text:
Shara Nelson

Shara Nelson (born 1965) is an English singer and songwriter. She worked with Massive Attack in the early 1990s, and as a solo artist had five UK top 40 hit singles. Her 1993 debut album, What Silence Knows, was shortlisted for the Mercury Music Prize.

Early work
Nelson's first release was the 1983 single "Aiming at Your Heart", which was credited to Shara Nelson & The Circuit. She then released her debut solo single, "Can't Get Over You", in 1986 under the name "Shara". Nelson released two further solo singles in the 1980s, "Standing Invitation" as Sharon Nelson and "Love's Hit You" as Shara Nelson. In the late 1980s, she began working with the Bristol-based DJ/production team The Wild Bunch, from who a spin-off production team/crew would form, named Massive Attack.

1990s
Nelson's first release with Massive Attack was the single "Daydreaming" in 1990. As well as providing vocals, Nelson also co-wrote songs with Massive Attack, including the hit single "Unfinished Sympathy" which was included on the group's debut album, Blue Lines, in 1991. The single peaked at No. 13 on the UK Singles Chart and has been widely critically acclaimed, particularly in polls conducted by MTV2 and NME. A reviewer for the BBC said: "More than a decade after its release it remains one of the most moving pieces of dance music ever, able to soften hearts and excite minds just as keenly as a ballad by Bacharach or a melody by McCartney." In total, Nelson co-wrote and provided vocals on four tracks on the Blue Lines album, including another hit single, "Safe From Harm" (UK No. 25). Nelson recorded another track with Massive Attack entitled "Just A Matter of Time", which was exclusively included in a short film of the same name, by Massive Attack.

In July 1993, Nelson restarted her solo career with the hit single "Down That Road" which peaked at No. 19 on the UK Singles Chart. The single was released on Cooltempo Records and both Paul Oakenfold and Steve Osborne were involved in remixing the track. Nelson's debut album, What Silence Knows, was released in September 1993. Produced and mixed by Mike Peden, it peaked at No.22 on the UK album chart, and was later certified Gold by the BPI for sales in excess of 100,000 copies. Nelson co-wrote all of the songs on the album, which included co-writes with Prince Be of P.M. Dawn, and Saint Etienne. Further singles from the album included "One Goodbye in Ten" (UK No. 21), "Uptight" (UK No. 19) and "Inside Out" (UK No. 34).

The album was shortlisted for the Mercury Prize for Best Album in 1994. Also in 1994, Nelson was nominated for "Best British Female Solo Artist" and "Best British Breakthrough Act" at the Brit Awards.

Nelson's second album, Friendly Fire, again produced by Mike Peden, was released in 1995, and contained the hit "Rough with the Smooth" which peaked at No.30 in the UK. The album was less successful than her previous release, and peaked at No.44 in the UK. She was again nominated for "Best British Female Solo Artist" at the 1996 BRIT Awards.

In 1997, Nelson contributed to Shaken and Stirred: The David Arnold James Bond Project, performing the song "Moonraker" which had originally been sung by Shirley Bassey.

In 1998, Nelson collaborated with Charles Webster's Presence project and released the single "Sense of Danger" which peaked at No. 61 in the UK Singles Chart. The track was included on the Presence album All Systems Gone which was released in early 1999, along with another track with Nelson on vocals entitled "Matter of Fact".

Also in 1999, Nelson collaborated with Air Cuba and released the single "Black Island" on the 4AD label. She also collaborated with the UK artists BLIM and Chris Carter as Kasha on the track "U" which was released as a 12" single.

2000s
In 2002, Nelson released a track entitled "Realise", which was remixed and included on the mix compilation album 4 Vini: Forever Young.

In 2003, Nelson collaborated with Adrian Sherwood on the track "Hari Up Hari", which was released as a 12" single. Sherwood was the founder of On-U Sound Records which released Nelson's first record 20 years earlier. Also in 2003, Nelson collaborated with Futurasound on the track "Right Now".

In 2004, Nelson released her first solo single since 1996, the song "Nobody Else". Other tracks released around this time were "Push Me Away" with 10th Planet and "Say My Name" with Little Axe.

In December 2007, Nelson was featured on a new single by NUfrequency entitled "Go That Deep", which included a remix by Charles Webster. Doug Wimbish released an album CinemaSonics on Yellowbird in 2008, where Nelson contributed on a song "I Wanna Know" as a co-writer and a vocalist.

2010s
In 2011, DJ Pete Tong filed a restraining order against Nelson. She was found guilty of harassing Tong with nuisance calls, falsely claiming she had married him. She was given a 12-month community order and 80 hours of community service.

Several new tracks have been posted on Nelson's official website, including "Promise to You", "Different" and "If". In February 2012, NUFrequency released their debut album Connected, which includes a new extended version of "Go That Deep" featuring Shara Nelson. A newly remixed and remastered version of Massive Attack's Blue Lines was released in 2012. The album features Nelson on four songs, including the classics "Unfinished Sympathy" and "Safe From Harm". In September 2012, Nelson performed live for the first time in many years, sparking further rumours of an imminent comeback in 2013. She performed her hit "Unfinished Sympathy" (originally with Massive Attack) at the concert in aid of Cool Earth produced by Angelica Campion-Armstrong.

Nelson contributed vocals to the track "Badger Swagger" by The Artful Badger in May 2013. The song was made in support of Team Badger and the "Stop The Cull" petition and was released in June 2013.

Summer 2014 brought the release of a new single called "Promised", again in collaboration with NUfrequency. It was recorded in 2010 and released on Rebirth as a limited hand-stamped white label coloured 10" vinyl. In December 2014, Nelson contributed to "The Peace Collective" with her vocals appearing on the charity single "All Together Now". Other contributors include David Gray and Holly Johnson.

Nelson, Britton and John Power wrote and recorded the title track, "Looking", for the film Anti-Social. Nelson released a single on 27 April 2018 called "Looking (Meghan Markle's Theme)".

2020s
Nelson is the featured vocalist on Charles Webster's single "This Is Real", released in October 2020. Nelson and Webster had collaborated together before on the Presence album and NUFrequency remixes. In 2022 a remix of the track – This Is Real (Dazzle Drums Mix) – was released on vinyl and digital release.

Discography

 * Studio albums:
 * 1991: Blue Lines with Massive Attack
 * 1993: What Silence Knows (UK No. 22)
 * 1995: Friendly Fire (UK No. 44)
 * 1999: All Systems Gone (with Charles Webster's Presence)

 * Collaborations and rare:
 * 1983: "Aiming at Your Heart"/"Just as Long as We Have Love" (with The Circuit)
 * 1984: "Savanna Prance" (with The Missing Brazilians), "In Another World" (with Voice of Authority)
 * 1985: "Love's Hit You" (vinyl-only solo single)
 * 1985: "Love Mystery" (with Jah Wobble)
 * 1986: "Can't Get Over You" (single as Shara)
 * 1986: "Standing Invitation" (single as Sharon Nelson)
 * 1989: "Je T'Aime" (with Dub Syndicate)
 * 1991: "Safe from Harm"/"Unfinished Sympathy"/"Lately"/"Daydreaming" (with Massive Attack)
 * 1994: "On the Shore" (with Saint Etienne), "Heart of Stone"/"Welcome to the Suburbs" (with Dave Stewart)
 * 1995: "Nobody Knows" (with Guru)
 * 1996: "Good Intentions"/"Faraway Places" (with Groove Corporation)
 * 1998: "Moonraker" (with David Arnold)
 * 1999: "Sense of Danger"/"Matter of Fact" (with Presence), "Black Island" (with Cuba), "U" (with Kasha)
 * 2001: "If", "Promise To You", "Different" (free downloads of unreleased tracks on official website)
 * 2002: "Be My Lighthouse" (with Bim Sherman), "Realise" (with Jason Sparkes)
 * 2003: "Right Now" (with Futurasound), "Hari Up Hari" (with Adrian Sherwood)
 * 2004: "Nobody Else" (vinyl-only single), "Say My Name" (with Little Axe)
 * 2007: "Push Me Away" (with 10th Planet)
 * 2008: "Go That Deep" (with NUfrequency), "I Wanna Know" (with Doug Wimbish)
 * 2013: "Badger Swagger" (with The Artful Badger)
 * 2014: "Promised" (with NUfrequency), "All Together Now" (with The Peace Collective)
 * 2015: "Looking" (from the film "Anti-Social" OST)
 * 2018: "Looking (Megan Markle's Theme)" solo single, digital release
 * 2020: "This Is Real" (with Charles Webster)
 * 2022: “This Is Real” Dazzle Drums Mix (with Charles Webster)
 * 2023: “This Is Real” Original Demo Mix (with Charles Webster)

Awards and nominations

 * 1994: Nominated for Mercury Music Prize (Best Album – What Silence Knows)
 * 1994: Nominated for BRIT Award ("Best British Female Solo Artist" and "Best British Breakthrough Act")
 * 1996: Nominated for BRIT Award ("Best British Female Solo Artist")

title: Shara Nelson


text:
Ratz (TV series)

Ratz is a French-Canadian animated comedy-adventure television series created by Richard Zielenkiewicz. The show stars two rats, Rapido and Razmo, aboard the S.S. Wanderer, a cheese-filled ship without an actual destination. The focus of the series is on the adventures of the two rats, including guarding the cheese, interacting with other stowaways and various ill-fated encounters with the crew. The rats themselves live in the hull of the ship in a lavish two-bedroom apartment.

