city of Roanoke took control of the facility in 1937 after it purchased the original hangar, with Works Progress Administration funds paying the costs of paving the runways. After the airport was declared a national defense project, federal funds became available to complete the facility. On December 15, 1941, it was officially dedicated. The airport was named Woodrum Field in honor of Clifton A. Woodrum, the congressional representative from Virginia's Sixth District, and after it reopened, American Airlines reestablished service to Roanoke Municipal Airport.

In 1950, Roanoke had three runways: 3730-ft runway 5, 3910-ft runway 9, and 4270-ft runway 15. By 1962, runway 5 had been extended to 5427 ft, and by 1965, runway 15 was 5800 ft; there was no further change until runway 9 was closed around 1970. In 1981, runway 5 was the longest, at 5903 ft.

The first airline jets were Piedmont 727s in 1967.

Shortly after it departed from Asheville Regional Airport in Asheville, North Carolina, on July 19, 1967, Piedmont Airlines Flight 22 collided with a Cessna 310 on approach to Asheville. The Piedmont Boeing 727 was en route to Roanoke. There were 82 fatalities and no survivors, making this the deadliest accident associated with Roanoke Regional Airport.

A proposal for runway expansion and facilities upgrades was developed in 1975 but was put on hold while a new regional airport was being studied. During this time, airline deregulation was put in place, and this, combined with the airport's aging facilities and airlines' phasing out of turbo prop aircraft, resulted in less service to the airport. a runway expansion began in the early 1980s to allow larger jets. With the runway extension underway, the airport changed its name from Roanoke Municipal Airport to Roanoke Regional Airport in 1983. The runway expansion was completed in 1985.

In 1984-85, the city developed a Master Plan calling for $43.8 million to be spent on a new terminal building and other improvements. $15.4 million was secured in state and local authorities covered local funding, and the remainder. The creation of a Regional Airport Commission to oversee airport operations was proposed to cover this funding. Approved by the Virginia General Assembly on February 18, 1986, and initiated on July 1, 1987, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission has five members, three appointed from Roanoke City and two from Roanoke County. The commission ended the city of Roanoke's role as the sole operator of the airport, as it had been from 1934 through 1987.

Roanoke has never had international passenger service, but in 2001 the Airport Commission was prepared to change the airport's name to Roanoke International Airport. This was the case as the U.S. Customs Service increased the radius covered by the inland port in Dublin to include Roanoke. This expansion allowed the airport to add customs officials to accommodate international travel and cargo passing through Roanoke. The renaming did not occur as a result of the economic downturn in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, however. In 2007, the prospect of changing the airport's name was again proposed by the Airport Commission.

Residents and businesses have been known to take issue with the airport's limited non-stop flights and lack of low-price fares. Airport officials estimate that around a third of airline tickets purchased by area residents are for travel from other airports. Competition includes Piedmont Triad International Airport near Greensboro, North Carolina, and others farther away that have service from Southwest Airlines or international flights. Aviation industry consultant Michael Boyd compared Roanoke's level of air service favorably to similarly sized cities.

The airport added non-stop service to Orlando in May 2006 and Tampa in December 2006 with Allegiant Air. This is part of an effort to bring new and improved service to the airport with existing and new carriers. Earlier attempts to lobby AirTran Airways and the now defunct Independence Air to serve the airport were unsuccessful.

Airlines
Airline service to Roanoke commenced in 1933. American Airlines left Roanoke in 1962, Eastern Airlines flew to Roanoke until 1978, but the original Piedmont Airlines was the most important.

Piedmont service began on April 16, 1948, with two flights carrying 42 passengers. In the 1970s, Piedmont established a hub in Roanoke with 45 daily flights that served 330,000 passengers by 1973. In 1982, Piedmont accounted for 89 percent of all passengers that traveled through Roanoke.

