text:
Talk:Josiah

Untitled
"was praised for this piety by one of the prophets, Huldah, the only female prophet mentioned in the Bible, who made the prophecy that all involved would die peacefully (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chr. 34:22-28)."

Untitled
What about Deborah? I'm taking out that bit about her being the only female prophet.

Possible written origins of Jewish scripture
The following POV contentious paragraph is pure speculation by Bible critics who are creating their own theories and disregarding the plain meaning/s of the texts. They are also disparaging the normative understandings of the texts by classical Judaism and Christianity. IZAK 09:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Several professors of archaeology argue (not without controversy, to be sure) that many stories in the Hebrew Scriptures, including important chronicles about Moses, Solomon, David, and others, were first synthesized from pre-existing oral traditions into a written form by scribes under King Josiah. This unified and centralized the state of Judah around the worship of Yahweh based at the Temple in Jerusalem, and also portrayed King Josiah as the legitmate successor to the legendary David and thus the rightful ruler of Judah. According to this interpretation, neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Persia, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC, and the archaeological record of pre-Josiac Israel does not support the existence of a unified state in the time of David. See Dating the Bible and The Bible and history. Such claims are detailed in Who Were the Early Israelites? by William G. Dever (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2003). Another such book is The Bible Unearthed by Neil A. Silberman and Israel Finkelstein (Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001).

Please add your comments. Thank you. IZAK 09:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The dating of the Deuteronomistic history to the time of Josiah is not controversial among Bible scholars.--Rob117 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe not, but the article should contain a) why some scholars think these works date to the time of Josiah, and b) citations of some sources for this.74.192.211.225 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 * IZAK is actually right about the court narrative of David's and Solomon's reigns: it was likely written down around the time of Solomon's son Rehoboam. The Deuteronomist adapted that record into his history a couple of centuries later. He is also right that arguments for Biblical Minimalism outside the reign of Josiah have no place in an article about Josiah.
 * But where IZAK could have clarified the statement, he chose instead to slander the scholars by calling their work "pure speculation". His argument boils down to: "I, in the name of the true believers among Jews and Christians, don't like it because it offends me; and I'm going to arrogate to myself the right to speak on their behalf." I do hope that this troll stays under his bridge. In the meantime I'm reinstating the relevant parts of the quoted text. - Zimriel 14:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

JOSIAH WAS A GREAT KING HE DID ALOT OF GREAT THINGS AND THERE WAS NO OTHER KING LIKE HIM71.77.133.100 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)--71.77.133.100 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add the pronunciation for the actual Hebrew name of Yosiyyahu. My name is Josiah and for some reason not a single Hebrew name site lists my name. I became very frustrated. All I want to do is pronounce my name correctly in Hebrew not English.

I do not know how to say it, but my name is also Josiah and I would like to know it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidarkrex (talk • contribs) 09:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a big one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProyousArt (talk • contribs) 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Chronological note" section does not belong in this article
I'm not sure what would be the best place for it: maybe Deuteronomist? Grover cleveland (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

An Assumption in the Article is Contrary to the Evidence
Much of this article is good: parts of it are utterly horrid. Such as the paragraph that starts out "After the Book of the Torah was found in the Temple....." The book wasn't "found:" it was very clearly written at the time, as it contains a large number of anachronisms that date the writing to the time of Josiah and afterwards, into the time of Darius I. We know the book was written during the time of the tyrant Josiah because it makes many mentions of events at that time, using words and phrases that didn't exist earlier; it also uses Old Persian Cuneiform that dates part of the text to the time of Darius I. Why doesn't the main article go into better detail with these facts? --Desertphile (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Needs Revamp
The article as it stands tends to present the issue from a devotional perspective and subtly denigrates mainstream Bible scholars as "modern critics." Wellhausen, whose work is foundational, is presented as if his fundamental synthesis has been thoroughly debunked in mainstream scholarship, which it decidedly has not. The "Chronological Notes" section is original research-- it contains citations, but the synthesis and conclusion are that of the wikipedian who wrote it, so it doesn't belong here. I request permission to remove it, and to neutralize the the tone of the rest of the article.--76.78.57.66 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources section needs sources!
"The chief textual sources of information for Josiah's reign are 2 Kings 22-23 and 2 Chronicles 34-35. Considerable archaeological evidence exists, including a number of "scroll-style" stamps which date to his reign.[citation needed]"

The first part of the above sentence is easily verifiable. But I have found no reliable source for the second part, i.e., archaeological evidence that points to a king named Josiah in that place and period of time. If nobody points to that evidence, I think we should clarify that no archaeological evidence exist to date regarding that name.

Ignacio González (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 * That statement in the article that archaeological evidence exists is, in fact, completely wrong. The opposite is true. I will try to fix it.Smeat75 (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

political interest and later finishing of the torah
"Historical-critical biblical scholarship generally accepts that this scroll — an early predecessor of the Torah — was written by the priests driven by ideological interest to centralize power under Josiah in the Temple in Jerusalem, and that the core narrative from Joshua to 2 Kings up to Josiah's reign comprises a "Deuteronomistic History" (DtrH) written during Josiah's reign.[17]

On the other hand, recent European theologians posit that most of the Torah and Deuteronomistic History was composed and its form finalized during Persian period, several centuries later.[18]"

Id there some missing information which would mean that the first sentence is contradicted in some way by the second.

Why can both statements not be accurate? If so then delete "On the other hand". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimstutt (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Critical theories on how King Josiah's leadership changed after reading the book of the law
Hello! I would like to add the following under the section about the book of the law:

According to George E. Mendenhall, King Josiah then changed his form of leadership entirely, entering into a new form of covenant with the Lord. Because of what was known as the "book of the law" he wiped out all of the pagan cults that had formed within his land. He, along with his people, then entered into this new covenant with the Lord to keep the commandments of the Lord. According to Mendenhall, in this covenant the Lord was merely a witness to the covenant instead of an actual participant. This defines the covenant as a vassal treaty - a treaty in which the suzerain owes something to it's vassals. Because this covenant had just been discovered, it had to be formed into coalition with the covenant that King Josiah's people were already serving under, the Abrahamic covenant.

Let me know what you think! I'm open to any feedback.

Grahamcrackered (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that meant to be The Biblical Archaeologist? StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 * User:Grahamcrackered -- I'd change Lord to God, or similar, for a more encyclopedic (non-religious) style. Also, need to say a bit more about vassal treaty and give a hyperlink to Suzerainty I think. In any case, good contribution to this article, good selection. ProfGray (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 * User:Grahamcrackered - I don't think that's actually what Mendenhall said. His paper (a very famous one) analyzed the structure of Bibilcal covenants and linked them to Hittite treaty forms. Later scholars have linked Deuteronomy more closely to Assyrian forms. The paper was highly influential, but is now extremely outdated - don't use it.PiCo (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * (Later): Maybe I owe you something more, like a reason for nor relying on Mendenhall and an alternative. The reason is simple: Mendenhall's article is over 60 years old. Scholarship is a conversation, one that continues over decades and even centuries. The revelations of one age are critiqued by the next, and then again and again and again. For this reason, more recent views are always preferable. If I were writing about Josiah, which I'm not, I'd go to a pretty recent general source like Eerdman's commentary on the Bible or the Oxford commentary or whatever - those big-publisher books will always tell you the broadly accepted view. I'd look up Josiah and also Deuteronomy, and maybe covenant, and see what's generally accepted these days. And only then would I write anything. Anyway, cheers :) PiCo (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction with Amon of judah article
In that article, it says that josiah’s death is confirmed with Egyptian records. this article says that Josiah is never mentioned in (non Biblical) records. which is correct? --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk about my  contributions ) 03:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. The Amon article means that the military campaign in which Josiah is said to have died in the Bible is confirmed in Egyptian records, which do not specifically mention Josiah. I have clarified the other article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Malachi-Phree Jasiah listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Malachi-Phree Jasiah. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   10:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Family Tree
Josiah had two wives of certain genelogies. Two sons of those wives.