The French version features the voices of the comedy duo Éric et Ramzy, while the English version features the voices of Terrence Scammell as Rapido and Rick Jones as Razmo.

The show premiered its first episode, "Cheese Connection" on March 7, 2003, on Teletoon, and the series finale episode, "Tomo the Sumo" aired on November 11, 2003. A previously-unaired episode, "The Little Orphan", premiered on January 17, 2004. It can be streamed online since March 25, 2020 on Netflix, released in French first.

Ratz was originally titled Rapido (in an unaired pilot) and featured a chunkier animation style. Also of interest is the pure blend of traditional animation and 3D animation, and the eclectic soundtrack by Hervé Lavandier.

Plot
Ratz mainly focuses on a duo of the eponymous rats, Rapido and Razmo, whose contrasting personalities often have them butt heads with each other. The only thing they both share is their love of cheese, and live on board the S.S. Wanderer for that very reason. As they have occasional encounters with the ship's crewmates, or even get involved, the duo have all sorts of wacky misadventures. Some of the episodes also involve the rats having to deal with new one-shot characters.

Characters
The series' titular duo are composed of two pitch-black rats, Rapido and Razmo, wearing helmets (with goggles attached) and outfits akin to a modern-day pilot (in red and blue, respectively), with elongated ears, lavender eyemask patterns and long snouts. Razmo is erroneously called "Ratz" on the blurb for the show in Sky program guides.
 * Rapido is a jet set-wannabe with a huge ego to maintain. To get over his large self-doubts and low self-esteem, he acts condescendingly and often boasts having personal connections to various celebrities. Rapido is also a hypocrite, scolding Razmo sharply for engaging in an activity, then secretly pursuing the same later on. Rapido only has interest in himself and will not aide Razmo at all, unless the situation adversely affects himself. His interests include ratboard racing, celebrity magazines, fashion, house music, feeling important and wooing women. He is voiced by Terence Scammell, but was voiced by Ron Pardo in the pilot.
 * Razmo is the shorter and stouter rat. He is a highly productive genius and mechanic, having invented the ratboard and being responsible for all mechanical and electrical issues. He is also forced to perform all chores as Rapido never lends a hand. This has led Razmo to become depressed, emotionally scarred and obsessive-compulsive. Razmo is also childish, sometimes speaking to a plush toy. His interests include playing stringed bass, jazz, counting the cheese, inventing and making friends. In the original Rapido short, Razmo had a Deep South accent; his voice was changed to have a slight Brooklyn accent. He is voiced by Rick Jones, but in the pilot, he was voiced by Scott McCord.

The rats themselves also have a means of transport (animated using cel-shaded 3D). An integral part of Ratz is the ratboard, a device resembling a mousetrap with a jet engine strapped to the back. The ratboard provides the rats with speedy travel in and around the ship. Rapido is very fond of his ratboard and enjoys challenging Razmo to races, often winning. Ratboards are also used to reach otherwise inaccessible places, provide speedy rescues, move things by tether or simply to impress guests. In spite of the ratboard's peculiar design choice, the rats humorously enough do not recognize an actual mousetrap, as seen in the episode "The Rat Exterminator". It is also seen in another episode that other rats can also ride on their own ratboards.

The crew of the S.S. Wanderer consists of three personnel: Benny the chef, Svetlana the engineer and The Captain. They aren't intended as the villains of the show, though, Benny is the one most enraged by the rats. The crew will usually return to their normal duties after brushing shoulders with Rapido and/or Razmo. Humorously enough, the crew's diet consists mostly of cheese (their cargo), which Svetlana hates and Benny is allergic to (although said allergies are not seen or discussed within the show).
 * The Captain is a Scottish seaman and veteran of the seas. He is the only person who knows the final destination of the cheese in the cargo hold. Over the years, he has gone from a rather serious captain to a rather goofy one, often falling into reverie or suggesting absurd courses of action during crises. All of his orders are directed towards the other two crew members. The Captain is voiced by Tony Robinow.
 * Svetlana, the Russian engineer. She is responsible for keeping the S.S. Wanderer afloat and is usually found in situations requiring her massive size and strength. Despite her role on the ship, Svetlana attempts to act feminine whenever possible, which isn't very often. She is often talking to or conspiring with Benny. Sveltana is voiced by Sonja Ball.
 * Benny, the Japanese chef. Benny is the only one that will give chase to the rats. Despite having five years of culinary arts under his belt, Benny is usually preparing soufflés or sushi for the rest of the crew. He is usually interrupted by Rapido and Razmo when he brings aboard a live animal to be slaughtered. Benny is voiced by Arthur Holden.

Reception
The series has no notable reviews and thus holds no Metacritic score.

While being targeted at young children in France, the series has gained a small cult following of older ages in Canada, due to its late-night timeslot. The show is also notable for its positive portrayal of rats, unusual for Western and North American cultures, which often give its fictional rats selfish, antagonizing and evil characteristics. The show is also fondly remembered in France, where it aired on France 3 in 2003, Canal J in 2004, Boing in 2012 and Gulli in 2008.

Merchandise

 * Ratz has Region 2 DVD volumes out in France and Belgium, released by Warner Home Video, containing eight episodes per DVD.
 * An album, A fond les bananes !, featuring Éric et Ramzy, has also been released in France. The show's theme song "Pas de panique à bord", the record's opening track, was a minor hit in France.
 * In Fall 2004, Smoby Toys released the toy line based on the show such as velvet furred dolls, real working play sets and plushies just like the show of the same name. But as of 2006, Smoby has discontinued the show's toy line.
 * Ratz had CGI-animated music videos that were released on the Sparx Animation Studios website, along with Teletoon, with eight songs based from the album of the same name.

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

title: Ratz (TV series)


text:
User talk:Monkey Mech X

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

title: User talk:Monkey Mech X


text:
Modular weapon system

A modular weapon system (MWS) is any weapon equipment which has removable core components (or "modules") that can be reconfigured/interchanged to give the weapon different capabilities to adapt to various applications. Modularity can provide several advantages to military organizations, such as the versatility of allowing units to quickly tailor their weapons to best suit the immediate tactical needs, to quickly repair/exchange malfunctioned components, and to reduce overall logistical burdens and costs. However, it also make the legal tracking and technical categorization of a weapon more complicated as it can now be easily converted into a diverse variety of different forms.

For example, the Stoner 63 is a 5.56×45mm NATO-caliber modular small arm system using a variety of modular components, which can be configured as a rifle, a carbine, a top-fed light machine gun, a belt-fed squad automatic weapon, or a vehicle mounted weapon.

A modular firearm can also be useful for hunters, which then easily can change to a different chambering or barrel length when hunting different species.