From Roanoke, Piedmont flew non-stop to many airports, including: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago–O'Hare, Greensboro, Louisville, Nashville, Newark, Pittsburgh, Richmond, and Washington–Reagan. Piedmont continued to serve Roanoke through its merger with USAir, and the final Piedmont flights from Roanoke were on August 4, 1989.

During Piedmont's dominance, several regional airlines began and ended service to Roanoke. Between October 29, 1978, and February 1979, Allegheny Airlines flew nonstop to Pittsburgh, Aeromech Airlines briefly provided service to West Virginia destinations in the early 1980s, and Air Virginia provided service from the 1970s to the mid-1980s.

Since the Piedmont-USAir merger, Roanoke has seen various carriers. American Eagle ended service to its Raleigh-Durham hub in December 1994. In January 1996 Continental Express flew to its Newark hub; it pulled out on November 1, 1997. Other carriers at Roanoke had decreased the number of destinations served from Roanoke since the early 1990s. US Airways Express had eliminated non-stop service to Baltimore, Charlottesville, Dayton, Pittsburgh and Washington-Reagan since 1990, Northwest Airlink eliminated service to Newark in December 1992, and Delta eliminated service to Cincinnati on Chautauqua Airlines in September 2008. In 2010, Delta and Northwest Airlink merged, decreasing operations at ROA.

Terminal

The terminal was designed by the Charlotte-based architectural firm Odell Associates and was built to replace the 1953 terminal, which was demolished in 2005. Construction of the terminal commenced in 1987, and it opened in October 1989 at a final cost of $25 million. The Y-shaped building features a front of blue-tinted, reflecting glass with exposed white triangular tube steel trusses. The lobby interior includes an arched brick wall leading into a central plaza and a front courtyard at the main entrance. The terminal was constructed to handle passengers expected through the year 2010, with a design that allows for expansion when warranted. Outside the terminal is an abstract, steel sculpture by New York artist Albert Paley entitled Aurora. Installed in October 1990, the sculpture is 21 ft feet tall.

Landside facilities, or the facilities outside the TSA security checkpoint, include check-in, car rental, baggage claim and a taxi hire. The upper level has a small cafe and newsstand. The upper-level Airside, or the facilities located inside the TSA security checkpoint, has seven gates (Gates 1–6 and 5A) and a small cafe area. The entire terminal has been a free Wi-Fi hotspot since April 2, 2003.

The terminal was designed to allow expansion, and there has been talk of an expansion shortly, though plans have yet to be announced. With gate space being used to capacity at peak times, there is little capacity for new flights unless they operate at off-peak times.

Runways
Roanoke Regional Airport has a pair of runways; The longer is 6800 ft x 150 ft, and the other is 5810 ft x 150 ft.

An expansion to Runway 6/24 was envisioned in the 1970s. Expansion was delayed until the early 1980s while a proposed new regional airport serving Roanoke, Lynchburg and Martinsville, to be built in Bedford County, was evaluated. When this proposal was scrapped, the runway expansion was completed in 1985 and 900 ft was added to its east end.

The expansion included a tunnel beneath Runway 06/24 on Virginia State Route 118. Completed between 1983 and 1985, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission maintains it. The most recent runway refurbishment was completed in 2002, in addition to the relocating one of the taxiways to prevent runway incursions.

Due to the size and layout of its runways, the airport has been rated among the top ten airports within usable distance of Andrews Air Force Base for training pilots in the 89th Operations Group. This group is responsible for piloting Air Force One as the Special Air Mission fleet for the President of the United States.

Control tower
Roanoke Regional Airport has been served by five control towers. The first tower was commissioned in March 1943, and the fourth commissioned on June 6, 1952, located atop the original terminal building. With the opening of the new terminal in 1989, a replacement tower became necessary to allow for the demolition of the original terminal building. The new tower would also provide controllers unobstructed view of the entire airport, as the original structure did not.