Johanan seems to be the oldest? Where is he in the succession?

The article says the youngest son Shallum was placed on the thrown. Zedekiah is the youngest son by 15 years!

Zedekiah was the second-born of Hamutal, but the fourth born of everyone.

If I do my maths correctly, Josiah was 12, 14, 15, 30 when he had Johanan, Eliakim, Shallum, Zedekiah. [Jeremiah comes onto the scene when Josiah is 21]

Which mother was the Queen mother and which was the Consort mother? Which mother had ties to Babylon (if any)? Which mother had ties to Egypt (if any)?

It seems like Egypt deposing Shallum is and indication of which mother they were aligned with politically? 184.166.55.112 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Josiah in 21st century scholarship m
I had my edits regarding new scholarship on Josiah reverted. Is there a way we can attempt to characterize Josiah scholarship in the 21st century in a sentence or two? I’m open to compromise. Looking into the scholarship today. IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 * M in title is typo IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Potatín5 IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @IncandescentBliss: Sorry, I didn't notice that you were the same user than the anonymous IP which introduced the radical changes in the lede of this article. In any case, I find your claim that your edits represent "Josiah scholarship in the 21st century" somewhat questionable, since it seems to me that most 21st century scholars still defend the historicity of Josiah's reforms.  I just thought that your edits were giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority views on the topic. Potatín5 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m new to Wikipedia and the IP use was unintentional. In the future I ask that we discuss things before a good faith edit is deleted (we clearly have overlapping editing interests)—especially when it’s paragraphs of work I’ve done and hours I’ve spent researching. If you disagree with something in the lede, just move it to the relevant section of the body of the article rather than deleting it wholesale.
 * What I’m saying regarding Joshua is that there is now *robust* debate on the topic. It seems that we agree on this regarding Solomon. I’d ask that you agree to a compromise in the presentation on Josiah here.
 * I’m sorry if it came across as aggressive to report you. I spoke with a top editor here who encouraged me to do so. I would genuinely love to collaborate with you. Your edits made the Solomon page better and the Ten Commandments page more neutral.
 * Message me in my talk page next time you see an edit of mine you’d like to correct. I’d like to work on compromise wording in articles.
 * I have a degree in the Hebrew Bible and have been studying it academically for decades and look forward to contributing my knowledge. This isn’t an ideological project for me, but one of wanting to share and collaborate.
 * I’m familiar with Römer’s perspective on Joshua, but will familiarize myself on Elitzur and Na’Aman’s perspectives. IncandescentBliss (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you like to add the 3 above Joshua articles as sources attached to a compromise sentence on there being debate since the 1990s (as articulated by Grabbe)? I think all 3 could be at the top (in a similar way to how to added Garfinkel and Dever to the Solomon page). IncandescentBliss (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Na’aman references this piece which would be good to include as well:
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309089205052685 IncandescentBliss (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Important to note Römer considers the reforms to have been primarily scribal:
 * “The historical Josiah was perhaps not as influential and powerful as Finkelstein and many others think, as is shown by his inglorious end. He was probably controlled a great deal by his political, economic, and religious advisers, so that it is perhaps better to speak of a "Shaphanite" reform rather than a "Josianic" reform (if the Shapahn family indeed played a major role).” IncandescentBliss (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Josiah


text:
Ali Rıza Efendi

Ali Rıza Efendi (1839–1888) was an official, and the father of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the husband of Zübeyde Hanım.

He was born in Selanik, (modern Thessaloniki in present-day Macedonia, Greece), back then the most important city in the Ottoman Empire in Europe after Constantinople/Istanbul. Ali Riza's family comes from Kodžadžik, in Centar Župa Municipality near the border to Albania, today in North Macedonia, where there is a memorial house. He is thought to be of local descent: Albanian or Slavic by some scholars such as Andrew Mango, Lou Giaffo, Ernst Jaeckh, etc. However the village where his family was born still has Turkish majority population, and Falih Rıfkı Atay, a journalist and close friend of Atatürk, claimed that he descended from Turks of Söke, in Aydın Province of Anatolia. According to other historians such as Vamik D. Volkan, Norman Itzkowitz, Hasan İzzettin Dinamo, etc: Ali Rıza's ancestors were Turks, ultimately descending from Söke in the Aydın Province.

He worked as a customs official and died in 1888 at age 49, when his son was 7 years old. At Mustafa's birth, Ali Riza hung his sword over his son’s cradle, dedicating him to military service. Most important, Ali Riza saw to it that his son’s earliest education was carried out in a modern secular school. He left the poorly paying clerk's job to start a lumber business, but bandits set fire to his stock after extorting money from him. He attempted to rejoin the civil service without success. He started drinking heavily afterwards which may have contributed to his early death.

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

title: Ali Rıza Efendi


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-08-29/Roll with the changes

A number of procedural changes were made in different areas of Wikipedia this week.

Votes for Deletion naming debate
A debate has ensued on the renaming of VfD to PfD (Pages for Deletion) or AfD (Articles for Deletion). The main problem with the name, according to name change supporters, is that VfD is not actually a vote; rather, it is a discussion on whether to keep or delete. As of press time, the name "Articles for Deletion" seems to have caught on, with non-article namespace articles going to Non-main namespace pages for deletion.

Collaboration of the week
Collaboration of the week reduced its scope from two collaborations down to one collaboration, after many readers complained that the number of edits had dropped dramatically since the project split. SimonP noted that over a month, none of the eight COTWs had come close to becoming a featured article. Particularly, SimonP noted the article History of South America, which only received 11 edits during its COTW period, and "saw virtually no improvement during the week."

No objections were received on the talk page, and so the change was made. The first collaboration after the merge was Militarisation of space, which received 60 edits during its period as a COTW.

Reference desk
Reference desk was split into four sections this week. The sections are: Humanities, Science & Mathematics, Language, and Miscellaneous. Each of these sections has discussion in its subject area. Discussion on the talk page about splitting into sections began in May 2005. Originally, the idea was to break the page into as many as nine sections; however, it was generally agreed that any more than four sections would not be beneficial, making it harder for editors to watch the pages and answer questions within a reasonable time frame. HappyCamper said that the whole process of sorting questions that had already been answered, as well as tidying up pages took about 24 hours and a flurry of editors.


text:
Michael Van Wijk

Michael Van Wijk (born 30 September 1952) is an Indian-born English bodybuilder, professional sportsperson, actor and TV presenter. He is most well known for his role as Wolf on English TV endurance sports game show Gladiators, a role he held for all its eight series (1992–2000).

Career
Van Wijk used to run a gym in Hayes in Bromley, London originally called Matrix and later 'Wolf's Fitness Centre'. It was open until the late 1990s and included facilities geared towards bodybuilders, boxers and general fitness.

In 1987, Michael Van Wijk was chosen to be the cover star of Palace Software's computer game Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior.

In 1989, Van Wijk auditioned for a role in Dances with Wolves. He was unsuccessful but the experience provided him with the inspiration for his 'Wolf' persona.

In October 1994, he played one match for the reserve team of Gillingham F.C., playing for 73 minutes in a match against Cambridge United's reserves before going off injured. The match attracted a crowd ten times the average for the club's reserve team games.

After Gladiators ended Van Wijk moved to New Zealand and opened a chain of gyms.