Quick-change barrel system
Another example of a modular firearm system is the increasingly popular quick barrel change systems, which is found on some new rifles like for example the Blaser R8, Roessler Titan and Sig Sauer 200 STR. These systems simplify the replacement of worn barrels or caliber changes, since they often only require the use of a hex key, thus eliminating the need for special tools and custom fitting by a gunsmith.

title: Modular weapon system


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FYSOP

 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 Keep. Even discounting the author (too few edits), there is no consensus to delete. There seems to be no good reason to discount the vote by longtime anonymous editor. --Tony Sidaway Talk 11:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

FYSOP

 * Non-notable. Delete Andrew pmk | Talk 05:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Program has been running 16 years. Will add more info shortly.--Okieman1200 22:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep reluctantly. A bit vain/self-promotional/non-notable, but it sounds real enough.    Paul Klenk 06:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. -PlainSight 20:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, the article needs some serious work.--195.92.168.174 02:36, 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/FYSOP


text: Category:Hormones of the hypothalamus

title: Category:Hormones of the hypothalamus


text:
Camilo Torres

Camilo Torres may refer to:

 * Camilo Torres Restrepo (1929–1966), liberation theologian, priest and guerrilla member in Colombia during the 1960s
 * Camilo Torres Tenorio (1766–1816), political leader of Colombia's independence struggle against Spain in the 1810s

title: Camilo Torres


text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion


text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Idaho


text:
Talk:Germanic paganism

scope, lead etc
The way the article is currently written, it would seem to take it for granted that there was, uncontroversially and knowably, one single Germanic religion of all Germanic peoples who had not converted to Christianity. It could be that this is simply because of the way the article has grown organically, or is this really the position of the editors? If it is not then I think it should be looked at with this point in mind. Some questions to consider, all just thinking around the same type of thing: To me it seems like thinking about these types of "constitutional" issues can help in many ways when an article gets older and bigger.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If there was not one religion, were there several, is it perhaps simply not known how many there were?
 * Germanic peoples can be defined in several different ways, so which definition is being linked to the title of this article? For example are the Gothic peoples (often included on a linguistic basis) known to have followed a Germanic religion?
 * A previous poster has pointed out that this article has an overlap with Norse paganism. Potentially this article is intended to focus on discussions about the idea of a bigger and/or older forerunner of the Norse paganism that was also present on the European mainland, and maybe England? If so, then this might be something to lay out for the reader so that they can see the connection between articles.
 * Just to be clear, someone might reply that I am being unfair, because there are bits which are very different from what I am implying the article is like. So I will point to the first two sentences, which are of course critical for all readers and indeed all future editors.

The first sentence refers to a very broad category which could include the Gothic peoples, and it implies unity which I think just Tacitus on his own shows to be unlikely, or at least difficult to reconstruct. (The article, broken into different regions etc, does not necessarily agree.) The second sentence seems to be purely Wikipedian in its origin.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Contesting that a much later culture derived from Indo-European is an "Indo-European topic" per se
I had an edit removing the "Indo-European topics" header from this article reverted. Understandably, the reason give was that "scholarly consensus supports the I-E theory". But I'd like to add a point and further ellaborate on the removal & the criteria for the addition of such a header.

No doubt scholarly consensus plus linguistic and genetic evidence supports the fact that Germanic peoples have ancestry from the Indo-Europeans and are an IE-speaking people. That said, the Germanic peoples and their culture & paganism are not an "Indo-European topic" per se, as they doesn't refer to the original Indo-Europeans or add information about them, but are just one of the many branches who have descent from these people & lived thousands of years afterwards (than the IEs, their original culture & expansion). Indo-European being mainly a language group, the Germanic and other IE languages can be referred as an "Indo-European topic" (and thus such header is appropriate on these articles) but the many peoples who live thousands of years after the Indo-Europeans and speak a language derived from their branch are not an "Indo-European topic", or else African Americans (to make a hyperbole) would also be an Indo-European topic since they happen to speak a IE language (English). Peoples directly descendant of the Indo-Europeans, such as the Corded Ware, Proto-Indo-Iranians, Andronovo, etc. can be referred as an "Indo-European topic", as they directly descend from the IEs and their articles add information on things like their immediate expansion. But every single group who happen to speak a language derived from the IE family & their respective cultures, religions, etc. are not "Indo-European topics" & do not merit such a header on their articles.

This specific header is extremely widespread & very often misplaced. I think someone overly enthusiastic about the topic may have gone on a 'rampage' spreading the header across multiple articles without much criteria. It is a broader discussion that could be expanded to that header's Talk page, but I will leave this for now, as an argument against having that header on this specific article. Maybe someone could hypothetically take the header to the 'History' (Proto-Indo-European, before the Roman Iron Age) or 'Influences' section (Germanic paganism was influenced by PIE mythology before the Celtic Iron Age) and it would fit the article, but not at the very beggining as if implying that the article at broad is an Indo-European topic (it isn't). User:CaptainKaptain 21:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you ranting about here? Your bizarre edits and comments regarding Indo-European studies—and evident lack of familiarity with the topic, judging by your comments—is doing you no favors. Here's a tip: Due in particular to the North Germanic corpus, the Germanic branch has played a major role in Indo-European studies since its inception and continues to do so today. This goes well beyond linguistics and reaches into motifs and essentially every other aspect of modern scholarship's discussion regarding the ancient Germanic peoples. Anyone familiar with the basics of this topic would be aware of these facts. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Again, you bring lame personal attacks and generalizations, but nothing addressing any of the arguments brought to this section. You also claim that I am 'unfamiliar' with a topic I am interested in, and of which you must "obviously know better". This, alongside your zealotry towards any discussions about Indo-European topics, does you no favors.

 * The fact that a lot of the scholarship about Indo-European studies were made in Northern Europe, using the North Germanic corpus as a basis for comparative religious studies, still doesn't make Germanic Paganism (and other themes) an Indo-European topic (thus meriting the header at the first-sight of the article) per se. The religion and cultures of peoples who lived thousands of years after the Indo-European expansion and happen to speak a branch of the Indo-European language family are not things that relate to the original Indo-European peoples (Proto-Indo-Europeans). Their languages, though, are (and merit such header), because Indo-European is a language group, after all. If you think otherwise, then you must add such header to every article about any people, culture or religious tradition derived from IE speakers, a criteria which would mean the header would have to be displayed in an article about African Americans, since they speak an IE language (English) - to give a hyperbole of how absurd that is.

 * You say: "This goes well beyond linguistics and reaches into motifs and essentially every other aspect of modern scholarship's discussion regarding the ancient Germanic peoples" but Germanic peoples (living thousands of years after the Proto-Indo-Europeans) are not an Indo-European topic, the fact that they were largely used for comparative religious studies to determine some basic elements of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology doesn't change that. African Americans living a few hundred years after the Germanic peoples, also not an Indo-European topic. Germanic languages, though, stemming largely and directly from the Indo-European language group, unlike culture or religion, that is an Indo-European topic. The Corded Ware culture, the first known expression of Indo-European language groups in Europe, that could count as an Indo-European topic. Germanic peoples and things don't. That seems very simple to me, but you're welcome to give factual arguments convincing otherwise. User:CaptainKaptain 08:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * CaptainKaptain, you have very fixed ideas about the time periods involved (including that the Roman and Celtic Iron Ages are normative historical cut-off points, and also by implication that the Germanic peoples have died out and that African Americans' ancestors had no culture before their enslavement?) and a fixation on reconstruction. Sadly, a lot of mythologies and religions have to be reconstructed, and this is one of the better-attested branches from the Indo-European cultural tree (in the generally accepted scholarly view), partly because the North Germanic peoples were not incorporated into the Roman Empire. Nonetheless, despite your insinuation that Germanic paganism has been over-emphasized in comparative Indo-European studies because the scholars were in Northern Europe (I invite you to read any of Georges Dumézil's works and see whether you can detect a Northern European emphasis), this article is about Germanic paganism. As I have just stated in an edit summary, there are scholarly theories that Germanic paganism was significantly influenced by, for example, Finno-Ugric religion. If that's the kind of thing you were thinking of when you modified the "rooted in" statement, you need to add a well referenced exposition of the argument in question to the body of the article; but these are minority views so will require attribution in the text. And that's not the same thing as emphasizing that the Proto-Indo-European substrate can only be known through reconstruction—of course we don't have direct evidence of it, and saying that the Germanic was rooted in the Proto-Indo-European does not imply otherwise; consider the implications of the metaphor. (Note: I'm also truncating your huge section header to facilitate useful edit summaries.) Yngvadottir (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't understand what you mean by "having very fixed ideas about the time periods involved". I don't think I have said at some point that the Germanic peoples have died out or that the African American's ancestors had no culture before their Indo-Europeanization (using that same logic, did the ancestors of the Germanic peoples & other current I.E speakers have no culture before their Indo-Europeanization?), again, Indo-European is a language group, first and foremost. I don't understand why you brought up reconstruction as it is not relevant to this talk section & the discussion about this specific article. I brought that up on the mythology template article, because I thought that was a relevant criteria there (reconstructions compared to firmly historically-attested groups). In this article, though, all I mentioned about reconstruction is that "Germanic paganism is rooted in the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology". I understand, though, what you say when you mention it wasn't reconstructed when the roots grew out of it and I have to agree with the wording there. I will add though that, about reconstructions, the proposed PIE mythology group, since it is not fully attested and is a (something poorly done and biased) reconstruction, it might be that what is defined as it and as PIE mythology was just an outgrowth & another ordinary branch of common European pagan religions of the time (as practiced by the peoples living in the Pontic Steppe/Central Asia/Anatolia or wherever one puts the Urheimat in), not something distinct & with distinct motifs just because of the language difference. But since the "reliable scholarship" doesn't hint at that & seems, for some odd reason, blinded to that possibility & keen on making IE a distinct, even dualistically-opposed group of 'migrants' to Europe, foundational to all the later European culture despite the thousands of years of history preceding them, I will leave it at that, unless I happen to miraculously stumble upon some good "scholarly sources" stating this. I will stress though that Proto-Indo-European mythology in itself is something reconstructed, that is a fact and beyond any discussion and I don't think it's a fixation to point out that fact & its possible implications.