Federal funding for a new tower fell through in 1993 and again in 1997. In 1999, however, the FAA announced that they were restarting the Roanoke project, paving the way for its construction. The present tower is 197 ft in height and has been operational since its commission by the FAA on December 5, 2004. It was officially dedicated on May 16, 2005, in honor of former Roanoke air traffic manager John Hinkle.

Twenty-nine air traffic controllers work the Roanoke air traffic control facility, which in addition to the tower includes a TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control) that also provides air traffic services for Lynchburg, Smith Mountain Lake, New London, Brookneal and the Falwell Airport in Lynchburg. The TRACON also provides non radar services to Dublin, Blacksburg, and Hillsville, due to radar limitations caused by surrounding terrain. The total airspace controlled by Roanoke stretches well over 200 mi from the Mountain Empire region to Farmville.

Parking and ground transportation
Roanoke Regional features a large surface parking lot, which is divided into long term (996 spaces) and short term (226 spaces) parking. An additional 598 parking spaces are available in an overflow lot across Aviation Drive during peak travel times. A small parking shuttle bus operates every 10 to 15 minutes between 6 a.m. and midnight, which has been in service since 1990. A multi-level parking garage is planned atop the site of the existing long term lot.

The airport is accessible via Aviation Drive, which branches off Hershberger Road just east of Exit 3E off I-581 leading to downtown Roanoke. The airport can also be reached from Virginia State Route 118 by connecting with Municipal Drive just east of the terminal.

Major rental car companies serve the airport. Taxi and limousine service is provided by local companies.

The airport is also served by the Smart Way Bus, with its stop located outside the eastern end of the terminal. Operating Monday through Saturday, the Smart Way serves both downtown Roanoke as well as Salem, Christiansburg, Blacksburg and Virginia Tech. As of fall 2019 Valley Metro has reinstated local bus service to the airport between 5:45AM and 8:45PM on route 25. The bus travels from downtown to the airport via Hollins Road and a one way trip takes about 25 minutes.

Aircraft

 * Allegiant Air now permanently uses the Airbus A320 for its operations into Roanoke. This comes following the November 2018 cessation of MD80 series operations by Allegiant.
 * Delta Air Lines Airbus A319/320s and Boeing 717s and 737s fly to Roanoke (usually one mainline flight per day).
 * Delta Connection carriers use Canadair Regional Jets (Endeavor and Skywest) with 50 to 76 seats.CRJ-900
 * United Express uses multiple regional aircraft to service Roanoke Regional: The CRJ-200 are standard for Air Wisconsin. United occasionally operates the Embraer E-175 for Skywest.
 * American Eagle contracts a number of regional carriers to fly into Roanoke. Their aircraft are:
 * Piedmont Airlines— Embraer 145 (50 seat Regional Jet)
 * PSA Airlines—Canadair Regional Jets (50–70 seats)
 * UPS serves Roanoke with an Airbus A300 and a Boeing 757. Until late December 2017, UPS operated the Airbus A300 into Roanoke. The contract for these planes at this airport was terminated due to noise pollution and the extra cost for two different types of aircraft. A300 service to Roanoke has since been restored.
 * FedEx serves Roanoke with a Boeing 757.

title: Roanoke–Blacksburg Regional Airport


text:
Category:Xiphorhynchus

Xiphorhynchus is a woodcreeper genus in the family Furnariidae.

title: Category:Xiphorhynchus


text:
Monsaraz

Monsaraz is a civil parish (freguesia) of the municipality of Reguengos de Monsaraz, on the right margin of the Guadiana River in the Portuguese Alentejo region, near its border with Spain. The population in 2011 was 782, in an area of 88.29 km2.