After being missing from English television screens for nine years, Van Wijk told Loaded magazine in April 2008, "I want to come back, I want to be a Gladiator again." Loaded sent a journalist from London to Wolf's home in Henderson, Auckland, to persuade the actor to return to England to appear in the new series. According to the Loaded article, he was a regular on the Kiwi Cage Fighting scene, and used to compete nationally in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu championships. He is a twice silver medallist competing against fighters half of his age for the New Zealand title.

Most recently he appeared on the Gladiators Legends Special, which he took part in alongside Ace, Hunter and Trojan.

Filmography

 * Salome's Last Dance (1988)
 * The Bruce (1996)

title: Michael Van Wijk


text:
W. Andrew Robinson

William Andrew Coulthard Robinson (born 14 March 1957) is a British author and former newspaper editor.

Andrew Robinson was educated at the Dragon School, Eton College, where he was a King's Scholar, University College, Oxford, where he read chemistry, and finally the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. He is the son of Neville Robinson, an Oxford physicist, and Daphne Robinson.

Robinson first visited India in 1975, and has been involved with the country's culture ever since. He has authored many books and articles, the most recent being India: A Short History (Thames & Hudson, 2014). Until 2006, he was the literary editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement. He has also been a visiting fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge. He is based in London and is now a full-time writer.

Books
Robinson has authored and edited the following books:

 * Maharaja: The Spectacular Heritage of Princely India with Sumio Uchiyama. Thames & Hudson (1988). ISBN 0-500-54136-1.
 * Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye. André Deutsch (1989). ISBN 0-233-98473-9.
 * The Art of Rabindranath Tagore. André Deutsch (1989). ISBN 0-233-98359-7.
 * The Shape of the World with Simon Berthon. George Philip (1991). ISBN 0-540-01229-7.
 * Earth Shock: Hurricanes, Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Tornadoes & Other Forces of Nature. Thames & Hudson (1993). ISBN 0-500-01579-1.
 * Rabindranath Tagore: The Myriad-minded Man with Krishna Dutta. St. Martin's Press (1995). ISBN 0-312-14030-4. Also: Bloomsbury (1997). ISBN 0-7475-3086-6.
 * Rabindranath Tagore: An Anthology with Krishna Dutta. St. Martin's Press (1997). ISBN 0-312-16973-6. Also: Griffin (1998). ISBN 0-312-20079-X.
 * Selected Letters of Rabindranath Tagore with Krishna Dutta. Cambridge University Press (1997). ISBN 0-521-59018-3.
 * The Story of Writing: Alphabets, Hieroglyphs and Pictograms. (1995); Thames & Hudson (2000). ISBN 0-500-28156-4.
 * The Man Who Deciphered Linear B: The Story of Michael Ventris. Thames & Hudson (2002). ISBN 0-500-51077-6.
 * Lost Languages: The Enigma of the World's Great Undeciphered Scripts. McGraw-Hill (2002). ISBN 0-07-135743-2.
 * Satyajit Ray, The Inner Eye: The Biography of a Master Film-Maker. I.B. Tauris (2003). ISBN 1-86064-965-3.
 * Satyajit Ray: A Vision of Cinema with Nemai Ghosh. I.B. Tauris (2005). ISBN 1-84511-074-9.
 * Einstein: A Hundred Years of Relativity. Palazzo Editions (2005). ISBN 0-9545103-4-8.
 * The Last Man Who Knew Everything: Thomas Young, The Anonymous Polymath Who Proved Newton Wrong, Explained How We See, Cured the Sick, and Deciphered the Rosetta Stone, Among Other Feats of Genius. Pi Press (2006). ISBN 0-13-134304-1.
 * The Story of Measurement. Thames & Hudson (2007). ISBN 978-0-500-51367-5.
 * Writing and Script: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press (2009). ISBN 978-0-19-956778-2.
 * Genius: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press (2011). ISBN 978-0-19-959440-5.
 * Cracking the Egyptian Code: The Revolutionary Life of Jean-Francois Champollion. Thames & Hudson (2012). ISBN 978-0199914999. Oxford University Press (2012). ISBN 978-0500051719.
 * The Scientists: An Epic of Discovery (editor). Thames & Hudson (2012). ISBN 978-0-500-25191-1.
 * India: A Short History. Thames & Hudson (2014). ISBN 978-0-500-25199-7.
 * The Indus: Lost Civilizations. Reaktion Books (2015). ISBN 978-1-780-23502-8.
 * Earth-Shattering Events: Earthquakes, Nations and Civilization. Thames & Hudson (2016). ISBN 978-0500518595.
 * Einstein on the Run: How Britain Saved the World's Greatest Scientist. Yale University Press (2019). ISBN 978-0300234763.
 * Einstein on the Run: How Britain Saved the World's Greatest Scientist. Yale University Press (2019). ISBN 978-0300234763.

title: W. Andrew Robinson


text:
Gala (apple)

Gala is an apple cultivar with a sweet, mild flavour, a crisp but not hard texture, and a striped or mottled orange or reddish appearance. Originating from New Zealand in the 1930s, similar to most named apples, it is clonally propagated. In 2018, it surpassed Red Delicious as the apple cultivar with the highest production in the United States, according to the US Apple Association. It was the first time in over 50 years that any cultivar was produced more than Red Delicious.

Appearance and flavor
Gala apples are non-uniform in color, usually vertically striped or mottled, with overall orange color. They are sweet, fine textured, and aromatic, and in addition to being eaten raw and cooked are especially suitable for creating sauces.
 * Density 0.86 g/cc
 * Sugar 13.5%
 * Acidity 4.2 grams/ litre
 * Vitamin C 0–5 mg / 100 gram

History
The first Gala apple tree was one of many seedlings resulting from a cross between a Golden Delicious and a Kidd's Orange Red planted in Greytown, Wairarapa, New Zealand in the 1930s by orchardist J.H. Kidd. Selected in 1939, introduced in 1960. Donald W. McKenzie, an employee of Stark Bros Nursery, obtained a US plant patent for the cultivar on October 15, 1974. It is a relatively new introduction to the UK, first planted in commercial volumes during the 1980s. The variety now represents about 20% of the total volume of the commercial production of eating apples grown in the UK, often replacing Cox's Orange Pippin.

Sports (mutations)
Many sports of Gala have been selected, mostly for increased red color, including the popular Royal Gala. The original cultivar produced fruit with orange stripes and a partial orange blush over a yellow background. Since then, several un-patented sports have been recognized. Additionally, more than twenty sports have received US plant patents:

Season
Gala apples are grown from May through September in the northern hemisphere, but, like most apples, are available almost all year through the use of cold storage and controlled atmosphere storage. Australian Gala are available from late January. California fruit is available until October. While the season usually lasts only 9 or 10 months, they are able to last all year round. However, due to some apples continuing to be grown in some orchards, and the fact that they can be refrigerated for some months leads to the availability of the Gala apple year-round in some Australian markets. These usually taste different (slightly less sweet) from those in season. The UK season begins in late summer (August). Storage makes the UK fruit available nearly year-round as with fruit from other origins.