 * That Germanic paganism has been over-emphasized in comparative Indo-European studies was not my insinuation but a factual statement by user bloodofox. That some of it was due to the fact that many of the scholars who first researched and theorized it were from Northern European countries (i.e Germany and England) is verifiable by the fact that these studies & research on 'Aryans' & the 'Indo-European connections' were largely studied and first propagated in Germany and England during the 19th century, owing to no small part & mixed with, a load of romanticism from the period (plus the fact that Britain had large access to India, its colony at the time, and an interest in its culture & that Germany had large 'nationalistic' and identitarian interests up to 1945). A clear attestation of this is the fact that Indo-European languages are called even today as 'Indogermanische' in German. A minority of these studies were conducted in other countries and this scenario remained so up to the beginning of the 20th century, but even today, Northern European countries are still prominent in Indo-European studies.

 * As for the "rooted in" statement (saying that Germanic paganism was rooted, in no small part, in the PIE religion) that was just to guarantee that one wouldn't interpret the statement as meaning that Germanic Paganism was 100% derived from PIE religion (and, as you said, it is clear it isn't, and that there is discussion regarding other influences. The fact that such discussion exists seems enough in itself to me to add that clarifying line, which in no way diminishes the PIE influence, without the need to point to specific theories & bring them to the corpus of the article). It was a double-insurance, and one that only made the text clearer without doing any harm to it, I stand by these changes and think they should ideally be reinstated. User:CaptainKaptain 23:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I concur with bloodofox and Yngvadottir that Proto-Indo-European mythology and Template:Indo-European topics are relevant to this article. Krakkos (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 * "That Germanic paganism has been over-emphasized in comparative Indo-European studies was not my insinuation but a factual statement by user bloodofox" is a false statement and certainly not reflective of one I've uttered. Don't misquote me. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm confused. You said a few comments above, and I quote: "Here's a tip: Due in particular to the North Germanic corpus, the Germanic branch has played a major role in Indo-European studies since its inception and continues to do so today", you stated that the Germanic branch played a major role in Indo-European studies. One could debate if stating "having played a major role" is the same as "something being over-emphasized", but, really, I just wanted to mean what you said (that the Germanic branch was emphatic in the development of Indo-European studies and continues to be so even today) with that staement, not to make an intentional misquote. CaptainKaptain (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I appreciate other users imputing on this but could you explain, even briefly, why? That Proto-Indo-European mythology is relevant to this article was never questioned nor was mention from it removed from the text. The question is if this article is an Indo-European topic & thus merits the header. So far, I've seen no conclusive arguments on the favor of it being an Indo-European topic other than vague references to the scholarship. In fact, at this point the discussion is so petty that what is being questioned is if the Indo-European topics header is relevant to this article at its start or at the part about the origins of Germanic Paganism. I think the latter should be the case as the influence of Proto-Indo-European religion on Germanic paganism remounts to its origins, not to its core - at its heyday, Germanic paganism was not something 'Indo-European', it was something… Germanic, a different group, existing thousands of years after the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and surrounded - on all sides - by other Indo-European speaking groups. But if anyone can justify historical Indo-Europeans as anything related to Germanic Paganism other than in its origins, please go ahead and explain it (also a reply to @Yngvadottir). User:CaptainKaptain 23:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear that both and  have explained this to you, yet you still are going on about this. In keeping with the additional editor's statement by, I am in complete agreement with bloodofox and Yngvadottir that Proto-Indo-European mythology and Indo-European topics are both relevant to this article. Stop with this bludgeoning behavior and accept that consensus is against you on this matter.--Obenritter (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I have read what the above-mentioned users have argued about in this Talk page. And, considering what they have said, I brought forward arguments and raised questions to be answered, that would clarify the topic of discussion. This was about two days ago and there have been no further editions to the article, or answers, ever since. You then show up and say that I'm "yet going on about this", that I have "been explained by, by other users" & that I am maintaining a "bludgeoning behavior".

 * The discussion about the theme (& the questions raised) has not been concluded "because you say so". No one is obliged to further reply, or is being pressured into doing it. No harm is done by leaving the Talk page as it was. And no unconsensual further edits were made. I appreciate your (and more people's) input on the matter, and as I have told user Krakkos, I ask if you could explain, even briefly, why? Why do you think that Germanic Paganism is an Indo-European topic, thus meriting the template? Germanic paganism being something influenced by other sources than just Indo-European and Germanic as a group existing thousands of years after the Proto-Indo-European & surrounded on all sides by other Indo-European speaking groups. If you can justify historical Indo-Europeans as anything related to Germanic Paganism other than its origins (which would merit the template at the head of the article & not at the part about Germanic Paganism's origin - which is what the discussion we are having here is boiling down to), then please go ahead and explain yourself.

 * What I don't appreciate is your pretentious behavior towards discussions held between other users or the assumptions that I disregard consensus on the matter before editing. No one here has ever stated that Proto-Indo-European mythology wasn't relevant to this article, so your opinion as spouted there is of little relevance to this discussion. Try reading the actual discussion & the points raised so that, if you are interested, you can make meaningful contributions to the Talk section in the future.