History

Due to its geographic position, the hilltop of Monsaraz always occupied an important place in the history of the municipality, having been occupied by different peoples since the pre-historical record. It is one of the oldest settlements in southern Portugal, occupied since pre-history, with examples of permanent habitation including hundreds of megalithic monuments. These include the neolithic remains of: Megalithic Monuments of Herdade de Xerez, Olival da Pega Dolmens, Menhir of Bulhoa, Rocha dos Namorados Menhir and Outeiro Menhir. The hill, on which the main settlement is located, was a pre-historic fortification, or castro, that was the basis of pre-Roman occupation and funerary temples, carved from the local rock.

Monsaraz was reorganized during the Roman occupation, and was later successively occupied by the Visigoths, Arabs, Mozarabs, Jews, and, after the Reconquista, Christians loyal to Afonso Henriques. In the 8th century, Monsaraz fell under the dominion of Arab forces who occupied the Iberian Peninsula, becoming known as Saris or Sharish, and following the control of the Taifa of Badajoz (one of the more prominent Arab centres at the time). The name Monsaraz originates from the word Xarez or Xerez, the Iberian transliteration of the Arabic Saris or Sharish, for the Gum Rockrose (Cistus ladanifer L.), a plant that still today prospers in poor, dry, acidic slate-based soil that surrounds Monsaraz. The Iberian words Xarez/Xerez latter evolved to the Portuguese Xaraz and to the Spanish (Castilian) Jerez (the Spanish name for the sherry wine). The settlement therefore came to be known as Monsaraz, originating from Monte Xaraz, i.e., fortified hill surrounded by Gum Rockroses. Its naturally prominent position, being the highest hill in the area as well as its proximity to the deep Guadiana valley, made it a location of strategic importance.

In 1167, the Castle and medina was taken by Geraldo Sem Pavor, in an expedition that came from Évora (which had just been retaken, about the same time). After, Afonso Henriques' defeat in Badajoz, Monsaraz was once again taken by Muslim forces. In 1232, supported by the Knights Templar, King Sancho II definitively retook the citadel and town, placing it under the control of the Templars, and obligating them to establish a garrison that would protect the border. The Christian repopulation of Monsaraz ended around the reign of Afonso III, when it was assigned an alcalde, the knight Martim Anes, and first letter of foral.

In 1263 it was already an important fortress, being the head of a municipality, with large privileges. The local economy was fundamentally based on agriculture and livestock, existing some small artesnal industries producing terra cotta earthenware and hammered copper.

After the Portuguese Interregnum (1383-1385), the town of Monsaraz was integrated into the dominions of the House of Braganza under Nuno Álvares Pereira. By 1412, it is inherited by Fernando, his son, becoming one of the more precious profit centres in the Ducal estates.

In 1512, King Manuel of Portugal issued a foral (charter) to the Vila de Monsaraz, reformulating the public and jurisdictional administration of the municipality.

The demographic crises created by the plague forced the Duke of Bragança, in 1527 to carry out small land reforms in order to promote the settlement Monsaraz. The small plots were established in the area surrounding this village.

Following the Portuguese Restoration War, in 1640, the castle received new tactical defenses, that included a new walled bastion, that allowed the city-fort to be integrated into the system of defences that connected Elvas, Juromenha, Olivença and Mourão.

The condition of the walled medieval city, the growth of the farm estates of Reguengos, the richness of the artesnal production and vineyards, and more importantly, the loyalty towards the Miguelist forces during the Liberal Wars were all factors that contributed to the shifting of the municipal seat from Monsaraz to Vila Nova de Reguengos in 1838, a fact that became permanent after 1851.

Geography
The parish of Monsaraz is located in the northeast corner of the municipality of Reguengos de Monsaraz fronting the Guadiana River and Alqueva Dam to the east, Corval to the west and Campinho to the south in the municipality of Reguengos de Monsaraz. Across the reservoir to the east is the parish of Mourão (in the municipality of Mourão) and to the north the parish of Capelins (in the municipality of Alandroal).