Royal Gala sport
Royal Gala is a Gala sport, patented by Stark in 1977, which produces redder fruits than the original cultivar. It is a pink-red dessert apple and is therefore usually eaten fresh. Royal Galas are usually harvested in early to late February in the southern hemisphere. In New Zealand, the pinker original Gala has almost disappeared as a commercial apple in favor of the darker-skinned Royal Gala.

title: Gala (apple)


text: User:Eequor/χ

title: User:Eequor/χ


text:
User:Hvalimir

Hello Hvalimir. This passage is just to make your ID blue. Therefore this could be removed when you put down something here. --220.116.238.204 09:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Hvalimir


text: User talk:210.213.190.171

title: User talk:210.213.190.171


text:
Talk:John de Lancie (oboist)

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
This text was added to the musician stub template - I'm reproducing it here as I have no idea whether this info is correct. Djbrianuk 09:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Another musician-stub on John de Lancie asserts that he was 99 when he died in 2001. The Penguin Dictionary of Musical Performers has his date of birth as 26 July 1921, which is consistent with other significant dates in his career - first oboe of the Philadelphia Orchestra in 1954, Director of the Curtis Institute in 1977 - and Strauss's description of him as a "young" American oboist, in the dedication of his Oboe Concerto."

title: Talk:John de Lancie (oboist)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rivaji (2nd nomination)

 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 by fvw, User:Zscout370} as previously deleted content. Tito xd 05:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Rivaji
Non-notable, Vanity, Deleted once before Botsie 09:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. What Botsie said.--inks 10:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus that Indian National Congress - IT Cell (Article for Deletion above) is not notable then speedy delete, otherwise keep. Sorry for the conditional vote, but this article's only creditable claim to notability is vice-presidency of this IT Cell. If the IT Cell is not notable then this article immediately makes no claim to notability and can be removed per WP:CSD Articles 7. Sliggy 12:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, echoing above sentiment. Combine the two into one VfD? Dottore So 17:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Jachin 22:15, 29 August 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:
Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 13

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

This archive covers from 15 July to 29 August.

Sins of the fathers visited unto the generations following
Can someone  point me to the theology under this concept ? I look to see the Biblical roots : how this relates to the Jewish faith, to Christian anti-semitism  and to absorbtion (if it was or if it was not  not ?) into Islam....Famekeeper 08:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe I should be replying to this, who knows what you are planning now, but hoping for Good faith I will anyway.

 * Look at Exodus 20, 5-6 (or parallel Deuteronomium 5,9-10)

 * Please take to include the second verse as well.

 * Also note, that in the first verse "pursue" doesn't mean "punish children for their father's crimes", but more "check whether the children are following the sins of their fathers and if they do, punish them". It's sort of a divine parole, stretching over some generations.

 * it's certainly part of the brothers Judaism and Christianity, as they share the OT, but I don't know what Islam says about this all.

Your reference to anti-Semitism is probably inspired by the often abused quote from Matthew 27,25. This verse has been used against the Jews in history, notwithstanding that not all Jews or their ancestors were present at that occasion. And anyway, anti-Semitism (including non-racial) goes against the basic principles of Christianity. Somewhere recently I have read the interesting interpretation, that the verse originally was referring to the Jews eventually accepting Jesus as the Messiah, hence bringing his (redeeming) blood on them - but for their salvation not their demise. This would of course been a thought in the Evangelist's mind, not in the mind of the actual speakers, but there is another example of such an "unintentional prophecy" (look John 11,50-51).

Str1977 11:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No, my refrence is to the barrage of allegations in historians  . You are hoever a great fund and as I explained earlier, your  contrary position allows for a more complete airing  of the issues . Don't let that be the reason for ever with-drawing . There's an old scots  saying " Ye propose , and  aye'll (?) contravaert " . We certainly have that .  When someone brings the case , you'll happily put it into the  BXVI article , I  guess . But will you yourself take the case , as you are a christian and  require the proof against doubt , against the historians allegations , against what you call the 50 year calumny . I ask you again , will you take a suit  and if not , why not ?Famekeeper 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to clear up a bit here, Exodus 34:7 quotes who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the sin of fathers on the sons, and on the sons of sons, to the third and to the fourth generation. which is fairly well-known, and is echoed in Jeremiah 32:17 You show loving-kindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their sons after them. Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his sons, because of the iniquity of their fathers, so that they do not rise.

Contradicting that stance are Ezekiel 18's ''Does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son has done justice and right, has kept all My statutes, and has done them, he shall surely live. and Jeremiah 31's In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity: every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. '' -Sherurcij 19:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou-I'm most interested in this .Famekeeper 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sherurcij gave the long story to the synthesis I gave above. Str1977 16:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Crown Copyiright
Good news folks, I found two photos from the Governor General of Canada's website: http://www.gg.ca/media/photos/2005/20050424_01_e.asp and http://www.gg.ca/media/photos/2005/20050424_02_e.asp. We can use these photos under the Crown Copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * questionbable.Geni 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured status
The result of the last Featured article candidates/Pope Benedict XVI was 11 support votes, 8 objections plus 1 "mild objection" to the style "His Holiness" (which was decided to use by a vote). How are we going to interpret this? Is concensus necessary for featured status? Also, most of the objections were really not that logic.
 * We needed more support votes, plus the votes about stability are logical: one of the requirements that a Featured article must have is that the content will be relatively stable, that meaning it will not change completely from month to month. And with the Benedict XVI being a current leader, this will fail the stability requirements. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Links
Anyone care to put in a reference to the Harry Potter article in view of Benedict's comments on the subject: or to the list I put under Coincidence (and which I see as having no particular historical significance).

 * Post it here, in the talk page first. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

All I know is that there were reported comments in the newspapers for the former point (trawl enough through the writings of any person in the news and you will find something that shows them as batty/adopting strange political and other positions etc). As for the second point, one of my interests is the European microstates on which I have collected assorted information. User:jackiespeel 16:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NB - there is a comment on the HP group of sites about BXVI's comments, so the reverse connection should be made.

 * Newsweek had some comments too, but from what I read, Benedict made the comments before his election to the Papacy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Women as preists
Based from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050726/lf_afp/canadavaticanreligion, Benedict does not want women to be ordained as priests. We need to follow this event and see what actions he takes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary? Wouldn't it only be noteworthy if he allowed women to be priests? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, or this can be noted as an example of Benedict holding up the beliefs and policies of JP II. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct... perhaps just an example of the continuation of tradition, etc. from JPII and Benedict. More of the same, or something. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
Here is a large number of beautiful pictures. Enjoy!

http://www.freeforumzone.com/viewdiscussioni.aspx?f=65482&idc=3

(it would be nice if we could use a couple of them as fair use)
 * IMHO, some can be claimed as PD, because some of the pictures were taken years and years ago. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, you're right. There is also a picture of Benedict as a little boy there.

 * I doubt it is pre 1928Geni 21:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Bumper sticker
Have you seen this: http://www.papalshop.com/images/bsticker-lg.gif
 * It's cute :) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Benedict and Paparazzi
As "Pappa Razzi" is Benedict's occasional (and logical) nickname would someone care to include it in the text (and if not, this mention here will suffice))
 * When did this nickname come into play? Who first mentioned it? It is it widespread use? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * More importantly...what does this have to do with his papacy..it would be ridiculous to include it in the article!<> 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it was an Italian newspaper which first used the term, but it has also appeared in some British tabloid newspapers - coming from the film reference. Mentioned here mainly so there is a record of it being used from the beginning of his papacy - and in case it were to become sufficiently widely used to mention.

(When does a factoid become a useful fact?)

We got mentioned
Jimbo Wales cited our article in a annoucement about new editing rules: "Citing a recent example of vandalism, Wales recalled how following the election of the new Pope Benedict in April, a user substituted the pontiff's photo on the Wikipedia site with that of the evil emperor from the Star Wars film series.

"The picture was only on the page for a minute. But whoever opens the article at this moment will get annoyed – and therefore doubt our credibility," he told the paper." See http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/20050805-1259-media-wikipedia.html. I know it is over a situation we do not like, but hey, thats something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It was also on CNN. --EatAlbertaBeef 22:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I am glad that we had users who reverted it quickly and admins who blocked quickly. While I am also glad the article has stablized on the past few months, I hope we do not face the same problems with the article on Michaelle Jean, the new Canadian Governor General. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What Does The "Question of The Law " Have to Do with Benedict XVI?