 * And, as you pushed this on & so to leave no doubts, I will clarify and unnecessarily repeat myself, that I think: 1. The IE topics template should ideally be removed or placed in the origins of Germanic Paganism section, as it isn't an IE topic per se (culture existing thousands of years after the IEs speaking an IE language =/= an IE topic. See: African Americans, Brazilians, Pakistanis, etc. - the Ger languages? that's an IE topic as IE is a language group; the origins of Ger Paganism? That Relate more directly to and stem from PIE religion so a template about IEs could be added. Elsewhere, there's no place for such a template in the article). 2. the line that said "rooted in the PIE religion" could be changed to "rooted, in no small part, in the PIE religion" so to be further clear & leave no doubt that Ger Paganism is not a 100% derivation of the PIE religion. These are suggestions for other users if they wish to edit the article. CaptainKaptain (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Please comment on draft to replace this article
As some of you already know, I've been putting together a draft of to replace this article, which you can find here: User:Ermenrich/sandbox. I invite anyone who contributes to this article to make suggestions for improvement. Feel free to advertise as well. I'm not sure when I intend to finally move the draft over here, but there is not yet any hurry.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does the draft use the term "idol" instead of cult image? The former is a pejorative term. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Well, for one thing, people are unlikely to know what a “cult image” is (for the average person the word “cult” is probably far more pejorative than “idol”) but feel free to alter/remove.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 * I’ll also note that the three citations in the lead of that article stating that idol is a pejorative do not actually say that it is pejorative.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My leaning is in line with this quote describing Cult image on the Idol disambiguation page: "a neutral term for a man-made object that is worshipped or venerated for the deity, spirit or demon that it embodies or represents". Cult image appears more neutral in its usage from where I stand but I haven't read up on the scholarship - this is just based on what I have come across in papers. From my understanding, "cult" typically lacks pejorative connotations both historically and in religious studies contexts. Ingwina (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a neutral term in scholarship, but having tried to teach my students about "mystery cults" and gotten quiz responses like "The Romans thought other religions were cults", it's worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of people understand the term to be highly pejorative.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion would be to have this page as a platform for educating people in line with scholarship and so address the misunderstanding, with links being offered where possible to help. That's just my view though. I'll drop back and let other people voice their thoughts. Ingwina (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'm happy to remove the term "idol" if people don't like it, but I don't think "cult image" is an improvement.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sieht sehr gut aus. Zweivellos eine Verbesserung. You've done a lot of research here and it shows.--Obenritter (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I've now moved to main space. There's probably still a few things to improve, so please feel free to discuss or be bold and fix problems!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done and many thanks for your labors. --Obenritter (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Giant vs. joetunn
, I've changed your change of giant to joetunn back in most cases. My reasoning is thus: Beyond that, I think it's important to use a term our readers will be familiar with. I'm aware that "giant" is imprecise for the beings in Norse Mythology, but "giant" is the established translation and is used as such in scholarly literature as well. Moreover, outside Old Norse there's no reason to speak of "joetnar". Are the giants who show up in German folklore "joetnar"? is Grendel? Not in the sense used in Old Norse. It's therefore better, in my opinion, to use a less specific term.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the article in Pre-Christian Religions of the North is titled "Giants (joetnar)" and uses giants throughout;
 * the article in the Reallexikon is titled "Riesen"
 * the article in Simek's dictionary is titled "Giants"

 * Hi Ermenrich. Firstly I'd just like that thank you for the amount of work you've put in with this page.
 * Secondly, I do understand your points and agree to some extent it is more familiar to people and easier in that way.
 * My reasoning is as follows:
 * - The page we are linking to is called "jotunn" and thus I think it's useful to be consistent with that. The page for "giant" is about all cultures rather than just Germanic ones. The page also explains fairly nicely (from my biased point of view) the distinction between the term "jotunn" and the being the page is talking about called a "jotunn" which could also be named a "risi" or "thurs" and so on.
 * - I think "giant" can get confusing to people who aren't aware of the translation issues given that they are not necessarily notably tall in the early sources, which are also those that likely give a best account of views in Germanic paganism.
 * I think regarding your points, if we follow the discussion on the "jotunn" page, it talks about the terms for "jotunn" I mentioned earlier. It thus to me makes sense following that line of thinking to include "eotenas" like Grendel and "riesen" too. I may be being a muppet but I can't see bits talking about folklore but in general I'd still say it should be okay given that they'd be referred to like "jaette", "yotun" and "riese" in modern Germanic languages. It is debatable I concede but I'd say the best argument against using jotunn for these terms here is lack of continuity, even if I personally disagree, and thus potentially using "giant" for all the beings too could be misleading for the same reasons. Lumping together beings that don't belong in one group.
 * Let me know your thoughts - I'm keen to hear what you think :) Ingwina (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to go along with whatever the majority thinks, but I still believe that saying giants is the best way to go, and one commonly used in the scholarship. It's true they may not originally have been large, but it's equally possible that their size is just inconsistent in the myths. When Clunies-Ross mentions the size issue, she merely says: Whereas huge size and physical ugliness are traits strongly associated with both male and female giants in fornaldarsögur and in Scandinavian folklore of the post-medieval period, they are not prominent in early skaldic poetry or in the poems of the Poetic Edda, or indeed in Snorri’s Edda. (pp. 1531-1532). I think a lack of prominence is a bit different from concluding that they were not thought to be large. I believe I've run into that argument before, but I can't judge have prominent it is when it doesn't show up in any of the three sources I've mentioned here.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Before I bow out and leave room for other people to give their opinions I'll just pop in a supporting example from the 'jotunn' page that in the foreword to Jeramy Dodds's translation of the Poetic Edda, Terry Gunnell says that "jötnar is "sometimes wrongly translated as 'giants' " and instead uses jötunns."
 * I do think the matter is complex and similarly will happily go with whatever the majority thinks. Ingwina (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, John Lindow, for example, doesn't hesitate to call them a race of "giants", but he says, "And the other group, the ones who aim for the destruction of the cosmos and disruption of order, are certainly not "giant" in the sense that they are demonstrably larger than the gods. They are usually called the "jötnar", and again as the term is used in the mythology it feels more like a tribal or kin group than anything else." Carlstak (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We could really use a section over at jötunn featuring discourse among scholars about the use of "giant". I've seen a few recent articles discussing the use of the gloss and its various problems. A handful of English translations of the Poetic Edda avoid it too, like Dodds's and Thorpe's. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll happily get to work on that. It'd be really helpful too if you could share those articles you're thinking of. Ingwina (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , do you have an opinion on whether we should use giant here or not?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally prefer concision and jötunn, while also a catch-all term, avoids the issues surrouding giant and, in turn, association with ideas about gigantes (as similar as the concept may be, in a comparative sense). However, some kind of survey would be useful. Ultimately, we'll need to get into specifics the more we drill down on the subject instead of the catch-all gloss of "giant" (eg. the use of risi, thurs, etc.). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As an update on this folks - I've added a section to Jötunn explaining the glossing issues. We could do with plumping it up with more sources but I think it's good for now. Following this I'd push again the proposal to explain the gloss giant but principally use jötunn in this article to avoiding its misleading nature. Ingwina (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ermenrich @Bloodofox I don't know if you saw my last post but I've written a short section on Jötunn about the issues with glossing as "giant". I'd propose that we follow the format in other pages where we say "Jötnar (often glossed as "giants")" and then go on using jötunn for reasons discussed above. What do you think? Ingwina (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