Prehistoric

 * Olival da Pega Dolmen
 * Megalithic Monuments of Herdade de Xerez
 * Belhoa/Bulhoa Menhir
 * Outeiro Menhir

Civic

 * Casa da Inquisição
 * Casa da Roda dos Expostos
 * Casa do Juíz de Fora
 * Cine Monsaraz
 * Cistern of Monsaraz

 * Fountain of the Telheiro
 * Mill of Água do Gato
 * Novos Paços do Concelho
 * Paços da Audência
 * Pillory of Monsaraz
 * Restaurante Sem Fim/Lagar

Military

 * Fortifications of Monsaraz
 * Watchtower of São Gens do Xarez (Atalaia de São Gens/Torre de São Gens do Xarez), a simple, square watchtower oriented to the cardinal points, but in a state of ruin, making reconstitution difficult, likely built in 1646 to guard the Guadiana River;

Religious

 * Chapel of São Bento (Capela de São Bento/Ermida de São Bento), a rural chapel constructed at the end of the 16th century-beginning of the 17th century, through contributions of many of the local residents of Arrabalde da Vila, that includes frescos in a vaulted ceiling. After the 1755 Lisbon earthquake the building was left seriously damaged;
 * Chapel of São João

 * Church of Nossa Senhora de Lagoa
 * Church of Santiago Maior
 * Church of the Convent of Nossa Senhora da Orada
 * Church of the Misericórdia of Monsaraz
 * Hermitage of Nossa Senhora do Carmo
 * Hermitage of São João Baptista
 * Hermitage of São Lázaro
 * Hermitage of São Sebastião
 * Hermitage of Santa Catarina de Monsaraz

title: Monsaraz


text:
User:AarHan3

I am Aaron Handy III (b. September 30, 1971), devout, lifelong classic TV buff. I hail from the Big Easy herself, New Orleans. I am a graduate of Isaac Delgado Community College with an Associate of Arts degree.

Favorite Television Shows

 * Batman
 * Star Trek
 * The Monkees
 * Spider-Man (1967 animated series)
 * Get Smart (CBS)
 * M*A*S*H
 * The Joker's Wild (CBS)
 * The Hollywood Squares (NBC)
 * Match Game 73-9/PM
 * The New Tom & Jerry/Grape Ape Show
 * The Scooby-Doo/Dynomutt Hour
 * Harlem Globetrotters
 * The All-New Super Friends Hour
 * The New Adventures of Batman

Favorite Movies

 * Batman (1966)
 * Casino Royale (1967)
 * The Odd Couple (1968)
 * Head (1968)
 * MASH (1970)
 * Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters (2007)
 * The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Welcome!
I first signed onto Wikipedia on August 18, 2005, upon which I recieved this nice welcome by Barrettmagic:

Welcome!

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

Again, welcome!

 * Barrettmagic 23:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Bar!

My External Links

 * The Monkees Film and TV Vault
 * The Falcon's Lair: The Unofficial Guide to Dynomutt, Dog Wonder
 * The ABC Password Page

...and others.

title: User:AarHan3


text:
Crossbow (disambiguation)

A crossbow is a projectile-shooting weapon.

Crossbow may also refer to:

Media and entertainment

 * Crossbow (TV series), based on William Tell
 * Crossbow (video game)
 * Crossbow (film), a 2007 Australian coming-of-age drama
 * Crossbow (journal), a UK conservative publication

Military

 * Operation Crossbow, a World War II campaign
 * Operation Crossbow (film), based on the above operation
 * HMS Crossbow (D96), a destroyer in Britain's Royal Navy

Technology

 * Crossbow Technology, a former California-based electronics company
 * Crossbow, the project name for Solaris network virtualization and resource control
 * Crossbow, the code name for Windows Mobile 6.0

Transportation

 * Crossbow (proa), an early 1970s asymmetrical catamaran
 * Crossbow II (proa), a late 1970s successor craft
 * KTM X-Bow (read as "Crossbow"), a sports car

title: Crossbow (disambiguation)