 * I fail to see what this dispute about analyses of events between 1933 and 1945 has to do with Pope Benedict XVI. It is relevant to Ludwig Kaas, the Centre Party (Germany), and Pope Pius XII. Robert McClenon 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Boss man rap : Bill Dorich. Uh Famekeeper 18:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh: I'll Delete if u want me to, but let it  remain in the archive what I say here : this posting referred to The Question of The Law : the posting was a compliance  of civility : Corecticus is the uh best  friend  to Josellin & Roman Law. The posting is quartered elsewhere. Famekeeper 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You require me to dig into the issue of how any of this relates to the BXVI article. It relates because there is an unfortunate historical conundrum apparent throughout the Wikipedia pages relating to the Reichskonkordat or Concorde  reached in 1933 and in force  still today. The WP reports throughout its relevant pages, upon the rise , accession, seizure , election or otherwise to power of Adolf Hitler. All these pages are comimg up now in cyberspace , taken  to be the history  and thereby informing the world at large  what the WP classes as history. Indeed part of that history relates to the Concorde  present ,still, with Germany , and thus brings  alive into the contemporary arena  that which is historical , or reported as historical - as well as that    which is currently the province of BXVI. Repair to the portayal of history  therefore will touch upon this existant legislation of accord. I may be alone in seeing the complete contradiction  in the   presentation of the history, but I claim  that it exists. The WP is in historical  error  and is infecting the greater cyberspace with error. The fact that this error  relates to the  vastly more serious error  actually being accepted by the vatican in this concord, and that BXVI has his own jurisdiction in the matter ,  does not  cancel the error  inside the  WP. I can say that this is the chicken coming home to roost : the illegal activity  by predecessors of BXVI is in fact still illegal, in so far as the  Holy see has determined  to continue adherence to an illegal Concord. The Concord is illegal because it was signed by an illegal Government, which illegality is the matter of historical error in the WP. The WP itself at present supplies nearly all the corroboration of this illegality in supplying  translation of  legalities from the historical period, namely the  Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act. I refer the reader to the questions arising on discussion page of the Reichskonkordat.

Despite the apparent contrarians on WP denying the entry of the Centre Party and the Reichskonkordat into the historical conclusions of John Cornwell, it appears in fact wrong , and that the evidence brought   by myself on Pacelli are  slight in  comparison. Hitler's Pope in other words may not be artificially separated from these other articles, at all , not they from Hitler's Pope .Famekeeper 11:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
The asshole who keeps coming back under new identities to put 'joke' pictures here and elsewhere has now had his account blocked indefinitely. He seemed not have got the message that endless short blocks were sending. Maybe now he will go away, get out his crayons and play somewhere else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I put the image he used to vandalize the article with up for speedy deletion. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Done that in the past with previous images he used, though as some were used in real articles they could not all be deleted. He has since come back on a dial up modem using AOL. A 15 minute block was imposed. Zeech. What a f***ing asshole he is. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just calm down. Though I know it will be annoying, but this is something we have to do for now, especially since of the news report I mentioned above. It will have it's time, then it will go away, just like the Snape kills .... fad. Plus, you will get some more admin help once my RFA is over. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I completed my streak of vandalism on these pages, it has brought me much amazement and satisfaction seeing the amount of discussion and work that has been put in by the wikipedia community. I take pride in what I have done to the articles. Though I am retired for good from vandalism, I set back every day and reap the rewards from my actions. By the way, its nice to see that I am an official wikipedia asshole. That has a nice ring to it. Though, I could come up with a few more to describe me. Keep up the good work, and may the force be with you. Adamwankenobi 03:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to see if a picture can be locked into an article so that this nutcase, and the other one who puts pictures of penises all over users' pages, can't use particular pictures from real articles to vandalise other pages. The penis picture has had to be deleted over 30 times from user pages at this stage, while the various Star Wars pictures have been used over 20 times on various papal pages.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We can request for page protection, but I think the page will be stable for a while. IMHO, if it were not for the Reuters report, we would not be facing this problem. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * we can lock an image out of all articles but we can't do it per article.Geni 21:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The locking only prevents the image from being replaced by uploading, so someone can still remove the image from the article. The only solution is to lock the article itself, and any changes can be suggested here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Papal tiara in coat of arms
see this: It is very official Swiss Guard standard (picture from May oath). So, I think, that we will see both forms, with tiara and without. What do you thik? How to present it in the article? Fjl 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Fjl 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a very special coat of arms, only used on the Swiss Guard Standard. The Vatican still uses the arms without the Tiara otherwise. But, what we can do is display the tiara-less arms first, then we display the tiara arms later. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not have picture, but "tiara CoA" is displayed in Vatican Gardens (made of flowers). Fjl 18:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant we can use the photo above. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness in italics
Is there any reason why His Holiness is in italics? It doesn't match the format for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth etc. etc. I'd like to make them consistent. Was there some agreement that I missed when I was busy, or can I just go ahead? Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No. One user proposed the idea. (I forget who. I think it might have been Eloquence, or maybe he just came up with the idea of linking HH, HM etc to articles explaining the style.) It might be a way, though, of NPOVing the use of styles, by highlighting that they aren't being used but explained. Until Wikipedia changes policy on styles, italising and wikifying them might be the best way to go. But if I go near any pages to do that, the same ragbag of 'style crusaders' go ballistic and scream abuse, so someone else should do it. I think Her Majesty Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom or His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is more neutral visually than simply Her Majesty Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom or His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. FearÉIREANN[[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\(caint)  22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm very happy to put italics in all of them. But, one question first.  Am I mistaken in thinking that something was said here about not using His Holiness for dead popes?  Actually, I've just had a look, and many of Benedict's predecessors are now marked as Servant of God, or Venerable, or Blessed.  I had to go back as far as Pius XI to find one who started without anything (other than "Pope")  before his name.  But what about deceased Kings and Queens?  Looking at Wikipedia articles on British monarchs and princes, etc., it seems that deceased monarchs have His/Her Majesty at the beginning, back as far as Victoria, stopping for William IV, starting again for George IV, and stopping again for George III.  There's also some inconsistency in that we have King George I, but just George II.  Deceased consorts (Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra) or Royal Highnesses (Princess Margaret) don't seem to keep their styles on Wikipedia.  I'm happy to make them all consistent, but I'll wait a day or two to see if their are any objections.  I'm not anxious to ruffle any feathers, but I would like all the articles to be consistent.  What does everyone think about italics, no italics, styles for deceased popes, monarchs, and princes?  Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Styles
Given the ongoing controversy over the usage of styles I have proposed that styles should be the subject of an infobox rather than used in the opening sentence. That way all factual information can be conveyed, but we can end the rows all over the place on the inclusion or exclusion of styles. I have an infobox for papal pages. In the case of Pope Benedict it would look as follows: (don't worry about the papal tiara, BTW. For visual unity crowns were used for each of the monarchical pages. Even if, as now in the papacy, the crown is not worn it still is a symbol of the office.)