, I have some problems with the suggestion. While you've shown that some scholars dislike the equation, I don't think you've shown that all scholars do. I've already mentioned how Clunies-Ross frames the issue (fairly neutrally), and Petzold in the Reallexikon says Die Eigenschaften der R[iesen] drücken sich in ihren Kollektivnamen aus: anord.þurs, germ. Thuris (belegt im Abecedarium Nordmannicum), ahd. duris, thuris, ags. Thyrs gehört zu dem Adj.turas, ,kräftig, stark`. Eine zweite Bezeichnung ist anord.jötunn (Jötun) zu etan ,fressen`, was beides auf die ungewöhnliche Größe und Kraft hinweist. Beide Bezeichnungen werden in der Edda synonym verwandt (8, 80). Schließlich der Name as.wrisi, ahd. risi ,Riese`, dessen Etym. unsicher ist. Vielleicht hängt es mit dem germ. reisa, sich erheben, zusammen. (The qualities of the giants are expressed in their collective names: ON. þurs, Germ. Thuris (attested in the Abecadarium Nordmannicum), OHG. duris, OE Thyrs belong to the adjective "Turas" "powerful, strong". A second term is ON jötunn (Jötun) [related] to etan "to eat", which indicates both the unusual size and strength of the giants. Both terms are used synonymously in the Edda. Finally the name OE wrisi, OHG risi "giant", the etymology of which is uncertain. Perhaps it's related to Germ. reisa, to rise.") The Reallexikon would seem to support an identification of the Jötnar with giants.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The problem with citing German discussion that doesn't directly address the English gloss giant is that they're of course using the German term Riese, which is cognate with Old Norse risi, a term itself used in the Germanic corpus for these beings and without the issue of glossing Classical concepts over Old Norse concepts. The traditional English language use of the Classical gloss giant by translators is a big point of contention in contemporary English language scholarship on this matter, for example discussed in the introduction of the most recent English translation of the Poetic Edda (Edward Pettit, 2023, Open Book Publishers). In it the translator feels the need to defend his use of it against expected criticism. As another example, Lindow also feels the need to defend his use of the gloss "giant" and discusses its criticism in his recent Old Norse Mythology (2022, Oxford University Press). I doubt this would be a point of contention if translators historically used something like ettin over giant in English. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that saying that it’s a point of contention is as far as we should go. I think Ingwina’s section has taken one side too strongly. The reason I quoted Petzoldt is because he etymologically connected the word Jötunn with gigantism. And What about Clunies-Ross then? All she says is that unusual size is not emphasized in the earliest sources. Another point worth making is that Grendel and the earliest attested German Riesen definitely are imagined as larger than normal people. As this is a pan-Germanic article, I think it’s a point worth keeping in mind here.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to present my start of a section as the finished work and it would of course benefit from further expansion but I think it at least establishes the point that this is a really controversial topic in this field and that even among those who use the term "giant", they still sometimes note that they are not necessarily large. I will do my best to fill it out though to cover the topic better over time. I agree with your point that Grendel is presented as big and I trust you about the German Riesen but I don't think it's clear if even Grendel's mother is large, let alone others in the Old Norse record and thus I think we should use a term that best covers all the beings. Using the outside term "giant" as a gloss is only good if they are all large and that doesn't seem to be the case. Jötunn however is a term from the cultures we're describing and thus avoids these issues. We already have jötunn in brackets at the start so we're saying they are the same but I think we can put jötunn as the principal term. I believe that using "giant" will give readers who know less about the topic the wrong idea, leading them to think that all these beings are defined by their largeness which is not the case, even if some are large. Ingwina (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also as a further point, we currently have it set that the title is "Giants (Jötnar)" with the main article link below to "Jötunn". I think it makes sense for the title to be consistent with the main article link and further to be consistent with the main article title. If "giant" really is the better term, we should be using it as the main article (or at least with a differentiator in the title e.g. Giant (Germanic) ), and I feel this discussion is best held on that page. I don't fully see why one term would be preferred here on the summary of the topic and another on the main page on the topic. Ingwina (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Jötunn is a WP:natural disambiguation, meaning it's a better title than "Giant (Germanic)" (or [Norse]). If we change the title here, I'd at least argue for Jötnar (giants). Giants (including non-Germanic giants) are of an inconsistent size throughout world mythology - the same giant can even appear as a different size. It's certainly the case that, say, the Eckenlied presents giants who seem to be of differing sizes (sometimes from one scene to the next): Ecke is so large he can't ride a horse and Dietrich needs to sheer off a large part of his armor to wear it, but his giant brother Fasolt is introduced riding a horse, etc. In Norse myths, Ymir is supposed to have been so large that the whole world was made out of him. There's a giant in one of the myths in the Prose Edda (I think) that's described as a mountain with trees for its beard (if I'm remembering correctly). When Thor visits Utgard Loki they spend the night in the glove of a giant and think it's a hall. If these are "late" sources, they at least show that Jötnar could be imagined as giants. My point is I'm not completely aware of all the arguments about whether we should call Jötnar giants, but I've pointed to sources that are at least agnostic on the issue or seem to argue for Jötnar being giants in the classical sense, which means we need to be sort of circumspect about how we present the whole thing. Where there is scholarly controversy, we should present it as scholarly controversy.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that we should cover the scholarly controversy and I aim to flesh out the section on the Jötunn page more to cover this. The arguments against using the gloss "giant", other than it being an outsider word is that being large is not an intrinsic property of jötnar. Like you said, some are large for sure but that doesn't seem to be a necessity whereas I imagine it would be for a giant, even if they aren't large all the time? While I of course would prefer a full swap with a reference to "giant" often being used as a gloss, I'd accept a compromise with shifting to Jötnar (giants) for now though if you two are @Ermenrich@Bloodofox? Ingwina (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As this article expands, I think precision is going to be the key to keep this from being very confusing for readers. I would personally just stick with jötunn and then just discuss it all in a dedicated section, sticking to specific terms thereafter. Glossing all the terms as either "jötun" or "giant" is just confusing. What is going to be more tricky yet is getting into discussions about terms that vaguely fall under this umbrella and don't always, like troll and thurs. I would personally advise keeping separate pages for those two. There are a lot of terms that seem to be nearly-but-not-exactly synonyms that could use at least sections covering their proposed etymologies and use in the record. These differences often get swept aside in translation, so it's going to require some digging. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant that if we change the title here I would support writing (giants) on the section name and after the first mention - cross referencing them every time isn’t practical, as you say. Most of the in-depth discussion should be on other articles, since this is just a brief, pan-Germanic summary.
 * On another note, *thuris appears as an element in some continental Germanic names (Thurisind, Turismund). I’m not familiar with research on the topic, but I would assume that that indicates a more positive or at least ambivalent attitude toward them than the Norse sources indicate, similar to the elves. On the other hand, a giant named Thyrso appears in a late medieval Tyrolian legend connected to the hero Heime, even though in MHG the wird durs is never used pto describe giants that I’ve encountered (I suppose I could do a database search and find out). I don’t know how well these sorts of connections have been researched, but I assume there’s a lot of fascinating pan-Germanic things people could say about these terms.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've phrased it badly and you two have misunderstood me - I wasn't meaning using the two together every time - just like how you just said @Ermenrich. Either way, how do we feel we should make a decision moving forwards? The options I see it are as follows, with 2 being my preferred choice as said above:
 * 1 - Stay how it is with "Giants (Jötnar)" being the subject heading and "giant" being the main term for the beings
 * 2 - Jötunn as the main generic term with the common use of "giant" as a gloss being briefly described
 * 3 - Another generic term as the main one to be used
 * 4 - Mix and match throughout though I feel we all think that would get confusing on a brief overview page like this
 * In all I imagine we'd keep the brief discussion of terms for the beings that is there already as this seems useful to me?
 * Any other thoughts?
 * Also I didn't know about those names - that's really interesting. In Old English and Old Norse being a thyrs is rarely a compliment. I'm planning to do some work expanding and improving the Jötunn article and I'll be sure to factor this in! Ingwina (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

New archaeological finds and old debates
Right now we have a statement from Pohl 2004 discussing proposals about the age of 'the cult of Odin'. However, a recent find just pushed back the date of a clear reference to veneration of Odin to the 400s and squarely in Scandinavia, only a few hundred years after Tacitus's Germania.

We can now say that we know for certain that Odin was venerated in Scandinavia in 400 and this is information Pohl did not have access to when producing his survey. This presents a problem unique to platforms like Wikipedia, where make immediate updates from initial reports before the peer-review process has any chance to catch up.

In short, how should we respond to older survey of arguments that can be shown to be missing a key piece of data that we now possess? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We now have earlier evidence for Odin's name (400s). However, the question of how old the cult of Odin is not about whether he was worshipped in the 400s, but deals with whether he was worshipped in Roman times ("Germanic Mercury"), or even whether it is meaningful to discuss "Odin" that early if the God may have differed substantially. There's a good summary in Schjødt's chapter on Odin (he's in favor of the existence of a god of the "Odin-type" back to PIE times). That's why I reinstated the sentence.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The matter is more complex. Over the years, scholars have proposed a variety of things regarding the development of the god, including that Odin derives from southern influence or was a Migration Period innovation due to increased militazarion or even a result of Hunnic influence, just to name a few examples. Our first known mention of Odin by name now occuring in the 400s on a C-type bracteate—with all this bracteate type's ruler associations and Norse myth-like iconography—in Denmark makes for a huge find. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless you’re arguing that the debate was about whether Odin was worshipped in the 400s, this new find doesn’t actually change anything about what I just said, namely a statement of WP:RS/AC about how old the cult of Odin is. I’m not disputing that the find is very important but it just moves the first mention back 100 years, not to the time of Tacitus.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion below. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 * "how should we respond to older survey of arguments that can be shown to be missing a key piece of data that we now possess?" Strange question by a veteran Wikipedian like yourself Bloodofox. Wikipedia has a policy on such matters: Age matters:

 * "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. " Dimadick (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My comments and questions are in response to an edit restoring a survey from Pohl that long predates this crucial new find, which I had removed. We usually use consensus/survey statements wherever possible. Yet in this case, we suddenly have a huge new find: A clear attestation from Denmark only a few hundred years removed from Tacitus's Germania. This newly announced item would be a key component of any contemporary survey (and discussion of the deity's history in general). :bloodofox: (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I feel like you're just talking past me. If there is debate about whether or not Odin is deity from c. 1 AD, having something from c. 400 AD is probably not going to make any difference to the people who believe that Odin wasn't worshiped in 1 AD.
 * Anyway, aren't we jumping the gun on this? We need to see how scholars react to a new find (outside of a newspaper article) before we start making inferences about how it will change the scholarly landscape. We are WP:NOTNEWS after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermenrich (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As a student/scholar of ancient Germanic peoples with focus on their dealings/borrowings from Roman culture, this is an enormous find (as indicated). However, before we go making carte blanche changes, it would be best to wait for some responses from leading scholars. That being stated, I do think that the first mention of Odin deserves an informational note about this recent discovery and its potential implications as posited in the scholarly source from which it derived.--Obenritter (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree it should be mentioned, and that it's important. I just don't think we can say that it upsets any existing scholarly consensus (or lack thereof) without a statement that meets WP:RS/AC that there is no longer disagreement about whether Odin was worshiped in the time of Tacitus - if such a statement can be found, after scholars have absorbed this new find, I will happily remove the sentence cited to Pohl myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Germanic paganism


text:
Bullabulling, Western Australia

Bullabulling (spelled "Bulla Bulling" until 1944) is a small townsite located 526 km (327 mi) east of Perth, Western Australia on the Great Eastern Highway in the Goldfields-Esperance region.