Don't worry right now about the detail. The issue first of all is whether to use infoboxes instead of the current system. Please don't insert the draft infobox yet. This needs to be done by consensus, so all the draft infoboxes are protected and not yet live. If a consensus exists to go down that road, then issues like content, layout and colourscheme can be explored. I'd welcome any comments here or on my own page as to what people think about the infobox idea. The box can easily be slotted into any biographical page. There are identical boxes proposed for British monarchs, Austrian monarchs, presidents, HRHs, etc. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I, for one, think it's a fine idea. Pointedly not discussing layout, content and colorscheme, the idea of an infobox (presumably instead of using the style in the article) is a good one. So, uh... support. --User:Jenmoa 05:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support (btw, Jtdirl, please email me). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Locking
To stop the vandalism and to stop the reverting, I locked the page. So, whatever issues that everyone seems to have with the page, let's talk about it now instead of reverting left and right. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Per-Article Blocking
There is a proposed policy to provide the capability to block particular editors from editing particular articles. This article is an example of the need for such a policy. Particular anonymous IP addresses that have either vandalized this article or made dubious edits should be blocked, rather than having to protect the article. Robert McClenon 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made some further comments on this issue near to the bottom of the page --84.9.88.149 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (Vandal)

BJAODN Nomination
Ann Heneghan reverted a comment from this talk page, referring to it, correctly, as offensive nonsense. I would suggest that rather than being simply deleted, it should be archived at BJAODN. Robert McClenon 15:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No matter what it is, because of thise comments, this page is still staying locked. And it looks like the annon that was trying to get a revert war started has not come up with the evidence I was asking for. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that, unfortunately, as a temporary measure, the page needs to be locked. Locking a page is never desirable, but is less undesirable than having a revert war.  I agree that the comment about the importance of a previous Pope was an opinion and as such was POV.  (If a historian had made that statement, a reference to that statement would be a fact.)  The deletion of that statement was not vandalism, and labeled it as vandalism was inappropriate.  Robert McClenon 17:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how it can be locked, but it will stay locked until enough people flood my mail box asking me to unlock it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ratzinger and Fatima
In this section the word "Portuguese" should link to Portugal, as Portuguese is a disambiguation page. Dr Gangrene 20:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
The following section needs rewriting:

On June 19, 2005, Benedict XVI beatified Father Wladysław Findysz, a martyr of the Communist regime, Father Bronisław Markiewicz, the founder of the Congregation of St. Michael, and Father Ignacy Kłopotowski, the founder of the Congregation of the Sisters of Loreto. Benedict XVI delegated Józef Cardinal Glemp of Warsaw to preside over the beatification liturgy in Warsaw's Piłsudski Square. The beatifications, originally scheduled for April 24, 2005, were delayed due to the death of Pope John Paul II

Is it that JPII started the process and B XVI completed it, or did Benedict-as-Ratzinger have control over the whole process? Jackiespeel 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * JP started it, but B 16 completed it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Point clarified in text. Jackiespeel 17:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

First Apostolic Journey
Someone, please begin writing of adding pictures of his first apostolic journey. This should be essential on a pope's article, especially since it is a current event. User: Coburnpharr04
 * You mean his activities during the World Youth Day? I unlocked the article specifically for that event but it had to be locked again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If you unprotected the page I guess I could write some about it. But I'm afraid Wikipedia has no free license pictures of the Pope from this event (see Commons:Category:WJT 2005), so we have to use one or two fair use images. We need to stop that Palpatine idiot, he cannot force us to have this page protected forever. 83.109.154.100 18:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

One of two
I would like to make a change to the following paragraph of the section "Early church career (1951–1981)"

''In the consistory of June 1977 he was named a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. By the time of the 2005 Conclave, he was one of only 14 remaining cardinals appointed by Paul VI, and one of only three of those under the age of 80 and thus eligible to participate in that conclave.''

Cardinal Sin was unable to attend, and Benedict was one of only two cardinals appointed by Paul VI who participated in the conclave (the other was the American Cardinal Baum). So it should be:

''In the consistory of June 1977 he was named a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. By the time of the 2005 Conclave, he was one of only 14 remaining cardinals appointed by Paul VI, one of only three of those under the age of 80, and one of only two who participated in the conclave, the other being Cardinal Baum.''

83.109.154.100 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Time of birth
As long we have the date of birth, I do not think we should add the time of birth too. Plus, I doubt his birth certificate is even available to see online. If so, still do not add his time of birth in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of astrology sites which mention his birth certificate (=Geburtsurkunde) whose data was requested at a register office (=Standesamt). The time he was born was 04:15 local and 03:15 GMT. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, but IMHO, his time of birth is not relevant for use in the article. We do not have the time of birth for most people on here anyways. Usually, exact time of events is more useful in events such as 9/11, 7/7, 3/11. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, but to a lot of astrology fans and fans of the pope, the information can be relevant. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * What I can suggest is to add a link to the relevant information to the bottom of the page at the External links section. While it gives your astrology friends something to look at, the article will still conform to standards. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 13


text:
Rita Chiarelli

Rita Chiarelli is a Canadian blues singer. She was called "the goddess of Canadian blues" by Shelagh Rogers at CBC Radio One.

Biography
Born and raised in Hamilton, Ontario, Chiarelli began performing in Ronnie Hawkins' band in the early 1980s. She subsequently spent several years in Italy. When she returned to Canada, she quickly attracted the attention of film director Bruce McDonald, who included her "Have You Seen My Shoes?" on the soundtrack to his 1989 film Roadkill. Chiarelli and Colin Linden subsequently recorded a cover of Bob Dylan's "Highway 61 Revisited" for McDonald's 1991 film Highway 61, and Chiarelli released her debut album the following year on Stony Plain Records.

Her albums Just Getting Started and Breakfast at Midnight were both nominated for the Juno Award for Best Blues Album.

Solo

 * Road Rockets (1992)
 * Just Getting Started (1995)
 * What a Night (1997)
 * Breakfast at Midnight (2001)
 * No One to Blame (2004)
 * Cuore: The Italian Sessions (2006)
 * Uptown Goes Downtown... Rita Chiarelli with the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra (2008)
 * Sweet Paradise (2009)
 * Music From The Big House Soundtrack (2011)

Compilation inclusions

 * Saturday Night Blues: 20 Years (CBC, 2006)

title: Rita Chiarelli


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldo

 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. Paul August ☎ 01:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Moldo
Was tagged as speedy, but I say a druid organization with several branches within the UK would be notable and quite hard to find online. I'll drop it of here instead for your opinions. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks dubious to me. Delete as unverifiable unless someone comes up with evidence. Kappa 10:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the stuff about illegal in Moldova makes this sound very likely a joke. I also can't verify it from my computer, although that is somewhat inconclusive in an obscure case like this. -Splash 19:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I suspect this is a hoax. No hit for "Penhros mystery" on Google. Groeck 21:31, 29 August 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldo


text: User talk:81.131.189.47

title: User talk:81.131.189.47


text:
Jake Burns and the Big Wheel

Jake Burns and the Big Wheel were a band put together by former Stiff Little Fingers vocalist Jake Burns in 1983. The band consisted of Burns, Steve Grantley on drums, Sean Martin on bass guitar, and Pete Saunders on keyboards. They split up in 1987 when Burns rejoined Stiff Little Fingers.

The band's debut single, "She Grew Up", originally released in 1984, reached No. 36 on the UK Independent Singles Chart in 1986. The band signed to Jive Records, and their final single, "Breathless", reached number 99 on the UK Singles Chart. The band recorded two sessions for BBC Radio 1; a December 1983 session for David Jensen's show was broadcast in January 1984, and a May 1986 session was broadcast on Janice Long's show the following month. Their 1987 performance at the Golders Green Hippodrome was broadcast on BBC Radio 1's In Concert in June 1987.

In 2002, an album collecting the band's released material, as well as tracks recorded for BBC radio sessions, previously unreleased studio recordings and live tracks, titled On Fortune Street, was released.

Albums

 * On Fortune Street (2002), EMI

Singles

 * "She Grew Up" b/w "Race You to the Grave" (1984)
 * "On Fortune Street" b/w "Here Comes That Song Again" (1985)
 * "Breathless" b/w "Valentine's Day" (1987)

title: Jake Burns and the Big Wheel


text:
Hey Ram

Hey Ram is a 2000 Indian epic historical drama film written, directed, and produced by Kamal Haasan, that stars him and Shah Rukh Khan (in his Tamil debut) in lead roles. It was simultaneously made in the Tamil and Hindi languages.

The film's soundtrack and score were composed by Ilaiyaraaja. It is an alternate history film that depicts India's Partition and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse. The Hindi version was distributed by Khan's Dreamz Unlimited.

Hey Ram received positive reviews, but failed commercially at the box office. It was screened at the International Film Festival of India and selected by the Film Federation of India as its submission to the Oscars in the year 2000, but was not nominated. The film has garnered three National Film Awards. Internationally, the film was screened at the 25th Toronto International Film Festival and at the 2000 Locarno Festival.

Plot
In 1999, Saket Ram, an 89-year-old Hindu man, is on his death bed in Madras. He is being taken care of by his grandson Saket Ram Jr., a famous novelist who writes historical fiction, and their family doctor, Munawar. Saket Ram Jr explains how he grew up listening to his grandfather's stories and proceeds to narrate one of his grandfather's strange stories that he plans to use for his next novel. As his grandson narrates the story, the older Saket Ram relives it.

In 1946, Ram and his Pathan Muslim friend, Amjad Ali Khan are archaeologists working together under Mortimer Wheeler, in Mohenjo-daro in the Sindh province, in what was then North-West India. Relations are good between the Indians and the English. Ram and Amjad do not approve of the planned partition and the upcoming creation of Pakistan. Although many Indian Muslims plan to move to Pakistan, Amjad decides to stay in India as he believes it is his homeland.

After the archaeological site is shut down out of fear of riots, young Ram returns to Calcutta to be with his wife, Aparna. On his way home, he witnesses the riots and chaos during Direct Action Day. While out to get some food, Ram manages to save an innocent Sikh girl from a Muslim mob. When he returns to his house, he is attacked and held hostage by his family tailor, Altaf and a group of Muslims. They rape Aparna, but upon discovering that the police are entering the building, slit Aparna's throat and flee. Unable to cope with his tragic loss, Ram takes his gun and attempts to follow them. He manages to find Altaf, who begs for mercy, although Ram kills him.

Ram continues to shoot at Muslims committing violence in the streets until he runs into Shriram Abhyankar, a Thanjavur Marathi who is leading a group of a Hindus. Realising that they are both Hindu and thus not enemies, Abhyankar offers Ram a chance to join his militia. Abhyankar informs Ram that the individual responsible is none other than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and gives him a banned book on anti-Gandhi rhetoric to read.

In 1947, now having returned to his hometown of Thanjavur, Ram's brother Bhashyam and sister Vasantha urge him to remarry. He is then married to the daughter of family friends, Mythili. While his wedding is being celebrated across the village, Ram tells his childhood friends Vedha and Yegham that he has no reason to be happy since the world's biggest political divorce is going on with the partition of India. During his first night, he learns that Mythili, like her family, are supporters of Gandhi and that the Mahatma will be visiting Calcutta a few days later on the anniversary of the bloody riots. Ram travels to Calcutta alone, where he visits his old home and laments at his loss. Then he joins a mob that confronts Gandhi and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, the Chief Minister of Bengal, about the bloody riots. When questioned about whether they take full responsibility for the riots, both of them accept it and ask for forgiveness. The mob forgives them, but Ram refuses to.

Although Ram remains aloof at first, he slowly falls in love with Mythili. However, on their honeymoon in Maharashtra, Ram and Mythili bump into a disguised Abhyankar, who introduces them to a dethroned Maharaja. During a hunting trip with Abhyankar and the Maharaja, Ram is reunited with his old Sindhi friend from Calcutta, Manohar Lalwani, who lost his family and home in the riots. After seeing Lalwani's misery, Ram realises he has still not gotten over Aparna's murder and his hatred is reignited. Abhyankar and the Maharaj's group hold the belief that Gandhi is solely responsible for the division of India and the violence between two religions, and believe him to be a traitor for supporting and protecting Muslims rather than his own Hindu people. As extremist Hindu fundamentalists, they plot to murder Gandhi and task Ram with performing the deed. Due to a horse-riding accident, Abhyankar is left quadriplegic and has Ram swear that he will renounce personal relationships and carry on his work of killing Gandhi.

Back in the present, Ram's situation worsens. His grandson and Dr. Munawar take him to the hospital, but are stopped by the police since there are bomb blasts in Madras due to Hindu-Muslim communal riots, as the day is anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, prompting the elderly Ram to remark how the Hindu-Muslim violence is still rampant in present day. A police officer makes them hide in an underground shelter for their safety. As they try to stay silent to avoid being attacked by the mob, Ram reminisces about how he plotted to kill Gandhi many decades ago.

Back in newly independent India, Ram begins to prepare to assassinate Gandhi once he returns to Madras. A pregnant Mythili becomes worried as her husband grows more distant and invites her parents and in-laws over to cheer him up. However, Ram has made up his mind to kill Gandhi and leaves Mythili, traveling to Varanasi where he goes through a purification and renouncement ritual. Then, he heads for Delhi and unknowingly stays at the same hotel as another fundamentalist planning to kill Gandhi, Nathuram Godse. When the police arrive to question Godse, a paranoid Ram hides his gun on a delivery truck, which departs from the hotel. Later on, Ram goes to the soda factory in Chandni Chowk in order to retrieve his gun.

In Chandni Chowk, Ram is reunited with Amjad, who takes him to the soda factory. It is revealed that many Muslims civilians, including Amjad's wife Nafisa and their children, are hiding there out of fear of being attacked by Hindus during curfew. When it is discovered that Ram came there for a gun, the Muslims, suspicious that he might be out to kill them, attack him. A fight ensues that triggers a series of violent events in the area. While trying to escape both Hindu and Muslim mobs, Amjad learns that Ram is in Delhi to assassinate Gandhi and he tries to convince him to not do it. He reveals that his father did not die of natural causes, but was murdered by a Hindu mob and asks Ram to end his hatred.

Just then, they are cornered by a Hindu mob who try to kill Amjad. Despite Ram's attempts to protect him, Amjad is struck on the back of the head with a hammer and Ram takes him back to the soda factory. Together, they then help protect the Muslims hiding in the soda factory until the authorities arrive to control the situation, although Amjad is shot.

While in the hospital, Amjad is questioned by a police officer about the Hindu man whom eyewitnesses state started the violence. Amjad lies that he has never seen that man before, and all he knows is his brother Ram who despite everything, saved his life. He then dies holding Ram's hand.

Subsequently, Ram runs into his father-in-law and his friend who are there to meet Gandhi. He learns that his uncle and elder sister have died after learning he has left. Gandhi requests to see Ram to invite him on his long walk to Pakistan after finding out he helped save innocent Muslims. Ram ultimately changes his mind about Gandhi after seeing that his teachings are all about love and non-violence. He decides against assassinating the leader, and attempts to confess the truth to him in order to beg for forgiveness. Gandhi interrupts him, informing Ram that they can talk about it during their long walk to Pakistan. However, seconds later, Gandhi is assassinated by Godse. Ram then attempts to shoot Godse, but is moved by how one person prevents the people from attacking Godse, who is arrested. Then on, Ram lives by Gandhian principles.

As the situation on the streets starts to cool down, Ram whispers his last words to his grandson and eventually dies. During Ram's funeral, Gandhi's great-grandson Tushar Gandhi comes over and visits Ram Jr's private room, which is full of historical photos. Ram Jr hands over Gandhi's footwear and spectacles which his grandfather had previously collected from the place of the shootout and had treasured throughout his life.