The town was gazetted in 1898, when the population of the town was 160 (140 males and 20 females). Its central feature was the Rock Hotel roadhouse (also known as Rock Tavern), which closed around 2015. Bullabulling is also the location of a reservoir which forms part of the Goldfields Water Supply Scheme. From here, the water gravitates (i.e. moves without pumping) to Coolgardie and Kalgoorlie.

In 1996, Bullabulling was registered as a place of cultural heritage significance.

title: Bullabulling, Western Australia


text:
Talk:Vector fields in cylindrical and spherical coordinates

Predictably, there is a notation conflict. Given that the article on spherical coordinates would predictably end up getting written by mathematicians, while this one would predictably end up getting written by physicists (since mathematicians generally only use Cartesian coordinates), predictably the notations are different, causing confusion to anyone who clicks on spherical coordinates. The matter remains unresolved. Revolver 05:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Description of φ in spherical coordinates
The description of φ says: "φ is the angle with the X-Z-plane". I would say "φ is the angle with the X-Z-plane with positive X" or something else, because otherwise the angle could be measured with a negative X, which gives a wrong angle. 80.32.129.34 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unit vector derivatives
is it correct to specifically call out the time derivative in those descriptions? would it not be more accurate to call out the spatial derivatives? i.e., in cylindrical coord's, dr_hat/dtheta = theta_hat. aren't the time derivatives only collapsed chain rules of the spatial derivative transformations? (dr/dt = dr/dtheta * dtheta/dt = dtheta/dt * theta_hat) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.249.10 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 65.95.78.112
COMMENT: I think the formula for φ is not correct as the arctan function only provides values on the (-π/2;π/2) interval. As a result, I think the best is to adapt the calculation of φ to, for instance, each quadrant ([0;π/2), [π/2;π), [π;3π/2) and [3π/2;2π)). See comment in []. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.219.14 (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Description of unity vector in spherical coordinates
How come ρ, the magnitude of the projection of the vector on xy-plane, has a direction. It simply goes against the definition.
 * I assume you mean cylindrical coordinates as of the notations used in the article. It doesn't have a direction in the origin, but elsewhere it does. Imagine that you are looking at the point (x,y,0), and that you draw a line from the origin through the point and add an arrow to the end of the line. Then the arrow gives the direction of ρ in that point. 78.91.38.146 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition of θ and φ is absolutely wrong
θ and φ are not the angle between the "VECTOR" and the Z-axis or its projection and the X-axis. But the are the angles between the "POSITION" of the "Vector" and those axes. Actually here we are dealing with Vectors which are not that free in space ( Their position should be specified).

For example  E(0,0,0)= 3 i + 4 j + 5 k,  has a different "spherical" representation at points (0,0,0) and (1,0,0) and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.167.123 (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbols unclear in `2.2 Time derivative of a vector field`
Currently the text includes:
 * $$\mathbf{\dot A} = \boldsymbol{\hat r} (\dot A_r - A_\theta \dot\theta - A_\phi \dot\phi \sin\theta)

+ \boldsymbol{\hat\theta} (\dot A_\theta + A_r \dot\theta - A_\phi \dot\phi \cos\theta) + \boldsymbol{\hat\phi} (\dot A_\phi + A_r \dot\phi \sin\theta + A_\theta \dot\phi \cos\theta)$$

But it is unclear what the difference is between (for example), $$\dot{A}_\theta$$ and $$\dot{\theta}$$. Presumably $$\dot{\theta} = \frac{d\theta}{dt}$$, then is $$\dot{A}_\theta = r \dot{\theta}$$?

Even if the symbols seem trivial, it would be good to define them. Thanks!

Zhermes (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Austar

Sky Racing/TVN Battle
I have removed the reference to TVN and added a note regarding why it was removed from the lineup. Once the action that is being taken by Sky Channel is resolved it can be changed to reflect the situation. --bacco007 05:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Austar Remote
Can we flip it so that it is the correct way, and crop away the unnecessary parts of the image? I'm probably just being picky, but we want our articles to look nice, right? Also, can we remove the "I got this information..." Reference from the MyStar part of the article? Douglas 08:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have fixed those issues. - Mike Beckham 08:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Quick turnaround! 124.171.109.88 10:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Austar Channel List
If that's okay with everyone I've started a page with a List of Austar channels, like the one for Foxtel so I'll be deleting the channel list from the main Austar page and directing the list of channels to that page. Jeffmister 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at the channel list, looks good! Well done! Douglas 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Someone has decided to add it again. I'll remove it, we don't need it and the seperate article. It's pointless. Douglas (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I miss your list. It was awesome. Some idiot named Beeblerox thought he'd take it upon himself to delete all channel lists because of a Wikipedia policy I say should be up for discussion. I am not a hardcore wikipedia user though but I would love it if you couild do this again.

 * The Austar order is the same as Foxtel. The Austar page has a link to the Foxtel page.  Which gives you an indication of what number range a channel falls into.  As for not listing the exact number, you should go to the Foxtel website for that or use the guide on your STB. --Helmboy (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

MyStar Out
When the MyStar comes out, will we start a new Wiki about it? If so, count me in! Douglas C (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * the mystar is out now for customers that were on the list (i was ) and i will have the new mystar on Friday. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * We're getting ours today. It looks a helluva lot cooler than the IQ! Pity there's not 2 FTA tuners in it, but. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarriso (talk • contribs) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to get a photo of our MyStar and remote tonight and upload it on Saturday. Douglas C (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the MyStar image as Image:Austar_MyStar_Front.jpg, however, I have no idea how to put it into the article. If someone could do that, that would be great. Douglas C (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Added the image of the mystar for you, hope you like what i did. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I must learn how to do that. Douglas C (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Official company name
I would like to make note that the use of 'Austar' by itself is always in capitals, ie AUSTAR. The only time that AUSTAR is not capitals is when Austar United Communications Limited is being referred to. 121.221.175.170 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to make note that AUSTAR has never been known as 'Austar Pty Ltd', the company name is AUSTAR Communications. Please see austar.com.au for verification on this 121.221.175.170 (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image of Atlas removed
I removed the image of Atlas because it is of poor quality and has several other unrelated remotes on top. If anyone can contribute a better picture, please do so. The Mystar image (Granted, I took it, so a bit of personal bias) is an excellent image. It was also in a very silly spot (Above the Mystar, they have very little in common). Perhaps we could start an Equipment or Decoders section? Douglas (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Subscription television (Austar Television / Austar Digital)]
The On Demand (Featured) and the AUSTAR AnyWhere sections appear to be directly copied from the AUSTAR website word for word including subjective terms. This appears to be more like advertising rather than straight facts. --Harmo777 (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Austar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080406060810/http://www.austarunited.com.au:80/aboutus/default.asp to http://www.austarunited.com.au/aboutus/default.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111031203225/http://www.austar.com.au/tv/support/austarnet-closure.aspx to http://www.austar.com.au/tv/support/austarnet-closure.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Austar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081122135556/http://www.austarunited.com.au/aboutus/history.asp to http://www.austarunited.com.au/aboutus/history.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719063925/http://www.austarunited.com.au/press_view.asp?id=330 to http://www.austarunited.com.au/press_view.asp?id=330
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090913012503/http://www.austar.com.au/mystar/mystar_um.zip to http://www.austar.com.au/mystar/mystar_um.zip
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719064013/http://www.austarunited.com.au/pdf/08-01-07%20%20AUSTAR%20spectrum%20FINAL%20website.pdf to http://www.austarunited.com.au/pdf/08-01-07%20%20AUSTAR%20spectrum%20FINAL%20website.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100525140806/http://www.austar.com.au/mystar/ to http://www.austar.com.au/mystar/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111031203225/http://www.austar.com.au/tv/support/austarnet-closure.aspx to http://www.austar.com.au/tv/support/austarnet-closure.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://warrnambool.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/costly-star-fails-to-shine-service-full-of-bugs/1322990.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211101942/http://www.austarbroadband.com.au/ to http://www.austarbroadband.com.au/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Austar


text:
Skypark Airport

Skypark Airport is a public use airport located three nautical miles (6 km) southwest of the central business district of Bountiful, a city in Davis County, Utah, United States. It is privately owned by Skypark Airport Assoc., LLC.