Development
Kamal Haasan had wasted all of 1998 on filming Marudhanayagam, which ended up in production hell due to lack of funds, and did not act in any other film during the period (barring Kaathala Kaathala), much to the dismay of his fans. To please them, he sought to begin and finish another film before resuming work on Marudhanayagam, which became Hey Ram. Another motivation for Haasan to do the film was because, although he was born in a family of people devoted towards Mahatma Gandhi, he himself was not initially a devotee, and had a critical view of Gandhi even as a teenager. Haasan initially intended to title the film as Satya Sodanai, a reference to the title of Gandhi's autobiography, published in English as The Story of My Experiments with Truth, but later decided on Hey Ram, the last words allegedly spoken by Gandhi when he was assassinated by Nathuram Godse. The film was produced by Haasan and his brother Chandrahasan under their banner Raaj Kamal Films International, and was the company's first film to be shot simultaneously in Tamil and Hindi. The dialogues for the Hindi version were written by Manohar Shyam Joshi. Cinematography was handled by Tirru, and editing by Renu Saluja.

Casting
Haasan chose the Hindi actor Shah Rukh Khan to portray the Pathan character Amjad Ali Khan, partly because the actor's father was a Pathan who was from Peshawar. Though not a native Tamil speaker, Khan dubbed in his own voice. It marks Khan's debut in Tamil cinema. He did not ask for any remuneration from Haasan, as he considered it an honour and privilege to work with one of his mentors. The Marathi actor Mohan Gokhale was initially cast as Shriram Abhyankar; he had started working on the film in Madras but died suddenly due to a heart attack. Haasan later chose Atul Kulkarni, another Marathi actor, to do the role. Hema Malini, who had reduced acting in films by then, accepted to act as Ambujam after being offered the role by Haasan. For the role of Ambujam's daughter Mythili, Haasan initially wanted Malini's daughter Esha Deol; the role ultimately went to Vasundhara Das. It is her first major appearance in a Tamil film. Hassan's daughter Shruti made her acting debut portraying the role of Vallabhai Patel's daughter.

Haasan initially considered having British actor Ben Kingsley, who portrayed Gandhi in a 1982 film, to reprise the role in Hey Ram but dropped the idea as he felt "it would be cliched and the film wouldn't be honest". He later approached Naseeruddin Shah, who portrayed Gandhi in a play. Shah was initially reluctant due to the long hours of makeup required, but eventually accepted. Haasan wanted a Bengali woman to portray Saket Ram's Bengali wife Aparna, and chose Rani Mukerji, also because of her Bollywood stardom. Saurabh Shukla was cast as a Sindhi character Lalwani after Haasan was impressed with his performance in Satya (1998). Girish Karnad, who portrayed Saket Ram's father-in-law Uppili Iyengar, recommended Sharad Ponkshe, who portrayed Godse in the Marathi play Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy, to Haasan for reprising his role in the film. Gandhi's great-grandson Tushar wanted to join the film, and Haasan accepted; Tushar plays himself. Mohini Mathur, who was 13 years old when witnessing Gandhi's assassination, accepted Haasan's request to play Amjad Ali Khan's mother Haajra.

Filming
Principal photography began on 22 March 1999. The then Shankaracharya of Kanchi had filmed an interview scene for the film but later requested that his portions be removed to avoid controversy. To achieve on-site dubbing of dialogues, Haasan hired Srivastav from Mumbai. Production of the film cost a total of ₹11 crore (worth ₹92 crore in 2021 prices), excluding Haasan's salary. In order to show Mohenjodaro of ancient times, the crew recreated a set at a village near Chennai as the original location was located at Pakistan which crew felt was impossible to go to due to political reasons.

Soundtrack
Initially Haasan chose L. Subramaniam to compose music for the film. Haasan completed shooting the whole film along with the song sequences that were composed by Subramaniam. According to Haasan, when he approached Subramaniam for the final sound for mixing, he had asked for ₹1 crore, which was not the amount agreed upon earlier. So Haasan went to Ilaiyaraaja to help him solve this situation. Haasan told Ilaiyaraaja that the songs had already been shot with the music composed by Subramaniam and he wanted to remove the songs and re-shoot them with Ilaiyaraaja's. On hearing that, Ilaiyaraaja told Haasan that he could fix it without Haasan needing to re-shoot any footage or songs; Haasan agreed after initial reluctance. Subramaniam said he left the project, fearing that his association with the film may offend Hindu people due to its contentious storyline.

The lyrics for the songs were not changed, but Ilaiyaraaja composed new tunes for the songs that would be in sync with the already shot footage. The background music and the songs were recorded in Hungary's Budapest Symphony Orchestra and thus Hey Ram became the first Tamil film and the second Indian film to be re-recorded with a foreign symphony orchestra. The first one was Ilaiyaraaja's own score for the Malayalam film Guru (1997). The song "Isaiyil Thodangudhamma" was not present initially, but Ilaiyaraaja had seen an opportunity for a possible song in the scene and asked Haasan to give him a chance to add one. But Haasan, being the writer-director of the film, did not see it. Then Ilaiyaraaja convinced Haasan to trust him with this and brought Hindustani singer Ajoy Chakrabarty to sing "Isaiyil Thodanguthamma" and also writing the lyrics for the same. Chennai Online wrote, "The album, with its rich acoustic score, is one of his [Ilaiyaraaja's] best efforts". S R Ramakrishna of The Music Magazine wrote "Ilaiyaraja's score brings back the grandeur, allusiveness and haunting beauty of his best work. Hey Ram is an exciting album".

Release
Hey Ram was released simultaneously in Tamil and Hindi on 18 February 2000. A digitally remastered version of the film was released on 8 November 2019 on Amazon Prime Video. Internationally, the film was screened at the 25th Toronto International Film Festival and at the 2000 Locarno Festival. In 2015, Hey Ram was screened at the Habitat Film Festival. The film was re-released at Sathyam Cinemas on 8 November 2019.

Controversies
There were protests and press releases by political parties in select centres against the perceived negative depiction of Gandhi.

Critical reception
Hey Ram received critical acclaim. T. Krithika Reddy from The Hindu wrote, "Live sound, prosthetic make-up (Micheal Westmore), splendid cinematography (Thiru), magnificent art work (Sabu Cyril) and painstakingly designed costumes (Sarika) are some of the other highlights of this magnum opus, which is distinct in style and content...The chemistry between Kamal and Rani is explosive to say the least. Shah Rukh Khan, as usual comes up with an impeccable performance. Vasundhara, as the stoic second wife makes an impressive debut. Naseerudin Shah as Gandhi steals a clear march over the others in supporting roles." Dinakaran wrote, "The starting of 2000 itself has given a great joy to Tamil cinema! A Tamilian has created a film that caters to international standards." Methil Renuka of India Today praised the film's "technical wizardry" and cast performances but called it "difficult to categorize". K. N. Vijiyan of New Straits Times said, "To this writer, the message of the need for unity among various religious faiths was well told by Kamalhaasan". S. Chandramouli of Kalki praised the acting of Kamal Haasan, crisp dialogues, art direction for recreating old times, symbolism but felt other characters speaking different languages gives an impression of watching a film from other language while also felt Kamal who slowly built up his character realistically went hurried with the character's change of heart and concluded saying this film will be enjoyed by urban audience but language will definitely be an issue in villages in spite of that, if this film wins, it will be good for the country and for the world of Tamil cinema. Deccan Herald wrote "Hey Ram is a film not to be missed. For though it`s too long and too simplistic it is part of us, and a landmark for every thinking Indian".

Box office
The Hindi version of Hey Ram grossed ₹8.91 crore in India and $550,000 overseas.

India
The Hindi version opened on 18 February 2000 across 115 screens and netted ₹2.39 crore in opening week and ₹5.32 crore lifetime. It was the 35th-highest-grossing film of 2000 in India.

Overseas
At the overseas box office, the Hindi version grossed $350,000 in opening week and $550,000 lifetime.

title: Hey Ram