Facilities and aircraft
Skypark Airport covers an area of 35 acre at an elevation of 4,237 feet (1,291 m) above mean sea level. It has one asphalt paved runway designated 17/35 which measures 4,634 by 70 feet (1,412 x 21 m).

For the 12-month period ending September 20, 2023, the airport had 85,468 aircraft operations, an average of 234 per day: 100% general aviation and <1% air taxi. At that time there were 256 aircraft based at this airport: 225 single-engine, 15 multi-engine, 4 jet, and 12 helicopter.

title: Skypark Airport


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silly apple club

 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. --Tony Sidaway Talk 08:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Silly apple club
A high school club with one Google hit. Zoe 05:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitimate article. It does not violate any current wiki policy according to WP:NOT.  Additionally, there is no current wiki policy on subject importance, which many here have discussed.  See Importance.--lovedmc12 07:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." --TheMidnighters 14:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: lovedmc12 plucks people up. He plucks them right in the steiner. That's all I aba sait. I mean aba sait, aba stein. Big J double T 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Aba Steining Sait. That's all I have to say. Johnathan Taylor Thomas 05:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep The Silly Apple Club has brought joy to all those who participate in it. To delete it would ruin the lives of many good people. We must press on in the memoriy of Silly the Kid. Seriously though, the Silly Apple Club rocks! If you join it you will see...--Matt 13:30 8/28/05
 * User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete! We get to ruin lives, gentlemen! Press on with this unparallelled opportunity! That and the article is much too silly to live. --Agamemnon2 06:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above - Chris 13:37 8-28-05
 * User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So what? - Chris 2:06 8-29-05
 * User's first heckensteiner. J dub (you know who) 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep The Silly Apple Club is the pinacle of awesomeness. This page has great potential.  No need to delete.--67.114.44.188 20:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep this club has quite a cult following, and a website with examples of videos is in the works sillythekid (author)
 * NOTE: The above "keep" vote is an anonymous and unsigned vote by the author.   Paul Klenk
 * Delete. Utter nonsense.  Paul Klenk 06:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Such a cult following that they are barely a blip on the Internet. Zoe 06:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Dottore So 06:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable schoolcruft. — J I P | Talk 07:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Loganberry (Talk) 11:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * comment Silliness is in the stein of the beholer. How can someone want to delete the greatest thing ever invented? - Jason Bollashotcaller20inchblades 13:43 8/28/05
 * Creator of the article, only edits are here and at the article itself. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. --Wwwwolf 21:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And stick this discussion to "Wikipedia's most colorful VfDs", too. --Wwwwolf 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. From four to over 50,000 members worldwide almost overnight, now we are getting into silly, and it appears the drawers been opened already. Alf 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if wikipedia wants to remain an oasis of free exchange on the internet, we must allow entries like this to exist. This is a legitimate article, despite it's extreme exaggeration. If wikipedia does not allow silliness to exist, who will? User:sillythekidskid 22:13, 28 August 2005
 * Comment: Rules aside, say this encylopedia lasts and expands for the next thirty years, how long do you think it will take to sort through all the silliness to get to some encyclopedic fact? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, when I reference this wiki I expect to find and be informed of what I'm looking for. Say every small club, shop, website, film, book and building got in - theres a discussion about roads going on now, how many roads are there? I hope this puts the peeps and puppets here in the right perspective, anyone? Alf 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * More important than the amount of roads is the amount of roads a man must walk down, methinks.
 * Comment:Are you concerned about having to flip through too many pages? Will the hard-bound book of "wikipedia" become too cumbersome to carry around? As long as a page is relevant and factual, there is no reason to exclude it because of some "encyclopaedic standard," which is not strictly defined in any wiki policy.--lovedmc12 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete because Wikipedia is not "an oasis of free exchange on the internet." It is an encyclopedia. -- BD2412 talk 23:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * comment It may be an encyclopedia, but the only redeeming quality to Wikipedia that distinguishes it from more reputable encyclopedias is the fact that it is created by regular people, and has a relatively informal tone. Don't take Wikipedia too seriously.steiner1000 03:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Original comment by User:66.126.157.103, who has voted several times in this VFD, but later signed by a sock account. --TheMidnighters 14:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete per sockpuppets. Sdedeo 00:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN and Nonsense. --Camw 01:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit.-- sillythekid 19:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you learn to use Special:Contributions properly by next week! (Was not Camw's first edit, in case it wasn't obvious.) --Wwwwolf 17:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per most every delete vote above. FreplySpang (talk) 03:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I assume that you are referring to the numerous posts on the PSM forum, which were unsolicited posts not made by this article's author. The Silly Apple Club is not a hobby; it's a movement. sillythekidskid
 * Delete The author showed up on a forum that I frequent, asking the regular forumites to vote for it's permanence. I don't think that some high school kid's hobby deserves to be on Wikipedia.
 * Comment In response to the above comment I would just like to say that me and my associates who work on another site also like to think of our site as a movement.  But considering the staggering number of "movements" lately, ours has gotten lost in the quagmire of "movements."  The moral here is that we don't go making articles on our own obscure little site, so why should you?
 * Comment one could just as easily ask, because these people do go around making articles about obscure subjects, why shouldn't you?
 * delete nn. __earth 04:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per everyone else on the page. --PatadyBag 04:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, and of course socks. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, and to tick off the socks. MysteryDog 15:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and note that this is not a vote. It is an attempt to reach consensus of the community.  Everyone heading over from the "Silly Apple Club" to try and get the article kept, your votes will be summarily disregarded- you're not automatically part of the community if you come here to vote, even if you register accounts.   ral  315  17:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment "Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers." Summarily disregarded? I sure hope not. --lovedmc12 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, nn, etc. Impressive show of sockpuppetry, though.
 * 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:
School of Tuam

The School of Tuam was founded by Jarlath. During the eleventh century, it rivaled Clonmacnoise as the centre of Celtic art.

It was founded when Brendan told Jarlath to go eastward from Cluainfois (now Cloonfush) and where his wheel of his chariot should break on the journey "there you shall build your oratory, for God will that there shall be the place of your resurrection, and many shall arise in glory in the same place along with you". Soon after Jarlath departed Cluainfois, his chariot broke down on the site of the present Protestant, formally Catholic, cathedral in Tuam where he built his church and monastic school.

After the death of Jarlath there is little in the national annals about the School of Tuam. There is reference in the "Four Masters", under date 776, to the death of an Abbot of Tuam, Nuada O'Bolcan. Under the same date in the "Annals of Ulster", there is reference to the death of Ferdomnach of Tuaim da Ghualann. At the year 969 is set down the death of Eoghan O Cleirigh, Bishop of Connacht, but more distinct reference to a Tuam prelate, is found in 1085, when the death of Aedh O Hoisin is recorded. The "Four Masters" call him Comarb of Jarlath and High Bishop of Tuam.

title: School of Tuam


text:
Talk:Bar Mitzvah Boy

Vote for Deletion
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 05:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you think dralon grows on trees?
Amazing to think that this is not available on DVD. --Zikim 02:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bar Mitzvah Boy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514095941/http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/tv/100/list/prog.php?id=56 to http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/tv/100/list/prog.php?id=56

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bar Mitzvah Boy